0
Research Papers

A Kriging-Interpolated Level-Set Approach for Structural Topology Optimization

[+] Author and Article Information
Karim Hamza

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2102
e-mail: khamza@umich.edu

Mohamed Aly

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
American University in Cairo,
Cairo 11835, Egypt
e-mail: mfawzyaly@aucegypt.edu

Hesham Hegazi

Mechanical Design and Production Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Cairo University,
Giza 12316, Egypt
e-mail: hhegazi@aucegypt.edu

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received April 21, 2013; final manuscript received October 9, 2013; published online November 7, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Shinji Nishiwaki.

J. Mech. Des 136(1), 011008 (Nov 07, 2013) (12 pages) Paper No: MD-13-1180; doi: 10.1115/1.4025706 History: Received April 21, 2013; Revised October 09, 2013

Level-set approaches are a family of domain classification techniques that rely on defining a scalar level-set function (LSF), then carrying out the classification based on the value of the function relative to one or more thresholds. Most continuum topology optimization formulations are at heart, a classification problem of the design domain into structural materials and void. As such, level-set approaches are gaining acceptance and popularity in structural topology optimization. In conventional level set approaches, finding an optimum LSF involves solution of a Hamilton-Jacobi system of partial differential equations with a large number of degrees of freedom, which in turn, cannot be accomplished without gradients information of the objective being optimized. A new approach is proposed in this paper where design variables are defined as the values of the LSF at knot points, then a Kriging model is used sto interpolate the LSF values within the rest of the domain so that classification into material or void can be performed. Perceived advantages of the Kriging-interpolated level-set (KLS) approach include alleviating the need for gradients of objectives and constraints, while maintaining a reasonable number of design variables that is independent from the mesh size. A hybrid genetic algorithm (GA) is then used for solving the optimization problem(s). An example problem of a short cantilever is studied under various settings of the KLS parameters in order to infer the best practice recommendations for tuning the approach. Capabilities of the approach are then further demonstrated by exploring its performance on several test problems.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

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. [CrossRef]
Rozvany, G., 2001, “Aims, Scope, Methods, History and Unified Terminology of Computer-Aided Topology Optimization in Structural Mechanics,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 21(2), pp. 90–108. [CrossRef]
Saitou, K., Nishiwaki, S., Izui, K., and Papalambros, P., 2005, “A Survey on Structural Optimization in Product Development,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 5(3), pp. 214–226. [CrossRef]
Bendsøe, M. P., 1989, “Optimal Shape Design as a Material Distribution Problem,” Struct. Optim., 1, pp. 193–202. [CrossRef]
Sigmund, O., 2001, “A 99 Line Topology Optimization Code Written in MATLAB,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 21(2), pp. 120–127. [CrossRef]
Deb, K., and Gulati, S., 2001, “Design of Truss-Structures for Minimum Weight Using Genetic Algorithms,” Finite Elem. Anal. Des., 37(5), pp. 447–465. [CrossRef]
Xie, Y. M., and Steven, G. P., 1993, “A Simple Evolutionary Procedure for Structural Optimization,” Comput. Struct., 49(5), pp. 885–896. [CrossRef]
Sigmund, O., 2011, “On the Usefulness of Non-Gradient Approaches in Topology Optimization,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 43, pp. 589–596. [CrossRef]
Yamasaki, S., Nomura, T., Kawamoto, A., Sato, K., Izui, K., and Nishiwaki, S., 2010, “A Level Set Based Topology Optimization Method Using the Discretized Signed Distance Function as the Design Variables,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 41(5), pp. 685–698. [CrossRef]
Yamada, T., Izui, K., Nishiwaki, S., and Takezawa, A., 2010, “A Topology Optimization Method Based on the Level Set Method Incorporating a Fictitious Interface Energy,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 199(45–48), pp. 2876–2891. [CrossRef]
Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P., and Knight, W., 1994, Product Design for Manufacturing and Assembly, Marcel Dekker, New York.
Belytschko, T., Xiao, S. P., and Parimi, C., 2003, “Topology Optimization With Implicit Functions and Regularization,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 57(8), pp. 1177–1196. [CrossRef]
Allaire, G., Jouve, F., Toader, A. M., 2002, “A Level Set Method for Shape Optimization,” Acad. Sci., Paris, C. R., 334, pp. 1125–1130. [CrossRef]
Allaire, G., Jouve, F., and Toader, A. M., 2004, “Structural Optimization Using a Sensitivity Analysis and a Level-Set Method,” J. Comput. Phys., 194, pp. 363–393. [CrossRef]
Wang, M. Y., Wang, X., and Guo, D., 2003, “A Level Set Method for Structural Topology Optimization,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 192, pp. 227–246. [CrossRef]
Osher, S., and Sethian, J. A., 1988, “Front Propagating With Curvature Dependent Speed: Algorithms Based on Hamilton–Jacobi Formulations,” J. Comput. Phys., 78, pp. 12–49. [CrossRef]
Wang, S., and Wang, M. Y., 2006, “Radial Basis Functions and Level Set Method for Structural Topology Optimization,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 65, pp. 2060–2090. [CrossRef]
Luo, Z., Tong, L., and Kang, Z., 2009, “A Level Set Method for Structural Shape and Topology Optimization Using Radial Basis Functions,” Comput. Struct., 87, pp. 425–434. [CrossRef]
Wei, P., and Wang, M. Y., 2009, “Piecewise Constant Level Set Method for Structural Topology Optimization,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 78, pp. 379–402. [CrossRef]
Yamada, T., Izui, K., Nishiwaki, S., and Takezawa, A., 2010, “A Topology Optimization Method Based on the Level Set Method Incorporating a Fictitious Interface Energy,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 199, pp. 2876–2891. [CrossRef]
Challis, V. J., 2010, “A Discrete Level-Set Topology Optimization Code Written in Matlab,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 41, pp. 453–464. [CrossRef]
James, K. A., and Martins, J. R., 2012, “An Isoparametric Approach to Level Set Topology Optimization Using a Body-Fitted Finite-Element Mesh,” Comput. Struct., 90–91, pp. 97–106. [CrossRef]
Sasena, M., Papalambros, P., and Goovaerts, P., 2002, “Exploration of Metamodeling Sampling Criteria for Constrained Global Optimization,” Eng. Optimiz., 34(3), pp. 263–278. [CrossRef]
Simpson, T., Booker, A., Ghosh, D., Giunta, A., Koch, P., and Yang, R., 2004, “Approximation Methods in Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization: A Panel Discussion,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 27, pp. 302–313. [CrossRef]
Viana, F., Gogu, C., and Haftka, R., 2010, “Making the Most Out of Surrogate Models: Tricks of the Trade,” Proceeding ASME 44090, Volume 1: 36th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B 587 (January 1, 2010), IDETC/CIE 2010, August 15–18, 2010, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [CrossRef]
Michalewiz, Z., and Fogel, D. B., 2000, How to Solve it: Modern Heuristics, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., and Meyarivan, T., 2002, “A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II,” IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, 6(2), pp. 182–197. [CrossRef]
Gladwell, I., Ferguson, W., and Nagy, J. G., 2011, Introduction to Scientific Computing using MATLAB, Lulu Publishing, Chap. 7, Raleigh, NC.
Box, G., Hunter, W., and Hunter, J., 1978, Statistics for Experimenters, John Wiley & Sons, NY.
Yildiz, A., and Saitou, K., 2011, “Topology Synthesis of Multi-Component Structural Assemblies in Continuum Domains,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 133, p. 011008. [CrossRef]
Hamza, K., Aly, M., Hegazi, H., and Saitou, K., 2013, “Multi-Objective Topology Optimization of Multi-Component Continuum Structures Via an Explicit Level-Set Approach,” 10th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Orlando, FL, Paper No. 5172.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Pareto-plot of compliance verses shape complexity (w/ details of select designs shown) for a short cantilever

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Illustration of two different level-set functions that correspond to the same structural design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Knot points layouts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Box plots for various knot point layouts and optimization algorithm settings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Monte-Carlo simulation of obtainable solution quality verses GA settings and available computational resources

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Level-set function and its realization with different FE mesh sizes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Box plots for various Kriging model tuning and knot points settings with material fraction volume of 0.45

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Box plots for various Kriging model tuning and knot points settings with material fraction volume of 0.6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Short cantilever problem optimization results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Bridge problem description and baseline design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Bridge problem optimization results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Bookshelf problem description and baseline design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Bookshelf problem optimization results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Pareto plots for cantilever problem

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Combining Pareto plots for cantilever problem

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