See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274591294

Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design

Article  in  Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering · April 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s11831-015-9151-2

CITATIONS READS

490 14,151

3 authors:

Jihong Zhu Weihong Zhang

Northwestern Polytechnical University Northwestern Polytechnical University
154 PUBLICATIONS   3,335 CITATIONS    540 PUBLICATIONS   10,845 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Liang Xia
Huazhong University of Science and Technology
55 PUBLICATIONS   2,686 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

3D-printing and topology optimization View project

Additive manufacturing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Liang Xia on 15 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Arch Computat Methods Eng
DOI 10.1007/s11831-015-9151-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures
Design
Ji-Hong Zhu1 • Wei-Hong Zhang1 • Liang Xia1,2
Received: 30 January 2015 / Accepted: 7 April 2015
 CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain 2015
Abstract Topology optimization has become an effective
tool for least-weight and performance design, especially in
aeronautics and aerospace engineering. The purpose of this
paper is to survey recent advances of topology optimization
techniques applied in aircraft and aerospace structures de-
sign. This paper firstly reviews several existing applica-
tions: (1) standard material layout design for airframe
structures, (2) layout design of stiffener ribs for aircraft
panels, (3) multi-component layout design for aerospace
structural systems, (4) multi-fasteners design for assembled
aircraft structures. Secondly, potential applications of
topology optimization in dynamic responses design, shape
preserving design, smart structures design, structural fea-
tures design and additive manufacturing are introduced to
provide a forward-looking perspective.
1 Introduction to Topology Optimization Methods
In the least-weight and performance design of aircraft and
aerospace structures, sizing and shape optimizations are
two traditional techniques and have been widely employed
[e.g., 25, 38, 45, 77, 123, 125]. Since the seminal paper by
& Ji-Hong Zhu
jh.zhu@nwpu.edu.cn
& Liang Xia
liang.xia@utc.fr
1
Engineering Simulation and Aerospace Computing (ESAC),
Northwestern Polytechnical University,
Xi’an 710072, Shaanxi, China
2
CNRS, UMR 7337 Roberval, Centre de Recherches de
Royallieu, Université de Technologie de Compiègne,
Sorbonne Universités, CS 60319, 60203 Compiègne Cedex,
France
Bendsøe and Kikuchi [7], topology optimization has been
developed remarkably over the last several decades in both
theoretical studies and practical applications [e.g., 1, 9, 51,
97, 143]. By redistributing the material layout and ac-
cordingly the load carrying paths, topology optimization
has been recognized as one of the most promising tech-
niques in the design of aircraft and aerospace structures.
Meanwhile, plenty of technical difficulties highlighted in
the rapid development of aeronautics and aerospace
structural engineering promote the progress of topology
optimization theories in turn. Literature surveys [26, 42,
109] have summarized recent advances and applications of
topology optimization. These notable achievements con-
tinue to motivate further studies on the applications of
topology optimization in designing complicated engineer-
ing structures.
Generally speaking, topology optimization intends to
find an optimal structural configuration within a given
design domain for specified objectives, constraints, loads
and boundary conditions. As shown in Fig. 1, a typical
compliance design example with a prescribed volume
constraint is presented. Note that the key advantage of
topology optimization over shape or sizing optimizations
lies in the fact that no specified initial structural topology
needs to be presumed a priori.
Originally, topology optimization was considered as a
0–1 discrete problem or a binary design setting, which is
known as ill-conditioned upon Kohn and Strang [62–64] in
structural compliance related designs. The major challenge
lies in solving a large-scale integer programming problem,
where the high computing cost typically precludes the use
of gradient free algorithms. Limited successful applications
were reported till now in the literatures [e.g., 5]. For such
reasons, Bendsøe and Kikuchi [7] proposed a ho-
mogenization based approach which is known as the
123

Fig. 1 Typical topology optimization [9]
relaxed form of the initial binary design setting. The ho-
mogenization approach optimizes structural global perfor-
mance in terms of density variables which are linked to a
specified microstructure model at a separated lower scale,
as shown in Fig. 2. Structural layout was actually built up
with porous unit cells. The equivalent material constitutive
behaviors such as elastic stiffness tensor of each unit cell
are evaluated by means of homogenization. Structural
topological evolution is then realized by modifying the
corresponding size variables of each unit cell iteratively.
Similar treatments have been followed in [1, 39, 114].
The mathematical complexity of the homogenization
approach prevents its general application. Soon after the
homogenization approach, Bendsøe [6] proposed another
density-based approach with a much more simplified as-
sumption. Instead of homogenization, it proceeds by pe-
nalizing exponentially isotropic material in terms of
element density variables with a power law scheme.
Pðgi Þ ¼ gpi ð1Þ
where gi are the so-called pseudo-densities defined as the
design variables in topology optimization. p is the penalty
factor assigned as a value lager than 1. By this power law
scheme, element stiffness is penalized to a rather small
Fig. 2 Topology optimization using homogenized microstructures
123
J.-H. Zhu et al.
value when intermediate density value (between 0 and 1) is
assigned to the element. The effect of penalization will
drive the pseudo-densities vary towards 0 and 1 during
optimization. This approach is also known as solid
isotropic material with penalty (SIMP) [100, 152]. To give
proper physical interpretations for the intermediate density
values appearing in the SIMP model, Bendsøe and Sig-
mund [8] later have shown that the stiffness obtained from
the SIMP model can be realized as the stiffness of a mi-
crostructure made of void and an amount of the solid
material corresponding to the relevant density. For its
simplicity in both conception and numerical implementa-
tion, SIMP model has become the most popular and suc-
cessful method in topology optimization [9, 26].
Another popular approach, named evolutionary struc-
tural optimization (ESO), was developed by Xie and Ste-
ven [135] based on a heuristic element removal strategy.
The idea was to gradually remove redundant or inefficient
materials from the structure based on a heuristically de-
fined criterion until the presumed volume constraint was
achieved. For its conceptual simplicity, the ESO method
was quite well accepted and developed for various me-
chanical design problems [136]. It has also been reported in
[118] that for certain cases the ESO-type methods corre-
spond a sequential linear programming approximate
method. Despite its popularity, the ESO-type methods were
also largely argued [107] or even criticized [150] mainly
for the reason that the method lacks a restitution mechan-
ism for the removed elements, which may lead to failures
in certain designs. To circumvent these deficiencies, later
versions so named bi-directional ESO [93, 158] and soft-
killing bi-directional ESO [51, 52] were developed, which
allow both material removal and addition. It has been
demonstrated that the latest version of ESO method [52] is
capable of circumventing all previously raised unsatisfac-
tory issues. More recently, ESO-type methods have shown
a robust and efficient performance in material microstruc-
tural designs (see [53, 128, 130]) as compared to SIMP
method as shown in Fig. 3. Moreover, the discrete nature
of ESO-type methods makes it also more preferable in
multi-scale structural designs [129, 138]. Sigmund [108]
recently suggest categorize ESO-type methods to the dis-
crete form of density-based approach for its similarities to
SIMP method.
Both continuous and discontinuous density-based ap-
proaches encounter numerical difficulties such as mesh-
dependency, checkerboard patterns, and local minima [9].
The checkerboard pattern is due to the finite element ap-
proximation or design optimization criteria [58]. To miti-
gate these numerical instabilities, Sigmund and Petersson
[110] proposed a so-called sensitivity filtering scheme by
smoothing the sensitivity of the considered element and its
neighboring element sensitivities. Later, Bruns and
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design
Fig. 3 Microstructural designs by Xia and Breitkopf [130]
Tortorelli [13] proposed a density filtering scheme to im-
prove the reliability and convergence of the optimization,
where the filtering is performed on element densities rather
than sensitivities. Sigmund [108] further improved the
density filter by introducing a new class of morphology-
based restriction schemes. Jang et al. [55] presented that
using non-conforming four-node finite elements can com-
pletely suppress the checkerboard patterns, because the
stiffness of the non-conforming element exhibits correct
limiting behavior. Haber et al. [44] proposed the perimeter
control method to control the checkerboard pattern and
some detailed structures between solid and void elements.
Zhang and Duysinx [142] also proposed a quadratic form
of the improved perimeter control operational with the dual
approach. Some detailed discussions of checkerboard
control in the framework of ESO/BESO can be found in
[70, 139]. With these technical advancements, topology
optimization has become one of the most active topics in
advanced structure design and computational mechanics.
Apart from density-based approaches, there exist sev-
eral alternative approaches such as the bubble method [30],
topological derivative [111], level-set method [2, 103, 124]
and phase filed method [12]. Among which, level-set
method, describing structural topology as the level-set of a
higher dimensional function has attracted quite a lot re-
search attention in the recent years [121]. Despite its dis-
tinct advantage in representing complex geometries, there’s
however still a long way before reaching the stage of
regular industrial applications [101].
This paper surveys recent advances of topology opti-
mization techniques, in particular density-based ap-
proaches applied in the design of aircraft and aerospace
structures and expects to provide a valuable reference for
researchers and engineers in structural optimization design.
In the following two sections, Sect. 2 reviews firstly sev-
eral practical applications; Sect. 3 introduces several po-
tential applicable fields from practical issues.
2 Existing Applications in Aircraft and Aerospace
Structures Design
This section surveys four practical applications of topology
optimization in aircraft and aerospace structures design,
including: (1) standard material layout design for airframe
structures, (2) design of stiffener ribs for aircraft panels, (3)
design of aerospace multi-component structural systems,
(4) design of aircraft structures with constraints on joint
loads.
2.1 Standard Material Layout Design
Topology optimization has been recognized as one of the
most effective approaches at the conceptual design phase of
most engineering applications. One is able to obtain an op-
timal structural material layout corresponding to the most
effective load carrying path in the design domain with pre-
scribed boundary conditions and design constraints. A
standard topology optimization problem can be expressed as
 
find g ¼ g1 ; g2 ; . . .; gi ; . . .; gnd ; 0\gi  1; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; nd
1
min C ¼ ðf þ GÞT u
( 2
f þ G ¼ Ku
s:t: ð2Þ
V  VðUÞ
where gi is the pseudo-density variables describing a solid
or a void finite element when it is 1 or 0 respectively. nd is
the number of density variables. Typically, a lower bound
is assigned for the pseudo-density variables to avoid sin-
gularity of the stiffness matrix. The design objective is to
maximize the global structural stiffness, which is normally
evaluated with the minimum elastic strain energy C or
structural mean compliance. The strain energy is calculated
by the external load vector f, the self-weight load vector
G and the nodal displacement vector u. K is the structural
global stiffness matrix. Normally a material volume con-
straint is prescribed in the optimization. V is the total
volume of the material used for the structure with a pre-
scribed upper limit V(U).
At the conceptual design phase, structural details such as
the chamfers and fillets, stiffeners, joints and cross-sections
etc. are ignored and are to be designed in the following
phases by means of shape and size optimizations. To pre-
sent the basic design procedure of topology optimization, a
typical design application of large cargo aircraft pylon
[154] is considered as shown in Fig. 4. The pylon is a
123

typical cantilever structure hanging the turbine engine or
other payloads to the wing of aircraft. The structure needs
to be carefully optimized so as to satisfy performance re-
quirements on stiffness, strength and weight.
In order to obtain reasonable and practical structural
configuration, lots of conditions need to be carefully de-
fined before the topology optimization design of engi-
neering structures. Firstly, due to the complexity of the
aircraft structure system, the definition of the design do-
main is the fundamental factor for topology optimization.
The designable and non-designable domains shall be as-
signed in prior according to the requirements of functional
devices, aerodynamic surfaces, manufacturing restrictions
etc. In this case, the body of the pylon is assigned as the
design domain which is discretized into over 240,000 re-
fined solid finite elements (Fig. 5). Two hanging positions
i.e. the beam tip and lower lugs are assigned as non-des-
ignable components which are to be fixed during the op-
timization procedure. The other two important factors are
the definitions of the load cases and boundary conditions,
which are the determinants of the load carrying path. For
an aircraft structure, tremendous numbers of load cases
exist due to different flight attitudes and payloads. As a
result, it is essentially important to identify the critical load
cases. Here, considering the envelope of the loads, 24 load
cases including the structural self-weight, inertial forces,
the thrust and weight of the turbine engine under three
different attack angles and four different roll angles are
chosen for topology optimization. The external loads are
then precisely distributed to the two hanging positions.
Finally we come to the boundary conditions. As the de-
signed structures are separated from the global airframe,
the boundary conditions are defined at the separation sur-
faces. In many cases when the fixations are not stiff
enough, elastic boundary conditions are needed by using
numbers of springs on different DOFs. The stiffness factors
of the springs are decided according to the properties of the
Fig. 4 An aircraft pylon (http://www.flightglobal.com) hanging a
turbine engine
123
J.-H. Zhu et al.
Fig. 5 The original design domain and its finite element discretiza-
tion [154]
separation surfaces. In this example, as the wing rib
hanging the pylon is stiff enough, the whole structure is
directly clamped at the two fixation positions.
Density-based approach is applied to perform topology
optimization. In order to consider the design dependent
self-weight load, a polynomial interpolation model (see
also [160]) is employed:

qi ¼ gi qi0
ð3Þ
Ei ¼ Pðgi ÞEi0 ¼ ðagpi þ ð1  aÞgi ÞEi0
where Ei0 and qi0 are the solid material elastic modulus and
density, respectively, when the ith element is solid, i.e.
gi = 1. In P(gi), a and p are the coefficients of the inter-
polation, which can be considered as an extended formu-
lation of the SIMP interpolation scheme. Usually, a = 1/16
and p = 3 are used.
Sensitivity filtering [110] is applied here to avoid nu-
merical instabilities. Material usage upper bound is set to
10 % and the corresponding design result is shown in
Fig. 6. The optimized material distribution of the structure
indicates an effective load carrying path and is to be re-
ferred in the following design phases when designing more
detailed structural features.
Fig. 6 Topology optimization design of the aircraft pylon [154]
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design
In addition, choosing a proper optimization algorithm is
very important to obtaining reasonable structural con-
figurations in topology optimization. Currently, convex
linearization (Conlin, see [31, 32]) and the standard method
of moving asymptotes (MMA, see [115]) are the two most
popular optimization algorithms used in topology opti-
mization. They are stable and particularly suitable to sizing
optimization and standard topology optimization
minimizing the structural compliance, where the design
functions are monotonous. However, for topology opti-
mization problems including body forces and presenting
non-monotonous behaviors, the oscillation may occur it-
eratively (see [14]). As a result, the improved global con-
vergent version of MMA (GCMMA, see [15, 116, 117] ) is
suggested to solve these problems. It inherits the property
of stability from the family of MMA and the non-mono-
tonous approximation is helpful in solving some opti-
mization problems with non-monotonous functions.
Similar applications designing aircraft pylon have also
been found in [97], where the conceptual design of the
pylon of Airbus A350 is obtained by means of the standard
topology optimization module of SAMCEF [37]. In their
work, the design domain is discretized into numerous te-
trahedral elements. Eight static load cases are taken into
account including different maneuvers, gust and the si-
tuation of fan blade off and landing on the engine. The
structural symmetry is enforced during the design proce-
dure. For this purpose, they proposed to define a specified
design variable to force the equivalence of the density
variables at corresponding positions. The design domain
and the corresponding optimized design result are shown in
Fig. 7 with the maximum material usage assigned as 10 %.
As have already been indicated, topology optimization
provides only a roughly or conceptually distributed mate-
rial layout. The topologically optimized structures, parts or
components need to be further designed for their practical
use in engineering applications. Post-processing schemes
that can automatically smooth the topological design
boundary can be found in [9, 108], where the iso-density
curve or surface on the boundary is identified and used for
Fig. 7 Topology optimization
design of the Airbus A350
pylon [97]
smoothing. The smoothed designs usually possess similar
or even better mechanical performances than the topo-
logically optimized ones. It was also reported in [41] that
the post-processing scheme is more suitable to model
density variable based topology optimization methods. By
these post-processing strategies, detailed engineering fea-
tures are to be included in accordance with the practical
considerations linking to manufacturing, assembling and
functional requirements. Such post-processing modules
have been included in most existing CAD platforms. There
is however a designer-dependency on the final designs and
their corresponding mechanical performances.
Once the post-processing procedure has been done,
shape and sizing optimizations are then performed to fur-
ther improve the structural performances regarding to
stress concentration, bulking, dynamic responses, etc. that
are not fully considered in the previous topological design
phase. Several representative design cases can be found in
[65, 66], where the least weight design is performed for the
wing structure of Airbus A380. Figure 8 shows the initially
topologically optimized wing rib and its final design con-
figuration. Differences can be observed from the two
structural configurations, which are mostly due to the
consideration of manufacturing requirements. In some
other cases, final designs are simply the compromised in-
tegration of the topologically optimized and the existing
designs. One of the most representative applications of
topology optimization can be found in [65], where the
leading edge ribs of Airbus A380 were optimized with a
significant weight reduction while satisfying all required
mechanical performances (Fig. 9).
Additional attention needs to be paid on finite element
modelling. Note that structures, parts or components to be
designed are fractions of the whole aircraft model. It is not
practical to apply topology optimization directly on the
whole model since it usually consists of millions of ele-
ments and the computational cost is not affordable. For
such reason, sub-structuring or the so-called superelement
technique [28, 38, 88, 89] is quite widely employed in
practice. After an initial approximate analysis of the whole
123
 J.-H. Zhu et al.

Fig. 8 Topological optimized design and the rebuilt model [65]

Fig. 9 Airbus A380 leading

edge ribs design using topology
optimization [65]

model, the objective local structure is extracted from the

whole model together with its equivalent interface loads.
Topology optimization is then carried out for the subtracted
local structure subjecting to the equivalent interface loads.
The superelement based approaches are obviously ap-
proximate schemes as the interface loads are not updated
during the topology optimization procedure. However,
from a practical point of view, it has been proved that sub-
structuring is an effective strategy and widely employed in
aircraft structures analyses and designs (see [66]).

2.2 Layout Design of Stiffener Ribs

Panels with stiffeners are typical structural patterns for
aircraft and aerospace structures (Fig. 10). Although the
appearance of stiffeners’ layout design is much alike a
topological design, many challenges exist in both mod-
elling and optimization definitions during the optimization
process. On the one hand, the stiffeners layout is actually
the layout of some substructures which is not easily de-
scribed by the material layout used in standard topology
optimization. On the other hand, one of the most important
contributions from stiffeners is the effect against buckling,
which is another difficult issue in topology optimization
[151]. As a result, most of the practicable optimization
design of stiffeners are limited to sizing and shape opti-
mization [17, 47, 125–127].
Fig. 10 Stiffeners on aircraft structures
Strictly speaking, most of the existing designs of stiff-
eners using topology optimization are simply approxima-
tions of topologically optimized material layouts. In other
words, stiffeners are added like other engineering features
during the post-processing procedure, e.g., the leading edge
ribs of Airbus A380 in Fig. 9 presented in the previous
section.
To tackle the difficulties in stiffeners’ numerical de-
scription, earlier works considered the stiffener design as a
thickness design of solid or shell elements. For example,
Cheng and Olhoff [22] maximized the stiffness of rectan-
gular and axisymmetric plates by means of a thickness

123
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design

distribution optimization, which was the original form of

topology optimization. This idea was later extended to the
layout design of the reinforcements of composite materials
in [94]. Instead of using pseudo-density variable, thickness
variable is assigned to the design layer of each patch
laminate composition, as shown in Fig. 11. The thicker
reinforcements found by topology optimization are then
modeled as stiffeners. This work is a direct extension of
standard topology optimization to the design of 2D plates
or shells, however at the expense of the modelling accuracy
of the stiffeners.
To improve the precision, the stiffener layout can be
designed by introducing casting constraints to standard
topology optimization, where the material distributions
along prescribed directions have to meet certain
manufacturing requirements such as casting, milling,
forging etc. In this way, the stiffeners are actually de-
scribed by large numbers of solid elements in columns.
Pseudo-densities of the elements in one column along the
casting direction are then ordered by values.
In some early works, the casting constraint can be re-
alized by imposing additional linear constraints on pseudo-
density values of the elements in a column [153]
g1  g2      gi     gn
where g1, g2, …, gn represent pseudo-densities of elements
along the same line in the casting direction, as shown in
Fig. 12. Complying with these linear constraints, the ele-
ments close to the panel are always stiffer than those far
away from it.
This function has already been implemented in the op-
timization platform Altair OptiStruct. One typical design is
shown in Fig. 13. In this way, the stiffeners are treated as
series of solid elements, while the heights of the stiffeners
are decided by the number of solid elements on the casting
direction. But for an engineering problems with tremen-
dous numbers of elements, this idea will be computational
Fig. 12 An illustrative finite element model with a prescribed
casting direction
expensive as large numbers of design constraints are in-
troduced into the optimization. Some ingenious approaches
are needed to improve the design efficiency. Recently, Lu
and Chen [75] proposed a multi-directional constrained
method for topology optimization so that the structural
topologies of optimized designs will follow a prescribed
casting directions which are similar to mechanical designs.
ð4Þ
The basic idea was much following the work of [153].
Other similar works can be found in e.g., [50, 131].
In [69], the concepts of pole parameters, grid pa-
rameters, element parameters and interpolation functions
were introduced. The parameterization was used where the
pseudo-densities of the elements in a column will be re-
placed by a list of values dominated by a single design
variable, which can be simply considered as a height or
thickness variable. Thus the layout and heights of the
stiffeners can be directly optimized. The benefits of the
parameterization method are twofold. Firstly, it transforms
the 3D topology optimization to a 2D layout design of
column heights, which extremely saves the number of

Fig. 11 Definition of the

thickness design layer for
topology optimization and the
optimized design [94]

123
 J.-H. Zhu et al.

Fig. 13 Topology optimization

of an engine bracket with
casting constraints [153]

design variables and then the computational cost in turn.

Secondly, no extra design constraints are needed to arrange
the pseudo-densities in order.
Later, Gersborg and Andreasen [36] presented a smooth
Heaviside parameterization method from the height vari-
able to the pseudo-densities
gð x Þ ¼ H ð x  hÞ

1; t  0 ð5Þ
H ðt Þ ¼
0; t [ 0
where x is a coordinate along the casting direction, h de-
fines the position of the solid-void interface. Differentia-
bility of the parameterization is guaranteed by the use of a
smooth approximation of the Heaviside function. The
benefits are obvious. When the parameterization of the
height variables used in [69] goes though boundary of the
Fig. 14 The definition of the linear piecewise interpolation for the
elements, the interpolation of the material properties is in
casting constraints [162]
fact non-differentiable. The Heaviside interpolation main-
tains the smoothness of material interface during the height variables and greatly favors gradient-based mathematical
variation. programming algorithms.
Recently, Zhu et al. [162] proposed another simpler As a practical application, a large aircraft skin stretch-
method to impose casting constraints where linear piece- forming die has been designed using topology optimization
wise interpolation function was employed rather than the with the casting constraints imposed by the proposed
Heaviside function method. As shown in Fig. 15a, the surface contact pressure
X loads were obtained using an explicit time-integration
h¼ gi
8 scheme. Several extreme load cases were considered for
>
> 0; i [ d he þ 1 the design. Compared with the traditional design solution,
>
> .
>
> 2 the optimized design obtained by the proposed method has
> ðh  bhcÞ 4;
>
<
i ¼ d he þ 1
ð6Þ 31.3 and 63 % decrease in the maximum deformation and
gi ¼ 1=4 þ ðh  bhcÞ=2; i ¼ dhe
>
> . Von-Mises stress, respectively. The method has also been
>
>
>
> 1  ðdhe  hÞ2 4; i ¼ bhc used for the design of turbine engine structures as shown in
>
>
: Fig. 15b, where the stiffeners distributed on a jet nozzle
1; i\bhc
provides a lightweight design solution with much improved
The piecewise function can be illustrated as shown in thermal-elastic performances.
Fig. 14, which maintains the continuity and differentia- Another work has been presented based on the Heav-
bility of the objective function with respect to the height iside interpolation of the height variables [73]. They

123
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design
Fig. 15 Topological design of stiffener layout [162]. a Aircraft skin stretch forming die. b Jet nozzle structure on a turbine engine
introduced a new set of topology design variables to de-
scribe the distribution of the stiffeners. The proposed for-
mulation can guarantee branch-like stiffeners with the
casting constraints satisfied, as shown in Fig. 16. This ap-
proach has been applied to design the reinforcements’
layout of machine tool workbench and large-scale reflec-
tive antenna.
Topology optimization with imposed casting constraints
has been proved to be a reliable design strategy for the
layout design of stiffeners. Moreover, the conceptual sim-
plicity and performance stability make this strategy more
preferable in practical engineering application.
Fig. 16 Stiffener layout designs on simply supported plates [73]
Apart from the above mentioned works, the stiffener
layout design has also been addressed by other strategies.
Alternative to topology optimization, Luo and Gea [76]
proposed a microstructure-based method to optimize the
stiffener locations, where an initial stiffener distribution
has to be prescribed a priori. The orientations of the stiff-
eners were thereafter optimized using equivalent
orthotropic materials. The stiffener layout design was not
directly addressed but via a simplified two-steps scheme.
Gea and Luo [35] developed latter a similar scheme while
using a fiber-reinforced composite model as the equivalent
model for the stiffeners. With this method, Luo and Jia [77]
123

has also addressed optimal stiffener design for interior
sound reduction, where the objectives are to maximize a
band of eigenfrequencies and to minimize the interior
sound level. This method has initiated first attempts to
design fiber orientations of composite structures.
Stiffener layout design has also been addressed by
means of discretized truss structure layout design. Obern-
dorfer et al. [85] proposed to model bars or stiffeners by
discrete grids. The optimized subset of the prescribed bars
was selected by topology optimization. Several design
criteria were considered in the optimization, such as
strength, stiffness and buckling. The idea has also been
tested to optimize the placement of stiffeners on an aircraft
frame. The comparison between the optimized and the
conventional designs had indicated a significant perfor-
mance improvement achieved by the proposed method.
A heuristic evolutionary design scheme for stiffener
layout design was proposed in [27], where a growing and
branching tree model was applied. A given set of the
possible stiffeners was presumed before the design. The
heuristic evolutionary scheme was carried out by selecting
the best growing direction for a branch according to pre-
scribed growing criteria. The branch growing stopped once
the volume limit was achieved. Another design strategy
was given by Bojczuk and Szteleblak [11], where the
stiffener layout and its corresponding shape were designed
with the introduction of fibers, beams or ribs. An original
distribution of the stiffeners was generated at first by means
of a heuristic algorithm based on the evaluated sensi-
tivities. The shape of the curved stiffeners was then opti-
mized to further improve mechanical performance.
2.3 Layout Design of Multi-component Structure
System
Structural systems involved in mechanical, automotive and
aerospace engineering are often composed of a certain
number of components, e.g., engines, batteries, electronic
devices and others, interconnected by a framework struc-
ture within a limited container, such as an aircraft con-
figuration shown in Fig. 17a. The layout design of complex
multi-component systems considered here can be realized
by an extension of existing topology optimization. When
they are considered as non-designable parts with fixed
positions, the problem can be dealt with directly by means
of the conventional topology optimization methodology.
However, the challenging issue is to perform the location
optimization of the involved components and topology
optimization of the framework structure simultaneously, as
illustrated in Fig. 17b. On the one hand, functional devices
essential for the flight mission should be properly installed
in order to satisfy various design requirements. On the
other hand, the supporting structure has to be designed as
123
J.-H. Zhu et al.
light as possible and coordinate with the aircraft major
airframe. As a result, an integrated design strategy syn-
thesizing both components layout design and supporting
structure topology design is of crucial importance in im-
proving the mechanical behaviors of the whole system.
To the best knowledge of authors, the earliest work with
this regard traces back to [72] where a two-level opti-
mization procedure was developed for the design of a
flexible structure system with a piezo-ceramic actuator.
The outer level is devoted to the location and shape opti-
mization of the piezoelectrical component using genetic
algorithm, while the inner level corresponds to topology
optimization of the flexible structure after the outer level
optimization. Though the model presents the capability of
achieving near global optimal result, the computational
cost is unbearable even in the case when only one com-
ponent is considered in design.
Movable components were further assumed as embed-
ded rigid objects [91] where non-conforming meshing ap-
proach, i.e. Eulerian meshing was applied in association
with the peak function material interpolation model [140].
In other words, location changes of the embedded objects
are simulated as a physical variation of the material
properties controlled by their location parameters over a
fixed mesh, as shown in Fig. 18. Though the approach
gives sound optimization results for the rectangular objects,
the normal distribution function applied for an individual
object shape description makes it difficult to deal with
objects of complex forms.
Another relevant work [20] proposed to use one gov-
erning level-set function based on R-functions theory [105]
to represent the material distributions of both embedded
components and their supporting structure. Structural
topological variation with parametric control of the com-
ponents was achieved by means of topology optimization
using the level-set method [2]. This strategy has been later
followed in [59, 104, 147] to perform simultaneous design
of structural topology and the layout of movable compo-
nents. Alternatively, Xia et al. [134] proposed a more
flexible model using SIMP model where components are
modeled by parameterized level-set representation. This
work is extended in [146] where the XFEM technique is
employed for an accurate modelling of material interface.
Typical designs of these two works are shown in Fig. 19.
With the same regard, anther series of work have also
been given in [155, 159, 160]. Different from above
mentioned works, the density-based approach [9] was
employed in their work to perform structural topology
optimization rather than the level-set method. Conforming
mesh was used with an embedded meshing technique [159]
to maintain a precise material interface modeling. As the
fact the mesh is updated locally with the movement of the
components, a density point technique [159] was proposed
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design
Fig. 17 Illustration of
integrated layout design of
multi-component systems
Fig. 18 Integrated component
layout and structural topology
optimization with fixed non-
conforming meshing [91]
to associate the pseudo-density variables with the centroids
of the fixed background mesh. Inertial forces have been
considered in the design with a proposed material poly-
nomial interpolation model [160]. The same model has also
been applied to perform integrated designs of supports and
structures for bridge-like structures [157]. Promising re-
sults have been shown with various extensions by this
model, while drawbacks of the model are due to the em-
bedded meshing technique and low efficiency in semi-
analytical sensitivity analysis w.r.t. location design vari-
ables. Such limitations therefore hinder further develop-
ment into other analysis fields and into more practical 3D
problems. A summary of this approach can be found in
[145].
To remedy these limitations, Xia et al. [132] have
adopted the superelement technique to reduce the com-
puting cost and simplify sensitivity analysis with respect to
components’ location variables. The adoption of su-
perelement technique allows designing a much larger
number of components with more complex shapes
(Fig. 20). Later, Xia et al. [133] proposed a more efficient
strategy using a material perturbation model where the
material discontinuity across the boundary between each
component and the framework structure is approximated
by means of a modified Heaviside function. The compo-
nent movement is thereafter approximated as a material
shift while the mesh itself remains geometrically un-
changed. By doing so, analytical sensitivities with respect
to location design variables are achieved as easily as for
pseudo-density variables. With this model, for the first time
the layout design of 3D multi-component systems was
addressed. Figure 21 shows a typical application the model
in [133]. A helicopter pylon loaded with the weight of the
payloads below the cuboid design domain was designed
123

Fig. 19 Integrated optimization designs from [134] and [146]
Fig. 20 Integrated Layout design of a ten-component structural
system problem [132]
together with the layout design of two functional compo-
nents, whose horizontal and vertical positions were des-
ignable. The final design presented a clear configuration of
both structural topology and components’ positions.
The overlapping avoidance is another essential issue for
the integrated layout design of multi-component systems.
In [91], each component is approximated by a circle so as
to impose non-overlapping distance constraints during the
design. However, this approximation significantly limits
Fig. 21 Multi-component layout design for a helicopter pylon
123
J.-H. Zhu et al.
the design space when the component has a complex shape,
especially concave. To remedy this limitation, the finite
circle method (FCM, Fig. 22) was proposed in [144, 161]
by which each component is approximated with a set of
circles. The approximation can be more precise by using
refined circle discretization. Non-overlapping constraints
between components are thus converted into simple con-
straints between two sets of circles.
kO 1 O 2 k  R 1 þ R2 ð7Þ
where O1 is the center of one circle attached to the first
component which is calculated by the components posi-
tions and orientations, R1 is the corresponding radius. This
relation refers to the distance condition between the circle
centers. This method allows evaluating the sensitivity in-
formation in an analytical manner which favors gradient-
based mathematical programming algorithms.
However, as more circles are used to have more precise
geometry approximation for the components, the opti-
mization will be imposed with extremely large numbers of
Fig. 22 The FCM approximation of the components [161]
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design
non-overlapping constraints as shown in Fig. 23. Conse-
quently, some semi-heuristic rules were proposed to use
much less circles and maintain the approximation preci-
sions. More recently, Gao et al. [33] have successfully
introduced the KS function to aggregate the constraint
functions.
N connections between components and structures as shown
1 X g
KSðlÞ ¼ gmax þ ln exp½lðgm  gm max Þ
l m¼1
where Ng stands for the number of constraints. gm stands
for the mth constraint function. gmax stands for the max-
imum value of all the constraints. l is the aggregation
parameter which is calculated by using a Steffensen
iteration.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
lk fk
uðlk Þ ¼ ðKSk  gm max Þ 
e e
ð9Þ
½uðlk Þ  lk 2
lkþ1 ¼ lk 
u½uðlk Þ  2uðlk Þ þ lk
Meanwhile, a complex step derivative approximation
method to improve the precision of finite difference cal-
culation of design sensitivities is also used.
oKSðnj Þ Im½KSðnj þ iDhÞ
 ð10Þ
onj Dh
where Im[KS(nj ? iDh)] denotes the imaginary output after
a small imaginary perturbation iDh is brought into the KS
function. nj is one of the geometry design variables.
Alternatively, another strategy was introduced in [59,
104, 147] to impose non-overlapping constraint based on
the level-set description by means of a single explicit in-
tegral constraint over the design domain. This approach can
be understood as a constraint on the size of the overlapped
area, which is calculated by the integration of the level-set
functions, as shown in Fig. 24. The idea of was further
developed in [148] by introducing the new constraints on
Fig. 23 Effects of circle and
constraint numbers upon the
computing time for one single
iteration [161]
the minimum or maximum distances between the compo-
nents described by level-set functions to have the compo-
nents’ layout controlled effectively in a local way.
Recently, from the practical aspect of engineering ap-
plications, Gao et al. and Zhu et al. [33, 163] proposed to
use multi-point constraints (MPC) to define rivets or bolts
in Fig. 25. The displacement consistence between the
ð8Þ
components and structures was strictly maintained by sat-
isfying the MPC equations.
The MPC equations can be expressed as
 
uM1  N e1 M1  ue1 ¼ 0 ð11Þ
where uM1 and uM1 denote the displacement vectors of
node M1 and its projection point M1 , respectively. ue1 and
 
N e1 M1 are displacement vectors of the element e1 and
the shape function coefficient matrix at the point M1 , re-
spectively. When several connecting nodes are involved,
these MPC equations can be regarded as a linear combi-
nation of nodal displacements as
Hu ¼ 0 ð12Þ
H is the coefficient matrix determined by shape functions
of structural elements and coordinates of connecting nodes.
u denotes the global displacement vector of the integrated
structure system with components. Considering these dis-
placement constraints, the revised form of the overall po-
tential energy and the stationary conditions of the global
system under loads can be expressed as
1
Pðu; kÞ ¼ uT Ku  ðf þ GÞT u þ kT Hu
( 2
T
Ku þ H k ¼ f þ G ð13Þ
Hu ¼ 0
k is the Lagrange multiplier vector.
123
 J.-H. Zhu et al.

Fig. 24 Non-overlapping
constraint based on the level-set
description [59]

Fig. 25 MPC connections between components and supporting structures [163]

When the layout of components changes, one needs only

to rebuild the MPC connections at the new positions. In this
way, the merits of remeshing-free, analytical sensitivity
evaluation as well as the precise material description were
simultaneously maintained. This new formulation allows
modelling the components independently as superelements
or models imported from other CAD or FE platforms.
Typical optimized design is shown in Fig. 26.
The integrated optimization was applied to design a
launching vehicle structure which supports four satellites
as shown in Fig. 27. One satellite was located on the top of
the structure whose optimal orientation is to be found. The
rest three satellites were evenly located on a lower plate.
Their distances to the central axis are to be designed. The
supporting structure below the plate was assigned as the
design domain for topology optimization. The objective is Fig. 27 Multi-component layout design of a four-satellite supporting
to maximize the designated natural frequencies. A system

Fig. 26 Integrated design for

components and structures
using MPC [163]

123
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design
prescribed weight limit together with several other design
constraints on the structural symmetry, inner space for
other devices etc. have been considered in the design.
Figure 27 shows the topology optimization result and the
final engineering design.
The above works regarding multi-component layout
design have so far integrated geometrical design variables
into topology optimization for mechanical structural per-
formance improvement. We can foresee that in the forth-
coming works, more complicated loading conditions such
as thermal, impact and dynamical loads in aircraft or
aerospace structural systems need to be investigated. In
addition, more functional considerations for the compo-
nents shall be taken into account in the integrated design
instead of treating them simply as solid parts.
2.4 Multi-fasteners Design
Figure 28 shows a typical assembled aircraft structure
where bolts or rivets are usually used as multi-fastener
joints. These joints are of critical importance in damage
tolerance design because they are the weakest parts of a
structure when subjected to joint load with high intensity
[3, 25, 83]. Earlier studies focused on developing analytical
and numerical solutions for the assessment of stress and
failure of multi-fastener joints. Bolted and riveted joint
loads as well as stress distributions around pin holes etc. in
panels are usually modeled by single or multiple joints [19,
149].
In [86, 90], parameters such as fastener joint location,
ply angle and stacking sequence of laminates, fastener di-
ameter and edge distance were optimized to avoid fastener
failure. Bianchi et al. [10] maximized the load carrying
capability of the joint system to balance the number and
size of bolts. Ekh and Schön [29] minimized the bearing
stress by analyzing the effects of various parameters on the
load distribution, such as the mismatch of member plates,
length of the overlap region and fastener’s stiffness. Oi-
Fig. 28 Aircraft structure with multi-fastener joints
nonen et al. [87] proposed a ‘‘weakest link’’ method to
optimize the layout of fasteners for the bracket-to-beam
joints where the design objective was to ameliorate the
equivalent Von-Mises strain as well as the shear loads in
the joints.
Attempts using the concept of topology optimization for
the layout design of fixations and fasteners have been made
in [16, 56, 57, 92, 156]. Fasteners were approximated as
springs in these works. By introducing a pseudo-density to
the fastener’s stiffness factor, the optimal distribution of
the springs could be found by means of topology opti-
mization procedure. Each nodal degree of freedom (DOF)
to be constrained is approximated by a spring as shown in
Fig. 29. One pseudo-density variable is attributed to the
springs on the same connecting node. One typical design of
the fasteners layout for the car body application has been
given in [102] (see Fig. 30). The necessary and removed
welding spots of the structure are marked. The change of
the displacements is less than three percent under torsion
and bending load cases.
Chickermane and Gea [23] and Li et al. [71] have si-
multaneously optimized joint locations and the topologies
of connected structural components. Chickermane et al.
[24] has also proposed a topology optimization approach
for the location optimization of fasteners in conjunction
with fastener load constraints where the connected com-
ponents remain unchanged. Support position design to
avoid uneven deformation in LCD panels is given in [56].
The total elastic energy of the spring supports was chosen
to be minimized as the objective function to maintain a
balanced support. These above works have promoted the
distribution optimization design of multi-fastener joints.
Recently, it was found in our engineering practices re-
garding the aircraft spar-skin structures design that the
stiffness mismatch between the connected structural com-
ponents will lead to extremely large shear loads in the
joints. Meanwhile, the adjustment of joint distributions,
addition of more joints or enlargement of joint diameters
cannot lower the loads significantly.
According to detailed analyses, the aircraft design
manuals [83] and existing works [25, 29, 86, 90], the joint
loads highly depend upon not only the mechanical and
geometrical attributes of joints themselves, but also the
stiffness distribution of the connected structures. As a re-
sult, Zhu et al. [164] proposed imposing additional multi-
fastener joint loads constraints into standard topology op-
timization to deal with the above problem. Short beam
elements were used to model multi-fastener joints with the
negligence of bolt-hole clearance, clamp-up and friction
effects. For a short beam of two nodes A and B, the shear
loads are calculated as
123
 J.-H. Zhu et al.

Fig. 29 Multi-fasteners
modelled with springs and
optimized designs [16]

aircraft structures. Meanwhile, designers can also benefit

from the optimized load carrying path for detailed struc-
tures design. For example, a wing box design was also
presented in [165]. A flat wing as shown in Fig. 32 was
discretized into fine quadrangular shell elements. Numbers
of sections near the root of the wing were selected as the
topological design domain. Several typical load cases in-
cluding the bending and torsion of the wing were taken into
account. Standard topology optimization was implemented
Fig. 30 Fasteners designs for the car body [102] for comparison and the joint load constraints on the rivets
connecting the wing ribs and beams to the skin were then
applied in the forthcoming tests. As shown in Fig. 33,
12EI 12EI obvious differences can be observed from the two opti-
Fjx ¼  ujAx  3  ujBx
L3 ð1 þ UÞ L ð1 þ UÞ mized structural configurations. The maximum joint load
6EI 6EI has been reduced 20.1 % at a cost of 1.1 % increase of
þ 2  hjAy þ 2  hjBy elastic strain energy.
L ð1 þ U Þ L ð1 þ UÞ
12EI 12EI
Fjy ¼ 3  ujAy  3  ujBy ð14Þ
L ð1 þ UÞ L ð1 þ UÞ
3 Potential Applications
6EI 6EI
 2  hjAx  2  hjBx
L ð1 þ U Þ L ð1 þ UÞ
In view of the abovementioned technical progresses and
12EIc
U¼ applications, topology optimization has already been ap-
GSL2 plied as an effective tool in modern aircraft and aerospace
where E and G are the elastic and shear moduli. I, S and structure designs. Continuous developments to improve
L denote the moment of inertia, the cross section area and structural multidisciplinary performances are highly ex-
the beam length. U is the shear coefficient. c = 10/9 is the pected. In this section, we introduce several potential ap-
shear factor of the cross section. ujAx and hjAx are the plications in aircraft and aerospace structure design for
corresponding nodal displacement and rotation angle of topology optimization.
node A in x direction. Similar definitions are used for ujAy,
hjAy, ujBx, hjBx, ujBy and hjBy. 3.1 Dynamic Responses Design
The dominant shear loads over joints were then con-
strained by optimizing the stiffness distribution of con- Dynamic performances are of critical importance for air-
nected structures. As shown in Fig. 31, two different craft and aerospace structures operating under harsh vi-
topological designs of a simplified wing box without and bration loads from the engine and aerodynamic turbulence
with joint loads constraints are presented. The maximum etc. In existing studies, dynamic topology optimization
joint load on the two tapered I-beams decreased 27.3 % at designs are mainly focused on two types of problems, i.e.
a cost of 4.7 % increase of the elastic strain energy. the natural frequencies design, such as maximization of
The proposed method provides an effective strategy to fundamental, high-order frequencies or the gap between
limit the joint loads during the concept design of assembled two consecutive frequencies, and dynamic responses

123
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design
Fig. 31 Topology designs without (left) and with joint loads constraints (right) [164]
Fig. 32 A flat wing for topology optimization considering joint load
constraints [165]
design, including design problems under harmonic or ran-
dom excitation. The frequency design is commonly
founded in topology optimization literatures and have been
studied deeply in many mechanical and aerospace structure
system design. Here some discussions of dynamic response
problems are presented.
Considerable studies has been focused on topology op-
timization minimizing harmonic responses. However, the
huge computational cost and severe convergence difficul-
ties make the optimization uneconomical, especially for
large-scale engineering structures. Representative works
were mostly limited to the problems with a small number
of degrees of freedom. For example, Ramani [95] studied
the minimization of dynamic compliance under harmonic
force excitation using the homogenization technique.
Tcherniak [119] maximized the magnitude of steady state
vibrations of resonating structures at a given excitation
frequency. Shu et al. [106] minimized the frequency re-
sponse based on the level set method. Yoon [141] inves-
tigated the applicability of model reduction techniques in
topology optimization of harmonic problems, including
123

Fig. 33 Optimized wing box without (left) and with joint load constraints (right) [165]
mode displacement method (MDM), Ritz vector method
and quasi-static Ritz vector method.
Due to the complex relationship between the dynamic
responses and the design variables, the sensitivity analysis
becomes difficult and only a few works have been found so
far to deal with the topology optimization of structure
under random excitations. For example, Hao et al. [46]
optimized the structure of strap-down inertial navigation
support using ANSYS, and the strain energy was mini-
mized to gain an initial topology. Then the size of topo-
logical design was further optimized under the constraints
of dynamic responses, which avoid the difficulties of the
direct dynamic topology optimization. The design sensi-
tivities of the dynamic responses were derived within the
methodologies of evolutionary structure optimization
(ESO) techniques [98, 99]. Clear structural topologies can
be obtained by removing inefficient material from the de-
sign domain iteratively.
Recently, a study on the topology optimization with
dynamic response minimization has been given in [74]. It
was found that the convergence problems are mostly due to
the low computing accuracy of dynamic responses and in
turn the design sensitivities calculated by the generally
adopted MDM, where the modes are truncated. To cir-
cumvent these difficulties, the mode acceleration method
(MAM) and full method (FM) are suggested in topology
optimization. FM is of best accuracy, but it is computa-
tional efficient only under the excitation at one specific
frequency. While MAM balanced the efficiency and ac-
curacy with multiple excitation frequencies and even sta-
tionary random excitations are taken into account. The
optimized results of a 3D cantilever beam with dynamic
response minimization under harmonic force excitations
are presented and compared in Fig. 34. It is obviously
shown that MAM and FM perfectly overcome the con-
vergence difficulties. These progresses will be beneficial
for the future studied on the dynamic topology optimiza-
tion of aircraft and aerospace structures.
3.2 Shape Preserving Design
Most of existing structural topologies in practice are gen-
erated by minimizing global structural compliance, known
123
J.-H. Zhu et al.
as the best load carrying paths. Some local mechanical
performances such as strength and stability etc. are further
improved in the subsequent design phase by means of
shape and size optimizations. However, it is usually of
crucial importance to restrain warping deformations and
maintain coordinated displacements for some particular
structural domains during the procedures of design,
manufacturing, assembling and service [18, 84, 137]. With
this in consideration, the design purpose becomes structural
elastic deformation behavior rather than the mere global
compliance. For example, Fig. 35 shows the structural
layout of an aircraft front fuselage, which should be de-
signed properly with considerations not only on strength
and stiffness, but also on maintaining a coordinate defor-
mation of the windshield so as to avoid cracking. Similar
design criteria should be considered in the design of air-
craft supporting structures with large numbers of openings
and components.
In fact, topology optimization has already been applied
for the design of expecting structural deformation patterns
for a long time (see e.g., [9, 112, 113, 124]). These works
have employed topology optimization to perform the so
named compliant mechanism designs by imposing addi-
tional constraints on nodal displacements, where the
magnitudes of prescribed nodal displacements were con-
trolled to maintain an expecting deformation. In [60, 61],
the idea has been further improved for the mechanism
design using topology optimization. They proposed new
formulations of output motion and energy transmittance
efficiency, which were optimized as objective functions.
Distinct linkage layouts of the mechanisms were obtained
with desired displacement outputs.
However, obtaining a coordinate displacement with
least warping deformation is a rather complicated and
computationally expensive issue due to the large number of
involved constraints on the magnitudes of nodal displace-
ments. The key difficulty lies in the distinguishing rigid
body motion and warping deformation from the total de-
formation pattern, as shown in Fig. 36.
Recently, Zhu et al. [166] proposed a shape preserving
topology optimization method. Local strain energies on
specified shape preserving zones were assigned as addi-
tional design constraints. As the strain energy of the rigid
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design
Fig. 34 Optimized 3D cantilever beam with dynamic response minimization under harmonic force excitations using a MDM, b MAM and c FM
[74]
Fig. 35 Structural distribution and windshield of front fuselage
body motion is completely zero, the warping deformations
can be easily distinguished and suppressed from the total
deformation. Typical optimized designs are shown in
Fig. 37, where structural configuration of a front fuselage
was designed for global compliance minimization with
local shape preserving constraints on the windshield.
Compared with standard compliance minimization design,
the shape preserving design has reduced 20 % local strain
energy in the windshield at a cost of the 5 % of global
compliance.
Shape preserving design can also be potentially applied
in optimization designs of precise mechanical systems to
maintain the geometries of different functional surfaces,
Fig. 36 Total deformation, rigid body motion and warping
deformation
Fig. 37 Topology optimization of a front fuselage [166]. a Standard
topology optimization. b Shape preserving design
such as maintenance openings, assembling systems, optical
instruments etc. For example, the structure of aircraft
assembly jigs as shown in Fig. 38 has to be properly de-
signed so that the shape of the supported aircraft compo-
nents, especially the assembling interface shall be
preserved to ensure a precise assembling. Tiny elastic
warping deformations due to the external and inertial loads
need to be suppressed under shape preserving constraints.
3.3 Smart Structure Design
Smart structures have been recognized as one of the most
important structural styles for the next-generation aero-
nautical and aerospace vehicles. Existing attempts to use
topology optimization designing smart structures were
based on the aerodynamic performance, i.e. the morphing
aircraft structure design. For example, Reich et al. [96]
proposed a two-step topology optimization design for
morphing vehicle skins. The sub-structures of the aircraft
skin were firstly considered as some truss-like mechanisms.
Driven by functional actuators, the global structure will
deform to a specific goal shape. The material properties of
the skin were optimized to meet the global deformation
requirement. In the second step, multi-phase material mi-
crostructures were designed using topology optimization to
123

Fig. 38 A typical assembly jig for aircraft wing
satisfy pre-specified requirements for the skin design. The
effective properties of the microstructures were further
evaluated by loading tests.
Later, Inoyama et al. [54] presented another topology
optimization approach which determines the distribution of
structural properties and actuators so as to obtain a mor-
phing wing with multiple target shapes. By imposing the
constraints on the truss volume and actuators’ distribution,
the topological design results satisfied the design require-
ments effectively. Typical designs can be found in Fig. 39,
where three different configurations of the morphing wing
for different flight cases are presented. The topological
design includes the distribution of trusses, different ac-
tuators, structural components and linkages.
In the above mentioned works and some other similar
works on topology optimization of smart structures design,
driven actuators are the key to the structural morphing. In
the future, these actuators maybe replaced by smart struc-
tural components such as shape memory annoys (SMA).
The solid-to-solid phase transformations of SMA induced
by appropriate temperature and/or stress changes can re-
cover structural deformations. SMA has been widely used
in many practical areas for its particular properties (e.g.,
[80]). Early applications of SMA have been summarized by
Van Humbeeck [122]. Typical applications can also be
found for the design of new conceptual aircraft structures.
For example, Beauchamps et al. [4] used SMA to adapt
wing surfaces and rotor blades to different flight speed and
attack angle, which improves the flight efficiency and re-
duces the noise accordingly. Kudva [67] reviewed the
DARPA project on the smart wing design. As shown in
Fig. 40, the leading edge of the unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) was actuated by SMA allowing more flexibility in
flight performance. More recent applications of SMA in
aircrafts and aerospace vehicle designs, such as the variable
123
J.-H. Zhu et al.
geometry chevron on the exhaust nozzles as shown in
Fig. 41, have been summarized in [48, 49].
As presented in [122], SMA also possesses several
particular properties such as high damping capacity and
pseudoelasticity, besides the shape memory effects. These
properties bring more possibilities in future smart structure
systems design, especially by means of topology opti-
mization. For example, SMA actuators can be treated as
functional components whose mechanical properties may
be integrated into the framework supporting structures for
higher mechanical and mechanism performances by means
of the integrated layout design strategy [160]. The con-
figuration of SMA structures can also be optimized to
generate larger deformations when subjecting to thermal or
stress actuations [68]. Moreover, the damping properties of
SMA make it a potential alternative to current damping
materials and structures [82]. The structural configuration
of SMA could be designed by topology optimization to
improve the global dynamic performances.
3.4 Structural Features Design
Topology optimization techniques have been largely de-
veloped with the purpose of innovating traditional design
patterns in engineering applications. However, in order to
gain wider acceptance from the engineering community,
topology optimization has to be further developed to pro-
vide the capability of including more detailed engineering
structural features in an integrated manner.
Attempts to include engineering features in topology
optimization can be found in above mentioned designs of
stiffeners [73, 153, 162], structural components [33, 59,
154], and fasteners [24, 163]. Other feature-related designs
mainly focused on controlling the minimum length scale in
topology optimization by density-based approach [40, 41]
and level-set methods [21, 43, 79, 80]. Nevertheless, fea-
tures obtained by these methods are far from real engi-
neering features such as stiffeners, lugs, holes and
protrusions etc. as shown in Fig. 42.
In practice, detailed engineering features are added into
the topologically optimized structure during post-process-
ing procedures. Subsequent size and shape optimizations
can then be carried out for these newly included engi-
neering features. Obviously, such an intuitive decomposi-
tion discards the intrinsic coupling between the local
engineering features and the global structural topology and
hampers the overall performances. These engineering fea-
tures are expected to be designed simultaneously with the
material layout distribution, which corresponds to an in-
tegrated design for engineering features’ layout and struc-
tural topology. This is a promising research direction for
topology optimization and deserves further development.
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design
Fig. 39 Topology optimization of morphing wing [54]
Fig. 40 Structural layout of
UAV using SMA actuators [67]
3.5 Topology Optimization and Additive
Manufacturing
The manufacturability of topologically optimized structures
has been doubted for a long time. Compromises have been
done by introducing additional manufacturing constraints,
such as sizing constraints, casting directions, symmetry and
repeated patterns etc. to topology optimization. Recently,
the rapidly growing additive manufacturing techniques, also
known as 3D printing allows direct fabrication from CAD
models. These newly rising additive manufacturing tech-
niques are perfectly complementary to topology optimiza-
tion. On the one hand, additive manufacturing techniques,
the most powerful manufacturing solutions for the moment,
provide the possibility of manufacturing topologically op-
timized structures. On the other hand, the demanding of
123
 J.-H. Zhu et al.

Fig. 41 Boeing variable geometry chevron using SMA on the exhaust nozzles [48, 49]

fabricating complicated high-performance topological op-
timized structures again promotes the fast development of
additive manufacturing techniques.
The combination of topology optimization and additive
manufacturing gained preliminary success immediately. As
show in Fig. 43, researchers from EADS attempted to
optimize the aircraft structures to have a light-weight and
high stiffness design. The final design was revealed by
means of metallic additive manufacturing. The global
procedure saved the weight up to a reduction of 64 %, with
all the mechanical performances preserved.
The metallic additive manufacturing is powered in
forming practical structural parts, but it suffers from the
high cost of the equipment and processing procedure. Zhu
et al. [165] used resinous additive manufacturing, i.e. the
high efficient stereolithography rapid prototyping to vali-
date the topology optimization results, as shown in Figs. 44
and 45. It was found the rapid prototypes of resin material
maintain approximately an isotropic linear elastic behavior
within an early deformation range. Moreover, the fabrica-
tion of resin model is much easier and more economic as
compared to the metallic additive manufacturing.

Fig. 42 Aircraft structures with many engineering features Fig. 44 Loading test with stereolithography resin model [165]

Fig. 43 Topology optimization and additive manufacturing of Airbus A320 nacelle hinge bracket [120]

123
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design
Fig. 45 ‘‘Backbone Cup’’, students’ structure design competition in Northwestern Polytechnical University. The best result used 35 g resin
material taking a force of 2335 N
Even though the additive manufacturing can fabricate
structures with very complicated geometries, some typical
manufacturing constraints shall be taken into account
during the optimization design to avoid forming failures.
Some very recent works have recognize these difficulties.
For example, Gaynor and Guest [34] considered the max-
imum overhang constraint of additive manufacturing,
Fig. 46 Comparison of topological design before and after the
application of overhang angle constraint: green indicates allowable
overhang while yellow indicates violations [34]. a Standard topology
optimization. b Topology optimization with overhang angle con-
straint. (Color figure online)
which is accomplished through a projection scheme. The
constraint on overhang angles is imposed through a
Heaviside projection, without adding an explicit constraint
to the optimization problem. Typical optimized design is
shown in Fig. 46.
It is highly believed that in the coming future, most
aerospace structures will be designed and fabricated as
unconventional integral structural systems to save the
structural weight and simplify the assembling procedure.
With this new concept, the combination of topology opti-
mization and additive manufacturing will for sure play
significant roles in developing high performance and
lightweight structure systems.
4 Conclusions
This paper has reviewed recent advances of topology op-
timization techniques, in particular density-based ap-
proaches applied in the design of aircraft and aerospace
structures. From the above presentations, we may conclude
that topology optimization has been recognized as one of
the most powerful and effective design tools and largely
employed in aeronautic and astronautic engineering with
various successful applications. Despite its wide engi-
neering applications, we have shown also that there are still
123

many opportunities and challenges for the development of
topology optimization with regard to handling more de-
manding applications. This review expects to provide a
valuable reference for researchers in structural optimiza-
tion design and engineers in aircraft and aerospace indus-
tries. We believe that the complexities and difficulties
related to practical applications will continue to challenge
researchers to come up with innovative algorithms and
methods.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Prof. Moumni
Zied from Ecole nationale supérieure de techniques avancées in
France, Dr. Zheng Weidong, Dr. Zeng Dujuan and Dr. Wang Lipeng
from China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, Dr. Yang Jun
and Dr. Chang Nan from Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute, Prof.
Chen Yuze and Dr. Mo Jun from China Academy of Engineering
Physics for valuable discussions. This work is supported by National
Natural Science Foundation of China (11432011, 11172236), the 111
Project (B07050), Science and Technology Research and develop-
ment Projects in Shaanxi Province (2014KJXX-37), the Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities (3102014JC02020505).
References
1. Allaire G, Jouve F, Maillot H (2004) Topology optimization for
minimum stress design with the homogenization method. Struct
Multidiscip Optim 28:87–98
2. Allaire G, Jouve F, Toader AM (2004) Structural optimization
using sensitivity analysis and a level-set method. J Comput Phys
194:363–393
3. Barrett RT (1992) Fastener design manual. NASA reference
publication 1228
4. Beauchamps CH, Nadolink RH, Dickinson SC, Dean LM (1992)
Proceedings I European conference on smart structures and
materials, Glasgow, SPIE 1777:189
5. Beckers M (1999) Topology optimization using a dual method
with discrete variables. Struct Optim 17:14–24
6. Bendsøe MP (1989) Optimal shape design as a material distri-
bution problem. Struct Optim 10:193–202
7. Bendsøe MP, Kikuchi N (1988) Generating optimal topologies
in structural design using homogenization. Comput Methods
Appl Mech Eng 71:197–224
8. Bendsøe MP, Sigmund O (1999) Material interpolation schemes
in topology optimization. Arch Appl Mech 69:635–654
9. Bendsøe MP, Sigmund O (2003) Topology optimization: theory,
methods and applications. Springer, Berlin
10. Bianchi G, Aglietti GS, Richardson G (2007) Optimization of
bolted joints connecting honeycomb panels. In: 1st CEAS, 10th
European conference on spacecraft structures, materials and
mechanical testing, Berlin, Germany, 10–13 Sept 2007
11. Bojczuk D, Szteleblak W (2008) Optimization of layout and
shape of stiffeners in 2D structures. Comput Struct
86:1436–1446
12. Bourdin B, Chambolle A (2003) Design-dependent loads in
topology optimization. ESAIM: Control Optim Calc Var
9:19–48
13. Bruns TE, Tortorelli DA (2001) Topology optimization of non-
linear elastic structures and compliant mechanisms. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 190:3443–3459
14. Bruyneel M, Duysinx P (2005) Note on topology optimization
of continuum structures including self-weight. Struct Multidis-
cip Optim 29:245–256
123
J.-H. Zhu et al.
15. Bruyneel M, Duysinx P, Fleury C (2002) A family of MMA
approximations for structural optimization. Struct Multidiscip
Optim 24:263–276
16. Buhl T (2002) Simultaneous topology optimization of structure
and supports. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23:336–346
17. Bushnell D, Rankin C (2005) Optimum design of stiffened
panels with substiffeners. In: 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/
ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference,
pp 1–54
18. Cai WW, Hsieh CC, Long YF, Marin SP, Oh KP (2006) Digital
panel assembly methodologies and applications for compliant
sheet components. J Manuf Sci Eng-Trans ASME 128:270–279
19. Camanho PP, Matthews FL (1997) Stress analysis and strength
prediction of mechanically fastened joints in FRP: a review.
Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 28:529–547
20. Chen J, Shapiro V, Suresh K, Tsukanov I (2007) Shape opti-
mization with topological changes and parametric control. Int J
Numer Methods Eng 71(6):313–346
21. Chen S, Wang MY, Liu AQ (2008) Shape feature control in
structural topology optimization. Comput Aided Des
40:951–962
22. Cheng KT, Olhoff N (1981) An investigation concerning opti-
mal design of solid elastic plates. Int J Solids Struct 17:305–323
23. Chickermane H, Gea HC (1997) Design of multi-component
structural systems for optimal layout topology and joint loca-
tions. Eng Comput 13:235–243
24. Chickermane H, Gea HC, Yang RJ, Chuang CH (1999) Optimal
fastener pattern design considering bearing loads. Struct Optim
17:140–146
25. Chintapalli S, Elsayed MS, Sedaghati R, Abdo M (2010) The
development of a preliminary structural design optimization
method of an aircraft wing-box skin-stringer panels. Aerosp Sci
Technol 14:188–198
26. Deaton JD, Grandhi RV (2014) A survey of structural and
multidisciplinary continuum topology optimization: post 2000.
Struct Multidiscip Optim 49:1–38
27. Ding X, Yamazaki K (2004) Stiffener layout design for plate
structures by growing and branching tree model (application to
vibration-proof design). Struct Multidiscip Optim 26:99–110
28. Donders S, Takahashi Y, Hadjit R et al (2009) A reduced beam
and joint concept modeling approach to optimize global vehicle
body dynamics. Finite Elem Anal Des 45(6):439–455
29. Ekh J, Schön J (2008) Finite element modelling and optimiza-
tion of load transfer in multi-fastener joints using structural
elements. Compos Struct 82(2):245–256
30. Eschenauer HA, Kobelev HA, Schumacher A (1994) Bubble
method for topology and shape optimization of structures. Struct
Optim 8:42–51
31. Fleury C (1989) First and second order convex approximation
strategies in structural optimization. Struct Optim 1:3–10
32. Fleury C, Braibant V (1986) Structural optimization: a new dual
method using mixed variables. Int J Numer Methods Eng
23:409–428
33. Gao HH, Zhu JH, Zhang WH, Zhou Y (2015) An improved
adaptive constraint aggregation for integrated layout and
topology optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
289:387–408
34. Gaynor AT, Guest JK (2014) Topology optimization for addi-
tive manufacturing: considering maximum overhang constraint.
In: 15th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and opti-
mization conference, 16–20 June 2014, Atlanta, GA
35. Gea HC, Luo J (1999) Automated optimal stiffener pattern de-
sign. J Struct Mech 27:275–292
36. Gersborg AR, Andreasen CS (2011) An explicit parameteriza-
tion for casting constraints in gradient driven topology opti-
mization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 44:875–881
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design
37. Granville D, Reginster P, Lombard Y (2001) SAMCEF
DESIGN, a new object oriented environment for the design of
mechanical systems. European Space Agency, (Special Publi-
cation) ESA SP 468:309–315
38. Grihon S, Krog L, Bassir D (2009) Numerical optimization
applied to structure sizing at AIRBUS: a multi-step process. Int J
Simul Multi Des Optim 3:432–442
39. Guedes JM, Kikuchi N (1990) Preprocessing and postprocessing
for materials based on the homogenization method with adaptive
finite element methods. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
83:143–198
40. Guest JK (2009) Imposing maximum length scale in topology
optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 37(5):463–473
41. Guest JK, Prévost JH, Belytschko T (2004) Achieving minimum
length scale in topology optimization using nodal design vari-
ables and projection functions. Int J Numer Methods Eng
61(2):238–254
42. Guo X, Cheng GD (2010) Recent development in structural
design and optimization. Acta Mech Sin 26:807–823
43. Guo X, Zhang W, Zhong W (2014) Explicit feature control in
structural topology optimization via level set method. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 272:354–378
44. Haber RB, Jog CS, Bendsøe MP (1996) A new approach to
variable-topology shape design using a constraint on perimeter.
Struct Multidiscip Optim 11:1–12
45. Hansen LU, Horst P (2008) Multilevel optimization in aircraft
structural design evaluation. Comput Struct 86:104–118
46. Hao XY, Li M, Jia HG, Xuan M (2010) Optimal design of strap-
down inertial navigation support under random loads. In: 2010
IEEE international conference on information and automation
(ICIA). IEEE, pp 1251–1255
47. Hao P, Wang B, Li G, Meng Z, Tian K, Tang X (2014) Hybrid
optimization of hierarchical stiffened shells based on smeared
stiffener method and finite element method. Thin-Walled Struct
82:46–54
48. Hartl DJ, Lagoudas DC (2007) Aerospace applications of shape
memory alloys. J Aerosp Eng 221:535–552
49. Hartl DJ, Lagoudas DC, Calkins FT, Mabe JH (2010) Use of a
Ni60Ti shape memory alloy for active jet engine chevron ap-
plication: I. Thermomechanical characterization. Smart Mater
Struct 19:015020
50. Harzheim L, Graf G (2006) A review of optimization of cast
parts using topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim
31:388–399
51. Huang X, Xie YM (2010) Topology optimization of continuum
structures: methods and applicationsn. Wiley, Chichester
52. Huang X, Xie YM (2010) A further review of ESO type
methods for topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim
41:671–683
53. Huang X, Zhou SW, Xie YM, Li Q (2013) Topology opti-
mization of microstructures of cellular materials and composites
for macrostructures. Comput Mater Sci 67:397–407
54. Inoyama D, Sanders BP, Joo JJ (2008) Topology optimization
approach for the determination of the multiple-configuration
morphing wing structure. J Aircr 45:1853–1862
55. Jang G-W, Jeong JH, Kim YY, Sheen D, Park C, Kim M-N
(2003) Checkerboard-free topology optimization using non-
conforming finite elements. Int J Numer Methods Eng
57:1717–1735
56. Jang G-W, Shim HS, Kim YY (2009) Optimization of support
locations of beam and plate structures under self-weight by
using a sprung structure model. J Mech Des 131:021005
57. Jiang T, Chirehdast M (1997) A systems approach to structural
topology optimization: designing optimal connections. J Mech
Des 119:40
58. Jog CS, Haber RB (1996) Stability of finite element models for
distributed-parameter optimization and topology design. Com-
put Methods Appl Mech Eng 130:203–226
59. Kang Z, Wang YQ (2013) Integrated topology optimization with
embedded movable holes based on combined description by
material density and level sets. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng 255:1–13
60. Kim SI, Kim YY (2014) Topology optimization of planar
linkage mechanisms. Int J Numer Methods Eng 98(4):265–286
61. Kim YY, Jang G-W, Park JH, Hyun JS, Nam, SJ (2007) Au-
tomatic synthesis of a planar linkage mechanism with revolute
joints by using spring-connected rigid block models. J Mech Des
Trans ASME 129:930–940
62. Kohn R, Strang G (1986) Optimal design and relaxation of
variational problems (part I). Commun Pure Appl Math
39(1):113–137
63. Kohn R, Strang G (1986) Optimal design and relaxation of
variational problems (part II). Commun Pure Appl Math
39(2):139–182
64. Kohn R, Strang G (1986) Optimal design and relaxation of
variational problems (part III). Commun Pure Appl Math
39(3):353–377
65. Krog L, Tucker A, Rollema G (2002) Application of topology,
sizing and shape optimization methods to optimal design of
aircraft components. In: Proceedings of 3rd Altair UK Hyper-
Works users conference
66. Krog L, Tucker A, Kemp M, Boyd R (2004) Topology opti-
mization of aircraft wing box ribs. In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO
multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, pp 1–11
67. Kudva J (2004) Overview of the DARPA smart wing project.
J Intell Mater Syst Struct 15:261–267
68. Langelaar M, Yoon GH, Kim YY, van Keulen F (2011) Topology
optimization of planar shape memory alloy thermal actuators
using element connectivity parameterization. Int J Numer
Methods Eng 88:817–840
69. Leiva JP, Watson BC, Kosaka I (2004) An analytical bi-direc-
tional growth parameterization to obtain optimal castable
topology designs. In: Proceedings of 10th AIAA/ISSMO sym-
posium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization. Albany,
NY
70. Li Q, Steven GP, Xie YM (2001) A simple checkerboard sup-
pression algorithm for evolutionary structural optimization.
Struct Multidiscip Optim 22(3):230–239
71. Li Q, Steven GP, Xie YM (2001) Evolutionary structural opti-
mization for connection topology design of multi-component
systems. Eng Comput 18(3/4):460–479
72. Li Y, Xin X, Kikuchi N, Saitou K (2001) Optimal shape and
location of piezoelectric materials for topology optimization of
flextensional actuators. In: Proceedings of 2001 genetic and
evolutionary computations conference, pp 1085–1089
73. Liu ST, Li QH, Chen WJ, Tong LY (2014) H-DGTP a heav-
iside-function based directional growth topology parameteriza-
tion for design optimization of Stiffener’s layout and heights of
thin-walled structures. In: 11th World Congress on computa-
tional mechanics (WCCM XI), Barcelona, Spain
74. Liu H, Zhang WH, Gao T (2015) A comparative study of dy-
namic analysis methods for structural topology optimization
under harmonic force excitations. Struct Multidiscip Optim.
doi:10.1007/s00158-014-1218-4
75. Lu J, Chen Y (2012) Manufacturable mechanical part design
with constrained topology optimization. Proc Inst Mech Eng
Part B J Eng Manuf 226:1727–1735
76. Luo J, Gea H (1998) A systematic topology optimization ap-
proach for optimal stiffener design. Struct Optim 16:280–288
123

77. Luo J, Gea HC (2003) Optimal stiffener design for interior
sound reduction using a topology optimization based approach.
J Vib Acoust 125:267–273
78. Martinez MP, Messac A, Rais-Rohani M (2001) Manufactura-
bility-based optimization of aircraft structures using physical
programming. AIAA J 39(3):517–525
79. Mei Y, Wang X, Cheng G (2008) A feature-based topological
optimization for structure design. Adv Eng Softw 39:71–87
80. Michailidis G (2014) Manufacturing constraints and multi-phase
shape and topology optimization via a level-set method. PhD
thesis, Department of Applied Mathematics, Ecole
Polytechnique
81. Moumni Z, Zaki W, Nguyen QS (2008) Theoretical and nu-
merical modeling of solid–solid phase change: application to the
description of the thermomechanical behavior of shape memory
alloys. Int J Plast 24:614–645
82. Moussa MO, Moumni Z, Doaré O, Touzé C, Zaki W (2012)
Non-linear dynamic thermomechanical behaviour of shape
memory alloys. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 23:1593–1611
83. Niu MCY (1988) Airframe structural design: practical design
information and data on aircraft structures. Technical Book Co,
Los Angeles, CA
84. Niu C (1999) Airframe structural design: practical design in-
formation and data on aircraft structures. Conmilit Press
Limited, Hong Kong
85. Oberndorfer JM, Achtziger W, Hörnlein HR (1996) Two ap-
proaches for truss topology optimization: a comparison for
practical use. Struct Optim 11:137–144
86. Oh JH, Kim YG, Lee DG (1997) Optimum bolted joints for
hybrid composite materials. Compos Struct 38(1):329–341
87. Oinonen A, Tanskanen P, Björk T, Marquis G (2010) Pattern
optimization of eccentrically loaded multi-fastener joints. Struct
Multidiscip Optim 40(1–6):597–609
88. Patnaik SN, Hopkins DA (2000) General-purpose optimization
method for multidisciplinary design applications. Adv Eng
Softw 31(1):57–63
89. Patnaik SN, Gendy AS, Hopkins DA (1994) Design optimiza-
tion of large structural systems with substructuring in a parallel
computational environment. Comput Syst Eng 5(4):425–440
90. Poon C, Xiong Y (1995) Design of bolted joints for composite
structures. Woodhead Publishing Limited, UK, pp 629–636
91. Qian Z, Ananthasuresh GK (2004) Optimal embedding of rigid
objects in the topology design of structures. Mech Based Des
Struct Mach 32:165–193
92. Qiao HT, Liu ST (2009) Concurrent optimum design of com-
ponents layout and connection in a structure. Chin J Theor Appl
Mech 41(2):222–228
93. Querin OM, Young V (2000) Computational efficiency and
validation of bi-directional evolutionary structure optimization.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 189:559–573
94. Rais-Rohani M, Lokits J (2007) Reinforcement layout and siz-
ing optimization of composite submarine sail structures. Struct
Multidiscip Optim 34:75–90
95. Ramani A (2010) A pseudo-sensitivity based discrete-variable
approach to structural topology optimization with multiple ma-
terials. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41:913–934
96. Reich GW, Sanders B, Joo JJ (2007) Development of skins for
morphing aircraft applications via topology optimization. J Intell
Mater Syst Struct 20:1–13
97. Remouchamps A, Bruyneel M, Fleury C, Grihon S (2011) Ap-
plication of a bi-level scheme including topology optimization
to the design of an aircraft pylon. Struct Multidiscip Optim
44:739–750
98. Rong JH, Xie YM, Yang XY, Liang QQ (2000) Topology op-
timization of structures under dynamic response constraints.
J Sound Vib 234:177–189
123
J.-H. Zhu et al.
99. Rong JH, Tang ZL, Xie YM, Li FY (2013) Topological opti-
mization design of structures under random excitations using
SQP method. Eng Struct 56:2098–2106
100. Rozvany GIN (2001) Aims, scope, methods, history and unified
terminology of computer-aided topology optimization in struc-
tural mechanics. Struct Multidiscip Optim 21:90–108
101. Rozvany GIN (2009) A critical review of established methods of
structural topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim
37:217–237
102. Santiago OF, Reutlingen TSE (2002) Automatic welding spot
minimization with BOSS Quattro. BOSS Quattro Documenta-
tion, Siemens-Samtech
103. Sethian JA, Wiegmann A (2000) Structural boundary design via
level set and immersed interface methods. J Comput Phys
163:489–528
104. Shan P (2008) Optimal embedding objects in the topology de-
sign of structure. Master thesis of Dalian University of
Technology
105. Shapiro V (1988) Theory of R-functions and applications: a
primer. Technical Report, Cornell University
106. Shu L, Wang MY, Fang ZD, Ma ZD, Wei P (2011) Level set
based structural topology optimization for minimizing frequency
response. J Sound Vib 330:5820–5834
107. Sigmund O (2001) A 99 line topology optimization code written
in MATLAB. Structure and Multidisciplinary Optimization.
21:120–127
108. Sigmund O (2007) Morphology-based black and white filters for
topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 33:401–424
109. Sigmund O, Maute K (2013) Topology optimization approaches.
Struct Multidiscip Optim 48:1031–1055
110. Sigmund O, Petersson J (1998) Numerical instabilities in
topology optimization: a survey on procedures dealing with
checkerboards, mesh-dependencies and local minima. Struct
Multidiscip Optim. 16:68–75
111. Sokołowski J, Zochowski A (1999) On the topological derivative
in shape optimization. SIAM J Control Optim 37:1251–1272
112. Stanford B, Beran P (2012) Optimal compliant flapping
mechanism topologies with multiple load cases. J Mech Des
134(5):051007
113. Stanford B, Beran P, Kobayashi M (2013) Simultaneous topol-
ogy optimization of membrane wings and their compliant flap-
ping mechanisms. AIAA J 51:1431–1441
114. Suzuki K, Kikuchi N (1991) A homogenization method for
shape and topology optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng 93:291–318
115. Svanberg K (1987) The method of moving asymptotes—a new
method for structural optimization. Int J Numer Methods Eng
24:359–373
116. Svanberg K (1995) A globally convergent version of MMA
without linesearch. In: 1st World Congress of structural and
multidisciplinary optimization. Pergamon, New York
117. Svanberg K (2007) On a globally convergent version of MMA.
In: 7th World Congress on structural and multidisciplinary op-
timization. COEX Seoul, Korea
118. Tanskanen P (2002) The evolutionary structural optimization
method: theoretical aspects. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
191:5485–5498
119. Tcherniak D (2002) Topology optimization of resonating struc-
tures using SIMP method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 54:1605–1622
120. Tomlin M, Meyer J (2011) Topology optimization of an additive
layer manufactured (ALM) aerospace part. In: The 7th Altair
CAE technology conference
121. Van Dijk N, Maute K, Langelaar M, van Keulen F (2013) Level-
set methods for structural topology optimization: a review.
Struct Multidiscip Optim 48:437–472
Topology Optimization in Aircraft and Aerospace Structures Design
122. Van Humbeeck J (1999) Non-medical applications of shape
memory alloys. Mater Sci Eng A-Struct 273:134–148
123. Vitali R, Park O, Haftka RT, Sankar BV, Rose CA (2002)
Structural optimization of a hat-stiffened panel using response
surfaces. J Aircr 39(1):158–166
124. Wang MY, Chen SK, Wang XM, Mel YL (2005) Design of
multimaterial compliant mechanisms using level-set methods.
J Mech Des 127:941–956
125. Wang B, Hao P, Li G, Tian K, Du K, Wang X, Zhang X, Tang X
(2014) Two-stage size-layout optimization of axially compressed
stiffened panels. Struct Multidiscip Optim 50(2):313–327
126. Wang B, Hao P, Li G, Zhang JX, Du KF, Tian K, Wang XJ,
Tang XH (2014) Optimum design of hierarchical stiffened shells
for low imperfection sensitivity. Acta Mech Sin 30:391–402
127. Watson A, Featherston CA, Kennedy D (2007) Optimization of
postbuckled stiffened panels with multiple stiffener sizes. In:
Proceedings of the forty eighth AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference.
Honolulu, Hawaii, pp 23–26
128. Xia L, Breitkopf P (2014) Concurrent topology optimization
design of material and structure within FE2 nonlinear multiscale
analysis framework. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
278:524–542
129. Xia L, Breitkopf P (2014) A reduced multiscale model for
nonlinear structural topology. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
280:117–134
130. Xia L, Breitkopf P (2015) Multiscale structural topology opti-
mization with an approximate constitutive model for local ma-
terial microstructure. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
286:147–167
131. Xia Q, Shi T, Wang MY, Liu S (2010) A level set based method
for the optimization of cast part. Struct Multidiscip Optim
41:735–747
132. Xia L, Zhu JH, Zhang WH (2012) A superelement formulation
for the efficient layout design of complex multi-component
system. Struct Multidiscip Optim 45:643–655
133. Xia L, Zhu JH, Zhang WH (2012) Sensitivity analysis with the
modified Heaviside function for the optimal layout design of
multi-component systems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
241–244:142–154
134. Xia L, Zhu JH, Zhang WH, Breitkopf P (2013) An implicit
model for the integrated optimization of component layout and
structure topology. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
257:87–102
135. Xie YM, Steven GP (1993) A simple evolutionary procedure for
structural optimization. Comput Struct 49:885–896
136. Xie YM, Steven GP (1997) Evolutionary structural optimiza-
tion. Springer, Berlin
137. Xie K, Wells L, Camelio JA, Youn BD (2007) Variation
propagation analysis on compliant assemblies considering con-
tact interaction. ASME 129:934–942
138. Yan X, Huang X, Zha Y, Xie YM (2014) Concurrent topology
optimization of structures and their composite microstructures.
Comput Struct 133:103–110
139. Yang XY, Xie YM (2003) Perimeter control in the bi-direction
evolutionary optimization method. Struct Multidiscip Optim
24:430–440
140. Yin L, Ananthasuresh GK (2001) Topology optimization of
compliant mechanisms with multiple materials using a peak
function material interpolation scheme. Struct Multidiscip Op-
tim 23:49–62
141. Yoon GH (2010) Structural topology optimization for frequency
response problem using model reduction schemes. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 199:1744–1763
142. Zhang WH, Duysinx P (2003) Dual approach using a variant
perimeter constraint and efficient sub-iteration scheme for
topology optimization. Comput Struct 81:2173–2181
143. Zhang WH, Sun SP (2006) Scale-related topology optimization
of cellular materials and structures. Int J Numer Methods Eng
68:993–1011
144. Zhang WH, Zhu JH (2006) A new finite-circle family method
for optimal multi-component packing design. WCCM VII, Los
Angeles
145. Zhang WH, Xia L, Zhu JH, Zhang Q (2011) Some recent ad-
vances in the integrated layout design of multicomponent sys-
tems. ASME J Mech Des 133:104503-1–10450315
146. Zhang J, Zhang WH, Zhu JH, Xia L (2012) Integrated layout
design of multi-component systems using XFEM and analytical
sensitivity analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
245:75–89
147. Zhang WS, Sun G, Guo X, Shan P (2013) A level set-based
approach for simultaneous optimization of the structural topol-
ogy and the layout of embedding structural components. Eng
Mech 30(7):22–27
148. Zhang WS, Zhang WL, Guo X (2015) Explicit layout control in
optimal design of structural systems with multiple embedding
components. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. doi:10.1016/j.
cma.2015.03.007
149. Zhao MY, Yang L, Wan XP (1996) Load distribution in com-
posite multifastener joints. Comput Struct 60(2):337–342
150. Zhou M (2001) Rozvany GIN (2001) On the validity of ESO
type methods in topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Op-
tim 21:80–83
151. Zhou M (2004) Topology optimization for shell structures with
linear buckling responses. WCCM VI, Beijing, China
152. Zhou M, Rozvany GIN (1991) The COC algorithm, part II:
topological, geometry and generalized shape optimization.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 89:197–224
153. Zhou M, Fleury R, Shyy Y-K, Thomas H, Brennan J (2002)
Progress in topology optimization with manufacturing con-
straints. In: Proceedings of the 9th AIAA MDO conference
AIAA-2002-4901
154. Zhu JH (2010) Advanced structural topology optimization and
application. In: ASMDO conference 2010, Paris, France, 2010
June 21–23
155. Zhu JH, Zhang WH (2006a) Coupled design of components
layout and supporting structures using shape and topology op-
timization. In: Proceedings of CJK-OSM IV 2006, Kunming
China
156. Zhu JH, Zhang WH (2006) Maximization of structural natural
frequency with optimal support layout. Struct Multidiscip Optim
31(6):462–469
157. Zhu JH, Zhang WH (2010) Integrated layout design of sup-
ports and structures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
199:557–569
158. Zhu JH, Zhang WH, Qiu KP (2007) Bi-directional evolutionary
topology optimization using element replaceable method.
Comput Mech 40:97–109
159. Zhu JH, Zhang WH, Beckers P, Chen YZ, Guo ZZ (2008) Si-
multaneous design of components layout and supporting struc-
tures using coupled shape and topology optimization technique.
Struct Multidiscip Optim 36:29–41
160. Zhu JH, Zhang WH, Beckers P (2009) Integrated layout design
of multi-component system. Int J Numer Methods Eng
78:631–651
161. Zhu JH, Zhang WH, Xia L, Zhang Q, Bassir DH (2012) Optimal
packing configuration design with finite-circle method. J Intell
Robot Syst 67:185–199
123

162. Zhu JH, Gu XJ, Zhang WH, Beckers P (2013) Structural design
of aircraft skin stretch-forming die using topology optimization.
J Comput Appl Math 246:278–288
163. Zhu JH, Gao HH, Zhang WH, Zhou Y (2014) A multi-point
constraints based integrated layout and topology optimization
design of multi-component systems. Struct Multidiscip Optim
51:397–407
164. Zhu JH, Hou J, Zhang WH, Li Y (2014) Structural topology
optimization with constraints on multi-fastener joint loads.
Struct Multidiscip Optim 50(4):561–571
123
View publication stats
J.-H. Zhu et al.
165. Zhu JH, Hou J, He F, Zhang WH (2014b) Topology optimiza-
tion of assembled aircraft structure with joint load constraints.
In: Proceedings of eighth China–Japan–Korea joint symposium
on optimization of structural and mechanical systems,
Gyeongju, Korea
166. Zhu JH, Li Y, Zhang WH (2014d) Topology optimization with
shape preserving design. In: Proceedings of 5th international
conference on computational methods, Cambridge, UK