Abstract
With design independent loads and only a constrained volume, the same optimal design does simultaneously lead to minimum compliance and maximum strength. However, for thermoelastic structures this is not the case and a maximum volume may not be an active constraint for minimum compliance. This is proved for thermoelastic structures by compliance sensitivity analysis that return localized determination of sensitivities.The compliance is not identical to the total elastic energy (twice strain energy). An explicit formula for the difference is derived and numerically illustrated with examples. In compliance
minimization it may be advantageous to decrease the total volume, but for strength maximization it is argued to keep the total permissible volume.
For direct strength maximization the sensitivity analysis of local von Mises stresses is demanding. A simple recursive procedure to obtain uniform energy density (or uniform von Mises stress) is presented and applied, and it is shown by examples that the obtained designs are close to fulfilling also strength maximization. Explicit formulas for equivalent thermoelastic loads in 2D and 3D finite element analysis are derived and applied, including the sensitivity analysisWorld Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | 9th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization |
Publication date | 2011 |
Publication status | Published - 2011 |
Event | 9th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization - Shizuoka, Japan Duration: 13 Jun 2011 → 17 Jun 2011 Conference number: 9 |
Conference
Conference | 9th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization |
---|---|
Number | 9 |
Country/Territory | Japan |
City | Shizuoka |
Period | 13/06/2011 → 17/06/2011 |
Keywords
- Thermoelastic design
- Sensitivity analysis
- Uniform elastic energy density
- Compliance