Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using surrogate models and response surfaces in structural optimization – with application to crashworthiness design and sheet metal forming

  • Industrial applications and design case study
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to determine if the Space Mapping technique using surrogate models together with response surfaces is useful in the optimization of crashworthiness and sheet metal forming. In addition, the efficiency of optimization using Space Mapping will be compared to traditional structural optimization using the Response Surface Methodology (RSM). Five examples are used to study the algorithm: one optimization of an analytic function and four structural optimization problems. All examples are constrained optimization problems. In all examples, the algorithm converged to an improved design with all constraints fulfilled, even when a conventional RSM optimization failed to converge. For the crashworthiness design problems, the total computing time for convergence was reduced by 53% using Space Mapping compared to conventional RSM. For the sheet metal forming problems the total computing time was reduced by 63%. The conclusions are that optimization using Space Mapping and surrogate models can be used for optimization in crashworthiness design and sheet metal forming applications with a significant reduction in computing time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bakr, M.H.; Bandler, J.W.; Biernacki, R.M.; Chen, S.H.; Madsen, K. 1998: A trust region aggressive space mapping algorithm for EM optimization. IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory. Tech. 46, 2412–2425

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bakr, M.H.; Bandler, J.W.; Madsen, K.; Rayas-Sánchez, J.E.; Sondergaard, J. 2000: Space mapping optimization of microwave circuits exploiting surrogate models. IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory. Tech. 48, 2297–2306

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bandler, J.W.; Biernacki, R.M.; Chen, S.H.; Grobelny, R.H.; Hemmers, R.H. 1994: Space mapping technique for electromagnetic optimization. IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory. Tech. 42, 2536–2544

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bandler, J.W.; Biernacki, R.M.; Chen, S.H.; Hemmers, R.H.; Madsen, K. 1995: Electromagnetic optimization exploitation aggressive space mapping. IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory. Tech. 43, 2874–2882

    Google Scholar 

  5. FTI 2000: Fast_Form3D User Manual v. 7.2. Oakville: Forming Technologies

  6. Hallquist, J.O. 1999: LS-DYNA User’s Manual v. 950. Livermore: Livermore Software Technology Company

  7. Leary, S.; Bhasker, A.; Keane, A. 2000: A constraint mapping approach to the structural optimization of an expensive model using surrogates. In: Madsen, K. (ed.) Conf. Surrogate Modelling and Space Mapping for Engineering Optimization (held in Lyngby)

  8. Madsen, K.; Sondergaard, J. 2000: Space mapping from a mathematical viewpoint. In: Madsen, K. (ed.) Conf. on Surrogate Modelling and Space Mapping for Engineering Optimization (held in Lyngby)

  9. Marklund, P.-O. 1999: Optimization of a Car Body Component Subjected to Impact. LIU-TEK-LIC-1999:34, Linköping University, Linköping

  10. Myers, R.H.; Montgomery, D.C. 1995: Response Surface Methodology. New York: John Wiley

  11. Schramm, U.; Thomas, H. 1998: Crashworthiness design using structural optimization. AIAA Paper 98–4729

  12. Schramm, U. 2001: Multi-disciplinary optimization for NHV and crashworthiness. In: Bathe, K.J. (ed.) The First MIT Conference on Computational Fluid and Solid Mechanics (held in Boston 2001), 721–724. Oxford: Elsevier Science

  13. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J.; Kodiyalam, S.; Yang, R.-J. 2000: Optimization of car body under constraints of noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH), and crash. AIAA Paper 2000–1521

  14. Stander, N. 1999: LS – OPT User’s Manual v. 1. Livermore: Livermore Software Technology Company

  15. Stander, N. 2001: The successive response surface method applied to sheet-metal forming. In: Bathe, K.J. (ed.) The First MIT Conference on Computational Fluid and Solid Mechanics (held in Boston 2001), Oxford: Elsevier Science

  16. Venter, G.; Haftka, R.T. 1997: Minimum-bias based experimental design for constructing response surfaces in structural Optimization. In: 38th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC, Struct., Struct. Dyn. Mat. Conf. (held in Kissimmee), pp. 1225–1238

  17. Yamazaki, K.; Han, J. 1998: Maximization of the crushing energy absorption of tubes. Struct. Optim. 16, 37–46

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Solid Mechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linköping University, 58183, Linköping, Sweden

    T. Jansson, L. Nilsson & M. Redhe

Authors
  1. T. Jansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Nilsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Redhe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Redhe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jansson, T., Nilsson, L. & Redhe, M. Using surrogate models and response surfaces in structural optimization – with application to crashworthiness design and sheet metal forming. Struct Multidisc Optim 25, 129–140 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-002-0279-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-002-0279-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation