Rationalization of trusses generated via layout optimization

Numerical layout optimization provides a computationally efficient and generally applicable means of identifying the optimal arrangement of bars in a truss. When the plastic layout optimization formulation is used, a wide variety of problem types can be solved using linear programming. However, the solutions obtained are frequently quite complex, particularly when fine numerical discretizations are employed. To address this, the efficacy of two rationalization techniques are explored in this paper: (i) introduction of ‘joint lengths’, and (ii) application of geometry optimization. In the former case this involves the use of a modified layout optimization formulation, which remains linear, whilst in the latter case a non-linear optimization post-processing step, involving adjusting the locations of nodes in the layout optimized solution, is undertaken. The two rationalization techniques are applied to example problems involving both point and distributed loads, self-weight and multiple load cases. It is demonstrated that the introduction of joint lengths reduces structural complexity at negligible computational cost, though generally leads to increased volumes. Conversely, the use of geometry optimization carries a computational cost but is effective in reducing both structural complexity and the computed volume.

[1]  Osvaldo M. Querin,et al.  Growth method for size, topology, and geometry optimization of truss structures , 2006 .

[2]  Mariano Vázquez Espí,et al.  New analytical benchmarks for topology optimization and their implications , 2013 .

[3]  E. W. Parkes,et al.  Joints in optimum frameworks , 1975 .

[4]  M. Gilbert,et al.  Layout optimization of large‐scale pin‐jointed frames , 2003 .

[5]  L. Gil,et al.  Shape and cross-section optimisation of a truss structure , 2001 .

[6]  Matthew Gilbert,et al.  On the optimality of Hemp’s arch with vertical hangers , 2012 .

[7]  W. R. Spillers,et al.  Design for two loading conditions , 1971 .

[8]  G. Rozvany,et al.  Extended exact solutions for least-weight truss layouts—Part I: Cantilever with a horizontal axis of symmetry , 1994 .

[9]  Cezary Graczykowski,et al.  Michell cantilevers constructed within a half strip. Tabulation of selected benchmark results , 2010 .

[10]  A. Michell LVIII. The limits of economy of material in frame-structures , 1904 .

[11]  Harvey J. Greenberg,et al.  Automatic design of optimal structures , 1964 .

[12]  Matthew Gilbert,et al.  Optimum structure to carry a uniform load between pinned supports , 2010 .

[13]  T. Lewiński Michell structures formed on surfaces of revolution , 2004 .

[14]  W. Achtziger On simultaneous optimization of truss geometry and topology , 2007 .

[15]  Arkadiusz Mazurek Geometrical aspects of optimum truss like structures for three-force problem , 2012 .

[16]  A.S.L. Chan,et al.  The Design of Michell Optimum Structures , 1960 .

[17]  William Prager,et al.  Optimal layout of a truss for alternative loads , 1973 .

[18]  M. Bendsøe,et al.  Topology Optimization: "Theory, Methods, And Applications" , 2011 .

[19]  Benoît Descamps,et al.  A lower-bound formulation for the geometry and topology optimization of truss structures under multiple loading , 2013 .

[20]  William Prager NEARLY OPTIMAL DESIGN OF TRUSSES , 1978 .

[21]  William F. Baker,et al.  Geometrical aspects of optimum truss like structures , 2011 .

[22]  K. Seffen,et al.  International Journal of Solids and Structures , 2015 .

[23]  W. S. Hemp MICHELL FRAMEWORK FOR UNIFORM LOAD BETWEEN FIXED SUPPORTS , 1974 .

[24]  S. Czarnecki Compliance optimization of the truss structures , 2003 .

[25]  M. Gilbert,et al.  Th World Congresses of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Plastic Layout Optimization of Large-scale Frameworks Subject to Multiple Load Cases, Member Self-weight and with Joint Length Penalties , 2022 .

[26]  M. Bendsøe,et al.  Optimization methods for truss geometry and topology design , 1994 .