Golinski Speed Reducer

Hamza Ashraf1
GRA Institute of Space Technology

A hypothetical problem represents the design of a simple gearbox such as might be used
in a light airplane between the engine and propeller to allow each to rotate at its most
efficient speed. It has seven design variables and objective is to minimize the speed reducers
weight while satisfying the eleven constraints imposed by gear and shaft design practices.
Several optimization techniques are implemented on this benchmark problem to evaluate
the best.

Nomenclature
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
Cfi
gi

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

width of the gear face

teeth module
number of pinion teeth
shaft 1 length between bearings
sha ft 2 length between bearings
diameter of shaft 1
diameter of shaft 2
constants
constraints

I. Introduction

HIS paper concentrates on optimizing a benchmark problem. The objective is to minimize the speed reducer
weight while satisfying a number of constraints imposed by gear and shaft design practices. Seven design
variables are available to the optimizer, and each has an upper and lower limit imposed. This problem was
modeled by Golinski [1970,1973] as a single-level optimization, and since then many others have used it to test a
variety of methods. The present version is set forth as an artificial multidisciplinary problem comprising the
coupling between gear design and shaft design disciplines. It follows the two-level decomposition method of Li
[1989]. Four other of the many published decompositon solution methods for the same problem are those of Datseris
[1982], Azarm and Li [1989], Renaud [1993], and Boden and Grauer [1995].

II. Problem Defination

The objective of Golinski's Speed Reducer problem is to find the minimum of a gear box volume f (and, hence, its
minimum weight), subject to several constraints. There are seven design variables, x1 - x7.
Mathematically, the problem is specified as follows: minimize f, given by

where the constants are

GRA, Aeronautics & Astronautics, Institute of Space Technology.

1
Institute of Space Technology

and the seven variables with their lower and upper limits are

The constraints can be characterized by

g1
g2
g3, g4
g5, g6
g7-g23
g24, g25

upper bound on the bending stress of the gear tooth

upper bound on the contact stress of the gear tooth
upper bounds on the transverse deflection of shafts 1, 2
upper bounds on the stresses in shafts 1, 2
dimensional restrictions based on space and experience
dimensional requirements for shafts based on experience

.These constraints are specified mathematically by

2
Institute of Space Technology

where the constants are

Figure 1 Gear Box

3
Institute of Space Technology

III. Fmincon
First we use fmincon for optimizing our problem. This optimizer finds minimum of constrained nonlinear
multivariable function. It can easily handle linear and non linear constraints.
Keeping in mind the bounds, the 7 design variables were given an initial starting point to start the solution
iterations.
No matter which algorithm (sqp, interior-point or active -set) is used, fmincon always gives the same result of all
7 variables. Also changing the initial point doesnt affect the end result as depicted in table 1.

Table 1

variable

x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
Objective

3.5
0.7
17
7.3
7.7153
3.3502
5.2867
2994.4

3.5
0.7
17
7.3
7.7153
3.3502
5.2867
2994.4

3.5
0.7
17
7.3
7.7153
3.3502
5.2867
2994.4

3.5
0.7
17
7.3
7.7153
3.3502
5.2867
2994.4

Figure 2 shows that how fmincon reaches the objective value when the starting points are [5 5 5 5 5 5 5]

Figure 2
Figure 3 shows that how fmincon reaches the objective value when the starting points are [0 0 0 0 0 0 0]

Figure 3
4
Institute of Space Technology

IV. Genetic Algorithm

An optimization technique is used to find the best optimum of the problem by mimicking natural evolution.
In MATLAB we defined the objective function, constrains and upper and lower bounds. Default GA settings
were used at each iteration. Even with the same settings, different results are obtained in each iteration.
Table 2 Results with default GA settings

Variables
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
Objective

3.5
0.7
17
7.376
7.758
3.35
5.287
2996.499

2
3.5
0.7
17.018
7.366
7.914
3.351
5.287
3002.833

3
3.5
0.7
17.521
7.798
7.933
3.352
5.287
3095.55

Table 2 shows that in every run of GA, variables change their values and every time a new minimum is obtained.
Keeping all the settings same, every run produces new minimum.
Table 3 Results with Mutation fn as Gaussian

Variable
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
Objective

1
3.501
0.7
17.008
7.32
7.732
3.356
5.2867
3002.596

2
3.5
0.7
17.008
7.348
7.743
3.362
5.296
3005.63

3
3.5
0.7
17.003
7.313
7.722
3.358
5.287
2997.446

Table 3 shows the effects of mutation function change to Gaussian from Constraint dependant function. Here
also, keeping the settings same, every run of GA produces new minimum with different values of variables.

V. Simulated Annealing
Simulated annealing (SA) is a generic probabilistic metaheuristic for the global optimization problem of locating
a good approximation to the global optimum of a given functionin a large search space. It is often used when the
search space is discrete (e.g., all tours that visit a given set of cities). For certain problems, simulated annealing may
be more efficient than exhaustive enumeration provided that the goal is merely to find an acceptably good solution
in a fixed amount of time, rather than the best possible solution.
Using optimtool in MATLAB, SA was implemented on Golinskis problem. After specifying the lower and
upper bounds along with the objective function this optimization tool was run. With a starting point of [0 0 0 0 0 0
0] and after 3500 iterations, values of design variables were obtained, as show in table 4.

5
Institute of Space Technology

Table 4 with 0 as the starting value

variables
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
Objective

2.6
2.6
2.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
17
17
17
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
2.9
2.9
2.9
5
5
5
2352.352 2352.352 2352.352

Figure 4 optimtool results for an initial guess of 0

For an initial point of [10 10 10 10 10 10 10], SA gives the following results as shown in table 5.

Table 5 with 10 as the starting value

variables

x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
Objective
itrations

2.6
0.7
17
7.302
7.302
2.9
5
2352.41
5400

2.6
0.7

2.6
0.7

17
7.303
7.31
2.9
5
2352.595
9439

17
7.303
7.3
2.9
5
2352.36
9613

6
Institute of Space Technology

Increasing the reannealing interval from 100 (default) to 50, increases the computational time.

VI. Particle Swarm Optimization

Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is a global optimization algorithm for dealing with problems in which a best
solution can be represented as a point or surface in an n-dimensional space. It is a population based optimization
technique. The potential solutions are called particles and they fly within the problem space by following the current
optimum particles.
Table 6 For a population size of 50

Variable
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
Objective

Values
2.6
0.7
17
7.3
7.3
2.9
5
2352.4

For a population size of 50 (particles/birds), PSO algorithm gives the values of variables and minimum
function value as mentioned in table 6.

VII. Conclusion
After applying various optimization techniques for this benchmark problem, it is clear that the best suited optimization
technique for this particular problem is Simulate Annealing and PSO as they find the minimum of the objective function with
satisfying all the constraints. Genetic Algorithm doesnt give a minimum value of the objective function that is better than
fmincon or SA or PSO.
GA is not a consistent optimizer in this case, many iterations have to be run at different scenarios to manually choose the best
run, hence it takes more effort and computational time.
Fmincon always ends up at the same objective function minimum value. Even though all optimization techniques satisfy all
the constraints and bounds but following the literature review, 2994.4 kg value of objective function is good. So fmincon is a
more practile optimizer in this case and it is also consistent.
For some other problem, some other optimizer technique may be useful other than fmincon.

Table 7 Comaprion of Optimization Techniques

Algorithm
fmincon
GA
GA (Gaussian)
PSO
SA

X1 X2 X3 X4
X5
X6
X7
Min. Value
3.5 0.7 17
7.3 7.7153
3.350
5.286
2994.4
3.5 0.7 17 7.37
7.75
3.35
5.287
2996.499
3.5 0.7 17
7.3
7.72
3.35
5.287
2997.46
2.6 0.7 17
7.3
7.3
2.9
5
2352.400
2.6 0.7 17 7.30
7.3
2.9
5
2352.352

7
Institute of Space Technology