Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 213–233

Load redistribution mechanism in damage tolerant and redundant truss structure

  • Kun S. Marhadi
  • Satchi Venkataraman
  • Scott A. Wong
Research Paper


Structural optimization for damage tolerance under various unforeseen damage scenarios is computationally challenging. It couples non-linear progressive failure analysis with sampling based stochastic analysis of random damages. This work shows that analysis of damage tolerance depends on specification of damages, and optimizing a structure under one damage specification can be sensitive to other damages not considered. This work demonstrates the importance of understanding the underlying mechanics that provide damage tolerance in order to develop computationally efficient methods for optimization. Understanding features of load distributions in damage tolerant structures can result in efficient methods for optimization. To understand and identify these features, one compared and contrasted designs with varying degree of damage tolerance. A method to describe load distributions based on principal component analysis is presented. It is found that the number of dominant eigenvalues of principal components in a structure correlates with the number of alternate paths.


Damage tolerant Truss structure Load redistribution Load path 


  1. Akgun MA, Hafkta RT (2000) Damage tolerant topology optimization under multiple load cases. In: Proceedings of the 41st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Atlanta, GA, April 2000Google Scholar
  2. Arora JS, Haskell DF, Govil AK (1980) Optimal design of large structures for damage tolerance. AIAA J 18:563–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christiansen JE (1941) The uniformity of application of water by sprinkler systems. Agric Eng 22:89–92Google Scholar
  4. Finkel DE (2003) DIRECT optimization algorithm user guide. Center for Research in Scientific Computation, North Carolina State University, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  5. Frangopol DM, Klisinki M, Iizuka M (1991) Optimization of damage-tolerant structural systems. Comput Struct 40:1805–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haftka RT (1983) Damage tolerant design using collapse techniques. AIAA J 21:1462–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haftka RT, Starnes JH, Nair S (1983) Design for global damage tolerance and associated mass penalties. J Aircr 20:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harasaki JS, Arora JS (2001a) A new class of evolutionary methods based on the concept of transferred force for structural design. Struct Multidisc Optim 22:35–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harasaki JS, Arora JS (2001b) New concepts of transferred and potential transferred forces in structures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191:385–406MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harasaki JS, Arora JS (2002) Topology design based on transferred and potential transferred forces. Struct Multidisc Optim 23:372–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones DR, Perttunen CD, Stuckman BE (1993) Lipschitzian optimization without the Lipschitz constant. J Optim Theory Appl 79:157–181MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kelly DW, Tosh MW (2000) Interpreting load paths and stress trajectories in elasticity. Eng Comput 17:117–135MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelly DW, Hsu P, Asudullah M (2001) Load paths and load flow in finite element analysis. Eng Comput 18:304–313MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lophaven SN, Nielsen HB, Sondergaard J (2008a) Aspects of the Matlab Toolbox DACE. Available online at Accessed on 30 March 2008
  15. Lophaven SN, Nielsen HB, Søndergaard J (2008b) DACE: a Matlab Kriging toolbox, version 2.0. Lyngby (Denmark), IMM Technical University of Denmark. Available online at Accessed on 30 March 2008
  16. Mahadevan S, Liu X (2002) Probabilistic analysis of composite structure ultimate strength. AIAA J 40:1408–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marhadi KS, Venkataraman S (2009a) Comparison of load path definitions in 2-D continuum structures. In: Proceedings of the 50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Palm Springs, CA, May 2009Google Scholar
  18. Marhadi K, Venkataraman S (2009b) Surrogate measures to optimize structures for robust and predictable progressive failure. Struct Multidisc Optim 39:245–261. doi:10.1007/s00158-008-0326-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mistree F, Lyon TD, Shupe JA (1982) Design of damage tolerant offshore structures. Oceans 14:1201–1206Google Scholar
  20. Murotsu Y, Shao S, Watanabe A (1994) Interpreting an approach to reliability-based optimization of redundant structures. Struct Saf 16:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Starossek U, Wolff M (2005) Design of collapse-resistant structures. In: JCSS and IABSE workshop on robustness of structures, building research establishment, Garston, Watford, UK, November 2005Google Scholar
  22. Venkataraman S, Haftka RT (2004) Structural optimization: what has Moore’s law done for us? Struct Multidisc Optim 28:375–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Venkataraman S, Salas P (2007) Optimization of composite laminates for robust and predictable progressive failure response. AIAA J 45:1113–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wall ME, Rechtsteiner A, Rocha LM (2003) Singular value decomposition and principal component analysis. In: Berrar DP, Dubitzky W, Granzow M (eds) A practical approach to microarray data analysis. Kluwer, Norwell, pp 91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kun S. Marhadi
    • 1
  • Satchi Venkataraman
    • 2
  • Scott A. Wong
    • 2
  1. 1.Computational Science ProgramSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering MechanicsSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations