Advertisement

Grid-Based Topology Optimization of Rigid Body Mechanisms

  • Peter Eberhard
  • Kai Sedlaczek
Chapter
Part of the CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 511)

Abstract

While simulation-based analysis and parameter optimization is state-of-the-art for multibody systems, the process of topology synthesis still relies on the designer’s intuition, experience and ingenuity. The idea of optimization based topology design is to apply optimization techniques already in the early stage of topology synthesis in order to find new design candidates and to eliminate inferior mechanism topologies from the subsequent design process.

Keywords

Topology Optimization Continuation Method Multidisciplinary Optimization Friction Element Quadratic Penalization 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arora, J.S., Huang, M.W. and Hsieh, C.C. Methods for Optimization of Nonlinear Problems With Discrete Variables: A Review. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 8, 69–85, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. Bendsøe, M.P. and Sigmund, O. Topology Optimization. Springer, Berlin, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Branch, M.A., Coleman, T.F. and Li, Y. A Subspace, Interior, and Conjugate Gradient Method for Large-Scale Bound-Constrained Minimization Problems. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 21, 1–23, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruns, T.E. A Reevaluation of the SIMP Method with Filtering and an Alternative Formulation for Solid-Void Topology Optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 30, 426–436, 2005.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrd, R.H., Schnabel, R.B. and Shultz, G.A. Approximate Solution of the Trust Region Problem by Minimization over Two-Dimensional Subspaces. Mathematical Programming, 40, 247–263, 1988.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Coleman, T.F. and Li, Y. On the Convergence of Reflective Newton Methods for Large-Scale Nonlinear Minimization Subject to Bounds. Mathematical Programming, 67, 2, 189–224, 1994.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Haug, E.J. Computer-Aided Kinematics and Dynamics of Mechanical Systems. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. Kawamoto, A., Bendsøe, M.P. and Sigmund, O. Articulated Mechanism Design with a Degree of Freedom Constraint. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 61, 1520–1545, 2004.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. The MathWorks Optimization Toolbox for Use with Matlab, User’s Guide. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Martinez, J.M. A Note on the Theoretical Convergence Properties of the SIMP Method. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 29, 319–323, 2005.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Minaar, R.J., Tortorelli, D.A. and Snyman, J.A. On Non-Assembly in the Optimal Dimensional Synthesis of Planar Mechanisms. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 21, 345–354, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rietz, A. Sufficiency of a Finite Exponent in SIMP (power law) Methods. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 21, 159–163, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rozvany, G.I.N. The SIMP Method in Topology Optimization — Theoretical Background, Advantages and New Applications. Proceedings of 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Long Beach, CA, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. Sedlaczek, K., Gaugele, T. and Eberhard, P. Topology Optimized Synthesis of Planar Kinematic Rigid Body Mechanisms. Proceedings of the ECCOMAS Thematic Conferenc on Multibody Dynamics 2005, Madrid, Spain, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. Sedlaczek, K. and Eberhard, P. Grid-Based Topology Optimization of Rigid Body Mechanisms Using Different Problem Formulations. Computational Mechanics — Solids, Structures and Coupled Problems, Mota Soares, C.A.; Martins, J.A.C.; Rodrigues, H.C.; Ambrosio, J.A.C. (Eds.), Dordrecht: Springer, 2006.Google Scholar
  16. Sedlaczek, K. Zur Topologieoptimierung von Mechanismen und Mehrkörpersystemen. Ph.D. Thesis, Shaker Verlag, Aachen, 2007. [in German] Google Scholar
  17. Stolpe, M. and Svanberg, K. On the Trajectories of Penalization Methods for Topology Optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 21, 128–139, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Svanberg, K. The Method of Moving Asymptotes — A New Method for Structural Optimization. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 24, 359–373, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CISM, Udine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Eberhard
    • 1
  • Kai Sedlaczek
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Engineering and Computational MechanicsUniversity of StuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations