Actuator Layout Optimization for Adaptive Structures Performing Large Shape Changes
Adaptive structures are sensed and actuated to modify internal forces and shape to maintain optimal performance in response to loads. The use of large shape changes as a structural adaptation strategy to counteract the effect of loads has been investigated previously. When large shape changes are employed, structures are designed to change shape as the load changes thus giving the opportunity to homogenize stresses. In this way, the design is not governed by peak loads that occur very rarely. Simulations have shown a significant amount of embodied energy can be reduced with respect to optimized active structures limited to small shape changes and with respect to passive structures. However, in these previous studies, the actuator layout was assigned a-priori.
This paper presents a new method to search for an actuator layout that is optimum to counteract the effect of loads via large shape changes. The objective is to design the actuation system allowing the structure to ‘morph’ into shapes optimized to maximize material utilization for each load case. A combination of simulated annealing and the nonlinear force method is proposed to meet both the actuator placement problem and to determine appropriate actuator commands. A heuristic for near-neighbor generation based on the actuator control efficacy is employed to explore effectively the large search space. Case studies show the proposed method converges to the global optimum for simple configurations and generally produces actuator layouts enabling shape control even with a low number of actuators.
KeywordsAdaptive structures Shape control Actuator layout optimization Nonlinear force method Stochastic search
The research presented in this paper is supported by the Swiss Government Excellence Scholarship (ESKAS-Nr: 2016.0749).
- 1.Straube, J.: Green building and sustainability. Building Science Digests, 24 October 2006Google Scholar
- 5.Senatore, G., Duffour, P., Hanna, S., Labbe, F., Winslow, P.: Adaptive structures for whole life energy savings. Int. Assoc. Shell Spat. Struct. (IASS) 52(170), 233–240 (2011)Google Scholar
- 6.Senatore, G., Duffour, P., Winslow, P.: Whole-life energy and cost assessment of adaptive structures - case studies. J. Struct. Eng. (ASCE) (in press)Google Scholar
- 8.Reksowardojo, A., Senatore, G., Smith, I.: Large and reversible shape changes as a strategy for structural adaptation. In: Proceeding of International Association for Shell and Spacial Structures (IASS) (2017)Google Scholar
- 9.Skelton, R.E., Sultan, C.: Integrated design of controllable tensegrity structures. Adapt. Struct. Mater. Syst. 54, 27–35 (1997)Google Scholar
- 11.Manning, R.A.: Optimum design of intelligent truss structures. In: Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Co-located (1991)Google Scholar
- 14.de Jager, B., Skelton, R.: Input/output selection for planar tensegrity models. In: Proceedings of 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Orlando (2001)Google Scholar
- 19.Senatore, G.: Adaptive building structures. Doctoral dissertation, University College London, London (2016)Google Scholar
- 24.Kahla, N., Kebiche, K.: Nonlinear elastoplastic analysis of tensegrity systems. Comput. Struct. 22, 1552–1566 (2000)Google Scholar
- 25.Xu, X., Luo, Y.: Non-liear displacement control of prestressed cable structures. J. Aerosp. Eng. 223, 1001–1007 (2009)Google Scholar
- 36.Eurocode 1 Actions on structures—General actions—Part 1–4: Wind (1991)Google Scholar