Optistruct Nonlinear Response Optimization

Copyright 2011 Altair Engineering, Inc. Proprietary and Confidential. All rights reserved.
Non-linear response optimization with OptiStruct

Altair Engineering 2011
Hans Gruber Business Development Radioss
OptiStruct and Nonlinearities
Plasticity?
Contact
OptiStruct 7.0
Large Sliding?
Complex Material
models like rubber,
foam, ..?
Dynamic behaviour?
Large
Displacement?
Crash?
OptiStruct and Nonlinearities
Plasticity
OptiStruct 11.0
Contact
OptiStruct 7.0
Large Sliding
Complex Material
models like rubber,
foam, ..
OptiStruct 11.0
OptiStruct 11.0
Dynamic behaviour
Large
Displacement
OptiStruct 11.0
OptiStruct 11.0
Crash
OptiStruct 11.0
Content
Optimization capability overview
Solver integration
Methods for nonlinear response optimization
Examples
Topology Optimization of a gear box cover (contact)
Free shape Optimization connecting rod and a roll structure (geometric nonlinear)
Size/Shape Optimization of a bumper (crash)
Topology Optimization of a bumper (crash)
Topography Optimization of a automotive door (multi body dynamics)
Workflow (including live demo)
Summary
Introduction - Optimization Disciplines
with integrated
FEA solver
generic study tool

for arbitrary solvers,
includes DOE and
Stochastics
Introduction - Optimization Disciplines
SIMP (truss)
Shape Basis Vectors
Free Size (shear

panel, composite)
(morphing technique)
Shape Basis Vectors
Continuous, Discrete
Beadfraction Response
PBARL optimization
Free Shape
OptiStruct only
Methods for Nonlinear Optimization 10.0

Nonlinear Contact (geometric linear) OptiStruct
After solving the contact problem optimization is performed on a linear
equation
Sensitivity calculation wrt. design variables
Geometric Nonlinear (implicit and explicit) HyperStudy

Limitations
Long calculation times (many nonlinear function calls, depending on
the number of DV)
Topology-, Freesize, Topograhy and FreeShape Optimization are not
possible
No integrated approach
Advantage
Flexibility
Solver integration (with optimization)
OptiStruct
RADIOSS
FEA
MBD
Geometric linear
Geometric non-linear
Rigid and flexible

bodies
Linear:
Non-linear:
Implicit:
Explicit:
Kinematic
Static
Quasi-static
Quasi-static
Impact
Dynamic
Dynamic
Plasticity
Dynamic
FSI
Static
Buckling
Contact
Post-buckling
Thermal
Quasi-static
Materials
Materials
Contact
Contact
Thermal
Methods for Nonlinear response optimization

OptiStruct 11.0
Nonlinear Contact (NLSTAT)

After solving the contact problem optimization is performed on a linear
equation
Sensitivity calculation wrt. design variables
Geometric Nonlinear (NLGEOM, IMPDYN, EXPDYN)

Gradients can be very expensive or unavailable
Transferring the nonlinear problem into a series of linear problems is
more efficient (ESLM - Equivalent static load method)
For both methods, existing optimization techniques (for linear

problems) could be used
Concept of Equivalent Static Load Method
Analysis
Dynamic Problem
Load time history
Optimization
Static Problem
Load
Design variables
Equivalent static loads
fteq = Kdt
t
Originally developed to handle transient events (MBD) in optimization

Modified for (geometric) nonlinear optimization
Nonlinear implicit
Nonlinear explicit
Concept of Equivalent Static Load Method

Sequential static response optimization with the equivalent static
loads
Nonlinear analysis (outer loop), Static optimization (inner loop)
fteq = Kdt
will be determined in order to reach the same response

field as nonlinear analysis (including dynamic effects)
Modified method to perform stress correction

Start
Nonlinear
Analysis
displacement
Calculate equivalent
static loads
Update design
variables
Time Step t0 t1 t2 L
Load set
Solve static response

optimization
No
feq0 feq1 feq2 L
tn time
feqn
Yes
Converged
Stop
Questions so far?
Examples
Contact, linear Geometry, implicit solution method
Topology Optimization
Nonlinear Optimization
Contact Analysis
Topology Optimization of a Gearbox Cover
Bolted flange transfers

forces from housing to
gearbox
Flange (Design Space)
Gearbox
Reduce mass of flange

Contact modeled between
housing, flange and
gearbox
Displacement Plot
Force
Bearing housing
Contact Analysis
Topology Optimization of a Gearbox Cover
Design Results:
Contact modeled
with linear spring
elements
Contact modeled
with nonlinear
GAP elements
Contact Analysis
Speedup for nonlinear sub iterations during optimization
Gap status will be taken as initial conditions for next iteration

Contact is solved in every optimization iteration
Less nonlinear iterations if material distribution doesnt change much
Example ZF: Topology Optimization of a Gearbox Cover
Reduction of Nonlinear iterations of about 74%
Examples
Plastic Material, nonlinear Geometry, implicit solution method
FreeShape Optimization
Free Shape Optimization of a Connecting Rod

Analysis Type: Geometric Non-Linearity (NLGEOM)
Material: Johnson-Cook Elastic-Plastic Material
Loading: Bearing Pressure (causing bending about the Z-axis)
Problem Formulation:
Objective Function: Minimize Volume
Design Constraints: Element Strain 0.08
Free Shape Design Variable Grids

With 1-plane Symmetry Manufacturing Constraint
Optimization Results Shape
Optimization Results Plastic Strain
Max plastic strain reduction: 0.14 to 0.007
Roll Structure Optimization

Analysis Type: Implicit, quasi-static, nonlinear geometry
Optimization model
Min (mass)
s.t. displacement and stress (based on requirements)
Shape Change:
Mass was reduced by > 16%

5 outer loops (nonlinear function calls)
Force India Formula One Team Ltd
Roll Structure Optimization

Comparison final shape: nonlinear vs. linear
Displacements differ by 3,4%
Stresses differ by 7% - 15%
Underestimation of stresses would lead to additional mass

Additional design cycles are necessary
One step solution with ESL
Force India Formula One Team Ltd
Examples
Dynamic problem, nonlinear Geometry, explicit solution method
Size&Shape Optimization
Size and Shape Optimization of a Bumper
Analysis Type: Explicit Dynamics (EXPDYN)

Analysis Setup:
Moving wall velocity = 2.5 m/s
Rigid wall mass = 1000 Kg

Baseline Design Results
Optimization Formulation
Design Variables:
Gauge:
Bumper backing plate: 1.5 2.0 3.0
Bumper top and bottom sections: 2.0 2.5 3.5
Shape
Thickness design variables
5 Bumper section shape variables
Design Constraints:
Maximum allowable mass 14 Kg
Baseline design mass ~ 12 Kg
Objective Function:
Shape design variables
Minimize bumper intrusion
Objective function

Optimized Design Results
Design Comparison
Baseline Design
Optimized Design
Backing plate thickness = 2 mm

Bumper sections = 2.5 mm
Mass = 12 Kg
Intrusion = 100%
Backing plate thickness = 3 mm

Bumper sections = 3.04 mm
Mass = 14 Kg
Intrusion = 87%
Bumper intrusion improved by ~ 13%

10 nonlinear function calls (outer loops)
Examples
Dynamic problem, nonlinear Geometry, explicit solution method
Topology Optimization
Topology Optimization of a bumber

Introduction of rips as topology design space (connected by tied contact)
Objective is max (d1-d2)
S.t. m < mtarget
Topology design space inside profile
Deformation due to crash loading
Topology Optimization of a bumber

Optimization Results
Objective was improved by 43%
Mass is unchanged
Density result
Deformation before optimization
Deformation after optimization
Examples
Multi Body Dynamics
Topography Optimization
Topography Optimization for Door Slam

Objective Function:
*Geo Metro Model from the NHTSA website
Minimize (Max) Compliance

from the inner panel
Optimized Bead Pattern
Max Deflection under Door Slam
~ 19% Displacement Reduction

Topography Optimization using ESLM
Current Design
Optimized Design
Proposal
Topography Optimization
Results
RADIOSS - Speed up solutions

Hybrid MPP version
Hybrid version combines the benefit of booth

Radioss parallel versions SMP & SPMD inside
an unique code with enhanced performance.
Hybrid version means high flexibility : adapt to
customers needs and hardware their
resources & evolution.
Perfect Repeatability
Multi Domain
The global model is replaced by physically

equivalent sub domains (no limitations)
Significant reduction of the CPU time with
same accuracy
Nehalem 2.80 GHz Cluster

Neon 1 million elements
Speedups
16 SPMD domains vs # SMP threads
8 ms simulation
6
Advanced Mass Scaling
New technology based on a modification of the

mass matrix to increase the time step
Applicable to full models
5,08
5
Speedups
3,65
3,8
2,9
1,95
2
RADIOSS
competitor*
1,88
11
#threads
Workflow for optimization with ESL
FEM/CAD
Models
Unchanged workflow (vs. linear optimization)

Analysis Model setup
Set up of nonlinear load case(s) using bulk syntax
Definition of the optimization model (design variables, objective,
constraints)
ESL parameter
Demo
Optimization Methods
OptiStruct
RADIOSS
FEA
MBD
Geometric linear
Geometric non-linear
Rigid and flexible

bodies
Linear:
Non-linear:
Implicit:
Explicit:
Kinematic
Static
Quasi-static
Quasi-static
Impact
Dynamic
Dynamic
Plasticity
Dynamic
FSI
Static
Buckling
Contact
Post-buckling
Thermal
Quasi-static
Materials
Materials
Contact
Contact
Thermal
Direct sensitivities
ESL
Summary Nonlinear response optimization with

OptiStruct
OptiStruct could be applied on a wide range of nonlinear application
All optimization disciplines are supported
ESL is a effective and efficient approach for MBD and nonlinear

response optimization
Various analysis solution methods are possible: quasi static/dynamic implicit or

explicit
Integrated solver and optimization environment
Optimization could performed on multiple load cases (MDO)
Unchanged workflow
References
1. Altair OptiStruct, Users Manual v11.0, (2011), Altair Engineering inc., Troy MI.
2. Byung Soo Kang,YawKang Shyy, Design of Flexible Bodies in Multibody Dynamic
Systems using Equivalent Static Load Method, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics
3. David Mylett, Dr. Simon Gardner Force India Formula One Team Ltd., Principal Roll
Structure Design Using Non-Linear Implicit Optimisation in Radioss, 7th Altair CAE
Technology Conference, UK
4. Gruber H.; Schuhmacher, G.;Frtsch, C.; Rieder, E., Optimization assisted structural
design of the rear fuselage of the A400M, a new military transport aircraft, *Altair
Engineering, NAFEMS Seminar: Optimization in Structural Mechanics, April 27-28, 2005,
Wiesbaden Germany
5. Hans Gruber, Warren Dias, Dennis Schwerzler, Altair Engineering; Structural Optimization
in Automotive Design, automotive CAE Grand Challenge 2011, 19th 20th March, 2011
6. Prof. Dr. Lothar Harzheim, Adam Opel AG ITDC, The Challenge of Shape and Topology
Optimization, automotive CAE Grand Challenge 2011, 19th20thMarch, 2011
7. Ki-Jong Park and Gyung-Jin Park, Structural Optimization for Non-Linear Behavior Using
Equivalent Static Loads, 16th World Congresses of Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, Rio de Janeiro, 30 May - 03 June 2005, Brazil
8. Uwe Schramm, Optimization Processes for Aerospace Structures, 8th World Congress on,
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, June 1 - 5, 2009, Lisbon, Portugal

Optistruct Nonlinear Response Optimization

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Optistruct Nonlinear Response Optimization

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Copyright 2011 Altair Engineering, Inc. Proprietary and Confidential. All rights reserved.

Non-linear response optimization with OptiStruct

OptiStruct and Nonlinearities

OptiStruct and Nonlinearities

Introduction - Optimization Disciplines

generic study tool

Introduction - Optimization Disciplines

Shape Basis Vectors

Free Size (shear

Shape Basis Vectors

Methods for Nonlinear Optimization 10.0

Geometric Nonlinear (implicit and explicit) HyperStudy

Solver integration (with optimization)

Rigid and flexible

Methods for Nonlinear response optimization

Nonlinear Contact (NLSTAT)

Geometric Nonlinear (NLGEOM, IMPDYN, EXPDYN)

For both methods, existing optimization techniques (for linear

Concept of Equivalent Static Load Method

Equivalent static loads

Originally developed to handle transient events (MBD) in optimization

Concept of Equivalent Static Load Method

will be determined in order to reach the same response

Modified method to perform stress correction

Solve static response

feq0 feq1 feq2 L

Bolted flange transfers

Flange (Design Space)

Reduce mass of flange

Speedup for nonlinear sub iterations during optimization

Gap status will be taken as initial conditions for next iteration

Free Shape Optimization of a Connecting Rod

Free Shape Design Variable Grids

Optimization Results Shape

Optimization Results Plastic Strain

Max plastic strain reduction: 0.14 to 0.007

Roll Structure Optimization

Mass was reduced by > 16%

Force India Formula One Team Ltd

Roll Structure Optimization

Displacements differ by 3,4%

Stresses differ by 7% - 15%

Underestimation of stresses would lead to additional mass

Force India Formula One Team Ltd

Size and Shape Optimization of a Bumper

Analysis Type: Explicit Dynamics (EXPDYN)

Size and Shape Optimization of a Bumper

Thickness design variables

5 Bumper section shape variables

Shape design variables

Minimize bumper intrusion

Size and Shape Optimization of a Bumper

Backing plate thickness = 2 mm

Backing plate thickness = 3 mm

Bumper intrusion improved by ~ 13%

Topology Optimization of a bumber

Topology design space inside profile

Deformation due to crash loading

Topology Optimization of a bumber

Deformation before optimization

Deformation after optimization

Topography Optimization for Door Slam

*Geo Metro Model from the NHTSA website