Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An aggregation strategy of maximum size constraints in density-based topology optimization

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The maximum size constraint restricts the amount of material within a test region in each point of the design domain, leading to a highly constrained problem. In this work, the local constraints are gathered into a single one using aggregation functions. The challenge of this task is presented in detail, as well as the proposed strategy to address it. The latter is validated on different test problems as the compliance minimization, the minimum thermal compliance, and the compliant mechanism design. These are implemented in the MATLAB software for 2D design domains. As final validation, a 3D compliance minimization problem is also shown. The study includes two well-known aggregation functions, p-mean and p-norm. The comparison of these functions allows a deeper understanding about their behavior. For example, it is shown that they are strongly dependent on the distribution and amount of data. In addition, a new test region is proposed for the maximum size constraint which, in 2D, is a ring instead of a circle around the element under analysis. This slightly change reduces the introduction of holes in the optimized designs, which can contribute to improve manufacturability of maximum size–constrained components.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aage N, Andreassen E, Lazarov BS (2015) Topology optimization using petsc: an easy-to-use, fully parallel, open source topology optimization framework. Struct Multidiscip Optim 51(3):565– 572

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida SRMd, Paulino GH, Silva ECN (2009) A simple and effective inverse projection scheme for void distribution control in topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 39(4):359–371

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Amir O, Lazarov BS (2018) Achieving stress-constrained topological design via length scale control. Struct Multidiscip Optim 58(5):2053–2071

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen E, Clausen A, Schevenels M, Lazarov BS, Sigmund O (2011) Efficient topology optimization in matlab using 88 lines of code. Struct Multidiscip Optim 43(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendsøe MP, Kikuchi N (1988) Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a homogenization method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 71(2):197–224

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Carstensen JV, Guest JK (2018) Projection-based two-phase minimum and maximum length scale control in topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 58(5):1845–1860

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Deaton JD, Grandhi RV (2014) A survey of structural and multidisciplinary continuum topology optimization: post 2000. Struct Multidiscip Optim 49(1):1–38

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Duysinx P, Sigmund O (1998) New developments in handling stress constraints in optimal material distribution. In: 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, p 4906

  • Guest J (2009a) Imposing maximum length scale in topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 37:463–473

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Guest JK (2009b) Topology optimization with multiple phase projection. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 199(1–4):123– 135

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Guest J, Prévost J, Belytschko T (2004) Achieving minimum length scale in topology optimization using nodal design variables and projection functions. Int J Numer Methods Eng 61:238–254

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen M, Lombaert G, Schevenels M, Sigmund O (2014) Topology optimization of fail-safe structures using a simplified local damage model. Struct Multidiscip Optim 49:657–666

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarov BS, Wang F (2017) Maximum length scale in density based topology optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 318:826–844

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarov B, Wang F, Sigmund O (2016) Length scale and manufacturability in density-based topology optimization. Arch Appl Mech 86:189–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • París J, Navarrina F, Colominas I, Casteleiro M (2010) Block aggregation of stress constraints in topology optimization of structures. Adv Eng Softw 41(3):433–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qian X, Sigmund O (2013) Topological design of electromechanical actuators with robustness toward over-and under-etching. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 253:237–251

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas-Labanda S, Stolpe M (2015) Automatic penalty continuation in structural topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 52(6):1205–1221

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sigmund O (2001) A 99 line topology optimization code written in matlab. Struct Multidiscip Optim 21 (2):120–127

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sigmund O (2007) Morphology-based black and white filters for topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 33(4):401–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigmund O, Maute K (2013) Topology optimization approaches. Struct Multidiscip Optim 48(6):1031–1055

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Svanberg K (1987) The method of moving asymptotes—a new method for structural optimization. Int J Numer Methods Eng 24(2):359–373

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Talischi C, Paulino GH, Pereira A, Menezes IF (2012) Polytop: a matlab implementation of a general topology optimization framework using unstructured polygonal finite element meshes. Struct Multidiscip Optim 45 (3):329–357

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson MK, Moroni G, Vaneker T, Fadel G, Campbell RI, Gibson I, Bernard A, Schulz J, Graf P, Ahuja B et al (2016) Design for additive manufacturing: Trends, opportunities, considerations, and constraints. CIRP Ann-Manuf Technol 65(2):737–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbart A, Langelaar M, Van Keulen F (2017) A unified aggregation and relaxation approach for stress-constrained topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 55(2):663–679

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wang F, Lazarov BS, Sigmund O (2011) On projection methods, convergence and robust formulations in topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 43(6):767–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Clausen A, Sigmund O (2017) Minimum compliance topology optimization of shell–infill composites for additive manufacturing. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 326:358–375

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Aage N, Westermann R, Sigmund O (2018) Infill optimization for additive manufacturing—approaching bone-like porous structures. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 24(2):1127–1140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan S, Wang F, Sigmund O (2018) On the non-optimality of tree structures for heat conduction. Int J Heat Mass Transf 122:660–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang R, Chen C (1996) Stress-based topology optimization. Struct Optim 12(2–3):98–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Zhong W, Guo X (2014) An explicit length scale control approach in SIMP-based topology optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 282:71–86

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou M, Lazarov BS, Wang F, Sigmund O (2015) Minimum length scale in topology optimization by geometric constraints. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 293:266–282

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The work was supported by the project AERO+, funded by the Plan Marshall 4.0 and the Walloon Region of Belgium. Computational resources have been provided by the Consortium des Équipements de Calcul Intensif (CÉCI), funded by the Scientific Research Fund of Belgium (F.R.S.-FNRS).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium

    Eduardo Fernández, Maxime Collet, Pablo Alarcón, Simon Bauduin & Pierre Duysinx

Authors
  1. Eduardo Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maxime Collet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pablo Alarcón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Simon Bauduin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pierre Duysinx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo Fernández.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: James K Guest

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: MATLAB code of the maximum size constraint

Appendix: MATLAB code of the maximum size constraint

figure e

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernández, E., Collet, M., Alarcón, P. et al. An aggregation strategy of maximum size constraints in density-based topology optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 60, 2113–2130 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-019-02313-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-019-02313-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation