Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Thesis
Bachelor of Science in Engineering
Abstract
This paper investigates parametric shape optimization in COMSOL Multiphysics. The strengths
and weaknesses of the parametric and non-parametric methods are discussed. Furthermore,
three classic shape optimization problems are parameterized and analyzed with the use of
COMSOL. The models investigated are a beam, a hole in a plate under biaxial stress and a
llet on a bar.
The results of these optimizations are compared to analytical work as well as numerical work
from other shape optimization methods. Furthermore the diculties regarding shape optimization in COMSOL are discussed.
ii
Preface
This bachelors thesis was prepared at the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the Technical University of Denmark in fulllment of the requirements for acquiring a B.Sc.Eng. degree
in Mechanical Engineering. The project was realized in the period between the 4th February
and 24th June 2014 with the supervision of Ole Sigmund and Niels Aage. The project is
credited 20 ECTS points.
iv
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I would like to thank my two supervisors, Professor Ole Sigmund and
Researcher Niels Aage, for their support and help throughout my thesis.
Furthermore I would like to thank Rune Westin and Thure Ralfs from COMSOL for their
support when COMSOL was misbehaving.
vi
Contents
Abstract
Preface
iii
Acknowledgements
Contents
vii
1 Introduction
2 Theory
2.1 Shape optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Parameter free shape optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Parametric shape optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
3
3
5
7
7
11
16
23
23
27
33
43
43
44
50
6 Conclusion
6.1 Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
59
61
61
64
68
72
76
82
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
viii
Contents
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
87
92
97
105
105
107
112
117
122
127
133
Meaning
vM
Disp.
C
U
FE
CHAPTER
1
Introduction
The 27th of November 2013 COMSOL released a new version of their FEM software. With
COMSOL Multiphysics 4.4 they oered new opportunities for doing shape and topology optimization. With version 4.4 they introduced two new optimization solvers: BOBYQA, which
is a gradient-free optimization solver, and MMA, which is gradient-based; thus giving new
abilities for optimization solving.
For a long time COMSOL have had great capabilities for doing topology optimization, but
has been lacking in the area of shape optimization. As of right now is are only one model in
COMSOLs model library that shows how to do shape optimization, but this model is very
limited in its application to more complex problems as well as mechanical problems. The model
shows how the sound pressure from a horn can be optimized for a given angle by parameterizing one boundary. However, there is no good documentation on geometric parameterization
in COMSOL and the complexity rises when more than one boundary has to be parameterized.
Therefore the main goal of this project has been to explore the strengths and weaknesses for
shape optimization, map the capabilities for doing shape optimization and apply these capabilities to mechanical problems in COMSOL.
The rst focus of the project is to optimize the shape of a cantilever beam. A simple problem
that is much more troublesome than anticipated. The rst real obstacle is to gure out how to
congure the parameterizations using prescribed mesh displacement when having more than
one boundary. Another obstacle is guring out the right scale factors in such a way that
inverted elements do not occur in the model.
The next focus of the project is to investigate a more advanced problem. A plate with a
hole in the middle is to be investigated and benchmarked in accordance with former analytical
studies .
The last focus of the project will be to look at a 3D model. The object will be to optimize the shape of a llet on a 2D axisymmetric bar. The parameterization technique will be
similar to the one used in the two other models, but will be able to produce results in 3D.
1 Introduction
CHAPTER
2
Theory
2 Theory
Discrete approach
This approach uses the coordinates of the boundary points as design variables, see Figure 2.2.
This approach gives a great degree of freedom seeing as it is only limited by the design variables
describing the structure. In addition to this it is also easy to implement.
Figure 2.2: An airfoil described using the boundary points. Illustration borrowed from [4]
The disadvantages of using this approach are that for complex structure a large number of
design variables are necessary to describe the geometry thus leading to high computational
time, moreover the smoothness of the geometry is hard to obtain if using too few design
variables. The smoothness problem can be solved by using multi-point constraints [4] which
makes it possible to connect dierent nodes and degrees of freedom [5] and by adding dynamic
adjustments of the upper and lower bounds.
2 Theory
The Bzier curves are based of on Bernstein polynomials [8] and are very similar, in a mathematical point of view, to the polynomial form. A general form for a Bzier curve is given
by:
n
B(t) =
Pi bi,p (t) s [0, 1]
(2.1)
i=0
Pi are denominated the control points and act as design variables in the optimization, n is the
number of control points, and bi,p (t) are the Bernstein polynomials of the pth degree. Despite
their resemblance, the Bzier curves are a much better representation than the polynomial form,
and the control points used in the expression are very closely related to the curve positioning,
which is benecial when setting the geometric constraints [4]. The Bzier curve is great for
shape optimization for simple geometries, like the polynomial form. The more complex a
curve is, the higher the degree of the Bernstein polynomials needs to be in order to describe
it properly. Unfortunately the round-o error increases when the degree of the Bernstein
polynomials increases, on top of that the computational time for high-degree Bzier curves is
high [9].
A better way to describe complex curves is to use a series of low-degree Bzier curves called
Basis spline, or B-spline. The advantages of these splines is their ability to describe complex
curves accurately and eciently.
The weakness of the polynomial and spline approach is its inability to describe complex 3D
structures entirely from polynomial forms and splines as they need a lot of control points.
The strengths, however, are numerous: it has the ability to handle surfaces; to handle large
geometry changes; to handle local shape changes; and to give a smooth surface/boundary.
CAD-based approach
The CAD-based approach uses the benets of having the structure already drawn and is a fully
integrated solution saving time from geometric modeling. The CAD part can be an integrated
part of the FE software or a separate program and is either based on boundary representation
or a constructive solid geometry method to represent the physical, solid object [4]. In the
CAD software it is possible to describe the boundaries or the surfaces of the structure with
linear combinations of basic functions. Some of the parameters of these functions are then
used as design variables for the optimization procedure. The use of the CAD approach allows
for optimization for both 2D and 3D, and its limitations are dependent on the users ability
to parameterize. In order to get good results when parameterizing this way, it is crucial that
the initial guess of the basic functions is good, seeing as the basic functions can be what limits
the optimization. Another strength of this method is that the smoothness of the boundary is
such that you get smooth boundaries with little eort. The drawback is that it can be quite
time consuming to implement the linear combinations, and the optimization is greatly reliable
on how good the initial guess for shape function is.
CHAPTER
dy =
qi ci sin(ix)
(3.1)
i=1
Where x is the parameterization parameter that varies from 0 to 1 along the boundary, ci are
scale factors and qi are the optimization variables. By increasing the number of optimization
variables the optimization obtains a higher degree of freedom to optimize, thus potentially
achieving a better value of the objective function. However, this will also increase sensitivity
and if the scale factors arent right the solution can continue into the undened region, thus
creating an unfeasible model. The magnitude of the scale factors depend on how many terms
from equation 3.1 are included, but generally speaking ci should be R [0, 1]. If i then
ci 0 meaning that the parameterization becomes more and more sensitive when more terms
are included, thus the terms have to be scaled more to make sure that the model is still feasible.
Equation (3.1) will be modied slightly to t the situation in question. The parameterization
describes the change in the y-direction for the upper boundary, for simplicity N = 1 and the
scale factors ci are removed to begin with, thus equation (3.1) becomes:
dy = q1 sin(x)
(3.2)
The boundaries to be parametrized can be seen on Figure 3.2. This gure also shows the name
and direction of the parameterizations.
s2(x)
s1(x)
s3(x)
1
0
1
s4(x)
Figure 3.2: Boundaries to be parametrized and the direction of the parameterization parameters
In order to make the height of parameterization s2 (x) change according to the height of parameterization s1 (x) and s3 (x) the terms (1 x)s1 (1) + xs3 (0) are added to equation 3.2.
In Figure 3.2 the boundaries to be parametrized can be seen plus the direction of the parameterization parameters. The boundary s4 (x) isnt to change during the optimization therefore
the parameterization will be s4 (x) = 0. The parameterization of the four boundaries can be
seen below:
s1 (x) = p1 x
(3.3)
(3.4)
s3 (x) = p2 (1 x)
(3.5)
s4 (x) = 0
(3.6)
With the optimization parameters set to p1 = p2 = q1 = 0 the model will be a regular beam.
By changing the parameters to p1 = q1 = 1 and p2 = 0 the beam seen in Figure 3.3 will appear.
It is quite obvious that this beam has an increase in the area. Whereas the original had an
area of 10 m2 this new beam has an area of 21.4 m2 .
Before the optimization can begin the objective function has to be dened. The objective
function is what denes the criterion for optimality. In this model the goal is to minimize the
displacement of the beam in the y-direction. The displacement can be minimized through the
total elastic strain energy in the point where the total load is acting on, since the equation for
strain energy is equal:
1
U = P
(3.7)
2
Where P is the force acting in the end and is the displacement produced by the force . It can
be seen that the elastic strain energy is directly proportional to the displacement, therefore by
minimizing the strain energy the compliance of the structure is minimized, thus maximizing
the stiness.
Another condition for the optimization is an area constraint. If an area constraint isnt applied
to the model, the optimization parameters will just reach their upper bound as that would
give the strongest structure, but also the heaviest. The area constraint for this model will be
the original area, a b = 10 m2 . If the wish was to get a lighter structure and still maintain the
strength, that could be accommodated by multiplying the constraint with a scale factor.
In the model the parameterizations are implemented by the use of the prescribed boundary
displacement in the Deformed Geometry interface. The beam is set to have free deformation.
In order to avoid inverted elements in the model when it changes form due to the optimization,
a mapped quad mesh is used instead of a tri mesh seeing as quad and mapped meshes are
less likely to become inverted [11, p. 471]. Another thing to help avoiding inverted mesh
elements are the scale factors, ci , when using a higher order summation. It is also necessary to
take great care when setting the boundaries for the optimization variables; if given too much
freedom inverted elements will occur.
The Deformed Geometry interface is primarily used to study how the physics of the model
change when the geometry of the model changes; it is therefore ideal for shape optimziation. It
is worth noticing that the model isnt remeshed when using the Deformed Geometry interface,
instead the mesh is deformed. Typically when looking at multiple versions of the same model,
a new mesh is created per each new iteration, but by using Deformed Geometry the mesh
elements are instead being stretched. The original mesh can be seen on Figure 3.4 whereas
the morphed mesh of Figure 3.2 can be seen on Figure 3.5.
10
Figure 3.5: The original mesh of the standard beam morphed to t the new model
The advantage of deforming the mesh elements, instead of remeshing, is speed. For this
particular model the dierence between remeshing and morphing isnt so distinct, but for
larger models and models with ner meshing there is a notable dierence seeing as creating a
new mesh each time can be quite time-consuming.
However, if the deformations in the mesh becomes too large, inverted mesh elements can occur.
There are a number of ways to avoid this[11, p. 861]:
Changing the mesh. A good method for changing the mesh is to use a predened mesh
and then changing the maximum element size. As stated earlier it is also useful to use
quad meshes to prevent inverted mesh elements.
Another mesh smoothing type can also be used. By standard it is set to Laplace smoothing which is the least time-consuming to use seeing as it is linear and uses one uncoupled
equation for each coordinate direction. This mesh smoothing type is most suitable for
small, linear deformations.
The other smoothing types are non-linear and use a single coupled system of equations
for all coordinate directions; this makes it more demanding for computational power,
they are nevertheless better at avoiding inverted mesh elements.
11
One of the advantages of the Deformed Geometry is that it isnt necessary to remesh.
However, the mesh quality can become too poor, if the mesh deformations become sufciently large, thus making it necessary to remesh. This can be done with an adaptive
mesh renement in COMSOL, but the use of this feature also eliminates the use of
mapped quad meshes seeing as it only works on tri meshes.
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [J]
Area [m2 ]
Y-disp. [m]
137.78
3580
17900
10
-0.036
Table 3.7: Values for the standard beam, reference points for the optimization
Figure 3.8 shows an optimized beam with optimization parameters p1 = 0.33, q1 = 0.44 and
p2 = 0.9. The parameterization of the upper boundary only has one summation (N = 1)
meaning its a single sine curve.
12
Figure 3.8: Optimized beam with one summation and p1 = 0.33, q1 = 0.44 and p2 = 0.9
From the scale of the von Mises stress it is obvious that the peak stress has decreased considerably, it is in fact 89% lower. By comparing Table 3.9 and Table 3.7 it can also be see
that the elastic strain energy has been reduced a great amount, which comes to show in the
displacement which has been reduced by almost 56%. Another thing worth noticing is that the
stress is much more evenly distributed on Figure 3.8. The stress along the axis of the beam is
almost constant ensuring that the xed end isnt exposed to stresses signicant higher than at
the other end.
vM,max [MPa]
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [J]
Area [m2 ]
Y-disp. [m]
73.01
2298
11490
10
-0.023
Table 3.9: Values for a optimized beam with N = 1, p1 = 0.33, q2 = 0.44 and p2 = 0.9
It should also be noted that there are stress singularities at the corners of the xed end (larger
versions of the stress plots can be found in Appendix A). The reason for stress singularities
is that the area of the corners is very small and approaching zero meaning that the stresses
are approaching innite. These singularities will not appear in the real world because when a
beam is xed, the material will still yield a bit and/or the support material will move slightly
to allow the point stress to remain nite [12].
To see if the beam can be optimized further with the sine parameterization, the optimization has been run for N = [1, 5], where N Z. When going higher than N = 1, it is necessary
to remember the scale factors, otherwise theres a high possibility that the model will go out of
bounds and return an unfeasible solution. Figure 3.10 shows the solution to the optimization
when N = 5. The plot doesnt look that much dierent to Figure 3.8, and its a bit hard to see
all ve sine curves but the stresses are lower. In Table 3.11 the key values of all optimizations
are compared.
13
Figure 3.10: Optimized beam with ve summations and p1 = 0.47, p2 = 0.84, q1 = 0.27,
q2 = 0.61, q3 = 0.36, q4 = 0.17, and q5 = 0.13
vM,max [MPa]
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [J]
Area [m2 ]
Y-disp. [m]
Std.
137.78
3580
17900
10
-0.036
N =1
73.01
2298
11490
10
-0.023
N =2
71.13
2161
10806
10
-0.022
N =3
69.73
2156
10781
10
-0.022
N =4
69.73
2154
10771
10
-0.022
N =5
70.53
2153
10765
10
-0.022
14
Figure 3.12: von Mises stress along the upper boundary for the standard beam
Figure 3.13 shows the von Mises stress along the upper boundary too. The same stress singularity can be seen, but the peak stress is approximately 90% lower. Another thing worth
noticing is that stress along the boundary is almost constant, if excluding the ends. The stress
varies from 45 50 MPa, which is a great improvement compared to before where it varied
from 10 100 MPa.
Figure 3.13: von Mises stress along the upper boundary for an optimized beam with ve
summation and p1 = 0.47, p2 = 0.84, q1 = 0.27, q2 = 0.61, q3 = 0.36,
q4 = 0.17, and q5 = 0.13
In appendix A the stresses along the upper boundary can be found for the standard beam and
the beams with N = 1..5 in higher resolution. The higher the order, the more constant the
stress variation becomes, which makes sense seeing it has more degrees of freedom to change.
The results found for this model also make sense according to Pedersens work regarding
beams analytic optimal designs [13]. For a beam similar to the one examined in this project,
Pedersen was able to reduce the compliance to 65%, see Figure 3.14.
15
Figure 3.14: Left: optimal design with obtained compliance. Right: the corresponding cantilever elementary load cases. Illustration and text borrowed from [13]
The compliance of the COMSOL model was also 65%. However, there are a few dierences
between Pedersens analytical work and this model. Pedersen uses a point load at the end,
whereas in this model a boundary load has been used. Pedersen also parameterizes both the
upper and lower boundary; this model only focuses on the upper.
16
3.3
Modeling instructions
The following will describe how to create the model. From the File menu, choose New
NEW
1 In the New window, click the Model Wizard button
MODEL WIZARD
1 In the Model Wizard window, click the 2D button
2 In the Select Physics tree, select Mathematics>Deformed Mesh>Deformed Geometry (dg).
3 Click the Add button
4 In the Select Physics window, select Structural Mechanics>Solid Mechanics (solid).
5 Click the Add button
6 In the Select Physics tree, select Mathematics>Optimization and Sensitivity>Optimization
(opt).
7 Click the Add button.
8 Click the Study button
9 In the tree, select Preset Studies for Selected Physics>Stationary
10 Click the Done button
GLOBAL DEFINITIONS
Parameters
1 On the Home toolbar, click Parameters
2 In the Parameters settings windows, locate the Parameters section
3 Click Load from le
4 Browse to nd the le called beam_shape_optimization_parameters.txt and double-click
it to load the parameters
GEOMETRY 1
Rectangle 1
MATERIALS
Add material
1 Go to the Add Material window
2 In the tree, select Built-In>Structural Steel
3 In the Add material window, click Add to Component and choose Component 1
Fixed Constraint 1
1 On the Physics toolbar, click Boundaries and choose Fixed Constraint
2 Select Boundary 1 only.
Boundary Load 1
1 On the Physics toolbar, click Boundaries and choose Boundary Load
2 Select Boundary 4 only.
3 In the Boundary Selection window, locate the Force section
4 Under Load type, change it to Total force
5 Let the x component remain 0, but change the y component to -F_T
Free Deformation 1
1 On the Physics toolbar, click Domains and choose Free Deformation
17
18
2 Select Domain 1.
MESH 1
Free Quad 1
1 In the Model Builder window, under Component 1 (comp1) right-click Mesh 1 and
choose Free Quad
2 In the Free Quad settings window, locate the Domain Selection section
3 From the Geometric entity level list, choose Domain
19
4 Select Domain 1
Size
1 In the Model Builder window, under Component 1 (comp1)>Mesh 1 click Size
2 In the Size settings window, locate the Element size section
3 Under Predened, select Extra ne from the list
4 Click the Build All button
STUDY 1
Before starting the actual optimization it can be a good idea to check the model by solving for
the default parameters. In this way you have a good reference point when doing the optimization later.
Solver 1
1 On the Study toolbar, click Show Default Solver
2 In the Model Builder window, expand the Study 1>Solver Congurations node
3 In the Model Builder window, expand the Solver 1 node, then click Stationary Solver
1
4 In the Stationary Solver settings window, locate the General section
5 From the Linearity list, choose Nonlinear
6 On the Home toolbar, click Compute
RESULTS
20
3 Expand the von Mises stress, solution 1 node, then the Surface 1 node
4 Right-click Deformation 1 and click delete. The plot should automatically be replotted
without showing the deformation
Displacement
1 On the Results toolbar, click 2D Plot Group
2 Right-click the new 2D Plot Group and click Rename. Change the name to Y-displacement,
solution 1
3 Right-click the plot group and click Surface
4 The Surface window will open, locate the Expression section. The standard expression is
solid.disp, change this to v either by editing the eld or by cliking the button Replace
expression and then navigating to Solid Mechanics>Displacement>Displacement
Field (material)>Displacement Field, Y component (v)
5 To show the actual deformation (although scaled), right-click Y-displacement, solution
1>Surface 1 and click Deformation. The Deformation window will show the scaling
factor under the section Scale
ADD STUDY
1 To add a new study for the optimization, go to the Home toolbar and click Add Study
2 Go to the Add Study window
3 Find the Studies subsection. In the tree, select Preset Studies>Frequency Domain
4 In the Add study window, click Add study
5 On the Home toolbar, click Add Study to close the Add Study window
STUDY 2
21
5 Locate the Bounds section, dont change the Lower Bound, but edit the Upper Bound,
type a*b
6 The Integral Inequality Constraint will automatically be added to the optimization in
Study 2
Optimization
1 On the Study toolbar, click Optimization. This will add the Optimization module to
Study 2
2 In the Optimization settings window, locate the Optimization Solver section
3 From the Method list, choose SNOPT
4 In the Optimality tolerance edit eld, type 1e-4
5 In the Maximum number of objective evaluations edit eld, type 200
6 Locate the Objective Function section. In the table, enter following settings:
Expression
Description
comp1.solid.Ws_tot
7 Locate the Control Variables and Parameters section. Click Load from File
8 Browse to nd the le called beam_shape_optimization_control_parameters.txt
9 Locate Output While Solving section and make sure that Plot is checked
Solver 2
1 On the Study toolbar, click Show Default Solver
2 In the Model Builder window, expand the Study 2>Solver Congurations>Solver
2>Optimization Solver 1 node, then click Stationary 1
3 In the Stationary settings window, locate the General section
4 In the Relative tolerance edit eld, type 1e-6
5 From the Linearity list, choose Automatic
6 Right-click Study 2 and press the Compute button
22
RESULTS
Plots
The plots from solution 1 can be duplicated relatively easy thus avoiding the same procedure
all over again.
1 In the Model Builder window under Results, locate the von Mises stress, solution 1
2 Right-click it and choose Duplicate
3 Right-click the new plot group and rename it to von Mises stress, solution 2
4 In the 2D Plot Group window, locate the Data section
5 In the drop down menu change it from Solution 1 to Solution 2
6 Click Plot
7 Follow the same procedure for the Y-displacement
Probes
It is possible to see the parameter values for each iteration by using probes. In addition its
also possible to show the values of stresses, displacement and the total elastic strain energy.
1 In the Model Builder window under Component 1, locate the Denitions menu
2 Right-click it and choose Probes>Domain Probe
3 The Domain Probe window will open, locate the Expression section. The expression will
by default be set to solid.disp, change this to solid.mises, which is the von Mises stress
4 Right-click Domain Probe 1 and click Rename
5 Rename the probe to von Mises
6 Repeat step 1-5 for the following parameters: strain energy, total strain energy, displacement
(Displacement eld, Y component (v)), q1, q2 and q3.
Area Probe
1 In order to create an Area Probe, rst right-click Denitions, choose Component Couplings>Integration
2 The Integration window will open, select Domain 1
3 Now create a new Domain Probe using the steps from above. Rename it Area
4 In the Expression eld type intop1(1)
CHAPTER
4
Optimization of a plate with a hole
This model will investigate how to apply boundary shape optimization to a simple bracket. The
model will focus on shape optimization when more than one boundary has to be parameterized
in both the x and the y direction.
(4.1)
Where p1 and p3 are both optimization parameters and s [0, 1]. The boundary, s2 , is a bit
more dicult to parameterize. At rst a parameterization similar to the one from Chapter 3
was used, but with the addition of a parameterization in the x direction:
s2,x (s) = p3 (1 s)
s2,y (s) = s1,y (0)s + p2 sin(s)
(4.2)
This solution, however, proved unsuccessful due to slope at the end points which created
unfeasible results. This can be seen in Figure 4.2, the stress concentration for this result
was evenly distributed but the transition between the joints was not smooth. Therefore the
resulting hole looked the number 8, which is not desirable and created high stress peaks at the
joints.
24
Symmetry
s1(y)
r
Symmetry
S/2
1
s2(x,y)
s3(x)
S/2
S
(a) Mechanical analysis setup with dimensions
S = 10 m, r = 4 m, and d = 0.1 m
Figure 4.2: v. Mises stress showing the parameterization of the plate with equation (4.2) and
2 /1
In order to get a nice transition between the joints, the curve needs to have zero slope at both
endpoints. The equation for the dY displacement will be found rst. The slope at the ends
must be zero, meaning that the derivative of the parameterization must be zero at s = 0 and
s = 1. At the right end point the parameterization should be zero when s = 0, and at the left
25
end point equal to p1 when s = 1. These demands can be expressed mathematically in the
following way:
s2,y (0) = 0
s2,y (1) = p1
(4.3)
s2,y (0) = 0
s2,y (1) = 0
In order to get zero slope at the end points a cosine curve forms the basis of the parameterization. In order to get the curve to begin and end in the same y-coordinate only equal integers
enter in the rst cosine term, furthermore the whole term is subtracted from 1 to shift the
whole function above y = 0. This equals the following expression where p2 /2 controls the
height of the curve:
p2
(1 cos(nks))
2
In the above expression k = 2, n Z, and p2 is an optimization parameter.
The left end point of s2,y needs to match its y-coordinate with the s1,y (s) expression from
equation (4.1). This can be done by adding the expression p21 (1 cos(s)). When combining
the terms the following equation is generated:
p2
p1
s2,y (s) = (1 cos(nks)) + (1 cos(s))
(4.4)
2
2
Where k = 2, n Z, and p1 and p2 are both optimization parameters.
The boundary, s2,x was at rst parameterized with the expression p3 (1 s), although this
expression did not yield zero slope due to the fact that the parameterization in COMSOL is
a parameterization of the boundary arc length and not the original x-coordinate. Therefore it
was necessary to make a transformation to a trigonometric expression. The problem is outlined
in Figure 4.3.
s=1, = /2
s
y()
r
s=0, =0
x()
Figure 4.3: Illustration of the transformation of the x-coordinates radial to the boundary
The boundary curve can be described in terms of s with equation (4.5) and the x-coordinate
can be described in terms of with equation (4.6). By combining these two equations the
26
(4.5)
(4.6)
(4.7)
(4.8)
(4.9)
Figure 4.4 shows the comparison between the original mesh and the mesh after the parameterization. The gure also illustrates that there are now zero slope at the end points of the
curve.
Figure 4.4:
The objective function for this model will also be the total elastic strain energy seeing as the
stiest design is equal to the design with lowest stress concentration[14].
27
First case: 2 /1 = 1
In the rst case the plate is loaded with stress of the same magnitude on the right and upper
boundary in the x and y direction, respectively. When the tension rate is equal to 1, the
optimal shape is expected to be a circular hole to have evenly distributed stresses. Reference
values for the non-optimized solution can be found in Table 4.5, and the stress distribution
can be seen on Figure 4.6.
vM,max [MPa]
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [J]
Area [m2 ]
2.12
4.08
35.69
87.43
28
Second case: 2 /1 = 2
The results for the non-optimized plate can be seen on Table 4.7 and Figure 4.8. The right
boundary is loaded with 1000 kN and the upper boundary with 2000 kN.
vM,max [MPa]
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [J]
Area [m2 ]
6.20
12.32
107.70
87.43
Table 4.7: Reference values for the plate with 1 = 1000 kN and 2 = 2000 kN
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [J]
Area [m2 ]
3.27
11.10
97.05
87.43
Table 4.9: Optimized values for the plate with 1 = 1000 kN and 2 = 2000 kN with optimization parameters p1 = 3.01, p2 = 0.40, and p3 = 2.09
29
(a) The circular hole has become an ellipse and the von (b) The von Mises stress as a function of the arc length
Mises stress is now evenly distributed along the bound- for s2 . The blue curve is the original design and the
green is the optimized shape
ary
Figure 4.10: Optimized plate with optimization parameters p1 = 3.01, p2 = 0.40, and p3 =
2.09
By comparing the peak stresses of the original model and the optimized one it can be seen that
the peak stress has been reduced by 89.6% without increasing the area. From Figure 4.10(a) it
can be seen that the stress concentration in the top of the hole has been distributed along the
boundary of the hole. Figure 4.10(b) shows how the stress has changed from being a linear
function to being almost constant.
Take note of the form of the hole, it has changed from being circular to being an ellipse. In
Pedersens analytical results [13] of holes subjected to biaxial stress he nds out that the
relationship between the tensile stresses is equal to the relationship between the vertices of the
ellipse.
Third case: 2 /1 = 3
Table 4.11 and Figure 4.12 shows the non-optimized results when the tensile ratio is 3. The
upper boundary is loaded with 3000 kN and the right boundary with 1000 kN. The stress plot
is very similar to Figure 4.8 but due to the higher load the stress concentration has become
even higher.
vM,max [MPa]
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [J]
Area [m2 ]
10.41
28.86
252.34
87.43
Table 4.11: Reference values for the plate with 1 = 1000 kN and 2 = 3000 kN
30
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [J]
Area [m2 ]
4.48
24.01
209.94
87.43
Table 4.13: Optimized values for the plate with 1 = 1000 kN and 2 = 3000 kN with optimization parameters p1 = 5.12, p2 = 0.75, and p3 = 3.02
31
(a) The circular hole has become an ellipse and the von (b) The von Mises stress as a function of the arc length
Mises stress is now evenly distributed along the bound- for s2 . The blue curve is the original design and the
green is the optimized shape
ary
Figure 4.14: Optimized plate with optimization parameters p1 = 5.12, p2 = 0.75, and p3 =
3.02
In this case the maximum equivalent stress has been reduced from 10.41 MPa to 4.48 MPa, a
reduction of 132%. As in case 2, not only have the peak stresses been lowered, but the stress
is evenly distributed along the arc boundary. This is also clearly show in Figure 4.14(b) which
shows little variation in the stress; it only spans from 4.12 MPa to 4.48 MPa.
32
Other cases
In order to save material and therein cost it is possible to use a lower upper limit for the area
constraint by multiplying with a constant. E.g. how does the plate look if the material cost is
to be cut down by 20%? In Figure 4.15 the results of this reduction can be seen. The model
has become 13727 kg lighter and the maximum equivalent stress has still been reduced from
6.20 MPa to 5.61 MPa (10.5%). The result, however, is not optimal. The stress is evenly
distributed, but a large stress concentration at the top left corner is not desirable. The whole
design domain should be larger in order to distribute the stresses better in the domain.
Figure 4.15: Optimized plate with a 20% reduction in material and optimization parameters
p1 = 8.58, p2 = 0.80, and p3 = 1.67
This model shows that COMSOL Multiphysics 4.4 currently has some scaling problems. This
model was originally supposed to be 25 mm25 mm with a hole with a radius of 10 mm, but due
to these scaling problems when COMSOL tried to optimize the shape of the plate it stopped
after one iteration. This problem occurred even though the model was setup with various
scaling factors in the parameterizations to take this into account. The COMSOL support has
been contacted and normally theyre rather quick at responding (usually less than 24 hours),
but they have been working on this problem for more than a week.
33
MODEL WIZARD
1 In the Model Wizard window, click the 2D button
2 In the Select Physics tree, select Mathematics>Deformed Mesh>Deformed Geometry (dg).
3 Click the Add button
4 In the Select Physics window, select Structural Mechanics>Solid Mechanics (solid).
5 Click the Add button
6 In the Select Physics tree, select Mathematics>Optimization and Sensitivity>Optimization
(opt).
7 Click the Add button.
8 Click the Study button
9 In the tree, select Preset Studies for Selected Physics>Stationary
10 Click the Done button
GLOBAL DEFINITIONS
Parameters
1 On the Home toolbar, click Parameters
2 In the Parameters settings windows, locate the Parameters section
3 Click Load from le
4 Browse to nd the le called bracket_shape_optimization_parameters.txt and doubleclick it to load the parameters
GEOMETRY 1
Square 1
34
Circle 1
1 In the Model Builder window, right-click Geometry 1 and choose Circle
2 In the Circle settings window, locate the Size and Shape section
3 In the Radius edit eld, type r
4 Click the Build All Objects button
Dierence 1
1 In the Model Builder window, right-click Geometry 1 and choose Boolean Operations>Dierence
2 In the Dierence settings window, locate the Objects to add section
3 Activate the Object to add window by clicking Activate, and then click on the square
(Square 1)
4 In the Dierence settings window, locate the Objects to subtract section
5 Activate the Object to subtract window by clicking Activate, and then click on the circle
(Square 1)
6 Click the Build All Objects button
MATERIALS
Add material
1 Go to the Add Material window
2 In the tree, select Built-In>Structural Steel
3 In the Add material window, click Add to Component and choose Component 1
35
Roller 1
1 On the Physics toolbar, click Boundaries and choose Roller
2 Select Boundary 1 and 3 only.
Boundary Load 1
1 On the Physics toolbar, click Boundaries and choose Boundary Load
2 Select Boundary 2 only.
3 In the Boundary Selection window, locate the Force section
4 Under Load type, change it to Total force
5 Let the y component remain 0, but change the x component to P1
Boundary Load 2
1 On the Physics toolbar, click Boundaries and choose Boundary Load
2 Select Boundary 4 only.
3 In the Boundary Selection window, locate the Force section
4 Under Load type, change it to Total force
5 Let the x component remain 0, but change the y component to P2
Free Deformation 1
1 On the Physics toolbar, click Domains and choose Free Deformation
2 Select Domain 1.
36
MESH 1
Free Quad 1
1 In the Model Builder window, under Component 1 (comp1) right-click Mesh 1 and
choose Free Quad
2 In the Free Quad settings window, locate the Domain Selection section
3 From the Geometric entity level list, choose Domain
4 Select Domain 1
Size
37
STUDY 1
Before starting the actual optimization it can be a good idea to check the model by solving for
the default parameters. In this way you have a good reference point when doing the optimization later.
Solver 1
1 On the Study toolbar, click Show Default Solver
2 In the Model Builder window, expand the Study 1>Solver Congurations node
3 In the Model Builder window, expand the Solver 1 node, then click Stationary Solver
1
4 In the Stationary Solver settings window, locate the General section
5 From the Linearity list, choose Nonlinear
6 On the Home toolbar, click Compute
RESULTS
38
ADD STUDY
1 To add a new study for the optimization, go to the Home toolbar and click Add Study
2 Go to the Add Study window
3 Find the Studies subsection. In the tree, select Preset Studies>Frequency Domain
4 In the Add study window, click Add study
5 On the Home toolbar, click Add Study to close the Add Study window
STUDY 2
39
Optimization
1 On the Study toolbar, click Optimization. This will add the Optimization module to
Study 2
2 In the Optimization settings window, locate the Optimization Solver section
3 From the Method list, choose SNOPT
4 In the Optimality tolerance edit eld, type
5 In the Maximum number of objective evaluations edit eld, type 200
6 Locate the Objective Function section. In the table, enter following settings:
Expression
Description
comp1.solid.Ws_tot
7 Locate the Control Variables and Parameters section. Click Load from File
8 Browse to nd the le called bracket_shape_optimization_control_parameters.txt
9 Locate Output While Solving section and make sure that Plot is checked
Solver 2
1 On the Study toolbar, click Show Default Solver
2 In the Model Builder window, expand the Study 2>Solver Congurations>Solver
2>Optimization Solver 1 node, then click Stationary 1
3 In the Stationary settings window, locate the General section
4 In the Relative tolerance edit eld, type 1e-6
5 From the Linearity list, choose Automatic
6 Right-click Study 2 and press the Compute button
RESULTS
Plots
The plots from solution 1 can be duplicated relatively easy thus avoiding the same procedure
all over again.
1 In the Model Builder window under Results, locate the von Mises stress, solution 1
40
1D Plots
It can also be interesting to see the stress as a function of the boundary. This can be done in
the following
1 In the Model Builder window, right-click Results and locate 1D Plot Group, click it
2 The 1D Plot Group window will open, locate the Data section, under Data set choose
None
3 Right-click the 1D Plot Group under Results, click Line Graph to add a graph
4 The Line Graph window will open, under Data set choose Solution 1
5 Locate the Selection section, toggle the on/o switch and select Boundary 5
6 Locate the y-Axis Data section and replace the expression with solid.mises, also change
the Unit from N/m2 to MPa
7 In order to compare the value with Study 2, right-click Line Graph 1 and click Duplicate
8 In the new Line Graph window, change the Data set to Solution 2
Probes
It is possible to see the parameter values for each iteration by using probes. In addition its
also possible to show the values of stresses, displacement and the total elastic strain energy.
1 In the Model Builder window under Component 1, locate the Denitions menu
2 Right-click it and choose Probes>Domain Probe
3 The Domain Probe window will open, locate the Expression section. The expression will
by default be set to solid.disp, change this to solid.mises, which is the von Mises stress
4 Right-click Domain Probe 1 and click Rename
5 Rename the probe to von Mises
6 Repeat step 1-5 for the following parameters: strain energy, total strain energy, q1, q2 and
q3.
41
Area Probe
1 In order to create an Area Probe, rst right-click Denitions, choose Component Couplings>Integration
2 The Integration window will open, select Domain 1
3 Now create a new Domain Probe using the steps from above. Rename it Area
4 In the Expression eld type intop1(1)
5 To see the probes in eect, compute Study 2 again
42
CHAPTER
5
Optimizing the shape of a fillet
This model will look into how COMSOL can be used for 3D shape optimization. The focus of
the optimization will be of a llet on a bar in tension. The model will show how to model a
axisymmetric geometry and will look into some of the problems that may arise when performing
shape optimization in COMSOL.
10
17.5
s2
s3
12.5
Axis of rotation
27.5
s1
44
The goal of the optimization is to get a better stress distribution along the llet boundary
while still maintaining the volume.
Because of the rotational symmetry it is only necessary to model half of the model in 2D. The
parameterization of this problem is very similar to the ones seen in Chapter 3 and 4 and will
not be explained further:
s1 (s) = p1 s
s2,R (s) = p2 s
s2,Z (s) = p1 (1 s) + q1 sin(s)
(5.1)
s3 (s) = p2 (1 s)
In the above parameterization p1 , p2 , and q1 are all optimization parameters. The parameterization for s2,Z is the rst term of equation (3.1) and can be expanded with more terms as in
Chapter 3.
Due to the current scaling problems in COMSOL, this model is also heavily enlarged. I am
well aware of the size is unrealistic, but the basis of the optimization is still valid.
5.2
On Figure 5.2 the standard bar can be seen both in 2D and 3D. It is clear that there is a stress
concentration due to a singularity. If the mesh is too ne when theres a singularity in the
model, the von Mises stress will not reect a proper image of the stress distribution. In order
to get a better result of the stress distribution a llet with radius 1 m has been added.
45
vM,max [MPa]
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [kJ]
Area [m2 ]
6.73
10.35
192.61
525
Table 5.3: Values for the standard bar, reference points for the optimization
Figure 5.4 shows an optimized llet with optimization parameters p1 = 26.00, p2 = 7.60, and
q1 = 11.24. From the von Mises stress plot it is clear that high stress concentration has been
attened out with the sine curve. Figure 5.4 is parameterized with a single sine curve (N = 1).
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [kJ]
Area [m2 ]
4.44
9.85
186.57
525
Table 5.5: Values for the optimized llet with N = 1, and optimization parameters p1 = 26.00,
p2 = 7.60, and q1 = 11.24
Figure 5.6 shows the stress along the boundary for s2 . It can be seen that the stress has become
more constant. Due to the form of the parameterization for s2 the boundary becomes longer
when optimizing the shape, while s1 becomes shorter.
46
Figure 5.6: The von Mises stress as a function of the arc length for s2 . The blue curve
is the original design and the green is the optimized design with optimization
parameters p1 = 26.00, p2 = 7.60, and q1 = 11.24
When the parameterizations change the boundaries by such a big amount, e.g. making them
twice as long as, the mesh is more likely to get inverted, because the mesh elements are
stretched too much. To take this into account a mesh renement study is added to the model.
In COMSOL a mesh renement can only be added if the mesh is made of triangular mesh
elements, so the mesh is changed from mapped quads to free triangular mesh elements. The
mesh renement allows for bigger mesh displacements in the optimization and thus gives a
better solution.
Too see if the llet can be optimized further with the sine parameterization more terms are
added. The optimization is run for N = [1, 5], where N Z. In order to avoid the optimization going into the undened region of the domain, it is very important to choose the right
boundaries for the optimization parameters as well as scaling the displacement. This cannot
be stressed enough seeing as it is as important as having a high quality mesh. Choosing the
right parameters can be a very time consuming task and the only way is by trial-and-error. If
the boundaries or scaling factors are not well chosen, inverted mesh elements are certain to develop. The parameterization for this model has shown very troublesome regarding this subject,
because the joining of the parameterizations apparently is not optimal, so the parameters are
very sensitive.
Table 5.7 shows the results of all ve optimization studies.
47
vM,max [MPa]
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [kJ]
Area [m2 ]
Std.
6.73
10.35
192.61
525
N =1
4.44
9.85
186.57
525
N =2
4.14
9.84
186.49
525
N =3
4.02
9.84
186.44
525
N =4
3.91
9.84
186.43
525
N =5
3.86
9.84
186.42
525
48
49
50
5.3
Modeling instructions
The following will describe how to create the model. From the File menu, choose New
NEW
1 In the New window, click the Model Wizard button
MODEL WIZARD
1 In the Model Wizard window, click the 2D button
2 In the Select Physics tree, select Mathematics>Deformed Mesh>Deformed Geometry (dg).
3 Click the Add button
4 In the Select Physics window, select Structural Mechanics>Solid Mechanics (solid).
5 Click the Add button
6 In the Select Physics tree, select Mathematics>Optimization and Sensitivity>Optimization
(opt).
7 Click the Add button.
8 Click the Study button
9 In the tree, select Preset Studies for Selected Physics>Stationary
10 Click the Done button
GLOBAL DEFINITIONS
Parameters
1 On the Home toolbar, click Parameters
2 In the Parameters settings windows, locate the Parameters section
3 Click Load from le
4 Browse to nd the le called fillet_shape_optimization_parameters.txt and doubleclick it to load the parameters
GEOMETRY 1
Rectangle 1
51
Bzier Polygon 1
1 In the Model Builder window, right-click Geometry 1 and choose Bzier Polygon
2 In the Bzier Polygon settings window, locate the Polygon Segments section
3 Find the Added segments subsection. Click the Add Linear button
4 Find the Control points subsection. In row 1, set r to b-d and z to a-c
5 In row 2, set r to b-d+radius and z to a-c
6 Find the Added segments subsection. Click the Add Linear button
7 Find the Control points subsection. In row 1, set r to b-d+radius and z to a-c
8 In row 2, set r to b-d and z to a-c+radius
9 Find the Added segments subsection. Click the Add Linear button
10 Find the Control points subsection. In row 1, set r to b-d and z to a-c+radius
11 In row 2, set r to b-d and z to a-c
12 Click the Build All Obecjts button
13 Click the Zoom Extents button on the Graphics toolbar
Dierence 1
1 In the Model Builder window, right-click Geometry 1 and choose Boolean Operations>Dierence
2 In the Dierence settings window, locate the Objects to add section
52
3 Activate the Object to add window by clicking Activate, and then click on the rectangle
(Rectangle 1)
4 In the Dierence settings window, locate the Objects to subtract section
5 Activate the Object to subtract window by clicking Activate, and then click on the
Bzier polygon (Bzier Polygon 1)
6 Click the Build All Objects button
Rectangle 2
1 In the Model Builder window, right-click Geometry 1 and choose Rectangle
2 In the Rectangle settings window, locate the Size section
3 In the Width edit eld, type b
4 In the Height edit eld, type a
5 Click the Build All Objects button
Dierence 2
1 In the Model Builder window, right-click Geometry 1 and choose Boolean Operations>Dierence
2 In the Dierence settings window, locate the Objects to add section
3 Activate the Object to add window by clicking Activate, and then click on the new
rectangle (Rectangle 2)
4 In the Dierence settings window, locate the Objects to subtract section
5 Activate the Object to subtract window by clicking Activate, and then click on the
Dierence domain created before (Dierence 1)
6 Click the Build All Objects button
MATERIALS
Add material
1 Go to the Add Material window
2 In the tree, select Built-In>Structural Steel
3 In the Add material window, click Add to Component and choose Component 1
53
Roller 1
1 On the Physics toolbar, click Boundaries and choose Roller
2 Select Boundary 2 only
Fixed Constraint 1
1 On the Physics toolbar, click Points and choose Fixed Constraint
2 Select Point 1 only (the point in the lower left corner)
Boundary Load 1
1 On the Physics toolbar, click Boundaries and choose Boundary Load
2 Select Boundary 3 only.
3 In the Boundary Selection window, locate the Force section
4 Under Load type, change it to Total force
5 Let the r component remain 0, but change the z component to P
Free Deformation 1
1 On the Physics toolbar, click Domains and choose Free Deformation
2 Select Domain 1.
54
MESH 1
Free Quad 1
1 In the Model Builder window, under Component 1 (comp1) right-click Mesh 1 and
choose Free Quad
2 In the Free Quad settings window, locate the Domain Selection section
3 From the Geometric entity level list, choose Domain
4 Select Domain 1
Size
1 In the Model Builder window, under Component 1 (comp1)>Mesh 1 click Size
2 In the Size settings window, locate the Element size section
3 Under Predened, select Extra ne from the list
55
STUDY 1
Before starting the actual optimization it can be a good idea to check the model by solving for
the default parameters. In this way you have a good reference point when doing the optimization later.
Solver 1
1 On the Study toolbar, click Show Default Solver
2 In the Model Builder window, expand the Study 1>Solver Congurations node
3 In the Model Builder window, expand the Solver 1 node, then click Stationary Solver
1
4 In the Stationary Solver settings window, locate the General section
5 From the Linearity list, choose Nonlinear
6 On the Home toolbar, click Compute
RESULTS
ADD STUDY
1 To add a new study for the optimization, go to the Home toolbar and click Add Study
56
STUDY 2
Optimization
1 On the Study toolbar, click Optimization. This will add the Optimization module to
Study 2
2 In the Optimization settings window, locate the Optimization Solver section
3 From the Method list, choose SNOPT
4 In the Optimality tolerance edit eld, type 1e-4
5 In the Maximum number of objective evaluations edit eld, type 200
6 Locate the Objective Function section. In the table, enter following settings:
Expression
Description
comp1.solid.Ws_tot
57
7 Locate the Control Variables and Parameters section. Click Load from File
8 Browse to nd the le called beam_shape_optimization_control_parameters.txt
9 Locate Output While Solving section and make sure that Plot is checked
Solver 2
1 On the Study toolbar, click Show Default Solver
2 In the Model Builder window, expand the Study 2>Solver Congurations>Solver
2>Optimization Solver 1 node, then click Stationary 1
3 In the Stationary settings window, locate the General section
4 In the Relative tolerance edit eld, type 1e-6
5 From the Linearity list, choose Automatic
6 Right-click Study 2 and press the Compute button
RESULTS
Plots
The plots from solution 1 can be duplicated relatively easy thus avoiding the same procedure
all over again.
1 In the Model Builder window under Results, locate the von Mises stress, solution 1
2 Right-click it and choose Duplicate
3 Right-click the new plot group and rename it to von Mises stress, solution 2
4 In the 2D Plot Group window, locate the Data section
5 In the drop down menu change it from Solution 1 to Solution 2
6 Click Plot
7 Follow the same procedure for the von Mises stress 3D plot
Probes
It is possible to see the parameter values for each iteration by using probes. In addition its
also possible to show the values of stresses, displacement and the total elastic strain energy.
1 In the Model Builder window under Component 1, locate the Denitions menu
2 Right-click it and choose Probes>Domain Probe
58
3 The Domain Probe window will open, locate the Expression section. The expression will
by default be set to solid.disp, change this to solid.mises, which is the von Mises stress
4 Right-click Domain Probe 1 and click Rename
5 Rename the probe to von Mises
6 Repeat step 1-5 for the following parameters: strain energy, total strain energy, p1, p2, and
q1.
Area Probe
1 In order to create an Area Probe, rst right-click Denitions, choose Component Couplings>Integration
2 The Integration window will open, select Domain 1
3 Now create a new Domain Probe using the steps from above. Rename it Area
4 In the Expression eld type intop1(1)
CHAPTER
6
Conclusion
Throughout this thesis shape optimization has been investigated. The strengths and weaknesses of a number of dierent shape optimization methods have been discussed. Shape optimization in COMSOL has been implemented on three classic shape optimization problems
and has resulted in solutions similar analytical results and to what others have obtained. Although COMSOL has improved their software for shape optimization there are still obstacles
to tackle. First and foremost it is critical to have the mathematical knowledge of how to create
well-connected linear combinations. Furthermore it is important that the guess for the linear
combinations is good seeing as the solution is only as good as the guess.
And even though the parameterization is well-connected in COMSOL, there is still a lot of
work with tweaking both the boundaries for the optimization parameters, but also for nding
the right scaling factors for the linear combinations.
60
APPENDIX
A
Cantilever Beam
A.1 Standard
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
============================================================
Stationary Solver 1 in Solver 1 started at 8-maj -2014 18:13:56.
Nonlinear solver
Number of degrees of freedom solved for: 19268.
Nonsymmetric matrix found .
Scales for dependent variables :
Displacement field ( Material ) (comp1 .u): 2.8e -05
Material coordinates ( Geometry ) ( comp1 .XY): 10
Iter
ErrEst
Damping
Stepsize #Res #Jac #Sol
LinErr
1
2.7e -11
1.0000000
0.63
2
1
2 1.5e -08
2
6.4e -16
1.0000000
2.7e -11
3
2
4
3e -08
Stationary Solver 1 in Solver 1: Solution time: 1 s
Physical memory : 877 MB
Virtual memory : 5213 MB
LinRes
2.9e -11
4e -16
62
A Cantilever Beam
Figure A.1:
A.1 Standard
63
Figure A.2: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
64
A Cantilever Beam
============================================================
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2 started at 22-maj -2014 11:42:41.
Optimization solver ( SNOPT)
Analytic gradient with the adjoint method .
Itns Major Minor
Step nPDE
Error Objective
2
0
2
1
2.99 1.331e+04
4
1
2
0.45
2
1.54 1.538e+04
7
2
3
0.25
4
0.589
1.09e+04
8
3
1
1.00
5
0.478 1.086e+04
9
4
1
1.00
6
0.179 1.088e+04
11
5
2
0.25
16
0.61 1.149e+04
Warning : Current point cannot be improved .
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2: Solution time: 63 s (1 minute , 3 seconds )
Physical memory : 867 MB
Virtual memory : 5200 MB
65
Figure A.3:
66
A Cantilever Beam
(a) The error of the solution as a function of itera- (b) The error of the solution as a function of itertion number for the optimization solver
ation number for the nonlinear solver
Figure A.4:
78.45
160.26
67.00
72.26
75.37
73.01
1
2
3
4
5
6
2662
3076
2181
2171
2176
2298
U [J/m3 ]
13308
15381
10903
10855
10881
11490
Utot [J]
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Area [m2 ]
-0.0266
-0.0308
-0.0218
-0.0217
-0.0218
-0.0230
Y -disp [m]
0.9214
-0.0467
0.5219
0.4552
0.4186
0.3340
p1 [-]
vM,max [MPa]
Iteration #
-0.4053
0.3416
0.1591
0.2114
0.2798
0.4445
q1 [-]
-0.4053
-0.3883
-0.7244
-0.7244
-0.7748
-0.9000
p2 [-]
68
A Cantilever Beam
============================================================
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2 started at 22-maj -2014 11:17:17.
Optimization solver ( SNOPT)
Analytic gradient with the adjoint method .
Itns Major Minor
Step nPDE
Error Objective
3
0
3
1
3.23 1.315e+04
6
1
3
0.40
2
1.18 1.425e+04
10
2
4
0.21
4
0.608 1.088e+04
11
3
1
1.00
5
0.349 1.086e+04
12
4
1
1.00
6
0.094 1.086e+04
13
5
1
0.59
8
0.0624 1.085e+04
14
6
1
1.00
9
0.0493 1.084e+04
16
7
2
1.00
10
0.212 1.102e+04
18
8
2
0.29
12
0.239 1.082e+04
19
9
1
1.00
13
0.153 1.081e+04
20
10
1
1.00
14
0.01 1.081e+04
22
11
2
0.00
20
0.0472 1.081e+04
24
12
2
1.00
21
0.0492 1.081e+04
26
13
2
1.00
23
0.0489 1.081e+04
28
14
2
0.00
27
0.0493 1.081e+04
29
15
1
0.50
29
0.0493 1.081e+04
30
16
1
1.00
30
0.0493 1.081e+04
32
17
1
0.00
54
0.00687 1.081e+04
33
18
1
1.00
56
0.0306 1.081e+04
Warning : Current point cannot be improved .
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2: Solution time: 107 s (1 minute , 47 seconds )
Physical memory : 856 MB
Virtual memory : 5189 MB
69
Figure A.6:
70
A Cantilever Beam
(a) The error of the solution as a function of itera- (b) The error of the solution as a function of itertion number for the optimization solver
ation number for the nonlinear solver
Figure A.7:
79.27
127.94
70.22
73.54
74.59
73.91
73.20
87.82
70.99
68.41
68.08
68.19
68.21
68.25
68.21
68.21
68.21
68.27
68.16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2630
2850
2177
2172
2172
2171
2168
2204
2164
2161
2162
2161
2161
2161
2161
2161
2161
2161
2161
U [J/m3 ]
13150
14250
10884
10859
10862
10853
10839
11021
10821
10807
10807
10807
10807
10807
10807
10807
10807
10807
10807
Utot [J]
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Area [m2 ]
-0.0263
-0.0285
-0.0218
-0.0217
-0.0217
-0.0217
-0.0217
-0.0220
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
Y -disp [m]
0.8488
0.0587
0.4797
0.4397
0.4281
0.4358
0.4444
0.5224
0.4722
0.5065
0.5112
0.5096
0.5093
0.5088
0.5093
0.5093
0.5093
0.5086
0.5100
p1 [-]
vM,max [MPa]
Iteration #
-0.3610
0.2539
0.1851
0.2338
0.2251
0.2322
0.2389
0.2883
0.2458
0.2168
0.2171
0.2146
0.2147
0.2151
0.2147
0.2147
0.2147
0.2134
0.2145
q1 [-]
-0.3891
-0.3819
-0.7153
-0.7374
-0.7147
-0.7314
-0.7485
-0.8894
-0.7852
-0.7826
-0.7876
-0.7828
-0.7827
-0.7827
-0.7827
-0.7827
-0.7827
-0.7802
-0.7832
p2 [-]
0.4011
-0.1867
0.0795
0.0272
0.0017
-0.0089
-0.1075
-0.9000
-0.3667
-0.5784
-0.6134
-0.5913
-0.5901
-0.5876
-0.5901
-0.5901
-0.5901
-0.5900
-0.5897
q2 [-]
72
A Cantilever Beam
============================================================
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2 started at 22-maj -2014 11:02:24.
Optimization solver ( SNOPT)
Analytic gradient with the adjoint method .
Itns Major Minor
Step nPDE
Error Objective
4
0
4
1
3.23 1.268e+04
8
1
4
0.38
2
1.05 1.496e+04
13
2
5
0.18
4
0.61 1.102e+04
14
3
1
1.00
5
0.267 1.099e+04
15
4
1
1.00
6
0.0912 1.096e+04
16
5
1
1.00
8
0.244 1.089e+04
17
6
1
1.00
9
0.432 1.083e+04
18
7
1
1.00
10
0.216
1.08e+04
19
8
1
1.00
11
0.042 1.078e+04
20
9
1
1.00
12
0.0511 1.078e+04
21
10
1
1.00
13
0.00975 1.078e+04
22
11
1
1.00
14
0.00499 1.078e+04
23
12
1
1.00
15
0.00814 1.078e+04
24
13
1
1.00
17
0.00979 1.078e+04
25
14
1
1.00
19
0.0123 1.078e+04
26
15
1
1.00
20
0.0046 1.078e+04
27
16
1
1.00
22
0.0033 1.078e+04
28
17
1
1.00
23
0.00824 1.078e+04
29
18
1
1.00
25
0.00892 1.078e+04
30
19
1
1.00
26
0.00664 1.078e+04
31
20
1
1.00
28
0.00762 1.078e+04
32
21
1
1.00
29
0.00501 1.078e+04
33
22
1
1.00
31
0.00651 1.078e+04
34
23
1
1.00
32
0.00365 1.078e+04
35
24
1
1.00
34
0.00482 1.078e+04
36
25
1
1.00
36
0.00701 1.078e+04
37
26
1
0.19
38
0.00171 1.078e+04
Warning : Current point cannot be improved .
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2: Solution time: 89 s (1 minute , 29 seconds )
Physical memory : 854 MB
Virtual memory : 5185 MB
73
Figure A.9:
74
A Cantilever Beam
(a) The error of the solution as a function of itera- (b) The error of the solution as a function of itertion number for the optimization solver
ation number for the nonlinear solver
Figure A.10:
vM,max [MPa]
74.41
126.51
67.81
70.50
71.96
74.64
73.21
72.05
72.22
71.99
71.85
71.62
71.62
71.64
71.69
71.67
71.66
71.59
71.51
71.44
71.34
71.28
71.19
71.16
71.13
71.13
71.13
Iteration #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
12677
14964
11020
10987
10963
10893
10834
10795
10782
10782
10782
10781
10781
10781
10781
10781
10781
10781
10781
10781
10781
10781
10781
10781
10781
10781
10781
Utot [J]
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Area [m2 ]
-0.0254
-0.0299
-0.0220
-0.0220
-0.0219
-0.0218
-0.0217
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
Y -disp [m]
0.8256
0.0514
0.5170
0.4821
0.4634
0.4297
0.4449
0.4545
0.4539
0.4565
0.4581
0.4611
0.4612
0.4609
0.4603
0.4606
0.4608
0.4617
0.4627
0.4636
0.4648
0.4657
0.4668
0.4671
0.4676
0.4675
0.4676
p1 [-]
-0.3456
0.2581
0.1267
0.1562
0.1938
0.2607
0.2577
0.2719
0.2648
0.2642
0.2633
0.2597
0.2597
0.2600
0.2602
0.2601
0.2601
0.2597
0.2592
0.2586
0.2579
0.2573
0.2565
0.2562
0.2558
0.2557
0.2558
q1 [-]
2535
2993
2204
2197
2193
2179
2167
2159
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
2156
U [J/m3 ]
-0.3725
-0.3557
-0.6580
-0.6618
-0.6930
-0.7540
-0.7725
-0.8246
-0.8064
-0.8094
-0.8094
-0.8070
-0.8070
-0.8073
-0.8068
-0.8069
-0.8069
-0.8071
-0.8074
-0.8075
-0.8076
-0.8076
-0.8076
-0.8076
-0.8076
-0.8074
-0.8076
p2 [-]
0.3840
-0.1920
0.1066
0.0631
0.0111
-0.1605
-0.2439
-0.5721
-0.4578
-0.4735
-0.4701
-0.4603
-0.4624
-0.4657
-0.4681
-0.4701
-0.4725
-0.4757
-0.4795
-0.4839
-0.4895
-0.4938
-0.4995
-0.5013
-0.5038
-0.5055
-0.5040
q2 [-]
-0.3084
-0.5738
-0.4775
-0.4523
-0.4041
-0.1813
-0.0127
0.5631
0.3615
0.3880
0.3796
0.3567
0.3572
0.3603
0.3599
0.3564
0.3517
0.3486
0.3445
0.3421
0.3386
0.3377
0.3362
0.3368
0.3375
0.3397
0.3378
q3 [-]
76
A Cantilever Beam
============================================================
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2 started at 22-maj -2014 10:51:35.
Optimization solver ( SNOPT)
Analytic gradient with the adjoint method .
Itns Major Minor
Step nPDE
Error Objective
5
0
5
1
3.23
1.24e+04
10
1
5
0.36
2
1.22 1.546e+04
17
2
7
0.17
4
0.671 1.119e+04
18
3
1
1.00
5
0.843 1.107e+04
19
4
1
1.00
6
0.158 1.102e+04
20
5
1
1.00
8
0.234 1.103e+04
21
6
1
0.40
10
0.113 1.096e+04
22
7
1
1.00
11
0.33 1.082e+04
23
8
1
1.00
12
0.11
1.08e+04
24
9
1
1.00
13
0.0568
1.08e+04
25
10
1
0.10
16
0.0267 1.079e+04
26
11
1
1.00
17
0.0312 1.079e+04
27
12
1
1.00
18
0.0405 1.078e+04
28
13
1
1.00
19
0.0437 1.078e+04
29
14
1
1.00
20
0.0523 1.078e+04
30
15
1
1.00
21
0.0305 1.078e+04
31
16
1
1.00
22
0.0194 1.078e+04
32
17
1
1.00
23
0.0215 1.077e+04
34
18
2
1.00
24
0.0239
1.09e+04
36
19
2
0.17
26
0.0273 1.077e+04
37
20
1
1.00
27
0.0159 1.077e+04
38
21
1
1.00
28
0.0055 1.077e+04
39
22
1
1.00
29
0.00936 1.077e+04
40
23
1
1.00
31
0.0129 1.077e+04
41
24
1
1.00
32
0.00454 1.077e+04
42
25
1
1.00
34
0.00531 1.077e+04
43
26
1
1.00
35
0.00227 1.077e+04
44
27
1
1.00
37
0.00233 1.077e+04
45
28
1
1.00
39
0.00219 1.077e+04
46
29
1
1.00
41
0.00215 1.077e+04
47
30
1
1.00
43
0.00256 1.089e+04
48
31
1
0.00
48
0.00686 1.077e+04
49
32
1
1.00
50
0.00764 1.077e+04
50
33
1
1.00
51
0.00195 1.077e+04
51
34
1
1.00
52
0.00473 1.077e+04
52
35
1
0.24
56
0.00561 1.077e+04
53
36
1
0.09
60
0.00653 1.077e+04
54
37
1
1.00
61
0.00779 1.077e+04
55
38
1
1.00
63
0.0118 1.077e+04
56
39
1
0.00
67
0.00531 1.077e+04
57
40
1
1.00
69
0.00566 1.077e+04
58
41
1
1.00
70
0.00338 1.077e+04
59
42
1
1.00
72
0.00477 1.077e+04
60
43
1
0.14
78
0.00397 1.077e+04
61
44
1
1.00
80
0.00456 1.077e+04
62
45
1
1.00
82
0.00335 1.077e+04
63
46
1
1.00
83
0.0117 1.077e+04
64
47
1
0.01
90
0.00372 1.077e+04
Warning : Current point cannot be improved .
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2: Solution time: 162 s (2 minutes , 42 seconds )
56
57
77
78
A Cantilever Beam
Figure A.12:
79
(a) The error of the solution as a function of itera- (b) The error of the solution as a function of itertion number for the optimization solver
ation number for the nonlinear solver
Figure A.13:
vM,max [MPa]
65.05
148.33
76.13
71.66
71.81
73.20
72.18
71.97
73.32
72.93
73.49
73.03
72.16
71.42
70.84
70.76
70.71
70.68
88.26
70.11
69.96
69.97
69.93
69.88
69.84
69.79
69.78
69.78
69.77
69.76
Iteration #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
2480
3093
2238
2214
2204
2205
2191
2165
2159
2160
2159
2157
2157
2156
2156
2155
2155
2155
2181
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
U [J/m3 ]
12399
15465
11189
11070
11022
11027
10957
10824
10797
10801
10794
10787
10784
10781
10778
10777
10775
10774
10904
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
Utot [J]
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Area [m2 ]
-0.0248
-0.0309
-0.0224
-0.0221
-0.0220
-0.0221
-0.0219
-0.0217
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0218
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
Y -disp [m]
0.7718
-0.0106
0.4946
0.4614
0.4592
0.4418
0.4545
0.4579
0.4424
0.4468
0.4404
0.4454
0.4556
0.4645
0.4718
0.4730
0.4745
0.4750
0.5062
0.4838
0.4855
0.4855
0.4861
0.4869
0.4873
0.4880
0.4881
0.4882
0.4883
0.4885
p1 [-]
-0.3231
0.2962
0.1725
0.1028
0.1384
0.2505
0.1875
0.2208
0.2640
0.2480
0.2657
0.2654
0.2605
0.2550
0.2493
0.2487
0.2498
0.2515
0.3132
0.2597
0.2563
0.2571
0.2568
0.2566
0.2561
0.2554
0.2553
0.2553
0.2552
0.2551
q1 [-]
-0.3482
-0.3421
-0.6942
-0.5748
-0.6189
-0.7497
-0.6815
-0.7441
-0.7934
-0.7733
-0.7923
-0.7958
-0.7995
-0.8019
-0.8031
-0.8039
-0.8078
-0.8102
-0.9142
-0.8284
-0.8259
-0.8270
-0.8272
-0.8276
-0.8274
-0.8272
-0.8271
-0.8271
-0.8271
-0.8271
p2 [-]
0.3590
-0.2303
0.1049
0.0974
0.0815
-0.0016
0.0305
-0.0996
-0.2081
-0.1770
-0.2208
-0.2749
-0.3351
-0.3991
-0.4641
-0.4804
-0.5170
-0.5240
-0.9000
-0.6028
-0.6033
-0.6065
-0.6104
-0.6154
-0.6176
-0.6213
-0.6210
-0.6207
-0.6191
-0.6170
q2 [-]
-0.2883
-0.5746
-0.4713
-0.4143
-0.3922
-0.2617
-0.2774
0.1191
0.3519
0.2518
0.3226
0.2935
0.2876
0.2994
0.3273
0.3377
0.3594
0.3546
0.2185
0.3291
0.3318
0.3312
0.3310
0.3312
0.3304
0.3294
0.3285
0.3276
0.3264
0.3252
q3 [-]
0.3590
0.5250
0.4471
0.4002
0.3796
0.2752
0.2893
-0.0105
-0.1804
-0.0999
-0.1481
-0.0937
-0.0583
-0.0424
-0.0491
-0.0629
-0.1113
-0.1211
-0.5791
-0.1865
-0.1703
-0.1793
-0.1836
-0.1909
-0.1887
-0.1853
-0.1858
-0.1865
-0.1877
-0.1889
q4 [-]
80
A Cantilever Beam
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
69.37
69.76
69.79
69.79
69.68
69.74
69.76
69.67
69.45
69.68
69.71
69.72
69.74
69.73
69.73
69.73
70.11
69.73
10888
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10771
10772
10771
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
-0.0218
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
0.5701
0.4885
0.4881
0.4881
0.4895
0.4888
0.4885
0.4896
0.4925
0.4896
0.4891
0.4890
0.4888
0.4889
0.4889
0.4889
0.4841
0.4889
0.2227
0.2551
0.2553
0.2553
0.2542
0.2547
0.2550
0.2537
0.2504
0.2537
0.2542
0.2544
0.2546
0.2544
0.2543
0.2543
0.2539
0.2543
2178
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
2154
-0.8647
-0.8271
-0.8269
-0.8269
-0.8269
-0.8269
-0.8269
-0.8263
-0.8248
-0.8263
-0.8265
-0.8266
-0.8266
-0.8265
-0.8265
-0.8265
-0.8211
-0.8265
-0.5753
-0.6170
-0.6172
-0.6172
-0.6165
-0.6169
-0.6170
-0.6166
-0.6155
-0.6166
-0.6168
-0.6169
-0.6169
-0.6169
-0.6169
-0.6169
-0.6179
-0.6169
0.2615
0.3252
0.3255
0.3255
0.3240
0.3247
0.3250
0.3232
0.3182
0.3232
0.3239
0.3241
0.3244
0.3241
0.3241
0.3241
0.3203
0.3240
-0.2161
-0.1889
-0.1888
-0.1888
-0.1892
-0.1890
-0.1889
-0.1893
-0.1903
-0.1893
-0.1891
-0.1891
-0.1890
-0.1891
-0.1891
-0.1891
-0.1889
-0.1891
82
A Cantilever Beam
============================================================
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2 started at 22-maj -2014 10:57:45.
Optimization solver ( SNOPT)
Analytic gradient with the adjoint method .
Itns Major Minor
Step nPDE
Error Objective
6
0
6
1
3.23 1.242e+04
12
1
6
0.37
2
1.08 1.549e+04
20
2
8
0.18
4
0.657 1.122e+04
21
3
1
1.00
5
1.01 1.108e+04
22
4
1
1.00
6
0.197 1.103e+04
23
5
1
1.00
8
0.287 1.105e+04
24
6
1
0.38
10
0.0967 1.098e+04
25
7
1
1.00
11
0.283 1.084e+04
26
8
1
1.00
12
0.116
1.08e+04
27
9
1
1.00
13
0.0445 1.079e+04
29
10
2
1.00
14
0.0424 1.116e+04
31
11
2
0.14
17
0.0727 1.078e+04
32
12
1
1.00
18
0.0872 1.077e+04
33
13
1
1.00
19
0.117 1.077e+04
34
14
1
1.00
20
0.057 1.077e+04
35
15
1
1.00
21
0.0175 1.077e+04
36
16
1
1.00
22
0.00669 1.077e+04
37
17
1
1.00
23
0.00439 1.077e+04
38
18
1
1.00
24
0.00568 1.077e+04
39
19
1
1.00
25
0.00632 1.077e+04
40
20
1
1.00
26
0.0046 1.077e+04
41
21
1
0.21
28
0.00424 1.077e+04
42
22
1
1.00
29
0.0241 1.077e+04
43
23
1
1.00
30
0.0336 1.077e+04
44
24
1
1.00
31
0.0255 1.077e+04
45
25
1
1.00
32
0.00682 1.077e+04
46
26
1
1.00
34
0.0159 1.077e+04
47
27
1
1.00
35
0.00234 1.077e+04
48
28
1
1.00
37
0.00285 1.077e+04
49
29
1
1.00
39
0.00359 1.077e+04
Warning : Current point cannot be improved .
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2: Solution time: 104 s (1 minute , 44 seconds )
Physical memory : 857 MB
Virtual memory : 5185 MB
83
Figure A.15:
84
A Cantilever Beam
(a) The error of the solution as a function of itera- (b) The error of the solution as a function of itertion number for the optimization solver
ation number for the nonlinear solver
Figure A.16:
vM,max [MPa]
65.64
134.14
82.26
70.42
70.38
72.41
70.63
71.02
72.87
73.52
225.97
73.41
72.34
71.95
71.68
71.66
71.72
71.64
71.39
71.13
70.96
71.00
70.78
70.64
70.52
70.53
70.52
70.54
70.58
70.53
Iteration #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
2483
3098
2245
2216
2205
2209
2195
2168
2159
2158
2231
2156
2155
2154
2153
2153
2153
2153
2153
2153
2153
2153
2153
2153
2153
2153
2153
2153
2153
2153
U [J/m3 ]
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Area [m2 ]
-0.0248
-0.0310
-0.0225
-0.0222
-0.0221
-0.0221
-0.0220
-0.0217
-0.0216
-0.0216
-0.0223
-0.0216
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
-0.0215
Y -disp [m]
0.7995
0.0180
0.5117
0.4851
0.4851
0.4703
0.4807
0.4720
0.4470
0.4391
0.3787
0.4397
0.4521
0.4565
0.4591
0.4595
0.4589
0.4598
0.4629
0.4662
0.4685
0.4680
0.4711
0.4730
0.4748
0.4748
0.4750
0.4746
0.4742
0.4748
p1 [-]
-0.3334
0.2797
0.1546
0.0652
0.1011
0.2098
0.1463
0.1976
0.2664
0.2822
0.4351
0.2960
0.2825
0.2773
0.2784
0.2759
0.2766
0.2768
0.2779
0.2795
0.2803
0.2788
0.2761
0.2740
0.2717
0.2715
0.2706
0.2710
0.2713
0.2713
q1 [-]
-0.3594
-0.3377
-0.6799
-0.5431
-0.5894
-0.7179
-0.6469
-0.7240
-0.8034
-0.8172
-0.9700
-0.8360
-0.8294
-0.8274
-0.8341
-0.8308
-0.8313
-0.8328
-0.8379
-0.8434
-0.8467
-0.8439
-0.8424
-0.8412
-0.8397
-0.8393
-0.8384
-0.8385
-0.8385
-0.8389
p2 [-]
12417
15488
11224
11079
11027
11046
10976
10839
10795
10789
11155
10778
10773
10770
10767
10767
10767
10767
10766
10766
10766
10766
10766
10765
10765
10765
10765
10765
10765
10765
Utot [J]
0.3705
-0.2137
0.1079
0.1092
0.0945
0.0168
0.0497
-0.1001
-0.2568
-0.2939
-0.6990
-0.3729
-0.4089
-0.4452
-0.5453
-0.5244
-0.5191
-0.5302
-0.5635
-0.5947
-0.6130
-0.6005
-0.6042
-0.6085
-0.6144
-0.6142
-0.6147
-0.6128
-0.6095
-0.6063
q2 [-]
-0.2974
-0.5745
-0.4804
-0.4236
-0.4079
-0.3130
-0.3274
0.0409
0.3486
0.3786
0.7300
0.3928
0.3574
0.3605
0.4095
0.3988
0.4019
0.4062
0.4119
0.4113
0.4063
0.4000
0.3790
0.3684
0.3611
0.3620
0.3617
0.3628
0.3632
0.3618
q3 [-]
0.3705
0.3634
0.3753
0.3354
0.3164
0.2296
0.2499
-0.0246
-0.2487
-0.2591
-0.3766
-0.2145
-0.1410
-0.1160
-0.1003
-0.1083
-0.1238
-0.1336
-0.1525
-0.1673
-0.1746
-0.1664
-0.1648
-0.1674
-0.1727
-0.1736
-0.1756
-0.1740
-0.1711
-0.1666
q4 [-]
-0.1150
-0.4760
-0.3260
-0.2798
-0.2761
-0.2476
-0.2412
-0.0541
0.0948
0.1058
0.2503
0.1083
0.0915
0.0945
0.1220
0.1185
0.1228
0.1294
0.1439
0.1546
0.1585
0.1517
0.1447
0.1419
0.1399
0.1387
0.1367
0.1359
0.1341
0.1322
q5 [-]
86
APPENDIX
B
Plate with a hole
============================================================
Stationary Solver 1 in Solver 1 started at 19-jun -2014 12:48:43.
Nonlinear solver
Number of degrees of freedom solved for: 34708.
Nonsymmetric matrix found .
Scales for dependent variables :
comp1 .u: 6.1e -05
comp1 .XY: 10
Iter
ErrEst
Damping
Stepsize #Res #Jac #Sol
LinErr
1
5.5e -13
1.0000000
0.7
2
1
2 7.4e -11
2
2.1e -16
1.0000000
5.5e -13
3
2
4 4.2e -11
Stationary Solver 1 in Solver 1: Solution time: 2 s
Physical memory : 864 MB
Virtual memory : 5254 MB
LinRes
8.7e -14
3.4e -16
88
Figure B.2: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
89
Optimized plate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
============================================================
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2 started at 19-jun -2014 12:36:08.
Optimization solver (SNOPT )
Analytic gradient with the adjoint method .
Warning : New constraint force nodes detected : These are not stored .
Itns Major Minor
Step nPDE
Error Objective
2
0
2
1
0.0151
35.69
4
1
2
1.00
2
0.0126
35.88
6
2
2
0.06
4
0.00824
35.69
8
3
2
0.00
10
0.00462
35.69
10
4
2
1.00
12
0.00325
35.85
12
5
2
0.01
15
0.00313
35.69
13
6
1
0.03
17
0.00114
35.69
14
7
1
1.00
19
0.00136
35.69
15
8
1
1.00
20
0.000671
35.69
16
9
1
1.00
22
0.000951
35.69
17
10
1
0.15
24
0.000883
35.69
18
11
1
0.01
28
0.000118
35.69
19
12
1
1.00
30
0.000108
35.69
20
13
1
0.65
32
0.000105
35.69
21
14
1
1.00
33
0.000104
35.69
Number of optimization variables :
3.
Number of objective function evaluations :
57.
Number of Jacobian evaluations :
55.
Final objective function value : 35.69020753.
Warning : Requested accuracy could not be achieved .
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2: Solution time: 179 s (2 minutes , 59 seconds )
Physical memory : 910 MB
Virtual memory : 5265 MB
Iteration #
vM,max [MPa]
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [J]
Area [m2 ]
q1 [-]
q2 [-]
q3 [-]
1.00
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
2.11
2.94
2.16
2.08
2.68
2.13
2.09
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
4.08
4.10
4.08
4.08
4.10
4.08
4.08
4.08
4.08
4.08
4.08
4.08
4.08
4.08
4.08
35.69
35.88
35.69
35.69
35.85
35.69
35.69
35.69
35.69
35.69
35.69
35.69
35.69
35.69
35.69
87.43
87.44
87.43
87.43
87.48
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
0.01
0.56
0.11
0.05
0.20
-0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
-0.02
-0.99
-0.12
-0.09
-1.00
-0.10
-0.10
-0.10
-0.09
-0.09
-0.09
-0.09
-0.09
-0.09
-0.09
0.01
0.22
-0.01
0.02
0.54
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
90
91
Figure B.6: Graph comparing the v. Mises stress for the original shape with the optimized
design
Figure B.7: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the optimization
solver
92
Figure B.8: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
============================================================
Stationary Solver 1 in Solver 1 started at 19-jun -2014 11:17:14.
Nonlinear solver
Number of degrees of freedom solved for: 34708.
Nonsymmetric matrix found .
Scales for dependent variables :
comp1 .u: 6.1e -05
comp1 .XY: 10
Iter
ErrEst
Damping
Stepsize #Res #Jac #Sol
LinErr
1
7.1e -13
1.0000000
0.68
2
1
2 5.3e -11
2
1e -15
1.0000000
7.1e -13
3
2
4 2.9e -11
Stationary Solver 1 in Solver 1: Solution time: 2 s
Physical memory : 1.07 GB
Virtual memory : 5.45 GB
LinRes
6.6e -14
5.4e -16
93
Figure B.10: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
94
Optimized plate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
============================================================
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2 started at 19-jun -2014 11:57:41.
Optimization solver ( SNOPT)
Analytic gradient with the adjoint method .
Itns Major Minor
Step nPDE
Error Objective
2
0
2
1
0.892
102.3
3
1
1
1.00
2
0.649
98.56
4
2
1
0.64
3
0.617
96.6
5
3
1
1.00
4
0.077
97.06
6
4
1
1.00
5
0.0449
97.06
7
5
1
1.00
6
0.0235
97.05
8
6
1
1.00
7
0.00767
97.05
9
7
1
1.00
8
0.00385
97.05
10
8
1
1.00
9
0.000274
97.05
11
9
1
1.00
11
0.000305
97.05
12
10
1
0.07
14
3.39e -05
97.05
Number of optimization variables :
3.
Number of objective function evaluations :
16.
Number of Jacobian evaluations :
14.
Final objective function value : 97.05107473.
Optimality conditions satisfied .
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2: Solution time: 16 s
Physical memory : 712 MB
Virtual memory : 5048 MB
Iteration #
vM,max [MPa]
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [J]
Area [m2 ]
q1 [-]
q2 [-]
q3 [-]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5.20
4.25
3.35
3.35
3.29
3.27
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28
11.69
11.25
11.03
11.10
11.10
11.10
11.10
11.10
11.10
11.10
11.10
102.32
98.56
96.60
97.06
97.06
97.05
97.05
97.05
97.05
97.05
97.05
87.53
87.58
87.61
87.44
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
0.62
1.42
2.70
3.03
2.98
2.96
2.98
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
0.23
0.48
0.64
0.61
0.56
0.46
0.42
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
-0.69
-1.37
-2.12
-2.18
-2.13
-2.09
-2.08
-2.08
-2.08
-2.08
-2.08
95
96
Figure B.14: Graph comparing the v. Mises stress for the original shape with the optimized
design
Figure B.15: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the optimization
solver
97
Figure B.16: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
LinRes
8.8e -14
5.4e -16
98
Figure B.18: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
Optimized plate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
============================================================
Number of vertex elements : 5
Number of boundary elements : 192
Number of elements : 2121
Minimum element quality : 0.4294
Number of vertex elements : 5
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2 started at 19-jun -2014 03:18:29.
Optimization solver (SNOPT )
Analytic gradient with the adjoint method .
Warning : New constraint force nodes detected : These are not stored .
Itns Major Minor
Step nPDE
Error Objective
2
0
2
1
1.1
236.6
3
1
1
1.00
2
0.828
225.1
4
2
1
0.62
3
1.62
207.6
5
3
1
1.00
4
0.296
209.6
6
4
1
1.00
5
0.134
210
7
5
1
1.00
6
0.107
210
8
6
1
0.27
8
0.0319
210
9
7
1
1.00
9
0.0258
209.9
10
8
1
1.00
10
0.0033
209.9
12
9
2
1.00
11
0.00604
210.3
15
10
1
0.00
22
0.000981
209.9
16
11
1
0.00
26
0.00081
209.9
17
12
1
1.00
27
0.00286
210
18
13
1
0.01
31
0.000622
209.9
19
14
1
0.24
33
0.000438
209.9
20
15
1
1.00
34
0.000443
209.9
21
16
1
1.00
36
0.000618
209.9
22
17
1
0.20
38
0.000366
209.9
23
18
1
1.00
39
0.000501
209.9
24
19
1
1.00
40
0.000561
209.9
25
20
1
1.00
42
0.000719
209.9
26
21
1
0.00
46
0.000225
209.9
27
22
1
1.00
48
0.000232
209.9
28
23
1
1.00
50
0.00138
209.9
29
24
1
1.00
51
0.000972
209.9
30
25
1
1.00
52
0.000245
209.9
31
26
1
1.00
54
0.000248
209.9
32
27
1
1.00
56
0.000504
209.9
33
28
1
1.00
57
0.000228
209.9
34
29
1
1.00
58
0.000186
209.9
35
30
1
1.00
59
0.000776
209.9
36
31
1
0.05
63
6.46e -05
209.9
37
32
1
1.00
64
0.000142
209.9
38
33
1
0.07
67
1.23e -05
209.9
40
34
1
0.50
92
1.6e -05
209.9
41
35
1
0.25
95
7.98e -06
209.9
Number of optimization variables :
3.
Number of objective function evaluations :
120.
Number of Jacobian evaluations :
118.
Final objective function value : 209.9367235.
Warning : Requested accuracy could not be achieved .
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2: Solution time: 377 s (6 minutes , 17 seconds )
Physical memory : 1.09 GB
Virtual memory : 5.45 GB
99
100
Iteration #
vM,max [MPa]
U [J/m3 ]
Utot [J]
Area [m2 ]
q1 [-]
q2 [-]
q3 [-]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
8.82
7.46
4.88
4.92
4.77
4.88
4.53
4.50
4.48
5.78
4.48
4.48
4.72
4.49
4.49
4.49
4.48
4.49
4.49
4.49
4.49
4.49
4.49
4.49
4.49
4.49
4.49
4.49
4.49
4.49
4.48
4.49
4.48
4.49
4.49
4.49
27.03
25.71
23.57
23.95
24.02
24.00
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.04
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
24.01
236.65
225.14
207.62
209.63
210.02
210.01
209.96
209.93
209.94
210.34
209.94
209.94
209.97
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
209.94
87.54
87.59
88.10
87.53
87.44
87.49
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.48
87.43
87.43
87.44
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
87.43
0.62
1.37
3.67
5.20
5.11
4.51
5.01
5.13
5.12
5.03
5.12
5.12
4.94
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
0.30
0.61
1.10
1.35
1.23
0.68
1.00
0.72
0.74
2.00
0.74
0.75
0.52
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.74
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
-0.73
-1.40
-2.90
-3.24
-3.15
-2.82
-3.05
-3.01
-3.02
-3.34
-3.02
-3.02
-2.90
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
-3.02
101
102
Figure B.22: Graph comparing the v. Mises stress for the original shape with the optimized
design
Figure B.23: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the optimization
solver
103
Figure B.24: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
104
APPENDIX
C
Fillet
C.1 Standard
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
============================================================
Number of vertex elements : 7
Number of boundary elements : 96
Number of elements : 1000
Minimum element quality : 0.893
Stationary Solver 1 in Solver 1 started at 24-jun -2014 00:18:20.
Nonlinear solver
Number of degrees of freedom solved for: 8388.
Nonsymmetric matrix found .
Scales for dependent variables :
comp1 .RZ: 32
comp1 .u: 1.2e -05
Iter
ErrEst
Damping
Stepsize #Res #Jac #Sol
LinErr
1
1.5e -14
1.0000000
0.67
2
1
2
2e -12
2
3.2e -16
1.0000000
1.5e -14
3
2
4 3.7e -11
Stationary Solver 1 in Solver 1: Solution time: 0 s
Physical memory : 821 MB
Virtual memory : 5224 MB
LinRes
1.4e -14
5.1e -16
106
C Fillet
107
Figure C.3: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
============================================================
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2 started at 24-jun -2014 01:21:15.
Optimization solver (SNOPT )
Analytic gradient with the adjoint method .
Itns Major Minor
Step nPDE
Error Objective
2
0
2
1
0.569
1.92e+05
3
1
1
0.18
2
0.507 1.914e+05
4
2
1
0.19
3
0.326
1.89e+05
5
3
1
0.60
4
0.204
1.88e+05
6
4
1
1.00
5
0.0499
1.87e+05
7
5
1
1.00
6
0.0547 1.867e+05
9
6
2
1.00
7
0.0354 1.866e+05
10
7
1
1.00
8
0.0143 1.866e+05
11
8
1
1.00
9
0.00237 1.866e+05
12
9
1
1.00
10
0.000995 1.866e+05
13
10
1
1.00
11
5.62e -05 1.866e+05
Number of optimization variables :
3.
Number of objective function evaluations :
13.
Number of Jacobian evaluations :
11.
Final objective function value : 186574.0434.
Optimality conditions satisfied .
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2: Solution time: 12 s
Physical memory : 881 MB
Virtual memory : 5296 MB
108
C Fillet
109
Figure C.7: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
110
C Fillet
Figure C.8: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the optimization
solver
6.57
6.40
5.37
4.75
4.62
4.49
4.41
4.43
4.43
4.44
4.44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
191.98
191.39
189.02
187.95
187.00
186.69
186.60
186.59
186.58
186.57
186.57
Ut ot [kJ]
10.30
10.25
10.06
9.97
9.88
9.85
9.85
9.85
9.85
9.85
9.85
U [J/m3 ]
524.99
524.99
524.78
524.46
524.90
525.00
524.99
524.99
525.00
525.00
525.00
Area [m2 ]
0.92
1.84
7.44
14.90
19.99
23.45
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
p1 [-]
vM,max [MPa]
Iteration #
-0.46
-0.93
-3.69
-7.32
-8.38
-8.55
-8.12
-7.79
-7.66
-7.60
-7.60
p2 [-]
-0.36
-0.70
-2.73
-4.15
-5.23
-7.37
-10.28
-10.90
-11.14
-11.24
-11.24
q1 [-]
112
C.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
C Fillet
Two summations
============================================================
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2 started at 24-jun -2014 01:25:27.
Optimization solver ( SNOPT)
Analytic gradient with the adjoint method .
Itns Major Minor
Step nPDE
Error Objective
3
0
3
1
0.569 1.919e+05
4
1
1
0.15
2
0.521 1.913e+05
5
2
1
0.17
3
0.29 1.886e+05
6
3
1
0.62
4
0.174 1.875e+05
7
4
1
1.00
5
0.0644 1.871e+05
8
5
1
1.00
6
0.0386 1.868e+05
9
6
1
1.00
7
0.0243 1.866e+05
10
7
1
1.00
8
0.0342 1.865e+05
11
8
1
1.00
9
0.0162 1.865e+05
12
9
1
1.00
10
0.01 1.865e+05
13
10
1
1.00
11
0.00133 1.865e+05
14
11
1
1.00
13
0.00252 1.865e+05
15
12
1
0.01
17
0.000688 1.865e+05
16
13
1
0.10
21
8.22e -05 1.865e+05
Number of optimization variables :
4.
Number of objective function evaluations :
23.
Number of Jacobian evaluations :
21.
Final objective function value : 186485.925.
Optimality conditions satisfied .
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2: Solution time: 18 s
Physical memory : 880 MB
Virtual memory : 5301 MB
113
114
C Fillet
Figure C.13: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
115
Figure C.14: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the optimization
solver
6.75
6.73
5.49
5.07
4.76
4.41
4.32
4.15
4.13
4.14
4.14
4.15
4.15
4.14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
191.90
191.26
188.62
187.51
187.06
186.81
186.58
186.51
186.49
186.49
186.49
186.49
186.49
186.49
Ut ot [kJ]
10.29
10.24
10.02
9.93
9.89
9.87
9.85
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
U [J/m3 ]
525.00
524.99
524.83
524.82
524.83
524.88
525.00
524.99
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
Area [m2 ]
0.78
1.60
8.03
13.91
19.44
24.64
26.49
30.33
31.57
31.76
31.72
31.67
31.70
31.72
p1 [-]
-0.39
-0.79
-3.21
-5.30
-7.14
-8.49
-8.55
-8.25
-8.11
-8.06
-8.06
-8.08
-8.06
-8.06
p2 [-]
vM,max [MPa]
Iteration #
-0.31
-0.62
-3.62
-5.74
-7.27
-8.68
-9.75
-13.39
-14.64
-14.89
-14.85
-14.77
-14.84
-14.85
q1 [-]
0.53
0.99
1.14
1.79
0.92
-0.25
-0.69
-1.96
-2.12
-2.01
-1.97
-1.91
-1.97
-1.97
q2 [-]
116
C Fillet
117
118
C Fillet
119
Figure C.19: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
120
C Fillet
Figure C.20: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the optimization
solver
6.84
6.86
5.43
5.09
4.90
4.64
4.49
4.23
4.05
3.98
3.99
4.01
4.02
4.02
4.03
4.02
4.02
4.02
4.02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
191.89
191.23
188.88
187.57
187.00
186.81
186.64
186.56
186.50
186.48
186.45
186.45
186.44
186.44
186.45
186.44
186.44
186.44
186.44
Ut ot [kJ]
10.29
10.24
10.04
9.93
9.88
9.86
9.85
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
U [J/m3 ]
525.00
524.99
524.83
524.76
524.87
524.91
524.99
525.00
525.00
524.99
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
Area [m2 ]
0.71
1.55
7.78
14.53
19.43
23.44
25.50
28.60
31.92
34.73
35.35
35.33
35.24
35.14
34.86
35.09
35.05
35.01
35.07
p1 [-]
-0.40
-0.84
-3.26
-5.69
-7.20
-8.38
-8.66
-8.76
-8.52
-8.09
-7.88
-7.71
-7.65
-7.64
-7.50
-7.63
-7.63
-7.61
-7.63
p2 [-]
vM,max [MPa]
Iteration #
-0.33
-0.68
-2.98
-6.22
-7.29
-8.16
-8.95
-10.98
-13.89
-16.79
-17.64
-17.99
-18.02
-17.97
-18.02
-17.95
-17.91
-17.93
-17.93
q1 [-]
0.51
0.96
1.81
1.00
1.47
0.72
0.20
-1.05
-2.46
-3.57
-3.67
-3.52
-3.48
-3.47
-3.43
-3.46
-3.45
-3.45
-3.46
q2 [-]
0.28
0.44
-1.18
1.26
0.63
0.74
0.63
0.14
-0.55
-1.18
-1.25
-1.16
-1.13
-1.12
-1.10
-1.12
-1.13
-1.13
-1.12
q3 [-]
122
C.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
C Fillet
Four summations
============================================================
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2 started at 24-jun -2014 01:03:00.
Optimization solver ( SNOPT)
Analytic gradient with the adjoint method .
Itns Major Minor
Step nPDE
Error Objective
5
0
5
1
0.521 1.919e+05
6
1
1
0.13
2
0.506 1.912e+05
7
2
1
0.17
3
0.399 1.888e+05
8
3
1
0.49
4
0.192 1.875e+05
9
4
1
1.00
5
0.0653 1.871e+05
10
5
1
1.00
6
0.138 1.868e+05
11
6
1
1.00
7
0.048 1.867e+05
12
7
1
1.00
8
0.0251 1.866e+05
13
8
1
1.00
9
0.0278 1.865e+05
14
9
1
1.00
10
0.022 1.865e+05
15
10
1
1.00
11
0.025 1.867e+05
16
11
1
0.38
13
0.0182 1.865e+05
17
12
1
1.00
14
0.0153 1.864e+05
18
13
1
1.00
15
0.018 1.864e+05
19
14
1
1.00
16
0.0107 1.864e+05
20
15
1
1.00
17
0.000933 1.864e+05
21
16
1
1.00
19
0.00347 1.864e+05
22
17
1
1.00
20
0.0013 1.864e+05
23
18
1
1.00
22
0.0031 1.864e+05
24
19
1
0.32
24
0.000521 1.864e+05
25
20
1
1.00
26
0.00098 1.864e+05
26
21
1
0.01
30
0.0004 1.864e+05
27
22
1
0.00
34
7.01e -05 1.864e+05
Number of optimization variables :
6.
Number of objective function evaluations :
36.
Number of Jacobian evaluations :
34.
Final objective function value : 186426.2261.
Optimality conditions satisfied .
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2: Solution time: 28 s
Physical memory : 879 MB
Virtual memory : 5299 MB
123
124
C Fillet
Figure C.25: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
125
Figure C.26: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the optimization
solver
7.01
7.10
5.66
5.31
5.18
4.96
4.78
4.57
4.18
4.04
3.95
3.88
3.90
3.91
3.92
3.92
3.91
3.91
3.92
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
191.86
191.17
188.84
187.46
187.13
186.83
186.67
186.61
186.54
186.50
186.66
186.45
186.44
186.43
186.43
186.43
186.43
186.43
186.43
186.43
186.43
186.43
186.43
Ut ot [kJ]
10.29
10.23
10.04
9.92
9.89
9.87
9.85
9.85
9.84
9.84
9.86
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
U [J/m3 ]
525.00
524.99
524.83
524.86
524.90
524.91
524.98
524.99
525.00
525.00
524.93
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
Area [m2 ]
0.63
1.47
7.60
13.48
18.07
22.70
25.01
26.90
30.08
31.46
37.63
34.59
35.80
36.79
37.58
37.75
37.87
38.03
38.25
38.07
37.99
38.04
38.07
p1 [-]
-0.36
-0.78
-3.18
-5.01
-6.43
-7.69
-8.23
-8.54
-8.75
-8.60
-7.60
-8.11
-7.94
-7.80
-7.73
-7.75
-7.87
-7.85
-7.77
-7.83
-7.84
-7.82
-7.83
p2 [-]
-0.30
-0.64
-3.06
-5.81
-7.81
-9.07
-9.71
-10.43
-12.16
-13.35
-19.39
-16.44
-17.73
-18.74
-19.50
-19.58
-19.44
-19.59
-19.91
-19.67
-19.58
-19.66
-19.67
q1 [-]
vM,max [MPa]
Iteration #
0.45
0.91
2.65
1.70
1.50
1.25
0.59
-0.07
-1.69
-2.37
-5.69
-3.64
-3.71
-4.04
-4.40
-4.47
-4.49
-4.53
-4.62
-4.54
-4.50
-4.54
-4.54
q2 [-]
0.25
0.35
-0.77
0.30
1.77
1.17
1.24
1.01
0.07
-0.54
-3.37
-1.69
-1.69
-1.76
-1.80
-1.83
-1.85
-1.86
-1.90
-1.87
-1.86
-1.87
-1.87
q3 [-]
0.46
0.75
-0.16
1.04
0.21
0.75
0.76
0.65
0.22
-0.11
-1.58
-0.75
-0.71
-0.64
-0.56
-0.57
-0.60
-0.60
-0.60
-0.60
-0.60
-0.60
-0.60
q4 [-]
126
C Fillet
============================================================
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2 started at 24-jun -2014 00:57:39.
Optimization solver (SNOPT )
Analytic gradient with the adjoint method .
Itns Major Minor
Step nPDE
Error Objective
6
0
6
1
0.487 1.919e+05
7
1
1
0.12
2
0.494 1.911e+05
8
2
1
0.18
3
0.429 1.888e+05
9
3
1
0.49
4
0.164 1.875e+05
10
4
1
1.00
5
0.13 1.876e+05
11
5
1
0.44
7
0.0877 1.869e+05
12
6
1
1.00
8
0.0705 1.868e+05
13
7
1
1.00
9
0.037 1.866e+05
14
8
1
1.00
10
0.0204 1.866e+05
15
9
1
1.00
11
0.0247 1.866e+05
16
10
1
1.00
12
0.0477 1.865e+05
18
11
2
1.00
13
0.0358 1.867e+05
20
12
2
0.46
15
0.0186 1.864e+05
21
13
1
1.00
16
0.0069 1.864e+05
22
14
1
1.00
17
0.00557 1.864e+05
24
15
2
1.00
18
0.00301 1.864e+05
25
16
1
1.00
19
0.00166 1.864e+05
26
17
1
1.00
20
0.00122 1.864e+05
28
18
2
1.00
22
0.00488 1.864e+05
30
19
2
0.32
24
0.00105 1.864e+05
31
20
1
1.00
26
0.0016 1.864e+05
32
21
1
0.23
28
0.000186 1.864e+05
33
22
1
1.00
30
0.00141 1.864e+05
34
23
1
0.30
32
0.000146 1.864e+05
35
24
1
1.00
34
0.000281 1.864e+05
36
25
1
0.06
39
5.23e -05 1.864e+05
Number of optimization variables :
7.
Number of objective function evaluations :
41.
Number of Jacobian evaluations :
39.
Final objective function value : 186418.0779.
Optimality conditions satisfied .
Optimization Solver 1 in Solver 2: Solution time: 33 s
Physical memory : 860 MB
Virtual memory : 5283 MB
127
128
C Fillet
129
Figure C.31: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the nonlinear
solver
130
C Fillet
Figure C.32: The error of the solution as a function of iteration number for the optimization
solver
7.11
7.22
5.53
5.38
6.36
5.18
4.88
4.86
4.73
4.36
4.19
3.80
3.85
3.84
3.84
3.85
3.86
3.86
3.86
3.86
3.86
3.86
3.86
3.86
3.86
3.86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
191.85
191.15
188.82
187.47
187.56
186.87
186.84
186.60
186.58
186.56
186.49
186.66
186.43
186.42
186.42
186.42
186.42
186.42
186.42
186.42
186.42
186.42
186.42
186.42
186.42
186.42
Ut ot [kJ]
10.29
10.23
10.04
9.92
9.92
9.87
9.87
9.85
9.85
9.85
9.84
9.86
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
9.84
U [J/m3 ]
525.00
524.99
524.81
524.85
524.83
524.91
524.86
525.00
525.00
524.98
525.00
524.90
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
525.00
Area [m2 ]
0.58
1.43
7.90
13.96
19.92
20.51
25.93
26.07
26.30
27.89
29.70
40.00
36.59
38.36
39.80
40.00
40.00
40.00
39.71
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
p1 [-]
-0.36
-0.82
-3.38
-5.29
-7.10
-7.34
-8.80
-8.64
-8.43
-7.90
-7.82
-6.55
-7.45
-7.60
-7.69
-7.69
-7.68
-7.65
-7.49
-7.60
-7.67
-7.61
-7.56
-7.60
-7.67
-7.60
p2 [-]
-0.31
-0.67
-3.06
-6.05
-8.09
-8.19
-9.59
-9.75
-10.30
-12.36
-13.69
-22.74
-19.04
-20.09
-20.99
-21.16
-21.20
-21.24
-21.31
-21.33
-21.22
-21.31
-21.41
-21.34
-21.22
-21.33
q1 [-]
vM,max [MPa]
Iteration #
0.43
0.91
2.72
1.92
0.60
0.87
0.43
0.16
-0.26
-1.54
-2.17
-6.44
-4.45
-4.81
-5.19
-5.28
-5.27
-5.27
-5.25
-5.28
-5.23
-5.27
-5.28
-5.27
-5.25
-5.27
q2 [-]
0.22
0.32
-0.56
0.42
1.66
1.61
0.99
1.10
1.00
0.36
-0.18
-4.01
-2.13
-2.31
-2.48
-2.49
-2.44
-2.44
-2.46
-2.46
-2.43
-2.46
-2.48
-2.46
-2.42
-2.46
q3 [-]
0.43
0.68
-0.03
0.46
2.39
0.89
1.07
1.01
0.87
0.37
0.13
-1.84
-0.97
-1.06
-1.11
-1.09
-1.03
-1.03
-1.01
-1.04
-1.04
-1.03
-1.04
-1.04
-1.02
-1.03
q4 [-]
0.32
0.45
-0.61
0.77
-0.77
0.32
0.91
0.80
0.62
0.18
0.09
-0.87
-0.41
-0.43
-0.42
-0.41
-0.38
-0.38
-0.40
-0.39
-0.38
-0.39
-0.40
-0.39
-0.37
-0.39
q5 [-]
132
Bibliography
[1]
S. Arnout, M. Firl, and K.-U. Bletzinger, Parameter free shape and thickness optimisation
considering stress response, STRUCTURAL AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY OPTIMIZATION, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 801814, 2012.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
P. Pedersen, L. Tobiesen, and S. Jensen, Shapes of orthotropic plates for minimum energy concentration, MECHANICS OF STRUCTURES AND MACHINES, vol. 20, no. 4,
pp. 499514, 1992.
[8]
[9]
[10] COMSOL, Optimizing the Shape of a Horn. Version 4.4, COMSOL, 2013.
[11] COMSOL, COMSOL Multiphysics - reference manual. Version 4.4, COMSOL, 2013.
[12] J. Akin, What is a Fixed Support? Rice University, 2006.
[13] P. Pedersen, Optimal Desings - Structures and Materials - Problems and Tools. Technical
University of Denmark, 2003.
[14] S. Riehl, J. Friederich, M. Scherer, R. Meske, and P. Steinmann, On the discrete variant
of the traction method in parameter-free shape optimization, Comput. Methods Appl.
Mech. Engrg., 2014.