Topology optimization of continuum structures for the uniformity of contact pressures
In this paper, a topology optimization method is developed for elastic continuum structures in frictionless contact to improve the uniformity of contact pressures. The variance constraint of contact pressures is introduced into the standard volume-constrained compliance minimization problem and combined with the three-field SIMP (Solid Isotropic Material with Penalization) model. Two geometric constraints are also incorporated to achieve optimization solutions with desired minimum length scales and clear boundaries without intermediate densities. To ensure a correct evaluation of contact pressure variance, a density threshold method is proposed to assign each contact node pair a certain density value according to the physical densities of its adjacent elements and further to exclude the contact node pairs with density values smaller than the threshold value. The effectiveness of the proposed method is validated through a series of numerical examples including elastic-rigid and elastic-elastic frictionless contact problems. The influence of the variance constraint of contact pressures on the optimization result is discussed in comparison with the standard maximum stiffness design. It concludes that the variance of contact pressures can be reduced at the cost of the structural stiffness, which implies that a trade-off exists between the structural stiffness and the uniformity of contact pressures.
KeywordsTopology optimization Frictionless contact Contact pressure Uniformity Variance
This work is supported by National Key Research and Development Program of China (2017YFB1102800), National Natural Science Foundation of China (11620101002, 11432011), and Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi (2017KW-ZD-11).
- Budynas RG, Nisbett JK (2010) Shigley’s mechanical engineering design, 9th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Collins JA, Busby HR, Staab GH (2010) Mechanical design of machine elements and machines: a failure prevention perspective, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- Mak AFT, Zhang M, Boone DA (2001) State-of-the-art research in lower-limb prosthetic biomechanics-socket interface: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev 38:161–173Google Scholar
- Ruiz C, Nowell D (2000) Designing against fretting fatigue in aeroengines. In: Fuentes M, Elices M, Martín-Meizoso A, Martínez-Esnaola JM (eds) Fracture mechanics: applications and challenges, vol 26. Elsevier, San Sebastian, pp 73–95Google Scholar
- Strömberg N (2010b) Topology optimization of two linear elastic bodies in unilateral contact. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Engineering Optimization, Lisbon, Portugal, September 6–9, 2010Google Scholar
- Strömberg N (2012) Topology optimisation of bodies in unilateral contact by maximizing the potential energy. Paper presented at the Eleventh International Conference on Computational Structures Technology, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 4–7 September, 2012Google Scholar
- Strömberg N (2013) The influence of sliding friction on optimal topologies. In: Stavroulakis GE (ed) Recent advances in contact mechanics: papers collected at the 5th Contact Mechanics International Symposium (CMIS2009), April 28–30, 2009, Chania, Greece. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Strömberg N (2018) Topology optimization of orthotropic elastic design domains with mortar contact conditions. In: Schumacher A, Vietor T, Fiebig S, Bletzinger K-U, Maute K (eds) Advances in structural and multidisciplinary optimization: proceedings of the 12th World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. Springer International Publishing, Braunschweig, pp 1427–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Svanberg K (1995) A globally convergent version of MMA without linesearch. In: Proceedings of the first world congress of structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Goslar, Germany, 1995. pp 9–16Google Scholar
- Zhu JH, Zhang WH, Xia L (2016b) Topology optimization in aircraft and aerospace structures design. Arch Comput Methods Eng:595–622Google Scholar