From Computer-Aided (Detailed) Design to Automatic Topology and Shape Generation

  • Gaetano Cascini
  • Federico Rotini


This chapter surveys the evolution of Computer-Aided systems in terms of support to the earliest stages of design and more specifically to the embodiment design phase, when functional requirements and related structural and manufacturing constraints must be translated into a working solution, i.e., the generation of topology and shape of a mechanical part. After an introductory discussion about the context and the limitations of current systems, the chapter summarizes the research outcomes of two projects: the first, namely PROSIT (From Systematic Innovation to Integrated Product Development), aimed at bridging systematic innovation practices and Computer-Aided Innovation (CAI) tools with Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems, by means of Design Optimization tools. The second, coordinated by the authors, is a prosecution of PROSIT and proposes the hybriDizAtion of Mono-Objective optimizations (DAeMON) as a strategy for automatic topology and shape generation. The latter is clarified by means of two exemplary applications, one related to a literature example about Genetic Algorithms applied to multi-objective optimization, the second to an industrial case study from the motor-scooter sector.


Optimization Task Product Lifecycle Management Radial Stiffness Product Development Cycle Good Compromise Solution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author would like to thank Alessandro Cardillo from Politecnico di Milano and Francesco Saverio Frillici of University of Florence for their contribution to the development of this research.


  1. 1.
    Cavallucci D, Eltzer T (2007) Parameter network as a means for driving problem solving process. Int J Comput Appl Technol 30(1/2):125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pahl G, Beitz W (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 3rd edn. Springer-Verlag, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Qin SF, Harrison R, West AA, Jordanov IN, Wright DK (2003) A framework of web-based conceptual design. Comput Ind 50(2):153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tovey M, Owen J (2000) Sketching and direct CAD modeling in Automotive Design. Des Stud 21(6):569–588Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leon N (2009) The future of computer-aided innovation. Comput Ind 60(8):539–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Altshuller GS (1979) Creativity as an exact science. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cugini U, Cascini G, Muzzupappa M, Nigrelli V (2009) Integrated computer-aided innovation: the PROSIT approach. Comput Ind 60(8):629–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang HT, Chen JL (2004) The conflict-problem-solving CAD software integrating TRIZ into eco-innovation. Adv Eng Software 35:553–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leon N, Cueva JM, Silva D, Gutierrez J (2007) Automatic shape and topology variations in 3D CAD environments for genetic optimization. Int J Comput Appl Technol 30(1/2):59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Albers A, Leon N, Aguayo H, Maier T (2007) Comparison of strategies for the optimization/innovation of crankshaft balance Trends in computer-aided innovation. Springer, New York, pp 201–210Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kicinger R, Arciszewski T, De Jong K (2005) Evolutionary computation and structural design: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Comput Struct 83:1943–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rozvany GIN (2001) Aims, scope, methods, history and unified terminology of computer-aided topology optimization in structural mechanics. Structu Multidiscip Optim 21(2):90–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hutabarat W, Parks GT, Jarret JP, Dawes WN, Clarkson PJ (2008) Aerodynamic topology optimisation using an implicit representation and a multi objective genetic algorithm. Artificial evolution, Lecture. notes in computer science, vol 4926. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 148–159Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruns TE, Tortorelli DA (2001) Topology optimization of non-linear elastic structures and compliant mechanisms. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 190(26/27):3443–3459MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rozvany GIN (2009) A critical review of established methods of structural topology optimization. Structu Multidiscip Optim 37:217–237MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bendsoe MP, Kikuchi N (1988) Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a homogenization method. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 71:197–224MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bendsoe MP, Sigmund O (2003) Topology optimization theory methods and applications. Springer Verlag, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang SY, Tai K (2005) Structural topology design optimization using genetic algorithms with a bit-array representation. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 194(36–38):3749–3770MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang SY, Tai K (2004) Graph representation for evolutionary structural topology optimization. Comput Struct 82(20,21):1609–1622MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neumaier A (2004) Complete search in continuous global optimization and constraint satisfaction. Acta Numerica 13:271–369MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zuo ZH, Xie YM, Huang X (2009) Combining genetic algorithms with BESO for topology optimization. Structu Multidiscip Optim 38:511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ryoo J, Hajela P (2004) Handling variable string lengths in GA-based structural topology optimization. Structu Multidiscip Optim 26:318–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang SY, Tai K (2005) Structural topology design optimization using genetic algorithms with a bit-array representation. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 194:3749–3770MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aguilar Madeira JF, Rodrigues H, Pina H (2005) Multi-Objective optimization of structures topology by genetic algorithms. Adv Eng Software 36:21–28MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spath D, Neithardt W, Bangert C (2002) Optimized design with topology and shape optimization. P I Mech Eng B-J Eng 216(8):1187–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cascini G, Rissone P, Rotini F (2007) From design optimization systems to geometrical contradictions. Proceedings of the 7th ETRIA TRIZ Future Conference, Kassel University Press, Kassel pp 23–30Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cavallucci D, Khomenko N (2007) From TRIZ to OTSM-TRIZ: addressing complexity challenges in inventive design. Int J Prod Dev 4(1–2):4–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eltzer T, De Guio R (2007) Constraint based modelling as a mean to link dialectical thinking and corporate data. Application to the Design of Experiments. Trends in computer-aided innovation, Springer, New York, pp 145–156Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cardillo A, Cascini G, Frillici FS, Rotini F (2011) Computer-Aided embodiment design through the hybridization of mono objective optimizations for efficient innovation process. Comput Ind 62(4):384–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cardillo A, Cascini G, Frillici FS, Rotini F (2011) Multi-objective topology optimization through GA-based hybridization of partial solutions. Submitted for publication to Engineering with Computers, 2011Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cascini G, Rissone P (2004) Plastics design: integrating TRIZ creativity and semantic knowledge portals. J Eng Des 15(4):405–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    CIMdata (2002) PLM Market Analysis Report., Accessed 24 February 2011
  33. 33.
    Cascini G (2004) State-of-the-Art and trends of Computer-Aided Innovation tools–toward the integration within the Product Development Cycle. Building the information society, vol 156. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Toulouse, pp 461–470Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cardillo A, Cascini G, Frillici F, Rotini F (2011) Embodiment design through the integration of OTSM-TRIZ situation analysis with topological hybridization of partial solutions. Proceedings of the 18th international conference on engineering design (ICED11), CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Becattini N, Borgianni Y, Cascini G, Rotini F (2011) Model and algorithm for computer-aided inventive problem solving. Computer-Aided Design, In Press, Available online 26 February 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2011.02.013

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di MeccanicaPolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Meccanica e Tecnologie Ind.liUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeFirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations