Multi-objective crashworthiness design optimization of a rollover protective structure by an improved constraint-handling technique

Chao Ma; Hong Fu; Pengcheng Lu; Hongpeng Lu; Chao Ma; Hong Fu; Pengcheng Lu; Hongpeng Lu

doi:10.3934/era.2023218

Electronic Research Archive

2023, Volume 31, Issue 7: 4278-4302. doi: 10.3934/era.2023218

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Multi-objective crashworthiness design optimization of a rollover protective structure by an improved constraint-handling technique

1.
School of Intelligent Manufacturing, Jiangsu Vocational Institute of Architectural Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221116, China
2.
School of Automotive Studies, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, China
3.
Tianjin Hanqiao Vehicle Body Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianjin 301700, China

Received: 25 January 2023 Revised: 30 March 2023 Accepted: 16 May 2023 Published: 02 June 2023

This study proposes a multi-objective optimization (MOO) strategy with an improved constraint-handling technique to improve the crashworthiness of an excavator rollover protective structure (ROPS). First, the experimental test under the ISO 12117 criteria is conducted and the developed numerical model is verified. Then, the amounts of energy absorption and the cross-sectional forces of components in the ROPS are analyzed. The main energy absorbing and load carrying components are identified. Finally, the thicknesses of the identified components are considered as the design variables. A multi-objective crashworthiness optimization process aims at improving the safety distance and reducing the total mass is designed by the finite element analysis-based surrogate model technique and a modified MOO algorithm. The proposed algorithm modifies the objective function values of an individual with its constraint violations and the true objective function values, of which adaptive penalty weights fed back from the constraint violations are used to keep the balance. Compared with the existing methods, it is found that the optimal solutions obtained by the proposed algorithm show superiority on convergence rate and diversity of distribution. The optimal results show that the safety distance is 27.42% higher while the total mass is 7.06% lower than those of the baseline design when it meets the requirements of ISO 12117. This study provides an alternative crashworthiness design route for the ROPS of the construction machines.

Keywords:

Citation: Chao Ma, Hong Fu, Pengcheng Lu, Hongpeng Lu. Multi-objective crashworthiness design optimization of a rollover protective structure by an improved constraint-handling technique[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(7): 4278-4302. doi: 10.3934/era.2023218

Related Papers:

[1]	Aziz Belmiloudi . Time-varying delays in electrophysiological wave propagation along cardiac tissue and minimax control problems associated with uncertain bidomain type models. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(3): 928-983. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.3.928
[2]	Zuliang Lu, Xiankui Wu, Fei Huang, Fei Cai, Chunjuan Hou, Yin Yang . Convergence and quasi-optimality based on an adaptive finite element method for the bilinear optimal control problem. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(9): 9510-9535. doi: 10.3934/math.2021553
[3]	Zahra Pirouzeh, Mohammad Hadi Noori Skandari, Kamele Nassiri Pirbazari, Stanford Shateyi . A pseudo-spectral approach for optimal control problems of variable-order fractional integro-differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 23692-23710. doi: 10.3934/math.20241151
[4]	Xin Yi, Rong Liu . An age-dependent hybrid system for optimal contraception control of vermin. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 2619-2633. doi: 10.3934/math.2025122
[5]	Yuanyuan Cheng, Yuan Li . A novel event-triggered constrained control for nonlinear discrete-time systems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 20530-20545. doi: 10.3934/math.20231046
[6]	Xiang Wu, Yuzhou Hou, Kanjian Zhang . Optimal feedback control for a class of fed-batch fermentation processes using switched dynamical system approach. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 9206-9231. doi: 10.3934/math.2022510
[7]	Woocheol Choi, Young-Pil Choi . A sharp error analysis for the DG method of optimal control problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 9117-9155. doi: 10.3934/math.2022506
[8]	Qian Li, Zhenghong Jin, Linyan Qiao, Aichun Du, Gang Liu . Distributed optimization of nonlinear singularly perturbed multi-agent systems via a small-gain approach and sliding mode control. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 20865-20886. doi: 10.3934/math.20241015
[9]	Tainian Zhang, Zhixue Luo . Optimal harvesting for a periodic competing system with size structure in a polluted environment. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14696-14717. doi: 10.3934/math.2022808
[10]	Asaf Khan, Gul Zaman, Roman Ullah, Nawazish Naveed . Optimal control strategies for a heroin epidemic model with age-dependent susceptibility and recovery-age. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(2): 1377-1394. doi: 10.3934/math.2021086

Abstract

1. Introduction

In structural mechanics, particularly in the field of elasticity, there are equations that describe the behavior of thin plates under loads. These equations are often partial differential equations that govern the displacement of a thin plate. The plate equation depends on factors like material properties, geometry, and boundary conditions. In the context of geophysics, "plate equation" could refer to the equations that describe the movement and interaction of tectonic plates on the Earth's surface. Plate tectonics is a theory that explains the movement of the Earth's lithosphere (the rigid outer layer of the Earth) on the more fluid asthenosphere beneath it. In mathematics, specifically in the field of differential equations, the term "plate equation" might be used to refer to certain types of equations. For instance, in polar coordinates, Laplace's equation takes a specific form that is sometimes informally referred to as the "plate equation". Plate equation models are hyperbolic systems that arise in several areas in real-life problems, (see, for instance, Kizilova et al.^[1], Lasiecka et al. ^[2] and Huang et al.^[3]). The theory of plates is the mathematical formulation of the mechanics of flat plates. It is defined as flat structural components with a low thickness compared to plane dimensions. The advantage of the theory of plates comes from the disparity of the length scale to reduce the problem of the mechanics of three-dimensional solids to a two-dimensional problem. The purpose of this theory is to compute the stresses and deformation in a loaded plate. The equation of plates results from the composition of different subsets of plates: The equilibrium equations, constitutive, kinematic, and force resultant, ^[4,5,6].

Following this, there are a wide number of works devoted to the analysis and control of the academic model of hyperbolic systems, the so-called plate equations, For example, the exact and the approximate controllability of thermoelastic plates given by Eller et al. ^[7] and Lagnese and Lions in ^[8] treated the control of thin plates and Lasiecka in ^[9] considered the controllability of the Kirchoff plate. Zuazua ^[10] treated the exact controllability for semi-linear wave equations. Recently many problems involving a plate equations were considered by researchers. Let us cite as examples the stabilization of the damped plate equation under general boundary conditions by Rousseau an Zongo ^[11]; the null controllability for a structurally damped stochastic plate equation studied by Zhao ^[12], Huang et al. ^[13] considerrd a thermal equation of state for zoisite: Implications for the transportation of water into the upper mantle and the high-velocity anomaly in the Farallon plate. Kaplunov et al. ^[14] discussed the asymptotic derivation of 2D dynamic equations of motion for transversely inhomogeneous elastic plates. Hyperbolic systems have recently continued to be of interest to researchers and many results have been obtained. We mention here the work of Fu et al. ^[15] which discusses a class of mixed hyperbolic systems using iterative learning control. Otherwise, for a class of one-dimension linear wave equations, Hamidaoui et al. stated in ^[16] an iterative learning control. Without forgetting that for a class of second-order nonlinear systems Tao et al. proposed an adaptive control based on an disturbance observer in ^[17] to improve the tracking performance and compensation. In addition to these works, the optimal control of the Kirchoff plate using bilinear control was considered by Bradly and Lenhart in ^[18], and Bradly et al. in ^[19]. In fact, in this work we will talk about a bilinear plate equation and we must cite the paper of Zine ^[20] which considers a bilinear hyperbolic system using the Riccati equation. Zine and Ould Sidi ^[19,22] that introduced the notion of partial optimal control of bilinear hyperbolic systems. Li et al. ^[23] give an iterative method for a class of bilinear systems. Liu, et al. ^[24] extended a gradient-based iterative algorithm for bilinear state-space systems with moving average noises by using the filtering technique. Furthermore, flow analysis of hyperbolic systems refers to the problems dealing with the analysis of the flow state on the system domain. We can refer to the work of Benhadid et al. on the flow observability of linear and semilinear systems ^[25], Bourray et al. on treating the controllability flow of linear hyperbolic systems ^[26] and the flow optimal control of bilinear parabolic systems are considered by Ould Sidi and Ould Beinane on ^[27,28].

For the motivation the results proposed in this paper open a wide range of applications. We cite the problem of iterative identification methods for plate bilinear systems ^[23], as well as the problem of the extended flow-based iterative algorithm for a plate systems ^[24].

This paper studies the optimal control problem governed by an infinite dimensional bilinear plate equation. The objective is to command the flow state of the bilinear plate equation to the desired flow using different types of bounded feedback. We show how one can transfer the flow of a plate equation close to the desired profile using optimization techniques and adjoint problems. As an application, we solve the partial flow control problem governed by a plate equation. The results open a wide way of applications in fractional systems. We began in section two by the well-posedness of our problem. In section three, we prove the existence of an optimal control solution of (2.3). In section four, we state the characterization of the optimal control. In section five we debate the case of time bilinear optimal control. Section six, proposes a method for solving the flow partial optimal control problem governed by a plate equation.

2. Well-posedness of the problem

Consider $\Theta$ an open bounded domain of $I\!\!R^2$ with $C^2$ boundary, for a time $m$ , and $\Gamma = \partial\Theta \times (0, m)$ . The control space time set is such that

$\begin{equation} Q \in U_{p} = \{ Q\in L^{\infty}([0,m];L^{\infty}(\Theta)){\mbox{ such that }} -p\leq Q(t) \leq p\}, \end{equation}$

(2.1)

with $p$ as a positive constant. Let the plate bilinear equation be described by the following system

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial }^2 {u} }{{\partial t}^2} } + \Delta^{2} u = Q(t)u_{t}, & & (0,m) \times \Theta, \\ u(x,0) = u_0(x) ,\; {\frac{{\partial } u }{{\partial t}} } (x,0) = u_1(x), & & \Theta,\\ u = \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} = 0, & & \Gamma, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.2)

where $u_{t} = \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$ is the velocity. The state space is $H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta)$ , (see Lions and Magenes ^[29] and Brezis ^[30]). We deduce the existence and uniqueness of the solution for (2.2) using the classical results of Pazy ^[31]. For $\lambda > 0$ , we define $\nabla u$ as the flow control problem governed by the bilinear plate equation (2.2) as the following:

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{Q\ \in U_{p} }C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{equation}$

(2.3)

where $C_{\lambda}$ , is the flow penalizing cost defined by

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\|\nabla u-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(0,m;L^2(\Theta)))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta} Q^2(x,t)dxdt\\ = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \Big\|\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{L^2(0,m;L^2(\Theta))} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta} Q^2(x,t)dxdt, \end{align}$

(2.4)

where $u^d = (u_{1}^{d}, ....u_{n}^{d})$ is the flow target in $L^2(0, m;L^2(\Theta))$ . One of the important motivations when considering the problem (2.3) is the isolation problems, where the control is maintained to reduce the flow temperature on the surface of a thin plate (see El Jai et al. ^[32]).

3. Existence of solution

Lemma 3.1. If $(u_{0}, u_{1}) \in H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta)$ and $Q \in U_{p}$ , then the solution $(u, u_{t})$ of (2.2) satisfies the following estimate:

$\Big\| (u, u_{t}) \Big\|_{{\cal C}(0,m; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta))} \leq T (1+ \eta m)e^{\eta K m},$

where $T = \Big\| (u_{0}, u_{1}) \Big\|_{ H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta)}$ and $K$ is a positive constant ^[18,19].

Using the above Lemma 3.1, we prove the existence of an optimal control solution of (2.3).

Theorem 3.1. $(u^{*}, Q^*)\in {\cal C}([0, m];\; \; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times U_{p})$ , is the solution of (2.3), where $u^{*}$ is the output of (2.2) and $Q^*$ is the optimal control function.

Proof. Consider the minimizing sequence $(Q_{n})_{n}$ in $U_{p}$ verifying

$C^{*} = \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow +\infty}C_{\lambda}(Q_n) = \inf\limits_{Q\in L^{\infty}(0,m; L^{\infty}(\Theta))} C_{\lambda}(Q).$

We choose $\bar{u}^{n} = (u^{n}, \frac{\partial u^{n}}{\partial t})$ to be the corresponding state of Eq (2.2). Using Lemma 3.1, we deduce

$\begin{equation} \Big\| u^{n}(x,t) \Big\|_{H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)}^{2} + \Big\| u_{t}^{n} (x,t) \Big\|_{ L^{2}(\Theta)}^{2} \leq T_{1} e^{\eta K m} {\mbox{ for }} 0\leq t\leq m {\mbox{ and }} T_{1}\in I\!\!R^{+}. \end{equation}$

(3.1)

Furthermore, system (2.2) gives

$\Big\| u^{n}_{tt}(x,t) \Big\|_{H^{-2}(\Theta)}^{2} \leq T_{2} \Big\| u_{t}^{n} (x,t) \Big\|_{ L^{2}(\Theta)}^{2} {\mbox{ with }} T_{2}\in I\!\!R^{+}.$

Then easily from (3.1), we have

$\begin{equation} \Big\| u^{n}_{tt}(x,t) \Big\|_{H^{-2}(\Theta)}^{2} \leq T_{3} e^{\eta K m} {\mbox{ for }} 0\leq t\leq m {\mbox{ and }} T_{3}\in I\!\!R^{+}. \end{equation}$

(3.2)

Using (3.1) and (3.2), we have the following weak convergence:

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} Q_{n} \rightharpoonup Q^{*}, & & L^{2}(0,m ; L^{2}(\Theta)),\\ u^{n} \rightharpoonup u^{*}, & & L^{\infty}(0,m ; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)),\\ u_{t}^{n} \rightharpoonup u^{*}_{t}, & & L^{\infty}(0,m ; L^{2}(\Theta)),\\ u_{tt}^{n} \rightharpoonup u^{*}_{tt}, & & L^{\infty}(0,m ; H^{-2}(\Theta)),\\ \end{array} \end{equation}$

(3.3)

From the first convergence property of (3.3) with a control sequence $Q_{n} \in U_{p}$ , easily one can deduce that $Q^{*} \in U_{p}$ ^[20].

In addition, the mild solution of (2.2) verifies

$\begin{align} \int_{0}^{m} u^{n}_{tt}f(t)dt+ \int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta}\Delta u^{n} \Delta f(t) dx dt = \int_{0}^{m} Q^{*}u_{t}^{n} f(t)dt, \forall f \in H_{0}^{2}(\Theta). \end{align}$

(3.4)

Using (3.3) and (3.4), we deduce that

$\begin{align} \int_{0}^{m} u^{*}_{tt}f(t)dt+ \int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta}\Delta u^{*} \Delta f(t) dx dt = \int_{0}^{m} Q^{*}u_{t}^{*} f(t)dt, \forall f \in H_{0}^{2}(\Theta), \end{align}$

(3.5)

which implies that $u^{*} = u(Q_{*})$ is the output of (2.2) with command function $Q^{*}$ .

Fatou's lemma and the lower semi-continuous property of the cost $C_{\lambda}$ show that

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q^{*}) \leq \frac{1}{2}\lim\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty}\Big\|\nabla u^{k}-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(0,m;L^2(\Theta)))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\lim\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty} \int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta} Q_{k}^2(x,t)dxdt\\ \leq \liminf\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty} C_{\lambda}(Q_{n})\\ = \inf\limits_{Q \in U_{p}} C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{align}$

(3.6)

which allows us to conclude that $Q^{*}$ is the solution of problem (2.3). □

4. Characterization of solution

We devote this section to establish a characterization of solutions to the flow optimal control problem (2.3).

Let the system

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } v }{{\partial t^{2}}} } = -\Delta^{2}v(x,t)+Q(x,t) v_{t} + d(x,t) v_{t}, & & (0, m)\times \Theta,\\ v(x,0) = v_{t}(x,0) = v_0(x) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ v = \frac{\partial v}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.1)

with $d \in L^{\infty}(0, m; L^{\infty}(\Theta))$ verify $Q+\delta d \in U_{p}, \quad \forall \delta > 0$ is a small constant. The functional defined by $Q \in U_{p}\mapsto \bar{u}(Q) = (u, u_{t}) \in {\cal C}(0, m; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta))$ is differentiable and its differential $\overline{v} = (v, v_{t})$ is the solution of (4.1) ^[21].

The next lemma characterizes the differential of our flow cost functional $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ with respect to the control function $Q$ .

Lemma 4.1. Let $Q \in U_{p}$ and the differential of $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ can be written as the following:

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int _{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m} \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d} )dtdx+ \varepsilon\int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m} d Q dt dx.\\ \end{align}$

(4.2)

Proof. Consider the cost $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ defined by (2.4), which is

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m}(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d} )^2 dt dx + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int_{\Theta}\int^{m}_{0} Q^2(t) dt dx. \end{align}$

(4.3)

Put $u_{k} = z(Q+k d)$ , $u = u(Q)$ , and using (4.3), we have

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \lim\limits_{\beta\longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m}\frac{( \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}} - u_i^d)^{2}-( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)^{2}}{k}dt dx\\ + \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0}\frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{\Theta} \int_{0}^{m}\frac{(Q+k d)^2-Q^2}{k}(t)dt dx. \end{align}$

(4.4)

Consequently

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q +kd)-C_{\lambda}(Q )}{k} \\ = \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Theta}\int^{m}_{0}\frac{( \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}}- \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}})}{k}( \frac{\partial u_{k} }{\partial x_{i}}+ \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-2u_i^d) dt dx \\ + \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0} \int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m}(\lambda d Q+ k \lambda d^2)dt dx\\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt dx. \end{align}$

(4.5)

□ We define the following family of adjoint equations for system (4.1)

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}}}{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} w_{i} = Q^*(x,t) (w_{i})_{t}+( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d}), & & (0, m)\times\Theta, \\ w_{i}(x,m) = (w_{i})_{t}(x,m) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ w_{i} = \frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.6)

Such systems allow us to characterize the optimal control solution of (2.3).

Theorem 4.1. Consider $Q \in U_{p}$ , and $u = u (Q)$ its corresponding state space solution of (2.2), then the control solution of (2.3) is

$\begin{equation} Q(x,t) = max(-p, min(\frac{-1}{\lambda}(u_{t})(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}),p)), \end{equation}$

(4.7)

where $w = (w_{1}....w_{n})$ with $w_{i} \in C ([ 0, T ]; H^{2}_{0}(\Theta))$ is the unique solution of (4.6).

Proof. Choose $d\in U_{p}$ such that $Q + k d \in U_{p}$ with $k > 0$ . The minimum of $C_{\lambda}$ is realized when the control $Q$ , verifies the following condition:

$\begin{equation} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q )}{k}. \end{equation}$

(4.8)

Consequently, Lemma 4.1 gives

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt dx.\\\\ \end{align}$

(4.9)

Substitute by equation (4.6) and we find

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}( {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}}(x,t) }{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} w_{i}(x,t)-Q(x,t)( w_{i})_{t}(x,t))dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt dx\\ \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}( {\frac{{\partial^{2} } v}{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} v-Q(x,t) v_{t})w_{i}(x,t)dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Qdt dx\\ \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}(d(x,t) u_{t})w_{i}dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda dQ dt dx\\ \\ = \int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}d(x,t)[u_{t}(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}})+\lambda Q dt dx].\\ \\ \end{align}$

(4.10)

It is known that if $d = d(t)$ in a chosen function with $Q+k d \in U_{p}$ , using Bang-Bang control properties, one can conclude that

$\begin{equation} Q(x,t) = max(-p, min(\frac{-u_{t}}{\lambda}(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}),p)) = max(-p, min( \frac{-u_{t}}{\lambda}Div(w), p)), \end{equation}$

(4.11)

with $Div(w) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}$ . □

5. Flow time bilinear control problem

Now, we are able to discuss the case of bilinear time control of the type $Q = Q(t)$ . We want to reach a flow spatial state target prescribed on the whole domain $\Theta$ at a fixed time $m$ .

In such case, the set of controls (2.1) becomes

$\begin{equation} Q \in U_{p} = \{ Q\in L^{\infty}([0,m]){\mbox{ such that }} -p\leq Q(t) \leq p {\mbox{ for }} t \in (0, m)\}, \end{equation}$

(5.1)

with $p$ as a positive constant.

The cost to minimize is

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\|\nabla u(x,m)-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(\Theta))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t) dt\\ = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \Big\|\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x,m) - u_{i}^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{L^2(\Theta)} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t)dt, \end{align}$

(5.2)

where $u^d = (u_{1}^{d}, ....u_{n}^{d})$ is the flow spatial target in $L^2(\Theta)$ . The flow control problem is

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{Q\ \in U_{p} }C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{equation}$

(5.3)

where $C_{\lambda}$ is the flow penalizing cost defined by (5.2), and $U_{p}$ is defined by (5.1).

Corollary 5.1. The solution of the flow time control problem (5.3) is

$\begin{align} Q(t) = max(-p, min(\int_{\Theta}\frac{-u_{t}}{\lambda} (\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}})dx,p)) \end{align}$

(5.4)

with $u$ as the solution of (2.2) perturbed by $Q(t)$ and $w_{i}$ as the solution of

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}}}{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} w_{i} = Q(t) (w_{i})_{t}, & & (0, m)\times\Theta, \\ w_{i}(x,m) = ( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x,m) - u_{i}^{d}), & & \Theta, \\ (w_{i})_{t}(x,m) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ w_{i} = \frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(5.5)

Proof. Similar to the approach used in the proof of Theorem 4.1, we deduce that

$\begin{align} 0\leq \int_{0}^{m}d(t)[\int_\Theta u_{t}(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}})dx+\lambda Q ]dt, \end{align}$

(5.6)

where $d(t)\in L^{\infty}(0, m)$ , a control function such that $Q+k d \in U_{p}$ with a small positive constant $k$ . □

Remark 5.1. (1) In the case of spatiotemporal target, we remark that the error $(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x, t) - u_{i}^{d})$ between the state and the desired one becomes a the change of velocity induced by the known forces acting on system (4.6).

(2) In the case of a prescribed time $m$ targets, we remark that the error $(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x, m) - u_{i}^{d})$ between the state and the desired one becomes a Dirichlet boundary condition in the adjoint equation (5.5).

6. Partial flow optimal control problem

This section establishes the flow partial optimal control problem governed by the plate equation (2.2). Afterward we characterize the solution. Let $\theta\subset \Theta$ be an open subregion of $\Theta$ and we define

$\begin{array}{lll} \widetilde{P_{\theta}}: (L^2(\Theta)) & \longrightarrow & (L^2(\theta)) \\ \qquad \qquad u & \longrightarrow & \widetilde{P}_{\theta} u = u|_{\theta}, \end{array}$

and

$\begin{array}{lll} P_{\theta}: (L^2(\Theta))^{n} & \longrightarrow &(L^2(\theta))^{n} \\ \qquad \qquad u & \longrightarrow & P_{\theta} u = u|_{\theta}. \end{array}$

We define the adjoint of $P_{\theta}$ by

$P_{\theta}^{*}u = \left\{\begin{array}{lll} u \, \, in \, \, \Theta, \\ 0 \in \Theta \setminus \theta. \end{array} \right.$

Definition 6.1. The plate equation (2.2) is said to flow weakly partially controllable on $\theta \subset \Theta$ , if for $\forall \, \, \beta > 0$ , one can find an optimal control $Q\in L^{2}(0, m)$ such that

$|P_\theta \nabla u_Q(m)-u^d||_{(L^2(\theta))^{n}}\leq \beta,$

where $u^d = (z_{1}^{d}, ...., u_{n}^{d})$ is the desired flow in $(L^2(\theta))^{n}$ .

For $U_{p}$ defined by (5.1), we take the partial flow optimal control problem

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{Q \in U_{p}} C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{equation}$

(6.1)

and the partial flow cost $C_{\lambda}$ is

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\|P_\theta\nabla u(m)-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(\theta))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t) dt\\ = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \Big\|\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\frac{\partial u(T)}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(\theta))} + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t) dt. \end{align}$

(6.2)

Next, we consider the family of optimality systems

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}} }{{\partial t^{2}}} } = \Delta^{2} w_{i}+Q(t) (w_{i})_{t},& & (0, m)\times\Theta,\\ w_{i}(x,m) = ( \frac{\partial u(m)}{\partial x_{i}} - \widetilde{P}_{\theta}^{*}u_{i}^{d}), & & \Theta, \\ (w_{i})_{t}(x,m) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ w_{i}(x,t) = \frac{\partial w_{i}(x,t)}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(6.3)

Lemma 6.1. Let the cost $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ defined by (6.2) and the control $Q(t) \in U_{p}$ be the solution of (6.1). We can write

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q )}{k} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[ \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i}}{\partial t^{2}} \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}} dt+ \int_{0}^{m}w_{i} \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial^{2} v}{\partial t^{2}}) dt\right]dx\\ + \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt, \end{align}$

(6.4)

where the solution of (4.1) is $v$ , and the solution of (6.3) is $w_{i}$ .

Proof. The functional $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ given by (6.2), is of the form:

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_{\theta}(\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d} )^2 dx + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int^{m}_{0} Q^2(t) dt. \end{align}$

(6.5)

Choose $u_{k} = u(Q+k d)$ and $u = u(Q)$ . By (6.5), we deduce

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{1}{2}\int_{\theta}\frac{(\widetilde{P}_\theta \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)^{2}-(\widetilde{P}_\theta \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)^{2}}{k}dx\\ + \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m}\frac{(Q+k d)^2-Q^2}{k}dt. \end{align}$

(6.6)

Furthermore,

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} \\ = \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}\int_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\frac{( \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}}- \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}})}{k}(\widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial u_{k} }{\partial x_{i}}+ \widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-2u_i^d)dx \\ + \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{m}(2\lambda d Q+k \lambda d^2)dt\\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\theta \widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial v(x,m)}{\partial x_{i}} \widetilde{P}_{\theta}( \frac{\partial u(x,m)}{\partial x_{i}}-\widetilde{P}_{\theta}^{*}u_i^d)dx+\int_{0}^{m}\lambda dQ dt \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial v(x,m)}{\partial x_{i}} \widetilde{P}_{\theta}w_{i}(x,m)dx+\lambda \int_{0}^{m}dQ dt. \end{align}$

(6.7)

Using (6.3) to (6.7), we conclude

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[ \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i}}{\partial t^{2}} \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}} dt+ \int_{0}^{m}w_{i} \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial^{2} v}{\partial t^{2}}) dt\right]dx\\\\ + \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Qdt.\\ \end{align}$

(6.8)

□

Theorem 6.1. Consider the set $U_{p}$ , of partial admissible control defined as (5.1) and $u = u (Q)$ is its associate solution of (2.2), then the solution of (6.1) is

$\begin{equation} Q_{\varepsilon}(t) = max(-p,min( \frac{-1}{\lambda}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}(u_{t})(\widetilde{P}_{\theta} Div(w)),p)), \end{equation}$

(6.9)

where $Div(w) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}$ .

Proof. Let $d \in U_{p}$ and $Q + k d \in U_{p}$ for $k > 0$ . The cost $C_{\lambda}$ at its minimum $Q$ , verifies

$\begin{equation} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k}. \end{equation}$

(6.10)

From Lemma 6.1, substituting $\frac{\partial^{2} v}{\partial t^{2}}$ , by its value in system (4.1), we deduce that

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k}\\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[\int_{0}^{m} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i} }{\partial t^{2}}dt+ \int_{0}^{m}(-\Delta^{2} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}+Q(t) \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}(v_{t}) + d(t)\frac{\partial }{ \partial x_{i}}(u_{t}))w_{i} dt\right]dx\\ + \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt, \end{align}$

(6.11)

and system (6.3) gives

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[\int_{0}^{m} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}(\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i} }{\partial t^{2}}-\Delta^{2} w_{i}-Q(t) (w_{i})_{t})dt+d(t) \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}(u_{t})w_{i} dt\right]dx+\int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt.\\ \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta} \int_{0}^{m} (h(t)u_{t})\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}} dt+ \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt.\\ \\ = \int_{0}^{m} h(t)\int_\theta\left[ u_{t}\widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}} + \lambda Q\right] dx dt, \end{align}$

(6.12)

which gives the optimal control

$\begin{equation} Q_{\varepsilon}(t) = max(-p,min( \frac{-1}{\lambda}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}(u_{t})(\widetilde{P}_{\theta} Div(w)),p)). \end{equation}$

(6.13)

□

7. Conclusions

This paper studied the optimal control problem governed by an infinite dimensional bilinear plate equation. The objective was to command the flow state of the bilinear plate equation to the desired flow using different types of bounded feedback. The problem flow optimal control governed by a bilinear plate equation was considered and solved in two cases using the adjoint method. The first case considered a spatiotemporal control function and looked to reach a flow target on the whole domain. The second case considered a time control function and looks to reach a prescribed target at a fixed final time. As an application, the partial flow control problem was established and solved using the proposed method. More applications can be examined, for example. the case of fractional hyperbolic systems.

Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Jouf University under Grant Number (DSR2022-RG-0119).

Conflict of interest

The authors affirm that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

[1]	ISO 12117-2, Earth-moving machinery-Laboratory tests and performance requirements for protective structures of excavators-Part 2: Roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for excavators of over 6 t, Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2008.
[2]	ISO 3164, Earth-moving machinery-Laboratory evaluations of protective structures-Specifications for deflection-limiting volume, Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2013.
[3]	X. Xu, Y. Zhang, X. Wang, J. Fang, J. Chen, J. Li, Searching superior crashworthiness performance by constructing variable thickness honeycombs with biomimetic cells, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 235 (2022), 107718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.107718 doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.107718
[4]	J. Latorre-Biel, T. Ballesteros, I. Arana, J. R. Alfaro, Development of an inexpensive rollover energy dissipation device to improve safety provided by ROPS, Biosyst. Eng., 185 (2019), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.02.004 doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.02.004
[5]	B. Clark, N. Perera, D. Thambiratnam, Enhancing the impact energy absorption in roll over protective structures, Int. J. Crashworthiness, 13 (2008), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/13588260701788427 doi: 10.1080/13588260701788427
[6]	T. N. Tran, A. Baroutaji, Q. Estrada, A. Arjunan, H. Le, N. P. Thien, Crashworthiness analysis and optimization of standard and windowed multi-cell hexagonal tubes, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 63 (2021), 2191–2209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-020-02794-y doi: 10.1007/s00158-020-02794-y
[7]	X. Xu, Y. Zhang, J. Wang, J. Feng, C. H. Wang, Crashworthiness design of novel hierarchical hexagonal columns, Compos. Struct., 194 (2018), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.099 doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.099
[8]	Y. Zhang, Z. Pan, S. Zhang, N. Qiu, Probabilistic invertible neural network for inverse design space exploration and reasoning, Electron. Res. Arch., 31 (2023), 860–881. https://doi.org/10.3934/era.2023043 doi: 10.3934/era.2023043
[9]	S. Dong, T. Jing, J. Zhang, A few-shot learning-based crashworthiness analysis and optimization for multi-cell structure of high-speed Train, Machines, 10 (2022), 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10080696 doi: 10.3390/machines10080696
[10]	F. Lei, X. Lv, J. Fang, G. Sun, Q. Li, Multiobjective discrete optimization using the TOPSIS and entropy method for protection of pedestrian lower extremity, Thin-Walled Struct., 152 (2020), 106349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.106349 doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2019.106349
[11]	N. Qiu, Y. Gao, J. Fang, G. Sun, Q. Li, N. H. Kim, Crashworthiness optimization with uncertainty from surrogate model and numerical error, Thin-Walled Struct., 129 (2018), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2018.05.002 doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2018.05.002
[12]	G. Sun, R. Qu, H. Zhang, G. Li, Robust optimization of automobile door structure based on Taguchi and TOPSIS-entropy, Mod. Manuf. Eng., 450 (2018), 11–18. https://10.16731/j.cnki.1671-3133.2018.03.003 doi: 10.16731/j.cnki.1671-3133.2018.03.003
[13]	G. Sun, J. Tian, T. Liu, X. Yan, X. Huang, Crashworthiness optimization of automotive parts with tailor rolled blank, Eng. Struct., 169 (2018), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.050 doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.050
[14]	Y. Zhou, X. Xu, J. Fang, W. Huang, J. Wang, Load characteristics of triangular honeycomb structures with self-similar hierarchical features, Eng. Struct., 257 (2022), 114114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114114 doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114114
[15]	N. Qiu, D. Wang, Y. Li, M. Xiao, Q. Gao, N. H. Kim, Influence of spherical triggers on axial collapse of tapered tubes, Int. J. Crashworthiness, 2023 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2023.2183791 doi: 10.1080/13588265.2023.2183791
[16]	N. Qiu, J. Zhang, C. Li, Y. Shen, J. Fang, Mechanical properties of three-dimensional functionally graded triply periodic minimum surface structures, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 246 (2023), 108118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.108118 doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.108118
[17]	X. Xu, X. Chen, Z. Liu, Y. Zhang, Y. Xu, J. Fang, et al., A feasible identification method of uncertainty responses for vehicle structures, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 64 (2021), 3861–3876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-021-03065-0 doi: 10.1007/s00158-021-03065-0
[18]	K. C. More, G. M. Patil, A. A. Belkhede, Design and analysis of side door intrusion beam for automotive safety, Thin-Walled Struct., 153 (2020), 106788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.106788 doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2020.106788
[19]	X. Du, F. Zhu, A novel principal components analysis (PCA) method for energy absorbing structural design enhanced by data mining, Adv. Eng. Software, 127 (2019), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.10.005 doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.10.005
[20]	A. Ghadianlou, S. B. Abdullah, Crashworthiness design of vehicle side door beams under low-speed pole side impacts, Thin-Walled Struct., 67 (2013), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2013.02.004 doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2013.02.004
[21]	P. Zhu, F. Pan, W. Chen, F. A. C. Viana, Lightweight design of vehicle parameters under crashworthiness using conservative surrogates, Comput. Ind., 64 (2013), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2012.11.004 doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2012.11.004
[22]	L. Yu, X. Gu, L. Qian, P. Jiang, W. Wang, M. Yu, Application of tailor rolled blanks in optimum design of pure electric vehicle crashworthiness and lightweight, Thin-Walled Struct., 161 (2021), 107410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.107410 doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2020.107410
[23]	Y. Shang, H. Wu, S. Cen, C. Li, An efficient 4-node facet shell element for the modified couple stress elasticity, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 123 (2022), 992–1012. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.6885 doi: 10.1002/nme.6885
[24]	M. Shirazi, H. Z. Aashtiani, L. Quadrifoglio, Estimating the minimal revenue tolls in large-scale roadway networks using the dynamic penalty function method, Comput. Ind. Eng., 107 (2017), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.03.008 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2017.03.008
[25]	B. Wang, H. Li, Y. Feng, W. Shen, An adaptive fuzzy penalty method for constrained evolutionary optimization, Inf. Sci., 571 (2021), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.03.055 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2021.03.055
[26]	C. Ma, Y. Gao, J. Yang, Y. Duan, Z. Liu, Finite element-based safety prediction for hydraulic excavator rollover protective structure and experimental validation, Int. J. Crashworthiness, 27 (2022), 955–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2021.1888563 doi: 10.1080/13588265.2021.1888563
[27]	J. R. Harris, G. L. Winn, P. D. Ayers, E. A. Mckenzie, Predicting the performance of cost-effective rollover protective structure designs, Saf. Sci., 49 (2011), 1252–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.04.011 doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.04.011
[28]	F. Khorsandi, P. D. Ayers, T. J. Truster, Developing and evaluating a finite element model for predicting the two-posts rollover protective structure nonlinear behaviour using SAE J2194 static test, Biosyst. Eng., 156 (2017), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2017.01.010 doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2017.01.010
[29]	T. Chen, Y. Zhang, J. Lin, Y. Lu, Theoretical analysis and crashworthiness optimization of hybrid multi-cell structures, Thin-Walled Struct., 142 (2019), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.05.002 doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2019.05.002
[30]	Z. Du, L. Duan, A. Cheng, Z. Xu, G. Zhang, Theoretical prediction and crashworthiness optimization of thin-walled structures with single-box multi-cell section under three-point bending loading, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 157–158 (2019), 703–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.05.013 doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.05.013
[31]	W. Rust, K. Schweizerhof, Finite element limit load analysis of thin-walled structures by ANSYS (implicit), LS-DYNA (explicit) and in combination, Thin-Walled Struct., 41 (2003), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8231(02)00089-7 doi: 10.1016/S0263-8231(02)00089-7
[32]	ASTM E8/E8M-11, Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials, in Annual book of ASTM standards, 2001.
[33]	L. Duan, Z. Du, H. Jiang, W. Xu, Z. Li, Theoretical prediction and crashworthiness optimization of top-hat thin-walled structures under transverse loading, Thin-Walled Struct., 144 (2019), 106261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.106261 doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2019.106261
[34]	P. Palanikumar, N. Gnanasekaran, K. Subrahmanya, V. Kaliveeran, Effect of sliding speed and rise in temperature at the contact interface on coefficient of friction during full sliding of SS304, Mater. Today Proc., 27 (2020), 1996–1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.046 doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.046
[35]	D. E. Malen, Fundamentals of automobile body structure design, SAE Int., 2011. https://doi.org/10.4271/R-394 doi: 10.4271/R-394
[36]	Z. Xiao, J. Fang, G. Sun, Q. Li, Crashworthiness design for functionally graded foam-filled bumper beam, Adv. Eng. Software, 85 (2015), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.03.005 doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.03.005
[37]	H. Afshari, W. Hare, S. Tesfamariam, Constrained multi-objective optimization algorithms: Review and comparison with application in reinforced concrete structures, Appl. Soft Comput., 83 (2019), 105631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105631 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105631
[38]	X. Xu, X. Chen, Z. Liu, Y. Xu, Y. Zhang, Reliability-based design for lightweight vehicle structures with uncertain manufacturing accuracy, Appl. Math. Modell., 95 (2021), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2021.01.047 doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2021.01.047
[39]	N. Qiu, Z. Jin, J. Liu, L. Fu, N. H. Kim, Hybrid multi-objective robust design optimization of a truck cab considering fatigue life, Thin-Walled Struct., 162 (2021), 107545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.107545 doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2021.107545
[40]	F. Ming, W. Gong, H. Zhen, S. Li, L. Wang, Z. Liao, A simple two-stage evolutionary algorithm for constrained multi-objective optimization, Knowledge-Based Syst., 228 (2021), 107263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107263 doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107263
[41]	L. Jiao, J. Luo, R. Shang, F. Liu, A modified objective function method with feasible-guiding strategy to solve constrained multi-objective optimization problems, Appl. Soft Comput., 14 (2014), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2013.10.008 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2013.10.008
[42]	F. Hossein, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M. Moeini-Aghtaie, A stochastic multi-objective framework for optimal scheduling of energy storage systems in microgrids, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 8 (2016), 117–127. https://10.1109/TSG.2016.2598678 doi: 10.1109/TSG.2016.2598678
[43]	Z. Su, G. Zhang, F. Yue, D. Zhan, M. Li, B. Li, et al., Enhanced constraint handling for reliability-constrained multi-objective testing resource allocation, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 25 (2021), 537–551. https://10.1109/TEVC.2021.3055538 doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2021.3055538
[44]	N. Srinivas, K. Deb, Muiltiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms, Evol. Comput., 2 (1994), 221–248. https://10.1162/evco.1994.2.3.221 doi: 10.1162/evco.1994.2.3.221
[45]	M. Tanaka, H. Watanabe, Y. Furukawa, T. Tanino, GA-based decision support system for multicriteria optimization, in 1995 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Intelligent Systems for the 21st Century, 2 (1995), 1556–1561. https://10.1109/ICSMC.1995.537993
[46]	E. Zitzler, L. Thiele, M. Laumanns, C. M. Fonseca, V. G. da Fonseca, Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 7 (2003), 117–132. https://10.1109/TEVC.2003.810758 doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2003.810758
[47]	G. Sun, G. Li, S. Zhou, H. Li, S. Hou, Q. Li, Crashworthiness design of vehicle by using multiobjective robust optimization, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 44 (2011), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-010-0601-z doi: 10.1007/s00158-010-0601-z
[48]	Z. Zhao, H. Zhang, L. Xian, H. Liu, Tensile strength of Q345 steel with random pitting corrosion based on numerical analysis, Thin-Walled Struct., 148 (2020), 106579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.106579 doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2019.106579

This article has been cited by:

Fatima Hussain, Suha Shihab, Transforming Controlled Duffing Oscillator to Optimization Schemes Using New Symmetry-Shifted G(t)-Polynomials, 2024, 16, 2073-8994, 915, 10.3390/sym16070915

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)