Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integration of cutting time into the structural optimization process: application to a spreader bar design

  • INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nowadays, there is no doubt about the suitability and efficiency of structural optimization techniques and the improvement achieved in the design process when they are applied. However, if we look to the product design process, do we really believe that it is an unbeatable improvement? Current structural optimization methods (based on metrics such as stress, mass or compliance) have reached a high level of development, but their integration with other factors as manufacturing processes is still at an early stage of development. In many cases, those designs suggested applying only structural optimization are found to be difficult and/or expensive to manufacture. This situation is further accentuated in the case of cutting processes, where it is well-known that structural optimization significantly affects to the cutting time and commonly produces manufacturing overcost. In this sense, this paper tries to fill the gap between structural optimization and manufacturing-based design applied to the case of cutting processes. For this purpose, the authors propose a methodology that allows including those parameters that affect to the cutting time within structural optimization phase. Additionally, to obtain a fair conclusion about its performance the method is applied to a real industrial component manufactured by a cutting process as it is the Abrasive Waterjet Cutting (AWJ).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allaire G, Jouve F, Michailidis G (2013) Casting constraints in structural optimization via a level-set method. In 10th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization

  • Baldock R (2007) Structural optimisation in building design practice: case-studies in topology optimisation of bracing systems. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge

  • Barsky BA (2013) Computer graphics and geometric modeling using Beta-splines. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bendsøe MP, Sigmund O (1999) Material interpolation schemes in topology optimization. Arch Appl Mech 69(9–10):635–654

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bendsøe MP, Sigmund O (2013) Topology optimization: theory, methods, and applications. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bu-Qing S, Ding-Yuan L (2014) Computational geometry: curve and surface modeling. Elsevier

  • Biyikli E, To AC (2014) Proportional topology optimization: a new non-gradient method for solving stress constrained and minimum compliance problems and its implementation in MATLAB. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.6884

    Google Scholar 

  • BVack T (1993) Optimal mutation rates in genetic search. In: Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp 2–8

  • Castagne S, Curran R, Rothwell A, Price M, Benard E, Raghunathan S (2008) A generic tool for cost estimating in aircraft design. Res Eng Des 18(4):149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavazzuti M, Baldini A, Bertocchi E, Costi D, Torricelli E, Moruzzi P (2011) High performance automotive chassis design: a topology optimization based approach. Struct Multidiscip Optim 44(1):45–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang KH, Tang PS (2001) Integration of design and manufacturing for structural shape optimization. Adv Eng Softw 32(7):555–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coello CC, Lamont GB, Van Veldhuizen DA (2007) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Corbera S, Olazagoitia JL, Lozano JA (2016) Multi-objective global optimization of a butterfly valve using genetic algorithms. ISA Trans 63:401–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaton JD, Grandhi RV (2014) A survey of structural and multidisciplinary continuum topology optimization: post 2000. Struct Multidiscip Optim 49(1):1–38

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Deng C, Lin H (2014) Progressive and iterative approximation for least squares B-spline curve and surface fitting. Comput Aided Des 47:32–44

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, K., 1980. Adaptive system design: a genetic approach. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 10(9), 566-574.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Eschenauer HA, Olhoff N (2001) Topology optimization of continuum structures: a review. Appl Mech Rev 54(4):331–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavin H (2006) Mathematical properties of stiffness matrices

  • Gu W (2013) On challenges and solutions of topology optimization for aerospace structural design. In: 10th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, May pp 19–24

  • Höllig K, Hörner Jk (2013) Approximation and modeling with B-splines. SIAM

  • James K (2012) Aerostructural shape and topology optimization of aircraft wings. PhD at University of Toronto

  • Jing Z, Fan X, Sun Q (2015) Global shared-layer blending method for stacking sequence optimization design and blending of composite structures. Compos Part B 69:181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim IY, Kwak BM (2002) Design space optimization using a numerical design continuation method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 53(8):1979–2002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarov BS, Wang F, Sigmund O (2016) Length scale and manufacturability in density-based topology optimization. Arch Appl Mech 86(1–2):189–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Ma Y (2016) A survey of manufacturing oriented topology optimization methods. Adv Eng Softw 100:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Ma Y (2017) Sustainable design-oriented level set topology optimization. J Mech Des 139(1):011403

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Liu M, Zhang X, Fatikow S (2016) Design and analysis of a high-accuracy flexure hinge. Rev Sci Instrum 87(5):055106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Man KF, Tang KS, Kwong S (2012) Genetic algorithms: concepts and designs. Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Marler RT, Arora JS (2010) The weighted sum method for multi-objective optimization: new insights. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41(6):853–862

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Michailidis G (2014) Manufacturing constraints and multi-phase shape and topology optimization via a level-set method. PhD at Ecole Polytechnique

  • Mills KL, Filliben JJ, Haines AL (2015) Determining relative importance and effective settings for genetic algorithm control parameters. Evol Comput 23(2):309–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mostafa R (2016) Simultaneous manufacturing shape optimization for minimum cost of milling using interior point method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 1–8

  • Nadir WD, Kim IY, de Weck OL (2005) Concurrent performance and manufacturing cost optimization of structural components. In: Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, New York

  • Olsen J (1996) Motion control with precomputation, U.S. Patent 5, 508,596, Assigne: Omax Corporation

  • Park CH, Lee WI, Han WS, Vautrin A (2004) Simultaneous optimization of composite structures considering mechanical performance and manufacturing cost. Compos Struct 65(1):117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao JS, Kiran S, Kamesh JV, Padmanabhan MA, Chandra S (2009) Topology optimization of aircraft wing. Journal of Aerospace Science and Technologies 61(3):402

    Google Scholar 

  • Renner G, Ekárt A (2003) Genetic algorithms in computer aided design. Comput Aided Des 35(8):709–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozvany GI (2009) A critical review of established methods of structural topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 37(3):217–237

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sastry K, Goldberg DE, Kendall G (2014) Genetic algorithms. In: Search methodologies. Springer US, pp 93–117

  • Sigmund O (2001) A 99 line topology optimization code written in Matlab. Struct Multidiscip Optim 21(2):120–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigmund O, Maute K (2013) Topology optimization approaches. Struct Multidiscip Optim 48(6):1031–1055

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Singh P, Munoz J (1993) Cost optimization of abrasive waterjet cutting systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th American Water Jet Conference, Seattle, Washington pp 191–204

  • Spears, W. M., & Anand, V., 1991, October. A study of crossover operators in genetic programming. In International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (pp. 409-418). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang PS, Chang KH (2001) Integration of topology and shape optimization for design of structural components. Struct Multidiscip Optim 22(1):65–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatanabe SL, Lippi TN, de Lima CR, Paulino GH, Silva EC (2016) Topology optimization with manufacturing constraints: a unified projection-based approach. Adv Eng Softw 100:97–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang W, Pottmann H, Liu Y (2004) Fitting b-spline curves to point clouds by squared distance minimization. ACM Trans Graph 25:214–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng J, Kim T (1993) Parameter prediction and cost analysis in abrasive waterjet cutting operations. In: Proceedings of the 7th American Water Jet Conference, pp 28–31

  • Zeng J, Olsen J, Olsen C (1999) The abrasive waterjet as a precision metal cutting tool. In: Proceedings of the 10th American Waterjet Conference, pp 14–17

  • Zhu B, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Fatikow S (2017) Design of diaphragm structure for piezoresistive pressure sensor using topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 55(1):317–329

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Escuela Politécnica Superior y de Arquitectura, Cátedra Global Nebrija-Santander en Transporte Sostenible, Madrid, Spain

    S. Corbera Caraballo

  2. Escuela Politécnica Superior y de Arquitectura, Universidad Nebrija, Madrid, Spain

    R. Álvarez Fernández

  3. Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica, Química y Diseño Industrial, ETS de Ingeniería y Diseño Industrial, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    J. A. Lozano Ruiz

Authors
  1. S. Corbera Caraballo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Álvarez Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. A. Lozano Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Corbera Caraballo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Corbera Caraballo, S., Álvarez Fernández, R. & Lozano Ruiz, J.A. Integration of cutting time into the structural optimization process: application to a spreader bar design. Struct Multidisc Optim 58, 2269–2289 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-018-2016-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-018-2016-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation