Full Chapter Optimal Lightweight Construction Principles Federico Maria Ballo PDF

Optimal Lightweight Construction
Principles Federico Maria Ballo

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/optimal-lightweight-construction-principles-federico-m
aria-ballo/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Residential Construction Academy: Basic Principles for

Construction 5th Edition Mark W. Huth
https://textbookfull.com/product/residential-construction-
academy-basic-principles-for-construction-5th-edition-mark-w-
huth/
Basic Principles of Marxism Leninism A Primer Jose

Maria Sison
https://textbookfull.com/product/basic-principles-of-marxism-
leninism-a-primer-jose-maria-sison/
Compartment Syndrome Federico Coccolini
https://textbookfull.com/product/compartment-syndrome-federico-
coccolini/
Principles and practices of commercial construction

Tenth Edition W. Ronald Woods
https://textbookfull.com/product/principles-and-practices-of-
commercial-construction-tenth-edition-w-ronald-woods/
Technic and Magic Federico Campagna
https://textbookfull.com/product/technic-and-magic-federico-
campagna/
Building Construction Methods and Systems: Principles,

Requirements and Application Details 1st Edition Sari
https://textbookfull.com/product/building-construction-methods-
and-systems-principles-requirements-and-application-details-1st-
edition-sari/
Lightweight polymer composite structures: design and

manufacturing techniques Kroll
https://textbookfull.com/product/lightweight-polymer-composite-
structures-design-and-manufacturing-techniques-kroll/
Optimal 16th Edition Daniel Goleman
https://textbookfull.com/product/optimal-16th-edition-daniel-
goleman/
Lightweight and sustainable materials for automotive

applications 1st Edition Faruk
https://textbookfull.com/product/lightweight-and-sustainable-
materials-for-automotive-applications-1st-edition-faruk/
Federico Maria Ballo
Massimiliano Gobbi
Giampiero Mastinu
Giorgio Previati
Optimal
Lightweight
Construction
Principles
Optimal Lightweight Construction Principles
Federico Maria Ballo Massimiliano Gobbi
• •
Giampiero Mastinu Giorgio Previati

•
Optimal Lightweight
Construction Principles
123
Federico Maria Ballo Massimiliano Gobbi
Politecnico di Milano Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy Milan, Italy
Giampiero Mastinu Giorgio Previati

Politecnico di Milano Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy Milan, Italy
ISBN 978-3-030-60834-7 ISBN 978-3-030-60835-4 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60835-4
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my love Giorgia and to my family
Federico
To Marta and Riccardo
Massimiliano
To Leda and Elisabetta
Giampiero
To Barbara, Davide and Fabio
Giorgio
Foreword
In the long time of working with students and young practising mechanical engi-
neering designers, I have always marvelled at the mastery our young engineers have
for using theories and computation methods to analyse quite complex structural
problems—provided someone would first define for them free-body diagrams, basic
topologies and cross-sectional geometries. There are many excellent texts on
structural analysis and optimisation. This book is unique in its focus on how to gain
early design insights grounded on sound theory so that you can make those crucial
early design decisions on lightweight structures wisely and elegantly.
The book offers a deep understanding of how to approach competing design
decisions in structural system design using Pareto optimality. The book starts with a
review of multicriteria optimisation methods and the derivation of Pareto-optimal
sets, then proceeds with specific important structures and associated loadings and a
presentation of topology optimisation for single- and multi-body structures. A final
chapter on automotive vehicle component structural design exemplifies the attribute
that characterises the entire book: a great wealth of case studies and examples for
every single topic discussed, drawn from the authors’ vast experience working
closely with industry. The book’s examples and case studies alone make it a pre-
cious addition to the literature.
In the present era of computational dominance in all matters, we occasionally
lose track of the knowledge behind the computations and, often most importantly,
of the assumptions made in order for the computational models to be valid. This
book is unique also in that the vast majority of the examples can be worked out “by
hand”, meaning they can be treated with explicit analytic expressions allowing you
to follow closely the interactions dictating your design decisions. Once you have
gained insights from these ‘simple’ examples, you can explore more complex
problems with greater confidence.
I believe this book will serve well both novice and experienced structural
designers, as well as offer ideas on teaching structural design in an academic setting.
vii
viii Foreword
Finally, let us recall that lightweight structural design is a core element in any
efficient, sustainable mechanical design solution and a major driver in the evolution
of a large number of artefacts from automobiles and aeroplanes to medical
implements and user-oriented products. This book is a good guide for practising
such responsible design thinking.
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA Panos Y. Papalambros

July 2020
Preface
The idea of writing a book on lightweight construction was born after the book
Optimal design of complex mechanical systems was completed in 2006. Actually,
the existing books on structural optimisation did not address the apparently simple
problem of cross-shape optimisation of a beam. In 1992, Ashby produced a book
with an outstanding and fundamental contribution on the topic, we would like to
extend that contribution to Multi-Objective Programming, i.e. Optimization Theory.
In our book, we aim to provide to designers some practical hints to start a
drawing, an apparently simple action that requires a profound knowledge of
mechanics. When a designer drafts the preliminary sketch of a structure, he/she has
in mind the basic knowledge of de Saint-Venant equations, defining the cross-shape
of beams. Such basic available knowledge is taken from university courses on
mechanical engineering design, which provide just information on stress, compli-
ance and stability (buckling). No information is given on how choosing the
dimensions of the cross section of a beam in order to obtain the best compromise on
mass and compliance, given the admissible stress and buckling as constraints. In
practice, university professors of mechanical engineering design provide to students
just the basic information to do the job. The proper combination of such infor-
mation, the only action that satisfies the technical requirements, is missing. In other
words, it is like as the ingredients to cook a cake were provided, without the recipe.
Our aim is to combine the said basic knowledge available from classical courses of
mechanical engineering design with optimal design paradigms, based on Pareto
theory.
Pareto theory (Multi-Objective Programming) allows to combine design vari-
ables (cross-sectional geometry, material) to find a desired compromise between
relevant performance indices, namely mass and compliance. Obviously, Pareto
theory takes into account relevant constraints on admissible stress and local stability
(buckling). Our aim is to provide once for all the sound hints for the design of the
cross section of a beam.
Taking into account the mentioned performance indices and constraints, we
suggest newly derived paradigms to designers. In other words, in the book, we
suggest simple design paradigms that are derived from an in-depth and theoretically
ix
x Preface
sound analysis based on Pareto theory. Classical mechanical engineering design

provides the competence to find a solution, we propose how to find the optimal
solution. In the book, a number of examples are considered, e.g. the tube under
bending, under torsion or inflated. Other examples are taken from the classic set of
basic mechanical engineering design schemes.
The greatest majority of the examples produced in the book are dealt with in an
analytical form. This provides general and theoretically sound conclusions.
We anticipate here to the readers that the output of the whole book is very
simple. The new, and according to our knowledge, unreferenced, hint for designers
is just using all of the room available when drawing the cross section of a beam.
A thin-walled structure is to be preferred as well.
Following these suggestions allows designers to obtain structures which are stiff,
lightweight and safe. Together with the well-known paradigm of thin-walled
structures, we are proposing in the book an additional paradigm: extended
structures.
Designers are encouraged to exploit all, or much, of the room available for the
structure to be placed in the space. Despite the indication is simple, it is not trivial.
It has been derived after the comprehensive studies presented in the book and based
on Pareto theory. Someone could think that the mentioned suggestion is unim-
portant, minor or insignificant. This was the case of some scholars, possibly unused
to design structures or machines, that were acting as peer reviewers of some of our
papers from which the book is composed.
We have bright evidence that the newly derived paradigm is effective. By trial
and error, engineers are slowly approaching what we address in a straightforward
way in the book.
Comparing the old and new bicycle frames (see Fig. 1), we see that, to increase
stiffness and reduce mass, the cross-sectional dimensions of beams have been
steadily growing.
Fig. 1 Evolution of the frame of road bicycles. Left: 1978. Right: 2017
Preface xi
Fig. 2 Evolution of the structure of airport lighting poles. Left: older (source “yasin.ylmzz/
Shutterstock.com”). Right: newer (source “PhotoSmileBeautiful/Shutterstock.com”)
Airport lighting poles have undergone in the last decades a considerable

expansion of the cross section of the pole structure (see Fig. 2).
A clear trend for truss structures to occupy all of the available room is shown in
Fig. 3. The evolution of a car frame is shown, in which some of the beams have
been magnified to increase stiffness and reduce mass.
The book addresses not only simple beams but also trusses and topological
structural optimisation of continuous structures. This is done just to highlight that
the simple paradigms developed for elementary structures can be combined for
more complex applications.
Some examples presented in the book are based on the exploitation of Artificial
Intelligence/Machine Learning (Global Approximation). Also in these cases, the
addressed paradigms of thin-walled and extended structures can be inferred.
To perform the design of a structure, new technologies like Additive
Manufacturing require Topological Optimisation. Often, optimised structures take
the form of trusses. The paradigms addressed in the book could be used to attempt
an interpretation of the involved results coming from Topological Optimisation.
xii Preface
Fig. 3 Evolution of luxury sports car frame (courtesy of Ferrari S.p.A.)
The book does not focus on an important paradigm of lightweight design like
Life Cycle Assessment. Nonetheless, the design methods addressed in the book
could be applied to the case in which life cycle assessment is considered.
The book does not focus on bio-inspired structures, but it could suggest para-
digms and methods to understand how nature has performed an apparent optimal
design.
The authors have equally contributed to the drafting of the book. We do hope
that our work will enable designers to reach a preliminary optimal dimensioning of
structures in a natural way. We are confident that the book provides some lasting
contribution for the sake of mechanical engineering design.
Milan, Italy Federico Maria Ballo

May 2020 Massimiliano Gobbi
Giampiero Mastinu
Giorgio Previati
Acknowledgements The Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research is acknowledged

for the support provided through the Project “Department of Excellence LIS4.0—Lightweight and
Smart Structures for Industry 4.0”.
Contents
1 Engineering Design and Optimal Design of Complex Mechanical

Systems: Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Engineering Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Stages of the Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Optimal Design of Complex Mechanical Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1 Fundamental Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2 Single- and Multi-criteria Optimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.3 Multi-criteria Optimisation (MCO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.4 Multi-objective Optimisation (MOO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.5 Multi-objective Programming (MOP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Complex Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 System Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 System Performances, Criteria, Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . 7
1.6 System Parameters, Design Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.7 Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.8 Space of Design Variables, Space of Objective Functions . . . . . 10
1.9 Feasible Design Variables Domain, Design Solution . . . . . . . . . 10
1.9.1 Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.10 Multi-objective Programming (MOP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.10.1 Non-linear Programming (NLP) and Constrained
Minimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.10.2 Multi-objective Programming: Definition . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.10.3 Pareto-Optimal Solutions and Pareto-Optimal Set . . . . . 14
1.10.4 Ideal and Nadir Design Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.10.5 Related Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.10.6 Basic Problems and Capabilities of Multi-objective
Optimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
xiii
xiv Contents
2 Introduction to the Optimal Design of Complex Mechanical

Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1 On the Optimal Design of Complex Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2 Finding the Pareto-Optimal Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.1 Exhaustive Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.2 Uniformly Distributed Sequences and Random
Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 32
2.2.3 Genetic Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 33
2.2.4 Comparison of Broadly Applicable Methods
to Solve Optimisation Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 34
2.2.5 Global Approximation—Artificial
Intelligence—Machine Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 35
2.2.6 Multi-objective Programming via Non-linear
Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 37
2.2.7 Algorithms to Solve Optimisation Problems
in Scalar Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 39
2.3 Understanding Pareto-Optimal Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 39
3 Analytical Derivation of the Pareto-Optimal Set with Application
to Structural Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.1 The Fritz John Necessary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.2 The L Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3 Analytical Derivation of the Pareto-Optimal Set . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3.1 Unconstrained Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.3.2 Even Number of Design Variables and Objective
Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50
3.4 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51
3.4.1 Case #1. Two Design Variables, Two Objective
Functions, No Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51
Functions, One Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54
Functions, Two (four) Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55
3.4.4 Case #4. Three Design Variables, Two Objective
Functions, Two Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64
4 Bending of Beams of Arbitrary Cross Sections—Optimal
Design by Analytical Formulae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.1 Bending of a Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.1.1 Shape Factor for the Elastic Bending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1.2 Stress Factor for Elastic Bending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1.3 Buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.1.4 Optimisation Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Contents xv
4.2 Pareto-Optimal Set for the Beam of Arbitrary Cross-Sectional

Shape Subjected to Bending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.3 An Application to the Design of an I-Shaped Cross Section . . . 83
4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5 Bending of Lightweight Circular Tubes—Optimal Design . . . . . .. 87
5.1 Equations Describing the Bending of a Thin-Walled Tube . . .. 89
5.2 Optimal Design of Thin-Walled Tubes Subject to Bending . . .. 90
5.2.1 Pareto-Optimal Set in the Design Variable Domain
and in the Objective Function Domain (Necessary
Conditions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92
5.3 Sizing of Thin-Walled Tubes with Constraints on Available
Room, on Minimum Thickness, on Buckling, on Admissible
Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.3.1 Case ① . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.3.2 Case ② . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.3.3 Case ③ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.3.4 Case ④ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.3.5 Case ⑤ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.3.6 Case ⑥ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.4 Comparative Lightweight Design of Two Thin-Walled Tubes
Made from Two Different Materials, Respectively . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.4.1 Lightweight Design Referring to Pareto-Optimal
Subset 1, R ¼ Rmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Subset 2, t ¼ tmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Subset 3, Active Constraint on Buckling . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.4.4 Minimum Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.4.5 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Appendix 1: Constraint Activity in the Pareto-Optimal Set . . . . . . . . . 105
A1.1 Available Room Constraint—Proof that Ptmax ;Rmin is
Always Dominated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
A1.2 Buckling and Structural Safety Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6 Optimal Design of a Beam Subject to Bending: A Basic
Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.1 Uniformly Bended Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.1.1 Hollow Square Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.1.2 I-Shaped Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.1.3 Hollow Rectangular Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.1.4 Comparison of Optimal Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
xvi Contents
7 Bending of Lightweight Inflated Circular Tubes—Optimal

Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.1 Equations Describing the Bending of an Inflated Circular
Tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.2 Statement of the Multi-objective Optimisation Problem . . . . . . . 136
7.2.1 Monotonicity Analysis and Problem Reduction . . . . . . 137
7.2.2 Solution of the Optimisation Problem: Case 1 . . . . . . . 138
7.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
8 Torsion of Lightweight Circular Tubes—Optimal Design . . . . . . . . 149
8.1 Equations for a Thin-Walled Tube Under Torsion . . . . . . . . . . . 150
8.2 Optimal Design of a Thin-Walled Tube Subject to Torsion . . . . 152
8.3 Sizing of Thin-Walled Tubes with Constraints on Available
Room, on Minimum Thickness, on Buckling and Admissible
Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
8.4 Comparison of Tubes Made from Different Materials . . . . . . . . 159
8.4.1 Comparison Referring to Pareto-Optimal Subset 1,
d ¼ dmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
t ¼ tmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Active Constraint on Buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
8.5 Optimal Design of a Race Car Driveshaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
8.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
9 Stochastic Optimisation Applied to Multi-axial Bending
of Lightweight Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
9.1 Multi-objective Stochastic Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
9.2 Formulation of the Design Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
9.2.1 Design Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
9.2.2 Performance Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
9.2.3 Design Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
9.3 Optimal Design of Cantilever Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
9.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
10 Multi-objective Optimisation of Truss Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
10.1 Truss Structures Under Single Loading Conditions: Problem
Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
10.1.1 Optimal Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
10.2 Truss Structures Under Multiple Loading Conditions:
Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
10.2.1 Optimal Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
10.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Contents xvii
11 Topology Optimisation of Continuum Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

11.1 Density-Based Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
11.2 Minimum Compliance Problem: Conditions of Optimality . . . . . 206
11.3 Regularisation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
11.3.1 Filtering Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
11.3.2 Constraining Techniques and Projection Methods . . . . . 212
12 Concurrent Topological Optimisation of Two Bodies Sharing
Design Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
12.1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
12.2 Numerical Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
12.2.1 Block 1: Solve the Two FE Models on X1 and X2 . . . . 219
12.2.2 Sub-algorithm A: Topological Optimisation Over X1
and X2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
12.2.3 Sub-algorithm B: Computation and Enforcement
of the Connectedness of the Two Domains X1
and X2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
12.3 Numerical Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
12.3.1 Example 1: Literature Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
12.3.2 Example 2: Symmetric Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
12.3.3 Example 3: Dovetail Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
12.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
13 Structural Optimisation in Road Vehicle Components Design . . . . 233
13.1 Multi-objective Structural Optimisation of a Brake Calliper . . . . 235
13.1.1 Simplified FE Model of the Calliper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
13.1.2 Multi-objective Optimisation of the Brake Calliper . . . . 241
13.1.3 Optimal Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
13.1.4 Comparison Between Symmetric and Asymmetric
Layouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
13.1.5 Position of the Connection Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
13.2 Topology Optimisation of a Brake Calliper and Upright
of a Race Car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
13.2.1 Topology Optimisation of the Brake Calliper . . . . . . . . 249
13.2.2 Topology Optimisation of the Calliper
and the Upright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
13.3 Topology Optimisation of a Motorcycle Wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
13.3.1 Finite Element Model of the Wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
13.3.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
13.4 Concurrent Topology Optimisation of a Wheel and Brake
Calliper Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Chapter 1
Engineering Design and Optimal Design
of Complex Mechanical Systems:
Definitions
The following chapter provides the lexicon used throughout the whole book. In
the field of optimisation, a number of expressions (locutions) are used that refer to
parameters, minimisation, maximisation, etc. The precise meaning of such expres-
sions (locutions) has been derived from [143] and adapted to this book.
1.1 Engineering Design
The objective of engineering design, a major part of research and development (R&D)
activity, is to produce drawings, specifications and other relevant information needed
to manufacture products that meet customer requirements.
The main task of engineers is to apply their scientific and engineering knowledge
to find one (or more) solutions to technical problems, and possibly to optimise those
solutions within the requirements and constraints set by material, technological, eco-
nomical, legal, environmental and human-related considerations. Design problems1
become concrete tasks after the clarification and definition of the criteria which
engineers have to adopt and to apply in order to create new technical products.
1.1.1 Stages of the Design Process
According to [161], there are roughly four stages of the design process (see Fig. 1.1)
1. Conceptual design determines the principle of a solution. Conceptual design is
that part of the design process in which, by the identification of the essential
1A design problem (in engineering) may be defined as a set of requirements to solve a technical
problem.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 1

F. M. Ballo et al., Optimal Lightweight Construction Principles,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60835-4_1
2 1 Engineering Design and Optimal Design of Complex …
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 1.1 Example of an engineering design process which develops in four stages. Adapted from
[143]. First stage a: Three different concept design solutions to carry a body. Second stage b:
Feasibility study. Third stage c: Embodiment of the design solution. Fourth stage d: Details of the
design solution
1.1 Engineering Design 3
problems, by the establishment of function and by the search for appropriate

working principles and their combination, the basic solution is obtained through
the elaboration of a solution principle.
2. Preliminary design. This stage can be considered as a part of conceptual design.
The preliminary layout is obtained by refining the conceptual designs and rank-
ing them according to the design specifications, and choosing the best as the
preliminary design.
3. Embodiment design is that part of the design process in which, starting from
the working structure or concept of a technical product, the design is developed,
in accordance with technical and economic criteria and in the light of further
information, to the point where subsequent detail design can lead directly to
production [161].
4. Detail design is that part of the design process which completes the embodiment
of technical products with final instructions about the layout, forms, dimensions
and surface properties of all individual components, the definitive selection of
materials, operating procedures and costs [161].
The above classification of engineering design in four phases is not the unique
one,2 anyway, it is rather general, at least for what concerns complex mechanical
systems.
On the more general level, design consists of a loop: product design ↔ manufac-
turing ↔ marketing improvement ↔ product design [143].
1.1.2 Creativity
Creativity is a very important component of some design phases. According to the

level of creativity involved, engineering design can be classified into the following
four categories [59] (see also Sect. 1.6):
Creative Design: A priori plan for the solution of the problem does not exist. Design
is an abstract decomposition of the problem into a set of levels that represents
choices for the components of the problem. The key element in this design type is
the transformation from the subconscious to conscious.
Innovative Design: The decomposition of the problem is known, but the alterna-
tives for each of its subparts do not exist and must be synthesised. Design might
be an original or unique combination of existing components. It can be argued that
a certain amount of creativity comes into play in the innovative design process.
Redesign: An existing design is modified to meet required changes in the original
functional requirements.
Routine Design: A priori plan of the solution exists. The subparts and alterna-
tives are known in advance, perhaps as a result of either a creative or innovative
2 Actually it depends on the product developed.

design process. Routine design involves finding the appropriate alternatives for
each subpart that satisfy the given constraints.
At the creative stage, the design is very fuzzy. As it moves to routine design, it
gets precise and predetermined.
1.2 Optimal Design of Complex Mechanical Systems
1.2.1 Fundamental Hypothesis
Referring to the classifications introduced in the previous Sects. 1.1.1 and 1.1.2, let
us assume that, given a design problem, a conceptual design solution has been found
by a creative design activity.
At this stage of the design process, the optimal design of complex (Mechanical)
systems can take place.
1.2.2 Single- and Multi-criteria Optimisation
When one thinks of optimisation in general, or about well-known optimisation prob-

lems, one usually thinks of problems minimising or maximising a single quantity
or objective. Indeed, with many optimisation problems, one begins with the implicit
assumption that all candidate solutions can be ranked unambiguously according to
their cost or utility.
The goal of the optimisation process is then well-defined: one must find the highest
ranked solution(s) possible.
But in real-world applications, problems with a single, well-defined objective to
be optimised tend to be the exception rather than the rule. In engineering, (but also
in finance, operational research, medicine, design, planning, scheduling, timetabling
and many other domains), it is common to have problems with multiple requirements
on system performances. Often, problems with a single objective may express what
is most important or fundamental about a task in these domains, and they are math-
ematically simple to be treated, but they are not a faithful model of the real world.
Unfortunately, in a problem with multiple objectives, it is generally impossible to
obtain a total-ordering (a ranking) of all of the alternative solutions, without invok-
ing further rules or assumptions. This means that “pure” optimisation, in which an
unambiguously best solution is sought, may not be possible. This problem of rank-
ing solutions arises whenever we must compare two solutions that offer a different
compromise of the different performances. In this situation, the decision of the better
solution may become somewhat subjective, or must rely on additional information,
such as the “importance” of each performance.
1.2 Optimal Design of Complex Mechanical Systems 5
1.2.3 Multi-criteria Optimisation (MCO)
Multi-Criteria Optimisation (MCO) is the discipline that deals with the optimisa-
tion of (engineering design) problems in which many conflicting criteria have to be
accounted for. Criteria can be expressed either mathematically or not. In any case,
the solutions cannot be ranked alone from their evaluation. Thus, in a broad sense,
MCO really entails two different tasks, namely, search of a set of solutions and
decision-making.
• Search is needed to find solutions,

• Decision-making is needed for ranking them.
This last task or activity of MCO is often called Multi-Criteria Decision-Making

(MCDM). MCDM refers to the methods for making choices between solutions that
offer a different compromise of criteria. It is a scientific and mathematical discipline
in itself, separate from search. MCDM essentially entails methods for scalarising the
vector of objective functions (for the definition of “objective function” see Sect. 1.5),
so that a total ordering of solutions can be obtained, from which the “best” can be
chosen. Scalarising methods in turn involve techniques for equalising the ranges of
different criteria, and for mathematically modelling the “preferences” that (human)
expert Decision-Makers (DMs) have, considering compromise choices between solu-
tions. For a concise but an extensive overview of methods for performing MCDM,
see [152].
Some more problems of conceptual design are described in [41] where MCDM is
considered in a framework called Multiple Criteria Decision Aid (MCDA). Managers
(i.e. designers acting as DMs) are often not satisfied with the optimal solution found
in a bare MCDM process, and they require something more, an effective aid. Actually
• Preferences are formed in a learning process;
• Often there is a set of designers with different opinions and preferences;
• An optimal solution is created, not found;
• Imprecision, interaction, flexibility . . . are needed;
• Support for ambiguity handling and uncertainty;
• There is a need to move from a rational to proactive approach;
1.2.4 Multi-objective Optimisation (MOO)
Multi-Objective Optimisation (MOO) is the discipline that deals with the optimisation
of (engineering design) problems in which many criteria are expressed mathemati-
cally.
Fig. 1.2 Multi-objective programming (MOP) is a part of multi-objective optimisation (MOO)

which is a part of MCO, which can be exploited in the engineering design process. Adapted from
[143]
1.2.5 Multi-objective Programming (MOP)
Multi-Objective Programming (MOP) is a theory belonging to MOO (Fig. 1.2). By

means of MOP, an engineering design problem (in which the many criteria are
expressed mathematically) can be formulated and solved. MOP will be introduced
in Sect. 1.10, after the following definitions relating to complex systems, system
models, objective functions, design variables, (...) will be given.
1.3 Complex Systems
Scientists and engineers have not yet accepted a common definition of what is meant
by complexity. According to the definition given in [143], a complex system is taken to
be one whose properties are not fully explained by an understanding of its component
parts. In a complex system, multiple interactions between many different components
exist.
The complexity of a system has also been related to the complexity of the process to
define it. For instance, how much effort would be taken to solve a problem. According
to designers’ point of view, complexity should be defined relative to what they are
trying to achieve [143]. Simply, when a designer has to define the values of four (or
more) design variables and a preferred compromise has to be found among four (or
more) conflicting system performances, then we can say that the designer has to deal
with a complex system.
Complexity can be also defined as a measure of uncertainty. Uncertainty arises
because of many factors: lack of knowledge about a system, the interaction among
its multiple components.
Complex systems are often mathematical structures and processes that involve
non-linearity. Complex systems are frequently composed by both many interacting
1.3 Complex Systems 7
objects and non-linear dynamical sub-systems. The studies on complex systems

include a wide variety of topics, such as
• Cellular Automata,
• Chaos,
• Evolutionary Computation,
• Fractals,
• Genetic Algorithms,
• Artificial Neural Networks,
• Parallel Computing.
1.4 System Models
Given a physical system (an actual or virtual set of physical objects), we will assume
that we will be always able to derive a mathematical system model (or, briefly,
a mathematical model) capable to describe the behaviour of the original physical
system.3
If the mathematical system model will be derived by applying physical laws, it will
be called shortly physical model. The mathematical system model can be composed
by a set of algebraic or differential equations or a combination of them.
Often, given an actual mechanical system, it is convenient, in order to derive effi-
ciently the corresponding physical model, to construct a mechanical system model. In
this case, we would have (see Fig. 1.3) the actual mechanical system, the mechanical
system model, the mathematical system model (i.e. a physical model of the original
actual system).
In a Global Approximation approach, the physical model is substituted by another
mathematical model capable to compute the system physical behaviour very quickly
[143].
The mathematical system model can be stochastic if some parameters and/or
variables in it are defined by one or more stochastic process.
1.5 System Performances, Criteria, Objective Functions
By definition, the physical behaviour of an actual physical system is described by a

number of system performances.
System performances can be judged by a set of standards or principles strictly
related to the design problem formulation. This set is called the set of criteria. Given
a design problem, all the pertinent aspects must be represented by a complete set of
3 Wewill consider mostly physical systems, however, all of the theoretical topics dealt with in the
book may refer also to other systems (economic, social,...) that can be described by a mathematical
model.
(a) (b)
(c)
Fig. 1.3 Different models of an actual physical system. Adapted from [143]. a: Actual system.
b: Mechanical system model. c: Mathematical system model
criteria. The set of criteria must be minimal, there is no smaller set of criteria capable
of representing all the aspects of the problem.
If the system performances can be quantified and expressed in mathematical form,
then the mathematical expressions are called objective functions. Objective functions
are expressed as computable functions of a set of parameters called design variables
(see Sect. 1.6). Objective functions are the quantities that the designer wishes to
optimise.
Objective functions will be identified as
f = { f 1 (x), . . . , f i (x), . . . , f n o f (x)}T

x = {x1 , . . . , x j , . . . , xn dv }T
where x is a vector of design variables (design variables are defined in Sect. 1.6).
Objective functions measure the goodness of the system being designed. In almost
all applications, it is advisable to re-scale the values of the objective functions, that
is, normalise the objective functions
f i − f i min
f i nor m = i = 1, . . . , n o f (1.1)
fi max − f i min
1.5 System Performances, Criteria, Objective Functions 9
With this transformation the range of each new objective function is [0, 1]. The
normalised objective functions used in calculations need to be restored to the original
scale for analysing and displaying.
The need to take into account of subjective as well as objective aspects of the
design is a complicating issue. For example, the handling of a road vehicle is easily
described in terms of linguistic descriptors rather than numerical values.
A common method to deal with subjective data is to convert it to objective values
using a numerical scale.
Hierarchical decomposition can help [149, 150]. Subjective evaluations can be
handled by decomposing a complex quantitative attribute into lower level sub-
attributes to make assessments more meaningful and manageable for the designer.
1.6 System Parameters, Design Variables
In general, a mathematical system model embodies a set of parameters. Usually,

designers are interested in finding one (or more) set of parameters that define one (or
more) preferred configurations of the mathematical system. During the optimisation
procedure, the said set of parameters is changed to find their preferred values. So,
during the optimisation process, the mathematical system model parameters do vary.
As parameters, by definition, do not vary, it is advisable to define these ‘variable
parameters’ as design variables. Design variables are the variables that pertain to the
mathematical system model during the optimisation process. Design variables can
be grouped into a vector and will be identified as
x = {x1 , . . . , xi , . . . , xn d v }T (1.2)
Sometimes, the designer can choose to hold some design variable fixed in order
to simplify the optimisation problem. These fixed quantities will be re-classified
(obviously) as parameters.
The selection of the design variables is not unique, but it is very important to
select these variables to be independent of each other.
Depending on how design variables are involved in the design process, the design
can be reputed to be more or less creative. Referring to Sect. 1.1.2 the following
classification of creativity in design is given [82]
• if the number of the design variables and the ranges of values they can take remain
fixed during design processing, then the process is routine design;
• if the number of the design variables remains fixed but their ranges change, then
it is innovative design;
• if the number of design variables changes too, then it is creative design.
1.7 Constraints
Constraints are conditions which must occur for the design, in order to function as
intended. When constraints can be expressed in mathematical form, they take the
form of inequalities and/or equalities. Constraints will be identified as
g = {g1 (x), . . . , gi (x), . . . , gn c (x)}T

gi (x) ≤ 0 (i = 1, . . . , n c )
where x is the vector of design variables.4 Constraints on design variables are gen-
erally direct limitations on the variables themselves (side constraints, called lower
bounds and upper bounds)
xilow ≤ xi ≤ xiup (i = 1, . . . , n dv ) (1.3)
Constraints on system model behaviour are limits on the system output (objective
function values). Sometimes these limits are given by the physical laws governing
the system.
1.8 Space of Design Variables, Space of Objective Functions
We have already defined the design variables vector x and the objective functions
vector f(x), we have to consider two spaces: the n dv -dimensional space of the design
variables (X) and the n o f -dimensional space of the objective functions (C).
1.9 Feasible Design Variables Domain, Design Solution
The whole set of constraints define the boundaries of the feasible design variables
domain. Obviously, the feasible design variables domain is contained in the space of
design variables
F ⊂X (1.4)
Often it is not easy to find F . A design solution is represented by a point in the

feasible design variable domain.
4 This is a general definition of constraints. If a constraint should be expressed by gi (x) ≥ 0 setting

gi (x) = −gi (x) ≤ 0 would restore the inequality ≤. Also, an equality constraint gi = 0 can be
expressed by using two additional inequality constraints gi (x) = g( x) ≤ 0 and gi (x) = −g( x) ≤ 0.
1.9 Feasible Design Variables Domain, Design Solution 11
1.9.1 Conflict
Given a design problem, a number of criteria are formulated. As a rule in MCO

conflicting criteria are managed. A “Criterium” is a standard or a principle that is
used to judge something. Criteria are considered conflicting when the satisfaction of
one criterium does not imply the satisfaction of the others.
1.10 Multi-objective Programming (MOP)
1.10.1 Non-linear Programming (NLP) and Constrained

Minimisation
Before treating MOP problems some relevant definitions for scalar optimisation will
be introduced.
The aim of a scalar optimisation is to select the values of a vector of design
variables x subject to the effect of some constraints g(x)5 in such a way that one single-
objective function f (x) is minimised. In mathematical form, a scalar optimisation
can be written as
min f (x)
x∈n dv
subject to :
gi (x) ≤ 0, i = 1, . . . , n c
xlow ≤ x ≤ xup (x ∈ X[xlow , xup ]) (1.5)
The subset X ⊂ n dv is the design variable space of definition.

Let us notice that if an objective function f (x) should be maximised (instead of
minimised), the dual function f (x) = − f (x) ≤ 0 could be introduced and used.
Some important basic definitions, useful for the following explanation, are
Definition 1.1 (Global minimum) A point x∗ (Fig. 1.4) is a global minimum if
f (x∗ ) ≤ f (x) ∀x ∈ X.
Definition 1.2 (Local minimum) A point x̄ (Fig. 1.4) is called local minimum if
a δ > 0 exists such that f (x̄) ≤ f (x) ∀x ∈ B(δ, x̄) ∩ X, where B(δ, x̄) = {x ∈ X |
¯ x − x < δ}.
Definition 1.3 (Convexity)
5 Considering an equality constraint gi (x) = 0 is equivalent to consider two inequality constraints

gi (x) ≤ 0 and −gi (x) ≤ 0, so considering problems having only inequality constraints, equality
constraints are implicitly considered.
Fig. 1.4 Local and global

minimum of the function:
z = 10(x 2 sin(x)(−(y − 4
10)2 + 100)), 0 < [x; y] < x 10
20. Adapted from [143] 2
1
0
z
−1
−2 x local minimum
−3 20
* 15
−4 x global minimum
0 10
5 5
y
10
15
x 20 0
(i) A subset X ∈ n dv is convex if
αx1 + (1 − α)x2 ∈ X 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 ∀x1 , x2 ∈ X
(ii) A real-valued function f (x) is convex on the convex subset X if
f (αx1 + (1 − α)x2 ) ≤ α f (x1 ) + (1 − α) f (x2 ) 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 ∀x1 , x2 ∈ X
The optimality conditions are the conditions that can help in finding the minimum
of a function f (x). The optimality conditions are important because they can be
used to develop numerical methods (see [152]) and to check the optimality of a
given point (i.e. to check if that point is a minimum for the given function f (x)).
Referring to the constrained problem (1.5) the optimality conditions can be given
by the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) conditions. (The optimality conditions can be
expressed in several equivalent ways [152]).
A basic assumption for deriving the KKT conditions is that the minimum point is
a regular point of the feasible set (see Sect. 1.9).
Definition 1.4 (Regular point) A point x is called a regular point if the gradients of
all the active6 constraints at x are linearly independent.
It is useful, before introducing the KKT conditions, to define the Lagrangian

function, which for the problem (1.5) is defined as
L(x, η) = f (x) + (η T g(x)) (1.6)
The Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) necessary conditions (first-order necessary

conditions) are
6 An inequality constraint gi (x) ≤ 0 is active in x if gi (x) = 0.

1.10 Multi-objective Programming (MOP) 13
Theorem 1.1 (Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) first-order necessary condition) Let the

objective function f (x) and the constraint g(x) functions of problem (1.5) be contin-
uously differentiable at a vector x∗ ∈ X. A necessary condition for x∗ to be a local
or a global minimum of f (x) is

nc
∗
∇ f (x ) + ηi∗ ∇gi (x∗ ) = 0
i=1
ηi∗ gi (x∗ ) = 0 i = 1, . . . , n c
ηi∗ ≥ 0 i = 1, . . . , n c (1.7)
where ηi (i = 1, . . . , n c ) are the Lagrange multipliers (1.6).
The proof of the theorem can be found in [152]. The foregoing conditions are
optimality necessary conditions for a constrained problem having regular functions.
If the objective function f (x) and the constraint g(x) functions are convex, then
a local minimum is also a global minimum and the KKT first-order conditions are
necessary as well as sufficient [152].
The second-order necessary conditions follow.
Theorem 1.2 (Second-order necessary condition) Let x∗ satisfy the first-order KKT
conditions (1.7) for the problem (1.5). Let H (x∗ ) be the Hessian of the Lagrangian
(1.6). Let d be a small non-zero feasible7 change from x∗ . For j = 1, 2, . . . , n c and
for all j with g j = 0, we have
[∇g j (x∗ )T d] = 0 (1.8)
Defining Q = [dT H (x∗ )d], if x∗ is a local minimum point, it must be true that
Q≥0 (1.9)
for all d satisfying Eq. (1.8).
The proof of the theorem can be found in [152]. The inequality (1.9) is a necessary
condition, a point that violates it cannot be a minimum point.
If in Eq. (1.9) only the inequality is valid, then x∗ is an isolated local minimum.
It must be stressed the all the gradient-based optimisation methods [152] give only
local minima unless some additional requirements are fulfilled such as convexity.
If the objective function f (x) and the constraint g(x) functions are convex, then
the second-order conditions are necessary as well as sufficient [152].
7A small change d from x∗ is called feasible if for any small d, all the active constraints remain
active.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
had no illusions as to the dignity of the law or the righteousness of the
authority in France. He had sat at the table with some of the noblest minds
in that country planning the regeneration of a society that was rotten to the
core.
But, more important to him, he was persuaded that the fate of the
American experiment was bound up with the success of the French
Revolution. From this opinion he was never to deviate one hair’s breadth.
[755] In January, 1792, he had instructed the American Minister in Paris
that, if circumstances forced an expression as to the French Government, it
should be ‘in conformity with the sentiments of the great mass of our
countrymen, who, having first in modern times taken the ground of
government founded on the will of the people, cannot but be delighted at
seeing so distinguished ... a nation arrive on the same ground and plant their
standard by our side.’[756] A little later he reminded the American Minister
in London that ‘we certainly cannot deny to other nations that principle
whereon our government is founded, that every nation has a right to govern
itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its
own will.’[757]
Thus, Jefferson was in sympathy with the purposes of the French
Revolution, and the Hamiltonians were hostile. To Jefferson it meant
republicanism, democracy, the end of privilege—and he wished it well; to
the Hamiltonians it meant democracy—and they wished it ill. When the
despots of Europe combined to crush it and force a degenerate king and
court on the bowed backs of the people, Jefferson’s heart was with the
untrained boys rushing to the defense of the frontiers; the heart of the
Hamiltonians was with the combination of the kings. And because the
masses of the American people were in sympathy with the French, Jefferson
rode on the crest of the wave in the closing days of 1792.
III
With the execution of the King, the political enemies of the Revolution,
simulating shock, ventured into the open. Fenno eagerly seized upon the
more graphic stories of the execution in the London papers and published
them in full, and soon he was printing sympathetic poems on the event.[758]
But the friends of the Revolution were not easily moved to compassion, and
one of the theaters in Philadelphia revived the play ‘Cato’ to the noisy
acclaim of frenzied partisans. The actors appeared before the curtain to sing
‘La Marseillaise,’ and the audience rose to join lustily in the chorus. Night
after night this was repeated. The Pittsburgh ‘Gazette’ published a brutal
pæan under the caption, ‘Louis Capet has lost his Caput,’ and this was
copied throughout the country.[759] But these more savage bursts of glee did
not meet with general approval, for when the news of Louis’s fate reached
Providence the people ‘fell into an immediate state of dejection, and in the
evening all the bells of the churches tolled.’[760] Many put on mourning,
and ‘Cordelia’ announced her purpose to wear, in mourning for the
martyred King, a black rose near the left breast, and ‘entreated her dearly
beloved sisters ... to follow her example.’[761] For a time the reaction was
so pronounced as to threaten the popularity of the Revolution, and it seemed
that half the Nation had turned monarchists overnight.
The Democrats were infuriated to find that the reaction was not confined
to the fashionable houses, but extended to the people in the streets. Even
from New Bedford came the protest that ‘the advocates of monarchy’ and
‘crocodile humanity defenders’ were insisting that ‘the succors from France
... proceeded wholly from Louis,’ and that he had really wished Frenchmen
to be free.[762] A citizen of Charleston was disgusted to see how ‘the death
of one man’ could ‘so affect the generality of the people’ of his city. ‘They
burst forth in the most vehement invectives ... against the whole French
nation—forgetting the thousands that said king had directly or indirectly
been the cause of their death.’[763] An ‘Old Soldier’ in Philadelphia was
shocked to find that ‘beer houses, taverns and places of public resort are
filled with panegyrics upon the measures of the British administration, and
our good allies, the French, are branded with every felonious epithet.’[764]
And why all this fuss? Had not letters been received from one who had
witnessed the execution with the assurance that ‘everything was conducted
with the greatest decency,’ and had not the writer, traveling over France
‘found the people quiet and generally approving of the public
measures?’[765] Thus the debate raged in drinking-places, on the streets, in
the highways, in the counting—and drawing-rooms—the enemies of the
principles of the Revolution perking up and taking heart and seeming in the
ascendant for a few days.
Meanwhile what of the leaders?
The Federalists were delighted with the reaction. Jefferson observed that
the ladies of Philadelphia ‘of the first circle are open-mouthed against the
murder of a sovereign, and generally speak those sentiments which their
more cautious husbands smother.’ Tennant, the French Minister, at length
‘openly hoisted the flag of monarchy by going into deep mourning for his
prince,’ and discontinued his visits to Jefferson, who interpreted it as ‘a
necessary accompaniment to this pious duty.’ More significant to the keen-
eyed politician was the observation that ‘a connection between him and
Hamilton seems to be springing up.’[766] Without indecent manifestations
of pleasure over the King’s death, Jefferson found some satisfaction with
the tendency to render ‘monarchs amenable to punishment like any other
criminal.’[767] Madison was quite as unresponsive to pity. ‘If he was a
traitor he ought to be punished like any other man,’ he wrote Jefferson.[768]
If these clever politicians were not impressed with the cries of
commiseration, it was due to their appraisement of the noise. It was the first
plausible and safe opportunity for the enemies of French democracy to
denounce the movement they despised, and they made the most of it. Even
so, for a few days the Hamiltonians were riding the crest of the wave.
Then another sea change.
IV
George III had joined the Coalition of the Kings, and the familiar
redcoats were marching with the rest to crush the Revolution, and
democracy. Here was something the masses could understand—monarchy
against republicanism, autocracy and aristocracy against democracy, kings
against people. The plain man of ‘no particular importance’ looked about to
see the effect. Yes, the old Tories who had hobnobbed with the British
officers while the ragged Continentals walked barefoot through the snows
of Valley Forge were partisans of England—against France. The duty of the
patriot was clear—France against England. The cry was spontaneous with
the masses, and rent the heavens. Even then we owed a debt to Lafayette.
Poor imbecile Louis was forgotten, the guillotine faded from the view. ‘Ça
Ira!’ Even the children of Philadelphia had learned enough French to sing
‘La Marseillaise,’ and they sang it right lustily even before the windows of
the Binghams. Did we not have a treaty with France that we had been glad
to sign? Was not our own existence involved in the European struggle now?
The Republic of France crushed by the allied monarchs to-day—our turn to-
morrow.
And the partisans of England—who were they? The old American
Tories, the rich merchants operating on English capital, the crooked
speculators fawning on the money-lenders of Europe, the aristocrats kow-
towing to the roués of a degenerate nobility in the homes of the moneyed
aristocracy, the politicians who excluded the poor man from the polls.
The effect of the English declaration of war was magical. Again the old
‘rabble’ that precipitated the American Revolution poured into the streets,
swarmed into the saloons, formed into processions and marched. And why
not? England was still our enemy, impressing our seamen, retaining our
western posts in defiance of the treaty, playing havoc with our commerce.
Were the pioneers on the fringe of the western forests in daily danger of the
tomahawk? England was responsible—so most of the argument ran. Now
was the time to stand up and be counted—for the two republics or the
Coalition of the Kings. Thus the reasoning, and it caught on and flashed and
flamed like a conflagration sweeping the sun-parched grass of the plains.
To Hamilton this new burst of frenzied friendship for the French was
alarming. Washington was at Mount Vernon. His immediate presence in
Philadelphia was imperatively needed. He and he alone could stem the
rising tide. It was setting in heavily against the English. On April 8th,
Hamilton sat at his desk writing his chief a confirmation of the war between
England and France with the sly comment that ‘the whole current of
commercial intelligence ... indicates thus far an unexceptionable conduct on
the part of the English Government toward the vessels of the United States.’
This, he added, ‘is received here with very great satisfaction as favorable to
the continuance of peace ... which may be said to be both universal and
ardent.’
As his pen traveled over the paper the ‘rabble’ was shouting for war in
the streets, and Jefferson was expressing the hope that the English
interference with our vessels would ‘not force us into war.’ If he could only
have looked over his rival’s shoulder as he wrote!
Washington hastened back to Philadelphia.
V
He immediately gathered his Cabinet about him for a momentous
decision. Genêt, young, dashing, audacious, had arrived in Charleston and
would soon present his credentials as the Minister of the French Republic.
He might even refer to the treaty in which we had pledged ourselves to
guarantee the French possessions in the West Indies, and to throw open the
ports of America to the prizes of the privateers of our ally while closing
them to her enemies. It was a treaty we had been delighted to get, and now
it rose to plague us—but there it was. Worse still, the people in the streets
understood the nature of the pledge.
It was not Hamilton’s way to concede to Jefferson a primacy where
foreign relations were involved, and he had not been inactive while
awaiting the return of Washington. Jay and King had been consulted
particularly as to the receiving of Genêt. Neither could find any pretext for
refusing to receive him; both thought he should be received with
qualifications. Uppermost in the minds of all three was the treaty—the
necessity of evading its obligations.[769] Having decided on the policy of
Jefferson’s department, Hamilton took no chances, and prepared the list of
questions to be submitted to the Cabinet, which Washington copied in his
own handwriting, but Jefferson was not deceived as to the authorship.[770]
There were no illusions on Jefferson’s part as to his position that April day
in the room in the Morris house. There was Hamilton, eager, not a little
domineering, who had prepared Washington’s questions on which the
Secretary of State had not been consulted; and Knox, big, pudgy, a bit
flamboyant, complacent, and proud of his utter subserviency to Hamilton;
and Randolph, with a legalistic mind capable of refining away any position
he might take.
Should Genêt be received?
Yes, said Hamilton, with qualifications. Yes, said Jefferson,
unqualifiedly. Yes, with qualifications, said Knox, dutifully echoing
Hamilton, and, says Jefferson, ‘acknowledging at the same time, like the
fool he is, that he knew nothing about it.’[771] Randolph agreed with
Jefferson.
Let him be received, said Hamilton, with the distinct understanding that
we must reserve for future consideration the binding force of the treaties.
There was no proof that Louis had been guilty, and evidence that the
republicans in France had actually premeditated a plan to get rid of
monarchical power.[772] There was no proof that the execution was an act
of national justice, and all the courts in Europe held a different view.[773] In
truth, ‘almost all Europe ... seems likely to be armed ... with the intention of
restoring ... the royalty in the successor of the deceased monarch.’[774] If
our treaty obligations proved disadvantageous, we should have the right to
renounce them.[775] Respect the right of a nation to change its form of
government? Yes. Receive its ambassador? Yes. But to throw our weight
into the scale for the new republic might be lacking ‘in national delicacy
and decorum.’[776] As to our obligations under the treaty, there were none,
for France was waging an offensive war. The coalition of the monarchs to
crush the republic forced the war? Perhaps—but France made the first
formal declaration of hostilities.[777]
Jefferson approached the question from a diametrically opposite point of
view. ‘The reception of the Minister at all,’ he said, ‘is an acknowledgment
of the legitimacy of their government; and if the qualifications meditated
are to deny that legitimacy, it will be a curious compound which is to deny
and admit the same thing.’ The abrogation of the treaties? ‘I consider the
people who constitute a society as the source of all authority in that nation,’
he said: ‘as free to transact their common concerns by any agents they think
proper; to change these agents individually, or the organization of them in
form or function whenever they please; that all the acts done by these
agents under the authority of the nation, are obligatory to them and inure to
their use, and can in no wise be annulled or affected by any change in the
form of government.... Consequently the treaties between the United States
and France were not treaties between the United States and Louis Capet, but
between the two nations of America and France; and the nations remaining
in existence, though both of them have since changed their forms of
government, the treaties are not annulled by these changes.’[778] All the
Cabinet agreed to a proclamation forbidding Americans from participating
in the war, to the unqualified reception of Genêt while holding the treaties
in abeyance, and to the issuing of a proclamation.
With the appearance of the proclamation, the storm broke.
VI
This had seemed inevitable to Jefferson from the beginning.[779]
Madison, then in Virginia, wrote that the proclamation ‘wounds the national
honor by seeming to disregard the stipulated duties to France,’ and ‘wounds
the popular feeling by a seeming indifference to the cause of liberty.’[780]
The party issue was made. The Hamiltonians were sympathetic toward
monarchical France, hostile to revolutionary France, friendly to England;
the Jeffersonians were friendly to revolutionary France, hostile to the
Bourbons, and unfriendly to the policy of Pitt in England. The heart of the
Hamiltonians beat in tune to the martial steps of the Coalition of the Kings
marching on the French frontier; that of the Jeffersonians was with the
French peasants hurrying to defend their soil and revolution. And the
overwhelming sentiment of the Nation was with Jefferson.
Instantly the Democratic masses saw in the coming of Genêt the
opportunity for the manifestation of their feelings. There was much in the
personality, appearance, and background of this ardent diplomat of the
Gironde to explain the fervent enthusiasm with which he was received.
Washington had been warned in advance by Morris, the Minister to France,
that he was an ‘upstart’—not a bad estimate, as it turned out, but the
President had abundant proof that all the French republicans were upstarts.
[781] He was not an upstart, however, in that he did not belong in the great
world of high politics and society. For almost half a century his father had
been in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and his celebrated sister, Madame
Campan, had been one of the ladies of Marie Antoinette, of whom he had
been a prime favorite. A familiar figure among the fashionable young
dandies of Versailles, he had served for a while as the secretary of one of
the brothers of the monarch. An extraordinarily brilliant youth, he had
translated the ‘History of Eric XIV’ at the age of twelve, with historical
notes of his own. Entering the diplomatic service, with the blessings of the
Queen, he had served as attaché at the courts of Berlin, Vienna, London,
and St. Petersburg. He spoke several languages with the fluency of a native.
A romantic figure, this young man, handsome, elegant in manner, eloquent
and entertaining in conversation, gracious, friendly, impulsive, with the
virtues to neutralize the vices of his years.
If the reception he received in the aristocratic city of Charleston was
enough to turn his head, it was nothing to the continuous ovation accorded
him as he proceeded slowly on his month’s journey to Philadelphia.
Farmers flocked to the rough roads to cheer him and offer him produce at a
loss. In every town he was a conquering hero, and everywhere he was
greeted with the strains of ‘Ça Ira’ and orators paid tribute to France and the
principles of its Revolution. The ringing of bells, the shouting of the
multitude wearing liberty caps and waving French flags—such the sights
and sounds that greeted him everywhere. Nor was this charming young
diplomat pleasing to the Democratic rabble alone. At Baltimore, Justice
Iredell of the Supreme Court was impressed with his ‘fine open
countenance, and pleasing unaffected manner.’[782] Federalist Iredell failed
to find the ‘upstart’ who was so conspicuous to Federalist Morris.
As the reports of the continuous ovation dribbled into Philadelphia,
Hamilton and the Federalists were alarmed and disgusted, Jefferson
delighted. Here was proof that the people were sound in their
republicanism. Better still, here were the masses making themselves felt in
public affairs for the first time. Even better, they were casting aside the
spirit of humility, and standing erect with their sovereignty under their hats.
While Genêt was proceeding to the capital, Jefferson was writing joyously
to Monroe of the ‘old spirit of ‘76 rekindling the newspapers from Boston
to Charleston’ and forcing ‘the monocrat papers ... to publish the most
furious philippics against England.’[783] And Madison was quite as pleased.
He had hoped for a reception that would make ‘the cant of the cities’ and
the ‘cold caution of the Government’ less offensive.[784]
Meanwhile, as Genêt approached, the Democrats in Philadelphia,
suspecting that the Government hoped ‘to prevent a joyful reception,’ were
determined to disappoint that hope. ‘An Old Soldier,’ in a stirring reminder
of French services in the American Revolution, declared that ‘if after such
recollections you will hesitate to welcome their ambassador, I will mourn
over the departed virtue of my country.’[785]
The appeal was not made in vain. Freneau and Bache in their papers
were arousing the emotions of the people. The former was publishing
Grey’s speech in Parliament against going to war with France. ‘A shining
character,’ thought the editor.[786] He was also informing his readers that
the news of our neutrality ‘gave much satisfaction to the English
nation.’[787] Meanwhile, the ‘rabble,’ embracing such characters as
Rittenhouse, Dr. Hutchinson, and A. J. Dallas, was making preparations.
The Minister would be met at Gray’s Ferry, and every one who possibly
could should go. The cannon on L’Ambascade would roar the
announcements of the hero’s approach early enough to permit all who
wished to reach the Ferry in time.[788]
It was at this time that a strange rumor was floating about the streets,
taverns, and beer-houses of the city. Count de Noailles had arrived in
Philadelphia at nine o’clock on the night of May 3d, commissioned as
Minister by the former Princes at Coblentz, and at a very late hour at night
had been received by Washington at the Morris house where the two ‘were
in private conversation until near morning.’ The Count had arrived—every
one knew it. What sort of treachery was this? So this was the reason the
Government was trying to discourage the reception to Genêt.[789] The
people would see to that.
Thus, Genêt was met at Gray’s Ferry by an immense throng with
thunderous cheers—cheers that accompanied him all the way to the City
Tavern. The streets packed, throbbing with joy. Looking out over the
excited multitude, Genêt ‘was quite overcome with the affectionate joy that
appeared on every face,’ according to a lady of Philadelphia who shared it.
‘It is true,’ she said, ‘that a few disaffected persons did try to check the
ardor of the people, but they had the mortification to find all their efforts
blasted and were obliged themselves to join the general torrent and affect a
cordiality ... contrary to the feelings of their hearts.’ A truly inspiring
spectacle. ‘It would be impossible, my dear, to give you any idea of the
scene.’[790] Then followed the formal welcome. Resolutions were prepared
at the home of Charles Biddle, were adopted enthusiastically at an immense
meeting in the State House yard—then on in a body to the City Tavern,
Biddle leading the way and setting a merry pace. Ever and anon he received
a frantic plea from Dr. Hutchinson, ‘fat enough to act the character of
Falstaff without stuffing,’ to slow up, and with sardonic humor Biddle
hurried on. The corpulent doctor reached the hotel in a state of complete
exhaustion. But it was worth it. ‘Ça Ira!’ Long live the French Republic and
damnation to its foes![791] Then the dinner at O’Eller’s, the finest the city
had ever seen, at four dollars a plate, with Genêt thrilling the diners by
singing the French fighting song, the audience roaring ‘Ça Ira,’ liberty caps
passing around, toasts fervent and fiery. ‘What hugging and rugging!’
grumbled a Philadelphian a quarter of a century later. ‘What addressing and
caressing! What mountebanking and chanting with liberty caps and the
other wretched trumpery of sans-culotte foolery!’[792] When Genêt called
on Jefferson, he was cordially received, but there was a drop in temperature
when he presented his credentials to Washington, whose sober and
restrained manner seemed cold to the Frenchman after the reception from
the people. Worse still, he found portraits of Louis XVI and Marie
Antoinette in the room. Enough, quite enough, had been done to turn the
head of a stronger character than he. But the Philadelphia lady was right—
many who hated the Revolution simulated enthusiasm, and one day Knox,
Bingham, and other leading Federalists might have been seen going aboard
L’Ambascade with Genêt to partake of a fraternal dinner.[793]
VII
Thus the popular protest against neutrality between England and France
rose in a crescendo to a scream. Be patient with England? scoffed a Boston
writer. What, with the western posts still held, the Indian wars, the
impressment of American sailors on the sea?[794] The country’s grievances
against the English were mobilized and marched to the accompaniment of
hisses. A resident of Pittsburgh wrote an open letter to Washington against
neutrality. ‘I doubt much whether it is the disposition of the United States to
preserve the condition you enjoin. It may be the disposition of those who
draw from funds but from no one else.’[795] Thus encouraged, ‘Veritas’
grasped his pen. ‘I am aware, sir, that some court satellites may have
deceived you’—not difficult to impose on a ruler ‘particularly if so much
buoyed up by official importance as to think it beneath his dignity to mix
occasionally with the people.’[796] Freneau, who began to print a series of
satirical poems attacking Washington, sardonically sent two copies of each
issue to his desk. The great man fumed, fretted, occasionally burst into rage.
‘Civic’ launched his thunderbolts against ‘incendiaries ... who have lately
outraged decency ... by insulting Washington,’[797] and Fenno rushed to the
defense with stupid denunciations of all critics as anarchists and traitors.
The men in the streets jeered their disapproval.
Thus, the summer of 1793 was one of utter madness. Mechanics were
reading the speeches of Mirabeau; clerks were poring over the reports of
revolutionary chiefs; college students were finding Paine preferable to
Virgil; and even the women were reading, with flushed cheeks, Barlow’s
‘Conspiracy of Kings.’ Others too illiterate to read were stalking the narrow
streets like conquerors, jostling the important men of the community with
intent, and sneering at the great. Men were equal. The people’s day had
dawned. Down the streets swaggered the mob looking for lingering relics of
royalty to tear or order down. A medallion enclosing a bas-relief of George
III with his crown, on the eastern front of Christ’s Church, caught its eye.
Down with it! The church officials did not hesitate, but tore it down. On
swept the mob in search of other worlds to conquer. Occasionally the lower
element, drinking itself drunk, staggered out of the beer-houses to shout
imprecations on a government that would not war on England.
Not wholly without provocation, these outbursts. Fenno’s fulsome
snobbery was disgusting to people of sense, and the English sailors in
Philadelphia did not help. When four of these jolly tars attacked and all but
murdered a lone French sailor without a rebuke from the city officials,
Bache’s paper warned that the friends of the French would ‘take signal
vengeance on such infamous banditti.’ When, in New York, the aristocrats
of the ‘new and elegant coffee-house’ and the exclusive Belvedere Club
were ‘swallowing potent draughts to the annihilation of liberty,’ notice was
served that unless suppressed ‘a band of Mohawks, Oneidas, and Senecas
will take upon themselves that necessary duty’—for Tammany was the very
heart of the French movement in New York.[798] ‘Ça Ira!’ The people were
the masters, and even in the theaters they went to dictate to managers and
actors. When Hodkinson, a favorite actor, appeared, as his rôle required, in
the uniform of a British officer, he was hissed. ‘Take it off!’ shouted the
crowd; but when the quick-witted actor smilingly explained that he
represented a bully, the jeers were turned to cheers.[799] On then with the
play. The orchestras played ‘La Marseillaise,’ the galleries sang ‘Ça Ira,’
the managers shunted Shakespeare and Sheridan aside for ‘Tyranny
Suppressed,’ ‘Louis XVI,’ and ‘The Demolition of the Bastile.’ In Boston,
where the Federalists were firm, the Boston Theater continued to cater to
their tastes, but even there the Haymarket drew the greater crowds with
drama for the Democrats.
Everywhere liberty caps were worn and liberty poles were raised, and
men and women became ‘Citizen’ and ‘Citizeness,’ while the Federalists
roared their glee to keep up courage, making merry in their letters and
through their papers at the expense of the ‘citness’:
‘No citness to my name, I’ll have, says Kate,
Though Boston lads so much about it prate;
I’ve asked its meaning, and our Tom, the clown,
Says darn it ‘t means “woman of the town.”[800]
From Hartford the witty Chauncey Goodrich wrote Wolcott that ‘our
citizenesses quite execrate their new name,’ and that while ‘they will have
no objection to being called biped in common with men, if it can clearly be
shown that term denotes nothing above the foot or ankle, but as it comes so
near they are suspicious of mischief.’[801] What a world! What a world
‘agog to be all equal to French barbers.’[802]
Then, suddenly, these Federalists ceased to grin, when Democratic
Clubs, suggestive of those of Paris, appeared like magic everywhere,
differing according to the community and character of their leadership. It
was not riff-raff in Philadelphia where David Rittenhouse was president,
but it was sinister enough with its bold assertion that free men should
‘regard with attention and discuss without fear the conduct of public
servants.’[803] That at Norfolk summoned patriots to a courageous
expression of their sentiments in answer to ‘the tyrants of the world’ united
‘to crush the infant spirit of freedom’ in France.[804] Strangely enough, they
were nowhere so extreme as in Charleston where the ‘Saint Cecilia Society’
scorned the membership of plebeians or men in trade; and where Robert
Goodloe Harper, fresh from the country and poor, rose rapidly to fame as
the vice-president of the Jacobin Club, wearing a ‘red rouge with great
grace and dignity.’[805] And nowhere did they mean so much to the
Jeffersonians as in New England where they were giving political
importance to the masses. Even the Germans of Philadelphia organized to
serve liberty and equality in their native tongue.[806]
The shrieks of protest from the Federalists against these clubs is
inexplicable to the twentieth century. Like innumerable clubs for public
purposes to-day, they were composed of the wise and foolish, the vicious
and virtuous, but their purpose was to discuss and disseminate information
on public affairs. Some then, as now, passed asinine resolutions, but that
which alarmed the Hamiltonians was that they created power for the
masses. Had not Fenno preached and preached that the masses were to be
ruled and satisfied? The merchants should have their Chambers of
Commerce; the financiers and even speculators could organize to influence
public action—but what right had the ‘man of no particular importance’ to
interfere?
In brief, these clubs were vicious because democratic. These
‘demoniacal societies,’ as Wolcott preferred to call them, were ‘nurseries of
sedition’ because ‘they are formed for the avowed purpose of a general
influence and control upon measures of government.’[807] It was ‘sedition’
in those days for people of no special significance to hold views in
opposition to the policies of their rulers. It was the kind of sedition that
Jefferson liked. From his home on the river he watched their organizations
multiply and grow with a fond, hopeful interest. They were his Citizens’
Training Camps where the army he was to lead to victory was being trained
for political war.
VIII
Meanwhile, how fared neutrality on the part of England and France? On

the part of Genêt, badly enough. Week by week some outrage was
committed; and, worse still, the young fanatic was persuading himself of
the propriety of his actions. The cheers in the streets convinced him that he
could defy the President and appeal with safety to the people. He could hear
the comparatively few extremists because they shouted loudest. Day by day
he was becoming more intolerable. Devoted to the cause of revolutionary
France, Jefferson sought to curb the impetuosity of its Minister in the
interest of the cause, but toward the latter part of June he was plainly
worried.[808]
The British were as arrogant and impudent. Outrages on American ships
and the impressment of American seamen were almost daily occurrences,
and protests to the Government in London brought no response.[809] ‘Ships
stopped, insulted, searched; cargoes confiscated; seamen seized, impressed,
and thrown into jails; until Thomas Pinckney, the American Minister in
London, was overwhelmed with his correspondence with Newgate Jail—for
the poor wretches there were begging him for succor he could not give. He
was met with a courteous smile and contemptuous indifference.’[810]
In American waters British as well as French were arming and
equipping, and into American ports sailed English vessels with prizes taken
in direct violation of the treaty with France. Then came the Orders in
Council of June 8th ordering British ships to capture and take to British
ports all vessels with foodstuffs destined for France.
On the day before this Order went into effect, a goodly company of
English sympathizers met at Richardet’s Tavern in Philadelphia to celebrate
the birthday of George III. An elegant dinner, unmarred by the presence of
any part of the ‘rabble,’ with a guest list reading like a page from a Social
Register. Enthusiasm bubbled, and ‘Ça Ira’ was not sung. The orchestra
played ‘God Save the King.’ That monarch was toasted, and they toasted
the Queen, and Hammond the British Minister, and Phineas Bond, the
British Consul. They toasted Washington once and ‘Neutrality’ twice. And
they brought a perfect evening to a close with another toast: ‘The Red Coats
and Wooden Walls of Old England.’[811] Fenno in the Federalist organ
published a sympathetic account which was read with varying emotions
from Mrs. Bingham’s library to the beer saloon on Front Street. Even the
soberest began to wonder if neutrality was one-sided. Nowhere was
neutrality appealing to the masses as just, wise, or fair.
One June morning, Washington drove out of Philadelphia in a phaëton
and pair for a fortnight’s visit home,[812] and six days later the first of a
brilliant and powerful series of articles by ‘Pacificus’ began to run in
Fenno’s paper. By the light of the candles, Hamilton was rushing into the
breach with a pen that was mightier than a sword.
IX
No one doubted the identity of ‘Pacificus.’ None but the man in the
Pemberton house was capable of such brilliancy, audacity, and dash in
controversy. His purpose was twofold—to justify the Proclamation of
Neutrality, and convince the people that they had greatly exaggerated the
services of France in the Revolution. In the first paper he defended the
constitutional right of the President to issue the Proclamation without a
consultation with Congress. In the second he released the country from all
treaty obligations on the ground that France was waging an offensive war.
In the third he appealed to fear with the assertion that if we sought to serve
our ally we should be forced to wage war on the sea against the combined
fleets of the coalition. In the fifth he treated the claims of France on
American gratitude as trivial and absurd.[813] In the sixth he paid a tribute
to the stupid Louis, attacking the French people for executing their king. In
the last he urged the timeliness and necessity of the Proclamation. Brilliant
letters, mingling truth and sophistry, but readable—and they were read with
mingled emotions. Society was enchanted, the ‘mob’ roared, and even
Jefferson, who never made the Hamiltonian mistake of underestimating a
foe, was concerned.
When ‘Pacificus’ was appearing, Jefferson was summering under his
plane trees near Philadelphia, Madison was sweltering in his Virginia home,
wishing nothing better than a release from political duties. As Jefferson sat
under the trees with Fenno’s paper before him, he instantly appreciated the
necessity of a reply, and he ordered Madison to the task. Nothing could
have been more distasteful to the mild little man suffering ‘a distressing
lassitude from the excessive and continued heat of the season,’ and with
avowed reluctance he undertook the task.[814] But in August, Madison’s
replies were running in all the papers—forceful, spirited, rapid in reasoning,
making telling points with citations from Hamilton’s articles in ‘The
Federalist.’[815] He denied the power of the President to declare a treaty no
longer operative. Proof? The best—Hamilton’s Number 75 of ‘The
Federalist.’ Challenge the right of a nation to abolish an old government
and establish a new? Why, it ‘is the only lawful tenure by which the United
States hold their existence as a nation.’
But the two sets of letters merely served to keep the discussion going.
The papers were doing their part. ‘This discussion must cease,’ wrote
Fenno. ‘The Government has said we must be neutral and the people have
no right to question its wisdom.’ Freneau sniffed and snorted forth satirical
articles on the infallibility of rulers.[816] No writer presuming to castigate
the democrats was spared. ‘Justice’ was pouring forth indignant eloquence
against them. Ah, sneered Freneau—
‘Because some pumpkin shells and lobster claws

Thrown o’er his garden wall by Braintree’s Duke,[817]
Have chanced to fall within your greedy jaws—
. . . . . . .
Because some treasury luncheons you have gnawed
Like rats that play upon the public store ...’[818]
The bitterness intensified with the heat of the summer. A satirical letter
ascribed to a Tory in Philadelphia to one in London rejoicing over the turn
American affairs had taken, went the rounds of the Democratic press.
Washington was not spared. He ‘is well surrounded, well advised.’
Hamilton moved the correspondent to rapture—‘that great prop of our
cause, that intrepid enemy of liberty.’ Just read the third of the ‘Pacificus’
letters ‘and judge ... if there is anything criminal which honest Pacificus has
not undertaken to defend.’[819]
‘A blessed situation truly,’ exclaimed ‘Consistent Federalist,’ referring
to the recent Orders in Council. ‘Camillus and Pacificus come forward and
vindicate the lenity of Britain; continue to blast the French, and vent their
spleen on the only nation that seems disposed to befriend us.’[820] ‘Go on,
then, Pacificus,’ wrote ‘Ironicus,’ ‘traduce the French nation and the
combined powers of Europe will thank you for your assiduity.’[821] Soon
the Democrats were grinning over the satirical announcement of the
forthcoming book ‘collected from the immortal work of Pacificus’ on how
to destroy free government by ‘aristocracy and despotism.’[822]
But Hamilton could afford to disregard the attacks—he had Genêt

working on his side. Never had conditions seemed so promising to the light-
headed and hot-headed young diplomat than on July 4th, when he had
licked his chops over the opportunity to decline an invitation to dine with
the Cincinnati on the ground that he would not sit down at the same table
with the Viscount de Noailles.[823] There were other celebrations in
Philadelphia more to his taste.
It was at this moment that the brig Little Sarah, a French prize, was
being rapidly converted into a privateer with the view to sending it to sea
regardless of neutrality. Governor Mifflin sent his secretary, A. J. Dallas,
scurrying through the midnight streets to Genêt’s residence to order him to
keep the vessel in port. The young fire-eater raved and ranted, and said
strange things about appealing over the head of the President to the people.
Jefferson, hearing of the incident, hurried in on Sunday from the country,
listened to Genêt’s cocky talk, attempted to reason with him without
success, but left with the feeling that the ship would not be sent to sea
before Washington’s return from Mount Vernon.
The Cabinet met on Monday at the State House. Hamilton and Knox
proposed establishing a battery on Mud Island and firing on the vessel if it
sought to reach the sea. Hamilton vehemently denounced the French.
Jefferson, having in mind his representations to England, was not at all sure
that the violations of neutrality were on one side. He stoutly protested
against any measure that might lead to war without a consultation with
Washington.
Three days later the Little Sarah was still in Philadelphia and
Washington returned. Hamilton and Knox were instantly on his neck.
Jefferson, ill with fever, had prepared all the papers in the case for the
President’s use, marked them for ‘instant attention,’ left them on his desk,
and retired to his home. Glancing at the papers, Washington sent a
peremptory summons to Jefferson’s office. Learning then of his absence, a
note was sent to the sick man’s home sizzling with indignation over Genêt’s
threat, and requiring Jefferson’s opinion on procedure ‘even before to-
morrow morning, for the vessel may be gone.’ Jefferson kept his temper—
unless it is betrayed in the brevity and cold dignity of the reply: ‘T. J. is
himself of opinion that whatever is aboard of her of arms, ammunition, or
men, contrary to the rules heretofore laid down by the President, ought to be
withdrawn.’
It was after this that the Little Sarah put to sea.
The lunatic caperings of Genêt had been maddening to Jefferson, who
instantly sensed the inevitable reaction against his party, and the ease with
which the sophisticated reasoning of the Federalists could confuse, in the
public mind, the cause of the French Revolution with the insolence of its
Minister. Wherever his influence could be successfully exerted, he divorced
his followers from the addle-brained diplomat who had become raving mad.
To Madison he complained of the continued adherence of Freneau and
Greenleaf to Genêt.[824] Dr. Hutchinson had informed him that ‘Genêt has
totally overturned the republican interest in Philadelphia.’ Referring to the
threat to appeal to the people over Washington’s head, he added: ‘I can
assure you it is a fact.’[825]
Justifications for the fears of the leader under the plane trees were soon
reaching him from Madison in Virginia, who had a plan afoot for the
complete divorcing of Genêt from the Jeffersonian Party and from the cause
of the French Republic. He prepared resolutions and arranged for their
adoption in various county meetings in Virginia. One copy was sent to
Edmund Pendleton of Caroline; Monroe was sent with another copy to
Staunton. Still another went to Charlottesville.[826] The first of the county
meetings to adopt the Madison Resolutions was at Caroline with Pendleton
in the chair, and they were hurried to the newspapers throughout the
country. They declared devotion to the Constitution, to the cause of peace,
and to Washington, were warmly appreciative of the debt of gratitude to
France, sympathetic toward her struggle for liberty, and denunciatory of the
attempt to alienate the two republics and to drive the United States in the
direction of monarchy and England.[827] They were sent to Washington,
whose reply must have been galling to the English party with its laudation
of France and the republican principle of government.[828] The Jeffersonian
press gave the reply the widest possible publicity.
Thus, through July, August, and September the two parties contended
over the threat of Genêt, each playing for advantage. Comparatively few
extremists offered any excuse for the ruined Minister, who was despised by
Jefferson and Madison for compromising their party and the cause of
France. ‘His conduct has been that of a madman,’ wrote Madison to
Monroe.[829] Even the Democratic Clubs followed the line laid down in
Madison’s Caroline Resolutions.
XI
Such was the inflammatory state of parties when on August 1st,

Jefferson, Hamilton, Knox, and Randolph arrived at the Morris house to
discuss with Washington the disposition to be made of Genêt.
Knox was not given to finesse when his passions were involved. ‘Send
him out of the country,’ and without ceremony, he said. Publish all the
correspondence in an appeal to the people before Genêt could carry out his
threat, urged Hamilton. For forty-five minutes he spoke impassionedly,
attacking Genêt, denouncing the Democratic Societies, assailing France.
Jefferson, sitting in silence, thought it was an excellent ‘jury speech.’
Randolph spoke in opposition to radical measures, and the meeting
adjourned until the morrow.
The next day Hamilton again took the floor and spoke again for three
quarters of an hour with unrestrained bitterness. As he sat down, Jefferson
rose. He was not alarmed over the Democratic Clubs. They would die if left
alone and would grow on proscription and persecution. Publish the facts
and decisions of the President on the whole foreign controversy? Those
decisions had been reached with divisions in the Cabinet—was it desired to
proclaim that condition to the country? Was it desirable to injure our friend
France with a stab, in the face of her enemies, the allied kings of Europe?
It was here that Knox broke in with references to Freneau’s attacks on
Washington. He had calculated the effect. The President flew into a rage,
and the meeting adjourned because of the turmoil and excitement.[830]
Determined to manage his own department, Jefferson thereupon sat down to
the preparation of a letter to the American Minister in Paris, setting forth
with scrupulous fairness and severity the antics of Genêt, and asking his
recall. The sting to France was removed with an eloquent protestation of
friendship. Hamilton at no time drew so damning and effective an
indictment of Genêt, but all this was lost upon him because of the note of
friendliness to France.[831]
Twelve days after the first meeting, the Cabinet again sat about the
council table in the Morris house listening to the Jefferson draft. It was so
unassailable that it was unanimously accepted—with one exception.
Jefferson had referred to a possible conflict between the two republics as
‘liberty warring on itself.’ Hamilton moved to strike out these words, Knox
parroting his master’s suggestion. Washington favored their retention,
expressing the conviction that France, despite her blunders, was fighting for
liberty; but Randolph voted with Hamilton and Knox against Washington
and Jefferson, and the words were stricken out.[832]
In due time Genêt was recalled. That episode was over. Jefferson had
won his fight to prevent a rupture with France—but it had cost him dearly.
XII
As early as May, Jefferson had been able to put his finger on the French
and English parties in this country. With the English, the fashionable
circles, the merchants trading on English capital, the supporters of the
Treasury, the old Tory families; with the French, the small merchants, the
tradesmen, mechanics, farmers, ‘and every other possible description of our
citizens.’[833] There was no doubt in his mind as to the position of the
social circles of Philadelphia—he was made to feel it. The men were
courteous in his presence, and he still dined occasionally with the Binghams
and Robert Morris, though the ladies were but chillingly polite. The friend
of the ‘filthy democrats,’ as Mrs. Washington is said to have called them,
was, to them, beyond the pale. Mr. Hammond, the English Minister, was
such a charming man! A few of the French noblemen, once numbered
among the dissolute loafers of Versailles, were to be found frequently
drinking Bingham’s wine, paying courtly compliments to the women, and
making love to the daughters of the house a bit clandestinely, as Mrs.
Bingham was to find to her dismay a little later. Not a few of the social
leaders had been ‘presented’ at court in both France and England, and they
never recovered. Others looked forward to a possible presentation as the
consummation of a life’s ambition. Kings were adorable creatures, after all,
and queens were as ‘sweet queens’ as Fanny Burney found hers, and the
nobility was so elegant! As for the ‘people’—were they not as the rabble
who had cut off the head of the lovable Louis? And Jefferson was the
enemy of kings, the idol of the rabble—and what was worse, their defender.
The men thought his principles askew, but the women knew that his heart
was black.
Thus it was fortunate that during the exciting summer of 1793, Jefferson
could retire to the solitude of his murmuring plane trees and let society
buzz. Even the Philadelphia streets were cold to him. Party feeling was
running amuck. Old acquaintances pretended not to see each other as they
passed. It was true everywhere. Even Noah Webster was complaining
bitterly of this party narrowness in New York. ‘Examine the detached clubs
at the Coffee-House,’ he wrote, ‘there you will see persons of the same
family associated. Go into the private families at dinner and on evening
visits, there you will find none but people of the same party.’[834]
When Jefferson remained in town after leaving his office, he spent more
and more time in the library of the Philosophical Society, at the home of Dr.
Rush talking books more than politics, or he went to the welcome shade of
‘Stenton,’ where he was always sure of a cordial greeting from Dr. Logan
and that incomparable Quakeress who was his wife. To Madison he opened
his heart in the lament that he found ‘even the rare hours of relaxation
sacrificed to the society of persons ... of whose hatreds I am conscious even
in those moments of conviviality when the heart wishes most to open itself
to the effusions of friendship and confidence, cut off from my family and
friends ... in short giving everything I love in exchange for everything I

Full Chapter Optimal Lightweight Construction Principles Federico Maria Ballo PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Chapter Optimal Lightweight Construction Principles Federico Maria Ballo PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Chapter Optimal Lightweight Construction Principles Federico Maria Ballo PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimal Lightweight Construction

Principles Federico Maria Ballo

Residential Construction Academy: Basic Principles for

Basic Principles of Marxism Leninism A Primer Jose

Compartment Syndrome Federico Coccolini

Principles and practices of commercial construction

Building Construction Methods and Systems: Principles,

Lightweight polymer composite structures: design and

Optimal 16th Edition Daniel Goleman

Lightweight and sustainable materials for automotive

Giampiero Mastinu Giorgio Previati

Giampiero Mastinu Giorgio Previati

ISBN 978-3-030-60834-7 ISBN 978-3-030-60835-4 (eBook)

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA Panos Y. Papalambros

sound analysis based on Pareto theory. Classical mechanical engineering design

Airport lighting poles have undergone in the last decades a considerable

Fig. 3 Evolution of luxury sports car frame (courtesy of Ferrari S.p.A.)

Milan, Italy Federico Maria Ballo

Acknowledgements The Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research is acknowledged

1 Engineering Design and Optimal Design of Complex Mechanical

2 Introduction to the Optimal Design of Complex Mechanical

4.2 Pareto-Optimal Set for the Beam of Arbitrary Cross-Sectional

7 Bending of Lightweight Inﬂated Circular Tubes—Optimal

11 Topology Optimisation of Continuum Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

1.1 Engineering Design

1.1.1 Stages of the Design Process

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 1

problems, by the establishment of function and by the search for appropriate

Creativity is a very important component of some design phases. According to the

2 Actually it depends on the product developed.

1.2 Optimal Design of Complex Mechanical Systems

1.2.1 Fundamental Hypothesis

1.2.2 Single- and Multi-criteria Optimisation

When one thinks of optimisation in general, or about well-known optimisation prob-

1.2.3 Multi-criteria Optimisation (MCO)

• Search is needed to find solutions,

This last task or activity of MCO is often called Multi-Criteria Decision-Making

1.2.4 Multi-objective Optimisation (MOO)

Fig. 1.2 Multi-objective programming (MOP) is a part of multi-objective optimisation (MOO)

1.2.5 Multi-objective Programming (MOP)

Multi-Objective Programming (MOP) is a theory belonging to MOO (Fig. 1.2). By

1.3 Complex Systems

objects and non-linear dynamical sub-systems. The studies on complex systems

1.4 System Models

1.5 System Performances, Criteria, Objective Functions

By definition, the physical behaviour of an actual physical system is described by a

f = { f 1 (x), . . . , f i (x), . . . , f n o f (x)}T

1.6 System Parameters, Design Variables

In general, a mathematical system model embodies a set of parameters. Usually,

g = {g1 (x), . . . , gi (x), . . . , gn c (x)}T

xilow ≤ xi ≤ xiup (i = 1, . . . , n dv ) (1.3)

1.8 Space of Design Variables, Space of Objective Functions

1.9 Feasible Design Variables Domain, Design Solution

Often it is not easy to find F . A design solution is represented by a point in the

4 This is a general definition of constraints. If a constraint should be expressed by gi (x) ≥ 0 setting

Given a design problem, a number of criteria are formulated. As a rule in MCO

1.10 Multi-objective Programming (MOP)

1.10.1 Non-linear Programming (NLP) and Constrained

The subset X ⊂ n dv is the design variable space of definition.

The subset X ⊂ n dv is the design variable space of definition.

(i) A subset X ∈ n dv is convex if