Advertisement

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

  • T. Jansson
  • L. Nilsson
  • M. Redhe
Industrial applications and design case study

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.

Keywords

space mapping optimization response surface crashworthiness sheet metal forming finite element 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 5.
    FTI 2000: Fast_Form3D User Manual v. 7.2. Oakville: Forming Technologies Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hallquist, J.O. 1999: LS-DYNA User’s Manual v. 950. Livermore: Livermore Software Technology Company Google Scholar
  7. 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) Google Scholar
  8. 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) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marklund, P.-O. 1999: Optimization of a Car Body Component Subjected to Impact. LIU-TEK-LIC-1999:34, Linköping University, LinköpingGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Myers, R.H.; Montgomery, D.C. 1995: Response Surface Methodology. New York: John Wiley Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schramm, U.; Thomas, H. 1998: Crashworthiness design using structural optimization. AIAA Paper 984729 Google Scholar
  12. 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 Google Scholar
  13. 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 20001521 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stander, N. 1999: LS – OPT User’s Manual v. 1. Livermore: Livermore Software Technology Company Google Scholar
  15. 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 Google Scholar
  16. 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 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yamazaki, K.; Han, J. 1998: Maximization of the crushing energy absorption of tubes. Struct. Optim. 16, 37–46Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Solid Mechanics, Department of Mechanical EngineeringLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations