Topology optimization in crashworthiness design

Topology optimization has developed rapidly, primarily with application on linear elastic structures subjected to static loadcases. In its basic form, an approximated optimization problem is formulated using analytical or semi-analytical methods to perform the sensitivity analysis. When an explicit finite element method is used to solve contact–impact problems, the sensitivities cannot easily be found. Hence, the engineer is forced to use numerical derivatives or other approaches. Since each finite element simulation of an impact problem may take days of computing time, the sensitivity-based methods are not a useful approach. Therefore, two alternative formulations for topology optimization are investigated in this work. The fundamental approach is to remove elements or, alternatively, change the element thicknesses based on the internal energy density distribution in the model. There is no automatic shift between the two methods within the existing algorithm. Within this formulation, it is possible to treat nonlinear effects, e.g., contact–impact and plasticity. Since no sensitivities are used, the updated design might be a step in the wrong direction for some finite elements. The load paths within the model will change if elements are removed or the element thicknesses are altered. Therefore, care should be taken with this procedure so that small steps are used, i.e., the change of the model should not be too large between two successive iterations and, therefore, the design parameters should not be altered too much. It is shown in this paper that the proposed method for topology optimization of a nonlinear problem gives similar result as a standard topology optimization procedures for the linear elastic case. Furthermore, the proposed procedures allow for topology optimization of nonlinear problems. The major restriction of the method is that responses in the optimization formulation must be coupled to the thickness updating procedure, e.g., constraint on a nodal displacement, acceleration level that is allowed.

[1]  J. Petersson,et al.  Numerical instabilities in topology optimization: A survey on procedures dealing with checkerboards, mesh-dependencies and local minima , 1998 .

[2]  Takashi Ebisugi,et al.  Study of optimal structure design method for dynamic nonlinear problem , 1998 .

[3]  J. Petersson Some convergence results in perimeter-controlled topology optimization , 1999 .

[4]  O. Sigmund,et al.  Stiffness design of geometrically nonlinear structures using topology optimization , 2000 .

[5]  Ole Sigmund,et al.  Design of multiphysics actuators using topology optimization - Part I: One-material structures , 2001 .

[6]  Ciro A. Soto,et al.  Structural topology optimisation: from minimising compliance to maximising energy absorption , 2001 .

[7]  Ciro A. Soto,et al.  Structural topology optimization: from minimizing compliance to maximizing energy absorption , 2001 .

[8]  J. Petersson,et al.  Topology optimization using regularized intermediate density control , 2001 .

[9]  Niels Olhoff,et al.  Topology optimization of continuum structures: A review* , 2001 .

[10]  T. Borrvall Topology optimization of elastic continua using restriction , 2001 .

[11]  Claus B. W. Pedersen,et al.  Topology optimization design of crushed 2D-frames for desired energy absorption history , 2003 .

[12]  Anders Klarbring,et al.  Topology optimization of frame structures with flexible joints , 2003 .

[13]  Claus B. W. Pedersen,et al.  Crashworthiness design of transient frame structures using topology optimization , 2004 .

[14]  Ole Sigmund,et al.  Toward the topology design of mechanisms that exhibit snap-through behavior , 2004 .