International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

Developing a Mathematical Model to Predict

Tensile Properties of Friction Welded
AISI 1035 Grade Steel Rods
12

S.T. Selvamani1 , K. Umanath2, K. Palanikumar3, K. Vigneswar4

Research scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Anna University, Chennai,

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vel Tech Multi Tech Engineering College,
3
Sri Sairam Institute of Technology Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chennai- India.
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vel Tech High Tech Engineering College
1
selva_balu@rediffmail.com,2umanath_me@rediffmail.com
3
palanikumar_k@yahoo.com
14

following drawbacks such as how to assign proper weights

for different objectives, only one solution arrived in a
single run, lack of exploration ability for exploring the
trade-off front i.e. Pareto front etc are possible when
weight method is used to solve multi objective design
optimization problems. It gives way for the use of a better
multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) for
addressing the above mentioned drawbacks. A survey on
MOEA is reported by Coello in [1]. P N suganthan et al has
given another detailed survey in [2]. In recent years, a
number of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms
(MOEAs) have been formulated and applied because of
their ability to find multiple Pareto-optimal solutions in one
single simulation run. Srinivas and Deb proposed nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA) in the year
1994 [3] to solve multi-objective problems. The lack of the
concept of elitism is the main drawback of NSGA.
Realizing the need of elitism for faster convergence, Deb et
al [4] have anticipated a fast elitist NSGA, called as
NSGA-II, to assuage three major difficulties of NSGA: (i)
computational effort for non-dominated sorting is large, (ii)
lack of elitism, and (iii) a niche parameter need to be fixed.
NSGA-II also has the lowest possible computational
complexity achievable with any non-dominated sorting
approach. In order to overcome the drawbacks of NSGA,
NSGA-II is usually preferred now a days to solve multiobjective optimization problems and it has the ability to
generate a set of non-dominated solutions (Pareto
solutions), where a non-dominated solution works well on
at least one criterion than the other solutions. For design
engineers, the main aim is to find the best compromise
solution from the Pareto optimal front and then implement
the same in designing the machine components. Usually,
the best compromise solution is found by using many
multicriteria decision making (MCDM) methods such as
AHP, ANP, TOPSIS etc. In this work, we explore the
efficiency of NSGA-II in finding diverse Pareto optimal
front for a two-bar truss design problem and then
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal
Solution (TOPSIS, [5]) is used to find the best compromise
solution.

Abstract
Arriving optimal solutions is one of the
important tasks in engineering design. Many real-world
design optimization problems involve multiple conflicting
objectives. The design variables are of continuous or
discrete in nature. In general, for solving Multi Objective
Optimization methods weight method is preferred. In this
method, all the objective functions are converted into a
single objective function by assigning suitable weights to
each objective functions. The main drawback lies in the
selection of proper weights. Recently, evolutionary
algorithms are used to find the nondominated optimal
solutions called as Pareto optimal front in a single run. In
recent years, Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II
(NSGA-II) finds increasing applications in solving multi
objective problems comprising of conflicting objectives
because of low computational requirements, elitism and
parameter-less sharing approach. In this work, we propose
a methodology which integrates NSGA-II and Technique
for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
(TOPSIS) for solving a two bar truss problem. NSGA-II
searches for the Pareto set where two bar truss is evaluated
in terms of minimizing the weight of the truss and
minimizing the total displacement of the joint under the
given load. Subsequently, TOPSIS selects the best
compromise solution.
Key words Two bar truss, NSGA II, TOPSIS
I. INTRODUCTION
Many real-world engineering design optimization problems
involve many objectives which are often conflicting in
nature. Because of these conflicting objectives, it gives
way for a number of optimal solutions to be generated,
generally called as Pareto-optimal solutions. It is always
preferred to find all possible Pareto-optimal solutions,
since all the Pareto optimal solutions cannot be better than
another without further analysis. Work on the multiobjective engineering design optimization problems for the
design of machine elements involves a weighted
combination of individual objective functions. Generally a
single objective scalar optimisation problem is created
from the weighted approach of the multi-objective
problem. Then either deterministic or stochastic algorithms
are used for optimizing the constraint single objective
scalar optimisation problem. For deterministic approach,
the interior penalty function method was preferred, while
algorithms such as simulated annealing and genetic
algorithms were used for stochastic approaches. The

II. DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM OF

TWO BAR TRUSS
Many authors have solved single objective design
optimization i.e., Volume minimization of three bar truss
[6], [7]. Multi objective design optimization of two bar
truss is attempted by several authors [8] - [10]. In the above
cases, the two bar truss with a vertical load at the joint 3 is
solved for the objectives such as minimizing the weight of

ISBN 978-93-80609-17-1
627

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

lb/in.2 were used. The geometry of truss is symmetric about

the y-axis.

the truss and minimizing the stress induced in the bars. A

different version of the two bar truss problem with inclined
load at the joint 3 was proposed by [11] and the problem
was solved using graphical method to minimize the weight
of the truss and to minimize the vertical displacement at
joint 3. Canyurt et al [12] solved the same problem using
cellular GA. They have described cellular GA as a fine
grained model of parallel GA implementation which
derives from a cellular-automata-like computation. They
have used this two bar truss problem as one of the multi
objective design optimization problem to validate the
accuracy of cellular GA. They have not reported any
numerical results in their paper and the Pareto optimal
curve obtained by solving this problem using cellular GA
only is reported. In order to demonstrate the proposed
integrated approach of NSGA II and TOPSIS, the same
problem addressed by [11], [12] is solved in this paper. The
problem is stated as an example of structural multicriteria
design optimization problem. A two bar truss with a load P
as shown in Fig. 1 was considered. The objective of the
design problem was to minimize F1 and F2, which
represent the structural weight and the vertical
displacement at node 3, represented by Equations (1) & (2)
respectively. Constraints are defined by the limitation of
the length of bars and the limitation of Von-Misses stress
in each bar, represented by Equations (3) & (4)
respectively. The problem is then formulated as,
Minimize {F1, F2}
F ( x ) = 2. .h. X . 1 X 2
2
1
2

F ( x) =
2

P.h. 1 X 2
1

1 .5

g ( x) =
1

g ( x) =
2

1 X4
1

1 X12

2 2.X .X
1 2

P. X 1 1 X 2
1
1

2 2.X .X
1 2
The ranges of parameters are

III. APPLICATION of

NSGA-II and TOPSIS

APPROACH

This problem is first solved by the proposed NSGA II

algorithm by giving the inputs such as objective functions,
constraints, range of variables and parameters of NSGA-II.
The output of this algorithm is the nondominated Pareto
optimal front solutions. Next, an important multi criteria
decision making tool namely TOPSIS is applied to select
the best compromise solution from the obtained Pareto
optimal front.

(1)

all

all

A. Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm

(NSGA-II)
Deb et al [4] proposed the NSGA-II algorithm and the step
by step procedure for implementing the NSGA II algorithm
was reported. NSGA-II differs from non-dominated sorting
Genetic Algorithm (NSGA) implementation in many ways.
First, NSGA-II uses a fast non-dominated sorting
procedure. Second, NSGA-II uses an elite-preserving
mechanism, thereby confirming the preservation of
previously found good solutions. Third, NSGA-II makes
the algorithm independent of the user since it does not
require any tunable parameter.

(2)

2 2 .E . X 2 . X
1 2
Subjected to the following constraints
P. 1 X

Fig 1 Planar two-bar truss structure

(3)

(4)

B. NSGA-II operators
Based on the previous experience, NSGA-II parameters
have been selected. The values of the parameters of NSGAII algorithm used in this study give the best optimal results.
The following are the values of the parameters of NSGA-II
algorithm used in this study:
Variable type = Real variable, Population size = 50,
Crossover probability = 0.8, Real-parameter mutation
probability = 0.01, Real-parameter SBX parameter = 10,
Real-parameter mutation parameter = 100, Total number of
generations = 100.

0.1 X1 2.0 , 0.1 X 2 2.5

Here, X1 = w/h is the ratio of distances between the vertices
1 and 3 in x and y directions, denoted as w and h,
respectively, and X2 = A/Amin is the ratio of cross-sectional
areas of a member and a minimum cross-sectional area Amin
= 1 in.2 The density and Youngs modulus E of the truss
material are 0.283 lb/in3 and 30 106 lb/in2, respectively,
and the parameter h is fixed at 100 in. This minimization
was performed so as to maintain stresses in each structural
member within allowable limits all. In the above
expressions, values of P = 10,000 lb and all = 20,000

ISBN 978-93-80609-17-1
628

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

C. TOPSIS to determine the best compromise solution

Hwang et al [5] introduced TOPSIS which is used to rank
the given alternatives of the Pareto solutions obtained by
NSGA II. The basic concept of TOPSIS determines the
positive ideal solution (S+) as well as the negative ideal
solution (S-) and then finds the best compromise solution
which is the closest to S+ and the farthest from S- from the
Pareto set according to the decision makers objective
weights. The positive (resp. negative) ideal solution has the
smallest (resp. largest) weight of the truss and the smallest
(resp. largest) vertical displacement in the Pareto solutions.
The process of TOPSIS to determine the best compromise
solution is presented in [8]. The process of TOPSIS to
determine the best compromise solution is presented as
follows:
Step 1. Input S and W, where the element Sij is the jth
objective value of the ith alternative (that is, S is composed
of the Pareto solutions), Wj is the weight of the jth
objective, and W must satisfy the equation (5)
(5)
2j 1W j 1
Step 2. Normalize S to be

S S 11 , S 12 ; S 21 , S 22 ;...; S m1 , S m 2

Step 6. Calculate relative closeness Hi for each Pareto

solution according to the equation (12).

h
(12)
H i i for i = 1,2,,m
hi hi
where 0 < Hi < 1
Step 7. Choose the best compromise solution whose
relative closeness Hi is the closest to 1.
IV RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS
The bi-objective design optimization of two bar truss
problem is solved by NSGA II algorithm. This algorithm is
implemented using MATLAB 2009 to run on a PC
compatible with Pentium IV, a 3.2 GHz processor and 2
GB of RAM (Random Access Memory). The graphical
method reported only few solutions with the following
spread: (36.12 lb, 0.0959 in.) and (190.368 lb, 0.0718in).
We apply the proposed NSGA II method for the same
problem as per the parameters reported. The nondominated
solutions obtained by NSGA II algorithm is plotted as
Pareto optimal front as shown in Figure 2. The solutions
are spread in the following range: (7.5916 lb, 0.4372 in)
and (47.509 lb, 0.07297 in) which shows the superiority of
NSGA-II compared to the graphical method. Table 1 shows
the comparison of extreme solutions obtained by using
graphical method and the proposed NSGA II approach. The
graphical method could not find wide variety of solutions
in terms of the objectives. If minimization of weight is
important, NSGA-II finds a solution with weight as low as
7.59 lb, whereas the graphical method has found a solution
with minimum weight of 36.1299 lb, an order of magnitude
higher than that found in NSGA-II. NSGA-II solutions are
also better than CGA solutions, both in terms of closeness
to the optimum front and in their spread. The main
advantage of NSGA II is that all the solutions have been
obtained in one iteration. Finally, TOPSIS finds the best
compromise solution with different weights to the objective
functions as seen in fig.2. The results of best compromise
solution obtained by using TOPSIS method for different
weights considered to each objective functions is reported
in Table 2.

according to the equation (6).

Sij
for I = 1,2,,m and j = 1,2
S ij
2
im1 Sij

(6)

Step 3. Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix

S S 11 , S 12 ; S 21 , S 22 ;...; S m1 , S m 2

using the equation (7).

(7)
S ij W j S ij for I = 1,2,,m and j = 1,2
Step 4. Use the following equations (8) & (9) to determine
S+ and S

and
S

max S11, S 21,..., S m1 , min S12 , S 22 ,..., S m2 (8)

Obj fn1 vs Obj fn2

0.50

min S 11 , S 21 ,..., S m1 , max S 12 , S 22 ,..., S m 2 (9)

0.45

Displacement of joint 3,in.

Step 5. Calculate the separation measures hi+ and hi- for

each alternative. The separation measure hi+ from S+ is
given by equation (10)
2
2

(10)
hi S ij S j for i = 1,2,,m
j 1

The separation measure hi- from S- is given by equation(11)

2
2

(11)
hi S ij S j for i = 1,2,,m
j 1

0.40

The best compromise solution using W (0.8,0.2)

0.35
0.30

The best compromise solution using W (0.5,0.5)

0.25

The best compromise solution using W (0.2,0.8)

0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

W eight of truss, lb

Fig 2. Optimized solutions obtained using NSGA-II and TOPSIS

ISBN 978-93-80609-17-1
629

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

Method
Graphical
Method
[11]
NSGA II
(present
work)

TABLE I
COMPARISON of EXTREME SOLUTIONS
Solution
X1
X2
F1
Min.Weight
0.65
0.53521
36.1299
Min.
0.9
2.5
190.368
Displacement
Min.Weight
0.7578
0.1069
7.5916
Min.
0.6504
0.7037
47.509
Displacement

REFERENCES
F2
0.0959
0.078237

[1] C.C.A. Coello, Handling Preferences in Evolutionary MultiObjective Optimisation: A Survey. Congress on Evolutionary
Computation, vol. 1, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, Julio del 2000,
pp. 3037.
[2] Aimin Zhou, Bo-Yang Qu, Hui Li, Shi-Zheng Zhao, Ponnuthurai
Nagaratnam Suganthan, Qingfu Zhang, Multiobjective evolutionary
algorithms: A survey of the state of the art, Swarm and Evolutionary
Computation 1 (2011) 32490
[3] Srinivas, N. and Deb, K. Multi-Objective function optimization using
non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms, Evolutionary Computation,
2(3):221248 (1995)
[4] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist
multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Transactions on
Evolutionary Computation 6 (2) (2002) 182197.
[5] Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., Multiple Attribute Decision Making
Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag Press, Heidelberg. 1981
[6] Ali Wagdy Mohamed & Hegazy Zaher Sabry, Constrained
optimization based on modified differential evolution algorithm
Information Sciences, 194, pp.171208 (2012)
[7] Kaveh, M. Khayatazad, A new meta-heuristic method: Ray
Optimization, Computers and Structures 112-113 283294 (2012)
[8] Deb K, Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms.
Wiley, New York (2001)
[9] Li M, Azarm S, Aute V A multi-objective genetic algorithm for robust
design optimization. Mech Eng 771778 (2005a)
[10] Antonio Gaspar-Cunha, Jose Ferreira, Gustavo Recio, Evolutionary
robustness analysis for multi-objective optimization: benchmark
problems, Struct Multidisc Optim, 2013
[11] S.S. Rao, Optimization Theory and Applications, third ed., John
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1996.
[12] Olcay Ersel Canyurt , Prabhat Hajela, Cellular genetic algorithm
technique for the Multicriterion design optimization, Struct Multidisc
Optim (2010) 40:201214

0.4372
0.07297

TABLE II
THE BEST COMPROMISE SOLUTION DETERMINED by TOPSIS
Weight
Best Compromise Solution
X1
X2
Weight, lb
Displacement, in
(0.8, 0.2)

17.93545

0.185042

0.763206

0.251898

(0.5, 0.5)

20.08868

0.165287

0.781807

0.279612

(0.2, 0.8)

22.95307

0.144851

0.793640

0.317649

V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have addressed the application of NSGAII algorithm to solve the bi-objective design optimization
problem of a two bar truss. The two objective functions
considered in this problem are minimization of weight of
the truss and minimization of vertical displacement of joint
3. The concept of controlled elitism applied in this
algorithm helps to improve the quality of the solutions
obtained by using NSGA-II, which is evident from the
Pareto-optimal front plotted for this problem. The plot of
Pareto-optimal front has uniform distribution and deviation
is very less. The algorithm performs better in our problem
since the number of design variables is minimum and also
the ability of scalar operator of SBX crossover to create
new generations. Unlike the weight method of combining
the objectives into a single objective function, NSGA-II
uses the concept of domination count and crowding
distance operator which helps to improve the results and
hence the performance is better than that found by
traditional MOEAs. A multi criteria decision making tool
namely TOPSIS is applied to select the best compromise
solution from the obtained Pareto optimal front. It is
evident from the plot of results that even after assigning
different weights to each objective, the best compromise
solutions obtained by TOPSIS are within the close
proximity. In future, the combined approach of NSGA II
algorithm and TOPSIS can be used to solve real world
multi objective design optimization of mechanical
components such as flywheel, gears, spring and shaft.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the Management of K.L.N
College of Engineering for providing the facilities to carry
out the research work. The team has great interest to honor
Dr.S.Miruna Joe Amali, Associate Professor, Computer
Science Engineering Department of K.L.N College of
Engineering for her help in the coding of NSGA II
Algorithm using Matlab.

ISBN 978-93-80609-17-1
630