0 challenge the future topology optimization for localizing design problems: an explorative review...

69
1 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs Langelaar Shinji Nishiwaki

Upload: ira-lawrence

Post on 19-Jan-2016

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

1Challenge the future

Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An

Explorative ReviewChris Reichard

Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs Langelaar

Shinji Nishiwaki

Page 2: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

2Challenge the future

Outline

• Introduction Topology Optimization Heat Conduction Problem

• Research Project Research Problem and Objective Skeleton Modeling Sub-Structuring

• Findings / Results

1

Sub-Structuring

Skeleton Modeling

Page 3: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

3Challenge the future

What is Topology Optimization?

Topology optimization is a tool to optimize a layout of a structure in a given design space based on:

• Applied loads• Boundary Conditions• Performance Criteria

2

Automotive Control Arm

Source: Example by Abaqus software

Heat Conduction

Page 4: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

4Challenge the future

Heat Conduction Optimization

• Optimization Problem: Heat conduction Uniform heat applied

• Objective: Minimize temperature

3

Page 5: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

5Challenge the future

Heat Conduction Optimization

• Optimization Problem: Heat conduction Uniform heat applied

• Objective: Minimize temperature

• Achieved by: Placement of two materials kH: moves heat efficiently kL: moves heat inefficiently

3

Page 6: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

6Challenge the future

Heat Conduction Optimization

• How is Optimization Performed?1. Discretize problem into small elements Small elements = design variables

2. Provide initial structure

3. Solve temperatures in elements

4. Update design through approximations

4

Design Variables

Page 7: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

7Challenge the future

Heat Conduction Optimization

• How is Optimization Performed?1. Discretize problem into small elements Small elements = design variables

2. Provide initial structure

3. Solve temperatures in elements

4. Update design through approximations

4

Design Variables

Page 8: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

8Challenge the future

Research Problem• Localization: Small, local details Structure in fraction of design area

Sparse design

5

30% of Total Volume 10% of Total Volume 1% of Total Volume

Increasing sparseness

Page 9: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

9Challenge the future

Research Problem

• Main Issue: Need many small elements to define structure

5

• Localization: Small, local details Structure in fraction of design area

Sparse design

Design Variables

Page 10: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

10Challenge the future

Research Problem

• Main Issue: Need many small elements to define structure Increase resolution, dramatic increase time

5

• Localization: Small, local details Structure in fraction of design area

Sparse design

Design Variables

Page 11: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

11Challenge the future

Improve the implementation of the optimization process for the design of sparse structures based on:

• Improved efficiency by reducing number of design variables• Exploit local features of sparse problem• Assess feasibility of developed methods

Research Objective

6

Page 12: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

12Challenge the future

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is the main issue!

Efficiency Issue

7

Page 13: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

13Challenge the future

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is the main issue!• Time increases due to increase in elements

Efficiency Issue

7

Page 14: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

14Challenge the future

Characteristics of Local Problem

• Develops into bar like structure

8

30% of Total Volume 10% of Total Volume 1% of Total Volume

Page 15: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

15Challenge the future

Skeleton Modeling

• Idea: Skeleton Model Computer graphics, medical imaging,

scientific visualization Model structure through skeleton

9

Definition

Source: A Fully Automatic Rigging Algorithm for 3D Character Animation Masanori Sugimoto, University of Tokyo

Page 16: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

16Challenge the future

Skeleton Modeling

• Idea: Skeleton Model Computer graphics, medical imaging,

scientific visualization Model structure through skeleton

• How? Global: Background mesh Skeleton Structure: Bar elements

• Obtaining Skeleton Indirect representation Direct representation

9

Definition

Source: A Fully Automatic Rigging Algorithm for 3D Character Animation Masanori Sugimoto, University of Tokyo

Page 17: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

17Challenge the future

Skeleton Modeling

10

Indirect Representation of Skeleton

• Structure Boundary known from surface level

• Need to extract skeleton from surface

Page 18: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

18Challenge the future

Skeleton Modeling

10

Indirect Representation of Skeleton

• Structure Boundary known from surface level

• Need to extract skeleton from surface

• Skeleton curve is smooth and continuous but implicit

• Issue: how to update design

Page 19: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

19Challenge the future

Skeleton Modeling

11

Direct Representation of Skeleton

• Skeleton curve already known and used to develop surface function

• Need to extract width of structure from surface

Surface FunctionSkeleton Curve

Page 20: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

20Challenge the future

Skeleton Modeling

11

Direct Representation of Skeleton

• Skeleton curve already known and used to develop surface function

• Need to extract width of structure from surface

Skeleton CurveSurface Function

Structure Boundary

Page 21: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

21Challenge the future

• Connectivity of Skeleton Points How are the skeleton points connected?

Skeleton Modeling

12

Challenges with Direct Representation

Ambiguous on how to connect points

Source: printactivities.com

Page 22: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

22Challenge the future

• Connectivity of Skeleton Points How are the skeleton points connected?

Skeleton Modeling

12

Challenges with Direct Representation

Ambiguous on how to connect points

Source: printactivities.com

Page 23: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

23Challenge the future

• Connectivity of Skeleton Points How are the skeleton points connected? Need extra Information

Skeleton Modeling

12

Challenges with Direct Representation

Source: printactivities.com

Page 24: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

24Challenge the future

• Connectivity of Skeleton Points How are the skeleton points connected? Need extra Information

Skeleton Modeling

12

Challenges with Direct Representation

Source: printactivities.com

Page 25: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

25Challenge the future

• Connectivity of Skeleton Points How are the skeleton points connected? Need extra Information

• Differentiability: Needed to update design Structure is non-continuous

Skeleton Modeling

12

Challenges with Direct Representation

Source: printactivities.com

Page 26: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

26Challenge the future

Summary Findings / Results

• Benefits: Simplified representation

which exploits sparse structure

Reduced number of elements

13

Source: A Fully Automatic Rigging Algorithm for 3D Character Animation Masanori Sugimoto, University of Tokyo

Skeleton Modeling

Page 27: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

27Challenge the future

Summary Findings / Results

• Benefits: Simplified representation

which exploits sparse structure

Reduced number of elements

• Challenges: Complexity of the methodo Feasibility?o Efficiency Improvement? Combining models to obtain

temperature Updating the structure

13

Source: A Fully Automatic Rigging Algorithm for 3D Character Animation Masanori Sugimoto, University of Tokyo

Skeleton Modeling

Combine

Page 28: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

28Challenge the future

Characteristics of Local Problem

• Develops into bar like structure

• Elements with changing material

14

30% of Total Volume 10% of Total Volume 1% of Total Volume

Page 29: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

29Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

15

Definition• Current methods: Structured groupings Using multiple processors

Page 30: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

30Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

15

• Current methods: Structured groupings Using multiple processors• Idea: Separate elements into groups Groups: Changing vs. static elements

Definition

Page 31: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

31Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

16

• Achieved By: Invert static matrix separate from changing

KT q1T K q

Expensive in terms of time

Definition

:K n n

Page 32: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

32Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

16

• Achieved By: Invert static matrix separate from changing Benefit: Reduction of number of variables

needed to be inverted every iteration

1 11

CS SS SC CS SSCC C SCT K qK K K K K q 1 1

SS S SCS S S CT q K tK K

CC C CS

S SS S

C

C S

K K T q

K K T q

KT q1T K q

Expensive in terms of time

Terms calculated every few iterations!

Definition

n n 1n 1n

:K n n

:CC c cK n n

:SS s sK n n

:SC s cK n n

:CS c sK n n

Page 33: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

33Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

17

Estimated Improvement

• Cost Adaptive Sub-structuring Method: Full Implementation: 3 2 2 31 1

,3 3s c s s c c s cCost n n n n n n n n

c sn n n

3 2

2 32 2, , 2 2

3 3s s s

fixed s c c c cfixed fixed fixed

n n nCost iter n n n n n

iter iter iter

Page 34: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

34Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

17

• Cost Adaptive Sub-structuring Method: Full Implementation:

• Assumptions for sub-structuring Matrix structure is in a less optimal form Solution of equations is less efficient

3 2 2 31 1,

3 3s c s s c c s cCost n n n n n n n n

c sn n n

Estimated Improvement

3 2

2 32 2, , 2 2

3 3s s s

fixed s c c c cfixed fixed fixed

n n nCost iter n n n n n

iter iter iter

Page 35: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

35Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

17

• Cost Adaptive Sub-structuring Method: Full Implementation:

• Assumptions for sub-structuring Matrix structure is in a less optimal form Solution of equations is less efficient

• Savings determined for FEA only

3 2

2 32 2, , 2 2

3 3s s s

fixed s c c c cfixed fixed fixed

n n nCost iter n n n n n

iter iter iter

3 2 2 31 1,

3 3s c s s c c s cCost n n n n n n n n

c sn n n

50 Iterations fixed10 Iterations fixed5 Iterations fixed2 Iterations fixed1 Iterations fixedFull Implementation

Estimated Improvement

Page 36: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

36Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

18

Buffer Zone• Issues: Groups of elements change each iteration

Page 37: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

37Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

18

StructureAreas of Design Change

Buffer Zone• Issues: Groups of elements change each iteration

Page 38: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

38Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

18

Radial Buffer

Buffer Zone• Issues: Groups of elements change each iteration• Solution: Buffer zone to reduce updates

Page 39: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

39Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

18

Radial Buffer Sensitivity Buffer

Buffer Zone• Issues: Groups of elements change each iteration• Solution: Buffer zone to reduce updates

Page 40: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

40Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

18

• Issues: Groups of elements change each iteration• Solution: Buffer zone to reduce updates

Radial Buffer Sensitivity Buffer Combined Buffer

Buffer Zone

Page 41: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

41Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

19

Example Implementation

High conductive structure

Low conductive region

Static Domain

Buffered changing domain

Elements with changing material

Page 42: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

42Challenge the future

Summary Findings / Results

• Benefits: Reduced size of matrix to

invert every iteration Time savings

20

Sub-Structuring

Page 43: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

43Challenge the future

Summary Findings / Results

• Benefits: Reduced size of matrix to

invert every iteration Time savings Buffer method is low cost

20

Sub-Structuring

Page 44: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

44Challenge the future

Summary Findings / Results

• Benefits: Reduced size of matrix to

invert every iteration Time savings Buffer method is low cost

• Challenges: Developing matrix structure

20

Sub-Structuring

CC C CS

S SS S

C

C S

K K T q

K K T q

Page 45: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

45Challenge the future

Recommendations

Skeleton Modeling• Obtaining skeleton

• Investigate efficient methods to combine models

• Ideas to update structure

Sub-Structuring• Determine efficient

methods to formulate Matrices

• Optimal sizing of buffer zone

21

Page 46: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

46Challenge the future

Conclusion

• Objective: Improve the implementation of topology optimization for sparse design problems

• Issues of efficiency need to be addressed• Skeleton method shows potential• Sub-Structuring up to 65% time savings for 1% of

total volume!

22

Page 47: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

47Challenge the future

Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An

Explorative ReviewChris Reichard

Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs Langelaar

Shinji Nishiwaki

23

Page 48: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

48Challenge the future

Introduction

• Thesis Performed at: TU Delft, Netherlands Kyoto University, Japan

Experiences

• Guidance By: Fred van Keulen Matthijs Langelaar Shinji Nishiwaki

24

Page 49: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

49Challenge the future

What is Topology Optimization?

Objective: Minimize displacement for given

load

25

Page 50: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

50Challenge the future

What is Topology Optimization?

Objective: Minimize displacement for given

load

25

Build approximate model: Through many small elements Material is varied in elements Displacement solved in each

element

Page 51: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

51Challenge the future

What is Topology Optimization?

Objective: Minimize displacement for given

load

25

Build approximate model: Through many small elements Material is varied in elements Displacement solved in each

element

Update Design: Design is updated through

sensitivities Continues until objective is met

Page 52: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

52Challenge the future

Test CaseHeat Conduction

26

Structure

No Structure

Max. Temp.

Min. Temp.

Page 53: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

53Challenge the future

Research Plan

• Investigate research problem Examine how structure develops Determine characteristics of localization

• Research known techniques Optimization Modelling

• Develop ideas to exploit problem Investigate ideas Assess feasibility

27

Page 54: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

54Challenge the future

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is the main issue!• Time increases due to increase in elements

Efficiency Issue

28

Page 55: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

55Challenge the future

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is the main issue!

Efficiency Issue

7

Page 56: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

56Challenge the future

Summary Findings / Results

• Benefits: Reduced size of matrix to

invert every iteration Time savings Buffer method is low cost

• Challenges: Developing matrix structure

20

Sub-Structuring

CC C CS

S SS S

C

C S

K K T q

K K T q

Page 57: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

57Challenge the future

Level – Set Approach

• How to obtain skeleton Structure?• The issues of obtaining skeleton structure is often seen in

areas such as pattern recognition, computer graphics, shape design, etc.

29

Page 58: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

58Challenge the future

Skeleton Modeling• Skeleton defined as ridge of LSF• Principal curvature to obtain ridge• At each point: and• Need critical point of • Critical pt. = Ridge pt.

max min

max

Principal Curvatures

30

Source: Eric Gaba. Wikipedia. Principal Curvatures

Page 59: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

59Challenge the future

Skeleton Modeling

• Principal curvature developed through First and Second Fundamental Form of tangent plane of surface

u v

u v

S Sn

S S

Principal Curvatures

, ,

, ,u u u v

u v v v

S S S SE FI

S S S SF G

31

, ,

, ,uu uv

uv vv

S n S nL MII

S n S nM N

2

2

A EG F

B FM GK EN

C LN M

2

1

2

2

4

2

4

2

B B AC

A

B B AC

A

S

Page 60: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

60Challenge the future

Principal Curvature

• First Fundamental Form, I

• Second Fundamental Form, II

• Weingarten Operator (Shape Operator)

• Principal Curvature (Roots of characteristic equation)

How to Obtain it?

2 22I Edu Fdudv Gdv u u u v

u v v v

X X X XE FI

X X X XF G

2 22II Ldu Mdudv Ndv , ,

, ,uu uv

uv vv

S n S nL MII

S n S nM N

1I IIW F F

2

2

A EG F

B FM GK EN

C LN M

2

1

2

2

4

2

4

2

B B AC

A

B B AC

A

32

Page 61: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

61Challenge the future

Skeleton Modeling Radial Basis Functions

Radial Basis Function:

with

2

2

,i

iwb

i is s e

x x

x

, , 1,...,i ii

s s i n x x

min maxis s s

: i Ri x x

max Point on Skeleton Curveis s

max Control Width of Structureis s

33

Page 62: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

62Challenge the future

Skeleton ModelingRBF: How to Obtain Width?

34

Page 63: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

63Challenge the future

Skeleton ModelingRBF: How to Obtain Width?

35

Page 64: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

64Challenge the future

Skeleton ModelingRBF: How to Obtain Width?

w/ n being the number of full spaces in between level set grid

points

B LSLS

B A

dw n d

36

Page 65: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

65Challenge the future

Skeleton ModelingRBF: Effects of Design Variables

37

Page 66: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

66Challenge the future

SubstructuringDirect Solve

• Solving equations directly is rather inefficient• Results in full matrix for computation of:

cc cs c c

sc ss s s

k k T F

k k T F

1

1

s ss s sc c

c cc c cs s

T k F k T

T k F k T

11 1cc cs ss sc c cs ss sT k k k k F k k F

c

1sT k F k T

ss s sc c

1K ss scK

38

Page 67: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

67Challenge the future

SubstructuringModified Cholesky Decomposition• Formation of subcomponent matrices as part of Cholesky solution process• Decomposition of substructure

• Formulation of subcomponent equations for changing domain

Forward substitution process

Temperature response of changing domain

Recovery of static temperatures:

0

0

T Tss sc ss ss cs

Tcs cc cs cc cc

K K L L LK

K K L L L

1

1ij ik jk

m

c cc cs ss sc c cc cs csk

K K K K K K K L L with j i

1

1j jk

m

c c cs ss s c c sc sk

F F K K F F F L y

0ss s s

sc c c c

L y F

L K y F

1c c c

Tc c c

y K F

T K y

1Ts ss ss c sc cT L L F K T

39

Page 68: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

68Challenge the future

Sub-Structuring

40

Method Description Num. of Updates

Percentage of Iter. Fixed (%)

Est. Overall Time Reduction (%)

By Elements By Nodes

Radial BufferPass: 1 25 77 7.81 3.67Pass: 2 14 84 32.19 27.96Pass: 3 10 86 38.87 36.11

Sensitivity Buffer

τ = 0.3 56 52 -36.57 -36.34τ = 0.5 57 53 -36.73 -38.65τ = 0.7 59 54 -38.06 -40.2

Combined Buffer

τ = 0.3, Pass: 1 3 83 43.3 38.77τ = 0.3, Pass: 2 2 70 27.78 21.62τ = 0.5, Pass: 1 8 86 47.78 45.58τ = 0.5, Pass: 2 6 88 47.84 44.61τ = 0.7, Pass: 1 14 84 32.68 30.84τ = 0.7, Pass: 2 10 86 40.54 37.71

Results

Page 69: 0 Challenge the future Topology Optimization for Localizing Design Problems: An Explorative Review Chris Reichard Supervisors: Fred van Keulen Matthijs

69Challenge the future

Findings / Results

Volume Fraction

Number of Updates

Iterations Fixed

Total Iterations

Estimated Overal Time Reduction (%)

0.2 7 96 116 37.200.1 8 125 145 47.78

0.05 6 145 161 56.290.01 3 128 136 66.81

41