Composite Free-Size-, Size-, Shuffle-Optimization - Minimize compliance vs. minimize mass

arh423

Hello,

 

during an optimization process I want to optimize strucutral parameters of an vehicle wheel made from fibre composites.

I am not sure which is the best option in terms of optimization parameters.

I think in order to achive a structure, which is not to sensitive to changing load conditions, it would be better to define compliance as the parameter to minimize (objective function), than parameter mass.

Is that correct? How is this explainable, on a theroretically base?

Aditionally I would define mass as a constraint to make sure the optimized structure is lighter than the initial structure.

 

I would be pleased to recieve your thoughts, thank you!

 

 

Adriano_Koga

Usually at the free size step you don't have a clear status on the mass and other responses such as strains, displacements,etc.. So, usually using compliance, as it is a global measure of flexibility, helps you to identify where the main layers and regions should be placed.

 

After free-size, i'd say you can start looking at some other responses, such as mass. If you have a mass target, then it can be used as a constraint. Otherwise use it as objective, and start adding other design constraints, such as composite strains or failure indexes.

 

There's no 'rule', as it depends on your problem, but I hope this helps you.

arh423

Thank you for your question!

 

So it's not right to say that in generell minimizing compliance is more sensetive to changing load conditions that minimizing weight?

Its still noch clear for me how to argue to use miniming compliance insted of minimizing weight.

Maybe I will work out that high stiffness is more importent than low weight in terms of vehicle safety.