Abstract
This paper discusses important improvements in the efficient Critical Constraint Method (CCM) for the optimization of structural product families subjected to multiple crash load cases. The method was first presented by Öman and Nilsson (Struct Multidisc Optim 41(5):797–815, 2010). However, the algorithm often converged towards an infeasible solution, which considerably limited the applicability of the method. Therefore, improvements are presented here to make the method more robust regarding feasible solutions, resulting in only a minor decrease in efficiency compared to the original method. The improvements include; a penalty approach to control the feasibility of the method by continuously pushing the solution out of the infeasible region, a dynamic contraction algorithm to increase the accuracy and robustness of the method by considering the optimization progress and variable history in the reduction of the step size, and the implementation of a parallel approach to further increase the efficiency of the method by enabling the full potential of large-scale computer clusters. Finally, the potential of the improved CCM algorithm is demonstrated on a large-scale industrial family optimization problem and it is concluded that the high efficiency of the method enables the usage of large product family optimization in the design process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Balling R, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1996) Optimization of coupled systems: a critical overview of approaches. AIAA J 34(1):6–17
Braun R, Moore A, Kroo I (1997) Collaborative architecture to launch vehicle design. J Spacecr Rockets 34(4):478–486
Chu D, Xie Y, Hira A, Steven G (1996) Evolutionary structural optimization for problems with stiffness constraints. Finite Elem Anal Des 21:239–251
Forsberg J, Nilsson L (2007) Topology optimization in crashworthiness design. Struct Multidisc Optim 33:1–12
Goel T, Roux W, Stander N (2009) A topology optimization tool for LS-DYNA users: LS-OPT/topology. 7th European LS-DYNA Conference, Salzburg
Goel T, Stander N (2008) Influence of selection criterion on RBF topology selection for crashworthiness optimization. In: 12th AIAA/ISSMO multidiscipinary analysis and optimization conference, AIAA 2008–5997. British Columbia
Huang X, Xie Y (2008) Topology optimization of nonlinear structures under displacement loading. Engineering Structures 30:2057–2068
Lönn D, Öman M, Nilsson L, Simonsson K (2009) Finite element based robustness study of a truck cab subjected to impact loading. Int J Crashworthiness 14(2):111–124
Meyer M, Lehnerd A (1997) The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership. The Free Press, New York
Mozumder C, Bandi P, Patel N, Renaud J (2008) Thickness based topology optimization for crashwothiness design using hybrid cellular automata. In: 12th AIAA/ISSMO multidiscipinary analysis and optimization conference, AIAA 2008–6046. New York
Myers R, Montgomery D, Anderson-Cook C (2009) Response surface methodology, process and product optimization using designed experiments, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey
Öman M, Nilsson L (2010) Structural optimization of product families subjected to multiple crash load cases. Struct Multidisc Optim 41(5):797–815
Simpson T, Siddique Z, Jiao J (2006) Product platform and product family design: methods and applications. Springer, New York
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1988) Optimization by decomposition: a step from hierarchic to non-hierarchic systems. In: 2nd NASA/Air force symposium on recent advances in multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, NASACP 3031. Hampton, pp 1–27
Stander N, Craig K (2002) On the robustness of a simple domain reduction scheme for simulation-based optimization. Eng Comput 19(4):431–450
Stander N, Roux W, Giger M, Redhe M, Fedorova N, Haarhoff J (2004) A comparison of metamodeling techniques for crashworthiness optimization. In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidiscipinary analysis and optimization conference, AIAA 2008–4489. New York
Tanskanen P (2002) The evolutionary structural optimization method: theoretical aspects. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191:5485–5498
Tedford N, Martins J (2006) On the common structure of MDO problems: a comparison of architectures. In: 11th AIAA/ISSMO multidiscipinary analysis and optimization conference, AIAA 2006–7080. Portsmouth
Willcox K, Wakayama S (2003) Simultaneous optimization of a multiple-aircraft family. J Aircr 40(4):616–622
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Öman, M., Nilsson, L. An improved critical constraint method for structural optimization of product families. Struct Multidisc Optim 45, 235–246 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-011-0689-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-011-0689-9