Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aalborg University
Special Report no. 23
Copyright
c 1994 Erik Lund
Reproduction of material contained in this report is permitted provided the source is given.
Additional copies are available at the cost of printing and mailing from Helle W. Mane,
Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Aalborg University, Pontoppidanstraede 101, DK-
9220 Aalborg East, Denmark. Telephone +45 98 15 42 11 ext. 3506, FAX +45 98 15 14
11. Questions and comments are most welcome and can be directed to the author at the
same adress or by electronic mail: el@ime.auc.dk.
Printed at Aalborg University, April 1994.
ISBN 87-89206-01-0
Preface
This dissertation has been submitted to the Faculty of Technology and Science of Aalborg
University, Aalborg, Denmark, in partial fullment of the requirements for the technical
Ph.D. degree.
The project underlying this thesis has been carried out from August 1991 to April 1994
at the Institute of Mechanical Engineering at Aalborg University. The project has been
supervised by Professor, Dr.techn. Niels Olho to whom I am most indebted for his
vivid engagement, inspiring and supporting guidance, immense competence, and his time
demanding eorts in providing good research conditions and facilities for our research
group. I am also most indebted to my friend and collegue, Associate Professor, Ph.D.
John Rasmussen for many invaluable suggestions, support, collaborations, and inspiring
discussions.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my colleagues and friends, M.Sc. Lars Krog & M.Sc.
Oluf Krogh for many inspiring discussions and suggestions, Professor Alexander P. Seyra-
nian, Moscow State Lomonosov University, Russia, for our joint work on multiple eigen-
values in structural optimization problems, and the other colleagues at the Institute of
Mechanical Engineering.
Finally, I want to thank my ance Dorte for her support and understanding during periods
with much work and less spare time; her love has been an invaluable support.
The present work has been supported by the Danish Technical Research Council's \Pro-
gramme of Research on Computer Aided Engineering Design".
Erik Lund
Aalborg, April 1994
1
2
Abstract
The objective of the present Ph.D. project is to develop, implement and integrate methods
for structural analysis, design sensitivity analysis and optimization into a general purpose
computer aided environment for interactive structural design, analysis, design sensitivity
analysis, synthesis, and design optimization. This system is named \ODESSY" (Optimum
DESign SYstem) and is integrated with commercially available CAD systems.
The nite element library used for the analysis has facilities for solution of linear types
of analysis problems, i.e., static stress analysis, natural frequency analysis, steady state
thermal analysis, thermo-elastic analysis, eigenfrequency analysis with initial stress sti-
ening eects due to mechanical or thermal loads, and linear buckling analysis with the
possibility of including thermo-elastic eects. Many dierent isoparametric nite elements
are described and implemented in the system.
A reliable tool for design sensitivity analysis is a prerequisite for performing interactive
structural design, synthesis and optimization. General expressions for design sensitivity
analysis of all implemented types of analysis problems are derived with respect to shape
as well as sizing and material design variables. The method of design sensitivity analysis
used is the direct approach, and the semi-analytical method where derivatives of various
nite element matrices and vectors are approximated by rst order nite dierences is
adopted. However, the traditional semi-analytical method may yield severely erroneous
results for certain types of problems involving shape design variables. Therefore, a new
semi-analytical method based on \exact" numerical dierentiation of element matrices is
developed and implemented for all types of nite elements and design variables in ODESSY.
It is demonstrated by several examples that this new approach of semi-analytical design
sensitivity analysis is computationally ecient and completely eliminates the inaccuracy
problem.
A general and
exible method of formulating problems of mathematical programming is
developed. The method enables formulation and solution of problems involving local,
integral, min/max, max/min and possibly non-dierentiable user dened functions in any
conceivable mix. The mathematical formulation is based on the bound formulation and
the implementation involves a parser capable of interpreting and performing symbolic
dierentiation of the user dened functions. This database module can also be used for
graphical visualization of user dened mathematical expressions for design criteria.
The special case of solving structural optimization problems involving multiple eigenvalues
is discussed. The main diculty associated with multiple eigenvalues is the lack of usual
Frechet dierentiability with respect to changes in design, i.e., multiple eigenvalues can only
be expected to be directionally dierentiable. Necessary optimality conditions are discussed
and iterative numerical algorithms for solution of such design problems are developed and
used for solution of a design problem.
Several examples illustrate how ODESSY can be used very eectively for interactive engi-
neering design with focus on design sensitivity analysis, synthesis, and optimization.
3
Abstrakt
Formlet med dette Ph.D. projekt er at udvikle, implementere og integrere metoder for
strukturel analyse, design
somhedsanalyse og optimering i et generelt, datamatassisteret
system for interaktiv strukturel design, analyse, design
somhedsanalyse, syntese og de-
signoptimering. Dette system er blevet dbt \ODESSY" (Optimum DESign SYstem) og er
integreret med kommercielt tilgngelige CAD-systemer.
Finite element biblioteket, der bruges til analysen, har faciliteter for lsning af linere
typer analyseproblemer, dvs., statisk spndingsanalyse, analyse af frie svingninger, steady
state termisk analyse, termo-elastisk analyse, egenfrekvensanalyse med initiale spndingsaf-
stivende eekter pga. mekaniske/termiske belastninger og liner bulingsanalyse med mu-
lighed for at inkludere termo-elastiske eekter. Mange forskellige isoparametriske element-
typer er beskrevet og implementeret i systemet.
Et plideligt vrktj til design
somhedsanalyse er en forudstning for at kunne udfre inter-
aktiv strukturel design, syntese og optimering. Generelle udtryk for
somhedsanalyse
af de implementerede typer af analyseproblemer er udledt for form-, tykkelse- og ma-
terialedesignvariable. Den direkte metode er valgt til
somhedsanalysen, og den semi-
analytiske metode, hvor a
edede af diverse elementmatricer og -vektorer approksimeres
med frste ordens dierenser, anvendes. Imidlertid kan den traditionelle semi-analytiske
metode give fuldstndig forkerte resultater for visse typer af problemer, der involverer for-
mdesignvariable. Derfor er en ny semi-analytisk metode, der er baseret p \eksakt" nu-
merisk dierentiation af elementmatricer, blevet udviklet og implementeret for alle typer
af elementer og designvariable i ODESSY. Denne nye semi-analytiske metode for design
-
somhedsanalysen er beregningsmssig eektiv og eliminerer unjagtighedsproblemet, hvilket
illustreres ved adskillige eksempler.
En generel og
eksible metode til at formulere matematiske programmeringsproblemer er
udviklet. Metoden gr det muligt at formulere og lse problemer, der involverer lokale, inte-
grale, min/max, max/min og mulige ikke-dierentiable brugerdenerede funktioner i en-
hver tnkelig kombination. Den matematiske formulering er baseret p bound-formuleringen,
og implementeringen indeholder en fortolker, der kan forst og udfre symbolsk dierenti-
ation af brugerdenerede funktioner. Dette databasemodul kan ogs bruges til interaktiv,
grask visualisering af brugerdenerede matematiske udtryk for designkriterier.
Det specielle til
de vedrrende lsning af strukturelle optimeringsproblemer med multiple
egenvrdier behandles. Den strste vanskelighed forbundet med multiple egenvrdier er man-
glen p normal Frechet-dierentiabilitet med hensyn til designndringer, dvs. multiple egen-
vrdier kan kun forventes at vre retningsdierentiable. Ndvendige optimalitetskriterier
diskuteres og iterative numeriske algoritmer til lsning af sdanne designproblemer prsen-
teres og anvendes til lsning af et designproblem.
Adskillige eksempler illustrerer, at ODESSY er et srdeles eektivt vrktj for interaktiv
strukturel design med fokus p designflsomhedsanalyse, syntese og optimering.
4
Chapter
1
Introduction
E this particularly holds true foralways
ngineering activity has involved endeavours towards optimization, and
the eld of engineering design. Earlier, engineering
design was conceived as a kind of \art" that demanded great ingenuity and experience
of the designer, and the development of the eld was characterized by gradual evolution
in terms of continual improvement of existing types of engineering designs. The design
process generally was a sequential \trial and error" process where the designer's skills and
experience were most important prerequisites for successful decisions for the \trial" phase.
However, nowaday's strong technological competition which requires reduction of design
time and costs of products with high quality and functionality, and current emphasis on
saving of energy, saving and re-use of material resources, consideration of environmental
problems, etc., often involve creation of new products for which prior engineering ex-
perience is totally lacking. Development of such products must naturally lend itself on
application of scientic methods such as structural analysis, design sensitivity analysis,
and optimization.
The scientic research in the eld of structural optimization has increased rapidly during
recent decades. The increasing interest in this eld has been strongly boosted by the ad-
vent of reliable general analysis methods like the nite element method, methods of design
sensitivity analysis, and methods of mathematical programming, along with the exponen-
tially increasing speed and capacity of digital computers. The rapid development of the
eld of optimum design also re
ects a natural shift of emphasis from analysis to synthesis.
The research activities in the elds of design sensitivity analysis and optimum design can
be found in, e.g., the review papers by Haug (1981), Schmit (1982), Olho & Taylor (1983),
Haftka & Grandhi (1986), Ding (1986), and Haftka & Adelman (1989) and the proceedings
from various conferences and symposia published by Haug & Cea (1981), Morris (1982),
Eschenauer & Olho (1983), Atrek, Gallagher, Ragsdell & Zienkiewicz (1984), Bennett &
Botkin (1986), Mota Soares (1987), Rozvany & Karihaloo (1988), Eschenauer & Thierauf
(1989), Eschenauer, Mattheck & Olho (1991), Bendse & Mota Soares (1993), Rozvany
(1993), Haug (1993), Pedersen (1993), Herskovits (1993) and Gilmore, Hoeltzel, Azarm &
Eschenauer (1993).
5
6
Rational engineering design and optimization based on the concept of integration of nite
element analysis, design sensitivity analysis, and optimization by mathematical program-
ming, was early undertaken by Zienkiewicz & Campbell (1973), Kristensen & Madsen
(1976), Pedersen (1981, 1983), Pedersen & Laursen (1983), Esping (1983), Braibant &
Fleury (1984), Eschenauer (1986) and Santos & Choi (1989), and this work has paved the
road for development of large, practice-oriented optimization systems, see, e.g., Braibant
& Fleury (1984), Sobieszanski-Sobieski & Rogers (1984), Bennett & Botkin (1985), Esp-
ing (1986), Stanton (1986), Eschenauer (1986), Botkin, Yang & Bennett (1986), Hornlein
(1987), Arora (1989), Rasmussen (1989, 1990), Choi & Chang (1991), and Rasmussen,
Lund, Birker & Olho (1993).
However, until recently, these methods for rational engineering design and optimization
have not, in general, been adopted by designers in industry as stated by Santos & Choi
(1989). Only major companies in elds like aeronautical, aerospace, mechanical, nuclear,
civil, and o-shore engineering have adopted these tools for rational design and optimiza-
tion, although their use have proved successful for many dierent kinds of applications
concerning structural synthesis. The reasons for this lack of use are many.
It may be dicult, and may even prove impossible, to formulate one or more simple
performance criteria for optimization. The designer must be able to dene the objective
function, identify all important constraints, identify the levels of constraint limits, and
enter this information into the structural optimization system. Very often, in applications,
during the design optimization process, additional constraints may become important that
the designer did not foresee in the initial stages of formulation of the design problem. The
structural optimization system must also contain very general and
exible facilities for
denition of the design problem in order to cover possible denitions. If such facilities are
not present, designers in industry will not use the optimization systems as their design
criteria in many cases have been established during many years of practice. If designers in
industry cannot dene their usual design criteria, they will typically rather abstain from
the use of structural optimization than being forced into changing their well-tested design
criteria just because of a limitation in the software system.
Furthermore, another possible reason for the lack of adoptivity of structural optimization
in the industry may be that developers of structural optimization systems have been too
focused on selling the systems as automated \black boxes" for obtaining optimum designs
of structures. In this way designers in industry have not become familiar with design
sensitivity analysis which is used to calculate all necessary derivatives of criterion functions,
e.g., derivatives of stresses, displacements, frequencies, user dened functions, etc., with
respect to some design parameters. This can also be seen from the fact that only a few
nite element systems, for example MSC-NASTRAN, have facilities for design sensitivity
analysis although this tool can be just as valuable as structural analysis in the design
process. Of course, it is possible to employ structural synthesis procedures which do
not need derivative information, but apart from the synthesis method, design sensitivity
analysis provides the designer with valuable information about the sensitivity of the design
with respect to various parameters which can be used for a revision of these parameters.
Finally, a structural optimization system must be integrated in a general purpose, interac-
Chapter 1. Introduction 7
tive CAD environment as stated by Fleury & Braibant (1987), see also Braibant & Fleury
(1984), Stanton (1986), Botkin, Yang & Bennett (1986), Santos & Choi (1989), Gu &
Cheng (1990), Rasmussen (1990, 1991), and Botkin, Bajorek & Prasad (1992), if designers
shall use the system. If the structural optimization system is integrated in a CAD environ-
ment that the designer is familiar with, the system will much easier be accepted for daily
use in the design process.
The above-mentioned necessary features for a general purpose computer aided environ-
ment for interactive rational design, structural analysis, design sensitivity analysis, and
optimization involve many dierent topics and require expertice in quite dierent elds.
The development of such a computer aided environment must therefore naturally be carried
out as a collaboration between several people.
13
14 2.2. Basic Concepts
2.2.1 Design Variables
In order to introduce the possible design variables of the problem it is convenient to de-
ne the specications necessary to perform an ordinary analysis using the nite element
method. In general, such an analysis requires information about (see, e.g., Cook, Malkus
& Plesha (1989) and Mouritsen (1992)):
1. Geometry (domain shape of the structure, division into nite elements, and
kinematic boundary conditions).
2. Actions (loads acting on the structure).
3. Constitution (physical properties of the materials, and properties of the used
nite elements).
If a design sensitivity analysis and/or optimization is to be performed, a number of design
variables must be dened. The design variables will be denoted by
ai; i = 1; : : : ; I (2.1)
and are assembled in the vector a. The design variables can be categorized as follows, see,
e.g., Olho & Taylor (1983):
1. Geometrical design variables:
(a) Sizing design variables: describe cross-sectional properties of struc-
tural components like dimensions, cross-sectional areas or moments
of inertia of bars, beams, columns, and arches; or thicknesses of mem-
branes, plates, and shells.
(b) Congurational design variables: describe the coordinates of the
joints of discrete structures like trusses and frames; or the form of the
center-line or mid-surface of continuous structures like curved beams,
arches, and shells.
(c) Shape design variables: govern the shape of external boundaries and
surfaces, or of interior interfaces of a structure. Examples are the
cross-sectional shape of a torsion rod, column, or beam; the bound-
ary shape of a disk, plate, or shell; the surface shape of a three-
dimensional component; or the shape of interfaces within a structural
component made of dierent materials.
(d) Topological design variables: describe the type of structure, num-
ber of interior holes, etc., for a continuous structure. For a discrete
structure like a truss or frame, these variables describe the number,
spatial sequence, and mutual connectivity of members and joints.
2. Material design variables: represent constitutive parameters of isotropic mate-
rials, or, e.g., stacking sequence of lamina, and concentration and orientation
of bers in composite materials.
Chapter 2. Parametric Modelling for Optimum Design 15
3. Support design variables: describe the support (or boundary) conditions, i.e.,
the number, positions, and types of support for the structure.
4. Loading design variables: describe the positioning and distribution of external
loading which in some cases may be at the choice of the designer.
5. Manufacturing design variables: parameters pertaining to the manufacturing
process(es), surface treatment, etc., which in
uence the properties and cost of
the structure.
The topological type of design variables is not covered by the presentation in this re-
port, but topology optimization using the homogenization method, see Bendse & Kikuchi
(1988), Bendse (1989, 1994), Bendse & Rodrigues (1990, 1991), and Diaz & Kikuchi
(1992), and theory on optimal orientations of orthotropic materials, see Pedersen (1989,
1990, 1991), is being implemented in ODESSY by my collegue Lars Krog, see Olho, Krog
& Thomsen (1993). The topology optimization can be extremely ecient in nding a
good topology for the structure which then can be further improved by subsequent sizing
or shape optimization, see Olho, Bendse & Rasmussen (1991), Bendse, Rodrigues &
Rasmussen (1991), Bremicker, Chirehdast, Kikuchi & Papalambros (1991), Rasmussen,
Thomsen & Olho (1993), Olho, Lund & Rasmussen (1992), and Rasmussen, Lund &
Birker (1992).
Furthermore, the support and loading design variables are currently only available in the
form of position type of variables.
In the following the design variables of the structural design problem is, for simplicity,
generally divided into the three groups
Generalized shape design variables.
Sizing design variables.
Material design variables.
Here, the group of shape design variables include congurational variables as well as posi-
tion type of variables for support and loading. Furthermore, the types of manufacturing
design variables covered can be included in the above-mentioned three groups.
transformation
s
y
x
transformation
r s z
y
x
Figure 2.2: CAOS design model of wishbone structure comprising 30 design elements, 202
boundaries, and 308 translation directions.
P1 P1 S3
design variable
S4 S3 = 45°
S4 S2
modifier:
rotate around P1
S1
S1 S2
Figure 2.3: Example of rotation modier and design variable aecting the four points S1,
S2, S3 , and S4.
It shall be possible to have the same design variable aect several Level0 entities
simultaneously through the same modier as illustrated in Fig. 2.3.
It shall be possible to have the same design variable aect several Level0 entities
simultaneously through dierent modiers.
It shall be possible to use the same modier for several dierent links between
design variables and Level0 entities. In a problem comprising, say, 50 master
nodes which can move freely in the plane, it would suce to dene two modi-
ers, namely an x-translation and a y-translation, rather than having to dene
two modiers for each individual master node.
It shall be possible to combine any number of modiers into a new compound
modier, for instance simultaneous rotation and scale.
These requirements can be fullled by creating link data structures of the following form:
LINK: [one design variable] ! [any number of modiers] ! [one Level0 entity]
This construction fulls any of the requirements above. For instance, given a design
variable \angle" and a modier \rotation", the example of Fig. 2.3 is realized by the
links:
LINK: angle ! rotation ! S1
LINK: angle ! rotation ! S2
LINK: angle ! rotation ! S3
LINK: angle ! rotation ! S4
In case of material or sizing design variables, translation modiers may be used to aect the
current value of the chosen variable, e.g., Young's modulus or plate thickness. Currently,
material and sizing parameters are assumed to be constant within each design element.
Chapter 2. Parametric Modelling for Optimum Design 21
2.6 Mesh Generation
The implementation of good algorithms for mesh generation is very important in a struc-
tural shape optimization system. It must be possible to specify desired element sizes
within each design element, and the mesh must remain adequate during the domain shape
updating process when a shape optimization is performed. It may be advantageous to
include adaptive mesh generation in a shape optimization system, see, e.g., Diaz, Kikuchi,
Papalambros & Taylor (1983), Bennett & Botkin (1985), and Kikuchi, Chung, Torigaki &
Taylor (1986), but such facilities are currently not implemented.
Mapping mesh generation techniques are available in both two and three dimensions, but
in order to overcome the problem of having to divide the design model into quadrangular
or hexagonal design elements as necessary for mapping mesh generation, ODESSY also
allows for the use of unstructured free meshing. Currently, a modied version of an algo-
rithm by George (1988) is implemented. This algorithm can subdivide an arbitrary planar
domain into triangles, and in ODESSY, the algorithm is extended to cover curved surfaces.
Furthermore, another unstructured mesh generation algorithm can generate a mixed mesh
predominantly of quadrangular elements, supplemented with a few triangular elements.
Robust free meshing of arbitrary volumes, which is a very challenging area, is currently
being implemented by my collegue Anders Kristensen.
After this basic overview of the facilities for denition of design models in ODESSY, the
analysis facilities will be presented.
22 2.6. Mesh Generation
Chapter
3
Analysis Capabilities for Structural
Optimization
3.1 Introduction
Isensitivity
n this chapter a general description of the nite element module in ODESSY is
given with focus on the types of analysis problems for which both analysis and design
analysis have been implemented. Furthermore, descriptions of the implemented
nite elements are given.
The nite element module in ODESSY has been developed by several people at the Insti-
tute of Mechanical Engineering, but the main code has been developed by my collegue Oluf
Krogh and myself. The implementation of subroutines for solution of the nite element
discretized equations has been performed by Oluf Krogh. When I started this project, Oluf
Krogh had implemented a prole skyline solver for solution of linear static equations based
on algorithms in Dhatt & Touzot (1984). Furthermore, he had implemented the Subspace
iteration method for determination of the lowest eigenvalues of a structural eigenvalue
problem, see Bathe & Ramaswamy (1980), Bathe (1982), and Dhatt & Touzot (1984), and
some simple elements were implemented.
My contribution to the nite element module has mainly been
Implementation of a family of isoparametric nite elements with capabilities
for both analysis and design sensitivity analysis.
Development of general and ecient storing schemes for strains and stresses
for any combination of nite element types.
Extension of the analysis facilities to include thermal analysis, linear buckling
analysis, and any mixture of the available types of analyses.
General system development.
23
24 3.2. Implemented Analysis Types for Structural Optimization
3.2 Implemented Analysis Types for Structural Op-
timization
In the following the dierent types of analysis problems that are covered for both analysis
and design sensitivity analysis in ODESSY are brie
y decribed. The intention with this
section is mainly to give an overview, as the dierent analysis problems are described
more detailed in Chapter 4 where general expressions for design sensitivity analysis are
developed. Furthermore, the notation of dierent matrices and vectors is introduced. Only
linear analysis types have yet been implemented in ODESSY.
Thermal Analysis
The nite element equilibrium equation for a steady state heat conduction problem is given
by
Kth T = Q (3.4)
where Kth is the global thermal \stiness matrix" involving contributions from element
heat conduction matrices and coecients of the temperature vector T arising from convec-
tion boundary conditions, and Q is the thermal load vector involving forcing terms due to
Chapter 3. Analysis Capabilities for Structural Optimization 25
heat addition processes, e.g., heat
ux. The solution of Eq. 3.4 is similar to the solution
of a static stress analysis problem.
Thermo-Elastic Analysis
This analysis type consists of a steady state thermal analysis followed by a static analysis.
First the temperature eld T is found from the solution of Eq. 3.4, resulting in thermal
strains "th . Then Eq. 3.1 is solved by taking the thermal eects into account.
Eigenfrequency Analysis with Thermal Loading and Initial Stress Stiening
The eigenfrequency analysis taking initial stress stiening eects into account can be ex-
tended taking thermal eects into account, i.e., the stress stiening eects may originate
from a thermo-elastic analysis taking both thermal and mechanical loading into consider-
ation.
z,w
x,u y,v
(axissymmetry
of rotational
)
y,v
(z,w)
x,u
(r,u)
Figure 3.2: 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 9-node 2D isoparametric nite elements. Text in parantheses
refer to standard notations for problems with rotational symmetry.
It should be noted that element matrices for the two 2D solid triangular elements can
be formulated analytically. For the 6-node element it is then necessary that the element
sides are straight and nodes at element sides are midside nodes. Such derivations for
plane stress elements can be found in Pedersen (1973) and for axisymmetric elements in
Ladefoged (1988). Although it is advantageous to have analytic expressions for element
28 3.3. Finite Element Types Implemented for Structural Optimization
matrices, I have nevertheless chosen the standard approach of using numerical integration
because the 2D solid isoparametric nite elements can be formulated in a unied way
for both plane stress, plane strain, and axisymmetric situations as shown in Appendix B.
Furthermore, using the isoparametric formulation we have the advantage that the 6-node
element can have straight as well as curved edges.
The 2D solid nite elements are described in detail in Appendix B.
y y
vi
θyi
i
x wi x
z z θxi ui
Figure 3.3: 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 9-node isoparametric Mindlin plate nite elements.
Six dierent Mindlin plate nite elements have been implemented in ODESSY. The ele-
ments have 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 9-nodes, respectively, and are shown in Fig. 3.3. The 6-, 8-,
and 9-node elements can have straight as well as curved boundaries in the element plane.
The 9-node element is implemented both as the Lagrange plate element and as the \het-
erosis" plate nite element as described in Section C.9 in Appendix C, where a detailed
description of the elements is given.
These six plate elements can also be used as
at shell elements as described in Section C.10
in Appendix C. This approach of generating
at shell elements from plate elements has
worked well for the problems studied, but may cause problems for strongly curved surfaces
where it is necessary to use many elements in order to obtain a proper nite element model.
This is also discussed in Section C.10 in Appendix C.
After the presentation in this chapter of the analysis problems that can be solved and the
type of nite elements that can be used, the subsequent chapter will focus on the design
sensitivity analysis.
Chapter
4
General Expressions for Design
Sensitivity Analysis
4.1 Introduction
Ipressions
n a general purpose computer aided environment for interactive structural design
and optimization, design sensitivity analysis is the basic enabling tool, and general ex-
for design sensitivity analysis will be given in this chapter. The types of design
variable of the structural design problem can be shape as well as sizing or material vari-
ables and they are denoted by ai; i = 1; : : : ; I . It is now the aim to establish expressions for
design sensitivities of various criteria with respect to these design variables in an accurate
and ecient way.
The overall nite dierence (OFD) approach to sensitivity analysis and the consequences
of using nite dierence schemes are described rst. This approach to sensitivity analysis
is not computationally ecient, but can be used as a reliable reference method.
Next, three dierent methods for design sensitivity analysis are brie
y described and it is
chosen to use the so-called discrete version of the direct approach.
Then the direct approach to design sensitivity analysis of static problems is discussed. The
direct approach is based on dierentiation of the equations obtained when the continuum
equations are discretized by the nite element method, and this method is very ecient.
Using this approach it is necessary to determine derivatives of element stiness matrices,
and the semi-analytical (S-A) method where these derivatives are approximated by rst
order nite dierences is chosen. Expressions for design sensitivities of displacements,
stresses and compliance are found with respect to single and simultaneous change of design
variables.
Next, the sensitivity analysis of thermo-elastic problems is discussed and the direct ap-
proach is used again. The sensitivities of the thermal problem are taken into account for
thermo-elastic problems.
Finally, eigenvalue design problems are considered. The direct approach can be used
29
30 4.2. Overall Finite Dierence Approach to Sensitivity Analysis
to simple (distinct) eigenvalues but in the case of multiple (repeated) eigenvalues the
sensitivity analysis is more complicated. Then it is necessary to use perturbation techniques
in order to develop sensitivity expressions for multiple eigenvalues, as the eigenvalues are no
longer dierentiable functions of the design in the normal (Frechet) sense. The sensitivity
analysis again will be presented both for perturbations of a single design variable ai and
for simultaneous change of several design variables.
: perturbed elements
B T E "th d
(4.20)
ne
where
is the domain of the nite element and ne is the number of nite elements. This
nodal force vector due to thermally induced strains is added to the mechanical nodal
force vector in Eq. 4.2 when solving the static equilibrium equations. This results in a
displacement vector D used to calculate the element strains ", see Eq. 4.10, and then the
total element stresses , due to mechanical and thermal strains, are given by
= E(B d "th ) (4.21)
38 4.9. Design Sensitivity Analysis of Eigenvalues
where E is the constitutive matrix, B is the strain-displacement matrix and d is the element
displacement vector. In this way boundary conditions are considered when calculating
thermal stresses.
In the design sensitivity analysis the sensitivities of the temperatures T can be found
in the same way as described for displacement sensitivities in Section 4.4. Eq. 4.18 is
dierentiated with respect to a design variable ai; i = 1; : : : ; I , and rearranging the terms,
the following expression for the temperature sensitivities @ T=@ai is obtained
Kth(a) @a @ T = @ Kth (a) T + @ Q (4.22)
i @ai @ai
The factorized global thermal \stiness matrix" can be reused as in the case of sensitivity
analysis of displacements, and the new right hand side which can be termed the thermal
pseudo load vector can be obtained using the S-A approach as described previously for
static design sensitivity analysis, see Eqs. 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9. When the new right hand side
has been determined, the temperature sensitivities @ T=@ai can be calculated by forward
and back substitution reusing the factorized global thermal \stiness matrix".
Having obtained the temperature sensitivities @ T=@ai , the perturbed thermally induced
strains "th(a +ai ) and the perturbed nodal force vector Fth (a +ai ) are easily calculated,
and nite dierence approximations of sensitivities of thermally induced strains and the
corresponding nodal force vector can be evaluated. These sensitivities are included in the
static design sensitivity analysis, whereby Eq. 4.6 becomes
K(a) @@aD = K@a(a) D + @a @ F + @ Fth
@ai (4.23)
i i i
In a similar way, the thermally induced strain sensitivities are included in the stress sensi-
tivities in Eq. 4.11 by using Eqs. 4.12 and 4.21, and the thermo-elastic eects are thereby
included in the design sensitivity analysis.
This is the main equation for determining the coecients j ; j = 1; : : : ; N , of the power
series in Eq. 4.35 which represent the sensitivities of the multiple eigenvalue ~ with respect
to changes ai of a single design parameter ai . As in the case of simple eigenvalues, the
derivatives of the K and M matrix, respectively, must be calculated rst, and then the
subeigenvalue problem of Eq. 4.40 is easily formulated and solved.
If the o-diagonal terms in the quadratic matrix of dimension N in Eq. 4.40 are equal
to zero, the eigenvalues of this matrix, i.e., the directional derivatives of the multiple
eigenvalue ~, are equal to the traditional Frechet derivatives obtained by using Eq. 4.29.
Let us consider the general case when all the design variables ai; i = 1; : : : ; I , are changed
simultaneously. It should be noted that multiple eigenvalues are not dierentiable in the
common sense, i.e., not Frechet-dierentiable, see, e.g., Haug, Choi & Komkov (1986). This
means that the expression for the eigenvalue increments in Eqs. 4.30 is no longer valid.
42 4.9. Design Sensitivity Analysis of Eigenvalues
Thus, to nd the sensitivities of multiple eigenvalues it is necessary to use directional
derivatives in the design space.
For this purpose, for the vector of design variables a = (a1; : : : ; aI ), a varied form a + "e is
q 2 where e is2 an arbitrary vector of variation e = (e1 ; : : : ; eI ) with the unit norm
considered,
kek = e1 + : : : + eI = 1 and " is a small positive parameter. The vector e represents
a direction in the design space along which the design variables ai are changed, and "
represents the magnitude of the perturbation in this direction.
As a result of perturbation of the vector a the matrices K and M are incremented and
become
X X
K + " @@aK ei; M + " @@aM ei
I I
(4.41)
i=1 i i=1 i
Using expansions for j and j in the form
j = ~ + "j + o("); j = 1; : : : ; N (4.42)
j = ~ j + " j + o("); j = 1; : : : ; N (4.43)
and performing the same manipulations as earlier, instead of Eq. 4.40 the following N -th
order equation for determining the sensitivities j of the eigenvalues j is obtained:
X !
I
T @ K @ M
det s @a ~ @a k ei sk = 0; s; k = 1; : : : ; N (4.44)
i=1 i i
d(1) f 1
aj f = a = a (f (aj + aj ) f (aj ))
j j
d(2) 1
aj f = 2a (f (aj + aj ) f (aj aj )) (5.2)
j
d(3) 1
aj f = 6a ( f (aj + 2aj ) + 6f (aj + aj ) 3f (aj ) 2f (aj aj ))
j
d(4) 1
aj f = 12a ( f (aj + 2aj ) + 8f (aj + aj ) 8f (aj aj ) + f (aj 2aj ))
j
:::
In Eq. 5.2, the symbol k in d(akj) designates the order of the complete polynomial for which
the standard nite dierence operator d(akj) yields the exact numerical derivative of the
function f .
An element function g as dened by Eq. 5.1 is now substituted into the usual rst or-
der forward dierence expression for numerical dierentiation with respect to aj , i.e., the
formula for k = 1 in Eq. 5.2,
g = 1 (g(a + a ) g(a )) (5.3)
j j j
aj aj
= 1a (pj + qj (aj + aj )rj pj qj (aj )rj ) ; j = 1; : : : ; J
j
Then, in Eq. 5.2, set k equal to the value of rj associated with aj , i.e.,
@g = d(k=rj )g; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.4)
@aj aj
and introduce the symbol j for the relative perturbation of aj , i.e.
j = aaj > 0; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.5)
j
Substitute now g from Eq. 5.1 into the right hand side of Eq. 5.4, and consider the
formulas in Eq. 5.2 for f = g and k = rj = 0; 1; 2; : : :. For each value of rj , the following
proportional relationship is easily established between the analytical (and exact) derivative
@g=@aj and its rst order nite dierence approximation g=aj :
@g = c g ; r 2 @ [ f0g; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.6)
@aj rj aj j
The proportionality factors crj are called correction factors and are found to depend only
on j (for crj > 1)
c0 = 0
c1 = 1
1
c2 = 1 + 21 j
1
c3 = 1 + j + 13 j2 (5.7)
52 5.3. \Exact" Numerical Dierentiation of Special Element Functions
3 1 1
c4 = 2 3
1 + j + j + j
2 4
::: 0 k1 ! 11
1 X k
ck = @ k p j(k 1) pA
p=0
where the latter expression for ck is given in terms of binomial coecients.
g (a 1 ,...,a j ,...,aJ )
∂g ∆g
∂ aj
= c rj ∆ a
j
∆g
∆ aj
aj
Figure 5.1: Illustration of relationsship between the analytical derivative @g=@aj and its
rst order nite dierence approximation g=aj .
In Fig. 5.1 this relationship of proportionality between the analytical derivative @g=@aj
of an element function g and its rst order nite dierence approximation g=aj is
illustrated.
The following important points concerning the above development should be noted:
Eqs. 5.5 - 5.7 represent an ecient and simple computational scheme for deter-
mining \exact derivatives" of element functions g by application of correction
factors to computationally inexpensive rst order dierences. Truncation errors
are completely avoided.
The correction factors in Eq. 5.7 are independent of the actual values of the
design variables and can therefore be precomputed for a selected nite value of
j > 0. These values of the correction factors are then applicable in all future
sensitivity analyses, provided that the original value of j is observed when
computing the value of aj = j aj to be used in Eq. 5.6.
Hence, using Eq. 5.5 the absolute perturbation j can be eliminated in Eq. 5.6 which may
be rewritten as
@g = c g = crj ( g((1 + )a ) g(a ) ) ; r 2 @ [ 0; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.8)
@aj rj aj j aj j j j j
Chapter 5. \Exact" Numerical Dierentiation of Element Matrices 53
where the value of j > 0 has been preselected.
Eqs. 5.7 and 5.8 are the main expressions to be used when calculating derivatives of various
element matrices for isoparametric nite elements.
z,w
ζ
η
y,v
x,u
Figure 5.2: Domain, node numbering, and nodal degrees of freedom of 3D isoparameric
nite elements.
BT E B jJj d
(5.9)
Here,
is the domain of the nite element described in curvilinear, non-dimensional --
coordinates for the element, see Fig. 5.2, and jJj is the determinant of the Jacobian matrix
J which at each point denes the transformation of dierentials d , d, and d into dx,
dy, and dz. Like J, the strain-displacement matrix B depends on coordinates of the nodal
points, whereas the constitutive matrix E depends only on the constitutive parameters
of the assumed linearly elastic material. The expressions for the Jacobian J and for the
strain-displacement matrix B are given in the following.
54 5.4. 3D Solid Isoparametric Finite Elements
Let us recall that within the isoparametric formulation of a nite element with an arbitrary
number n of nodal points, the same set of shape functions
Ni = Ni(; ; ); i = 1; : : : ; n (5.10)
is used for interpolation of global x, y, and z coordinates from nodal values xi , yi, and zi
and of displacements functions u, v, and w from nodal values ui, vi, and wi, i.e.,
X
n X
n X
n
x = Nixi ; y = Niyi; z = Nizi (5.11)
i=1 i=1 i=1
X
n X
n X
n
u(x; y; z) = Niui; v(x; y; z) = Nivi; w(x; y; z) = Niwi (5.12)
i=1 i=1 i=1
Shape functions Ni; i = 1; : : : ; n, for the two implemented 3D solid isoparametric nite
elements are given in Appendix A in Tables A.1 and A.2.
In terms of the vector di of nodal degrees of freedom
di = fui vi wigT ; i = 1; : : : ; n (5.13)
the element nodal vector d containing nodal displacements is
d = fdT1 dT2 : : : dTi : : : dTn gT (5.14)
and the strain vector function " is
"(x; y; z) = f"x "y "z
xy
yz
xz gT (5.15)
with their mutual relationship dened by
"=Bd (5.16)
The strain-displacement matrix B is determined by operating on the shape functions Ni,
and it is found that
B = [ b1 b2 : : : bi : : : bn ] (5.17)
where the submatrix bi , which is associated with the nodal point i of the nite element,
has the form 2 3
66 N i;x 0 0 7
66 0 Ni;y 0 777
bi = 6666 N0 N0 N0i;z 7777 ; i = 1; : : : ; n (5.18)
66 i;y i;x 7
4 0 Ni;z Ni;y 75
Ni;z 0 Ni;x
Here, the derivatives of the shape functions Ni with respect to x, y, and z are given by
8 9 2 38 9 8 9
>
< i;x = 6 x x x 7 < i; >
N > ; ; ; > N = >
< Ni; >
=
N = 6 ; ; ; 7 Ni; = N i; ; i = 1; : : : ; n (5.19)
>
: Ni;z >; 4 ;z ;z ;z 5 > : Ni; > >
: Ni; >
i;y y y y
; ;
Chapter 5. \Exact" Numerical Dierentiation of Element Matrices 55
where the matrix is the inverse
=J 1 (5.20)
of the Jacobian
2 3 2 3
66 x; y; z; 77 Xn66 N i; x i N i; y i Ni; z i 7
J = 4 x; y; z; 5= 4 Ni; xi Ni; yi Ni; zi 75 (5.21)
x; y; z; i=1 Ni; xi Ni; yi Ni; zi
Note that J is expressed in terms of the derivatives of Ni; i = 1; : : : ; n, with respect to the
curvilinear element coordinates , , and and of the coordinates (xi ; yi; zi), i = 1; : : : ; n,
of each of the n nodal points of the nite element.
Now all terms necessary for calculating the element stiness matrix in Eq. 5.9 are dened,
and in order to determine its derivative, Eq. 5.9 is dierentiated with respect to any of
the shape design variables aj ; j = 1; : : : ; J , leading to
" #
@ k = Z @ BT E B + BT E @ B jJj d
+ Z BT E B @ jJj d
; (5.22)
@aj
@aj @aj
@aj
j = 1; : : : ; J
Since the elasticity matrix E is symmetric, each of the two matrix terms in the rst integral
in Eq. 5.22 is equal to the transpose of the other, and the matrix term in the second integral
is symmetric in itself. Application of this observation can reduce Eq. 5.22 to a more simple
expression. Introducing the notation [ ]S for the operation
[C]S = 1 CT + C (5.23)
2
of symmetrization of a quadratic matrix C, Eq. 5.22 can be rewritten as
" # " #
@ k = Z 2 BT E @ B jJj d
+ Z BT E B @ jJj d
; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.24)
@aj
@aj S
@aj S
If a matrix B^ (j) is dened as
@ B + B @ jJj
B^ (j) = @a (5.25)
j 2jJj @a j
then Eq. 5.24 can be written in compact form as
@ k = 2 Z BT E B^ (j) jJj d
; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.26)
@aj
S
It is seen that Eq. 5.26 is of the same form as Eq. 5.9 so existing subroutines for com-
putation of k can be used to compute the derivative @ k=@aj , provided that the strain-
displacement matrix B can be substituted by B^ (j) determined from Eq. 5.25 and the full
matrix k is calculated so that the symmetrization operation, Eq. 5.23, of the matrix in
Eq. 5.26 can be carried out.
However, in the following the form of Eq. 5.22 will be preferred instead of the compact
form of Eq. 5.26 as it makes it easier to follow the derivations given.
It is seen from Eq. 5.22 that the derivatives of the determinant jJj and of the components
in the strain-displacement matrix B must be determined before the derivatives @ k=@aj ,
j = 1; : : : ; J , of the element stiness matrix can be calculated.
56 5.4. 3D Solid Isoparametric Finite Elements
5.4.2 \Exact" Numerical Dierentiation of J and B j j
In this section it will be shown that \exact" numerical derivatives of the Jacobian J and
of the strain-displacement matrix B can be obtained on the basis of \exact" numerical
dierentiation by applying Eqs. 5.1, 5.7, and 5.8 in Section 5.3.
Note rst that all the shape functions Ni; i = 1; : : : ; I , of the nite element depend only
on the non-dimensional curvilinear coordinates , , and within the element and thus
are independent of the actual geometry of the element. The shape functions and their
derivatives with respect to local coordinates are therefore independent of the shape design
variables aj ; j = 1; : : : ; J .
Consider rst the Jacobian matrix J in Eq. 5.21. The determinant jJj of this matrix can
be found as jJj = J11cof (J11) + J22 cof (J22) + J33 cof (J33), where cof denotes cofactor. It
is thereby seen that any coordinate x, y, or z will appear only linearly in the expression
for the determinant jJj. Thus, the scalar jJj will be either independent or a linear function
of any of the shape design variables aj , and the derivative of jJj can therefore be found
by applying Eqs. 5.8 where the correction factor crj = 1, cf. Eq. 5.7. The following
expression for the derivative @ jJj=@aj ; j = 1; : : : ; J , is obtained:
@ jJj = J = 1 ( jJ((1 + )a )j jJ(a )j ) ; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.27)
j j j
@aj aj j aj
The computation of derivatives of components of the strain-displacement matrix B requires
dierentiation of bi with respect to aj and hence of the derivatives of Ni;x, Ni;y , and Ni;z ,
see Eqs. 5.17, 5.18, and 5.19. This involves dierentiation of the matrix , and since the
components qp of this matrix are given by qp = jJj 1cof (Jpq ), these components cannot
be dierentiated exactly on the basis of a simple polynomial approximation. This diculty
can be circumvented by dierentiating the identity J = I, where I is the identity matrix,
which gives
@ = @ J ; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.28)
@a j @a j
From Eq. 5.21 it is seen that each of the components of the Jacobian matrix J is either
independent or a linear function of any of the shape design variables aj ; j = 1; : : : ; J ,
from among the set of coordinates xi , yi, and zi of the element nodal points. Hence, the
derivative of each of the components in the Jacobian matrix J can be determined using
Eq. 5.8.
The derivative @ B=@aj can be written as
" #
@ B = @ b1 @ b2 : : : @ bi : : : @ bn (5.29)
@aj @aj @aj @aj @aj
Chapter 5. \Exact" Numerical Dierentiation of Element Matrices 57
where 2 3
@Ni;x 0 0 77
66@aj
66 77
0 @N
66
@aj
i;y
0 77
66 7
66 @N i;z 7 77
@ bi = 66 0 0 @aj 77 ; i = 1; : : : ; n
@aj 666 @Ni;y @Ni;x 0 77 (5.30)
66
@aj @aj 7
77
0
66 @N i;z @N i;y 7 7
66 @aj @aj 777
64
@Ni;z 0 @Ni;x 5
@aj @aj
The derivatives of Ni;x, Ni;y , and Ni;z , i.e., the components in the strain-displacement
matrix B, can then be found using Eqs. 5.8, 5.19, and 5.28:
8 9 8 9
> N > > Ni; >
@ < Ni;x = = @ < N =
@aj >
: Ni;z >
i;y
; @aj >: Ni; >
i;
;
8 9
@ J < Ni; >
> =
= @aj > N (5.31)
: Ni; >
i;
;
8 9
>
< Ni;x > =
@ J
= J 1 @a > Ni;y >
j :N ;
i;z
8 9
>
< Ni;x >
=
= J 1 1 [ J((1 + j )aj ) J(aj )] > Ni;y > ;
j aj : Ni;z ;
i = 1; : : : ; n; j = 1; : : : ; J
Now all terms needed for the \exact" numerical derivative of the stiness matrix, cf. Eq.
5.22, are found using rst order nite dierences, i.e., using \exact" semi-analytical design
sensitivity analysis.
In fact, only a comparatively small amount of additional work is required to derive the
corresponding expressions for analytical design sensitivity analysis. Such derivations can
be found in Wang, Sun & Gallagher (1985), El-Sayed & Zumwalt (1991), and Olho,
Rasmussen & Lund (1992). These analytical expressions have not been implemented in
ODESSY because the method of \exact" numerical dierentiation is just as accurate within
computational round-o errors. Furthermore, as many dierent kinds of generalized shape
design variables are available in ODESSY, it would take a lot of work to obtain analyti-
cal sensitivities of the relations between derivatives of generalized shape design variables
Am ; m = 1; : : : ; M (governing positions of master nodes controlling the shape of, e.g.,
b-splines), and derivatives of shape design variables aj ; j = 1; : : : ; J , which represent ele-
ment nodal coordinates. If analytical sensitivity analysis is not carried out in all evaluation
steps, then there is no reason to introduce it here, so we will stay within the semi-analytical
58 5.4. 3D Solid Isoparametric Finite Elements
approach to design sensitivity analysis. In Section 5.7 it is described how derivatives with
respect to generalized shape design variables Am can be related to derivatives with respect
to shape design variables aj .
% NT N jJj d
(5.36)
Here,
is the domain of the nite element in its local coordinate system, see Fig. 5.2, % the
mass density, N contains shape functions Ni , and jJj is the determinant of the Jacobian
matrix J.
Chapter 5. \Exact" Numerical Dierentiation of Element Matrices 59
The derivative of the mass matrix can be found by dierentiating Eq. 5.36 with respect
to any of the shape design variables aj ; j = 1; : : : ; J , i.e.,
@ m = Z % NT N @ jJj d
; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.37)
@aj
@aj
The derivative of the determinant jJj of the Jacobian matrix is given by Eq. 5.27 so
all terms needed for calculating the \exact" numerical derivative of the mass matrix are
known.
GT S G jJj d
(5.39)
Here,
is the domain of the nite element described in curvilinear, non-dimensional --
coordinates for the element, see Fig. 5.2, G a matrix obtained by appropriate dierentia-
tion of shape functions Ni, S a matrix of initial stresses, and jJj is the determinant of the
Jacobian matrix J.
The matrix G is given by 2 3
66 g 0 0 77
G=4 0 g 0 5 (5.40)
0 0 g
where each submatrix g is given by
2 3
Ni;x
g = 664 Ni;y 77
5 ; i = 1; : : : ; n (5.41)
Ni;z
The stress matrix S is given by 2 3
s 0 0
S = 664 0 s 0 775 (5.42)
0 0 s
and each submatrix s is dened as
2 3
x xy xz
s = 664 xy y yz 775 (5.43)
xz yz z
60 5.4. 3D Solid Isoparametric Finite Elements
Here x, xy , etc., are stresses found by an initial static stress analysis.
If Eq. 5.39 is dierentiated with respect to any of the design variables aj ; j = 1; : : : ; J ,
the following expression for the \exact" numerical derivative of the initial stress stiness
matrix is obtained
" #
@ k = Z @ GT S G + GT @ S G + GT S @ G jJj d
@aj
@aj @aj @aj
Z
+ GT S G @@ajJj d
; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.44)
j
Thus, it is necessary to nd the derivatives of the components in the stress matrix S, of
the determinant jJj of the Jacobian, and of the components of the matrix G.
The derivatives of the components in the stress matrix S, i.e., the stress sensitivities,
are given by Eq. 5.34, and the derivative of the determinant jJj is given by Eq. 5.27.
The matrix G contains the components Ni;x, Ni;y , and Ni;z , i.e., the same components as
involved in the denition of strain-displacement matrix B, see Eqs. 5.17, 5.18, 5.40, and
5.41. The derivatives of these components are given by Eq. 5.31. Thus, all terms necessary
for evaluating the \exact" numerical derivative of the element initial stress stiness matrix,
cf. Eq. 5.44, are now found.
th (5.45)
Here,
is the domain of the nite element in its local coordinate system, see Fig. 5.2,
Bth a matrix obtained by appropriate dierentiation of shape functions Ni, the thermal
conductivity matrix, and jJj is the determinant of the Jacobian matrix J. If the material
is isotropic, can simply be replaced by the scalar , the conductivity coecient.
The matrix Bth is given by
h i
Bth = bth1 bth2 : : : bthi : : : bthn (5.46)
where the submatrix bthi, which is associated with the nodal point i of the nite element,
has the form 2 3
N i;x
bthi = 664 Ni;y 775 ; i = 1; : : : ; n (5.47)
Ni;z
In case of boundary conditions in terms of convection heat transfer, the thermal \stiness
matrix" receives additional contributions given by the element matrix h
Z
h= !2
NT h N jJj d! (5.48)
Here, !2 is the surface of the nite element described in curvilinear, non-dimensional ,
, or coordinates for the element, for which the convection boundary condition
Chapter 5. \Exact" Numerical Dierentiation of Element Matrices 61
is applied. N contains shape functions Ni, h is the convection coecient specied, and jJj
is the determinant of the Jacobian matrix J for the surface !2 .
If Eqs. 5.45 and 5.48 are dierentiated with respect to any shape design variable aj ; j =
1; : : : ; J , the following expressions for the derivatives of the thermal \stiness matrices"
are obtained 2 3
@ kth = Z 4 @ Bth T Bth + BthT @ Bth 5 jJj d
+ Z BthT Bth @ jJj d
(5.49)
@aj
@aj @aj
@aj
and
@ h = Z NT h N @ jJj d!; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.50)
@aj !2 @aj
The derivative of the determinant jJj is given by Eq. 5.27, and derivatives of the compo-
nents Ni;x, Ni;y , and Ni;z in the matrix Bth, see Eqs. 5.46 and 5.47, are given by Eq. 5.31.
All terms required for evaluating the \exact" numerical derivatives in Eqs. 5.49 and 5.50
are therefore found.
(5.52)
"th
where is an element vector containing thermally induced strains as given by 5.33.
Taking the same approach as previously, the load vectors in Eqs. 5.51 and 5.52 is dieren-
tiated with respect to any of the design variables aj ; j = 1; : : : ; J , leading to the following
expressions for the \exact" derivatives
@ f = Z NT F @ jJj d
+ Z NT F @ jJj d!; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.53)
B S
@aj
@aj ! @aj
and " #
@ f th = Z @ BT E "th + BT E @ "th jJj d
+ Z BT E "th @ jJj d
; (5.54)
@aj
@aj @aj
@aj
j = 1; : : : ; J
Here, the derivative @ "th=@aj of the element thermally induced strains is given by Eq. 5.35,
@ jJj=@aj is given by Eq. 5.27, and \exact" numerical derivatives of the strain-displacement
matrix B are given by Eqs. 5.29, 5.30, and 5.31.
62 5.5. 2D Isoparametric Finite Elements
5.4.8 Derivative of Consistent Thermal Flux Vector
Finally, \exact" numerical derivatives of the thermal
ux vector will be determined for the
3D isoparametric nite elements.
The consistent thermal nodal
ux vector q is given by
Z Z
q= !1
NT qS jJj d! + !2
NT h Te jJj d! (5.55)
where the rst term derives from specied
ux at the surface !1 and the latter term from
a specied convection boundary condition at surface !2. The surfaces !1, !2 are described
in curvilinear, non-dimensional , , or coordinates for the element. The
scalar qS is prescribed
ux normal to the surface !1, N contains shape functions Ni that
are evaluated on the surface !, jJj the determinant of the Jacobian matrix for the surface
!, h the convection coecient specied, and Te is the environmental temperature specied
for the convection boundary condition.
The derivative @ q=@aj then can be determined by
@ q = Z NT q @ jJj d! + Z NT h T @ jJj d! (5.56)
S e
@aj !1 @aj !2 @aj
where @ jJj=@aj is given by Eq. 5.27.
Now \exact" numerical derivatives have been determined for all implemented element
matrices and vectors of the 3D isoparametric nite elements.
(axissymmetry
of rotational
)
y,v η
(z,w) ξ1
ξ2
ξ3
ξ
x,u
(r,u)
Figure 5.3: Domain, node numbering, and nodal degrees of freedom of 2D solid iso-
parameric nite elements. Local, non-dimensional coordinates , and area
coordinates 1, 2, 3 are shown for the quadrilateral and triangular elements,
respectively. Text in parantheses refer to standard notations for problems with
rotational symmetry.
Derivatives with respect to and , with the constraint in Eq. 5.57 taken into account,
can be found as
@ = @ @ ; @ = @ @ (5.59)
@ @1 @3 @ @2 @3
The element matrices for the triangular elements can then be formulated similarly to the
quadrilateral elements by using Eqs. 5.57 - 5.59.
The derivative @ jJj=@aj is given by Eq. 5.27, the derivatives of the components in the
matrix G, see Eqs. 5.83 and 5.84, are given by Eq. 5.75, the sensitivities @ S=@aj are given
by Eq. 5.34, and the derivative @r=@aj is given by Eq. 5.77.
Here, the derivative @ jJj=@aj is given by Eq. 5.27 and the derivative @r=@aj is given by
Eq. 5.77.
y
η y
ξ1
ξ2 vi
ξ3
ξ
θ yi
i
wi x
z x
z θ xi ui
Figure 5.4: Domain, node numbering, and nodal degrees of freedom of isoparametric
Mindlin plate nite elements. Local, non-dimensional coordinates , and
area coordinates 1, 2, 3 are shown for the quadrilateral and triangular ele-
ments, respectively.
It is important to notice that all element matrices for the Mindlin elements are given in
terms of standard right-hand-rule rotations x, y as illustrated in Figs. 5.4. When the
Mindlin plate theory is derived it is normally done using the rotations 1 , 2 which are
dened as
1 = y (5.107)
=
2 x
The use of rotations 1 , 2 greatly simplify the algebra when developing the Mindlin plate
theory but as the use of standard right-hand-rule rotations is most common in nite element
programs, standard right-hand-rule rotations x, y are used here.
Shape functions for the implemented 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 9-node Mindlin plate nite elements
are similar to those used for the 2D solid elements, i.e., the shape functions given in
Apppendix B in Tables B.4, B.1, B.5, B.2, and B.3, respectively.
In case of triangular isoparametric elements, Eqs. 5.57, 5.58, and 5.59 in Section 5.5 are
used as relations between the non-dimensional coordinates , and area coordinates 1,
2, 3.
72 5.6. Isoparametric Mindlin Plate and Shell Finite Elements
5.6.1 Derivative of Element Stiness Matrix
The element stiness matrix k for a Mindlin plate nite element is given by
Z
k= !
BT DM B jJj d! (5.108)
where DM is the elasticity matrix, B the generalized strain-displacement matrix, jJj the
determinant of the Jacobian matrix J, and ! is the domain of the nite element described
in curvilinear, non-dimensional coordinates for the element as shown in Fig. 5.4. The
matrices J and B depend on the coordinates of the nodal points, whereas DM depends
only on the thickness t of the plate and on the constitutive parameters of the assumed
linearly elastic material. The elasticity matrix DM is given in Appendix C in Eqs. C.7,
C.8, and C.9.
In terms of the vector di of nodal degrees of freedom, cf. Fig. 5.4
di = fui vi wi xi yi gT ; i = 1; : : : ; n (5.109)
the relationship between the vector d of generalized displacements of element nodal points
d = fdT1 dT2 : : : dTi : : : dTn gT (5.110)
and the generalized strain vector " takes the standard form " = B d where B is given by
B = [ b1 b2 : : : bi : : : bn ] (5.111)
If the generalized strain vector " is dened as
8 9 8 9
>
> u; x >
> >
> u; x >
>
>
> v;y
>
> >
> v; y
>
>
>
> > > >
> u;y +v;x > > u;y +v;x >
> > >
>
< 1;x > = > < >
=
"(x; y) = > = y;x (5.112)
> 2;y > > >
> x;y > >
>
> 1;y + 2;x >> >
> y;y + x;x > >
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> 2 w; y > > x w; y >
: 1 w;x ; : y w;x >
> > ;
then the submatrix bi , which is associated with the nodal point i of the nite element, has
the form 2 3
66 0 N N i;x 0 0 0 0 7
66 i;y 0 0 0 77
66 Ni;y Ni;x 0 0 0 777
6 Ni;x 777 ; i = 1; : : : ; n
bi = 666 00 00 0 0
0 Ni;y 0 77 (5.113)
66
66 0 0 0 Ni;x Ni;y 777
64 0 0 Ni;y Ni 0 75
0 0 Ni;x 0 Ni
Chapter 5. \Exact" Numerical Dierentiation of Element Matrices 73
It is seen that the rst three rows in bi originate from the membrane part, the next three
from the bending terms and the last two rows from the shear part. The derivatives of the
shape functions Ni with respect to x and y are given by Eq. 5.67 in Subsection 5.5.1.
Having dened the matrices involved in the element stiness matrix k, the \exact" numer-
ical derivative is, as before, found by dierentiating Eq. 5.108 with respect to any shape
design variable aj ; j = 1; : : : ; J , which leads to
" #
@ k = Z @ BT D B + BT D @ B jJj d! + Z BT D B @ jJj d!; (5.114)
@aj ! @aj M M
@aj !
M
@aj
j = 1; : : : ; J
Here, the derivative @ jJj=@aj is given by Eq. 5.27 and the derivative @ B=@aj of the
generalized strain-displacement matrix B can be found using the results in Subsection
5.5.1. The derivatives @Ni;x=@aj and @Ni;y =@aj are given by Eq. 5.75, and as the shape
functions Ni only depend on the local, non-dimensional coordinates and , we have
@Ni = 0; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.115)
@aj
Using these equations the \exact" numerical derivative @ k=@aj in Eq. 5.114 can now be
determined.
where the rst two terms derive from specied
ux at either surface !1 or boundary 1
and the two latter terms from specied convection boundary conditions at surface !2 or
boundary 2 . The surfaces !1 , !2 and boundaries 1 , 2 are described in curvilinear,
non-dimensional coordinates for the element, and t is the thickness of the element. The
scalar qS is prescribed
ux normal to the surface !1 or the boundary 1 , N contains shape
functions Ni that are evaluated on the surface ! or the boundary , jJj the determinant
of the Jacobian matrix J for the surface ! or the boundary , h the convection coecient
Chapter 5. \Exact" Numerical Dierentiation of Element Matrices 77
specied, and Te is the environmental temperature specied for the convection boundary
condition.
Not surprisingly, we dierentiate Eq. 5.133 with respect to any of the shape design variables
aj ; j = 1; : : : ; J , leading to
@ q = Z NT q @ jJj d! + Z NT q @ jJj t d
S S
@aj !1 @aj 1 @aj
Z Z
+ NT h Te @ jJj d! + NT h Te @ jJj t d; j = 1; : : : ; J (5.134)
!2 @a j 2@a j
Here, the derivative @ jJj=@aj is given by Eq. 5.27.
Now \exact" numerical derivatives with respect to any shape design variable aj ; j =
1; : : : ; J , have been found for element matrices and vectors of all the implemented isopara-
metric nite elements.
z1 zt
Q1 y1 Sm Qt yt
x1 xt
zT
S1
yT
QT
xT
SM y
nm
n1 z1 Am n m
zt
Q1 y1 Sm Qt yt
A1 n1 x1 xt
zT
S1
yT
Q
xT T
SM
y
AM n M
x
nM
z o p ) (1+ A )
(s m - m m
Q1 y1 Sm Qt yt
x1 xt
zT
S1
yT
QT
xT
SM
y
P1 Pm (soM - p M ) (1+ AM )
PM
x
(smo - p m )T T ( A m )
y
Sm
Am
smo - p m
Pm boundary curve
z x
The element derivatives @ k=@aj yield the \exact" numerical derivatives and they only
need to be calculated once for each possible perturbed nodal coordinate ai ; i = 1; : : : ; Is,
of which aj ; j = 1; : : : ; J , is a small subset. This leads to the following procedural steps for
establishing the derivatives @ K=@Am in the design sensitivity analysis w.r.t. generalized
shape design variables Am; m = 1; : : : ; M :
1. If design sensitivity analysis w.r.t. rst generalized shape design variable A1 :
(a) The preprocessor evaluates all generalized shape design variables
Am ; m = 1; : : : ; M , in order to determine the set ai; i = 1; : : : ; Is,
of possible perturbed nodal coordinates. Then it perturbs the vari-
able A1 and updates the surface mesh. Mesh sensitivities @ai =@A1
are then available, see Eqs. 5.147.
(b) The nite element module evaluates all element derivatives @ k=@ai ,
i = 1; : : : ; Is, cf. Eqs. 5.137 and 5.150, and store them on disk.
(c) The global stiness matrix derivative @ K=@A1 is evaluated using Eqs.
5.136, 5.137, and 5.147.
2. Else design sensitivity analysis w.r.t. Am ; m = 2; : : : ; M :
(a) The preprocessor perturbs shape design variable Am leading to mesh
sensitivities @ai =@Am .
(b) The nite element module evaluates the derivative @ K=@Am based on
the element derivatives @ k=@ai stored on disk and mesh sensitivities
@ai =@Am .
The perturbation Am of a generalized shape design variable Am is set to 1=1000 of the
smallest side length of the nite elements in the structure as described in Section 4.4 in
order to obtain accurate mesh sensitivities @ai =@Am . It should be noted that the mesh
sensitivities are \exact" numerical derivatives in case of translation or scaling modier
links to the generalized shape design variable Am , cf. Eq. 5.142.
The eciency of the new S-A approach to obtain the derivative @ K=@Am of the global
stiness matrix K compared with the traditional method is very much problem dependent.
Chapter 5. \Exact" Numerical Dierentiation of Element Matrices 87
If the number M of generalized shape design variables Am is small, then the traditional
S-A method, where the element stiness matrix derivatives are approximated by rst order
nite dierences k=Am for all nae perturbed elements, is more ecient as the number
Is of element derivatives @ k=@ai , see Eq. 5.150, involved in the new S-A method will be
substantially larger than nae .
However, increasing the number M of generalized design variables, the new S-A method
becomes more ecient because the element derivatives @ k=@ai only needs to be calcu-
lated once and the derivative @ K=@Am is quickly evaluated from these element derivatives
whereas the traditional S-A method needs to evaluate k=Am for nae perturbed elements
for all design variables Am ; m = 1; : : : ; M .
Furthermore, the ratio of eciency between the traditional and the new S-A method is
very much dependent on the computer used. The new S-A method needs to store more
element derivatives on disk than the traditional method, so the disk access speed is also
an important factor.
In general, for a few generalized shape design variables Am the new S-A method may be
twice as slow to determine the global stiness matrix derivative @ K=@Am (or even slower
in special cases), but having a larger number of design variables, the two methods are
comparable in eciency and for a large number of generalized shape design variables, say
50, the new S-A method may be considerably faster.
For most problems, the traditional S-A method yields suciently accurate derivatives of
stiness matrices, but for many beam- and plate-like structures, it is absolute necessary
to use the new S-A method in order to obtain satisfactory results as will be demonstrated
by numerical examples in Chapter 6.
Stress Sensitivities
The element stress sensitivities are calculated using \exact" numerical dierentiation as
described in Subsection 5.4.3, see Eqs. 5.34 and 5.35, which are easily rewritten to the
situation of design sensitivity analysis w.r.t. a generalized shape design variable Am; m =
1; : : : ; M : !
@ = E @ B d + B @ d @ "th ; m = 1; : : : ; M (5.152)
@Am @Am @Am @Am
88 5.9. Implementation and Numerical Eciency of New S-A Method
where ( )
@ "th = @T @T @T 0 0 0 T ; m = 1; : : : ; M (5.153)
@Am @Am @Am @Am
The element nodal displacement vector d, the displacement sensitivities @ d=@Am and the
temperature sensitivities @T=@Am are known from the solutions of Eqs. 4.2, 5.135, and
4.22, respectively, and the strain-displacement matrix B is given by Eqs. 5.17, 5.18, and
5.19. Finally, the derivative @ B=@Am can be computed by application of the chain rule,
i.e.,
@B = X Is @ B @a
i
@A m i=1@a @A ; m = 1; : : : ; M
i m
(5.154)
The derivative @ B=@Am will be non-zero only for elements in the perturbed \boundary
layer", i.e., elements that have nodal coordinates at the design boundary surface. Moreover,
since B is independent of all design variables other than those associated with the particular
nite element, i.e., aj ; j = 1; : : : ; J , then
8X
> J @ B @a
@ B = < @a @Aj for elements in the \boundary layer" (5.155)
@Am > : j=1 0
j m
for all other elements, m = 1; : : : ; M
where the mesh sensitivities @aj =@Am are available from Eq. 5.147. It should be noted that
the summation in Eq. 5.155 is only carried out over those shape design variables aj ; j =
1; : : : ; J , that are associated with nodal points of the element on the design boundary
surface.
In this way \exact" numerical derivatives of stresses are obtained. This approach of ob-
taining stress sensitivities is slightly slower than the traditional S-A method because the
derivative @ B=@Am must be established for elements in the \design boundary surface
layer", but the time it takes to perform these additional computations is not perceptible
in a design sensitivity analysis.
It is seen that the rst part of Eq. 5.156 only needs to be calculated once whereas the
second part needs to be evaluated for the each sensitivity analysis w.r.t. a generalized shape
design variable Am . The new S-A method is therefore substantially slower for calculating
the initial stress stiness matrix derivative than the traditional S-A method, but Eq. 5.156
always leads to accurate sensitivities. This will be exemplied by numerical examples in
Chapter 6.
100 MPa 20
20
100
Table 6.1: Computed von Mises reference stress sensitivity vM =A5 at the nite element
nodal point Q1.
Boundary
element
length OFD Traditional New
perturbation Perturbation method S-A method S-A method
` A5 vM vM vM
` A5 A5 A5
of the nite elements in a subdomain of the structure. The example is the cantilever beam
problem used by Barthelemy & Haftka (1988) to study the inaccuracy problem associated
with the traditional S-A method as described in Section 5.2. The problem pertains to a
slender cantilever beam of given length L and aspect ratio 50 as shown in Fig. 6.2. The
beam is subjected to a given tip load P at the free end and is modelled by a regular pattern
of 8-node isoparametric serendipity nite elements. The length of the element sides are
equal and denoted by `. The design sensitivity vL =L of the tip displacement vL with
respect to the length L of the beam is studied, and the \design boundary layer" approach
of using one-element-deep sensitivity information is adopted.
It has been demonstrated by numerical experiments in Barthelemy & Haftka (1988) that
the displacement design derivative vL =L determined by the traditional S-A method for
this beam problem is subject to severe inaccuracy problems. This fact is illustrated by
the results presented in Table 6.2 for dierent values of the relative perturbation `=` of
the lengths ` of the nite elements in the \design boundary layer". The results are based
on a discretization of the beam into 200 x 4 eight-node isoparametric nite elements as
indicated in Fig. 6.2, the beam has length L = 100 and unit thickness, the load P has
unit value, Young's modulus is set to 2.1105 MPa, and Poisson's ratio = 0.3. Since the
beam is long, sensitivity results in Table 6.2 may be compared with analytical results for
It Lis=@L
@v seenstated
from the results
in the in Table
caption 6.2 that
of Table foravalues
6.2 for of the relative
corresponding perturbation
Bernoulli-Euler `=` as
beam.
5
small as 10 , even the sign is wrong for the sensitivities obtained by the traditional S-A
Chapter 6. Examples of Design Sensitivity Analysis 95
y,v
P
vL
x,u
Figure 6.2: Finite element model of long cantilever beam with aspect ratio 50.
Table 6.2: Computed displacement design sensitivities vL =L for cantilever beam mod-
elled by 200 x 4 eight-node isoparametric serendipity nite elements for plane
stress.
(Computed displacement vL = 2.3807. Bernoulli-Euler comparison beam has vL = 2.3809
and @vL =@L = 0.1429.)
Boundary
element
length Beam length OFD Traditional New
perturbation perturbation method S-A method S-A method
` L vL vL vL
` L L L L
method. Furthermore, for perturbations less than 10 3 the OFD method starts to diverge
due to truncation errors, showing that it is dicult to obtain accurate sensitivities for this
beam problem.
As expected, sensitivities obtained by use of the new S-A method are independent of the
perturbation `=` and attain values that agree within 0:02% with the sensitivity value of
the corresponding Bernoulli-Euler comparison beam. This illustrates the \exactness" of
the new S-A method, and furthermore, it demonstrates that the \design boundary layer"
approach of using one-element-deep sensitivity information gives accurate results.
96 6.4. Thermo-Elastic Sensitivity Analysis of Two-Material Beam
It should be noted that the traditional S-A method would yield more accurate sensitivities
if a second order central dierence approximation of the stiness matrix derivative is used,
as the sensitivity error then is proportional to the square of the length perturbation. When
rst order nite dierences are used the sensitivity error is linearly dependent on the length
perturbation. This can also be seen from Table 6.2. However, in case of both rst and
second order nite dierence approximations, the sensitivity error for the traditional S-A
method for this problem will be proportional to the square of the number of elements used
to model the beam in the length direction. This has been shown by Pedersen, Cheng &
Rasmussen (1989) and Olho & Rasmussen (1991a).
y,v
T = 373 K
aluminium vL
interface
steel x,u
T = 573 K L
Steel Aluminium
Young's modulus : 210000 MPa 70000 MPa
Poisson's ratio : 0.3 0.3
Conductivity coecient : 27 10 6 W/(mm2K) 202 10 6 W/(mm2K)
Expansion coecient : 1:2 10 5 K 1 2:5 10 5 K 1
Table 6.3: Computed displacement design sensitivities vL =L for two-material cantilever
beam modelled by 100 x 4 eight-node isoparametric serendipity nite elements
for plane stress. The beam aspect ratio is 25.
Boundary
element
length Beam length OFD Traditional New
perturbation perturbation method S-A method S-A method
` L vL vL vL
` L L L L
bations as 10 6 just in order to obtain sensitivities of correct sign, and if a more slender
beam is studied, this error problem is increased. The OFD method produces accurate
results unless very small perturbations are used, and the new S-A method yields very ac-
curate results for all perturbations. It should be noted that in the current implementation
of the new S-A method in ODESSY, a nite dierence approximation is involved in the
calculation of the derivatives of the load vectors as described in Subsection 5.9.1, but this
approximation is seen not to aect the accuracy of the sensitivities obtained.
It should be noted that no inaccuracy problem has been detected in the thermal sensitivity
analysis computing temperature sensitivities and thereby thermally induced strain sensi-
tivities using the traditional S-A approach. The inaccuracy problem encountered here is
entirely associated with the displacement sensitivities due to a thermal load.
98 6.5. Static Design Sensitivity Analysis of Thin Clamped Square Plate
6.5 Static Design Sensitivity Analysis of Thin Clamp-
ed Square Plate
Next let us consider another example where the traditional method of S-A static design
sensitivity analysis may result in severe errors, cf. Barthelemy & Haftka (1988). The
example concerns a square plate clamped at all edges and subjected to a concentrated
load at the midpoint. As indicated in Fig. 6.4, one quarter of the plate is modelled by 100
4-node isoparametric Mindlin plate nite elements.
L L
Table 6.4: Computed derivative of lateral displacement wmid at the point of load applica-
tion with respect to side length L. Length/thickness ratio is 100.
plate
b
a
b
horizontal
a
vertical
ribs
ribs
a a a
b b
The structure is symmetric and therefore multiple eigenfrequencies are expected. The goal
100 6.6. Design Sensitivity Analysis of Reinforced Vibrating Plate
is to nd sensitivities of both the simple and the multiple eigenfrequencies with respect to
6 dierent design variables.
The nite element model consists of 1156 4-node isoparametric Mindlin plate elements and
the model has 5445 d.o.f. All eigenvectors are M-orthonormalized, see Eq. 4.26, and the
4 lowest eigenfrequencies will be considered. From the analysis it is found that the lowest
eigenfrequency is simple and has the value 92.20 Hz, but the second and third eigenfre-
quency are identical and have the value 161.71 Hz. In this example, the eigenfrequencies
are considered to be identical when the relative dierence between the values is 10 4.
The fourth eigenfrequency is simple and equal to 175.03 Hz. The eigenmodes correspond-
ing to the 4 eigenfrequencies can be seen in Figs. 6.6 - 6.9, and the in
uence of the ribs is
very clear.
As the second eigenfrequency is multiple, an innite number of linear combinations of the
eigenvectors shown in Figs. 6.7 and 6.8 corresponding to the multiple eigenfrequency will
satisfy the general eigenvalue problem in Eq. 4.24 and the M-orthonormalization condition
in Eq. 4.26.
The design sensitivities with respect to changes of single design variables are computed
by two dierent methods, namely the overall nite dierence (OFD) method and the new
semi-analytical (S-A) method.
The OFD method which is used as a reference method implies that the design is perturbed,
a new eigenfrequency analysis is performed, and then the eigenfrequency sensitivities j
are found from
j ' fj (a1 ;a: : : ; aI ) = fj (a1; : : : ; ai + ai; : : : ;aaI ) fj (a1 ; : : : ; ai; : : : ; aI ) (6.1)
i i
The new semi-analytical (S-A) method is based on Eq. 4.29 for the simple eigenfrequencies
and Eq. 4.40 for the multiple eigenfrequencies. Eqs. 4.7, 5.114, 5.117, 5.136, 5.137, and
5.142 yield the \exact" numerical derivatives of stiness and mass matrices.
Furthermore, based on the S-A method we shall calculate the sensitivities of all four eigen-
frequencies regarding them as simple, i.e., using only Eq. 4.29 in order to see the conse-
quences of this erroneous assumption.
Chapter 6. Examples of Design Sensitivity Analysis 101
Table 6.5: Eigenfrequency sensitivities with respect to design variable no. 1: plate thick-
ness.
Frequency no. OFD method Eq. 4.29 & 4.40 Eq. 4.29
j fj
j @fj
a1 @a1
quency, see last column in Table 6.5, in fact gives the same sensitivities as obtained by Eq.
4.40. This shows that the in
uence of the o-diagonal terms f12T e = f21T e in the sensitivity
matrix in Eq. 4.40 is very weak for this symmetric design change.
Next, the eigenfrequency sensitivities are found with respect to the thickness of the ribs
as shown in Fig. 6.11. The results are shown in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6: Eigenfrequency sensitivities with respect to design variable no. 2: rib thickness.
Frequency no. OFD method Eq. 4.29 & 4.40 Eq. 4.29
fj @fj
j a2 j @a2
Table 6.7: Eigenfrequency sensitivities with respect to design variable no. 3: position of
horizontal ribs.
Frequency no. OFD method Eq. 4.29 & 4.40 Eq. 4.29
j fj j @fj
a3 @a3
It is seen from Table 6.7 that the multiple eigenfrequency f~ = f2 = f3 will split when the
distance between the horizontal ribs is increased. Now we can also see dierences between
the two last columns in Table 6.7 showing the in
uence of o-diagonal terms in Eq. 4.40
which implies that calculation of sensitivities of the double eigenfrequency by means of the
single-modal formula in Eq. 4.29 gives erroneous results.
Next, the distance between the vertical ribs is used as a design variable as shown in Fig.
6.13, and the results are presented in Table 6.8.
The sensitivities for this design variable should be the same as obtained for design variable
no. 3, the distance between the horizontal ribs, except for that the sensitivities for the
multiple eigenfrequency f2 = f3 should be interchanged when using Eq. 4.40. It is seen
that the OFD method does not display this situation as the eigenfrequencies are ordered
Chapter 6. Examples of Design Sensitivity Analysis 105
Table 6.8: Eigenfrequency sensitivities with respect to design variable no. 4: position of
vertical ribs.
Frequency no. OFD method Eq. 4.29 & 4.40 Eq. 4.29
fj @fj
j a4 j @a4
by magnitude in each analysis when using the OFD method. More importantly, we again
note that application of the single-modal Eq. 4.29 yields erroneous sensitivities of the
multiple eigenfrequency f2 = f3.
The next design variable is the width of the horizontal ribs, see Fig. 6.14, and the results
are shown in Table 6.9.
Table 6.9: Eigenfrequency sensitivities with respect to design variable no. 5: width of
horizontal ribs.
Frequency no. OFD method Eq. 4.29 & 4.40 Eq. 4.29
j fj
j @fj
a5 @a5
eigenfrequencies as simple leads to completely wrong results for this design change.
The last design variable is the width of the vertical ribs as shown in Fig. 6.15.
Table 6.10: Eigenfrequency sensitivities with respect to design variable no. 6: width of
vertical ribs.
Frequency no. OFD method Eq. 4.29 & 4.40 Eq. 4.29
j fj
j @fj
a6 @a6
As before, the sensitivities with respect to this design variable should be the same as
obtained for design variable no. 5, the width of the horizontal ribs, except for that the
Chapter 6. Examples of Design Sensitivity Analysis 107
sensitivities for the multiple eigenfrequency f2 = f3 should be interchanged when using the
S-A method and Eqs. 4.29 and 4.40.
Again it is seen that very similar results are obtained by the OFD method and the S-
A method when Eqs. 4.29 and 4.40 are used properly, whereas the last column again
witnesses shortcoming of Eq. 4.29 when applied to the double eigenfrequency f2 = f3 .
Up to now the eigenfrequency sensitivities have been found with respect to single design
changes of each of the 6 design variables thickness of plate, thickness of ribs, position of
horizontal ribs, position of vertical ribs, width of horizontal ribs, and width of vertical ribs.
Let us nally show that it is possible to determine sensitivities for any direction in the
space of the 6 design variables when some of them are changed simultaneously. The
position of both the horizontal and vertical ribs, see Figs. 6.12 and 6.13, will be changed
simultaneously and again the OFD method is used as a reference. The two design variables
will be given unit increments.
All the generalized gradient vectors fsk in Eq. 4.46 have been calculated and Eq. 4.47 is
used for determining the increments f =f2 and f =f3 of the multiple eigenfrequency
f2 = f3 . Eq. 4.30 is used for determining increments of the simple eigenfrequencies f1 and
f4 . The sensitivities for this simultaneous design change are shown in Table 6.11.
Table 6.11: Eigenfrequency sensitivities for unit increments of design variable no. 3: posi-
tion of horizontal ribs and design variable no. 4: position of vertical ribs.
1 81:72 81:72
2 193:8 193:8
3 193:8 193:8
4 335:5 335:5
It is seen that very accurate results are obtained by using Eqs. 4.30 and 4.47 for determining
sensitivities of single and bimodal eigenfrequencies, respectively, in any direction in the
space of design parameters.
It has now been demonstrated that design sensitivities of simple as well as multiple eigen-
values with respect to single or simultaneous change of design variables can be calculated
very accurately using the S-A approach.
108 6.7. Ribbed Plate with Cluster of Eigenfrequencies
6.7 Ribbed Plate with Cluster of Eigenfrequencies
Next, we shall illustrate how important it is for the design sensitivity analysis to decide cor-
rectly from the numerical results whether some eigenvalues coalesce and become multiple,
or remain distinct.
We consider the same example as before, i.e., the square plate with ribs shown in Fig. 6.5,
but now the thickness of the plate is 2 21 times less, i.e., 0.0020 m. This causes the 9 lowest
eigenfrequencies to become very close as their corresponding eigenmodes can be regarded
as local modes for each of the nine subdomains of the plate, see Figs. 6.16 - 6.25.
Chapter 6. Examples of Design Sensitivity Analysis 109
Figure 6.16: 1. mode. f1 = 70.40 Hz. Figure 6.24: 9. mode. f9 = 72.32 Hz.
Figure 6.18: 3. mode. f3 = 72.17 Hz. Figure 6.17: 2. mode. f2 = 72.17 Hz.
Figure 6.20: 5. mode. f5 = 72.28 Hz. Figure 6.19: 4. mode. f4 = 72.25 Hz.
Figure 6.22: 7. mode. f7 = 72.32 Hz. Figure 6.21: 6. mode. f6 = 72.31 Hz.
110 6.7. Ribbed Plate with Cluster of Eigenfrequencies
Table 6.12: Eigenfrequency sensitivities with respect to design variable no. 3: position of
horizontal ribs.
Freq. OFD Eq. 4.29 & 4.40, Eq. 4.29 & 4.40, Eq. 4.29 & 4.40 and Eq. 4.29
no. method f2 = f3 and f2 = f3 and f2 = f3 = f4 = f5
f7 = f8 f6 = f7 = f8 = f9 = f6 = f7 = f8 = f9
fj @fj
j a5 j j j @ai
It is seen that we obtain the same results by the S-A method assuming either two double
eigenfrequencies f2 = f3 and f7 = f8, or one double eigenfrequency f2 = f3 and one 4-fold
multiple f6 = f7 = f8 = f9. These two columns are in excellent agreement with the OFD
112 6.8. Vibration Frequencies of Thin Clamped Square Plate
method but it is not a general situation that dierent choices of multiplicity lead to the
same results. This is also illustrated by the next column in Table 6.12 because if we
assume having an 8-fold multiple eigenfrequency f2 = f3 = f4 = f5 = f6 = f7 = f8 = f9, wrong
sensitivities are obtained for several of the eigenfrequencies, i.e., for f2, f4, f5 , f7 , and f9.
At last, if we consider all eigenfrequencies as simple, i.e., use Eq. 4.29, then the results
for the multiple eigenfrequencies f2 = f3 and f7 = f8 only dier slightly from the results
obtained by the OFD method while the other sensitivities are correct. This illustrates that
the in
uence of the o-diagonal terms in the sensitivity matrix in Eq. 4.40 is quite small
for this design change. This is also the reason why the same sensitivities are obtained for
f6 , f7, f8 , and f9 using Eq. 4.40 independently of whether the assumption f7 = f8 or the
assumption f6 = f7 = f8 = f9 is used. In both cases, the o-diagonal terms in the sensitivity
matrix in Eq. 4.40 are small compared to the diagonal terms for this design change, and
therefore the same sensitivities are obtained for both assumptions.
These results show the importance for the design sensitivity analysis of deciding correctly
whether an eigenfrequency is multiple or simple. Thus, wrong assumptions concerning the
multiplicity of an eigenfrequency may lead to erroneous results.
The importance of deciding correctly the multiplicity of a multiple eigenvalue can be seen
from the sensitivity matrix in Eqs. 4.40 and 4.46. If a wrong multiplicity N is assumed, a
subeigenvalue problem of wrong dimension is posed, and if the o-diagonal terms fskT e; s 6=
k, in the sensitivity matrix are non-zero, the eigenvalues of the sensitivity matrix, i.e.,
the directional derivatives, in general will be incorrect. A structural design with a dense
spectrum of eigenfrequencies often occur for plate and shell structures, and special care
must be taken in the sensitivity analysis as observed in this example.
L L
Table 6.13: Computed derivative of lowest eigenfrequency f1 with respect to side length
L.
Plate length OFD Traditional New
perturbation method S-A method S-A method
L f1 f1 f1
L L L L
The data presented in Table 6.13 are the sensitivities of the lowest eigenfrequency while
Table 6.14 presents sensitivities of the multiple eigenfrequency. As f2 and f3 remain
multiple with the design change considered, the same values are obtained for sensitivities
2 and 3, and therefore only results for 2 are listed in Table 6.14.
The results in Table 6.13 and 6.14 conrm that the traditional S-A method is strongly
dependent on the size of the relative perturbation, and that even the sign of the sensitivity
is wrong unless a very small perturbation is used. The new S-A method, however, yields
accurate sensitivities. The OFD method is used as a reference, and it should be noted
that the inaccuracies of the OFD method for the perturbations 10 1 and 10 2 are due
to these large values. Furthermore, the OFD method becomes inaccurate for very small
perturbations due to numerical round-o errors.
The traditional S-A method for static design sensitivity analysis is prone to large errors for
problems involving large rigid body rotations relative to actual deformations of the nite
Chapter 6. Examples of Design Sensitivity Analysis 115
elements as the components of the approximate element pseudo loads that correspond to
to a rigid body rotation dr do not vanish in general, i.e., (k=ai )dr 6= 0 as described
in Section 5.2. As the design sensitivity expressions for eigenvalues involve multiplication
of stiness matrix derivatives by the eigenvector, see Eqs. 4.29 and 4.40, the same type of
inaccuracy problem will arise when the S-A method is applied to design sensitivity analysis
of eigenvalues for such structures.
In the current example, the small length/thickness ratio will result in eigenvector dis-
placement elds where the rigid body rotations are comparatively large relative to the
actual deformations of the nite elements, and therefore the traditional S-A method yields
completely wrong results unless very small perturbations are used.
sim
pe d ply
supp
clam orte
d
sim
ply
supp
L orte N/m
d 200
L
Figure 6.27: Finite element model of square plate with in-plane load.
Table 6.15: Computed derivative of lowest eigenfrequency f1 with respect to side length L
for plate without in-plane load. Plate length/thickness ratio is 1000.
For comparison purposes it is rst assumed that the in-plane load is absent and then the
lowest frequency is obtained as f1 = 3.167 Hz. The shape design variable is again taken
to be the side length L of the plate, and the sensitivities of the lowest eigenfrequency are
given in Table 6.15.
It is seen from Table 6.15 that there is a good agreement between the results obtained
by the OFD method and the new S-A method for the perturbations 10 4 - 10 6, but for
smaller values of the perturbation the OFD method starts to diverge due to numerical
round-o errors. The traditional S-A method starts to diverge for perturbations smaller
than 10 8 and does not reach the same sensitivity value as the two other methods.
The errors in the sensitivities obtained by the traditional S-A method are seen to be larger
for this example than for the previous one. This is to be expected as the rigid body
Chapter 6. Examples of Design Sensitivity Analysis 117
rotations relative to actual deformations of the nite elements are larger for this example
due to the boundary conditions considered.
Now, consider the case where the plate is subjected to the in-plane load. This implies a
lowering of the rst eigenfrequency from 3.167 Hz to 2.690 Hz. Again design sensitivities
are calculated, and the results are given in Table 6.16.
Table 6.16: Computed derivative of lowest eigenfrequency f1 with respect to side length L
for plate with in-plane load = 200 N/m. Plate length/thickness ratio is 1000.
This example emphasizes the importance of using our modied version of the S-A method.
The new S-A method is independent of the perturbation used, whereas a comparison of
the results obtained by the OFD method and the traditional S-A method for this example
re
ects diculties in obtaining reliable sensitivities. This is due to both comparatively
larger rigid body rotations relative to actual deformations of the nite elements, and the
necessity of performing two design sensitivity analyses. First the stress sensitivities are
determined in a static sensitivity analysis and then the eigenfrequency sensitivities are
calculated including the initial stress stiening eects. Inaccuracies in the static sensitivity
analysis hereby become accumulated in the dynamic sensitivity analysis and this is the
reason why there are small dierences in the results obtained by the OFD method and
the new S-A method. The OFD method is based on rst order forward nite dierences,
and as the problem is strongly non-linear this gives small inaccuracies although small
perturbations are used.
Finally, the same example is considered but now the thickness is increased to 20:0 10 3
m, i.e. the length/thickness ratio is 50, and the in-plane load is set to 1:5 106 N/m.
Without the in-plane load the lowest eigenfrequency becomes f1 = 62.97 Hz, and with the
in-plane load included, the lowest eigenfrequency f1 is reduced to 53.93 Hz. The shape
118 6.10. Concluding Remarks on Examples
design variable is still taken to be the side length L of the plate and the design sensitivities
obtained are given in Table 6.17.
Table 6.17: Computed derivative of lowest eigenfrequency f1 with respect to side length L
for plate with in-plane load = 1:5 106 N/m. Plate length/thickness ratio is
50.
For this example, there is seen to be good agreement between the OFD method and the
new S-A method. The traditional S-A method is seen to converge to the same value as
obtained by the other two methods but it is still dependent of the chosen value of the
perturbation. The sensitivities obtained by the traditional S-A method are much better
for this example than for the previous one, because the length/thickness ratio has been
decreased. This results in smaller rigid body rotations relative to actual deformations of the
nite elements, and therefore the errors associated with the fact that (k=aj )dr 6= 0
are reduced.
7.2 Background
In this section the traditional way of formulating problems of mathematical programming
in general structural optimization systems is described. Some of the rst available general
structural optimization systems, for instance OASIS, see Esping (1986), SAMCEF, see
Fleury (1987) and Braibant & Morelle (1990), and CAOS, see Rasmussen (1989, 1990)
and Rasmussen, Lund, Birker & Olho (1993) provide the user with a choice of a number
of predened functions from which the optimization problem can be built, for instance,
weight, de
ection, stress, eigenfrequency, and compliance.
Functions like these are made available by equipping the system with a module which can
nd this information in the database of analysis results. Given the options above, the user
may choose to formulate the problem as, for instance,
Minimize maximum stress
Subject to
weight some upper limit
lowest eigenfrequency some lower limit
or alternatively
or any other combination of the functions. We see that the possible problem formulations
of such a system are of very dierent types. Weigth and compliance are integral type
functions, de
ection or stress at a given point are local type functions, and maximum stress
Chapter 7. A General and Flexible Method of Problem Denition 123
Minimize weight
Subject to
maximum stress some upper limit
de
ection at a given point some upper limit
compliance some upper limit
or minimum eigenfrequency are min/max or max/min type criteria which are inherently
non-dierentiable.
In addition to the mathematical diculties created by the dierent natures of these criteria,
it is a programming diculty to make the system cope with any possible combination that
the user may dene. A very general and elegant solution is to make use of the so-called
bound formulation which will be brie
y described in Section 7.3.
A system that provides a wide selection of basic functions, possibly more than the above-
mentioned, and enables the user to freely combine them into optimization problems is
a very general tool for structural optimization. However, by developing and using such
systems extensively for some years to solve industrial problems, we have learned that it is
impossible for a system designer to foresee the necessary facilities for all types of problems
that may arise in practical design cases. The universe of relevant design problems is too
large to be covered by any practical nite set of criterion functions.
Some straight-forward examples of unusual problem denitions have been
cases where some mathematical combination of dierent stress types at dif-
ferent locations in the structure has been established as the design criterion
through a long time of numerical and experimental investigations and perhaps
practical use. Industries will typically rather abstain from the use of structural
optimization than being forced into changing their well-tested design criteria
just because of a limitation in the software system.
cases of multicriterion optimization in the form of using a weighted sum of
dierent functions as one of the criteria of the problem.
cases of unusual material failure criteria in the form of expressions involving,
for instance, dierent stress or strain types.
cases where manufacturing constraints must be included in the denition of the
optimization problem.
System developers have the possibility to taylor the system by continuously reprogramming
it to t the problem at hand but this is not acceptable in the long run. Therefore we
initiated a more fundamental solution of the problem of generality.
124 7.3. Bound Formulation
7.3 Bound Formulation
In this section the bound formulation which is used as a basis for formulating and solving
problems of mathematical programming in ODESSY is described.
In order to keep an overview of a large system like ODESSY, it is absolutely necessary
to maintain a rigorous modularity in the organization of the code and have the modules
perform the necessary exchange of information through well-dened interfaces. In relation
to optimizers, this problem is well-known and has been addressed by Vanderplaats (1987)
in connection with his ADS subroutine package.
The optimization concept of ODESSY is based on the formation and solution of a sequence
of explicit subproblems as opposed to systems that work with line-search oriented opti-
mizers. From a theoretical point of view, the subproblem approach is known to be less
stable than line-search algorithms and it is often dicult or impossible to prove conver-
gence properties for the algorithm. However, from a system point of view, the subproblem
approach is much easier to program and control because it is realized via a xed sequence
of calculations independently of the iteration history. The subproblem approach works re-
liably in most cases and has gained a signicant popularity among developers of structural
optimization systems.
In the formulation of problems of mathematical programming only rst order approxima-
tions are used, i.e., we do not require our analysis module to provide more than rst order
sensitivities because higher order derivatives are computationally very costly to compute.
This does not prevent the use of, for instance, a quasi-Newton approach in which second
order approximations are gradually formed based on rst order information in several it-
erations. However, currently ODESSY only contains two optimizers, namely a sequential
linear programming algorithm (SIMPLEX) and an implementation of the MMA method
by Svanberg (1987), see also Fleury & Braibant (1986).
The usual mathematical programming formulation of a structural optimization problem is
as follows:
Minimize g0(a)
a
Subject to (7.1)
gj (a) Gj ; j = 1; : : : ; J
ai ai ai; i = 1; : : : ; I
where I is the number of so-called design variables, ai, and J is the number of constraints
other than side constraints. Maximization problems are easily included in this form by
simply minimizing g0(a). We notice that non-dierentiable functions occur very often
in connection with practical structural optimization problems as the result of min/max or
max/min criteria.
The objective and constraint functions gj ; j = 0; : : : ; J , are specied by the user as a part
of the problem formulation. These vector functions can be picked and combined freely
Chapter 7. A General and Flexible Method of Problem Denition 125
among all the analysis results that the system is able to evaluate as will be described in
the next section.
In the interest of simplicity, generality and, above all, ease of programming, a formulation
that enables the system to handle the optimization problem in a uniform way regardless of
the blend of local-, integral- and min/max-criteria is very much desired and can be obtained
by use of the so-called bound formulation, see Bendse, Olho & Taylor (1983), Taylor &
Bendse (1984), and Olho (1989). This technique very elegantly solves the problem of
generality, and, assuming an adequate sensitivity analysis scheme, it also provides a simple
solution to the non-dierentiability problem in connection with min/max and max/min
problems.
It is assumed that any function gj in the problem is actually a max over a set of functions
(the formulation for max/min problems is completely equivalent), such that
gj (a) = max gjk (a); j = 0; : : : ; J (7.2)
k=1;:::;pj
Subject to (7.3)
max gjk (a) Gj ; j = 1; : : : ; J
k=1;:::;pj
ai ai ai ; i = 1; : : : ; I
The constraint functions gj = max(gjk ), j = 1; : : : ; J , do not cause dierentiability prob-
lems. They may simply be treated separately:
Minimize
a max g0k (a);
k=1;:::;p0
Subject to (7.4)
gjk (a) Gj ; k = 1; : : : ; pj ; j = 1; : : : ; J
ai ai ai ; i = 1; : : : ; I
This leads to the idea of using a similar approach for the objective function g0 = max(g0k ).
In order to make this possible, a new, articial design variable is introduced and a new,
articial objective function f ( ). It is now possible to formulate an equivalent problem in
which the previous non-dierentiable objective function plays the role of constraints:
Minimize f ( )
126 7.3. Bound Formulation
a;
Subject to (7.5)
g0k (a) f ( ); k = 1; : : : ; p0 ;
gjk (a) Gj ; k = 1; : : : ; pj ; j = 1; : : : ; J
ai ai ai; i = 1; : : : ; I
In this formulation, the only way of reducing the value of the articial objective function
f ( ) while fullling the constraints, is to simultaneously reduce all the functions comprised
in the original objective, i.e., minimizing the maximum. The articial objective function
f ( ) acts as a bound which suppresses the value of the original objective and gives this
technique the name of \bound formulation".
The specic form of the articial objective function f ( ) has yet to be selected. If a linear
method of mathematical programming is used, there is no reason not to select the simplest
imaginable function of :
f ( ) = (7.6)
Next 7.6 is inserted in 7.5, and, in order to better cope with functions of varying nature
and scale, we perform a normalization of the problem:
Minimize
a;
Subject to (7.7)
g0k (a) 1; k = 1; : : : ; p ;
0
gjk (a) 1; k = 1; : : : ; p ; j = 1; : : : ; J
j
Gj
ai ai ai; i = 1; : : : ; I
As previously mentioned, the counters pj ; j = 0; : : : ; J , designate the number of functions
over which the max for criterion j is to be found. In the case of, for instance, minimization
of maximum nodal stress, pj may often be many thousands, and the number of functions in
the optimization becomes very large. In order to prevent this, an \active set strategy" can
be used, which only includes the nodal stresses exceeding a certain fraction of the current
maximum in the problem.
Tableau 7.7 is valid regardless of the blend of vector functions gj ; j = 0; : : : ; J , and the
numerical operations performed are therefore identical for any problem that the user could
possibly dene. Due to this standardization, the bound formulation has greatly simplied
the programming of the optimization module.
Having obtained a standard format for the mathematical program, a method for the user to
dene the problem and a database module for extracting vector functions gj ; j = 0; : : : ; J ,
are required.
Chapter 7. A General and Flexible Method of Problem Denition 127
7.4 Specifying the Problem
Solving many real-life structural design optimization problems has indicated that the only
way to cover all possible combinations of problem specications is to allow the user to
specify the functions of the problem as mathematical relations between a set of basic data
available in the system. Furthermore, the system must be designed such that it is relatively
simple to expand the set of basic information as new analysis facilities are added to the
system. The same is valid for the available mathematical expressions.
The basic data of the system are available through a class of database operations that
extract the required information from the ODESSY analysis result les. These functions
are very similar to those used in conventional systems to extract the values and sensitivities
of the objective and constraint functions.
Examples of calls of the database functions could be:
nstress(svm, mat=steel, ldc=1)
which returns the nodal von Mises stresses in material \steel" in load case 1, or
weight( )
which returns the overall weight of the structure.
The mathematical operations are available as the usual mathematical operators, for in-
stance addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. In addition to these, a set of
predened functions are available, for instance logarithm, trigonometric functions, maxi-
mum and minimum.
We can imagine a criterion function specied as
maxval [ 1.5[ nstress(svm, mat=steel) ] + 1.2[ nstress(st, mat=aluminium) ] ]
which would specify the maximum value of a vector containing a weighted sum of von Mises
stresses in material \steel" and Tresca stresses in material \aluminium". Please notice the
use of brackets as parantheses except in the case of arguments to database funtions. We
shall return to this syntactic peculiarity later.
Table 7.2: Database operations for element vector functions with arguments.
Description Name Specic Specic Load Absolute Specic Specic Additional
type material case value layer point options
Element estress yes yes yes yes yes yes
stresses
Element estrain yes yes yes yes yes yes
strains
Element elthk - yes - - - -
thicknesses
The extraction of raw data by database operations is always the rst step in evaluating
a user dened criterion function gj . In order to be able to handle all combinations in a
unied way, the system has been designed such that all database operations return the
same data type, a vector of nodal values, VNV.
The components of VNV's are nodal values (may also contain element or global values)
Chapter 7. A General and Flexible Method of Problem Denition 129
Table 7.3: Database operations for global vector functions with arguments.
Description Name Specic Load Additional options
material case
Volume vol yes -
Weight weight yes -
Compliance compliance - yes
Mass moment massinertia yes -
of inertia
Area moment areainertia yes -
of inertia
Eigen- eigenfreq - yes Specic number, include all eigenfrequencies
frequencies above or below specied number
Eigen-
frequencies eigenfreqsti - yes Specic number, include all eigenfrequencies
incl. stress above or below specied number
stiening
Buckling load buckload - yes Specic number, include all buckling load factors
factors above or below specied number
Probability pof yes yes
of failure
Each operator or function operates on the VNV's dened in section 7.5 and is thus capable
of evaluating either initial values or sensitivity values. For each operator and function, a
set of evaluation rules is implemented, e.g., it is not allowed to multiply a VNV of nodal
values with a VNV of element values.
Chapter 7. A General and Flexible Method of Problem Denition 131
Table 7.5: Implemented functions.
Function: Description:
cos Cosine.
sin Sine.
log Logarithm base e.
(VNV8) 2
Start optimization
Structural analysis fm
∆
Design sensitivity analysis fm
no
Converged?
yes
Stop
8.2 Background
Multiple eigenvalues in the form of buckling loads and natural frequencies of vibration
very often occur in complex structures that depend on many design parameters and have
many degrees of freedom. For example, stiener reinforced thin-walled plate and shell
structures have a dense spectrum of eigenvalues, and multiple eigenvalues are found very
often as illustrated in Sections 6.6 and 6.7. Also, symmetry of structural systems may lead
to apperance of several linearly independent buckling modes and vibration modes with
multiple eigenvalues.
In 1977, Olho & Rasmussen discovered that the optimum buckling load of a clamped-
clamped column of given volume is bimodal. This optimization problem was rst consid-
ered by Lagrange, and its interesting history is presented in a recent paper by Cox (1992).
Olho & Rasmussen (1977) showed that the bimodality of the optimum eigenvalue must
be taken into account in the mathematical formulation of the problem in order to ob-
tain the correct optimum solution. They rst demonstrated that an analytical solution
obtained earlier by Tadjbakhsh & Keller (1962) under the tacit assumption of a simple
buckling load is not optimal, then presented a bimodal formulation of the problem, solved
it numerically, and obtained the correct optimum design. The optimum bimodal buckling
load obtained was later conrmed to be correct to within a slight deviation of the sixth
digit by analytical solutions obtained independently by Seyranian (1983, 1984) and Masur
(1984). The discovery in 1977 of multiple optimum eigenvalues in structural optimization
problems, and the necessity of applying a bi- or multimodal formulation in such cases,
opened a new eld for theoretical investigations and development of methods of numerical
analysis and solution.
Prager & Prager (1979), Choi & Haug (1981), and Haug & Choi (1982) presented uni-
modal and bimodal optimum solutions for systems with few degrees of freedom conrming
apperance of multiple eigenvalues in optimization problems. A wealth of references on mul-
Chapter 8. Multiple Eigenvalues in Structural Design Problems 139
timodal optimization problems and specic results for columns, arches, plates and shells
can be found in comprehensive surveys by Olho & Taylor (1983), Gajewski & Zyczkowski
(1988), Zyczkowski (1989) and Gajewski (1990). A survey of other problems of optimum
design with respect to structural eigenvalues was earlier published by Olho (1980), see
also Olho (1981a, 1981b).
One of the main problems related to multiple eigenvalues is their non-dierentiability in
the common (Frechet) sense. This was revealed by Masur & Mroz (1979, 1980) and Haug
& Rousselet (1980b). The non-dierentiability creates diculties in nding sensitivities of
multiple eigenvalues with respect to design changes and derivation of necessary optimal-
ity conditions in optimization problems. Choi & Haug (1981) used a Lagrange multiplier
method for bimodal problems and showed that this method which is very useful for dier-
entiable criteria and constraints may yield incorrect results.
Haug & Rousselet (1980b) proved existence of directional derivatives of multiple eigenvalues
and obtained explicit formulas for derivatives. Bratus & Seyranian (1983) and Seyranian
(1987) presented sensitivity analysis of multiple eigenvalues based on a perturbation tech-
nique and derived necessary optimality conditions. The main advantage of these necessary
optimality conditions is, when compared with those obtained by previous researchers, that
they do not contain variations of design variables. Similar developments were presented by
Masur (1984, 1985). It was with the use of these necessary optimality conditions Seyra-
nian (1983, 1984) and Masur (1984) independently of each other obtained the analytical
solution to the bimodal optimum clamped-clamped column problem mentioned above.
Overton (1988) considered minimization of the maximum eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix.
This problem is similar to the problem of maximizing the minimum eigenvalue. Derivation
of necessary optimality conditions using the bound formulation of such problems had earlier
been presented by Bendse, Olho & Taylor (1983) and Taylor & Bendse (1984). In a
recent paper Cox & Overton (1992) presented new mathematical results for optimization
problems of columns against buckling. They derived necessary optimality conditions using
advanced nonsmooth optimization methods. Their results for optimum columns are in
good agreement with the results obtained earlier by Olho & Rasmussen (1977), Seyranian
(1983, 1984), and Masur (1984).
Numerical algorithms for solution of structural optimization problems with multiple eigen-
values have been suggested and discussed by, among others, Olho & Rasmussen (1977),
Choi, Haug & Lam (1982), Choi, Haug & Seong (1983), Olho & Plaut (1983), Bendse,
Olho & Taylor (1983), Myslinski & Sokolowski (1985), Zhong & Cheng (1986), Plaut,
Johnson & Olho (1986), Gajewski & Zyczkowski (1988), Overton (1988), and Cox &
Overton (1992).
Subject to
F (a1; : : : ; aI ) = 0 (8.15)
This formulation of the structural eigenvalue optimization problem is chosen as it is the
most commonly used.
In the following dierent situations of optimum fundamental eigenvalues are considered.
Simple Eigenvalue
If the lowest eigenvalue 1 is simple, the eigenvalue increment and the volume constraint
can be expressed as
r
1 = T1 a = f11T a (8.24)
f0T a = 0 (8.25)
where f11 and f0 are dened by Eqs. 4.45 and 8.17, respectively, and the volume constraint
is assumed to be linear in the design variables. Guided by the results in Subsection 8.4.1,
the vector of increments of the design variables is taken in the single modal form
a = k(f11
0f0 ) (8.26)
where k is a positive move limit type of scaling factor. At the optimum point, according
to Eqs. 8.16 and 8.17, the vector a will tend towards the null vector.
The a priori unknown constant
0 is determined by substituting Eq. 8.26 into Eq. 8.25
which gives
0 = f0Tf11
T
(8.27)
f0 f0
and substitution of Eq. 8.27 into 8.24 yields the Cauchy-Bunyakowski inequality
!
1 = k f11T f11 (f0T f11 )(f0T f11 ) 0 (8.28)
fT f
0 0
for the increment 1 of the eigenvalue. Thus, at each step of redesign the eigenvalue 1
increases while satisfying the volume constraint, Eq. 8.25, and this continues until f11 and
f0 becomes linearly dependent, cf. Eqs. 8.16 and 8.17.
Bimodal Eigenvalue
If the lowest eigenvalue is associated with a bimodal eigenvalue ~ = 1 = 2 or the two
lowest eigenvalues 1 < 2 are very close such that 2 1 < , a bimodal formulation
must be used to determine the increments a of the vector of design variables a.
146 8.5. Algorithms for Eigenvalue Problems with Multiple Eigenvalues
Guided by the results stated in Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 in Section D.1 in Appendix D,
see also Eq. 8.20, the vector of increments a is taken as
a = k (
11f11 + 2
12f12 +
22f22
0f0 ) (8.29)
where k again is a positive scaling factor.
Obviously, the increments a for the iterative computational procedure can be chosen in
many ways, but using the approach of adding the constraints given by Eq. 8.22 leads us to
choose the following four simultaneous conditions as a basis for determining the coecients
11 , 2
12,
22, and
0 in the expression for a in Eq. 8.29 (where we disregard the scaling
factor k):
1 = f11T a = 1 (8.30)
2 = f22T a = (1 + 1 2) (8.31)
f12T a = 0 (8.32)
f0T a = 0 (8.33)
It is seen from Eqs. 8.30 and 8.31 that we specify the increments 1 and 2 with a
view to diminish the (possible) dierence between 1 and 2 while going in a direction
that increases the bimodal eigenvalue. Now, by substituting Eq. 8.29 into Eqs. 8.30-8.33,
we obtain the following system of equations for determining the unknown coecients
11,
2
12,
22, and
0:
2 T
f f T f22 f T f12 f T f0 3 8
11 f11
9 8 9
11 7 > >
11 >
> > 1 >
66 11 11
f22 f22 f22 f12 f22 f0 77
22
T T T < = < 1 + 1 2 >
> =
66 = (8.34)
4 f12T f12 f12T f0 75 >> 2
12 >
> > 0 >
symm f T f0 :
0 ; > : 0
>
;
0
Having solved Eq. 8.34 for the coecients
11, 2
12,
22, and
0, substitution of these
coecients into Eq. 8.29 results in a new vector a of increments of design variables. It
may be necessary to normalize these coecients in order to avoid numerical problems as
described in Seyranian, Lund & Olho (1994).
It should be noted that the determinant of the coecient matrix in Eq. 8.34 is non-
negative, and that it only vanishes if the vectors f11 , f12 , f22 , and f0 become linearly
dependent, which is the necessary optimality condition for an optimum bimodal solution.
This approach for a bimodal lowest eigenvalue is easily extended to higher multiplicity
of the lowest eigenvalue, and during the optimization process, the optimization procedure
switches between the dierent formulations, depending on the multiplicity of the lowest
eigenvalue.
The optimization procedure described in this section has been used successfully in Seyra-
nian, Lund & Olho (1994) for solving optimization problems for maximum buckling load
of stepped columns on an elastic foundation and my collegue Lars Krog has implemented
this approach in ODESSY for solving topology design problems with eigenvalues. The
major advantage of this approach is that the number of design variables, in most cases,
is reduced. The number of design variables is I but using this approach, only four design
Chapter 8. Multiple Eigenvalues in Structural Design Problems 147
parameters
11, 2
12,
22, and
0 need to be determined in case of a bimodal eigenvalue.
This approach may be very attractive in topology optimization where the number I of
design variables can be very large.
Subject to
F (a1; : : : ; aI ) = 0 (8.36)
fskT a = 0; s 6= k (8.37)
Maximize (8.40)
ai ;
148 8.6. Example: Maximization of Lowest Eigenvalue of Ribbed Plate
Subject to
j + j ; j = 1; : : : ; m (8.41)
F (a1; : : : ; aI ) = 0 (8.42)
fskT a = 0; s 6= k (8.43)
The nite element model consists of 1156 4-node isoparametric Mindlin plate nite ele-
ments, the lowest 6 eigenfrequencies are calculated, and eigenfrequencies are considered to
be identical if the relative dierence between the values is 10 4. The eigenmodes for the
initial design are shown in Fig. 8.3.
In order to improve the design of the plate, ve design variables are dened. For simplicity,
only 5 symmetric design variables are dened, that is, the plate thickness, two dierent
rib thicknesses, the distances a between the ribs, and the width b of the ribs as shown in
Fig. 8.2.
Chapter 8. Multiple Eigenvalues in Structural Design Problems 149
plate
b
a
L
b
ribs
ribs
a
b b
: plate thickness = 0.005 m a = 0.5 m
: rib thickness 1 = 0.05 m b = 0.05 m
: rib thickness 2 = 0.05 m L = 1.60 m
Figure 8.2: Initial design and design variables of square plate reinforced by ribs.
b
: rib thickness 2 = 0.1621 m
a
a = 0.4945 m
b
b = 0.01 m
a
b b
Eigenfrequency [Hz]
220
200
180
3 ω1
160 ω2
ω3
ω4
140 ω5
ω6
120
100
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Iteration number
b
k
k k
a
L
k
b
a
b b
: plate thickness = 0.005 m a = 0.5 m
: rib thickness 1 = 0.05 m b = 0.05 m
: rib thickness 2 = 0.05 m L = 1.60 m
Figure 8.7: Initial design and design variables of square plate reinforced by ribs and with
four supporting springs.
b
: rib thickness 1 = 0.04766 m
: rib thickness 2 = 0.07906 m
a
a = 0.5069 m
b
b = 0.02082 m
a
b b
Eigenfrequency [Hz]
240
230
220
3 ω1
210 ω2
ω3
ω4
200 ω5
ω6
190
180
170
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Iteration number
Table 8.2: Result of design optimization for reinforced plate with four springs.
Frequency: Initial design Final design
f1 170.2444 219.6628
f2 175.0327 219.6628
f3 176.5525 219.6980
f4 176.5525 219.9389
f5 177.6583 219.9389
f6 178.9780 231.4708
ω = 2094 rad/s
master node
20 fixed boundary
design boundary
10
573 K convection
0
R1
50 °
16
310 MPa
723 K
20
axis of
revolution
convection
100
master node
fixed boundary
design boundary
vector defining allowable
translation direction for
master node
axis of
revolution
ω = 2094 rad/s
consistent
nodal loads
prescribed
axis of temperature
revolution = 723 K
convection boundary conditions
ODESSY Postprocessor
Name: wheel
Date: Jul 19 1993 19:07
TEMPERATURES
723.00
698.00
673.00
648.00
623.00
598.00
573.00
ODESSY Postprocessor
Name: wheel
Date: Jul 19 1993 19:07
STRESS LEVELS
von Mises
5.711E+008
4.761E+008
3.811E+008
2.861E+008
1.911E+008
9.610E+007
1.095E+006
ODESSY Postprocessor
Name: wheel
Date: Jun 7 1994 16:39
STRESS LEVELS
von Mises
5.711E+008
4.761E+008
3.811E+008
2.861E+008
1.911E+008
9.610E+007
1.095E+006
master node
fixed boundary
design boundary
vector defining allowable
translation direction for
master node
axis of
revolution
Figure 9.8: The two selected design variables for which sensitivities will be shown.
For the two particular design variables indicated in Fig. 9.8, corresponding stress design
sensitivity elds are shown in Figs. 9.9 and 9.10. Each stress design sensitivity eld is
associated with translation of the master node in the direction indicated by the arrow.
Chapter 9. Examples of Interactive Engineering Design with ODESSY 161
ODESSY Postprocessor
Name: wheel
Date: Jun 7 1994 16:41
STRESS LEVELS
von Mises
7.464E+010
5.000E+010
3.750E+010
2.500E+010
1.250E+010
0.000E+000
-9.270E+010
ODESSY Postprocessor
Name: wheel
Date: Jul 20 1993 19:13
STRESS LEVELS
von Mises
3.938E+010
5.000E+009
2.500E+009
0.000E+000
-2.500E+009
-5.000E+009
-6.428E+009
ODESSY Postprocessor
Name: wheel
Date: Jul 20 1993 20:58
STRESS LEVELS
von Mises
4.525E+008
3.772E+008
3.018E+008
2.265E+008
1.511E+008
7.580E+007
4.524E+005
Figure 9.11: von Mises stresses in updated geometry obtained by what-if study.
Based on this improved design, a new design sensitivity study can be performed, and the
design of the disk presumeably can be further improved, if necessary. This leads us to
another use of design sensitivity analysis, namely in engineering design optimization.
500
400
300
200
100
0
273 323 373 423 473 523 573 623 673 723 773 823
Temperature [K]
Furthermore, the manufacturing process used for the turbine disk requires the minimum
boundary radius of curvature to be larger than 5 mm.
The objective of the shape optimization is to increase the acceleration capabilities of the
turbine disk, i.e., to minimize the mass moment of inertia, so the denition of the structural
optimization problem is
Minimize the mass moment of inertia
Subject to
maximum normalized von Mises stress 1
minimum boundary radius of curvature 5 mm
This temperature dependent non-linear stress constraint is realized by normalizing the von
Mises stress at the i'th node with the function shown in Fig. 9.12. It should be noted that
the eect of this non-linear stress constraint at a given material point changes during the
optimization process as the temperature eld changes with design. The denition of the
optimization problem can be rewritten as
This denition of the structural optimization problem can be realized using the database
module as described in detail in Section 7.7.
The temperature dependent normalized stress constraint is shown for the initial structure
in Fig. 9.13. The maximum value is 1:34 and corresponds to a violation of 34%.
Performing a shape optimization of the turbine disk example using a SIMPLEX algorithm
as optimizer leads to a reduction of the mass moment of inertia from 3:12 104 to 2:33 104
Kgm2. The stress constraint is now fullled as shown in Fig. 9.14. Here, the very even
164 9.4. Design Optimization of Ceramic Components
Minimize the mass moment of inertia
Subject to 8
>
> vM;i [MPa]
< 550 if Ti 623 K
maximum normalized stress >
vM;i [MPa] 1
>
: 1484 :5 1:5Ti if Ti > 623 K
minimum boundary radius of curvature 5 mm
ODESSY Postprocessor
Name: wheel
Date: Jun 7 1994 16:50
VNV LEVELS
1.340E+000
1.117E+000
8.938E-001
6.709E-001
4.480E-001
2.251E-001
2.182E-003
ODESSY Postprocessor
Name: wheel
Date: Jun 7 1994 16:51
VNV LEVELS
1.000E+000
8.335E-001
6.669E-001
5.004E-001
3.338E-001
1.673E-001
7.709E-004
σ3
dA = cos ϕ d ϕ d ψ
σn
ϕ
σ2
ψ
σ1
ODESSY Postprocessor
Name: wheelc
Date: Apr 24 1994 18:23
STRESS LEVELS
SIG1
2.397E+008
1.994E+008
1.590E+008
1.187E+008
7.833E+007
3.797E+007
-2.380E+006
Figure 9.17: Largest principal stresses for initial design of ceramic turbine disk.
The probability of failure is computed by using Eq. 9.3 because the rst and second
principal stresses are of the same magnitude. The probability of failure of the initial design
is computed to 1.4710 3, i.e., 1 out of 680 turbine disks will fail. The value obtained using
the simplied Eq. 9.4 diers from the value obtained by Eq. 9.3 by a factor of 3 due to
the stress state in the disk.
Next, automatic shape optimization is performed. The mass moment of inertia for the
initial design is 1.29104 Kgm2 which is 55% of the mass moment of inertia of the optimized
design in Section 9.3. However, the objective of the optimization process is to decrease
the probability of failure, so the mass moment of inertia is allowed to be increased. The
constraint on the minimum boundary radius of curvature is maintained, so the denition
Chapter 9. Examples of Interactive Engineering Design with ODESSY 169
of the structural optimization problem is
170 9.4. Design Optimization of Ceramic Components
Minimize probability of failure
Subject to
the mass moment of inertia 1.40104 Kgm2
minimum boundary radius of curvature 5 mm
Performing a shape optimization, the probability of failure is reduced from 1.4710 3 to
3.2210 6, i.e., 1 out of 310000 disks will fail. This probability of failure seems to be
suciently reduced, but it is always very dicult to choose an acceptable reliability. The
failure of a turbine disk may lead to a life-threatening situation so it is necessary to be
absolutely certain about material data, loading conditions, and boundary conditions.
The nal design can be seen in Fig. 9.18, and the largest principal stresses for the optimized
design are shown in Fig. 9.19.
ODESSY Postprocessor
Name: wheelc
Date: Apr 24 1994 18:19
STRESS LEVELS
SIG1
1.343E+008
1.119E+008
8.945E+007
6.703E+007
4.461E+007
2.218E+007
-2.379E+005
Figure 9.19: Largest principal stresses for nal design of ceramic turbine disk.
9.5.1 Model
The original geometry, which is visualized in Figs. 9.20 and 9.21, consists of two doubly
curved shells joined by welding. One shell is the external surface of the hood, and the other
shell, which is welded to the inner side of the hood, is a multi-connected set of stieners.
A total of 496 boundaries and 238 curved surface patches form the model. The shapes
of the surfaces are controlled by their boundaries which in turn depend on a number of
172 9.5. Shape Optimization of an Automobile Hood
Engine hood
Stiffening shell
Joined area
Figure 9.20: The underside of the original geometry. The black area is the joined region
(joined by welding), the dark gray is the stiening shell, and the light gray is
the upper side of the hood.
B C B
Engine hood
Stiffening shell
Joined area
A A
Engine hood
Stiffening shell
Joined area
9.5.2 Analysis
The analysis of the original geometry using the Subspace iteration method yields the
following three lowest eigenfrequencies:
f1 = 132 Hz
f2 = 177 Hz
f3 = 198 Hz
We see that none of these eigenfrequencies are multiple. The lowest eigenfrequency corre-
sponds to the eigenmode shown in Fig. 9.23.
174 9.5. Shape Optimization of an Automobile Hood
Frequency: 132 Hz
f1 = 163 Hz
f2 = 182 Hz
f3 = 216 Hz
The minimum eigenfrequency of 163 Hz implies an increase 24% relative to that of the
original structure, and the nal volume corresponds exactly to the original one.
It is obvious that rather large geometric changes have taken place, and many of the design
variables reach specied maximum (or minimum) allowable values which indicates that the
topology of the initial geometry is not optimum for the case of maximizing the smallest
eigenfrequency. Thus, the nal geometry may only be considered optimum within this
topology and the limitations we have set for variations of the design variables in the initial
mathematical formulation of the problem.
Chapter 9. Examples of Interactive Engineering Design with ODESSY 175
Engine hood
Stiffening shell
Joined area
Engine hood
Stiffening shell
Joined area
Frequency: 163 Hz
Further Work
Although a very general design system has been developed, there are still many possibil-
ities for extensions and improvement. The eorts pertaining to integration of ODESSY
into commercial CAD systems, to develop facilities for automatic three-dimensional mesh
generation, and other topics related to the pre- and postprocessing facilities will continue.
Furthermore, the system should be expanded with respect to the classes of problems that
can be handled in terms of implemented types of nite elements, analysis capabilities, and
hence new types of structures and design objectives. Currently, only
at shell elements
generated from plate nite elements are available, so improved shell elements should be
implemented. Furthermore, several other three-dimensional solid nite elements must be
implemented when unstructured three-dimensional mesh facilities become available. Facil-
ities for adaptive mesh generation can improve the reliability of the nite element model
used during the redesign process and can therefore become a valuable tool for shape op-
timization. The extension into transient and non-linear types of analysis problems is a
large task but such capabilities are very often necessary in order to solve practical real-life
problems. Furthermore, expansions into other elds of analysis, for instance
uid dynam-
ics, acoustics, and magnetic eld theory are other possibilities. Inclusion of design criteria
concerning fabrication cost can also be very useful. Expansions of analysis and design
facilities into these areas will greatly improve the general applicability of the system.
181
182
References
The references are listed alphabetically according to the last name of the author.
Arora, J.S. (1989): Interactive Design Optimization of Structural Elements. In: Dis-
cretization Methods and Structural Optimization - Procedures and Applications (Eds. H.A.
Eschenauer & G. Thierauf), pp. 10-16, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Arora, J.S.; Haug, E.J. (1979): Methods of Design Sensitivity Analysis in Structural
Optimization. AIAA Journal, Vol. 17, No. 9, pp. 970-974.
Atrek, E. R.; Gallagher, H.; Ragsdell, K.M.; Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1984) (Eds.):
New Directions in Optimum Structural Design, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Barthelemy, B.; Chon, C.T.; Haftka, R.T. (1988): Sensitivity Approximation of
Static Structural Response. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, Vol. 4, pp. 249-265.
Barthelemy, B.; Haftka, R.T. (1988): Accuracy Analysis of the Semi-Analytical
Method for Shape Sensitivity Analysis. AIAA Paper 88-2284, Proc. AIAA/ASME/-
ASCE/ASC 29th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Part 1, pp.
562-581. Also Mechanics of Structures and Machines, Vol. 18, pp. 407-432 (1990).
Bathe, K.-J. (1982): Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey.
Bathe, K.-J.; Ramaswamy, S. (1980): An Accelerated Subspace Iteration Method.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 23, pp. 313-331.
Bendse, M.P. (1989): Optimal Shape as a Material Distribution Problem. Structural
Optimization, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 193-202.
Bendse, M.P. (1994): Methods for the Optimization of Structural Topology, Shape and
Material. Mathematical Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark, 299
pp.
Bendse, M.P.; Kikuchi, N. (1988): Generating Optimal Topologies in Structural
Design Using a Homogenization Method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, Vol. 117, pp. 197-224.
Bendse, M.P.; Mota Soares, C.A. (1993) (Eds.): Topology Design of Structures,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Bendse, M.P.; Olho, N.; Taylor, J.E. (1983): A Variational Formulation for
Multicriteria Structural Optimization. Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 11, pp. 523-
544.
183
Bendse, M.P.; Rodrigues, H.C. (1990): On Topology and Boundary Variations in
Shape Optimization. Control and Cybernetics, Vol. 19, No. 3-4, pp. 9-26.
Bendse, M.P.; Rodrigues, H.C. (1991): Integrated Topology and Boundary Shape
Optimization of 2-D Solids. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
Vol. 87, pp. 15-34.
Bendse, M.P.; Rodrigues, H.C.; Rasmussen, J. (1991): Topology and Boundary
Shape Optimization As an Integrated Tool for Computer Aided Design. In: Engineering
Optimization in Design Processes (Eds. H.A. Eschenauer, C. Mattheck & N. Olho), pp.
27-34, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Bennett, J.A.; Botkin, M.E. (1985): Structural Shape Optimization with Geometric
Description and Adaptive Mesh Renement. AIAA Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 458-464.
Bennett, J.A.; Botkin, M.E. (1986) (Eds.): The Optimum Shape. Automated Struc-
tural Design, Plenum Press, New York.
Birker, T.; Lund, E. (1991): Development of a 3D Computer Aided Optimal Design
System, Master Thesis. Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark.
Botkin, M.E. (1988): Shape Optimization with Multiple Loading Conditions and Mesh
Renement. AIAA Paper 88-2299, Proc. AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC 29th Struc-
tures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conf. (held in Williamsburg, Va., April 18-20),
Vol. 2, pp. 689-695.
Botkin, M.E. (1992): Three-Dimensional Shape Optimization Using Fully Automatic
Mesh Generation. AIAA Journal, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 1932-1934.
Botkin, M.E.; Bajorek, D.; Prasad, M. (1992): Feature-Based Structural Design
of Solid Automotive Components. In: DE-Vol.42, Design Theory and Methodology -DTM
'92 (Eds. D.L. Taylor & L.A. Stauer), pp. 57-64.
Botkin, M.E.; Yang, R.J.; Bennett, J.A. (1986): Shape Optimization of Three-
dimensional Stamped and Solid Automotive Components. In: The Optimum Shape. Au-
tomated Structural Design (Eds. J.A. Bennett & M.E. Botkin), pp. 235-262, Plenum Press,
New York.
Braibant, V. (1986): Shape Sensitivity by Finite Elements. Journal of Structural Me-
chanics, Vol. 14, pp. 209-228.
Braibant, V.; Fleury, C. (1984): Shape Optimal Design Using B-splines. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 44, pp. 247-267.
Braibant, V.; Morelle, P. (1990): Shape Optimal Design and Free Mesh Generation.
Structural Optimization, Vol. 2, pp. 223-231.
Bratus, A.S.; Seyranian, A.P. (1983): Bimodal Solutions in Eigenvalue Optimiza-
tion Problems. Prikl.Matem.Mekhan., Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 546-554; Also in: Applied
Mathematics in Mechanics, Vol. 47, pp. 451-457.
Bremicker, M.; Chirehdast, M.; Kikuchi, N.; Papalambros, P. (1991): Integrated
Topology and Shape Optimization in Structural Design. Mechanics of Structures and
Machines, Vol. 19, pp. 551-587.
184
Cea, J. (1981): Problems of Shape Optimal Design. In: Optimization of Distributed
Parameter Structures (Eds. E.J. Haug & J. Cea), Vol. 2, pp. 1005-1048, Sijtho &
Nordho, The Netherlands.
Cheng, G.; Gu, Y.; Wang, X (1991): Improvement of Semi-Analytic Sensitivity
Analysis and MCADS. In: Engineering Optimization in Design Processes (Eds. H.A.
Eschenauer, C. Mattheck & N. Olho), pp. 221-223, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Cheng, G.; Gu, Y.; Zhou, Y. (1989): Accuracy of Semi-Analytical Sensitivity Anal-
ysis. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, Vol. 6, pp. 113-128.
Cheng, G.; Liu, Y. (1987): A New Computational Scheme for Sensitivity Analysis.
Engineering Optimization, Vol. 12, pp. 219-235.
Cheng, G.; Olho, N. (1981): An Investigation Concerning Optimal Design of Solid
Elastic Plates. International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 17, pp. 305-323.
Cheng, G.; Olho, N. (1991): New Method of Error Analysis and Detection in Semi-
Analytical Sensitivity Analysis. Report No. 36, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Aal-
borg University, Denmark, 34 pp.
Cheng, G.; Olho, N. (1993): Rigid Body Motion Test Against Error in Semi-
Analytical Sensitivity Analysis. Computers & Structures, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 515-527.
Choi, K.K. (1985): Shape Design Sensitivity Analysis of Displacement and Stress Con-
straints. Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 13, pp. 27-41.
Choi, K.K.; Chang, K.-H. (1991): Shape Design Sensitivity Analysis and What-
If Workstation For Elastic Solids. Technical Report R-105, Center for Simulation and
Design Optimization and Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Iowa,
33 pp.
Choi, K.K.; Haug, E.J. (1981a): Optimization of Structures with Repeated Eigenval-
ues. In: Optimization of Distributed Parameter Structures (Eds. E.J. Haug & J. Cea),
Vol. 1, pp. 219-277, Sijtho & Nordho, The Netherlands.
Choi, K.K.; Haug, E.J. (1981b): Repeated Eigenvalues in Mechanical Optimization
Problems. Contemporary Mathematics, Vol. 4, pp. 61-86.
Choi, K.K.; Haug, E.J. (1983): Shape Design Sensitivity Analysis of Elastic Structures.
Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 231-269.
Choi, K.K.; Haug, E.J.; Lam, H.L. (1982): A Numerical Method For Distributed Pa-
rameter Structural Optimization Problems with Repeated Eigenvalues. Journal of Struc-
tural Mechanics, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 191-207.
Choi, K.K.; Haug, E.J.; Seong, H.G. (1983): An Iterative Method For Finite Di-
mensional Structural Optimization Problems with Repeated Eigenvalues. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 19, pp. 93-112.
Choi, K.K.; Santos, J.L.T.; Frederick, M.C. (1985): Implementation of Design
Sensitivity Analysis with Existing Finite Element Codes. Center for Computer Aided
Design and Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Iowa, 9 pp.
Choi, K.K.; Seong, H.W. (1986): A Domain Method for Shape Design of Built-up
Structures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 57, pp. 1-15.
185
Choi, K.K.; Twu, S.-L. (1988): On Equivalence of Continuum and Discrete Methods
of Shape Sensitivity Analysis. AIAA Journal, Vol. 27, No. 10, pp. 1418-1424
Clarke, F. (1990): Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis, Classics in Applied Mathe-
matics 5. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.
Cook, R.D.; Malkus, D.S.; Plesha, M.E. (1989): Concepts and Applications of
Finite Element Analysis, 3rd Edition, Wiley & Sons, New York.
Courant, R.; Hilbert, D. (1953): Methods of Mathematical Physics, Vol. 1, Interscience
Publishers, New York.
Cox, S.J. (1992): The Shape of the Ideal Column. The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol.
14, pp. 6-24.
Cox, S.J.; Overton, M.L. (1992): On the Optimal Design of Columns against Buckling.
SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 287-325.
Dems, K.; Haftka, R.T. (1989): Two Approaches to Sensitivity Analysis for Shape
Variation of Structures. Mechanics of Structures and Machines, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.
501-522.
Dems, K.; Mroz, Z. (1983): Variational Approach by Means of Adjoint Systems to
Structural Optimization and Sensitivity Analysis - I Variation of Material Parameters
within Fixed Domain. International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 19, pp. 677-
692.
Dems, K.; Mroz, Z. (1984): Variational Approach by Means of Adjoint Systems to
Structural Optimization and Sensitivity Analysis - II Structure Shape Variation. Interna-
tional Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 20, pp. 527-552.
Dems, K.; Mroz, Z. (1993): On Shape Sensitivity Approaches in the Numerical Anal-
ysis of Structures. Structural Optimization, Vol. 6, pp. 86-93.
Dhatt, G.; Touzot, G. (1984): The Finite Element Method Displayed, Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Diaz, A.R.; Kikuchi, N. (1992): Solution to Shape and Topology Eigenvalue Opti-
mization Problems using a Homogenization Method. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, Vol. 35, pp. 1487-1502.
Diaz, A.R.; Kikuchi, N.; Papalambros, P.; Taylor, J.E. (1983): Design of an
Optimal Grid for Finite Element Methods. Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 11, pp.
215-230.
Ding, Y. (1986): Shape Optimization of Structures: a Literature Survey. Computers &
Structures, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 985-1004.
El-Sayed, M.E.M.; Zumwalt, K.W. (1991): Ecient Design Sensitivity Derivatives
for Multi-Load Case Structures as an Integrated Part of Finite Element Analysis. Com-
puters & Structures, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 1461-1467.
Eschenauer, H.A. (1986): Numerical and Experimental Investigations of Structural
Optimization of Engineering Designs, Siegen: Bonn + Fries, Druckerei und Verlag.
Eschenauer, H.A.; Koski, J.; Osyczka, A. (1990) (Eds.): Multicriteria Design
Optimization, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
186
Eschenauer, H.A.; Mattheck, C.; Olho, N. (1991) (Eds.): Engineering Optimiza-
tion in Design Processes, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Eschenauer, H.A.; Olho, N. (1983) (Eds.): Optimization Methods in Structural
Design, B.I.-Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim.
Eschenauer, H.A.; Thierauf, G. (1989) (Eds.): Discretization Methods and Structural
Optimization - Procedures and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Esping, B.J.D. (1983): Minimum Weight Design of Membrane Structures, Ph.D. Thesis,
Dept. Aeronautical Structures and Materials, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stock-
holm, Report 83-1.
Esping, B.J.D. (1984): Minimum Weight Design of Membrane Structures Using Eight
Node Isoparametric Elements and Numerical Derivatives. Computers & Structures, Vol.
19, No. 4, pp. 591-604.
Esping, B.J.D. (1986): The OASIS Structural Optimization System. Computers &
Structures, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 365-377.
Fenyes, P.A.; Lust, R.V. (1991): Error Analysis of Semi-Analytical Displacement
Derivatives for Shape and Sizing Variables. AIAA Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 271-279.
Fleury, C. (1987): Computer Aided Optimal Design of Elastic Structures. In: Computer
Aided Optimal Design: Structural and Mechanical Systems (Ed. C.A. Mota Soares), pp.
831-900, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Fleury, C. (1989): CONLIN: An Ecient Dual Optimizer Based On Convex Approxi-
mation Concepts. Structural Optimization, Vol. 1, pp. 81-89.
Fleury, C.; Braibant, V. (1986): Structural Optimization: A New Dual Method Using
Mixed Variables. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 23,
409-428.
Fleury, C.; Braibant, V. (1987): Structural Synthesis: Towards a Reliable CAD-tool.
In: Computer Aided Optimal Design: Structural and Mechanical Systems (Ed. C.A. Mota
Soares), pp. 137-149, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Gajewski, A. (1990): Multimodal Optimal Design of Structural Elements (A Survey).
Mechanika Teoretyczna i Stosowana, Vol. 28, pp. 75-92.
Gajewski, A.; Zyczkowski, M. (1988): Optimal Structural Design Under Stability
Constraints. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht-Boston-London.
George, P.L. (1988): Modulef: Generation Automatique de Maillages (in French). Col-
lection Didactique, edite par Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Au-
tomatique, pp. 75-80. ISBN 2-7261-0522-X, ISSN 0299-0733.
Gilmore, B.J.; Hoeltzel, D.A.; Azarm, S.; Eschenauer, H.A. (1993) (Eds.): Ad-
vances in Design Automation. Proc. 1993 ASME Design Technical Conferences - 19th
Design Automation Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico, The American Society of Me-
chanical Engineers, New York.
Gu, Y.; Cheng, G. (1990): Structural Shape Optimization Integrated with CAD En-
vironment. Structural Optimization, Vol. 2, pp. 23-28.
187
Haber, R.B. (1987): A New Variational Approach to Structural Shape Sensitivity Anal-
ysis. In: Computer Aided Optimal Design: Structural and Mechanical Systems (Ed. C.A.
Mota Soares), pp. 573-587, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Haftka, R.T.; Adelman, H.M. (1989): Recent Developments in Structural Sensitivity
Analysis. Structural Optimization, Vol. 1, pp. 137 - 151.
Haftka, R.T.; Grandhi, R.V. (1986): Structural Shape Optimization - A Survey.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 57, pp. 91-106.
Haug, E.J. (1981): A Review of Distributed Parameter Structural Optimization Liter-
ature. In: Optimization of Distributed Parameter Structures (Eds. E.J. Haug & J. Cea),
Vol. 1, pp. 3-74, Sijtho & Nordho, The Netherlands.
Haug, E.J. (1993) (Ed.): Concurrent Engineering: Tools and Technologies for Mechan-
ical System Design, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Haug, E.J.; Cea, J. (1981) (Eds.): Optimization of Distributed Parameter Structures,
Vol. 1: pp. 1-842, Vol. 2: pp. 843-1609, Sijtho & Nordho, The Netherlands.
Haug, E.J.; Choi, K.K. (1982): Systematic Occurence of Repeated Eigenvalues in
Structural Optimization. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 38, No.
2, pp. 251-274.
Haug, E.J.; Choi, K.K. (1986): Material Derivative Methods for Shape Design Sensi-
tivity Analysis. In: The Optimum Shape. Automated Structural Design (Eds. J.A. Bennett
& M.E. Botkin), pp. 29-60, Plenum Press, New York.
Haug, E.J.; Choi, K.K.; Komkov, V. (1986): Design Sensitivity Analysis of Struc-
tural Systems, Academic Press, New York.
Haug, E.J.; Rousselet, B. (1980a): Design Sensitivity Analysis in Structural Mechan-
ics. I: Static Response Variation. Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.
17-41.
Haug, E.J.; Rousselet, B. (1980b): Design Sensitivity Analysis in Structural Me-
chanics. II: Eigenvalue Variations. Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.
161-186.
Herskovits, J. (1993): Proc. Structural Optimization '93 - The World Congress on
Optimal Design of Structural Systems, Vol. 1 & 2, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.
Hughes, T.J.R. (1987): The Finite Element Method, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Hughes, T.J.R.; Cohen, M. (1978): The \Heterosis" Finite Element for Plate Bending.
Computers & Structures, Vol. 9, pp. 445-450.
Hughes, T.J.R.; Cohen, M.; Haroun, M. (1978): Reduced and Selective Integration
Techniques in the Finite Element Analysis of Plates. Nuclear Engineering and Design,
Vol. 46, pp. 203-222.
Hornlein, H.R.E.M. (1987): Take-o in Optimum Structural Design. In: Computer
Aided Optimal Design. Structural and Mechanical Systems (Ed. C.A. Mota Soares), NATO
ASI Series F: Computer and System Sciences, Vol. 27, pp. 901-919, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
188
Kibsgaard, S. (1991): Analysis and Optimization of FE-discretized Structures, Ph.D.
Thesis. Special Report No. 6, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Aalborg University,
Denmark.
Kibsgaard, S.; Olho, N.; Rasmussen, J. (1989): Concept of an Optimization Sys-
tem. In: Proc. OPTI89 - First Int. Conf. on Computer Aided Optimum Design of
Structures: Applications (Eds. C.A. Brebbia & S. Hernandez), pp. 79-88, Computational
Mechanics Publications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Kikuchi, N.; Chung, K.Y.; Torigaki, T.; Taylor, J.E. (1986): Adaptive Finite
Element Methods for Shape Optimization of Linearly Elastic Structures. In: The Optimum
Shape. Automated Structural Design (Eds. J.A. Bennett & M.E. Botkin), pp. 139-170,
Plenum Press, New York.
Koski, J.; Silvennoinen; R. (1990): Multicriteria Design of Ceramic Components. In:
Multicriteria Design Optimization (Eds. H.A. Eschenauer, J. Koski & A. Osyczka), pp.
447-463, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Kristensen, E.S.; Madsen, N.F. (1976): On the Optimum Shape of Fillets in Plates
Subjected to Multiple In-plane Loading Cases. International Journal for Numerical Meth-
ods in Engineering, Vol. 10, pp. 1007-1019.
Ladefoged, T. (1988): Triangular Ring Element with Analytic Expressions for Stiness
and Mass Matrix. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 67, pp.
171-187.
Lancaster, P. (1964): On Eigenvalues of Matrices Dependent on a Parameter. Nu-
merische Mathematik, Vol. 6, pp. 377-387.
Lund, E. (1993): Design Sensitivity Analysis of Finite Element Discretized Structures.
Report No. 55, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark, 31
pp. An earlier version of the paper can be found in: Shape Design Sensitivity Analysis
of Finite Element Discretized Structures. In: Lecture Notes for COMETT course on
Computer Aided Optimum Design of Structures, August 1993, Aalborg.
Lund, E.; Birker, T.; Rasmussen, J. (1991): CAOS Computer Aided Optimization
System Ver. 2.1. User's Manual and Reference. Special Report No. 9, Institute of
Mechanical Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark, 161 pp.
Lund, E.; Olho, N. (1993a): Reliable and Ecient Finite Element Based Design
Sensitivity Analysis of Eigenvalues. In: Proc. Structural Optimization '93 - The World
Congress on Optimal Design of Structural Systems (Ed. J. Herskovits), Vol. 2, pp. 197-
204, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Lund, E.; Olho, N. (1993b): Shape Design Sensitivity Analysis of Eigenvalues Using
\Exact" Numerical Dierentiation of Finite Element Matrices. Report No. 54, Institute
of Mechanical Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark, 19 pp. To appear in Structural
Optimization, Vol. 8 (1994).
Lund, E.; Rasmussen, J. (1994): A General and Flexible Method of Problem Denition
in Structural Optimization Systems. Report No. 58, Institute of Mechanical Engineering,
Aalborg University, Denmark, 18 pp. To appear in Structural Optimization, Vol. 8 (1994)).
189
Masmoudi, M.; Broudiscou, C.; Guillaume, P. (1993): Automatic Dierentiation
and Shape Optimization. In: Proc. Structural Optimization '93 - The World Congress on
Optimal Design of Structural Systems (Ed. J. Herskovits), Vol. 2, pp. 189-196, Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Masur, E.F. (1984): Optimal Structural Design under Multiple Eigenvalue Constraints.
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 20, pp. 211-231.
Masur, E.F. (1985): Some Additional Comments on Optimal Structural Design under
Multiple Eigenvalue Constraints. International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 21,
pp. 117-120.
Masur, E.F.; Mroz, Z. (1979): Non-stationary Optimality Conditions in Structural
Design. International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 15, pp. 503-512.
Masur, E.F.; Mroz, Z. (1980): Singular Solutions in Structural Optimization Problems.
In: Variational Methods in the Mechanics of Solids (Ed. S. Nemat-Nasser), pp. 337-343,
Evanston, Illinois, Pergamon Press, New York.
McLean, A.F.; Hartsock, D.L. (1989): Design with Structural Ceramics. In: Struc-
tural Mechanics (Ed. J.B. Wachtman), pp. 27-97, Academic Press, London.
Mills-Curran, W.C. (1988): Calculation of Eigenvector Derivatives for Structures with
Repeated Eigenvalues. AIAA Journal, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 867-871.
Mlejnek, H.P. (1992): Accuracy of Semi-Analytical Sensitivities and Its Improvement
by the \Natural Method". Structural Optimization, Vol. 4, pp. 128-131.
Morelle, P.; Braibant, V. (1991): Multi-Model Optimization of Large Scale Structures.
Samtech, Liege, Belgium.
Morris, A.J. (1982) (Ed.): Foundations of Structural Optimization: A Unied Ap-
proach, Chichester, England.
Mota Soares, C.A. (1987) (Ed.): Computer Aided Optimal Design: Structural and
Mechanical Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Mota Soares, C.A.; Rodrigues, H.C.; Choi, K.K. (1984): Shape Optimal Struc-
tural Design Using Boundary Elements and Minimum Compliance Techniques. Journal of
Mechanisms, Transmissions and Automation in Design, Vol. 106, pp. 518-523.
Mouritsen, O.. (1992): Introduktion til Elementmetoden (In Danish), Aalborg Uni-
versity, Denmark, 63 pp.
Myslinski, A.; Sokolowski, J. (1985): Nondierentiable Optimization Problems For
Elliptic Systems. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 632-648.
Olho, N. (1974): Optimal Design of Vibrating Rectangular Plates. International Jour-
nal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 10, pp. 93-109.
Olho, N. (1975): On Singularities, Local Optima, and Formation of Stieners in Op-
timal Design of Plates. In: IUTAM Symposium, Warsaw/Poland 1973 (Eds. A. Sawczuk
& Z. Mroz), pp. 82-103, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Olho, N. (1980): Optimal Design with Respect to Structural Eigenvalues. In: Proc.
XVth International IUTAM Congress on Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Toronto 1980
(Eds. F.P.J. Rimrott & B. Tabarrok), pp. 133-149, Nord-Holland, The Netherlands.
190
Olho, N. (1981a): Optimization of Columns against Buckling. In: Optimization of
Distributed Parameter Structures (Eds. E.J. Haug & J. Cea), Vol. 1, pp. 152-176, Sijtho
& Nordho, The Netherlands.
Olho, N. (1981b): Optimization of Transversely Vibrating Beams and Rotating Shafts.
In: Optimization of Distributed Parameter Structures (Eds. E.J. Haug & J. Cea), Vol. 1,
pp. 177-199, Sijtho & Nordho, The Netherlands.
Olho, N. (1989): Multicriterion Structural Optimization Via Bound Formulation and
Mathematical Programming. Structural Optimization, Vol. 1, pp. 11-17.
Olho, N.; Bendse, M.P.; Rasmussen, J. (1991): On CAD-integrated Structural
Topology and Design Optimization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engi-
neering, Vol. 89, pp. 259-279.
Olho, N., Krog, L.; Thomsen, J. (1993): Bi-Material Topology Optimization. In:
Proc. Structural Optimization '93 - The World Congress on Optimal Design of Structural
Systems (Ed. J. Herskovits), Vol. 1, pp. 327-334, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.
Olho, N., Lund, E. (1994): Finite Element Based Engineering Design Sensitivity
Analysis and Optimization. In: Advances in Structural Optimization (Ed. J. Herskovits),
Kluwer (to appear).
Olho, N.; Lund, E.; Rasmussen, J. (1992): Concurrent Engineering Design Opti-
mization In a CAD Environment. Special Report No. 16, Institute of Mechanical Engi-
neering, Aalborg University, Denmark, 64 pp; Also in: Concurrent Engineering: Tools and
Technologies for Mechanical System Design (Ed. E.J. Haug), pp. 523-586, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin (1993).
Olho, N.; Plaut, R.H. (1983): Bimodal Optimization of Vibrating Shallow Arches.
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 553-570.
Olho, N.; Rasmussen, J. (1991a): Study of Inaccuracy in Semi-Analytical Sensitivity
Analysis - A Model Problem. Structural Optimization, Vol. 3, pp. 203-213.
Olho, N.; Rasmussen, J. (1991b): Method of Error Elimination for a Class of Semi-
Analytical Sensitivity Analysis Problems. In: Engineering Optimization in Design Pro-
cesses (Eds. H.A. Eschenauer, C. Mattheck & N. Olho), pp. 193-200, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Olho, N.; Rasmussen, J.; Lund, E. (1992): A Method of \Exact" Numerical Dier-
entiation for Error Elimination in Finite Element Based Semi-Analytical Shape Sensitivity
Analysis. Special Report No. 10, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Aalborg University,
Denmark, 79 pp. Also Mechanics of Structures and Machines, Vol. 21, pp. 1-66 (1993).
Olho, N.; Rasmussen, S.H. (1977): On Single and Bimodal Optimum Buckling
Loads of Clamped Columns. International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 13, pp.
605-614.
Olho, N.; Taylor, J.E. (1983): On Structural Optimization. Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 50, pp. 1139-1151.
191
Overton, M.L. (1988): On Minimizing the Maximum Eigenvalue of a Symmetric Matrix.
SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 256-268.
Pedersen, P. (1973): Some Properties of Linear Strain Triangles and Optimal Finite
Element Models. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 7, pp.
415-429.
Pedersen, P. (1981): Design with Several Eigenvalue Constraints by Finite Elements
and Linear Programming. Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 243-271.
Pedersen, P. (1983): A Unied Approach to Optimal Design. In: Optimization Methods
in Structural Design (Eds. H.A. Eschenauer & N. Olho), pp. 182-187, B.I.-Wissenschafts-
verlag, Mannheim.
Pedersen, P. (1988): Design for Minimum Stress Concentration - Some Practical As-
pects. In: Structural Optimization (Eds. G.I.N. Rozvany & B.L. Karihaloo), pp. 225-232,
Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Pedersen, P. (1989): On Optimal Orientation of Orthotropic Materials. Structural
Optimization, Vol. 1, pp. 101-106.
Pedersen, P. (1990): Bounds on Elastic Energy in Solids of Orthotropic Materials.
Structural Optimization, Vol. 2, pp. 55-63.
Pedersen, P. (1991): On Thickness and Orientational Design with Orthotropic Materi-
als. Structural Optimization, Vol. 3, pp. 69-78.
Pedersen, P. (1993) (Ed.): Optimal Design with Advanced Materials, Elsevier, The
Netherlands.
Pedersen, P.; Cheng, G.; Rasmussen, J. (1989): On Accuracy Problems for Semi-
Analytical Sensitivity Analysis. Mechanics of Structures and Machines, Vol. 17, No. 3,
pp. 373-384.
Pedersen, P.; Laursen, C.L. (1983): Design for Minimum Stress Concentration by
Finite Elements and Linear Programming. Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 10, No.
4, pp. 375-391.
Plaut, R.H.; Johnson, L.W.; Olho, N. (1986): Bimodal Optimization of Com-
pressed Columns on Elastic Foundations. Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 53, pp.
130-134.
Prager, S.; Prager, W. (1979): A Note on Optimal Design of Columns. Int. J. Mech.
Sci., Vol. 21, pp. 249-251.
Rasmussen, J. (1989): Development of the Interactive Structural Shape Optimization
System CAOS (in Danish), Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Aalborg
University, Denmark, Special Report No. 1a.
Rasmussen, J. (1990): The Structural Optimization System CAOS. Structural Opti-
mization, Vol. 2, pp. 109-115.
Rasmussen, J. (1991): Shape Optimization and CAD. International Journal of Systems
Automation: Research and Applications (SARA), Vol. 89, pp. 259-279.
Rasmussen, J.; Lund, E.; Birker, T. (1992): Collection of Examples, CAOS Opti-
mization System, 3rd edition. Special Report No. 1c, Institute of Mechanical Engineering,
192
Aalborg University, Denmark, 119 pp.
Rasmussen, J.; Lund, E.; Birker, T.; Olho, N. (1993): The CAOS System.
International Series of Numerical Mathematics, Vol. 110, pp. 75-96, Birkhuser Verlag,
Basel.
Rasmussen, J.; Lund, E.; Olho, N. (1992): Structural Optimization by the Finite
Element Method. In: Lecture Notes for European School CIMI/COMETT on Computer
Aided Design of Structures, Journees Universitaires, 13-17 July 1992, Nice, France.
Rasmussen, J.; Lund, E.; Olho, N. (1993a): Parametric Modeling and Analysis
for Optimum Design. In: Proc. Structural Optimization '93 - The World Congress on
Optimal Design of Structural Systems (Ed. J. Herskovits), Vol. 2, pp. 407-414, Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rasmussen, J.; Lund, E.; Olho, N. (1993b): Integration of Parametric Modeling
and Structural Analysis for Optimum Design. In: Advances in Design Automation. Proc.
1993 ASME Design Technical Conferences - 19th Design Automation Conference, Albu-
querque, New Mexico (Eds. B.J. Gilmore, D.A. Hoeltzel, S. Azarm & H.A. Eschenauer),
Vol. 1, pp. 637-648, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
Rasmussen, J.; Lund, E.; Olho, N.; Birker, T. (1993): Structural Topology and
Shape Optimization with the CAOS System. In: Lecture Notes for COMETT course on
Computer Aided Optimal Design, February 1993, Eindhoven.
Rasmussen, J.; Olho, N.; Lund, E. (1992): Foundations for Optimum Design
System Development. In: Lecture Notes for Advanced TEMPUS course on Numerical
Methods in Computer Optimal Design, 11-15 maj 1992, Zakopane, Poland.
Rasmussen, J.; Thomsen, J.; Olho, N. (1993): Topology and Boundary Variation
Design Methods in a CAD System. In: Topology Design of Structures (Eds. M.P. Bendse
& C.A. Mota Soares), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Ringertz, U. (1992): Optimal Design and Imperfection Sensitivity of Nonlinear Shell
Structures. FFA TN 1992-30, The Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden, 33 pp.
Rodrigues, H.C. (1988): Shape Optimal Design of Elastic Bodies Using a Mixed Vari-
ational Formulation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 69,
pp. 29-44.
Rosengren, R. (1989): Shape Optimization of a Saab 9000 Wishbone. SAAB-SCANIA,
Sweden.
Rozvany, G.I.N. (1989): Structural Design via Optimality Criteria - The Prager Ap-
proach to Structural Optimization, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Rozvany, G.I.N. (1993) (Ed.): Optimization of Large Structural Systems, Vol. 1: pp.
1-622, Vol. 2: 623-1198, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Rozvany, G.I.N.; Olho, N.; Cheng, G.; Taylor, J.E. (1982): On the Solid Plate
Paradox in Structural Optimization. Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.
1-32.
Rozvany, G.I.N.; Karihaloo, B.L. (1988) (Eds.): Structural Optimization, Kluwer,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
193
Santos, J.L.T.; Choi, K.K. (1989): Integrated Computational Considerations for Large
Scale Structural Design Sensitivity Analysis and Optimization. In: Discretization Methods
and Structural Optimization - Procedures and Applications (Eds. H.A. Eschenauer & G.
Thierauf), pp. 299-307, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Seyranian, A.P. (1983): A Solution of a Problem of Lagrange. Dokl. Akad. Nauk
SSSR, Vol. 271, pp. 337-340; Also Sov. Phys. Dokl., Vol. 28, pp. 550-551.
Seyranian, A.P. (1984): On a Problem of Lagrange. Mekhanika Tverdogo Tela, No. 2,
pp. 101-111; Also Mechanics of Solids, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 100-111.
Seyranian, A.P. (1987): Multiple Eigenvalues in Optimization Problems. Prikl. Mat.
Mekh., Vol. 51, pp. 349-352; Also Applied Mathematics in Mechanics, Vol. 51, pp. 272-
275.
Seyranian, A.P.; Lund, E.; Olho, N. (1994): Multiple Eigenvalues in Structural
Optimization Problems. Special Report No. 21, Institute of Mechanical Engineering,
Aalborg University, Denmark, 51 pp. (To appear in Structural Optimization).
Schmit, L.A. (1982): Structural Synthesis - Its Genesis and Development. AIAA Jour-
nal, Vol. 20, pp. 992-1000.
Sobieszanski-Sobieski, J.; Rogers, J.L. (1984): A Programming System for Research
and Applications in Structural Optimization. In: New directions in optimum structural
design (Eds. E. Atrek, R.H. Gallagher, K.M. Ragsdell & O.C. Zienkiewicz), pp. 563-585,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Stanton, E.L. (1986): Geometric Modeling for Structural and Material Shape Optimiza-
tion. In: The Optimum Shape. Automated Structural Design (Eds. J.A. Bennett & M.E.
Botkin), pp. 365-383, Plenum Press, New York.
Svanberg, K. (1987): The Method of Moving Asymptotes - A New Method For Struc-
tural Optimization. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 24,
pp. 359-373.
Tadjbakhsh, I.; Keller, J.B. (1962): Strongest Columns and Isoperimetric Inequalities
For Eigenvalues. Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 29, pp. 159-164.
Taylor, J.E.; Bendse, M.P. (1984): An Interpretation of Min-Max Structural Design
Problems Including a Method for Relaxing Constraints. International Journal of Solids
and Structures, Vol. 20, pp. 301-314.
Thomsen, J. (1992): Optimering af anisotrope materialers egenskaber og konstruktion-
ers topologi (in Danish), Ph.D. Thesis. Special Report No. 14. Institute of Mechanical
Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark.
Vanderplaats, G.N. (1987): ADS - A FORTRAN program for Automated Design
Synthesis - version 2.01. Engineering Design Optimization, INC.
Wang, S.-Y.; Sun, Y.; Gallagher, R.H. (1985): Sensitivity Analysis in Shape Opti-
mization of Continuum Structures. Computers & Structures, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 855-867.
Wexler, A.S. (1987): Automatic Evaluation of Derivatives. Appl. Math. Comp., Vol.
24, pp. 19-46.
194
Wittrick, W.H. (1962): Rates of Change of Eigenvalues, With Reference to Buckling
and Vibration Problems. Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Vol. 66, pp. 590-591.
Yang, R.J.; Botkin, M.E. (1986): The Relationship Between the Variational Approach
and the Implicit Dierentiation Approach to Shape Design Sensitivities. In: The Optimum
Shape. Automated Structural Design (Eds. J.A. Bennett & M.E. Botkin), pp. 61-77,
Plenum Press, New York.
Yang, R.-J.; Choi, K.K. (1985): Accuracy of Finite Element Based Shape Design
Sensitivity Analysis. Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 223-239.
Yao, T.-M.; Choi, K.K. (1989): 3-D Shape Optimal Design and Automatic Finite
Element Regridding. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol.
28, pp. 369-384.
Zhong, W.; Cheng, G. (1986): Second-order Sensitivity Analysis of Multimodal Eigen-
values and Related Optimization Techniques. Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 14,
No. 4, pp. 421-436.
Zienkiewicz, O.C.; Campbell, J.S. (1973): Shape Optimization and Sequential Linear
Programming. In: Optimum Structural Design, Theory and Applications (Eds. R.H.
Gallagher & O.C.Zienkiewicz), Wiley and Sons, London, pp. 109-126.
Zienkiewicz, O.C.; Taylor, R.L. (1989): The Finite Element Method. Volume 1 & 2,
4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, London.
Zolesio, J.-P. (1981): The Material Derivative (or Speed) Method for Shape Optimiza-
tion. In: Optimization of Distributed Parameter Structures (Eds. E.J. Haug & J. Cea),
Vol. 2, pp. 1089-1151, Sijtho & Nordho, The Netherlands.
Zyczkowski, M. (1989) (ed.): Structural Optimization Under Stability and Vibration
Constraints. Springer, Wien - New York.
195
196
APPENDIX
197
198
Appendix
A
3D Solid Isoparametric Finite Elements
T wo 3D isoparametric nite elements have been implemented in ODESSY, that is,
an 8-node and a 20-node element. The 20-node element can have curved element sides
as illustrated in Fig. A.1.
z,w
ζ
η
ζ
ξ η
x,u y,v
Figure A.1: Domain, node numbering, and nodal degrees of freedom of 8- and 20-node
isoparametric nite elements.
and shape functions for the 20-node element are given in Table A.2.
BT E B jJj d
(A.4)
Here,
is the domain of the nite element described in curvilinear, non-dimensional --
coordinates for the element, see Fig. A.1, and jJj is the determinant of the Jacobian matrix
J which at each point denes the transformation of dierentials d , d, and d into dx,
dy, and dz. Like J, the strain-displacement matrix B depends on coordinates of the nodal
points, whereas the constitutive matrix E depends only on the constitutive parameters
of the assumed linearly elastic material which, in the implementation in ODESSY, can
be either isotropic or anisotropic. The expressions for the Jacobian J and for the strain-
displacement matrix B are given in the following.
In terms of the vector di of nodal degrees of freedom
di = fui vi wigT ; i = 1; : : : ; n (A.5)
the element nodal vector d containing nodal displacements is
d = fdT1 dT2 : : : dTi : : : dTn gT (A.6)
and the strain vector function " is
"(x; y; z) = f"x "y "z
xy
yz
xz gT (A.7)
Appendix A. 3D Solid Isoparametric Finite Elements 201
N T F jJj d
+
B
!
N T F jJj d!
S (A.14)
where
is the domain of the nite element in its local coordinate system, FB represents
body forces, ! the surface described in curvilinear, non-dimensional , , or
coordinates for the element at which surface forces FS are applied, and N contains shape
functions Ni. In the surface integral, N and jJj are evaluated on !.
If initial thermally induced strains have to be taken into account, the consistent nodal
force vector f th due to thermally induced strains is calculated as
Z
f th =
BT E "th jJj d
(A.15)
where "th is an element vector containing thermally induced strains, i.e.,
n o n o
"th = "thx "thy "thz
xyth
yzth
xzth T = T^ T^ T^ 0 0 0 T ; T^ = T T0 (A.16)
where is a matrix containing thermal expansion coecients, T is the temperature at the
given point, and T0 is the temperature at which the structure is free of thermally induced
strains (typically 20C). These thermally induced strains are based on Gauss points values
for obtaining the highest accuracy.
% NT N jJj d
(A.17)
Here,
is the domain of the nite element in its local coordinate system, see Fig. A.1, %
the mass density, N contains shape functions Ni, and jJj is the determinant of the Jacobian
matrix J.
Appendix A. 3D Solid Isoparametric Finite Elements 203
Lumped mass matrices are also available in ODESSY. These are generated using the
popular HRZ lumping scheme, see Cook, Malkus and Plesha (1989). The idea of this
method is to use only the diagonal terms of the consistent mass matrix, but to scale them
in such a way that the total mass of the element is preserved. The procedural steps are as
follows:
1. Compute only the diagonal coecients mii of the consistent mass matrix.
2. Compute the total mass of the element, m.
3. Compute a number s by adding the diagonal coecients mii associated with
translational d.o.f. (but not rotational d.o.f., if any) that are mutually parallel
and in the same direction. The number of these translational d.o.f. is denoted
by x.
4. Scale all the diagonal coecients by multiplying them by the ratio xm=s, thus
preserving the total mass of the element.
This HRZ lumping procedure is used for all the elements in ODESSY when generating
lumped mass matrices.
GT S G jJj d
(A.19)
Here,
is the domain of the nite element described in curvilinear, non-dimensional --
coordinates for the element, see Fig. A.1, G a matrix obtained by appropriate dierentia-
tion of shape functions Ni, S a matrix of initial stresses, and jJj is the determinant of the
Jacobian matrix J.
The matrix G is given by 2 3
66 g 0 0 77
G=4 0 g 0 5 (A.20)
0 0 g
204 A.6. Thermal Element \Stiness Matrix"
where each submatrix g is given by
2 3
66 Ni;x 77
g = 4 Ni;y 5 ; i = 1; : : : ; n (A.21)
Ni;z
The stress matrix S is given by 2 3
s 0 0
S = 664 0 s 0 775 (A.22)
0 0 s
and each submatrix s is dened as
2 3
x xy xz
s = 664 xy y yz 775 (A.23)
xz yz z
Here x, xy , etc., are stresses found by an initial static stress analysis.
Table A.3: Gauss quadrature used for 3D solid isoparametric nite elements.
Integration rule:
Element type k m k kth ";
8-node 8-point 8-point 8-point 8-point 8-point
20-node 14-point 14-point 8-point 14-point 8-point
Appendix
B
2D Solid Isoparametric Finite Elements
F ODESSY. These isoparametric
ive different 2Dsolid isoparametric nite elements have been implemented in
nite elements are formulated in a unied way for
both plane stress, plane strain, and axisymmetric situations. The elements have 3-, 4-, 6-,
8-, and 9-nodes, respectively, and are shown in Fig. B.1. The 6-, 8-, and 9-node elements
can have straight as well as curved boundaries.
ξ1
( symmetry )
axis of rotational ξ2 ξ
3 ξ
y,v
(z,w) η η
ξ1
ξ2
ξ3 ξ
ξ
x,u
(r,u)
Figure B.1: Domain, node numbering, and nodal degrees of freedom of 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 9-
node 2D isoparametric nite elements. Local, non-dimensional coordinates ,
and area coordinates 1, 2, 3 are shown for the quadrilateral and triangular
elements, respectively. Text in parantheses refer to standard notations for
problems with rotational symmetry.
207
208 B.1. Shape Functions for 2D Solid Isoparametric Finite Elements.
B.1 Shape Functions for 2D Solid Isoparametric Fi-
nite Elements.
Within the isoparametric formulation of a nite element with an arbitrary number n of
nodal points, the same set of shape functions
Ni = Ni(; ); i = 1; : : : ; n (B.1)
is used for interpolation of global x, y coordinates from nodal values xi, yi and of displace-
ments functions u, v from nodal values ui, vi, i.e.,
X
n X
n
x = Nixi ; y = Ni yi (B.2)
i=1 i=1
Xn X
n
u(x; y) = Niui; v(x; y) = Ni vi (B.3)
i=1 i=1
Shape functions for the 4-, 8-, and 9-node elements are given in Tables B.1, B.2, and B.3,
respectively.
In case of triangular isoparametric elements, the interpolation functions are dened con-
veniently in terms of non-dimensional area coordinates 1, 2, and 3 within the element
as shown in Fig. B.1. Only two of the three dimensionless area coordinates are mutually
independent, due to the area constraint relation
1 + 2 + 3 = 1 (B.4)
Appendix B. 2D Solid Isoparametric Finite Elements 209
If 1 and 2 are selected as independent coordinates the following relations are obtained
1 = ; 2 = ; 3 = 1 (B.5)
Derivatives with respect to and , with the constraint in Eq. B.4 taken into account,
can be found as
@ = @ @ ; @ = @ @ (B.6)
@ @1 @3 @ @2 @3
The element matrices for the triangular elements can be formulated similarly to the quadri-
lateral elements by using Eqs. B.4 - B.6. The shape functions for the 3- and 6-node elements
are given in Tables B.4 and B.5.
Table B.6: Gauss quadrature used for 2D solid isoparametric nite elements.
Integration rule:
Element type k m k kth ";
3-node 1-point 1-point 1-point 1-point 1-point
4-node 4-point 4-point 1-point 4-point 1-point
6-node 3-point 3-point 3-point 3-point 3-point
8-node 4-point 4-point 4-point 4-point 4-point
9-node 9-point 9-point 4-point 9-point 4-point
Appendix
C
Isoparametric Mindlin Plate and Shell
Finite Elements
S in ODESSY, and all these plate elements
ix different isoparametric Mindlin plate nite elements have been implemented
can also be used as
at shell elements. The
element matrices are rst described for Mindlin plate elements with in-plane membrane
capability, where the elements are formed by combining a plane membrane element, i.e.,
the 2D solid isoparametric elements, with a standard Mindlin plate bending element.
In Section C.10 it is shown how these elements are transformed into
at shell elements.
This is an easy way to formulate shell elements and the elements pass patch tests and
do not exhibit strain under rigid body motion. However, although membrane-bending
coupling is present throughout an actual curved shell, it is absent in individual
at shell
elements and this might lead to inaccurate results, especially if a small number of elements
are used to model a curved surface. This must be taken into account when generating
nite element models using these
at shell elements.
The elements have 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 9-nodes, respectively, and are shown in Fig. C.1. The
6-, 8-, and 9-node elements can have straight as well as curved boundaries in the element
plane. Both a 9-node \Lagrange" and a 9-node \heterosis" Mindlin plate nite element
have been implemented, see Section C.9.
It is important to notice that all element matrices for the Mindlin elements are given in
terms of standard right-hand-rule rotations x , y as illustrated in Figs. C.1 and C.2.
When the Mindlin plate theory is derived it is normally done using the rotations 1 , 2
which are dened as
1 = y (C.1)
=
2 x
The use of rotations 1 , 2 greatly simplify the algebra when developing the theory but as
the aim of this description of the implemented Mindlin plate elements is to give an overview
of the element matrices, standard right-hand-rule rotations x, y are used everywhere.
Furthermore, in the transformation of these
at plate elements to
at shell elements with
215
216
η
ξ
ξ2 1
ξ3 ξ
y η y
η
ξ1 vi
ξ2
ξ3 ξ ξ
θyi
i
x wi x
z z θxi ui
Figure C.1: Domain, node numbering, and nodal degrees of freedom of 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and
9-node isoparametric Mindlin plate nite elements. Local, non-dimensional
coordinates , and area coordinates 1, 2, 3 are shown for the quadrilateral
and triangular elements, respectively.
y
x θy θ1
θx
θ2
where the rst two terms derive from specied
ux at either surface !1 or boundary 1
and the two latter terms from specied convection boundary conditions at surface !2 or
boundary 2 . The surfaces !1 , !2 and boundaries 1 , 2 are described in curvilinear,
non-dimensional coordinates for the element and t is the thickness of the element. The
scalar qS is prescribed
ux normal to the surface !1 or the boundary 1 , N contains shape
functions Ni that are evaluated on the surface ! or the boundary , jJj the determinant
of the Jacobian matrix J for the surface ! or the boundary , h the convection coecient
specied, and Te is the environmental temperature specied for the convection boundary
condition.
Table C.1: Gauss quadrature used for isoparametric Mindlin plate nite elements.
Integration rule:
Element type: km kb ks m k kth ";
3-node 1-point 1-point 1-point 1-point 1-point 1-point 1-point
4-node 4-point 4-point 1-point 4-point 4-point 4-point 1-,4-,1-point
6-node 3-point 3-point 3-point 3-point 3-point 3-point 3-point
8-node 4-point 9-point 4-point 4-point 4-point 4-point 4-point
9-node 9-point 9-point 4-point 4-point 4-point 4-point 4-point
The use of selective integration, however, leads to the unpleasant property that the ele-
ments can have zero-energy modes, i.e., mechanisms. This is avoided when full integration
rules are used but then shear locking appears. Using the selective integration rules given
in Table C.1, the 4-node bilinear element has two possible zero-energy modes, where only
one of them is communicable between adjacent elements. The 8-node serendipity element
has one mechanism which is not communicable between adjacent elements, and the 9-node
Lagrange element has one mechanism. The two triangular elements implemented have no
mechanisms but suer from shear locking.
The 9-node Lagrange element, in general, gives the most accurate results, see Hughes,
Cohen & Haroun (1978) and Cook, Malkus & Plesha (1989), but it is not a \foolproof"
element as it has a spurious zero-energy mode. However, an improved 9-node element
called the \heterosis" element has been implemented in ODESSY, and the theory for this
element is given in the following.
Subject to
F (a1; : : : ; aI ) = 0 (D.2)
The necessary optimality conditions rst are derived for a double optimum fundamental
eigenvalue and then for any multiplicity N of the lowest eigenvalue and they give much
insight in the diculties in maximizing a lowest multiple eigenvalue.
This quadratic form of f11T e and f12T e is positive semi-denite only if its coecients satisfy
the inequality in Eq. D.12.
Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 were formulated and proved for the rst time by Bratus &
Seyranian (1983).
j = ~fjjT e~ = 1 X N
~T
~jj s=1
~ssfsse~
s6=j
1 X N
~ ! (D.32)
ss 0
= kek s=1
~jj s
s6=j