Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:59:45.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Topology optimisation via the moving iso-surface threshold method: implementation and application

Part of: Smart Aircraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

S. Vasista  and
L. Tong
L. Tong*
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
*
liyong.tong@sydney.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Topology optimisation is a useful tool for the design of aircraft structures. This work details how the new moving iso-surface threshold (MIST) topology optimisation method works and how it can be applied to aircraft structural design. This method has been coupled with commercial finite element analysis software in a simple manner without requiring the modification of the commercial software source code. In this way the user is able to take advantage of the finite element analysis tools such as automatic mesh generation and efficient solving. The extension of the method to 3D designs is also presented. The topology results of a 2D leading-edge rib for stiffness, stress and morphing objectives and a 3D wing skin stringer for stress design demonstrate the functionality of this method.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1201 , March 2014 , pp. 315 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Krog, L., Tucker, A., Kemp, M. and Boyd, R. Topology optimization of aircraft wing box ribs, 2004, Altair Technology Conference.Google Scholar
2. Krog, L., Tucker, A. and Rollema, G. Application of topology, sizing and shape optimization methods to optimal design of aircraft components, 2002, Altair Engineering, pp 11–1 - 11-11, UK.Google Scholar
3. Tomlin, M. and Meyer, J. Topology optimization of an additive layer manufactured (ALM) aerospace part, Seventh Altair CAE Technology Conference, 2011.Google Scholar
4. Remouchamps, A., Bruyneel, M., Fleury, C. and Grihon, S. Application of a bi-level scheme including topology optimization to the design of an aircraft pylon, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2011, 44, (6), pp 739–750.Google Scholar
5. Saleem, W., Yuqing, F. and Yunqiao, W. Application of topology optimization and manufacturing simulations – a new trend in design of aircraft components, 2008, International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
6. Vasista, S., Tong, L. and Wong, K.C. Realization of morphing wings – a multidisciplinary challenge, J Aircr, 2012, 49, (1), pp 11–28.Google Scholar
7. Barbarino, S., Bilgen, O., Ajaj, R.M., Friswell, M.I. and Inman, D.J. A review of morphing aircraft, J Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 2011, 22, (9), pp 823–877.Google Scholar
8. Thill, C., Etches, J., Bond, I., Potter, K. and Weaver, P. Morphing skins, Aeronaut J, 2008, 112, (3), pp 117–138.Google Scholar
9. Xie, Y.M. and Steven, G.P. A simple evolutionary procedure for structural optimization, Computers & Structures, 1993, 49, (5), pp 885–896.Google Scholar
10. Bendsøe, M.P. and Kikuchi, N. Generating optimal topology in structural design using a homogenization method, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1988, 71, (1), pp 197–224.Google Scholar
11. Bendsøe, M.P. Optimal shape design as a material distribution problem, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 1989, 1, (4), pp 193–202.Google Scholar
12. Zhou, M. and Rozvany, G.I.N. The COC algorithm, part II: Topological, geometrical and generalized shape optimization, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1991, 89, (1-3), pp 309–336.Google Scholar
13. Mlejnek, H.P. Some aspects of the genesis of structures, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 1992, 5, (1), pp 64–69.Google Scholar
14. Bendsøe, M.P. and Sigmund, O. Material interpolation schemes in topology optimization, Archive of Applied Mechanics, 1999, 69, (9), pp 635–654.Google Scholar
15. Svanberg, K. The method of moving asymptotes – a new method for structural optimization, Int J for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1987, 24, (2), pp 359–373.Google Scholar
16. Sethian, J.A. and Weigmann, A. Structural boundary design via level set and immersed interface methods, J Computational Physics, 2000, 163, (2), pp 489–528.Google Scholar
17. Wang, M.Y., Wang, X.M. and Guo, D.M. A level set method for structural topology optimization, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Eng, 2003, 192, pp 227–246.Google Scholar
18. Luo, Z. and Tong, L. A level set method for shape and topology optimization of large displacement compliant mechanisms, Int J for Numerical Methods in Eng, 2008, 76, (6), pp 862–892.Google Scholar
19. Allaire, G., Jouve, F. and Toader, A.-M. Structural optimization using sensitivity analysis and a level-set method, J Computational Physics, 2004, 194, (1), pp 363–393.Google Scholar
20. Rozvany, G. A critical review of established methods of structural topology optimization, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2009, 37, (3), pp 217–237.Google Scholar
21. Patel, N.M., Tillotson, D., Renaud, J.E., Tovar, A. and Izui, K. Comparative study of topology optimization techniques, AIAA J, 2008, 46, (8), pp 1963–1975.Google Scholar
22. Eschenauer, H.A. and Olhoff, N. Topology optimization of continuum structures: A review, Applied Mechanics Reviews, 2001, 54, (4), pp 331–390.Google Scholar
23. Tong, L. and Lin, J. Structural topology optimization with implicit design variable – optimality and algorithm, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 2011, 47, (8), pp 922–932.Google Scholar
24. Vasista, S. and Tong, L. Design and testing of pressurized cellular planar morphing structures, AIAA J, 2012, 50, (6), pp 1328–1338.Google Scholar
25. ANSYS, ANSYS mechanical APDL structural analysis guide, Software Package, Version 13.0, 2010, ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA, USA.Google Scholar
26. The Mathworks Inc, Matlab, Software Package, Version R2012b, 2012, Natick, MA, USA.Google Scholar
27. Zwillinger, D. (ed). CRC Standard Mathematical Tables and Formulae, 2003, Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
28. Sigmund, O. and Petersson, J. Numerical instabilities in topology optimization: A survey on procedures dealing with checkerboards, mesh-dependencies and local minima, Structural Optimization, 1998, 16, (1), pp 68–75.Google Scholar
29. Sigmund, O. On the design of compliant mechanisms using topology optimization, Mechanics of Structures and Machines, 1997, 25, (4), pp 493–524.Google Scholar
30. Cardoso, E.L. and Fonseca, J.S.O. Complexity control in the topology optimization of continuum structures, J Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 2003, 25, pp 293–301.Google Scholar
31. Kreyzsig, E. Triple integrals, Divergence theorem of gauss, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, Seventh edition, 1993, John Wiley and Sons, Singapore, pp 544–546.Google Scholar
32. Drela, M. and Youngren, H. XFOIL, Software Package, Version 6.9, 2001.Google Scholar
33. Sigmund, O. and Clausen, P.M. Topology optimization using a mixed formulation: An alternative way to solve pressure load problems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2007, 196, (13-16), pp 1874–1889.Google Scholar