Numerical instabilities in level set topology optimization with the extended finite element method
- 1.4k Downloads
This paper studies level set topology optimization of structures predicting the structural response by the eXtended Finite Element Method (XFEM). In contrast to Ersatz material approaches, the XFEM represents the geometry in the mechanical model by crisp boundaries. The traditional XFEM approach augments the approximation of the state variable fields with a fixed set of enrichment functions. For complex material layouts with small geometric features, this strategy may result in interpolation errors and non-physical coupling between disconnected material domains. These defects can lead to numerical instabilities in the optimized material layout, similar to checker-board patterns found in density methods. In this paper, a generalized Heaviside enrichment strategy is presented that adapts the set of enrichment functions to the material layout and consistently interpolates the state variable fields, bypassing the limitations of the traditional approach. This XFEM formulation is embedded into a level set topology optimization framework and studied with “material-void” and “material-material” design problems, optimizing the compliance via a mathematical programming method. The numerical results suggest that the generalized formulation of the XFEM resolves numerical instabilities, but regularization techniques are still required to control the optimized geometry. It is observed that constraining the perimeter effectively eliminates the emergence of small geometric features. In contrast, smoothing the level set field does not provide a reliable geometry control but mainly improves the convergence rate of the optimization process.
KeywordsTopology optimization Level sets Extended finite element method Enrichment strategy Checker-boarding Regularization Perimeter constraint
The author acknowledges the support of the National Science Foundation under grants EFRI–SEED–1038305 and CMMI–1201207. The opinions and conclusions presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring organization.
- Bendsøe MP, Sigmund O (2003) Topology optimization: theory, methods and applications. SpringerGoogle Scholar
- de Ruiter M, van Keulen F (2000) Topology optimization: approaching the material distribution problem using a topological function description. In: Topping BHV (ed) Computational Techniques for Materials, Composites and Composite Structures, Edinburgh, pp 111–119Google Scholar
- Duysinx P, Miegroet L, Jacobs T, Fleury C (2006) Generalized shape optimization using x-fem and level set methods. In: IUTAM Symposium on Topological Design Optimization of Structures, Machines and Materials, Springer, pp 23–32Google Scholar
- Haber R, Bendsøe M (1998) Problem formulation, solution procedures and geometric modeling: key issues in variable-topology optimization. In: AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, AIAA, no. AIAA-1998-4948 in Collection of Technical Papers. Pt. 3Google Scholar
- Lang C, Makhija D, Doostan A, Maute K (2013) A simple and efficient projection scheme for heaviside enriched xfem. Submitted to Computational MechanicsGoogle Scholar
- Maute K, Kreissl S, Makhija D, Yang R (2011) Topology optimization of heat conduction in nano-composites. In: 9th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, ShizuokaGoogle Scholar
- Sigmund O, Maute K (2012) Sensitivity filtering from a continuum mechanics perspective. Struct Multidiscip Optim:1–5Google Scholar
- Sigmund O, Maute K (2013) Topology optimization approaches: a comparative review. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization SubmittedGoogle Scholar
- Sigmund O, Petersson J (1998) Numerical instabilities in topology optimization: a survey on procedures dealing with checkerboards, mesh-dependencies and local minima. Struct Multidiscip Optim 16(1):168–75Google Scholar
- van Dijk N, Maute K, Langelaar M, Keulen F (2013) Level-set methods for structural topology optimization: a review. Struct Multidiscip Optim pp 1–36Google Scholar
- van Miegroet L, Moës N, Fleury C, Duysinx P (2005) Generalized shape optimization based on the level set method. In: 6th World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary OptimizationGoogle Scholar