Using high order finite element in topology optimization

Structural optimization aims to find the optimal material distribution in a given design space able to
support the loads in the best way by varying the design variable. Based on the definition of the design
variable it is possible to divide the structural optimization in three categories:

Size optimization;
Shape optimization;
Topology optimization.

In topology optimization, the structure is discretized using finite elements and the density of each element
is assumed as design variable. It is possible to write the generic optimization problem as:
()
() 0
{ {
() = 0

where () is the objective function, () and () are the constraints of the problem, represents the
design variable and is the design variable domain. It is important to observe that the function () = 0
represents the equilibrium condition that it can be also written as () = (). Based on the results
obtained from finite element analysis it is possible to evaluate the stress inside each element that
constitutes the mesh and then the algorithm of the topology optimization goes to deactivate the elements
if the stress value is below a certain value.

For this reason, it is important to calculate accurately the stress, accordingly the use of high order elements
can greatly improve the optimization results, furthermore traditional formulation of topology optimization
suffer from instabilities like checkerboarding, etc. Below, the result of topology optimization are compared
using traditional elements and higher order elements.

Case study
To analyse the differences obtained using standard elements and high order elements, is considered a
bracket (Figure 1) constrained with three fasteners and with a vertical load of 10000 N as show in Figure 2.

Figure 1- Bracket
Figure 2- Constraint condition (left) and load condition (right)

The software used is INSPIRE, who works with tetraedral elements (Figure 3). To assess the first difference
between these two elements is necessary to carry out a finite element analysis and the results in terms of
Von Mises stress are show in Figure 4.

It is possible to note that, using the same dimension for the element that constitute the mesh, it is obtained
two different distribution of stress so it mean that the two elements provide two different geometries as
result of topology optimization. The maximum values of stress obtained in the two simulations are located
in the same positions on the bracket but using high order elements is obtained a greater value that those
obtained using standard elements and this is due to the stiffness of the component, in fact in the second
case is obtained a higher stiffness.

Figure 3- First order tetrahedral element (left) and second order tetrahedral element (right)
 Figure 4- FEA on the bracket using first order tetrahedral element (at the top) and using second order tetrahedral element
(at the bottom)

The result of topology optimization is shown in figure 5 and it can be observed that the geometies are
similar to each other. Optimization removes all extra material so there are no reserve for mistakes, for this
reason stress limit shall be know very well.

Figure 5- Optimized bracket using first order finite element (left) and using second order finite element (right)
The computational time of these two simulations is much different: the topology optimization using first
order tetrahedral requires approximately 15 minutes whereas using second order tetrahedral is more than
30 minutes.

The mass of the bracket optimized using standard element is 4.77 Kg whereas using high order finite
element is achieved a mass of 4.72 Kg, so the first benefit of using high order elements is in terms of mass
of the component. On the optimized result is then performed a finite element analysis and the result is
shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6- FEA on the optimized bracket using fist order tetrahedral (on the top) and using second order tetrahedral
(on the bottom)

It is possible to observe that the bracket obtained using high order elements has a better distribution of
stress, in addition the value of maximum stress is 135 MPa whereas the maximum stress inside the bracket
optimized using standard element is 164 MPa and this means that the component is less stressed.
The result of finite element analysis on the two optimized bracket is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Element using in Displacement max

Mass [Kg] Stress max [MPa]
optimization [mm]
First order tetrahedral 4.77 0.45 164

Second order tetrahedral 4.72 0.45 135

Conclusion
Here, is compared two different finite elements that is used in topology optimization: first order
tetrahedral element and second order tetrahedral element and it is possible to do the following conclusion:

Using a second order element is possible to obtain a weight saving;

The component optimized using second order element is a much more efficient having smaller
values of stresses and the same value of the maximum displacement;
The computational time in this case is not a critical parameter but in some application time plays a
crucial role and in these applications it is necessary to carefully evaluate the use of high order
elements.