0
Technical Briefs

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Modular Industrial Robots by Utilizing High Level CAD Templates

[+] Author and Article Information
Mehdi Tarkian

e-mail: mehdi.tarkian@liu.se

Johan Persson

e-mail: johan.persson@liu.se

Johan Ölvander

e-mail: johan.olvander@liu.se
Department of Management and Engineering,
Linköping University,
SE-581 83 Linköping Sweden

Xiaolong Feng

ABB Corporate Research,
SE-721 78 Västerås Sweden
e-mail: xiaolong.feng@se.abb.com

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received November 10, 2011; final manuscript received August 28, 2012; published online October 19, 2012. Assoc. Editor: Shinji Nishiwaki.

J. Mech. Des 134(12), 124502 (Oct 19, 2012) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4007697 History: Received November 10, 2011; Revised August 28, 2012

This paper presents a multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) framework for automated design of a modular industrial robot. The developed design framework seamlessly integrates high level computer aided design (CAD) templates (HLCt) and physics based high fidelity models for automated geometry manipulation, dynamic simulation, and structural strength analysis. In the developed framework, methods such as surrogate models and multilevel optimization are employed in order to speed up the design optimization process. This work demonstrates how a parametric geometric model, based on the concept of HLCt, enables a multidisciplinary framework for multi-objective optimization of a modular industrial robot, which constitutes an example of a complex heterogeneous system.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Bowcutt, K. G., 2003, “A Perspective on the Future of Aerospace Vehicle Design,” 12th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies, Norfolk, VA, AIAA Paper No. 2003-6957.
Chapman, C. B., and Pinfold, M., 1999, “Design Engineering—A Need to Rethink the Solution Using Knowledge Based Engineering,” J. Knowl. Based Syst., 12(5–6), pp. 257–267. [CrossRef]
Simpson, T. W., and Martins, J. R. R. A., 2011, “Multidisciplinary Design Optimization for Complex Engineered Systems: Report From a National Science Foundation Workshop,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 133(10), p. 101002. [CrossRef]
Giesing, J. P., and Barthelemy, J.-F. M., 1998, “A Summary of Industry MDO Applications and Needs,” AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, St. Louis, MO, AIAA Paper No. 1998-4737.
Mawhinney, P., Price, M., Curran, R., Benard, E., Murphy, A., and Raghunathan, S., 2005, “Geometry-Based Approach to Analysis Integration for Aircraft Conceptual Design,” 5th Annual Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) forum, Washington, DC, Paper No. AIAA-2005-7481.
La Rocca, G., and van Tooren, M. J. L., 2009, “Knowledge-Based Engineering Approach to Support Aircraft Multidisciplinary Design and Optimization,” J. Aircraft, 46(6), pp. 1875–1885. [CrossRef]
Tarkian, M., 2009, “Design Reuse and Automation—On High Level CAD Modeling for Multidisciplinary Design and Optimization,” Linköping Studies in Science and Technology, Licentiate thesis, Linköping, Sweden, No. 1419.
La Rocca, G., and van Tooren, M. J. L., 2007, “A Knowledge Based Engineering Approach to Support Automatic Generation of FE Models in Aircraft Design,” 45th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper No. 2007-967.
Allison, J. T., Kokkolaras, M., and PapalambrosP. Y., 2007, “On Selecting Single-Level Formulations for Complex System Design Optimization,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 129(9), pp. 898–906. [CrossRef]
Krenn, R., Schäfer, B., and Hirzinger, G., 2002, “Dynamics Simulation and Assembly Environment for Rapid Manipulator Design,” 7th ESA Workshop on Advanced Space Technologies for Robotics and Automation, ESTEC, Noordwijk, Netherlands, Nov. 19–21.
Paredis, C. J. J., Brown, H. B., and Khosla, P. K., 1996, “A Rapidly Deployable Manipulator System,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, MN, Minneapolis, pp. 1434–1439.
JohanssonB., ÖlvanderJ., and PetterssonM., 2007, “Component Based Modeling and Optimization for Modular Robot Design,” ASME DAC’07, Las Vegas, Sept. 4–7.
Petterson, M., Andersson, J., and Krus, P., 2005, “Methods for Discrete Design Optimization,” Proceedings of ASME DETC05, Design Automation Conference, Long Beach, California.
Tarkian, M., Ölvander, J., FengX., and Pettersson, M., 2009, “Design Automation of Modular Industrial Robots,” ASME CIE09, San Diego.
Pellicciari, M., Berselli, G., Leali, F., Vergnano, A., and Lennartson, B., 2011, “Object-Oriented Modeling of Industrial Manipulators With Application to Energy Optimal Trajectory Scaling,” Washington DC, ASME Paper No. IDETC 2011.
Vandenbrande, J. H., Grandine, A., and Hogan, T., 2006,“The Search for the Perfect Body: Shape Control for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization,” 44th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper No. 2006-928.
Modelica Association, 1999, Modelica A Unified Object-Oriented Language for Physical Systems Modeling, Language Specification, http://www.modelica.org
Myers, R. H., Montgomery, D. C., and Anderson-Cook, C. M., 2009, Response Surface Methodology, Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Shan, S., and Wang, G. G. M., 2010, “Metamodeling for High Dimensional Simulation-Based Design Problems,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 132(5), p. 051009. [CrossRef]
Pebesma, E. J., and Weeseling, C. G., 1998, “GSTAT: A Program for Geostatistical Modelling, Prediction and Simulation,” Comput. Sci., 24(1), pp. 17–31. [CrossRef]
Martin, J. D., and Simpson, T. W., 2005, “A Method to Manage Uncertainty During System-Level Conceptual Design,” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference—Design Automation Conference, Long Beach, California, Sept. 24–28, ASME Paper No. DETC2005-84984.
Park, H.-S., and Dang, X.-P., 2010, “Structural Optimization Based on CAD-CAE Integration and Metamodeling Techniques,” Comput.-Aided Des., 42, pp. 889–902. [CrossRef]
Yi, S. I., Shin, J. K., and Park, G. J., 2008, “Comparison of MDO Methods With Mathematical Examples,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 35(5), pp. 391–402. [CrossRef]
Cramer, E. J., Dennis, J. E., Frank, P. D., Lewis, R. M., and Shubin, G. R., 1993, “Problem Formulation for Multidisciplinary Optimization,” Center for Research on Parallel Computation Rice University, Paper No. CRPC-TR93334.
Haftka, R. T., 1985, “Simultaneous Analysis and Design,” AIAA J., 23(7), pp. 1099–1103. [CrossRef]
Fujita, K., and Yoshida, H., 2004, “Product Variety Optimization Simultaneously Designing Module Combination and Module Attributes,” Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl., 12(2), pp. 105–118. [CrossRef]
Ferguson, S. F., Kasprzak, E. M., and Lewis, K., 2008, “Design of a Family of Reconfigurable Vehicles Using Multilevel Multidisciplinary Design Optimization,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. J., 39(2), pp. 171–186. [CrossRef]
McAllister, C. D., and Simpson, T. W., 2003, “Multidisciplinary Robust Design Optimization of an Internal Combustion Engine,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 125(1), pp. 124–130. [CrossRef]
Venter, G., and Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., 2004, “Multidisciplinary Optimization of a Transport Aircraft Wing Using Particle Swarm Optimization,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 26(1–2), pp. 121–131. [CrossRef]
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., and Kodiyalam, S., 2001, “BLISS/S: A New Method for Two-Level Structural Optimization,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 21(1), pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
Fonseca, C. M., and Fleming, P. J., 1998, “Multiobjective Optimization and Multiple Constraint Handling With Evolutionary Algorithms—Part I: A Unified Formulation,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., Part A. Syst. Humans, 28(1), pp. 26–37. [CrossRef]
Nelder, J., and Mead, R., 1965, “A Simplex Method for Function Minimization,” Comput. J., 7(4), pp. 308–313. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The high level CAD template instantiation process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Actuator (left), datum (center), and structure HLCt (right). Shown are also the references required by each HLCt. In order for the actuator HLCt instance to be fully defined, a reference point from datum HLCt, which is not visualized, is also required.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

An industrial robot (left) and a modular industrial robot (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

FE models of the even and odd links

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The SL optimization process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

The ML optimization process with one global and six local optimizations in sequence

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Pareto frontier (marked) for the ML strategy and SL strategy

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Pareto frontiers of the SL (dark dots) and the ML (light dots) strategies

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Optimal robot variants from the ML and SL pareto frontiers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Graph of the NRMSEs for different surrogate models, fitted using 50 and 100 samples

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Relationships between variables (ac, α, and ω and t), objectives (W and CT) and constraints (AL and MS) in the integrated design framework

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