Advertisement

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 443–453 | Cite as

Eliminating beta-continuation from Heaviside projection and density filter algorithms

  • James K. GuestEmail author
  • Alireza Asadpoure
  • Seung-Hyun Ha
Research Paper

Abstract

Projection methods and density filters based on the Heaviside step function are an effective means for producing discrete (0–1) solutions in continuum topology optimization. They naturally impose a minimum length scale on designed features and thereby prevent numerical instabilities of checkerboards and mesh dependence, as well as provide the designer a tool to influence solution manufacturability. A drawback of the Heaviside approach is that a continuation method must be applied to the continuous approximation so as not to approach the step function too quickly. This is achieved by gradually increasing a curvature parameter known as β as the optimization progresses. This is not only inefficient, but also causes slight, artificial perturbations to the topology. This note offers simple modifications to optimizer algorithms and/or Heaviside formulation that allow this continuation method to be eliminated. The modifications are tested on minimum compliance and compliant inverter benchmark problems and are shown to be effective and efficient.

Keywords

Topology optimization Projection methods Filters SIMP Volume preservation Continuation methods 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Science Foundation under Grant No. CMMI-0928613 with Dr. Christina Bloebaum serving as program officer. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank Krister Svanberg for providing the MMA code.

References

  1. Andkjaer J, Nishiwaki S, Nomura T, Sigmund O (2010) Topology optimization of grating couplers for the efficient excitation of surface plasmons. J Opt Soc Am B Opt Phys 27(9):1828–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bendsøe MP (1989) Optimal shape design as a material distribution problem. Struct Optim 1:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruns TE, Tortorelli DA (2001) Topology optimization of non-linear elastic structures and compliant mechanisms. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190:3443–3459zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Guest JK (2009a) Imposing maximum length scale in topology optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 37(5):463–473MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guest JK (2009b) Topology optimization with multiple phase projection. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 199(1–4):123–135MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Guest JK, Prévost JH (2006) Optimizing multifunctional materials: design of microstructures for maximized stiffness and fluid permeability. Int J Solids Struct 43(22–23):7028–7047zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guest JK, Smith Genut LC (2010) Reducing dimensionality in topology optimization using adaptive design variable fields. Int J Numer Methods Eng 81(8):1019–1045zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Guest JK, Prévost JH, Belytschko T (2004) Achieving minimum length scale in topology optimization using nodal design variables and projection functions. Int J Numer Methods Eng 61(2):238–254zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Matzen R, Jensen JS, Sigmund O (2010) Topology optimization for transient response of photonic crystal structures. J Opt Soc Am B Opt Phys 27(10):2040–2050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Niu B, Yan J, Cheng G (2009) Optimum structure with homogeneous optimum cellular material for maximum fundamental frequency. Struct Multidisc Optim 39:115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rozvany GIN, Zhou M, Birker T (1992) Generalized shape optimization without homogenization. Struct Optim 4:250–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sigmund O (1997) On the design of compliant mechanisms using topology optimization. Mech Struct Mach 25:495–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sigmund O (2007) Morphology-based black and white filters for topology optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 33:401–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sigmund O, Petersson J (1998) Numerical instabilities in topology optimization: a survey on procedures dealing with checkerboards, mesh-dependencies and local minima. Struct Opt 16:68–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Svanberg K (1987) The method of moving asymptotes—a new method for structural optimization. Int J Numer Methods Eng 24:359–373MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Svanberg K (1995) A globally convergent version of MMA without linesearch. In: Rozvany GIN, Olhoff N (eds) Proceedings of the first world congress of structural and multidisciplinary optimization (Goslar). Pergamon, Oxford, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  17. Xu S, Cai Y, Cheng G (2010) Volume preserving nonlinear density filter based on heaviside functions. Struct Multidisc Optim 41:495–505MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • James K. Guest
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alireza Asadpoure
    • 1
  • Seung-Hyun Ha
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations