Multi-Level Optimization of Material and Structural Layout

Conference paper (2006)

Authors

AJ de Wit Computational Design and Mechanics - Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering
A Lipka External organisation
E Ramm External organisation
A. van Keulen Computational Design and Mechanics - Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering
Research Group
Computational Design and Mechanics (Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering) (TU Delft)
More Info
expand_more

Published Date

2006

Language

Undefined/Unknown

Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Faculty

Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering

Department

Precision and Microsystems Engineering

Research Group

Computational Design and Mechanics

Abstract

Within the classical design of, for example, bridges and airplane structures, optimization approaches generally focus primarily on adjusting large-scale (macroscopic) parameters and are therefore neglecting the influence of small-scale (microscopic) parameters on the large-scale behavior. The main reason is because of numerical efficiency. In literature various multi-level optimization appproaches are described in which six main approaches can be distinguished, Optimization by Linear Decomposition, Collaborative Optimization, Concurrent SubSpace Optimization, Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis, Analytical Target Cascading and the method of Quasi-separable Subsystem Decomposition. This paper provides an overview of these methods, where the main interest lies in how these methods handle coupled analysis between the levels of the hierarchy.
In this paper a multi-level notation is introduced, in order to make a clear distinction between the aspects of optimization and analysis of multi-level design. It emphasizes the handling of inconsistencies between subsystems and their solution. The proposed notation enables a clear comparison of the multi-level methods on the basis of their treatment of interdisciplinary consistency contraints.
Furthermore, the multi-level optimization framework is illustrated for structural optimization by applying the notations to a classical two bar truss example. The work here is part of a larger ongoing effort towards integrating multi-scale mechanics and multi-level optimization. The two bar truss example is in this context a suited example. It contains relevant characteristics of multi-scale mechanics and multi-level optimization and its simplicity helps to capture the essence of multi-level design approaches. In future work we aim to describe multi-scale mechanics in a similar fashion, which is expected to open up possibilities of exploiting synergy effects through further integration of the two formulations.