500 0

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author박경진-
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-12T01:35:51Z-
dc.date.available2018-02-12T01:35:51Z-
dc.date.issued2016-09-
dc.identifier.citationSTRUCTURAL AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY OPTIMIZATION, V. 54, No. 3, Page. 685-699en_US
dc.identifier.issn1615-147X-
dc.identifier.issn1615-1488-
dc.identifier.urihttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00158-016-1429-y-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11754/36498-
dc.description.abstractMathematical optimization theories are employed for the design of structures in structural optimization. Structural optimization is being widely utilized for practical problems due to well-developed commercial software systems. Three representative structural optimization systems such as Genesis, MSC Nastran and OptiStruct are investigated and evaluated by solving various test examples in different scales. The design capabilities of three software systems are explored and the performances of the systems are compared. The performance of structural optimization depends on the quality of the optimum solution and the computational time, and these aspects are compared from an application viewpoint. For a fair comparison, the same formulations are utilized, and the same optimization methods are employed for each example. Also, the same system environment is prepared, and the same optimization parameters are used. Additionally, various design options of each software system are tested for the best performance. Linear static response size, shape, topology, topometry and topography optimizations are applied to the examples and the results are compared. No system seems to be the best in all cases and each system has advantages and disadvantages depending on the application. In general, Genesis is excellent in computational time while OptiStruct gives excellent optimum solutions, in size, topometry and topology optimizations. Meanwhile, MSC Nastran presents good solutions in shape and topography optimizations.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research was supported by the Guangdong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (2015A030312008) and Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Plan (2015B010104006). The authors are thankful to Mrs. MiSun Park for the English correction of the manuscript.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherSPRINGERen_US
dc.subjectStructural optimizationen_US
dc.subjectOptimization softwareen_US
dc.subjectPerformance of optimizationen_US
dc.subjectCHECKERBOARDen_US
dc.subjectLOADSen_US
dc.titleComparison study of some commercial structural optimization software systemsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00158-016-1429-y-
dc.relation.page1-6-
dc.contributor.googleauthorChoi, WH-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKim, JM-
dc.contributor.googleauthorPark, GJ-
dc.sector.campusE-
dc.sector.daehakCOLLEGE OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES[E]-
dc.sector.departmentDEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING-
dc.identifier.pidgjpark-
Appears in Collections:
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES[E](공학대학) > MECHANICAL ENGINEERING(기계공학과) > Articles
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE