Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s00158-008-0253-4
RESEARCH PAPER
Received: 1 December 2007 / Revised: 11 February 2008 / Accepted: 13 February 2008 / Published online: 8 April 2008
Springer-Verlag 2008
Z. Wu (B)
Mechanical Engineering College, Yangzhou University,
Yangzhou 225009, Peoples Republic of China
e-mail: zhixue_wu@yahoo.com
1 Introduction
A plate with a circular hole is a classic example of stress
concentration. Because of the potentially serious consequences of the development of fatigue crack in the
stress concentration region, many cost and effort are
often expended by designers to determine the optimum
shape for this region, i.e. the shape which minimizes the
peak stress. Extensive literature has been published on
shape optimization for minimum stress concentration,
and new methods still appear. However, it is often
difficult to find the optimal profile of a structure due to
its highly non-linear character, particularly for design
engineers (not experts in optimization techniques).
As for a shape optimization problem, the design
boundary should be allowed to vary. An adequate
selection of a geometric representation method for
the boundary and the minimum number of appropriate design variables is of fundamental importance
in order to achieve an automatic design cycle during
the optimization process. Several means for selecting
geometric design variables are available when the finite element method is used to perform the analysis.
In many studies, design boundaries of the structures
were usually defined by spline curves passing through
a number of key points or control points (Sonmez 2007;
Annicchiarico and Cerrolaza 1999, 2001; Schnack and
Weikl 2002; Wu 2005; Cervera and Trevelyan 2005;
Schmid et al. 2005). Positions of these points thus
become design variables and then the shape of the
design boundary can be updated iteratively by adjusting
these variables using an optimization algorithm. Clearly
more accurate results can be achieved with more key
points, and consequently more computational time will
be taken. Furthermore, naively increasing the density
626
Z. Wu
x
D
Design domain
W
Optimal hole shape for minimum stress concentration using parameterized geometry models
0.8
1 =2 , 2 =5
0.8
0.6
627
=2
increases
0.4
1 =5 , 2 =2
0.4
0.2
0.2
= 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 10
0
0
0.2
=5
y/R
y/R
0.6
=3.5
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
x/R
0.6
0.8
x/R
Fig. 2 Hole shapes described using the super-circular equations (in the two first quadrant): a three using (1); b comparison of the hole
shapes between (1) and (2)
x
R
+
y
R
=1
(1)
y
where power is the shape parameter that control
the shape of the hole boundary, as shown in Fig. 2a.
The drawback of only one parameter in (1) is that the
curve must be symmetric about the line x = y. This
will limit greatly the variation of the design boundary.
To increase further the flexibility, we use the following
parameterized equation to define the hole shape:
x
R
1
+
y
R
Super-ellipse
2
=1
(2)
where power 1 and 2 are the two parameters controlling the hole shape of the boundary. This equation has
also been used in relation to optimization of 2D filets
using X-FEM and level set description (Van Miegroet
and Duysinx 2007). Comparing to the one-parameter
description, the flexibility of the hole shapes described
using two-parameters is increased greatly, as shown in
Fig. 2b.
R(b)
y'
Super-circle
O'
x(x')
628
Z. Wu
f (X)
subject to
gi (X) 0
X Lj
Xj
(5)
XU
j
i = 1, . . . , Ng
(6)
j = 1, . . . , N
(7)
Curvature constraint
Expression
Stress concentration
Design
=0
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
2.578
2.283
2.182
2.141
2.578
2.283
2.253
2.221
= 3.018
1 = 7.465, 2 = 1.800
= 1.890, a = 0.250R
1 = 1.467, 2 = 2.008, a = 0.209R
= 3.018
1 = 7.465, 2 = 1.800
= 2.112, a = 0.363R
1 = 2.358, 2 = 1.968, a = 0.364R
= 0.15
Optimal hole shape for minimum stress concentration using parameterized geometry models
629
3.5
0.8
Eq.(1)
Eq.(4)
Eq.(3)
y/R
0.6
Eq.(2)
0.4
Circular arc
0.2
x
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2.5
2
1.5
1
Eq.(1)
Eq.(2)
-0.5
Eq.(3)
-1
Eq.(4)
-1.5
Circular arc
0.5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
x/R
Fig. 5 Stress-minimization results without minimum curvature radius constraint, a optimal hole shapes and b stress distributions about
the hole boundaries
3.5
3
0.8
Eq.(1)
Eq.(4)
Eq.(3)
y/R
0.6
Eq.(2)
0.4
Circular arc
0.2
x
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
x/R
0.8
2.5
2
1.5
1
Circular arc
0.5
Eq.(1)
Eq.(2)
-0.5
Eq.(3)
-1
Eq.(4)
-1.5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fig. 6 Stress-minimization results with minimum curvature radius constraint = 0.15, a 19 optimal hole shapes and b stress distributions
about the hole boundaries
630
Curvature
constraint
D/W
Expression
Stress
concentration
Design
=0
0.140
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
2.009
1.883
1.840
1.743
1.678
1.616
1.518
1.479
1.375
1.365
1.260
1.243
1.204
1.174
2.009
1.971
1.840
1.817
1.678
1.677
1.561
1.561
1.447
1.447
1.339
1.330
1.295
1.271
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.250
0.377
0.518
0.650
0.775
0.837
= 0.20
0.140
0.250
0.377
0.518
0.650
0.775
0.837
= 7.9659,
= 1.5181,
= 7.9728,
= 1.6848,
= 9.9534,
= 2.2495,
= 13.042,
= 3.0742,
= 22.082,
= 9.4254,
= 23.806,
= 11.899,
= 20.050,
= 12.472,
= 7.9659,
= 2.7963,
= 7.9728,
= 2.8191,
= 9.9534,
= 3.5976,
= 9.3378,
= 4.8940,
= 8.7845,
= 3.9612,
= 7.1989,
= 3.0279,
= 7.0908,
= 2.5761,
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
= 1.7546
= 2.0058, a = 0.2092R
= 1.8237
= 1.9995, a = 0.2168R
= 1.8386
= 2.0409, a = 0.2367R
= 2.3226
= 2.1101, a = 0.1805R
= 3.9435
= 3.1323, a = 0.3190R
= 8.3982
= 5.4890, a = 0.2064R
= 13.218
= 11.167, a = 0.1698R
= 1.7546
= 1.9553, a = 0.4235R
= 1.8237
= 1.9853, a = 0.4263R
= 1.8386
= 2.1035, a = 0.4654R
= 2.7623
= 2.8282, a = 0.5644R
= 4.8221
= 5.0587, a = 0.4698R
= 6.7957
= 8.2125, a = 0.5301R
= 7.2897
= 10.145, a = 0.5855R
Stress concentration
Z. Wu
Eq.(4) , = 0
Eq.(2) , = 0.2
Eq.(4) , = 0.2
1.5
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
D/W
Fig. 7 Comparison of the present results with those from Tran
and Nguyen (1999)
Optimal hole shape for minimum stress concentration using parameterized geometry models
y = 22.5MPa
y(y')
Ellipse
x'
300mm
O'
R-b
x = 45MPa
R=40mm
300mm
Fig. 8 A biaxially loaded plate of finite two sizes with a
central hole
631
A plate of finite width with a hole is a common structural component in many engineering applications.
Tran and Nguyen (1999) has utilized a finite element
method to simulate the photoelastic stress minimization method (Durelli et al. 1981) to find the optimal
hole shape. The same problem is solved here to examine the effectiveness of the parameterized geometry
models.
The finite plate shown in Fig. 1 (L = 3 W) is under
uniform tension of 1 MPa along y direction. Table 2
shows the results of stress concentration and all the
design parameters in the conditions with and without
Curvature
constraint
Expression
Min-Max
Von-Mises stress
Design
=0
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
108.7
102.8
108.7
105.5
1
1
1
1
= 0.2
= 1.9222,
= 2.0170,
= 1.9222,
= 1.9480,
2
2
2
2
= 3.9910
= 1.5761, b = 0.3914R
= 3.9910
= 2.2241, b = 0.5415R
632
Z. Wu
b 140
120
0.8
100
0.6
Von-Mises stress
Eq.(4) , = 0.2
0.4
Eq.(4) , = 0
60
Circular arc
Eq.(2) , = 0 and 0.2
40
Circular arc
0.2
80
Eq.(4) , = 0.2
20
Eq.(4) , = 0
x
0
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
x/R
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fig. 9 Stress-minimization results with and without minimum curvature radius constraint, a optimal hole shapes and b stress
distributions about the hole boundaries
minimum curvature radius constraint. The stress concentration is defined by max /nom , where max is the
maximum tangential stress and nom is the mean value
based on the minimum net cross section. Comparison
of the present results with those by Tran and Nguyen
(1999) is plotted in Fig. 7. It can be seen that the present
results without minimum curvature radius constraint
are in very good agreement with those from Tran and
Nguyen (1999). As expected, the stress concentration
is slightly higher if the minimum radius was taken
into consideration. It should also be noted that the
difference between the results achieved using (2) and
(4) is very small when the minimum curvature radius
constraint is applied.
y
y'
a
O
Hole design in an infinite plate under a biaxial field
is classical structural optimization problem. For this
problem, the analytical solution is elliptic design with
ratio of ellipse axes directed in the principal stress
directions and with ratio equal to the ratio of the principal stresses. However, this solution should be modified
for finite models. Here, the optimization problem of
a biaxially loaded plate of finite sizes with a hole at
its center, as shown in Fig. 8, is studied using the
parameterized geometry models. Two types of design
constraint are considered. One is the classical design
domain of the hole with diameter of AB (only point A
x
x'
Design domain
Optimal hole shape for minimum stress concentration using parameterized geometry models
4 Concluding remarks
Parameterized geometric descriptions for the hole
shape design are proposed to obtain minimum stress
concentration in two-dimensional finite plates. The
numerical examples show the effectiveness and practicability of the parameterized equations under the
conditions with and without the curvature radius constraint. Results in the tables are suitable for use and
test due to compact parametric functions. It is obvious
that the super-elliptic equation with three parameters is
the best one for the optimal design of hole shape. The
super-circular equation with double-powers can also
achieve good results, particularly when the minimum
curvature radius constraint is applied. Considering its
simplicity and ease of use by designers, this equation is
also suggested. It is anticipated that the implementation
633
References
Annicchiarico W, Cerrolaza M (1999) Finite elements, genetic
algorithms and -splines: a combined technique for shape
optimization. Finite Elem Anal Des 33:125141
Annicchiarico W, Cerrolaza M (2001) Structural shape optimization 3D finite-element models based on genetic algorithms and geometric modeling. Finite Elem Anal Des 37:
403415
Cervera E, Trevelyan J (2005) Evolutionary structural optimization based on boundary representation of NURBS. Part 1:
2D algorithms. Comput Struct 83:19021916
Durelli AJ, Erickson K, Rajaiah K (1981) Optimum shapes of
central holes in square plates subjected to uniaxial uniform
load. Int J Solids Struct 17:787793
Heller M, Kaye R, Rose LR (1999) A gradientless finite element
procedure for shape optimization. J Strain Anal Eng Des
34:323336
McDonald M, Heller M (2004) Robust shape optimization of
notches for fatigue-life extension. Struct Multidisc Optim
19:169182
Phan A-V, Phan T-N (1999) A structural shape optimization system using the two-dimensional boundary contour method.
Arch Appl Mech 69:481489
Pedersen NL (2004a) Optimization of holes in plates for control
of eigenfrequencies. Struct Multidisc Optim 28:110
Pedersen P (2000) On optimal shapes in materials and structures.
Struct Multidisc Optim 19:169182
634
Pedersen P (2004b) Design study of hole positions and hole
shapes for crack tip stress releasing. Struct Multidisc Optim
28:243251
Pedersen P (2007) Suggested benchmarks for shape optimization
for minimum stress concentration. Struct Multidisc Optim
35:273283
Schmid F, Hirschen K, Meynen S, Schafer M (2005) An enhanced approach for shape optimization using an adaptive
algorithm. Finite Elem Anal Des 41:521543
Schnack E, Weikl W (2002) Shape optimization under fatigue
using continuum damage mechanics. Comput Aided Design
34:929938
Sonmez FO (2007) Shape optimization of 2D structures using
simulated annealing. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg
196:32793299
Tran D, Nguyen V (1999) Optimal hole profile in finite plate
under uniaxial stress by finite element simulation of Durellis
Z. Wu
photoelastic stress minimisation method. Finite Elem Anal
Design 32:120
Van Miegroet L, Duysinx P (2007) Stress concentration minimization of 2D filets using X-FEM and level set description.
Struct Multidisc Optim 33:425438
Waldman W, Heller M, Chen GX (2001) Optimal free-form
shapes for shoulder fillets in flat plates under tension and
bending. Int J Fatigue 23:185190
Wang X, Zhou J, Hu Y (1999) A physics-based parameterization method for shape optimization. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 175:4151
Wilczynski
B (1997) Shape optimisation for stress reduction
around single and interacting notches based on the fictitious stress method. Eng Anal Bound Elem 19:117128
Wu Z (2005) An efficient approach for shape optimization of
components. Int J Mech Sci 47(10):15951610