COMPUTER METHODS IN APPLIED MECHANICS AND ENGINEERING 44 (1984) 247-267

NORTH-HOLLAND

SHAPE OPTIMAL DESIGN USING B-SPLINES

V. BRAIBANT and C. FLEURY

Aerospace Laboratory of the Universiq of Likge, B-4000 LGge, Belgium

Received 28 January 1983

Revised manuscript received 21 December 1983

Shape optimal design of an elastic structure is formulated using a design element technique. It is
shown that Bezier and B-spline curves, typical of the CAD philosophy, are well suited to the
definition of design elements. Complex geometries can be described in a very compact way by a small.
set of design variables and a few design elements. Because of the B-splines flexibility, it is no longer
necessary to piece design elements together in order to agree with the shape complexity, nor to restrict
the shape variations. Moreover, the additional optimization constraints that are most often needed to
avoid unrealistic designs when the shape variables are the nodal coordinates of a finite element mesh,
are automatically taken into account in the new formulation. An analytical derivation of the sensitivity
analysis will be established, giving rise to numerical efficiency. It will be seen that the resulting
optimization problem does not involve highly nonlinear functions with respect to the shape variables,
so that simple mathematical programming algorithms can be applied to solve it. Some numerical
examples are offered to demonstrate the power and generality of the new approach presented in this
paper.

1. Introduction

During the last two decades, important research efforts have been devoted to the develop-
ment of efficient optimization techniques which could amplify the power brought by modern
numerical analysis tools such as the finite element method. In these works, structural
optimization has generally been reduced to the weight minimization of a finite element model
made up of bars, membranes, beams, shells, plates, . . . , by varying only the transverse size
(cross-sectional area or thickness). However, the main degrees of freedom for the designer
correspond very often to the shape of the structure itself. This situation obviously occurs in
three-dimensional design problems. It is also true for a broad class of two-dimensional
problems for which no additional mass reduction can be attained without including in the
design process the capability of varying the shape of the boundaries and the shape or location
of cutouts. Of course, shape optimal design introduces new difficulties, such as how to define
general shapes which meet a large number of geometrical requirements, how to impose
realistic constraints on the manufacturing feasibility, etc. In the first few papers concerned
with shape optimal design, the design variables have often been the nodal coordinates of a
finite element model (see e.g., [l],). Such a choice exhibits many severe drawbacks which are,
among others: the wide number of design variables, the difficulty of dealing with geometrical
requirements on the regularity of the boundaries, and the difficulty for maintaining an
adequate finite element mesh during the optimization process.

00457825/84/$3.00 @ 1984, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

248 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines

When the node coordinates are taken as shape variables, the set of design variables is often
very large and the cost and difficulty of the optimization process increase. On one hand, the
total amount of shape variables depends directly on the mesh refinement. On the other hand,
two or three design variables are necessary to describe each node movement. The advantage is
of course the ability to obtain a general curved boundary that is automatically followed by the
finite element mesh whatever shape is necessary to obtain the minimum weight.
A major characteristic of the independent node movement approach is its tendancy to
generate unrealistic designs. Changes in the curvature sign at the element interfaces frequently
occur in the first iterations of the redesign process. As a result, optimization proceeds very
slowly, requiring a large amount of computer time and often converging to an undesirable or
impracticable shape. Generally additional optimization constraints are used to avoid such
designs. Unfortunately, these constraints are very nonlinear and request highly sophisticated
mathematical programming algorithms in order to solve the resulting optimization problem.
Finally, the shape optimal design approaches using the independent node movement
technique have generally to resort to an automatic mesh generator for maintaining the mesh
integrity throughout the iterative process. The result is an increase in computer code
complexity.
In this paper, a new approach for two-dimensional shape optimal design is proposed. For
presenting the fundamental concepts, the problem is restricted to the following mathematical
form:

min W = C piLli , (1.1)

Set. hj(S)aO, j=l,.*.,m, (1.2)

3, s S[d s, ) l=l,...,n. (1.3)

This nonlinear programming problem consists of the weight minimization of a finite element
model using changes in its shape boundaries. Ri denotes the volume of the ith finite element
and s the set of the shape variables. The strucfural weight (1.1) is a nonlinear objective
function. The inequalities (1.2) represent behavioural constraints which impose limitations on
quantities describing the structural response, for instance, the stresses and the displacements
under multiple loading cases. The design variables are also subjected to the side constraints
(1.3) where sI and 5, are respectively the lower and the upper limits that reflect fabrication or
analysis validity considerations.
Many papers have dealt with alternative techniques for shape representation (see [2] for a
review of these techniques). In Section 2, a generalization of the design element technique
presented in [3] is given and it is shown that it overcomes most of the disadvantages of the
previous methods. Section 3 is devoted to the sensitivity analysis of the structural response.
The linear generation of a two-dimensional (plane or axisymmetric) finite element is extended
to the calculus of the first partial derivatives of the stiffness matrix, of the stress matrix and of
the implicit load vector with respect to the shape variables. In Section 4, the advantages of the
new approach are emphasized using simple applications. The advantages are:
(1) the reduction in the total amount of shape variables;
(2) the weak nonlinearity of the optimization problem;
 V. B&ant, C. Fkury, Shape optimal design using B-splines 249

(3) the flexibility of the shape functions used in the description of the design elements, such
that the boundary regularity constraints are no longer required.
Also the choice of the optimization algorithm is discussed. The last section is concerned with
some concluding remarks, the connection with CAD works as well as plans for future research
and development.

2. A new choice of design variables

The shape description proposed in this paper is quite similar to the design element
technique introduced by Imam in [3].
The region of the structure that will be modified during the optimization process is also
defined by one or more design elements which still contain a part of the mesh (see Fig. 1).
However, the two approaches differ by the representation of the design element. Instead of
using the shape functions of a two-dimensional finite element, blending functions typical of
computer graphic methods are employed to determine the coordinates of any point inside the
design element or on its boundaries. More precisely, the blending functions are those used in
the Bezier or the B-spline techniques. Therefore the shape variables are no longer the
positions of the 4,8 or 12 nodes of an isoparametric two-dimensional element, but the points
which control two families of curves whose Cartesian product defines the design element.
Moreover, the degree of the boundaries may be more than cubic.

2.1. Berier curves

Bezier curves offer many interesting properties 14, 5, 61.
Bezier curzlesare variation diminishing: each curve lies within the convex hull of the control
points that define it (Fig. 2).
Axes independence: a Bezier curve is independent of the coordinate system used to measure
the location of the control points.
~~Zti~~e v&es: the parametric formulation of Bezier curves permits representation of
very general functions (including multivalued functions such as spirals, closed curves, . . .).
At the end points, the curve is tangent to the corresponding edge of the polygon of control
points (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.
250 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines

Fig. 2. Fig. 3.

Two characteristics of the blending functions limit the flexibility of this type of curve. First,
the number of control points fixes the degree of the polynomial which defines the curve. For
instance, the four points of Fig. 2 define a cubic. The only way to reduce the degree of the
curve is to reduce the number of vertices. Conversely, the only way to increase the degree of
the curve is to increase the number of vertices. There exist thus two ways of describing a
complex geometry: the first one consists in using high-degree curves; in the second one, Bezier
curves of modest order are pieced together using simple geometric rules to insure continuity at
the different joints. For instance, to achieve zero-order continuity at a joint, it is sufficient to
impose the end control points of the curve to coincide. First-order continuity can be obtained
by stating that the edges of the two polygons adjacent to the common end point must lie on a
straight line (Fig. 3).
The second major characteristic of the Bezier curves is that they do not provide local
control: moving any control point will change the shape of every part of the curve. This can be
seen from the blending functions being nonzero almost everywhere. consequently the location
of each control point influences the shape of the whole curve.

2.2. B-spline curves

B-splines share many of the characteristics of the Bezier curves: axes independence,
variation diminishing property, etc. The main advantages of the B-splines are on one hand that
local control of the curve shape can be achieved by using a set of blending functions that have
local support only, and on the other hand, that additional control points can be introduced
without increasing the degree of the curve. B-splines offer more parameters to the designer

Fig. 4. Fig. 5.
 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines 251

than Bezier curves: the degree can be selected (Fig. 4), as well as the multiplicities of control
points (Fig. 5). Consequently, complex shapes may be represented by quadratic or cubic
splines which are automatically pieced together to form the B-spline. On the other hand, for a
given number of vertices, the degree fixes the smoothness of the curve.

2.3. Bezier’s and B-splines in the definition of a design element

The formulations of Bezier and B-spline curves are easily extended to the generation of
surfaces. A surface may be defined by the Cartesian product of two curves so that the
properties of the blending functions are not modified.
In particular, applications given in Section 4 will show that the B-spline parametric curves
representation is a very tractable tool for shape optimization by the design element technique.
By using the possibility of automatically piecing together splines of modest order to define a
B-spline, and by controlling the continuity of the generated curve, design elements may exhibit
very complex geometries. A few design elements are generally su~cient to fully describe the
region that is modified during optimization. Moreover, selecting the degree according to the
variation diminishing property provides a rational scheme to avoid unrealistic designs.
At last, the mesh may be easily updated inside the design element as follows: regular mesh
is defined in the curvilinear coordinate system of the design element and coordinate trans-
formations are applied to the definition of the mesh within it. When boundary nodes move, it
is however necessary to actualize the positions of the internal control nodes in order to insure
a constant mesh density. In the optimization code, it is assumed that all the design variables
are the locations of control nodes for a same edge of the design element. These vertices,
together with the corresponding ones located on the opposite side, define ‘meridian’ directions
along which the design control nodes are translated (see Fig. 6). Internal nodes that are
located on these meridians are next moved homothetically.

design etement

meridians

F:fixed r&e
i I = internal r&e
B = boundary node

Fig. 6.
252 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines

3. Sensitivity analysis

3.1. Analytical differentiationof the structural response

In the context of the shape optimal design problem, it is possible to generate analytically the
first partial derivatives of the displacement degrees of freedom and, from this result, to
establish the mathematical expressions of the derivatives of a flexibility or of a stress
component with respect to the shape variables. In a displacement finite element approach, the
structural analysis consists of solving the equilibrium equations

Kq,=g,, I=1 ,..., c, (3.1)

relating the c generalized load vectors g, to the displacements q1 through the stiffness matrix
K.
Any particular stress component or any flexibility is, respectively, expressed in terms of the
41 bY

Cl = t’qr 3 (3.2)
U[ = b’q, (3.3)

where t’ is a row of the stress matrix and b a constant vector defining the flexibility. From (3.1)
it follows

dK
-as,‘&
> = K-‘&k = glk, (3.4)
so that

t-
$bq - ik , (3.5)
au, at’
ig=z ql + t$k . (3.6)

Equations (3.5) and (3.6) may be written in a quite different way:

(3.7)

(3.8)
where
$‘ = K-lb, (3.9)
‘j” = K-It. (3.10)

Equations (3.5) and (3.6) correspond to the pseudo-load approach where the evaluation of the
 ?? Braibant,C. Fleury, Shape optimaldesign usingB-splines 253

gradients requires the introduction of it X c additional pseudo-load vectors given by

(3.11)

(n is the number of design variables and c the number of applied loading cases). In (3.7) and
(3.9, the evaluation of the gradients needs m {where m is the total number of behavioural
constraints) additional virtual-load vectors whose values are provided by b and t. This
corresponds to the virtual-load approach, which becomes more economical if the number
m is smatier than n X c.

For the sake of clarity, the sensitivity analysis will be presented for a quadrangular plane
finite element such as the one shown in Fig. 7. It is related to a curvilinear coordinate system
5, q. Shape functions ensure the correspondence between this 5, q system and the X, y
structural coordinate system, according to the classical relations

(3.32)

where Xi and yi are the ith node coordinates, Ni the corresponding shape functions (the
summation is taken over all element nodes), Similarly, the displacements inside the element
are expressed in the following way:

[i] = C Ni(t, ?I[

~1 9 (3.13)
i

in which Ui and vi are the nodal displacements. The formulation is isoparametric. In the
subsequent calculus, the derivatives of the shape functions Ni with respect to the structural
coordinates x, y will be needed:

(3.14)

Fig. 7.
254 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines

where

(3.15)

represents the Jacobian matrix, which is expressed in terms of Ni,c and Ni.7, the derivatives of
the Ni with respect to 6 and r).
The three components of the strain tensor E,, E,, E,,, can thus be written

cd = Pol{d (3.16)

where [I&,] denotes the strain matrix,

and {q} the vector of the nodal displacements.

The evaluation of the stiffness matrix is straightforward:

[Kd= j-1
[Bo]‘[H][Bo]df2 (3.18)

= c [B,$]‘[H’][BA] det [J~]w’ (3.19)

where i stands for the Gaussian integration point; [H’] is the corresponding Hooke’s matrix;
det[J&] is the Jacobian determinant and w’ the weighting coefficient at i.
The stress matrix and the energetically nodal forces can be obtained in a similar way:

[To]’ = 2 [H’][&] det [JA]w’, (3.20)

(go) = [I [N]'{f> da = 2 [N’]“{f} det [JA]w’

i
(3.21)

where [N] is a matrix which interpolates the internal displacements as a function of the nodal
displacements and cf} is the vector of the elementary boundary of virtual-load components.

3.3. ~eri~a~~es of [K], [T] and {g) bitt respect to the shape ~a~~~les
The changes in the design element geometry are characterized in the following way. Using
the index + for quantities associated with the modified geometry, and distinguishing design
elements from finite elements by ‘*‘,

(3.22)
 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines 255

with i and ?j the curvilinear coordinates for the design element, Ri the blending function
correspondinng to the ith control node whose initial coordinates are fi, 9i and where the
summation x in the first term is taken over all the vertices of the design element.
The relation

(3.23)

furnishes the mathematical expression of the changes in the design element geometry. They
are defined by the n blending functions Ri whose coefficients are the displacements iii and Oi
of the n design element vertices taken as shape variables.
The updated coordinates of a point in a finite element that belongs to the design element
are written as

with E? &I, riE [+?I,%I, or,

E [S”I, using the system coordinate transformation (Fig. 8)

(3.24)

Under convenient regularity assumptions, the initial geometry definition of the finite element

Fig. 8.
256 V. Braibant, C. Fieury, Shape optimal design using B-splines

is equivalent to

(3.25)

in which the finite element nodal coordinates [“,1]are calculated using the design element
definition.
Substituting (3.25) into (3.24) yields

(3.26)

The Jacobian matrix relating the x+, y+ coordinate system and the curvilinear coordinate
system [,q of the finite element is given by

(3.27)

and its inverse by

[J]-’ = [;:;I ;I;:] 3 (3.28)

so that the derivatives of the blending functions Ni with respect to X+ and y+ are

[;;:;I] = [Jl-‘[;;:I 1 (3.29)

For sake of clarity, the strain matrix [B] will be written in the following way:

Nl,*+ 0 * Ni,+ 0

I
m * e * *

0 Nl,yt *. . 0 Ni,y+ f s. = [C][D] )

(3.30)
Nl,y+ Nl,x+ e s . Ni,y+ Ni,,+ e a s

with

(3.31)

(3.32)

As a result,
 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines 257

= c [D’]‘{[C’]‘[H’][C’] det [J’])[D’]w’

(3.33)

with
[G”] = {[C’]‘[H’][C’] det [PI}, (3.34)

(3.35)

Note that the summations are taken over all the Gaussian integration points.
The derivatives of [K], [T] and {g) in the vicinity of the initial design are then immediately
written as

j=l,...,n, (3.36)

(3.37)

(3.38)

in which the expression of {PI in terms of the updated coordinates must be used.
It is clear that the generic expressions of the derivatives of [G’], [fCi] det [PI], [{fi) det [J’]]
with respect to displacements of design control nodes along x and y are to be analytically
established.
The reader is referred to Appendix A for more details; [2] can be consulted for the
connection with the sensitivity analysis work of Haug et al. [ll].

4. Applications

In this section, we turn our attention toward some applications of the previous concepts. A
new optimization code based on the linear static analysis module of the SAMCEF computer
system [7] has been developed. Its major characteristics are the following:
A two-dimensional, planar or axisymmetric isoparametric finite element has been added to
the finite element library, that is especially adapted to the sensitivity analysis.
The structural analysis is cut into two different steps in order to select the most performing
gradient evaluation strategy: the pseudo-load approach (mathematics programming) or the
virtual-load technique (optimality criteria). In a first step, the linear system of equations (3.1)
is solved for the c real-load vectors. The results of this analysis are next employed either to
define the pseudo-loads (relation (3.11) or to determine the set of the potentially active
258 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines

constraints in the virtual-load strategy. In a second step, the additional displacements are
evaluated by taking advantage of the previous condensation of the stiffness matrix K.
For preliminary trials, two different optimization algorithms have been selected. The first
one is the well-known CONMIN feasible direction algorithm [S]. This method works in two
steps. At each minimization phase, using gradient information, a feasible descent direction is
found. Along this direction, a one-dimensional search is next performed. The second available
optimization method consists of replacing the real nonlinearly constrained shape optimization
problem with a sequence of easily tractable linearized subproblems [9]. For their solution, the
simplex algorithm of linear programming is employed [lo]. Move-li.mits on the design variables
are also introduced so as to control the convergence properties of the overall optimization
process.

EX~PLE 4.1. Beam in ~~~~~~g. The first application is concerned with the shape
determination of the beam shown in Fig. 9. An analytical solution to this problem has been
given by Haug et al. [ll], while Haftka and Prasad on one side [12], Fleury on the other [13]
have presented numerical results.
The analytical solution for a fixed displacement of 0.5 in at the free end of the beam and a
maximum allowable stress of 30 000 psi is given by the following two expressions:

Y(X) = +0.15 in forO<x<2.3, (4.1)

Y(X) = kO.122 x’14in for 2.3 < x < 10. (4.2)

In fact the effects of the two types of constraints are separable. When there is no constraint on
the displacement at the free end, the optimal beam has an uniform cross-section. Conversely,
the flexibility constraint requires to strengthen the region in the vicinity of the clamped edge.
Fig. 10 shows a schematic view of the initial mesh; the four upper elements define a design
element noted LYwhile the last ones belong to the design element p. For both design elements,
there are three shape variables which are the displacements of the control points al, cyZ,(Ye,p,,
& p3 along x. The direct approach, using the feasible direction algorithm, as well as the
approximation method, using a strictly linearized problem solved by the simplex method,
furnish a similar solution as shown in Table 1. Note however that CONMIN requires more
than three times the number of analyses needed by the linear recursive method.
From the point of view of the final designs, the two solutions look quite different as pointed

&t334 ELEMENT

0 y
/ *

Fig. 9. Fig. 10
 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines 2.59

Table 1
Comparison of the two algorithms

CONMIN Linear recursive

algorithm

Initial weight 2.55128 2.55128

Final weight 1.14264 1.14198
Iteration number 6 6
Reanalysis number 19 7
Value of the end 0.5009 0.504
displacement for
the final solution (in)

out in Fig. 11. The optimal solution obtained by CONMIN and other solutions are symmetric
while the one generated by the recursive linear algorithm is not. This feature is easy to explain
when one remembers the principal drawbacks of the linear recursive approach. First, the
solution of the linearized problem often stays on a vertex of the approximate feasible region or
oscillates between two non-optimal vertices. Second, when the number of constraints is less
than the number of design variables, there may be no solution to the optimization problem.
That is the reason why move-limits are generally added in order to restrict the displacements
of the design point. In the present case, these are six variables and only one behavioural
constraint so that five of the six move-limits are active at each iteration. As a result, a
dissymmetry occurs when updating the move-limits and a nonsymmetric solution is generated.
Since the optimum is smooth, this solution is not quite different from the CONMIN solution.
However, it would be difficult to remove the dissymmetry and conversely, the convergence
toward the real optimum would be slow, requiring many other structural analyses.
Finally, in Table 2, the four available solutions are presented. It is shown that the shape
optimal solution is a bit heavier. However, it should be emphasized that all the other
approaches are based on a different structural model using beam theory. Furthermore, the
model is relatively rough and the boundaries are described by at most cubic polynomials.

Fig. 11.
260 V. Braibant, C. Flewy, Shape optimal design using B-splines

Table 2
Comparison of the different solutions

a(x)

X Shape optimal Analytic [121 P31 P31

design approach solution Linear expansion Cubic expansion
Pll
0.025 0.3041 0.3 0.3004 0.3 0.3
0.075 0.3122 0.3 0.3006 0.3 0.3
0.125 0.3204 0.3 0.3018 0.3 0.3
0.175 0.3286 0.3 0.3056 0.3 0.3
0.225 0.3367 0.3 0.3109 0.3 0.3
0.275 0.3449 0.3142 0.3167 0.3167 0.3136
0.325 0.3531 0.3276 0.3231 0.3287 0.3270
0.375 0.3613 0.3396 0.3298 0.3327 0.3389
0.425 0.3695 0.3503 0.3367 0.3350 0.3497
0.475 0.3777 0.3602 0.3437 0.3379 0.3596
0.525 0.3850 0.3693 0.3508 0.3450 0.3687
0.575 0.3941 0.3778 0.3579 0.3574 0.3771
0.625 0.4023 0.3858 0.3652 0.3711 0.3851
0.675 0.4105 0.3933 0.3726 0.3851 0.3926
0.725 0.4187 0.4004 0.3803 0.3989 0.3996
0.775 0.4269 0.4071 0.3881 0.4121 0.4063
0.825 0.4351 0.4135 0.3960 0.4246 0.4126
0.875 0.4433 0.4197 0.4040 0.4358 0.4182
0.925 0.4516 0.4255 0.4119 0.4446 0.4225
0.975 0.4598 0.4312 0.4197 0.4533 0.4268

Weight 1.1455 1.075 1.0453 1.0768 1.0797

Qbs)

EXAMPLE 4.2. Optimal shape of a fillet. The aim of this simple example is to point out
the main mathematical characteristics of the shape optimal design problem. In particular, it is
clearly seen from this problem that an efficient approach consists in replacing the initial
problem with a sequence of approximate problems using a linear approximation of the
behavioural constraints in the space of the shape variables.
The problem is formulated as follows: the model of Fig. 12 is made up of 12 finite elements
among which elements 3, 6, 9, 12 discretize the unique design element. The shape variables of
the problem are the displacements along s, and s, of the two control nodes (Y and j3. There
are four behavioural constraints and two technological constraints:
(i) the a, stress component must be less than 75 kg/mm* in element 1 and 65 kg/mm* in
element 3;
(ii) the allowable displacements at nodes A and B are respectively 20.58 mm and
+0.69 mm;
(iii) the movements of the control nodes (Y and p along S, and s, are restricted to stay
within the limits 220 mm and 230 mm, respectively.
Just as before, the two available algorithms have been used. They provide exactly the same
 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines 261

Fig. 12. Fig. 13.

0 stress constraint in fhe element np 3 j Gmx=G5

kg/mm2

0 dlsplacemnt constraint at A ; maamum value :.5Bmm

0 technological consfratnt sp =-30mm

MOVEMENTS OF THE DESIGN WINT

u-1 recurs&e linear algortrhm
**Q l * feasible duecttons algorithm

Fig. 14.
262 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines

optimal solution. When the recursive linear algorithm is applied, only five structural reanalyses
are necessary while CONMIN needs seven iterations and nine structural analyses (Fig. 13).
As there are only two shape variables, it is possible to represent graphically the design space
of the problem. Fig. 14 shows a constant weight curve, the three restraint surfaces which are
activated during the iterative process, as well as the trajectory of the design point in the two
methods. This figure clearly demonstrates that all the behavioural constraints, as well as the
structural weight, are not very nonlinear in the space of the design variables.

EXAMPLES 4.3. Hole in a plate. The last application emphasizes the influence of the
modelization of the area that is changed during the optimization procedure. In particular, it
will be shown how unrealistic designs can be avoided by a judicious selection of the number of
design elements and of the degree of the B-splines that define them.
The plate shown in Fig. 15 is stressed by uniform in-plane tensile loads applied along its
four edges. For the initial design, stress concentrations occur at the vertices of the hole. The
optimization objective is therefore to find the shape of the hole that minimizes the total weight
and for which the stresses in the boundary hole elements do not exceed a given allowable
value. Using symmetry considerations, two different models have been studied:
Model A. In the quarter of the plate of Fig. 16(a), the region that can be modified is
described by a unique 28 control nodes design element. The shape variables are the
displacements of the seven vertices located on the hole boundary. These vertices are required
to move along the meridian directions (a, p, y, E, /-L,V, T).

Fig. 15.

Fig. 16.
 V. Braibant, C. Flewy, Shape optimal design using B-splines 263

Fig. 17. Fig. 18.

Model B. The moving area of the half plate of Fig. 17 is represented by a 52 control nodes
design element and there are 13 design variables located similarly to Model A.

4.1. Influence of the number of design elements

Fig. 16 presents the evolution of the design during the optimization of Model A while Fig.
18 shows the complete corresponding plate. The discontinuities that appear at the design
element interfaces are in fact a consequence of the model used to describe the moving area in
the whole plate. Because only a quarter of the plate is studied, the moving region around the
entire hole behaves as it was represented by four fully independent design elements so that the
slope at their interfaces is not necessary continuous.
In a general way, the piecing of design elements has to be avoided as much as possible, by
taking advantage of the B-splines flexibility. For this example, a better method would be to
optimize the entire plate with the region around the hole modeled by a unique closed design
element defined by periodic B-splines.

4.2. Influence of the B-splines degree

Instead of using B-splines of degree 6 (in fact Bezier’s) as in Example 4.3, B-splines of first
degree have been chosen for the definition of the design element of Fig. 16(a). The previous
formulation is thus reduced in that case to the independent node movement technique of
Section 1. As expected, a very unrealistic design has been generated at the issue of the
optimization procedure (see Fig. 19). Such a design can be explained by the fact that, because

Fig. 19. Fig. 20.

264 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines

Fig. 21. Fig. 22.

of the discretization adopted, the independent movements of a node in the finite element mesh
provide local control only. Consequently, a small perturbation in the structural response
results in a large perturbation on the shape. Additional optimization constraints such as the
boundary regularity constraints of [14] may thus be interpreted as a possible mean to provide
a more global control. So, it appears that B-splines are an attractive way of avoiding such
constraints since global control is a direct consequence of their blending functions.
In Fig. 20, the degree of the B-splines that define the design element of Model B has been
first taken equal to six. This figure shows that, for this choice, the boundary is not smooth
enough so that the finite element mesh cannot assume its variations. Fig. 21 explicits this
situation more clearly. The three second-order curves AB, BC, CD are pieced together to
form the regular curve AD which may represent the boundary of the hole. On this curve, the
three points (Y,p, y are chosen so that AC@ and PrD define two new quadratic curves which
of course exhibit a discontinuity in the slope at p just as the finite elements of Fig. 20.
In this case, a simple remedy consists of increasing the degree of the B-splines (up to 12 for
instance), which gives rise to the design of Fig. 22.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, it has been shown that a powerful and rather general approach for shape
optimal design of elastic structures consists of using generalized design elements defined by
B-splines.
The major specific advantages of this method are the following:
(1) It provides a flexible and compact geometric description capability.
(2) Additional geometrical optimization constraints that are generally necessary to avoid
unrealistic designs are automatically taken into account by the formulation of the blending
functions.
(3) An analytical formulation of the sensitivity analysis may be established.
(4) The weight objective function is at most cubic and the behavioural constraints are
quasi-linear with respect to the shape variables. Since the very nonlinear geometric constraints
are no longer necessary, an efficient strategy for solving the optimization problem consists in
replacing it with a sequence of explicit approximate problems and solving them by using
simple primal algorithms. Moreover, because the method offers convergence properties that
 V. Braibant, C. Fleury, Shape optimal design using B-splines 265

are independent of the number of design variables, large structural design problems can be
treated at the expense of a few finite element analyses.
(5) Finally, the method provides some unification of the geometric data in the different
steps of a CAD chain: the sensitivity analysis and the optimization procedure are performed
with respect to the variables that the computer-aided designers usually employ. This last
advantage could be of considerable importance when implementing industrially oriented shape
optimization capabilities.
From the previous numerical experiments, it appears that the linearization methods that are
classical in optimal structural sizing can be of great interest for the solution of shape optimal
design problems. It is clear that the linearization of both the design objective function and the
behaviour constraints introduces many serious di~culties. Their main origins are on one hand,
the lack of curvature of the approximate design objective function so that the optimal solution
of the explicit subproblem always occurs at a vertex of the approximate design space, and on
the other hand, the sometimes nonconservative representation of the behaviour constraints.
As a result the design process may end up in an infeasible region and either a great number of
iterations is required to bring back the design to a feasible solution, or the optimization
process diverges. The purpose of current research is to test other modes of expansion for the
design objective function and for the behaviour constraints. The results will be presented in
[15] where the reader will also find the solution of more ambitious problems such as the
optimal design of a suspension torque arm, of a bracket, etc.
With regard to the shape representation, it will be possible to develop new design elements
so as to represent closed or three-dimensional structures, as well as the corresponding finite
elements. The parametrical shape representation introduced in this paper could be developed
to address the shape optimization of structures that must be defined by circles, straight
lines, . . . .
Finally, it might be useful to extend the set of the available objective functions, for example
in order to minimize stress concentrations. Because of its generality and versatility, the new
approach presented in this paper appears as one of the most appealing at the present moment.

Appendix A

This appendix is concerned with the calculus of matrix G (3.34) and of its derivatives. For
instance, G(l, 1) is given by

G(1, 1) = det IJi (&+H(l, 1) f tj$+H(3,3)) .

If only two shape variables are associated with the design element, say li and 6, respectively,
the displacements along x and y of two different control nodes whose corresponding blending
functions are noted E and F, then (3.26) may be written as
266 V. Braibant, C. Fkury, Shape optimal design using B-splines

so that, using the notations

a = xx, c = Y,s 7 E=J%, m = F,, hl = Hjl, 1) 1

b = x.7 7 d = ~.n 3 n = E,, , 4 = F, 7 & = H(3,3),

and

G(l, 1) has the explicit form

(d + q9j2h11+ (b t- ItQ2h3s
G(l, 1) =
ad - cb + (Id - cn)ic + (aq - bm)Ij + zE(lq - mn) ’

[ad - cb + (Ed- cn)ti -t (aq - bm)G + tE(lq - mn)J* ’

with
cyl = 2n(b -t-nzS)h33[ad- cb + (Id - cn)ii + (aq - bm)6 + tizj(lq- mn)] ,
a2 = [(lq - mn)2j + (Id - cn)][(d + q6)2hll + (b + nii)2h33];

ac(l,= P P
6% [ad - bc + (Id - crz)ii+ iaq _”bm)O + ~~(~q- mr~)]~’
with
p1 = 2q(d + qzi)hll[ad - cb + (Id - cn)li + (uq - bm)6 + iiG(Zq- mn)] ,
p2 = [ti(lq - mn)+ ( aq - bm)][(d + q6)2h11+ (b + nLi)2h33];

and, in the vicinity of the initial design, that is in ti = 0 and 6 = 0,

dG(1, 1) p: 2bnh&d - cb) - (Id - cn)(d*hll+ b2h3J

9
aa I ir=o, o=o (ad - cb)’
aG(1, 1) = 2qdhll(ad - cb) - (aq - b~)(d*h~~ + b2h,)
88 I G=O,G=O (ad - cb)”

In [2], the calculus of the other terms is presented in the two-dimensional plane case and in the
axisymmetric case. A direct formulation is also given.

References

[l] O.C. Zienkiewicz and J.S. Campbell, Shape optimalization and sequential linear programming, in: R.
Gallagher and O.C. Zienkiewicz, eds., Optimu ,m S:n;ctural Design (Wiley, New York, 1973) 109-126.
[Z] V. Braibant and C. Fleury, Aspects theoriques de I’optimalisation de forme par variation de noeuds de
contrcile, LTAS Rept. SF-111, University of Litge, Li&ge, 1982.
 V. Bruibunt, C. Fiewy, Shape optimaf design using B-splines 267

[3] H. Imam, Three dimensional shape optimization, General Motors Research Laboratories, Research Pub-
lications, GMR 3675, 1981.
[4] W.M. Newman and R.F. Sproull, Principte of Interactive Computer Graphics, Computer Science Series
(McGraw-Hill, New York, 2nd ed., 1979).
[5] D.F. Rogers and J.A. Adams, Mathematical Elements for Computer Graphics (McGraw-Hill, New York,
1976).
[6] R.E. Barnhill, Computed aided geometric design, Proc. Conf. held at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City,
UT, 1974.
[7] S.A.M.C.E.F., Systeme d’Analyse des Milieux Continus par Elements Finis, Aerospace Laboratory, University
of Liege, Liege.
[S] G. Vanderplaats, Conmin-A fortran program for constrained function minimization, NASA TM-X 62.282.
[9] A.J. Morris, ed., Foundations of Structural Optimization-An Unified Approach (Wiley, New York, 1982).
[lo] R.J. Clasen, RS MSUB-Linear programming FORTRAN II subroutines, The RAND Corporation, Santa
Monica, CA, 1961.
[ll] E.J. Huag, J. Cea, B. Rousselet and J.P. Zolezio, Optimization of Distributed Parameter Structures (Sijthoff &
Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1981).
[12] B. Prasad and R.T. Haftka, Optimal structural design with plate finite elements , J. Structural Div. ASCE 105
(STl) (1979).
[13] C. Fleury and G. Sander, Dual methods for optimizing finite element flexural systems, AFOSR Final Sci.
Rept., Grant ~-~~, LTAS Rept. SA-87, University of Liege, Liege, 1981.
f14] T. Altuzarra, C. Knopf-Lenoir, C. Sayetat and G. Touzot, Interactive optimum design system, Proc. Tucson
Symposium, Tucson, AZ, 1981.
[15] V. Braibant and C. Fleury, An approximation concepts approach to shape optimal design, LTAS Rept.
SA-111, University of Liege, 1984; Comput. Meths. Appl. Mech. Engrg. submitted.