Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison study of some commercial structural optimization software systems

  • INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mathematical optimization theories are employed for the design of structures in structural optimization. Structural optimization is being widely utilized for practical problems due to well-developed commercial software systems. Three representative structural optimization systems such as Genesis, MSC Nastran and OptiStruct are investigated and evaluated by solving various test examples in different scales. The design capabilities of three software systems are explored and the performances of the systems are compared. The performance of structural optimization depends on the quality of the optimum solution and the computational time, and these aspects are compared from an application viewpoint. For a fair comparison, the same formulations are utilized, and the same optimization methods are employed for each example. Also, the same system environment is prepared, and the same optimization parameters are used. Additionally, various design options of each software system are tested for the best performance. Linear static response size, shape, topology, topometry and topography optimizations are applied to the examples and the results are compared. No system seems to be the best in all cases and each system has advantages and disadvantages depending on the application. In general, Genesis is excellent in computational time while OptiStruct gives excellent optimum solutions, in size, topometry and topology optimizations. Meanwhile, MSC Nastran presents good solutions in shape and topography optimizations.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altair HyperStudy tutorials version 13.0 (2014) Altair Engineering, Inc., MI, USA

  • Altair OptiStruct user’s manual version 13.0 (2014) Altair Engineering, Inc., MI, USA

  • ANSYS http://www.ansys.com/About+ANSYS ANSYS, Inc

  • Arora JS (2012) Introduction to optimum design. Elsevier, Waltham

    Google Scholar 

  • Bathe KJ (1996) Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendsøe MP, Sigmund O (2003) Topology optimization theory, methods and applications Springer, Germany

  • Choi WS, Park GJ (2002) Structural optimization using equivalent static loads at all the time intervals. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191:2105–2122

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cook R, Malkus D, Plesha M, Witt R (2001) Concepts and applications of finite element analysis. Wiley, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaz AR, Sigmund O (1995) Checkerboard patterns in layout optimization. Struct Optim 10:40–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleury C (1989) CONLIN: an efficient dual optimizer based on convex approximation concepts. Mechanical, aerospace and nuclear engineering department. University of California, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleury C, Braibant V (1986) A new dual method using mixed variables. Int J Numer Methods Eng 23(3):409–428

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Genesis http://www.vrand.com/companyProfile.html Vanderplaats Research and Development, Inc

  • Genesis user’s manual version 13.1 design reference (2014) Vanderplaats Research and Development. Inc. Colorado Springs, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Haftka RT, Gürdal Z (1992) Elements of structural optimization. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Haug EJ, Arora JS (1979) Applied optimal design. NY, USA

  • Hong UP, Hwang KH, Park GJ (2004) A comparative study of software systems from the optimization viewpoint. Struct Multidiscip Optim 27(6):460–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HyperWorks http://www.altairhyperworks.com/ Altair Engineering, Inc

  • Kim YI, Park GJ (2010) Nonlinear dynamic response structural optimization using equivalent static loads. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 199:660–676

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lee HA, Jung SB, Jang HH, Shin DH, Lee JW, Kim KW, Park GJ (2015) Structural-optimization-based design process for the body of a railway vehicle made from extruded aluminium panels. Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit. doi:10.1177/0954409715593971

  • Lim JH, Kim KW, Kim SW, Hwang DS (2009) Technology trends on structural analysis software in aerospace industry. Current Industrial Tech Trends Aerospace 7(2):59–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan DL (1993) A first course in the finite element method. PWS publishing company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • MSC Nastran user’s guide automated structural optimization in MSC Nastran version 2014 (2014c) MSC Software Co., Newport Beach, CA, USA

  • MSC Nastran user’s guide design sensitivity and optimization version 2013 (2013b) MSC Software Co., Santa Ana, CA, USA

  • MSC Nastran user’s guide version 2013.1.1 (2013a) MSC Software Co., Newport Beach, CA, USA

  • OptiStruct http://www.altairhyperworks.com/Product,19,OptiStruct.aspx Altair Engineering, Inc

  • Park GJ (2007) Analytical methods in design practice. Springer, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Park GJ (2011) Technical overview of the equivalent static loads method for non-linear static response structural optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 43:319–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park YS, Lee SH, Park GJ (1995) A study of direct vs. approximation methods in structural optimization. Structural Optimization 10:64–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patran user’s guide version 2014 (2014) MSC Software Co., Newport Beach, CA, USA

  • Schmit LA (1960) Structural design by systematic synthesis. Proceedings of the second ASCE conference, NY, 105–122

  • Shin MK, Park KJ, Park GJ (2007) Optimization of structures with nonlinear behavior using equivalent loads. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196:1154–1167

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tosca http://www.3ds.com/products-services/simulia/products/tosca/ Dassault systems

  • Vanderplaats GN (1973) CONMIN – a Fortran program for constrained function minimization: user’s manual. NASA TM X-62282

  • Vanderplaats GN (1999) Numerical optimization techniques for engineering design. Vanderplaats Research and Development. Inc, Colorado Springs

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderplaats GN (2000) Very large scale optimization. The eighth AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium at multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Long Beach, CA, USA

  • Zhou M, Shyy YK, Thomas HL (2001) Checkerboard and minimum member size control in topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 21:152–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Guangdong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (2015A030312008) and Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Plan (2015B010104006). The authors are thankful to Mrs. MiSun Park for the English correction of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hanyang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Wook-han Choi & Jong-moon Kim

  2. Hanyang University, Ansan, Republic of Korea

    Gyung-Jin Park

Authors
  1. Wook-han Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jong-moon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gyung-Jin Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gyung-Jin Park.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, Wh., Kim, Jm. & Park, GJ. Comparison study of some commercial structural optimization software systems. Struct Multidisc Optim 54, 685–699 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1429-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1429-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation