Advertisement

Robust topology optimization of hinge-free compliant mechanisms with material uncertainties based on a non-probabilistic field model

  • Junjie Zhan
  • Yangjun LuoEmail author
Research Article
  • 15 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Structural Topology Optimization

Abstract

This paper presents a new robust topology optimization framework for hinge-free compliant mechanisms with spatially varying material uncertainties, which are described using a non-probabilistic bounded field model. Bounded field uncertainties are efficiently represented by a reduced set of uncertain-but-bounded coefficients on the basis of the series expansion method. Robust topology optimization of compliant mechanisms is then defined to minimize the variation in output displacement under constraints of the mean displacement and predefined material volume. The nest optimization problem is solved using a gradient-based optimization algorithm. Numerical examples are presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method for circumventing hinges in topology optimization of compliant mechanisms.

Keywords

compliant mechanisms robust topology optimization hinges uncertainty bounded field 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFB0203604) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11472215).

References

  1. 1.
    Shi F, Ramesh P, Mukherjee S. Simulation methods for microelectro-mechanical structures (MEMS) with application to a microtweezer. Computers & Structures, 1995, 56(5): 769–783Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kota S, Joo J, Li Z, et al. Design of compliant mechanisms: Applications to MEMS. Analog Integrated Circuits and Signal Processing, 2001, 29(1–2): 7–15Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sigmund O, Maute K. Topology optimization approaches. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2013, 48(6): 1031–1055MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deaton J D, Grandhi R V. A survey of structural and multidisciplinary continuum topology optimization: Post 2000. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2014, 49(1): 1–38MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pedersen C B W, Buhl T, Sigmund O. Topology synthesis of largedisplacement compliant mechanisms. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2001, 50(12): 2683–2705zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee E, Gea H C. A strain based topology optimization method for compliant mechanism design. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2014, 49(2): 199–207MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ansola R, Veguería E, Canales J, et al. A simple evolutionary topology optimization procedure for compliant mechanism design. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 2007, 44(1–2): 53–62zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang X, Li Y, Zhou S W, et al. Topology optimization of compliant mechanisms with desired structural stiffness. Engineering Structures, 2014, 79: 13–21Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luo Z, Tong L. A level set method for shape and topology optimization of large-displacement compliant mechanisms. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2008, 76(6): 862–892MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhu B, Zhang X. A new level set method for topology optimization of distributed compliant mechanism. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2012, 91(8): 843–871MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luo Z, Zhang N, Ji J, et al. A meshfree level-set method for topological shape optimization of compliant multiphysics actuators. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2012, 223–224: 133–152MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saxena A, Ananthasuresh G K. On an optimal property of compliant topologies. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2000, 19(1): 36–49Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hetrick J A, Kota S. An energy formulation for parametric size and shape optimization of compliant mechanisms. Journal of Mechanical Design, 1999, 121(2): 229–234Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sigmund O. On the design of compliant mechanisms using topology optimization. Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines, 1997, 25(4): 493–524Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deepak S R, Dinesh M, Sahu D K, et al. A comparative study of the formulations and benchmark problems for the topology optimization of compliant mechanisms. Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 2009, 1(1): 011003Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Poulsen T A. A simple scheme to prevent checkerboard patterns and one-node connected hinges in topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2002, 24(5): 396–399Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang N, Zhang X. Compliant mechanisms design based on pairs of curves. Science China. Technological Sciences, 2012, 55(8): 2099–2106Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luo Z, Chen L, Yang J, et al. Compliant mechanisms design using multi-objective topology optimization scheme of continuum structures. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2005, 30(2): 142–154Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhu B, Zhang X, Wang N. Topology optimization of hinge-free compliant mechanisms with multiple outputs using level set method. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2013, 47(5): 659–672MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhu B, Zhang X, Fatikow S. A multi-objective method of hinge-free compliant mechanism optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2014, 49(3): 431–440MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lopes C G, Novotny A A. Topology design of compliant mechanisms with stress constraints based on the topological derivative concept. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2016, 54(4): 737–746MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Assis Pereira A, Cardoso E L. On the influence of local and global stress constraint and filtering radius on the design of hingefree compliant mechanisms. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2018, 58(2): 641–655Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luo Y, Kang Z, Luo Z, et al. Continuum topology optimization with non-probabilistic reliability constraints based on multi-ellipsoid convex model. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2009, 39(3): 297–310MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen S, Chen W, Lee S. Level set based robust shape and topology optimization under random field uncertainties. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2010, 41(4): 507–524MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luo Y, Zhou M, Wang M Y, et al. Reliability based topology optimization for continuum structures with local failure constraints. Computers & Structures, 2014, 143: 73–84Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maute K, Frangopol D M. Reliability-based design of MEMS mechanisms by topology optimization. Computers & Structures, 2003, 81(8–11): 813–824Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lazarov B S, Schevenels M, Sigmund O. Topology optimization considering material and geometric uncertainties using stochastic collocation methods. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2012, 46(4): 597–612MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Doltsinis I, Kang Z. Robust design of structures using optimization methods. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2004, 193(23–26): 2221–2237zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sandgren E, Cameron T M. Robust design optimization of structures through consideration of variation. Computers & Structures, 2002, 80(20–21): 1605–1613Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Asadpoure A, Tootkaboni M, Guest J K. Robust topology optimization of structures with uncertainties in stiffness—Application to truss structures. Computers & Structures, 2011, 89(11–12): 1131–1141Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vanmarcke E. Random Fields: Analysis and Synthesis. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2010zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jiang C, Li W, Han X, et al. Structural reliability analysis based on random distributions with interval parameters. Computers & Structures, 2011, 89(23–24): 2292–2302Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Do D M, Gao W, Song C, et al. Interval spectral stochastic finite element analysis of structures with aggregation of random field and bounded parameters. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2016, 108(10): 1198–1229MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ying X, Lee S, Chen W, et al. Efficient random field uncertainty propagation in design using multiscale analysis. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2009, 131(2): 021006Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Luo Y, Zhan J, Xing J, et al. Non-probabilistic uncertainty quantification and response analysis of structures with a bounded field model. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2019 (in press)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Svanberg K. The method of moving asymptotes—A new method for structural optimization. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1987, 24(2): 359–373MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sigmund O. Morphology-based black and white filters for topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2007, 33(4–5): 401–424Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang F, Lazarov B S, Sigmund O. On projection methods, convergence and robust formulations in topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2011, 43: 767–784zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment, School of Aeronautics and AstronauticsDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations