Computers & Strucrures Vol. 34, No. 3. pp. 375-385, 1990 0045-7949/9ll s3.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Gnat Britain. 0 1990 Pergamon Press plc

AN INTERACTIVE PRE-PROCESSOR FOR STRUCTURAL

DESIGN SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION
TODD A. STONE,t Josh L. T. SANTost~ and EDWARD J. HAL@
TCenter for Simulation and Design Optimization, College of Engineering, The University of Iowa,
Iowa City, IA 52242, U.S.A.
SDepartamento de Engenharia Meclnica, Instituto Superior Tecnico, 1096 Lisboa, Portugal

(Received 5 January 1989)

Abstract-An interactive pre-processor for a Design Sensitivity Analysis and Optimization Workstation
(DSOW) is presented. The processes of design parameterization and performance characterization are
proposed as distinct design steps in the design process. These design parameterization steps enhance
interaction between the design, analysis, and manufacture engineering groups that make up the concurrent
engineering design team. By using computer graphics and structural modeling software to define the design
parameters that characterize the design of structural components, the DSOW provides a natural way of
defining acceptable classes of designs. Functions that a design workstation is required to support and
components of the workstation that execute these functions are identified. These functions include the
capability to launch software codes that are supported, to define design parameterizations and per-
formance requirements, to compute design sensitivity information, and to support interactive design
optimization.

1.INTRODUCTION design sensitivity analysis, design variables and per-

The concept of a workstation based CAE system has
become practical, due to rapidly advancing micro-
processor technology, development of workstation
based compute servers, expanded networking facili-
ties, and an influx of new workstation based software.
Available workstation based software includes pro-
grams for computer aided design (CAD), computer
aided manufacturing (CAM), finite element analysis
(FEA), design sensitivity analysis (DSA), and opti-
mization. Many of these software packages have the
same data requirements for the definition of geomet-
ric and non-geometric engineering data. The current
trend is to integrate these computer aids into a global
design workstation based system. This integration
will ultimately generate CAD/CAM/CAE work-
stations [l-9]. Realization of this goal requires that
steps in the design process be carefully identified and
that workstation aids be created to provide infor-
mation that enhances design decision making. In
mechanical CAE, traditional design steps are associ-
ated with creating a solid model, building a finite
element model, performing finite element structural
analysis, and graphically displaying analysis results.
With few exceptions, traditional methods fail to take
advantage of finite element analysis results to com-
pute the design sensitivity information that is re-
quired to assist the engineer in making improvements
in design. Recent developments in design sensitivity
analysis methods have demonstrated that, with little
additional computational effort, design sensitivity
information can be obtained by augmenting estab-
lished finite element analysis codes [lo, 111. For
formance requirements need to be defined.
In this paper, the processes of design parameteriz-
ation and performance characterization are proposed
as distinct design steps. While design parameteriz-
ation utilizes the geometric model provided by the
CAD system as its central element, the basis of
performance characterization is the finite element
model. Design variables are associated with line and
surface geometric primitives that are provided by the
geometric modeler, rather then with the finite element
model. Performance requirements are defined using
finite element nodal displacements, element stresses,
and eigenvalues. The method creates an ideal en-
vironment for interaction between design, manu-
facturing, and engineering analysis. By tying the
individual stages of the design process together, a tool
is developed to support concurrent or simultaneous
engineering. To support the two distinct design steps,
a menu-driven, multi-windowing pre-processor for
the Design Sensitivity Analysis and Optimization
Workstation (DSOW) is presented in this paper.
To retrieve the geometric and finite element data
required for design sensitivity analysis and optimiz-
ation from the CAD and FE databases and to store
it into the DSOW local database, interface software
has been implemented. Currently supported software
includes Patran Plus from PDA Engineering [12],
Ansys from Swanson Analysis, Inc. [13], and DSA
developed in the University of Iowa for design sensi-
tivity analysis [lo]. Through the use of networking
facilities, it is possible to overcome the major weak-
ness of traditional workstation based environments
and to launch compute intensive software on different

375
376 T. A. STONEet al.
compute servers. This removes the computational
load from the workstation and places it either on a
network of workstations or on a powerful compute
server, while retaining the power of the interactive
graphics workstation based environment [l4].
2. DESIGN SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND
OPTIMIZATION
A menu-driven pre-processor offers the designer
the capability of making selections from a large
number of predefined choices, with minima1 effort.
Selections can be made through the use of mouse
buttons and a keyboard. The mouse buttons are used
to make selections from menus and icons and the
keyboard is used to input character, integer and real
data. With the large number of choices that must be
made by a designer in setting up a model for inter-
active design optimization, a menu-driven system is
easier to learn than a command driven system. How-
ever, a command driven system may be more efficient
in the hands of the experienced user and can be added
as an alternative. The DSOW has been developed in
a menu tree hierarchy, with the five main branches
shown in Fig. 1 on top of the tree. Some selections
cause the next branch of the menu to pop up on top
m
0’
DEDION8EWSIllVIlYAllALV8I8
ANDOPTIMIZATION WORK8l~lION
Fig. 1. The five branches of the menu system.
of the previous menu. Other selections are used for
inputting the data necessary to perform design sensi-
tivity analysis computations and interactive optimiz-
ation. In setting up the menu system layout, Domain
Dialogue has been used [ 151. The Domain Graphics
Primitive Resource (GPR) has been utilized in devel-
opment of the graphics that are displayed in the menu
graphics area [16]. The DSOW has been implemented
in an Apollo workstation. The multi-windowing
environment that is provided is explored for running
the DSOW menu system in one window and graphics
codes in separate windows.
The five DSOW branches provide access to
major steps of the design process. These five major
branches are EXECUTE SOFTWARE, MODEL
DATABASE, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, PER-
FORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, and 4-STEP
INTERACTIVE DESIGN. Capita1 lettered text in
this paper corresponds to possible selections in the
DSOW. The main menu of the DSOW that displays
the five major branches is shown in Fig. 1.
The EXECUTE SOFTWARE branch is used to
launch all software that is supported by the DSOW.
The MODEL DATABASE branch is used to retrieve
from the geometric and finite element analysis data-
bases data that are required for interactive design
sensitivity analysis and optimization and to store
them into the DSOW database. The DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS branch is used to parameterize
the design. This includes defining the design variables
and the design variable linking. The PERFORM-
ANCE REQUIREMENTS branch is used to specify
performance requirements and constraints that con-
trol the design. Finally, the 4-STEP INTERACTIVE
DESIGN branch supports a design methodology that
consists of four complementary steps: (1) displaying
design sensitivity information; (2) carrying out
what-if studies; (3) making trade-off determinations;
and (4) executing interactive optimization [17, 181.
By providing access to the several steps of the
design process, the five main branches of the DSOW
create an environment for bringing together inter-
disciplinary contributors early in the design process.
This environment, commonly referred to as con-
current or simultaneous engineering, is illustrated in
Fig. 2. Since design parameterization and perfor-
mance definition are proposed as distinct design
steps, a mechanism of interaction is created between
development, analysis, and manufacturing engineer-
ing groups. By allowing for this interaction early in
the design process, decisions that significantly affect
the quality of the product can be made with input
from all members of the design team [5]. Each of the
groups is able to identify the types of design compo-
nents and parameterizations that they are able to use
in designing the product, as well as performance
characteristics that must be controlled.
The integrated environment supported by the
DSOW permits the design team to access individual
discipline tools with ease, requiring only a menu
 Structural design sensitivity analysis and optimization 371

EVEIDFMEIW

Fig. 2. Concurrent engineering.

selection. Communication between discipline ori- geometric and finite element models. Figure 4 shows
ented applications software is established via a com- the DSOW menu used to create a new model. After
mon database [19]. The DSOW permits consideration all geometric and finite element data have been
of more than one design concept, the taking of each
design concept through the design process, and the
exploration of trade-offs among design concepts.

3. MODELING AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Creating a solid model, building a finite element

model, performing finite element analysis, and evalu-
ating structural performance are characteristic design
steps in the concept definition and concept evaluation
stages of the design process. The EXECUTE SOFT-
WARE branch of the DSOW provides access to
design tools that assist the engineer in these stages
of the design process. When this icon is selected, from
among the alternatives shown in Fig. 1, the EX-
ECUTE SOFTWARE menu shown in Fig. 3 appears.
The PATRAN branch is used to create the
solid/geometric model, generate the finite element
model, translate Patran data into Ansys format and
vice-versa, and post-process the finite element struc-
tural analysis results. By selecting PATRAN, a new
menu prompts the user for the function that needs to
be accessed. Two different functions are provided:
(1) MODEL EDITING and (2) MODEL TRANS-
LATION. The first permits the engineer to create,
edit, and display a geometric or finite element model.
The second is used to translate Patran neutral file
data into Ansys input format and Ansys analysis
results data into Patran format for graphic display.
From within MODEL EDITING, the engineer can
easily access existing models or create new models. To
edit a model, Patran is started in a window next to DEIION 8ENSITIVITV ANALVIll
AND OPTIMlt~TION WOIKSTATION
the DSOW window. In this window, the engineer
inputs all data that are necessary for creating the Fig. 3. The execute software menu.
318 T. A. STONEet al.

4. RETRIEVAL AND ORGANIZATION OF DESIGN DATA

Using the continuum theory of design sensitivity

analysis, sizing and shape design sensitivity expres-
sions can be evaluated numerically, using only results
of finite element analysis [lo, 111. The MODEL
DATABASE branch of the DSOW is used for re-
trieval and storage of all data that are required for
design sensitivity analysis and optimization compu-
tations. These data come from three different sources:
(1) a menu-driven design pre-processor for input of
design and performance requirements; (2) the geo-
metric modeler database; and (3) the finite element
analysis code database. This permits computing
design sensitivity information with virtually any exist-
ing geometric modeler and finite element analysis
code. Interface software has been developed to read
data from the geometric modeler and finite element
analysis code databases and store them into the
DSOW central database. The branch may also be
used to delete all the data associated with a particular
model. By selecting MODEL DATABASE from the
menu shown in Fig. 1, the designer will have the
opportunity of creating a new database or simply
reading data from an existing database.
The NEW DATABASE menu, shown in Fig. 5, is
used to create a new database. It requires the model

DEMON SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

AND OPTlMlZAtlON WORKSTATION

Fig. 4. The editing model menu.

Enter modrl nmnr: sweptwlng

created in Patran, it is necessary to translate that data Enter noutr8l file nuncpatran.0ut.t

into Ansys input file format for finite element analy-

sis. This is accomplished by selecting the MODEL
TRANSLATION menu. Available analysis types are
static and eigenvalue. Patans [20] is used to convert
Patran data into Ansys executable input file format.
Anspat [20] is used to convert Ansys analysis results
data into Patran input format.
The ANSYS branch is used to launch an Ansys
structural finite element analysis. Data required for
Ansys execution are the model name, the Ansys
executable input file name, and the analysis type.
Networking tools have been implemented that permit
automatic assignment of the Ansys run to any
machine on the the network that supports the
code [14], transparent to the user. To run Ansys on a
particular machine, the engineer is only required to
select the correspondent icon from the DSOW menu.
By simplifying the task of the designer to selecting
the particular software package that needs to be
executed, from a set of menu choices, the DSOW
permits the design team to focus attention on the
design process. The DSOW assures, without designer
DATAIA8E I8 BEINO CREATED TOR THE
intervention, that the software package selected will MODEL AND ANALYSIS TYPE SPECIFIED
be launched in the appropriate directory, within the
model directory structure. Fig. 5. Loading a new database.
 Structural design sensitivity analysis and optimization
name, the Patran neutral file name, and the analysis
type. The Patran neutral file should correspond to the
file used in creating the Ansys input data file. Creat-
ing a new database presumes that the design steps
associated with creating a geometric model, generat-
ing a finite element model, and carrying out a finite
element analysis have been completed. A runstream
will be executed that launches interface programs for
retrieving the geometric and finite element data re-
quired for design sensitivity analysis and optimiz-
ation computations from the Patran neutral file and
Ansys file Filel2.dat, respectively. Geometric data
that are necessary to parameterize the design consist
of geometric primitive types, grid point i.d. entities,
grid point coordinates, and the mapping between
geometric primitives and the finite elements. Finite
element data that are necessary for performance
characterization and design sensitivity analysis con-
sist of finite element types, connectivity, material and
geometric properties, nodal coordinates, nodal
forces, and nodal displacements. Numerical inte-
gration associated with continuum design sensitivity
computations requires displacement and stress infor-
mation at Gauss points, as well as Jacobians of
transformations. This information is obtained inside
the interface program by post-processing finite el-
ement analysis results and is stored in a unified way
in the database. Once all the required information is
stored in the database, design and performance re-
quirements definition and design sensitivity analysis
and optimization computations can be carried out,
independent of the code that is used to generate it.
By providing for data communication between
established software packages that are used within
LINES
ITCHES
Fig. 6. Design requirement menu.
319
the several steps of the design process, the database
supports the integrated computing environment that
is provided by the DSOW for design sensitivity
analysis and optimization of structural systems. The
task of supporting new geometric modelers and finite
element codes is simplified to developing the associ-
ated interface software. This approach keeps the
DSOW independent of the specific software packages
supported. By automating the process of data recov-
ery and manipulation, predefined runstreams permit
the design team to concentrate on design issues,
rather then on the data issues associated with the
computational environment.
5. PARAMETERIZATION OF DESIGN
Design component parameterization is the process
by which the overall design is discretized into design
components, which are characterized by design
parameters that are meaningful for design sensitivity
analysis, design optimization, and manufacturing of
the component. Selecting the DESIGN REQUIRE-
MENTS branch from the menu of Fig. 1 provides the
capability for developing design component par-
ameterizations of the structural system being de-
signed. The available selections within this branch are
shown in Fig. 6. By starting Patran from within the
EXECUTE SOFTWARE branch of the DSOW,
the designer can display the geometric model while
defining design requirements. A swept-wing model is
used as an example throughout this paper.
Design parameterizations can be associated with
each design component. Components that are used in
developing the basic geometry are lines and surfaces.
GEOMETRY NOOEL OF SWEPTWING
380 T. A. STONEet
COIlStant Linear
Fig. 7. Circular cross-section parameterizations.
These components are then assigned data that define
their cross-sectional shape and sizing design par-
ameters. The design is parameterized by specifying
how the material distribution varies within a design
component. Design variables can be defined among
the geometric design parameters that characterize
cross-sectional properties or material thickness distri-
bution for line and surface design components, re-
spectively. Currently supported parameterizations
are constant and linear. More complex parameteriz-
ations can be included within the present framework.
Shown in Fig. 7 are the two allowable parameteriz-
ations for a line design component with hollow
circular cross-section. A constant parameterization
requires the radius to be constant from one end of the
line component to the other, while a linear parameter-
ization allows the radius to vary linearly from one
end of the line to the other.
In providing for design parameterization, as a
distinct design step, a method has been developed to
bring together design, analysis, and manufacturing
engineers. The process of concurrent engineering can
be defined as a method by which all relevant compo-
nents of the design, development, and manufacturing
process are integrated into the design process from
the start [21-231. Creating design parameterizations
that are acceptable to all engineering groups that are
involved in the design process, the product develop-
ment process can proceed with the confidence that
manufacturable designs will result. All designs in this
parameterized family will thus satisfy functional re-
quirements, while being acceptable from a cost effec-
tive manufacturing perspective. Drastic revisions in
the design can be avoided if design, analysis, and
manufacturing become involved in the design process
at an early stage. This involvement will bring the
combined experience and knowledge from these
groups into the design process, early enough to
impact important decisions that influence product
quality. Thus, possible problems pertaining to the
strength or manufacturability of the component can
be addressed early in the design process.
The SYSTEM VARIABLES branch of the DSOW
can be used to define the design parameterization
associated with each individual component. Com-
puter graphics and structural modeling software are
used to assist the designer in the design parameteriz-
ation step. Two possible design component selections
are provided, a line design component and a surface
component. These design components correspond to
al.
the geometric primitives that are created by the
designer with the Patran geometric modeler. Only
geometric primitives that have a finite element mesh
defined on them can be used in specifying the design
parameterization. The DSOW utilizes these geomet-
ric primitives as the base objects for design variable
definition. For finite element structural analysis,
beam and bar elements are assigned to line design
components and membrane and plate elements are
assigned to surface design components. A given
design component can be modeled with any number
of finite elements. By assigning design variables to
design components, rather than to finite elements, a
natural method of associating design specifications to
the geometric model is created. This approach separ-
ates design requirements from the finite element
model that is used for analysis. A practical conse-
quence of this is that much more realistic designs are
obtained with a reasonable number of design vari-
ables. By assigning design variables to the finite
elements that make up the model, traditional struc-
tural optimization software must resort to extensive
design variable linking to decrease the overall number
of design variables and obtain acceptable parameter-
izations.
Two types of design variables are currently
supported: GEOMETRIC VARIABLES and
MATERIAL VARIABLES. The GEOMETRIC
VARIABLES menu is used to enter design data that
define geometric parameters that characterize the
model. Selecting a line design component causes the
cross-sectional menu to appear, as shown in Fig. 8.
From this menu, the cross-sectional shape of the line
design component is selected. From the four different
groups of cross-sections shown in Fig. 8, only sym-
metric cross-sections are currently supported. Each
cross-section is characterized by a well defined num-
ber of geometric parameters which can be selected as
design variables. Predefined libraries of available
components can be developed for use in parameter-
ization of the design for structural analysis. This
library may include line and surface design compo-
nents that have standard cross-sections and thickness
variations, respectively. By using a library of stan-
dard components, with their associated design
parameters and geometric properties, the designer is
able to develop realistic design parameterizations
with little effort.
After a cross-section is selected, the menu used to
input the data associated with a line design compo-
nent is activated. In this menu, the number of the line
primitives used in the PATRAN geometric model
that is to be assigned the design variable data must
be entered. When this number is entered, the cross-
sectional shape of the design component is displayed
in the graphics area of the menu, together with the
allowable design variables and end grid point num-
bers of the line component. Having selected a hollow
circular cross-section from Fig. 8 and entered line
number 50, the menu appears as shown in Fig. 9. In
 Structural design sensitivity analysis and optimization 381

this example, end one is located at grid point two and

Fig. 8. Cross-sectional shapes for line components.
end two is located at grid point 62. By using the
Patran model, the location and orientation of this line
with respect to the other line components can be
easily verified. Orientation of the line is necessary for
the definition of the initial cross-sectional properties,
since the data are based on the end points. A menu
similar to that of Fig. 9 is used to enter data that
define a surface design component.
The first two selections are used in assigning the
design parameterization to the line. The DESIGN
VARIABLE SELECTION option in Fig. 9 is used to
choose design variables from within the geometric
parameters that characterize the line design com-
ponent. It is possible to select independent and
proportional design variables, within each design
component. An independent design variable can
change independently from all other design variables
during the design process. A proportional design
variable changes in a predefined relation with an
independent design variable. For a line design com-
ponent, design variables correspond to cross-
sectional characteristic dimensions. For a surface
design component, design variables correspond to the
thickness at each corner of the component.
For a hollow circular cross-section, there are a
maximum of three independent design variables, the
outer radius and the wall thickness of the cross-
section at both ends of the line. To decrease the
number of design variables, or to satisfy manufactur-
ing requirements, proportionality relations between
the three variables may be defined. The proportional-
ity constants are calculated based on the nominal

GEOMETRY MODEL OF THE SWEPTWING

END2,GR 62
ENDl.GR 2

Fig. 9. Line design data menu.

382 T. A. STONE
n n Y
(Q) @
END1.M 2
EWJZ.GR 62
Y
Fig. 10. Design variable selection.
design values that are input within the INITIAL
X-SECTIONAL PROPERTIES menu. Geometric
parameters that are not selected as design variables
are kept constant during the design process.
Constant or linear parameterizations are a result of
the way design variables are defined and the initial
design values that are assigned. To see this, consider
the hollow circular cross-section of Fig. 10, where dvi
stand for design variables and END1 and END2
denote ends one and two of the line. A constant
parameterization for outer radius can be obtained by
selecting dv 1-E 1 as independent and dv3-E2 as pro-
portional design variables, respectively, and entering
the same nominal values for both. A different initial
value would result in a linear outer radius variation
from end one to end two. A constant wall thickness
parameterization is imposed by the present im-
plementation of the DSOW. Still, variation of the
wall thickness can be defined proportional to the
outer radius at end one by selecting dv l-El as
independent and dv2 as proportional design vari-
ables. Constant and linear outer radius parameteriz-
ations can also result from design variable selections.
For instance, selecting do l-El and dv3-E2 as
independent would result in a linear parameterization
for the outer radius.
After design variable selections are made, the
designer enters the INITIAL X-SECTIONAL
PROPERTIES menu. This branch is used to define
the initial values of geometric parameters that charac-
terize the cross-sectional geometry of a line design
component or the grid point thickness distribution of
a surface design component. The geometric ratios
between dependent and independent design variables
are computed according to the geometric values that
et al.
GEOMETRYMODELOF THE SWEPTKNG
are input to define the nominal design. Currently, the
designer is responsible for entering initial geometric
properties that are consistent with those entered in
the geometric modeler for finite element analysis. For
design parameterizations other than constant, the
task of defining the finite element nodal geometric
properties required by the analysis code can be very
tedious. To guarantee data consistency and allow the
designer to concentrate on design parameterization
issues, interface software is being implemented to
automate the computation of finite element nodal
geometric quantities, based on initial geometric prop-
erties and design parameterizations that are defined.
A command input file for the geometric modeler
is automatically written, containing finite element
nodal geometric properties that are required by the
particular finite element code to be used.
The GENERATION DATA menu is used to
replicate design variable data that have been assigned
to a particular design component, to other design
components. Design variables and initial cross-
sectional properties that are entered for the design
component are used to generate the same design
variables and initial cross-sectional data for
design components that are specified within the
GENERATION DATA branch. This is useful, since
it can be tedious to enter the same detailed design
many times.
The DESIGN VARIABLE LINKING branch is
used to link design variables defined in distinct design
components. By specifying the ratio between different
design variables, linking can be used to decrease the
total number of independent design variables, e.g. to
retain a minimal set of design variables that may
change independently during the design process. It
 Structural design sensitivity analysis and optimization
may also be used for imposing design symmetry or
design variable continuity across design components.
Design symmetry can be imposed by linking design
variables from separate design components so that
the design variables are the same. Design variable
continuity can be imposed by linking design variables
at grid points that are common to two or more design
components, so that they have the same value.
Finally, linking may be used as a means to define
different design concepts for trade-off studies of
manufacturing cost versus weight. Figure 11 shows
the linking menu that is used to create design com-
ponent parameterizations by generating and linking
all design variables to the design variables in a parent
design component.
6. CHARACTERIZATION OF DESIGN PERFORMANCE
The PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
branch is used to define performance characteristics
that are to be controlled and to associate them with
finite element analysis solution quantities. A local
performance requirement is associated with a local
measure of performance, predicted by the finite el-
ement model. Local performance measures can be
finite element stress and nodal displacement require-
ments. The DSOW permits the engineer to take
ENTER FIRST DES COUP NUMBER: 60
ENTER LAST DES COMP NUMBER:~l
ENTER DES COUP INCREMENT SIZE:
Fig. 11. Design variable linking menu.
383
advantage of the multi-windowing environment that
is provided by workstation hardware to display the
finite element model, while defining performance
requirements. By starting Patran from within the
EXECUTE SOFTWARE branch of the DSOW, the
designer is able to display the finite element model in
a separate window of the workstation. Using Patran
graphics capabilities, displacement plots and stress
contours are shown to aid the designer in deciding
where local performance requirements should be
assigned, e.g. regions of high stress or large
deformation.
Stress performance characterizes the strength of
the model at specific finite elements [24]. Stress sensi-
tivity to design variation is calculated, for all per-
formance requirements specified, using the design
parameterization selected in the design requirements
branch. The designer then obtains design sensitivity
information that allows him to decide on the best
modification of the design to decrease stress in the
elements selected. Displacement performance is
associated with the displacement of specific finite
element node points [24]. The designer specifies the
nodal points and displacement degrees-of-freedom
that are of concern. Design sensitivities are then
calculated for the specified nodal displacements.
Selecting the STRESS icon causes the stress menu of
Fig. 12 to appear. From this menu, the designer is
required to enter the numbers of the finite elements
on which stress requirements are defined, the stress
criteria, and whether stress is to be considered at finite
element Gauss points or averaged over the finite
element domain.
In the ELEMENT GENERATION DATA area,
the designer enters the number of the finite element
in which the stress criteria is defined and the load case
number. The load case number is required for multi-
loading conditions. Currently, the DSOW supports
three possible stress criteria: von Mises, maximum
shear, and principal stress. Three principal stresses
1
can be specified; maximum, intermediate, and mini-
mum principal stress. It is possible to define more
than one criteria on each finite element. Stress criteria
can be defined at finite Gauss points or averaged over
the finite element domain.
Selection of the DISPLACEMENT requirement
icon causes the displacement menu to appear, as
shown in Fig. 13. In the nodal generation data area,
the designer is prompted to enter node numbers at
which a displacement requirement is to be defined
and the load case number. As for the stress func-
tional, it is possible to use incremental and/or
non-incremental data generation. Six possible
degrees-of-freedom can be defined at each nodal
point; displacement in the x-, y-, and z-directions
and rotation about the x-, y-, and z-axes.
Within the global performance branch, the de-
signer is able to select four types of global perform-
ance requirements; COMPLIANCE, WEIGHT,
EIGENVALUE, and VOLUME, as shown in
384 T. A. STONEet al.

1.87+04=

1.74+04=RB

Y
SWEPTWING

SUBCFISE 1
IN MISES STRESS CONTOUR

Fig. 12. Stress sensitivity menu.

Fig. 14. COMPLIANCE characterizes the external
work done by the applied forces. Structural compli-
ance can be defined for one or more loading con-
ditions. EIGENVALUE performance characterizes
the natural vibration behavior of the structure. Eigen-
value requirements can be specified on any number
of eigenvalues. WEIGHT performance provides a
measure of the total or partial weight of the structure.
Weight can be defined on any sub-region of the
structural model. For structures that are made up of
only one material, WEIGHT performance may be
replaced by a VOLUME performance.
The multi-window environment permits use of
Patran graphics capabilities to display and interpret
analysis results while, at the same time, using the
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS branch of
the DSOW to define those performance measures
identified as critical. An important benefit of this

IDE.lTI,PL

Fig. 13. Displacement requirement menu.

 Structural design sensitivity analysis and optimization
Fig. 14. Global performance menu.
environment is that it provides the various partici-
pants in the design process a method with which to
understand and discuss the significance of analysis
results. This interaction is stimulated by identifying
the performance definition stage as a distinct design
step.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The paper presents an integrated pre-processing
capability for structural design sensitivity analysis
and optimization. Integration of the individual stages
of the design process promotes interaction between
design, manufacturing, and engineering analysis. A
multi-windowing environment, the power of com-
puter graphics, and industry standard structural
modeling and analysis software have been explored to
create a highly interactive design tool. By identifying
design parameterization and performance character-
ization as separate design steps, a mechanism has
been created that permits use of structural modeling
software to define acceptable classes of designs and
structural analysis codes to support performance
definition.
CAS 34,X-C
385
REFERENCES
1. G. W. Sibbald, CIM today and in the future. SME
Technical Paper, MS86-1061 (1986).
2. L. Rice. Manaaina CADICAMICAE data and desian
process& in m&h\nical engineering. Cornpal. Em&,
Vol II. ASME (1987).
3. K. Maddux, An integrated system for the manu-
facturing engineer. Comput. Engng, Vol II. ASME
(1987).
4. R. A. Schmidtberg and M. A. Yerry, Designing
complex assemblies using the top-down approach.
SME Technical Paper, MS86-1091 (1986).
5. B. L. Shay, An integrated approach to the computer
aided design of plastic parts. SME Technical Paper,
MS87-352 (1987).
6. H. W. Stoll, Tech report design for manufacture.
Manufnct. Engng 108, 67-73 (1988).
7. A. L. Klosterman, M. C. Goldstein, W. A. McClelland
and R. D. Shinkle, An open software architecture for
mechanical CAE. SME Technical Paper, MS851083
(1985).
8. S. W. Hubbard, CAD/CAM Applications for Business.
Oryx Press, Atlantic Beach, NY (1985).
9. R. N. Stover, An Analysis of CAD/CAM Applications.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1984).
10. K. K. Choi, J. L. T. Santos and M. C. Frederick,
Implementation of design sensitivity analysis with exist-
ing finite element codes. ASME J. Mech. Transmiss.
Automn Des. 109, 385-391 (1987).
11. B. Dopker and K. K. Choi, Sizing and shape design
sensitivity analysis using a hibrid finite element code.
Finite Elements Anal. Des. 3, 315-331 (1987).
12. PDA Engineering, PATRAN PLUS User’s Manual
Vois I and II. Software Products Division, 1560
Brookhollow Drive, Santa Ana, CA (1987).
13. G. J. DeSalvo and J. A. Swanson, ANSYS engineering
analysis system, User’s Manual Vols I and II. Swanson
Analysis Systems, Inc., Houston, PA (1987).
14. K. H. Chang and J. L. T. Santos, Distributed design
sensitivity computations on a network of computers.
Comput. Struct. (submitted).
15. Domain /Dialogue User’s Guide. Appolo Computer,
Inc., Chelmsford, MA (1987).
16. DOMAIN GPR User’s Guide, Appolo Computer, Inc.,
Chelmsford, MA (1987).
17. J. L. T. Santos and K. K. Choi, Integrated compu-
tational considerations for large scale structural design
sensitivity and optimization. GAMM Conference on
Discretization Methods and Structural Optimization,
University of Siegen, 5-7 October 1988.
18. J. L. T. Santos, M. M. Godse and K.-H. Chang,
An interactive post-processor for structural design sen-
sitivity analysis and optimization: sensitivity display and
what-if study. Comput. Struct. (to appear).
19. J. L. T. Santos and R. Stahlberg, A unified data
base for a design sensitivity analysis and optimization
workstation. Engng Comput. (submitted).
20. PDA Engineering, PATIANSYS Application Interface,
Version 2.0. PATRAN Division, Costa Mesa, CA
(1988).
21. C. B. Besant, Computer-aided Design and Manufacture.
Ellis Horwood, Chichester (1983).
22. D. Lucas, Concurrent product/process development.
SME Technical Paper, MM87-219 (1987).
23. G. W. Sibbald, CIM today and in the future. SME
Technical Paper, MS86-1061 (1986).
24. E. J. Haug, K. K. Choi and V. Komkov, Design
Sensitivity Analysis of Structural Systems. Academic
Press, New York (1986).