An empirical study on stress-based fail-safe topology optimization and multiple load path design

Explicitly considering fail-safety within design optimization is computationally very expensive, since every possible failure has to be considered. This requires solving one finite element model per failure and iteration. In topology optimization, one cannot identify potentially failing structural members at the beginning of the optimization. Hence, a generic failure shape is applied to every possible location inside the design domain. In the current paper, the maximum stress is considered as optimization objective to be minimized, since failure is typically driven by the occurring stresses and thus of more practical relevance than the compliance. Due to the local nature of stresses, it is presumed that the optimization is more sensitive to the choice of the failure shape than compliance-based optimization. Therefore, various failure shapes, sizes and different numbers of failure cases are investigated and compared on the basis of a general load-path-based evaluation scheme. Instead of explicitly considering fail-safety, redundant structures are obtained at much less computational cost by controlling the maximum length scale. A common and easy to implement maximum length scale approach is employed and fail-safe properties are determined and compared against the explicit fail-safe approach.

Automated summary

Explicitly considering fail-safety within design optimization is computationally expensive due to the need to consider every possible failure, requiring a separate finite element model per failure. In this paper, maximum stress is considered as the optimization objective, as it is more relevant to practical applications than compliance. The study suggests that the choice of failure shape has a greater impact on optimization than compliance-based approaches.