jse03_form-finding
jse03_form-finding
jse03_form-finding
Topology Optimization
Salam Rahmatalla1 and Colby C. Swan, M.ASCE2
Abstract: A continuum topology optimization methodology suitable for finding optimal forms of large-scale sparse structures is pre-
sented. Since the need to avoid long compressive spans can be critical in determining the optimal form of such structures, a formulation
is used wherein the structure is modeled as a linear elastic continuum subjected to design loads, and optimized in form to maximize the
minimum critical buckling load. Numerical issues pertinent to accurate solution of the linearized buckling eigenvalue problem and
accurate design sensitivity analysis are discussed. The performance of the proposed design formulation is demonstrated on a few problems
designed to find optimal forms of a canyon bridge, long-span bridges, and an electrical transmission tower. In all cases, very credible
structural forms are obtained with the proposed design formulation. The results of the design examples solved are typically superior
structural forms with regard to buckling stability than those obtained to minimize the mean structural compliance.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2003兲129:12共1707兲
CE Database subject headings: Optimization; Buckling; Sensitivity analysis; Eigenvalues.
Introduction they are now quite standard. In the recent past, such methods have
been investigated quite extensively for civil engineering type
Designing sparse large-scale structures that are not susceptible to structures with a good deal of attention paid to achievement of
buckling instabilities is a longstanding challenge in structural de- designs that are stable with respect to design loads 共Oberndorfer
sign optimization. Many structural design optimization methods et al. 1996; Rozvany 1996; Zou 1996; Achtziger 1999; Bojczuk
are in use today and include cross-section selection, or size and and Mróz 1999; Kočvara 2002兲. In such frameworks, an attempt
shape optimization of structural cross sections. These types of is typically made to achieve stable designs by enforcing local
methods are applicable toward the final stages of designing a Euler buckling constraints. This can be challenging, due to diffi-
structure, but they tend not to be very helpful when one is trying culty in identifying buckling lengths that can be considerably
to find the optimal forms of a structure based on its size 共or span兲, larger than individual member lengths when several collinear and
support conditions, and the loads that it is expected to carry. compressive members form an isolated sequence.
While the designer’s intuition and awareness of design precedents While discrete structural optimization methods date back at
will always play a vital role, structural topology optimization least one century to the work of Michell, continuum structural
methods are objective tools that might also be very useful in topology optimization methods have more recent origins, devel-
identifying suitable, if not optimal, structural forms. Among struc- oped in the 1980s as extensions of shape and size optimization
tural topology optimization frameworks are there are essentially techniques 共Cheng and Olhoff 1981; Bendsøe and Kikuchi 1988兲.
two classes of methods 共see Ohsaki and Swan 2002兲: 共1兲 discrete In these methods, the structure is modeled as a continuum and the
ground-structure topology optimization methods and 共2兲 con- form of the structural system is optimized using a system of dis-
tinuum structural topology optimization methods. tributed continuous design parameters 关see the recent review by
One of the pioneering works in the field of structural topology Eschenauer and Olhoff 共2001兲 for a survey of the numerous con-
optimization per se involved presentation of optimal discrete truss tinuum topology optimization formulations developed over the
structures now called Michell structures 共Michell 1904兲. More past 2 decades兴. Since these methods are not in any way restricted
recently, discrete ground structure truss topology optimization to truss-like structures, they have been investigated for a consid-
methods have been employed 共Dorn et al. 1964; Dobbs and Fel- erable range of applications including: the design of composite
ton 1969; Hemp 1973; Rozvany 1976; Save and Prager 1990兲 and material microstructures, 共see Swan and Arora 1997 for one ex-
ample兲; compliant mechanisms in microelectromechanical sys-
1
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Center for Computer- tems 共Yin and Ananthasuresh 2002兲 intermediate scale plate and
Aided Design, The Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242. shell structures 共Swan and Kosaka 1997兲; and civil engineering
2
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Center for Computer- type structures 共Mijar et al. 1998; Swan et al. 1998兲.
Aided Design, The Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 共corresponding In spite of its arguable successes in design of small and inter-
author兲. E-mail: colby-swan@uiowa.edu mediate scale mechanical systems, there have been some chal-
Note. Associate Editor: Shahram Pezeshk. Discussion open until May lenges in applying continuum topology optimization to the con-
1, 2004. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
ceptual design of large-scale civil engineering type structures for
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted which economy of material is typically a vital issue. Large-scale
for review and possible publication on July 18, 2002; approved on No- civil engineering structures such as bridges and transmission tow-
vember 19, 2002. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi- ers are characteristically very sparse with the volume of material
neering, Vol. 129, No. 12, December 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/ that comprises the structural system constituting a very small
2003/12-1707–1716/$18.00. fraction 共⭐5%兲 of the structure’s total envelope volume. Con-
ings, and for each realization of the design vector b In all of the above, N denotes the nodal shape functions and B
⫽ 兵 b 1 ,b 2 ,...,b NUM N P 其 , the response performance of the structure denotes the standard strain–displacement matrices 共cf. Bathe
will be analyzed as a boundary value problem. From the com- 1996兲. The structural stiffness matrix K is positive definite due to
puted response of the structure, the performance of the structure the characteristics of the effective elasticity tensor C*, and this
will be quantified, as will be the sensitivity of the performance to guarantees a unique solution to the structural analysis problem for
variations in the design variables. each realization of the design b.
Once the equilibrium solution to the problem of Eq. 共5兲 is
Constitutive Mixing Rules obtained, then the linearized geometrical stiffness matrix G can
be computed based on the stress field in the structure
冕
In the proposed design framework, each finite element comprising
the spatial domain ⍀ s of the structure will generally contain a
jk ⫽
G LM mn␦ jk d⍀ s
L M
N ,m N ,n (7)
spatially varying mixture of the structural and void materials. It is ⍀s
necessary to prescribe the stiffness 共or elastic moduli兲 of such
It is worth noting that G is not necessarily positive definite but
mixtures in terms of the stiffness characteristics of the solid ma-
rather depends heavily upon the nature of the stress field in the
terial Csolid , those of the fictitious void material Cvoid , and the
structure. A purely tensile stress field clearly makes G positive
local volumetric density of the structural material 共X兲. Here, the
definite, although for any compressive stresses, G will not be
well-known powerlaw formula 共Bendsøe and Sigmund 1999兲 is
positive definite.
used to accomplish this task, providing the local effective stiff-
ness of the mixture C* as
C* ⫽ p Csolid⫹ 共 1⫺ p 兲 Cvoid (3)
Structural Performance Measures
冕⍀s
:␦⑀d⍀ s ⫽ 冕
⌫s
h•␦ud⌫ s⫹ 冕 ⍀s
g•␦ud⍀ s (4)
nal loads f ext will be simply u⫽K⫺1 "f ext, where K represents the
stiffness matrix of the structure. For a given set of loads, the
compliance ⌸共b兲 of the structure is simply
where 共X兲⫽local stress field in the structure; h⫽traction vector
consistent with the design loads being applied to the structure; ⌸ 共 b兲 ⫽ 21 f ext"u (8)
共X兲⫽local mass density of the structural material; Structural concept designs b that are stiff with respect to the ap-
g⫽gravitational body force vector; ␦u⫽kinematically admissible plied loads will have small compliance ⌸共b兲, whereas structures
variational displacement field; and ␦⑀⫽corresponding variational that are not stiff with respect to the applied loads will have large
strain field. In the structural model, the material features linear compliance. To facilitate usage of gradient-based optimization so-
elastic behavior such that ⫽C*:⑀, where the effective elasticity lution techniques, it is necessary to compute the design deriva-
tensor is design dependent and prescribed in accordance with Eq. tives of the compliance function. It can be shown that the design
共3兲. The matrix problem associated with variational equilibrium gradient of structural compliance is provided by the following
of the discrete finite element structural model, for which u(X) expression:
冉 冊
⫽ 兺 i N i (X)ui is
d⌸ 1 K f ext
0⫽K"u⫺f ext⫽f int⫺f ext (5) ⫽⫺ u• •u⫺ (9)
db 2 b b
where
jk ⫽
K LM 冕 ⍀s
B Lm j C * M
mn B nk d⍀ s
Linearized Bucking Performance Measure
Linearized buckling eigenvalue analysis proceeds as follows: A
冕
prescribed force loading f ext is applied to the structure with its
f int⫽K"u⫽ BT d⍀ s (6) magnitude necessarily being less than that required to induce geo-
⍀s metric instability in the structure. Once the resulting linear, elas-
冉 冊 冉 冊
that creates instability in accordance with linearized buckling
theory. dfE G 1 K K f ext
⫽⫺• ⫹ •⫹ua • •u⫺ (19)
The design problem is formulated to maximize the calculated db b b b b
minimum-buckling load factor 共兲, and accordingly the objective
The preceding expression is valid only when the minimum
function f E to be minimized for this problem would simply be the
eigenvalue is a simple, or nonrepeated, eigenvalue. When the
reciprocal of the lowest eigenvalue as follows:
minimum eigenvalue is nonsimple, or repeated, the variation of
1 the eigenvalue in design space is nonsmooth, and direct usage of
f E 共 u,b兲 ⫽ (13) the expression in Eq. 共19兲 is technically incorrect 共Choi et al.
min共 兲
1983; Seyranian et al. 1994兲. Resolution of this issue is non-
The optimization problem is thus stated to minimize the recipro- trivial, although it can be ameliorated somewhat by using small
cal of the first 共or minimum兲 critical buckling load as follows: and variable move limits in the design optimization process. De-
min f E ⫽min
b,u b,u
冉冊 冉
1
⫽min ⫺ max
b,u 储 储 ⫽0
"G"
"K" 冊 (14)
spite this challenge, designs that successfully maximize the buck-
ling stability of a structural system can nevertheless be obtained.
design variable values of unity were imposed on all nodes at the buckling mode for this material layout is also highly localized and
deck level. The two structural concepts obtained are markedly not visible on the global scale 关Fig. 3共g兲兴.
different. The first layout resembles the compliance minimizing The computed performance characteristics associated with the
design 关Fig. 3共b兲兴, in that it primary feature is stout compression three layout designs of Fig. 3 are provided in Table 3. Not sur-
arch that crosses the span. The deck is substantially thicker that of prisingly, the compliance minimizing material layout has the
the compliance minimizing design, however, reducing the need smallest compliance of all three designs under the traffic loading.
for the system of slender compression members that transfer deck It also shows a computed buckling eigenvalue slightly greater
loads to the arch. For this reason the secondary compression than that of the first buckling-resistant design 关Fig. 3共d兲兴, although
members appear to be substantially more stout than those in the substantially smaller than that of the second buckling-resistant
compliance minimizing design. The computed fundamental buck- design 关Fig. 3共f兲兴. Under loadings that also include the self-weight
ling mode associated with this material layout 关Fig. 3共e兲兴 is not of the structural material, the same trends in compliance and
visible on the global scale and is thus a highly localized mode. In buckling stability persist. The computed performance characteris-
the second buckling stability design, the primary structural feature tics of the layout designs results should be viewed cautiously,
is a long deep tension member crossing the span, with a system of however, since in taking these concepts to more detailed final
secondary compression members to support the deck. Since the design stages, the performance characteristics could change con-
deck would appear to be predominantly in compression along the siderably.
span direction, the proposed design method has stabilized it with
an irregular system of reinforcing members. The fundamental
Long-Span Concept Designs
For main span lengths greater than 1,000 m, suspension bridges
that use primarily tension to carry both the design loads and their
own weight are generally optimal in that the primary structural
elements are not subject to buckling. Here the conceptual layout
optimization of a very long span 共3,000 m兲 bridge is considered in
which the candidate structural region is selected to lie at or above
the traffic deck level as shown in Fig. 4共a兲. Again, the design
traffic loading on the bridge is 10 kPa uniformly distributed on
the deck level. The structural material usage is limited to 12.5%
of the envelope volume. The design domain is meshed with
10,000 bilinear continuum finite elements, and the problem is
solved first to maximize the minimum critical buckling load 关Fig.
4共b兲兴 and then to minimize the structural compliance of the struc-
ture under the traffic loading 关Figs. 4共c and d兲兴. Since the
compliance-minimizing design shown in Fig. 4共c兲 is somewhat
difficult to interpret, the problem was re solved at a substantially
higher mesh resolution, and is shown in Fig. 4共d兲.
In both of the compliance-minimizing designs, the proposed
methodology yields designs that use flexure of a flying beam-like
structure whose supports are cantilevered out into the span. While
these designs are in many ways quite plausible and realistic, par-
Fig. 3. 共a兲 Design domain and boundary/loading conditions; 共b兲 re- ticularly regarding the distributed support of the deck by systems
sulting material layout to minimize mean compliance of structure of cables suspended from the compression cord of the beam, the
with lowest buckling mode 共c兲; 共d兲 layout to maximize minimum very serious problem with these designs is that the top chord of
buckling eigenvalue with lowest buckling mode 共e兲; 共f兲 layout to the beam-like structure is very long, slender, and in compression
maximize minimum buckling eigenvalue, by considering nondesign- under the design loading. If these compliance-minimizing concept
able layer along bridge deck where traction forces are applied with
designs were to be taken into a secondary more detailed design
lowest buckling mode 共g兲; computed performance characteristics are
stage, the long compression cord members would need to be sized
provided in Table 3
very large to avoid buckling, and the resulting design would be
excessively heavy and inefficient. It is worth noting that by uti- regions 关Fig. 5共a兲兴 is solved. The layout design obtained by maxi-
lizing this linear elastic compliance minimizing formulation, mizing the buckling stability 关Fig. 5共b兲兴 again appears superior to
similar topologies will result regardless the length of the span or the compliance-minimizing design solution 关Fig. 5共c兲兴 in terms of
the magnitude of the external loads. On the other hand, the layout global stability.
design of Fig. 4共b兲 shows a conceptual design that maximizes the For the long-span bridge designs, the weight of the structural
linearized critical buckling load factor. As can be seen, the sus- material used 共12.5% of envelope volume multiplied by the unit
pension concept design solution uses compression in the rela- weight of the structural material兲 again dwarfed the magnitude of
tively stout ‘‘towers’’ that elevate the cable, tension in the long the design traffic loading. Consequently, the weight of the struc-
suspension cable that extends across the span, and tension in the tural material was neglected in the design optimization problem.
relatively short hanger system that suspends the deck from the The compliances and the critical buckling load factors for all of
suspension cable. That the proposed formulation produces a sus- the designs in Figs. 4 and 5 are provided 共Tables 4 and 5兲, both
pension type concept design 关Fig. 4共b兲兴 resembling actual long under the design traffic loading, and under the combined traffic
span bridges in usage today is an encouraging development. It is loading and the weight of the structural material. Based on the
worth noting here that a concept design similar to that in Fig. 4共b兲 computed performance characteristics shown in these tables, it
was obtained by Oberndorfer et al. 共1996兲 with a discrete ground appears that the layout designs obtained by maximizing the lin-
structure topology optimization method that considered only local earized buckling stability buckling factors 关Figs. 4共b兲 and 5共b兲兴
buckling instabilities. are indeed superior performance to the compliance-minimizing
To investigate the ability of the linearized buckling approach designs 关Figs. 4共c兲, 4共d兲, and 5共c兲兴 in terms of stability. As noted
to obtain practical long-span designs under different support con- above, however, the only computed design performance charac-
ditions, a similar problem but with two spans and three support teristics that are truly meaningful are those based on the final
detailed structural design. For long-span suspension bridges, it is
actually more realistic that structural volume will lie between 0.1
and 1% of the envelope volume of the bridge. Hence, in proceed-
ing from concept designs to realistic final detailed designs, the
structural models would need to undergo substantial refinement
that would significantly further reduce overall weights.
Fig. 4. 共a兲 Design domain with loading and support conditions; 共b兲
layout design obtained by maximizing minimum buckling eigen-
value; 共c兲 layout design obtained by minimizing structural compli- Fig. 5. 共a兲 Design domain and boundary conditions for two-span
ance; 共d兲 compliance minimizing layout obtained with more refined three-support problem with all dimensions in meters; 共b兲 resulting
model. Computed performance characteristics are provided in material layout to maximize minimal buckling eigenvalue; and 共c兲
Table 4 layout to minimize mean compliance of structure
Transmission Tower Design to maximize the minimum critical buckling load of the structure
has been demonstrated here on the concept design of bridge struc-
Failure of electrical power transmission towers by buckling dur-
tures and a transmission tower. Based on the example problems
ing ice storms is a potential problem in the power industry. In this
solved, designing to maximize the minimum critical buckling
example, the proposed design formulation is used to obtain opti-
mal forms in two dimensions for transmission tower that can load appears to be more effective at consistently achieving stable
carry the static, vertical loads associated with six cables. The structural forms than does minimizing the generalized compliance
static loading and boundary conditions on the spatial design do- of the structural system. The proposed methods are somewhat
main are shown in Fig. 6共a兲 and are consistent with those used by promising in that they yield structural concept designs in some
Kocer and Arora 共2002兲 in a work entailing detailed optimal de- cases that are known to be optimal for certain design problems.
sign of transmission towers with respect to cross-section selection For example, in the design of very long-span bridges, the method
of individual members. In the current layout optimization prob- yields suspension bridge type designs. If the design tools can be
lem with continuum topology design, the spatial domain of Fig. confirmed on a number of such design applications, then they can
6共a兲 is discretized with 12,000 bilinear continuum finite elements be used with greater confidence in new classes of design prob-
and concentrated loads of 10 kN are applied at the six cable lems for which there is not necessarily any preceding experience
support positions. As in the preceding problems the structural to guide the designer.
material usage is constrained to 12.5% of the design domain’s A number of investigators have recently demonstrated that lay-
envelope volume. The design problem was first solved to mini- out optimization of sparse structures can also be achieved to
mize the mean structural compliance under the design loads, with maximize critical buckling loads computed via geometrically
the resulting topology shown in Fig. 6共b兲. While this design has a nonlinear structural buckling analysis. For large-scale sparse civil
low linear elastic compliance, it is relatively unstable with regard structures, the nonlinear analysis within the models can be quite
to buckling because it utilizes many long slender unbraced com- computationally expensive, and the proposed formulation pre-
pression members. As in the preceding bridge design problems, sented here based on linearized buckling analysis can achieve
the major weakness of the compliance minimizing formulation is similar results much more efficiently 共see Rahmatalla and Swan
its inability to detect potential buckling instabilities and to arrange 2003兲.
the structure in a way that minimizes the likelihood of their actual The emphasis here has been on problem formulations and the
occurrence. Fig. 6共c兲 shows a layout design solution obtained by resulting structural design solutions obtained. Numerical and
maximizing the fundamental linearized buckling eigenvalue. This computational issues have also been addressed to facilitate accu-
solution more closely resembles the form of existing transmission rate calculation of buckling eigenvalues in accordance with the
towers, than the solution of Fig. 6共b兲. The comparative perfor- linearized theory, and accurate design sensitivity analysis of these
mance characteristics of both designs in terms of compliance and buckling eigenvalues. Nonsimple 共repeated兲 eigenvalues can and
buckling stability are provided in Table 6. often do occur when optimizing the layout of a structure to maxi-
mize the fundamental buckling eigenvalue. While there remain
unresolved issues associated with the design sensitivity of such
Discussion and Conclusions non-simple eigenvalues, when they occur, it is worth noting here
that even when the DSA expressions for simple eigenvalues are
The objective of this paper has been to present and apply a con- employed in such cases, the optimization problem still tends to
tinuum structural topology optimization formulation that can be converge, although not monotonically, to designs that achieve op-
used to detect and avoid buckling instabilities in the conceptual timized buckling stability. The computational cost of performing
design stage of large sparse structural systems. The motivation is the design examples of two-dimensional structures presented
to develop design tools that will produce conceptual structural herein has been quite modest, being on the order of a cpu hour
forms that are optimal and that will be less problematic in the each on an HP J-class single processor workstation. Beyond com-
ensuing detailed design stages. Usage of the proposed formulation putational resource issues, which are significant, there is no con-
Table 5. Computed Performance Characteristics of Two-Span, Three-Support, Long-Span Bridge Layouts Shown in Fig. 5
Structural compliance Buckling factor Buckling factor
for traffic loading Buckling factor for traffic load for traffic load and
Performance measure 共N m兲 for traffic load only and total self weight reduced self weighta
Buckling design 1.52⫻105 4.84⫻103 63.3 5.15⫻103
Compliance design 2.06⫻104 1.94⫻103 7.18 5.29⫻102
a
Reduced self-weight assumes that bridge weight is only approximately 1% of the weight it has in the model. This approximates the weight of a bridge
that occupies only 0.125% of the envelope volume ⍀ s .