Structural Shape Optimization and Convex Programming Methods

  • W. H. Zhang
  • C. Fleury
Conference paper
Part of the Solid Mechanics and its Applications book series (SMIA, volume 43)

Abstract

Nowadays, convex programming methods are recognized as an efficient approach to solve a variety of structural optimization problems. Their integration with F.E. computing codes as well as modern CAD systems provides a powerful tool to fulfil realistic engineering design tasks. In this paper, two topics are addressed. The first one is concerned with shape optimization techniques which include automatic selection of design variables based on parametric CAD model, appropriate implementation of semi-analytical sensitivity analysis method and mesh perturbators for velocity field evaluations. The second one is about convex programming methods. A comparative study of different methods will make sure that using general and high-quality approximation schemes are essential to improve the efficiency of the design procedure when considered problems are characterized by different types of constraints (e.g. static, dynamic) and different types of design variables (e.g. sizing, configurational, topological). In this context, the GMMA (Generalized Method of Moving Asymptotes) and DQA (Diagonal Quadratic Approximation) methods are proposed here. Numerical examples are given to illustrate concerned issues and different methods. A discussion will be made about results.

Keywords

Design Variable Structural Optimization Problem Iteration History Structural Shape Optimization Moving Asymptote 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Light, R. and Gossard, D. (1982) Modification of geometric models through variational geometry, CAD 14, 209–214.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang, W.H. and Beckers, P. (1989) Comparison of different sensitivity analyses approaches for structural shape optimization, in C.A. Brebbia and S. Hernandez (eds.), Recent Advances, Springer- Verlag, Southampton, pp.347–356.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang, W.H. and Fleury, C. (1994) Recent advances in convex approximation methods for structural optimization, in B.H.V. Topping and M. Papadrakakis (eds.), Advances in structural optimization, Civil- Comp Press, Edinburgh, pp.83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Svanberg, K. (1987) Method of moving asymptotes - a new method for structural optimization, Int. j. numer. methods eng. 24, 359–373.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleury, C. (1989) First and second order convex approximation strategies in structural optimization, structural optimization 1, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuritz, S.P. and Fleury. C. (1989) Mixed variables structural optimization using convex linearization techniques, Eng. opt. 15, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bennett, J.A. and Botkin, M.E. (1984) Structural shape optimization with geometric description and adaptive mesh refinement, AIAA J. 23, 458–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. H. Zhang
    • 1
  • C. Fleury
    • 1
  1. 1.Aerospace Laboratory, LTASUniversity of LiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations