Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 495–517 | Cite as

A Krylov–Arnoldi reduced order modelling framework for efficient, fully coupled, structural–acoustic optimization

Research Paper

Abstract

In this work, a reduced order multidisciplinary optimization procedure is developed to enable efficient, low frequency, undamped and damped, fully coupled, structural–acoustic optimization of interior cavities backed by flexible structural systems. This new method does not require the solution of traditional eigen value based problems to reduce computational time during optimization, but are instead based on computation of Arnoldi vectors belonging to the induced Krylov Subspaces. The key idea of constructing such a reduced order model is to remove the uncontrollable, unobservable and weakly controllable, observable parts without affecting the noise transfer function of the coupled system. In a unified approach, the validity of the optimization framework is demonstrated on a constrained composite plate/prism cavity coupled system. For the fully coupled, vibro–acoustic, unconstrained optimization problem, the design variables take the form of stacking sequences of a composite structure enclosing the acoustic cavity. The goal of the optimization is to reduce sound pressure levels at the driver’s ear location. It is shown that by incorporating the reduced order modelling procedure within the optimization framework, a significant reduction in computational time can be obtained, without any loss of accuracy—when compared to the direct method. The method could prove as a valuable tool to analyze and optimize complex coupled structural–acoustic systems, where, in addition to fast analysis, a fine frequency resolution is often required.

Keywords

Krylov subspace Arnoldi Structural–acoustic optimization Mesh adaptive direct search 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC GR/S27245/01) for the grant project under which this research was carried out. The authors also acknowledge the support of Jeffrey L. Cipolla (Simulia Corporation formerly ABAQUS Inc.), T. Bharj (Ford Motor Company, UK), M. Birrell (BI-Composites, UK), R Davidson (Crompton Technology, UK), M. Collier (Hodgson and Hodgson, UK), A. Atkins (Siemen’s Magnet Technology, UK) and M. Burnett (Motor Industry Research Association, UK) who were industrial collaborators in the project.

References

  1. Abramson MA, Audet C (2006) Convergence of mesh adaptive direct search to second-order stationary points. SIAM J Optim 17(2):606–619CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali A, Rajakumar C, Yunus SM (1995) Advances in acoustic eigenvalue analysis using boundary element method. Comput Struct 56(1):837–847CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. ANSYS (2005) V10 theory manual. http://www.ansys.com. Accessed on 6 December 2005
  4. Antoulas AC (2003) Approximation of large-scale dynamical systems, 1st edn. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia. ISBN: 0-89871-529-6Google Scholar
  5. Atalla N, Bernhard RJ (1994) Review of numerical solutions for low frequency structural–acoustic problems. Appl Acoust 43(5):271–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audet C, Dennis JE Jr (2002) Analysis of generalized pattern searches. SIAM J Optim 13(3):889–903CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Audet C, Dennis JE Jr (2004) A pattern search filter method for nonlinear programming without derivatives. SIAM J Optim 14(4):980–1010CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Audet C, Dennis JE Jr (2006) Mesh adaptive direct search algorithms for constrained optimization. SIAM J Optim 17(1):188–217CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Bai ZJ (2002) Krylov subspace techniques for reduced order modeling of large scale dynamical systems. Appl Numer Math 43:9–44CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Bai ZJ, Meerbergen K, Su YF (2005) Arnoldi methods for structure preserving dimension reduction of second-order dynamical systems. Dimension reduction of large-scale systems. Lect Notes Comput Sci Eng 45:173–189CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Bathe KJ (1995) Finite element procedures, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. ISBN: 0-13-301458-4Google Scholar
  12. Bathe KJ, Nitikitpaiboon C, Wang X (1995) A mixed displacement-based finite element formulation for acoustic fluid-structure interaction. In: Computers and structures: nonlinear finite element analysis and ADINA proceedings of the 10th ADINA conference, vol 56, nos 2–3, pp 225–237Google Scholar
  13. Belegundu AD, Salagame RR, Koopmann GH (1994) A general optimization strategy for sound power minimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 8(2–3):113–119Google Scholar
  14. Boily S, Charron F (1999) The vibroacoustic response of a cylindrical shell structure with viscoelastic and poroelastic materials. J Appl Acoust 58(2):131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bouillard P, Ihlenburg F (1999) Error estimation and adaptivity for the finite element method in acoustics: 2D and 3D applications. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 176(17):147–163CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Brebbia C, Telles J, Wrobel L (1984) Boundary element techniques: theory and applications in engineering, 1st edn. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Bregant L, Miccoli G, Seppi M (2005) Construction machinery cab vibro–acoustic analysis and optimisation. In: Proceedings of the NAFEMS 2005 world congress. St. Julians, Malta, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  18. Choi KK, Kim NH (2004) Structural sensitivity analysis and optimization, 1st edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. Coyette JP, Fyfe KR (1990) An improved formulation for acoustic eigenmode extraction from boundary element models. J Vib Acoust 112(1):392–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Craggs A (1969) The transient response of coupled acousto–mechanical systems. NASA contractor report, CR1421:1–82Google Scholar
  21. Craggs A (1971) The transient response of a coupled plate–acoustic system using plate and acoustic finite elements. J Sound Vib 15:509–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Craggs A (1973) An acoustic finite element approach for studying boundary flexibility and sound transmission between irregular enclosures. J Sound Vib 30:343–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crane SP, Cunefare, KA, Engelstad SP, Powell EA (1997) Comparison of design optimization formulations for minimization of noise transmission in a cylinder. J Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol 34(2):236–243Google Scholar
  24. Davidson P (2004) Structural–acoustic analysis: finite element modelling and reduction methods. PhD thesis, Division of Structural Mechanics, LTH, Lund University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  25. Desmet W (1998) A wave based prediction technique for coupled vibro–acoustic analysis. PhD thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  26. Desmet W, Vandepitte D (2002) Mid-frequency vibro–acoustic modelling: challenges and potential solutions. In: Proceedings of the ISMA’2002 international conference on noise and vibration engineering, vol 2, pp 835–862Google Scholar
  27. Desmet W, Vandepitte D (2005) Advanced numerical acoustics: the finite element method. In: Course notes ISAAC 2005: advanced numerical acoustics, pp 1–208Google Scholar
  28. Dong J, Kim NH (2003) Design optimization for structural–acoustic problems using FEA-BEA with adjoint variable method. In: Proceedings of the 44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference. Gainesville, FL, USA, pp 527–533Google Scholar
  29. EPSRC—Faraday Advance (2003) Design and fabrication of low NVH multi material automotive vehicle structures. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), GR/S27245/(01):2003–2006Google Scholar
  30. Everstine GC (1981) A symmetric potential formulation for fluid structure interactions. J Sound Vib 79:157–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Feng GC, Kiefling L (1976) Fluid structure finite element vibrational analysis. J Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol 14(6):199–203MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Fernholz CM, Robinson JH (1998) Influence of lamination angles on the interior noise levels of an aircraft. NASA Langley technical report, 98-10250:1–52Google Scholar
  33. Freund RW (2000) Krylov subspace methods for reduced order modeling in circuit simulation. J Appl Math 123:395–421MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Freund RW (2001) Model reduction methods based on Krylov subspaces. Numer Anal 3:1–53. http://cm.bell-labs.com/cs/doc/03:1–53. Accessed online 3 April 2001Google Scholar
  35. Giunta AA (2002) Use of data sampling, surrogate models, and numerical optimization in engineering design. In: 40th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, vol 1. Reno, NV, USA, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  36. Giunta AA, Wojtkiewicz M, Eldred M (2003) Overview of modern design of experiments methods for computational simulations. In: 41st AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, vol 1. Reno, NV, USA, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  37. Haftka RT, Gurdal Z (1992) Elements of structural optimization, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin. ISBN-13: 978-0792315056MATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Harari I, Hughes JRT (1992) A cost comparison of boundary element and finite element methods for problems of time-harmonic acoustics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 97:77–102CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. Henderson B, Gerhart C, Lane S, Jensen E (2003) Vibro-acoustic launch protection experiment. J Acoust Soc Am 114(3):2384–2392Google Scholar
  40. Ihlenburg F, Babuska I (1995) Finite element solution of the Helmholtz equation with high wave number. Part I: The ‘h’ version of the FEM. Comput Math Appl 30(1):9–37CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Ihlenburg F, Babuska I (1997) Finite element solution of the Helmholtz equation with high wave number. Part II: The ‘h–p’ version of the FEM. SIAM J Numer Anal 34(1):315–358CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim NH, Dong J, Choi KK, Vlahopoulos N, Ma Z-D, Castanier MP, Pierre C (2003) Design sensitivity analysis for sequential structural–acoustic problems. J Sound Vib 263:569–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kim NH, Choi KK, Dong J, Pierre C (2004) Design optimization of structural–acoustic problems using FEM-BEM. ASME J Mech Des 126(3):527–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kim S, Lee J, Sung MH (1999) Structural acoustic modal coupling analysis and application to noise reduction in a vehicle passenger compartment. J Sound Vib 225(5):989–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kleijnen JPC (2005) An overview of the design and analysis of simulation experiments for sensitivity analysis. Eur J Oper Res 164(2):287–300. Available at http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v164y2005i2p287-300.html CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Koehler JR, Owen AB (1996) Computer experiments. In: Ghosh S, Rao CR (eds) Handbook of statistics, vol 13, pp 261–308Google Scholar
  47. Krylov AN (1931) On the numerical solution of the equation by which the frequency of small oscillations is determined in technical problems. Izv Akad Nauk SSSR Ser Fiz Mat 4:491–539Google Scholar
  48. Leslie D, Doelle D (1972) Environmental acoustics, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill Inc, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Lewis RM, Torczon V (1999) Pattern search algorithms for bound constrained minimization. SIAM J Optim 9(4):1082–1099CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. Lewis RM, Torczon V (2000) Pattern search methods for linearly constrained minimization. SIAM J Optim 10(3):917–941CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. Lewis RM, Torczon V (2002) A globally convergent augmented Lagrangian pattern search algorithm for optimization with general constraints and simple bounds. SIAM J Optim 12(4):1075–1089CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  52. Marburg S (2002a) Developments in structural–acoustic optimization for passive noise control. Arch Comput Methods Eng 9(4):291–370CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Marburg S (2002b) A general concept for design modification of shell meshes in structural–acoustic optimization: Part I: formulation of the concept. Fin Elem Anal Des 38(8):725–735CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Marburg S, Hardtke HJ (2002) A general concept for design modification of shell meshes in structural–acoustic optimization: Part II: application to a floor panel in sedan interior noise problems. Finite Elem Anal Des 38(8):737–754CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Marsden AL (2004) Aerodynamic noise control by optimal shape design. PhD thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, USAGoogle Scholar
  56. Marsden AL, Wang M, Dennis JE, Moin P (2004) Suppression of vortex-shedding noise via derivative free optimization. Phys Fluids 16(10):L83–L86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Matlab (2006) Matlab manual V7.0.4. http://www.matlab.com. Accessed on 12 March 2006
  58. McKay MD, Conover WJ, Beckman RJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21:239–245CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  59. Meyer CD (2000) Matrix analysis and applied linear algebra, 1st edn. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia. ISBN: 0-89871-454-0CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. Morand H, Ohayon R (1979) Substructure variational analysis of the vibrations of coupled fluid structure systems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 14(4):741–755CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. Niyogi AG, Laha MK, Sinha PK (2000) A coupled FE/BE analysis of acoustic cavities confined inside laminated composite enclosures. J Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol 72(4):345–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ohayon R (2004) Reduced models for fluid-structure interaction problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 60:139–152CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  63. Ohayon R, Soize C (1998) Structural acoustics and vibration, 1st edn. Academic, New York. ISBN-13: 978-0125249454Google Scholar
  64. Olson LG, Bathe KJ (1985) Analysis of fluid structure interactions: a direct symmetric coupled formulation based on fluid velocity potential. Comput Struct 21(1–2):21–32CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. Pal C, Hagiwara I (1993) Dynamic analysis of a coupled structural–acoustic problem: simulatneous multi-modal reduction of vehicle interior noise level by combined optimization. Finite Elem Eng Des 14:21–32Google Scholar
  66. Payne JL, Eppstein MJ (2005) A hybrid genetic algorithm with pattern search for finding heavy atoms in protein crystals. In: GECCO ’05: proceedings of the 2005 conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, New York, pp 377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pirk R, Desmet W, Pluymers B, Sas P, Goes LCS (2002) Vibro-acoustic analysis of the Brazilian vehicle satellite launcher fairing. In: Proceedings of the ISMA’2002 international conference on noise and vibration engineering. KU Leuven, Belgium, pp 2075–2085Google Scholar
  68. Pluymers B (2006) Wave based modelling methods for steady state vibro–acoustics. PhD thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  69. Puri RS (2008) Krylov subspace based direct projection techniques for low frequency, fully coupled, strutural acoustic analysis and optimization. PhD thesis, School of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  70. Puri RS, Morrey D, Cipolla JL (2007a) A comparison between one-sided and two-sided Arnoldi based model order reduction techniques for fully coupled structural acoustic analysis. 153rd meeting of the Acoustical Society of America. J Acoust Soc Am 121:3097Google Scholar
  71. Puri RS, Morrey D, Durodola JF, Morgans RC, Howard CQ (2007b) A comparison of structural–acoustic coupled Reduced Order Models (ROMS): modal coupling and implicit moment matching via Arnoldi. In: 14th international congress on sound and vibration (ICSV14), pp 1–8Google Scholar
  72. Reid JK (1970) On the method of conjugate gradients for the solution of large sparse systems of linear equations. In: Large sparse sets of linear equations, proc. conf., vol 4. St. Catherine’s College, Oxford, pp 231–254Google Scholar
  73. Saad Y (1981) Krylov subspace methods for solving large unsymmetric linear systems. Math Comput 37(155):105–126CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  74. Salagame RR, Belegundu AD, Koopman GH (1995) Analytical sensitivity of acoustic power radiated from plates. J Vib Acoust 117:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schenck HA (1968) Improved integral formulation for acoustic radiation problems. J Acoust Soc Am 44(1):41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Simoncini V, Szyld DB (2007) Recent computational developments in Krylov subspace methods for linear systems. Numer Linear Algebra Appl 14:1–59CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  77. Su TJ, Craig RR (1991) Krylov model reduction algorithm for undamped structural dynamics systems. AIAA J Guid Control Dyn 14(6):1311–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Torczon VJ (1997) On the convergence of pattern search algorithms. SIAM J Optim 7(1):1–25CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  79. Tournour M, Atalla N (2000) Pseudostatic corrections for the forced vibroacoustic response of a structure–cavity system. J Acoust Soc Am 107(5):2379–2386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wang X (1998) On a mode superposition method for fluid-structure interaction problems. In: Proceedings of ASME symposium on dynamics, acoustics and simulations, USA, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  81. Wang X, Bathe KJ (1997) Displacement/pressure based mixed finite element formulations for acoustic fluid structure interaction problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 40:2001–2017CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  82. Zienkiewicz OC, Newton R (1969) Coupled vibrations of a structure submerged in a compressible fluid. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on finite element techniques, vol 15. Stuttgart, Germany, pp 1–9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of TechnologyOxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations