Topology Optimization of Multicomponent Beam Structure via Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis

[+] Author and Article Information
Naesung Lyu, Kazuhiro Saitou

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125

J. Mech. Des 127(2), 170-183 (Mar 25, 2005) (14 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1814671 History: Received April 21, 2003; Revised April 19, 2004; Online March 25, 2005
Copyright © 2005 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Yetis,  A., and Saitou,  K., 2002, “Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis Based on Structural Considerations,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 124, pp. 593–601.
Cetin, O. L., and Saitou, K., 2001, “Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis for Maximum Structural Strength and Modularity,” Proc. 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, September 9–12, DETC2001/DAC-21121. An extended version accepted to ASME Journal of Mechanical Design.
Lyu,  N., and Saitou,  K., 2003, “Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis for Structural Stiffness,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 125, pp. 452–463.
Lotter, B., 1989, Manufacturing Assembly Handbook, Butterworths, London.
Deb., K., Agrawal, S., Pratab, A., and Meyarivan, T., 2000, “A Fast Elitist Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-Objective Optimization: NSGA-II,” KanGAL Report 200001, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India.
Coello, C. A., Veldhuizen, D. A., and Lamont, G. B., 2002, Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Saab, Y., and Rao, V., 1990, “Stochastic Evolution: A Fast Effective Heuristic for Some Genetic Layout Problems,” 27th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, ACM/IEEE, New York, pp. 26–31.
Laszewski, G., 1991, “Intelligent Structural Operators for the K-Way Graph Partitioning Problem,” Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp. 45–52.
Pereira, F., Machado, P., Costa, E., and Cardoso, A., 1999, “Graph Based Crossover—A Case Study With the Busy Beaver Problem,” Proc. 1999 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp. 1149–1155.
Howell, L.L., 2001, Compliant Mechanisms, John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 312.
Dorn,  W. C., Gomory,  R. E., and Greenberg,  H. J., 1964, “Automatic Design of Optimal Structures,” J. Mec., 3, pp. 25–52.
Rozvany, G. I., 1976, Optimal Design of Flexural Systems, Pergamon, London.
Rozvany, G. I., 1992, Shape and Lay-Out Optimization in Structural Design, CISM Lecture Notes No. 325, Springer, Vienna.
Fleury, C., 1993, Discrete Valued Optimal Design Problems, Bendsøe, M. P., and Mota Soares, C. A. (eds.), Topology Optimization of Structure, pp. 81–96, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Hajela, P., Lee, E., and Lin, C. Y., 1993, Genetic Algorithms in Structural Topology Optimization, Bendsøe, M. P., and Mota Soares, C. A. (eds.), Topology Optimization of Structure, pp. 117–134, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Beckers,  M., 1999, “Topology Optimization Using a Dual Method With Discrete Variables,” Struct. Optim., 17, pp. 14–24.
Kirsch,  U., 1989, “Optimal Topologies of Structures,” Appl. Mater. Res., 42, pp. 223–249.
Bendsøe,  M. P., 1994, “Optimization Methods for Truss Geometry and Topology Design,” Struct. Optim., 7, pp. 141–159.
Bendsøe,  M. P., and Kikuchi,  N., 1988, “Generating Optimal Topologies in Structural Design Using a Homogenization Method,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 71, pp. 197–224.
Diaz,  A. R., and Bendsøe,  M. P., 1992, “Shape Optimization of Structures for Multiple Loading Conditions Using a Homogenization Method,” Struct. Optim., 4, pp. 17–22.
Ananthasuresh, G. K., Kota, S., and Kikuchi, N., 1994, “Strategies for Systematic Synthesis of Compliant MEMS,” DSC-Vol. 55-2, 1994 ASME Winter Annual Meeting, pp. 677–686.
Jiang,  T., and Papalambros,  P. Y., 1996, “Optimal Structural Topology Design Using Homogenization Method With Multiple Constraints,” Eng. Optimiz., 27, pp. 87–108.
Rodrigues,  H., Guedes,  J. M., and Bendsøe,  M. P., 2002, “Hierarchical Optimization of Material and Structure,” Struct. Multidisciplinary Optim.,24, pp. 1–10.
Chickermane,  H., and Gea,  H. C., 1997, “Design of Multi-Component Structural System for Optimal Layout Topology and Joint Locations,” Eng. Comput., 13, pp. 235–243.
Johanson, R., Kikuchi, N., and Papalambros, P., 1994, “Simultaneous Topology and Material Microstructure Design,” Advances in Structural Optimization, B. H. V. Topping and M. Papadrakakis (ed.), Civil-Comp Ltd., Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 143–149.
Jiang,  T., and Chirehdast,  M., 1997, “A Systems Approach to Structural Topology Optimization: Designing Optimal Connections,” J. Mech. Des., 119, pp. 40–47.
Li,  Q., Steven,  G. P., and Xie,  Y. M., 2001, “Evolutionary Structural Optimization for Connection Topology Design of Multi-Component Systems,” Eng. Comput., 18(3/4), pp. 460–479.
Boothroyd, G., and Dewhurst, P., 1983, Design for Assembly Handbook, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P., and Knight, W., 1994, Product Design for Manufacturing and Assembly, Marcel Dekker, New York.
Gupta,  S. K., Regli,  W. C., and Nau,  D. S., 1994, “Integrating DFM With CAD Through Design Critiquing,” Concurrent Eng. Res. Appl.,2, pp. 85–95.
De Fanzio,  T., and Whitney,  D., 1987, “Simplified Generation of All Mechanical Assembly Sequences,” IEEE Trans. Rob. Autom., 3(6), pp. 640–658.
Ko,  H., and Lee,  K., 1987, “Automatic Assembling Procedure Generation From Mating Conditions,” Comput.-Aided Des., 19, pp. 3–10.
Wang, C. H., and Bourne, D., 1997, “Concurrent Decomposition for Sheet-Metal Product,” Proc. of 1997 ASME Design Technical Conference, Sacramento, CA, September, 1997.
Yetis,  A., and Saitou,  K., 2000, “Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis Based on Structural Considerations,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 124, pp. 593–601.
Cetin, O., and Saitou, K., 2003, “Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis of Multiple Structures for Minimum Production Cost,” Proc. 2003 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and R&D Exposition, Washington, D.C., Nov 15–21, IMECE2003-43085.
Bendsøe, M. P., and Sigmund, O., 2003, Topology Optimization: Theory, Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin.
Garey, M. R., and Johnson, D. S., 1979, Computers and Intractability, a Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, Freeman, New York.
Goldberg, D., 1989, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts.
Dijkstra,  E. W., 1959, “A Note on Two Problems in Connection With Graph,” Numer. Math., 1, pp. 269–271.


Grahic Jump Location
Outline of the approach (a) design domain, (b) ground structure consisting of basic members and potential joint locations, (c) the ground topology graph Gg, (d) optimization, (e) best product topology graph G (subgraphs representing components are annotated as C1–C3, and edges in joint set J is shown in dashed lines), and (f) optimal multicomponent structure
Grahic Jump Location
A sample topology defined by a topology vector t: (a) the ground structure, (b) Gg the ground topology graph, (c) a sample topology vector t and beam size vector w, (d) the original topology graph G0, defined by t and w, and (e) the corresponding topology. Note that only the black-colored elements of w are realized in (e).
Grahic Jump Location
Components set defined by the joint library method: (a) topology defined by t and w, (b) a sample joint library vector JL. Note that the joint library JL1 at the location J1 does not exist (marked as NULL in JL), (c) corresponding subgraph, and (d) physical components set of (c) with two components C0 and C1.
Grahic Jump Location
A sample joint model and modified joint assignment method used in this paper to assign joint attributes: (a) a sample structure with three components and (b) FE model for the J2 in (a), where each component is connected to the center node by using the torsional spring element (c) the modified individual joint attribute vector A _J2 that assigned to J2
Grahic Jump Location
Constraints for feasible topology: (a) feasible structure, (b) infeasible structure violating Connectivity Constraint 1, (c) points considered in Connectivity Constraint 2 (A: boundary condition, B: loading, and C: displacement), (d) infeasible topology violating Connectivity Constraint 2 (point A not connected), and (e) infeasible topology violating Connectivity Constraint 2 (point B–C not connected)
Grahic Jump Location
Manufacturability calculation considering sheet metal working: (a) a beam component defined, (b) corresponding sheet metal components to be joined into the beam component defined in (a), and (c) die useable area Au calculated from the convex hull area and shearing parameter P for (b)
Grahic Jump Location
Graph-based crossover operation: (a) parent structures P1 and P2 cut by crossover line L , (b) corresponding partitioning of P1 and P2 in graph representation, (c) assembly of offspring graphs C1 and C2 . Note that in C1 , edges e11 and e12 are copied from parent P1 because nodes n3,n4, and n5 are from P1 . Edges e16 and e13 are randomly assigned because n6 is from P2 while n4 and n5 are from P1 . (d) Offspring structures C1 and C2 constructed from their graphs. Both C1 and C2 have 2 components.
Grahic Jump Location
Mutation operation (a) the original structure and graph (b) topology mutation (c) altering joint locations and (d) altering beam size
Grahic Jump Location
Flowchart of multicomponent structure synthesis
Grahic Jump Location
Case Study 1 model: (a) design domain, (b) ground structure with 15 beam elements, and (c) ground topology graph of 15 nodes (n0∼n14) and 44 edges (e0∼e43)
Grahic Jump Location
Joint Library Type for a given topology: (a) Joint Location J0 and J2 have the same joint library Type 2 , and (b) Joint Library of the Type 3 Joint. Total 5 cases (C0∼C4) are in the Type 3 Joint Library.
Grahic Jump Location
Typical convergence histories of GA runs with three different mutation probabilities for y (black line: 0.005, dark gray line: 0.05, and light gray line: 0.1)
Grahic Jump Location
Distribution of designs at generation=100 for Case Study 1. In all plots, the utopia points are at the upper-right corner. Black-marked ones are designs in the Pareto Set with respect to all four objectives. Three representative Pareto optimal designs R1,R2, and R3 are shown in Fig. 14.
Grahic Jump Location
Representative Pareto optimal designs for Case Study 1: (a) R1, (b) R2, and (c) R3.R1,R2, and R3 have 3, 3, and 4 components, respectively. Thickness of beams represents the size (width and height) of cross-sectional design.
Grahic Jump Location
Case study 2 model: (a)–(c) Design domain with three loading and boundary conditions, (d) ground structure with 69 beam elements, and (e) ground topology with 69 nodes (n0∼n68) and 284 edges. Edge numbers (e0∼e283) are not shown in (e) due to the space limitation. Due to the symmetric design assumption, only the basic members in the right half plane in (d) contain the design variables. Left half plane has the symmetric design of the right half-plane design.
Grahic Jump Location
Typical convergence histories of two GA runs
Grahic Jump Location
Distribution of designs at generation=100 for Case Study 2. In all plots, the utopia points are at the upper-right corner. Black-marked ones are designs in the Pareto Set to all six objectives. Five representative Pareto optimal designs R1,R2,R3,R4, and R5 are shown in Fig. 18.
Grahic Jump Location
Representative Pareto optimal designs: (a) R1 (3 components), (b) R2 (8 components), (c) R3 (14 components), (d) R4 (4 components), and (e) R5 (7 components). Thickness of components represents the size (width and height) of cross-sectional design.
Grahic Jump Location
A spider diagram for the objective function values of the representative Pareto optimal designs (R1∼R5) in Case Study 2. Note that R5 shows a balanced performance in all six objective functions.




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In