Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 1–12

# Topology optimization in crashworthiness design

Research Paper

## Abstract

Topology optimization has developed rapidly, primarily with application on linear elastic structures subjected to static loadcases. In its basic form, an approximated optimization problem is formulated using analytical or semi-analytical methods to perform the sensitivity analysis. When an explicit finite element method is used to solve contact–impact problems, the sensitivities cannot easily be found. Hence, the engineer is forced to use numerical derivatives or other approaches. Since each finite element simulation of an impact problem may take days of computing time, the sensitivity-based methods are not a useful approach. Therefore, two alternative formulations for topology optimization are investigated in this work. The fundamental approach is to remove elements or, alternatively, change the element thicknesses based on the internal energy density distribution in the model. There is no automatic shift between the two methods within the existing algorithm. Within this formulation, it is possible to treat nonlinear effects, e.g., contact–impact and plasticity. Since no sensitivities are used, the updated design might be a step in the wrong direction for some finite elements. The load paths within the model will change if elements are removed or the element thicknesses are altered. Therefore, care should be taken with this procedure so that small steps are used, i.e., the change of the model should not be too large between two successive iterations and, therefore, the design parameters should not be altered too much. It is shown in this paper that the proposed method for topology optimization of a nonlinear problem gives similar result as a standard topology optimization procedures for the linear elastic case. Furthermore, the proposed procedures allow for topology optimization of nonlinear problems. The major restriction of the method is that responses in the optimization formulation must be coupled to the thickness updating procedure, e.g., constraint on a nodal displacement, acceleration level that is allowed.

### Keywords

Topology optimization Explicit finite element analysis Contact–impacts Nonlinear problems

## Preview

### References

1. Bendsøe MP, Sigmund O (2003) Topology optimization: theory, methods and applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
2. Borrvall T (2001) Topology optimization of elastic continua using restriction. Arch Comput Methods Eng 8:351–385
3. Borrvall T, Petersson J (2001) Topology optimization using regularized intermediate density control. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190:4911–4928
4. Bruns TE, Sigmund O (2004) Toward the topology design of mechanisms that exhibit snap-through behavior. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193:3973–4000
5. Buhl TE, Pedersen CBW, Sigmund O (2000) Stiffness design of geometrically nonlinear structures using topology optimization. Struct Multidiscipl Optim 19:93–104
6. Ebisugi T, Fujita H, Watanabe G (1998) Study of optimal structure design method for dynamic nonlinear problem. JSAE Rev 19:251–255
7. Eschenauer HA, Olhoff N (2001) Topology optimization of continuum structures: a review. Appl Mech Rev 54:331–390
8. Fredricson H, Johansen T, Klarbring A, Petersson J (2003) Topology optimization of frame structures with flexible joints. Struct Multidiscipl Optim 25:199–214
9. Hallquist JO (1998) LS-DYNA theoretical manual. Livermore Software Technology Company, LivermoreGoogle Scholar
10. Hallquist JO (2002) LS-PRE/POST v1.0. Livermore Software Technology Company, LivermoreGoogle Scholar
11. Hallquist JO (2004) LS-DYNA user’s manual v. 970. Livermore Software Technology Company, LivermoreGoogle Scholar
12. Pedersen CBW (2003) Topology optimization design of crushed 2Dframes for desired energy absorption. Struct Multidiscipl Optim 25:368–382
13. Pedersen CBW (2004) Crashworthiness design of transient frame structures using topology optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193:653–678
14. Petersson J (1998) Some convergence results in perimeter-controlled topology optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 171:123–140
15. Rainsberger R (2001) TrueGrid Manual v2.1.0 XYZ. Scientific Applications, LivermoreGoogle Scholar
16. Sigmund O (2001a) Design of multiphysics actuators using topology optimization—Part I: one-material structures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190:6577–6604
17. Sigmund O (2001b) Design of multiphysics actuators using topology optimization—Part II: two-material structures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190:6605–6627
18. Sigmund O, Petersson J (1998) Numerical instabilities in topology optimization: a survey on procedures dealing with checkerboards, mesh dependencies and local minima. Struct Optim 16:68–75
19. Soto CA (2001a) Optimal structural topology design for energy absorption: a heuristic approach. In: Proceedings of the 2001 ASME design engineering technical conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, DETC01/DAC-21126, 9–12 September 2001Google Scholar
20. Soto CA (2001b) Structural topology optimization: from minimizing compliance to maximizing energy absorption. Int J Veh Des 25:142–163
21. Soto CA (2002) Applications of structural topology optimization in the automotive industry: past, present and future. In: Fifth world congress on computational mechanics, Vienna, Austria, 7–12 July 2002Google Scholar
22. Torstenfeldt B (1998) Trinitas developer studio. http://www.solid.ikp.liu.se/~botor/TRINITAS_Learning_Studio.html