Advertisement

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 21–32 | Cite as

Geometrical aspects of optimum truss like structures for three-force problem

  • Arkadiusz Mazurek
Research Paper

Abstract

In this paper, similarities between three-force and three-point non-smooth optimization problems are highlighted. Starting from geometrical rules controlling discrete optimum solutions for three-point problems a reasonable hypothesis is created for similar geometrical rules to control discrete optimum structures for three-force problems. The hypothesis is confirmed through a numerical approach. A step-by-step method to graphically obtain a discrete optimum structure for any set of three balanced forces is provided. It is shown that discrete optimum structures with large number of elements converge to the known continuum optimum solutions in the literature.

Keywords

Discrete optimum Three-point problem Three-force problem Optimum truss Michell truss Hencky Net 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank William F. Baker of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, LLP and Dr. Cenk Tort of Mitaş Engineering for continuing support and advice. Without these two individuals writing this paper would not be possible. Also, I would like to thank Prof. G. H. Paulino, Ms. L. Stromberg and the rest of the TOP Gang at University of Illinois in Champaign, who are the experts in the field of topology optimization, for their valuable suggestions and opinions.

References

  1. Achtziger W (1997) Topology optimization of discrete structures: an introduction in view of computational and nonsmooth aspects. In: Rozvany GIN (ed) Topology optimization in structural mechanics. Springer, Vienna, pp 57–100Google Scholar
  2. Baker WF (1992) Energy-based design of lateral systems. Struct Eng Int, Int Assoc Bridge Struct Eng 2(2):99–102, 4Google Scholar
  3. Beckers M, Fleury C (1997) A primal–dual approach in truss topology optimization. Comput Struct 64(1–4):77–88CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chan ASL (1962) The design of Michell optimum structures. Ministry of Aviation Aeronautical Research Council Report No. 3303Google Scholar
  5. Dewhurst P (2001) Analytical solutions and numerical procedures for minimum-weight Michell structures. J Mech Phys Solids 49:445–467CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Dewhurst P (2005) A general optimality criterion for strength and stiffness of dual-material-property structures. Int J Mech Sci 47(2):293–302CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewhurst P, Fang N, Srithongchai S (2009) A general boundary approach to the construction of Michell truss structures. Struct Multidisc Optim 39:373–384CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Eschenauer H, Olhoff N, Schnell W (1997) Applied structural mechanics: fundamentals of elasticity, load bearing structures, structures optimization. Springer, Berlin, p 313Google Scholar
  9. Friedman A (1971) Advanced calculus. Holt, Rinehart and WinstonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Graczykowski C, Lewiński T (2006a) Michell cantilevers constructed within trapezoidal domains—Part I: geometry of Hencky nets. Struct Multidisc Optim 33:27–45Google Scholar
  11. Graczykowski C, Lewiński T (2006b) Michell cantilevers constructed within trapezoidal domains—Part II: virtual displacement fields. Struct Multidisc Optim 32:463–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graczykowski C, Lewiński T (2010) Michell cantilevers constructed within a half strip. Tabulation of selected benchmark results. Struct Multidisc Optim 42:869–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hegemier GA, Prager W (1969) On Michell trusses. Int J Mech Sci 11(2):209–215CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Hemp W (1973) Optimum structures. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewiński T, Rozvany GIN (2007) Exact analytical solutions for some popular benchmark problems in topology optimization II: three-sided polygonal supports. Struct Multidisc Optim 33:337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mazurek A, Baker FW, Cenk T (2011) Geometrical aspects of optimum truss like structures. Struct Multidisc Optim 43(2):231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Michell AGM (1904) The limits of economy of material in frame structures. Philos Mag 8:589–597Google Scholar
  18. Nguyen TH, Paulino GH, Song J, Le CH (2010) A computational paradigm for multiresolution topology optimization (MTOP). Struct Multidisc Optim 41:525–539CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Prager W (1970) Optimization of structural design. J Optim Theory Appl 6(1):1–21CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Prager W (1978a) Optimal layout of trusses with finite numbers of joints. J Mech Phys Solids 26(4):241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prager W (1978b) Nearly optimal design of trusses. Comput Struct 8(3–4):451–454CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Rozvany GIN (1996) Some shortcomings in Michell’s truss theory. Struct Multidisc Optim 12(4):244–250MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Sokół T (2010) A 99 line code for discretized Michell truss optimization written in Mathematica. Struct Multidisc Optim 43(2):181–190Google Scholar
  24. Sokół T, Lewiński T (2010) On the solution of the three forces problem and its application in optimal designing of a class of symmetric plane frameworks of least weight. Struct Multidisc Optim 42(6):835–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stromberg LL, Beghini A, Baker WF, Paulino GH (2011) Application of layout and topology optimization using pattern gradation for the conceptual design of buildings. Struct Multidisc Optim 43(2):165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Strömberg N (2010) Topology optimization of structures with manufacturing and unilateral contact constraints by minimizing an adjustable compliance-volume product. Struct Multidisc Optim 42:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Talischi C, Paulino GH, Pereira A, Menezes IFM (2009) Polygonal finite elements for topology optimization: a unifying paradigm. Int J Numer Methods Eng 82:671–698Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLPChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations