0
Technical Briefs

Some Recent Advances in the Integrated Layout Design of Multicomponent Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
Weihong Zhang1

The Key Laboratory of Contemporary Design and Integrated Manufacturing Technology, Engineering Simulation and Aerospace Computing (ESAC),  Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710072, Chinazhangwh@nwpu.edu.cn

Liang Xia, Jihong Zhu, Qiao Zhang

The Key Laboratory of Contemporary Design and Integrated Manufacturing Technology, Engineering Simulation and Aerospace Computing (ESAC),  Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710072, China

http://artemis.ae.utexas.edu

http://isg.cs.tcd.ie/spheretree

1

Corresponding author.

J. Mech. Des 133(10), 104503 (Oct 18, 2011) (15 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4005083 History: Received January 12, 2011; Revised September 01, 2011; Published October 18, 2011; Online October 18, 2011

We provide an introduction and state of the art overview of integrated layout design of multicomponent systems. We review several packing optimization and overlap detection strategies, some tree-based methods, such as octrees and spheretrees, and a finite circle method (FCM) proposed to favor gradient-based optimization algorithms. Integrated layout design techniques for simultaneous packing and structure topology optimization of multicomponent systems are reviewed; two typical approaches for system stiffness maximization are reviewed and compared in detail. Design of multicomponent systems under inertia forces is presented using polynomial interpolation models; constraints to the centroid position, moment of inertia, and volume fraction are included. Applications to piezoelectric multi-actuated microtools and integrated layout design of bridge systems are presented. Finally, the effectiveness of the FCM, applications to 3D problems, and local optimum phenomena are discussed.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

The structure and packing design of the NanoSat by University of Texas at Austin

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Illustration of multicomponent problem: (a) topology optimization with fixed components and (b) topology optimization with movable components

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Configuration design of a truck [5]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Layout optimization of satellite module [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Collision detections using the tree methods: (a) an octree based collision detection and (b) illustration of a three-level sphere-tree definition

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

The FCM approximation of the components [23]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

The FCM approximation of the design domain boundary [23]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

The design iteration and the optimal result: (a) the initial configuration, (b) iteration 4, (c) iteration 8, and (d) the final configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

A two-component system with two joint locations [36]: (a) problem specifications, (b) optimal solution, and (c) interpreted solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Material interpolation scheme [36]: (a) material interpolation for a square and a nonconvex object embedded into the design region and (b) the corresponding contour plot

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

The second test example in Ref. [36]: (a) problem description and (b) optimal solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

The third test example in Ref. [36]: (a) problem description and (b) optimal solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Element material properties received from the density points [39]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Illustration of three parts of the FE mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Illustration of a simple two-component structure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Integrated layout design with components of stiffer materials [40]: (a) iteration 5, (b) iteration 10, (c) iteration 20, and (d) final design; final strain energy C = 0.074 J

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

A standard topology design without component; final strain energy C = 0.077 J [42]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Integrated layout design with components of weak stiffness [42]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Integrated layout design with partially supported components [42]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

SIMP interpolation model and element mass to stiffness ratio [45]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Solutions obtained using standard SIMP model [39]: (a) design domain of the test example and (b) material layout and localized deformation at the 13th iteration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Modified interpolation models: (a) improved interpolation model with p = 3 and α=16 [45-46] and (b) the PIM model with p=3 and α=16 [39]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 23

Solutions obtained using PIM model [42]: (a) material layout and deformation at the 16th iteration and (b) final material layout solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 24

Illustration of an aerospace structure system [42]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 25

Integrated design under inertial load [39]: (a) iteration 5, (b) iteration 15, (c) final optimal design, C = 4.698 J, and (d) topology design without component

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 26

Optimal solutions under different physical constraints: (a) integrated design under both inertial load and centroid constraint, C = 6.928 J [39] and (b) integrated design under inertial load and constraint to the moment of inertia, C = 9.212 J [42]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 27

Concept of a multi-actuated flextensional piezoelectric device [47]: (a) XY nanopositioner, (b) piezoceramics are responsible for XY displacements, rotation, and open/close movement of the jaw

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 28

Design domain and load conditions [47]: (a) XY pizeoelectric nanopositioner and (b) piezoelectric microgripper

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 29

Optimal topologies [47]: (a) XY pizeoelectric nanopositioner and (b) piezoelectric microgripper

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 30

Illustration of the integrated support and structure layout design [41]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 31

The design domain and the support components [41]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 32

Integrated support and layout design of a bridge-like structure [41]: (a) iteration 5, (b) iteration 10, and (c) final design, C = 0.1298 J

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 33

Optimal design configuration with two components placed on the vertical sides [42]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 34

Optimal design configuration with all components placed on the vertical sides [42]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 35

Integrated layout design of a 3D structure with three components: (a) iteration 2, (b) iteration 5, (c) iteration 10, (d) iteration 18, and (e) iteration history

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 36

Optimal design with an artificial initial layout, C = 3.96 J

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 37

Optimum design with pre-optimized initial layout, C = 3.17 J

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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