Ida Haglund
Anna Hkansson
EXAM WORK 2011
Mechanical Engineering
Postadress: Besksadress: Telefon:
Box 1026 Gjuterigatan 5 03610 10 00 (vx)
551 11 Jnkping
Postadress: Besksadress: Telefon:
Box 1026 Gjuterigatan 5 03610 10 00 (vx)
551 11 Jnkping
This exam work has been carried out at the School of Engineering in
Jnkping in the subject area mechanical engineering. The work is a part of
the Master of Science programme.
The authors take full responsibility for opinions, conclusions and findings
presented.
Examiner: Niclas Strmberg, JTH
Supervisors: Niclas Strmberg, JTH
Oskar Sjholm, Atlas Copco
Scope: 30 credits
Date: 20110608
Abstract
This thesis describes how a design optimization of a boom structure for drill rigs
can be set up and performed where the range is increased and the weight reduced.
A program that calculates the coverage area based on the boom angles and
dimensions is connected with a finite element analysis of a boom model that is
autogenerated by a macro, using commercial optimization software. The macro
was recorded while creating the model and dimensions have been replaced by
varying parameters. Workflows are created in the optimization software where
suitable design of experiments and optimization algorithms are selected.
II
Summary
Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB develops and manufactures a machine called
Boomer. It is a series of large, high capacity drill rigs for tunneling and mining,
used to drill blast holes in the rock. One or several arms with drills in the ends are
mounted on the Boomer. These arms are called booms and this thesis has been
focusing on BUT 45 L which is the newest and largest boom.
The twodimensional area in front of the boomer that can be reached by the
boom drill is called coverage area. This area depends on the dimensions and
angles of the boom structure, but so does the boom weight and stiffness. One
boom can be up to 12 meters and weigh more than 5000 kg and it is Atlas Copcos
wish to make a lighter boom. At the same time, a maximized coverage area is
preferable since it results in larger drifts.
The purpose with the thesis was to develop the prerequisite to perform a design
optimization of the boom structure which maximized the coverage area and
minimized the weight. The stresses and deflection in the structure had to be kept
within allowed limits.
A program was created in MATLAB to calculate the coverage area dependent on
the boom dimensions and angles, using forward kinematics according to Denavit
Hartenberg. To obtain the weight and to make sure that the boom structure
would not collapse due to high stresses, a finite element model was created in
Abaqus CAE. Macros were recorded while creating the model and the script that
was an outcome of the macros where worked through in detail. Ten dimensions
on the boom were replaced by parameters and the script could be used to auto
generate and analyze the complete model with given parameters.
The optimization software modeFRONTIER was used to connect the area
calculation and FEAmodel and to perform the optimizations. Two single
objective and one multiobjective workflow were created. The first workflow
maximized the coverage area and the resulting dimensions were used as constants
in the second workflow where the weight was minimized by reducing the cross
section of the boom body. In the multiobjective optimization, the coverage area
was maximized and the weight minimized in the same workflow. Suitable design
of experiments and optimization algorithms for each optimization were selected in
modeFRONTIER.
By running the optimizations, it was identified that the coverage area could be
increased while the weight was reduced, with allowed stresses and deflections.
Keywords
Forward kinematics
DenavitHartenberg
Design optimization
Multiobjective optimization
Finite element analysis
Metamodeling
Design of experience
III
Preface
This thesis work has been carried out by two students at the School of
Engineering at Jnkping University as a part of the Master of Science
programme in Product Development and Materials Engineering.
We would like to thank our supervisors for their help and support throughout this
thesis work
Niclas Strmberg for his objectivity and discretion.
Oskar Sjholm for his enthusiasm, commitment and faith in us.
Furthermore, we would also like to thank Peter berg and Atlas Copco Rock
Drills AB for giving us the opportunity to realize this project. Last but not least,
we would like to thank Bjrn Ryttare for his patience and for devotion of time
despite the lack of it.
Ida Haglund Anna Hkansson
IV
Contents
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 ATLAS COPCO ROCK DRILLS AB ................................................................................................ 1
1.3 THE BOOMER AND THE BUT 45 L ............................................................................................... 1
1.4 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 2
1.5 PROBLEM FORMULATION ............................................................................................................ 3
1.6 PURPOSE AND AIM ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.7 DELIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 4
1.8 OUTLINE ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2 Theoretical background ........................................................... 1
2.1 FORWARD KINEMATICS .............................................................................................................. 1
2.2 FEANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 2
2.2.1 FEelements ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 OPTIMIZATION THEORY .............................................................................................................. 4
2.3.1 The Optimization Process ................................................................................................. 4
2.3.2 Multiobjective optimization and Pareto optimality ......................................................... 7
2.4 METAMODELING ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.4.1 Response surface models .................................................................................................. 9
2.4.2 Kriging ............................................................................................................................ 10
2.4.3 Radial basis function models .......................................................................................... 12
2.4.4 Neural Networks ............................................................................................................. 13
2.4.5 Advantages and disadvantages of different metamodels ................................................ 15
2.5 DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS ......................................................................................................... 16
2.5.1 Sobol Design ................................................................................................................... 17
2.5.2 Latin Hypercube Designs ............................................................................................... 18
2.5.3 Incremental Space Filler ................................................................................................ 20
2.5.4 Taguchi Orthogonal Array Designs ............................................................................... 21
2.5.5 Full factorial designs ...................................................................................................... 23
2.5.6 Fractional Factorial Designs ......................................................................................... 24
2.5.7 Central Composite Designs ............................................................................................ 25
2.5.8 BoxBehnken Designs ..................................................................................................... 28
2.5.9 Latin Square Design ....................................................................................................... 30
2.5.10 PlackettBurman Designs .......................................................................................... 31
2.6 FAST OPTIMIZERS IN MODEFRONTIER ................................................................................ 31
2.6.1 Working process ............................................................................................................. 31
2.6.2 The SIMPLEX algorithm ................................................................................................ 33
2.6.3 The MOGAII algorithm ................................................................................................. 35
3 Method and implementation ................................................. 37
3.1 COVERAGE AREA ...................................................................................................................... 37
3.2 THE EXISTING FEAMODEL ....................................................................................................... 38
3.3 THE NEW FEAMODEL .............................................................................................................. 39
3.3.1 Boom support .................................................................................................................. 40
3.3.2 Boom link ........................................................................................................................ 40
3.3.3 Cylinder link ................................................................................................................... 41
3.3.4 Fork ................................................................................................................................ 41
3.3.5 Boom beam 1 .................................................................................................................. 41
3.3.6 Boom ears ....................................................................................................................... 42
3.3.7 Tripod cylinders .............................................................................................................. 42
3.3.8 Cylinder ends .................................................................................................................. 43
3.3.9 Flange ............................................................................................................................. 43
3.3.10 Boom beam 2 ............................................................................................................. 43
V
Contents
VI
3.3.11 Gear flange ................................................................................................................ 44
3.3.12 Gear case ................................................................................................................... 44
3.3.13 Knee ........................................................................................................................... 45
3.3.14 Bracket ....................................................................................................................... 45
3.3.15 Feeder fork ................................................................................................................. 45
3.3.16 Feeder ........................................................................................................................ 46
3.3.17 Feeder beam, Steel holder and Feeder steel .............................................................. 46
3.4 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION OF THE OPTIMIZATION ............................................................ 47
3.4.1 Formulation of singleobjective optimization problem 1 ................................................ 47
3.4.2 Formulation of singleobjective optimization problem 2 ................................................ 47
3.4.3 Formulation of multiobjective optimization problem .................................................... 48
3.5 OPTIMIZATION WORKFLOWS IN MODEFRONTIER ............................................................... 49
3.5.1 Singleobjective optimization workflow 1 in modeFRONTIER ................................... 49
3.5.2 Singleobjective optimization workflow 2 in ModeFRONTIER .................................. 50
3.5.3 Multiobjective optimization workflow in modeFRONTIER ....................................... 52
4 Findings and analysis ............................................................... 54
4.1 SINGLEOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION 1 IN MODEFRONTIER .................................................... 54
4.2 SINGLEOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION 2 IN MODEFRONTIER .................................................... 63
4.3 MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION IN MODEFRONTIER ....................................................... 65
5 Discussion and conclusions .................................................... 71
5.1 DISCUSSION OF METHOD ........................................................................................................... 71
5.1.1 Using modeFRONTIER .............................................................................................. 71
5.1.2 Formulation of the multiobjective problem ................................................................... 71
5.1.3 Used algorithms .............................................................................................................. 72
5.2 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 73
5.3 FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 73
5.3.1 More realistic FEAmodel .............................................................................................. 73
6 References ............................................................................... 76
7 Search terms ........................................................................... 78
8 Appendices .............................................................................. 79
Introduction
1 Introduction
The introduction section discusses the background of the project, the regarded
product as well as the defined problem.
1.1 Background
Due to a constant wish of shortened product development cycles, fast ways to
evaluate design concepts at an early phase in the design process are requested.
Advanced Finite Element Analysis software and computer support provides the
possibility of performing so called virtual prototyping. By adding optimization to
the process, the work can be made even more efficient as an optimal design of a
product can be retrieved faster. (Jurecka, 2007)
Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB in rebro has realized the benefits of optimization
and expects to implement this in their design process.
1.2 Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB
Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB is a part of the Atlas Copco Group, founded in
Sweden in 1873. Atlas Copco Group is a world leading company within
development and manufacturing of equipment for heavy industry. The company is
divided into several divisions which act within three different business areas 
Compressor Technique, Construction and Mining Technique, and Industrial
Technique (Atlas Copco, 2010).
1.3 The Boomer and the BUT 45 L
Within the area of Construction and Mining technique various equipment and
machines for heavy construction work are developed one is the Atlas Copco
Boomer. The Boomer, which is a series of large, high capacity drill rigs for mining
and tunneling, is used for drilling blast holes in the rock, see Figure 1.1. The
machine is placed in the end of the drift where one or several booms mounted on
the rig allow the operator to reach a large area of the gallery. These booms are
named BUT and a following model number. This thesis has focused on the BUT
45 L, which is the newest boom in the BUT product family. A drawing can be
seen in Appendix A: Drawing of a BUT 45 L.
The BUT 45 L is a fiveaxis boom and the largest boom in the BUTseries. It is
stiffer than its predecessors and consequently offers more precise positioning and
a larger service range. (Atlas Copco, 2007)
Since a 165 kg drill with a rotational motor with 650 Nm torque are mounted to
the end of the boom stiffness is of great importance as large forces arise in the up
to twelve meter long boom structure while drilling. (Atlas Copco, 2009)
1
Introduction
Figure 1.1: A Boomer with three booms.
1.4 Problem description
The twodimensional area which the boom reaches is called coverage area and is
an important factor when constructing and developing new booms. The coverage
area is linked to the dimensions and deflection angles, which also affects the
forces in the boom structure, the total weight and the required stiffness. In fully
extended position the BUT 45 L boom is 11,4 meters long and weighs over 5000
kg.
Figure 1.2: A Boomer in action, drilling holes in the rock using the drills mounted on the booms.
2
Introduction
If the boom structure becomes heavier extra weight must be compensated for in
the Boomer in order to keep stable and prevent from tipping over. The maximum
boom swing angle is set to a fixed value since to large swing angle results in a risk
of tipping over. It is desirable to reduce the weight and the arisen stresses in the
boom in order to be able to change the configuration of the dimensions, resulting
in a larger cover area.
The current boom is not developed by optimization and the possibility that a local
optimum were found is large. If a configuration exists where the coverage area of
the boom are increased at the same time as the total weight are sustained or even
reduced, the theory of a local optimum is plausible. To find out, an optimization
routine can be used and a number of concepts will be compared and evaluated by
the computer.
In order to create an optimization the design of the boom has to be rigorously
documented and examined. The objective function in optimization depends on
design variables and constraints. Without explicit answers to what is to be
optimized, it will be impossible to fulfill the main purpose. More on how
optimizations are carried out will be described in chapter 2: Theoretical background.
Depending on the answer to what is to be optimized a suitable optimization
algorithm has to be chosen. Based on the knowledge retrieved during the mapping
and analyzing process a suitable method will be selected. The linking between the
software has to be designed for implementation in the current research and
development at Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB. Consequently, it has to be able to
communicate with the available software at the department.
1.5 Problem formulation
The problem formulation has throughout the project been;
How can an optimization of the boom structure, which maximizes the coverage area and
minimizes the total weight while the stresses in the structure are kept within allowed limits, be set
up and performed?
To solve the problem, two subquestions were identified;
How can the coverage area be calculated so that the boom dimensions can be changed with an
accurate outcome as a result?
and
How can a FEanalysis of the boom be carried out, that functions realistic for all
configurations, which gives the stress results and volume as output?
1.6 Purpose and aim
The main purpose with the project is to develop the prerequisite that enables an
optimization which maximizes the coverage area and minimizes the weight of the
BUT 45 L while the stresses in the structure are kept within allowed limits. An
optimization would imply a shortened developmental time of upcoming booms.
3
Introduction
4
The aim is to run an optimization of the boom and to compare the results with
the current configuration.
1.7 Delimitations
The BUT 45 L is available in two different versions, one with the feeder mounted
on the top and one version with the feeder mounted on the side of the boom
body. In this thesis only the top mounted version is managed.
The optimization will concern the boom structure from boom support to gear
flange. This delimitation has been made in accordance with the engineers on Atlas
Copco since the tripod solution dimensions has proven to be the crucial factor
when increasing the coverage area. The angles and dimensional variables can be
seen in Appendix B: Angles and variables.
1.8 Outline
Each section of this report deals with the three main areas described in the
problem formulation and how they are solved; the calculation of coverage area,
the FEanalysis of the boom and the optimization of the boom where the three
subjects are connected.
The theoretical background explains the method used to calculate the coverage
area and a brief introduction to FEanalysis and element types. The theory behind
optimization problems is also explained as well as metamodeling, design of
experiments and fast optimizers in the optimization software
modeFRONTIER.
In the method and implementation section there is a description of how the
coverage area calculation are carried out and how the current FEAmodel and new
FEAmodel differ. It also deals with the mathematical formulation of the
optimization problem and how the problem can be set up in modeFRONTIER
Under findings and analysis the result of the final optimization will be revealed
and compared to the current boom configuration.
The project is concluded with a discussion and further opportunities are
presented.
Theoretical background
2 Theoretical background
In the theoretical background, the calculation routine used for the coverage area,
forward kinematics, will be explained. It will also concern the theory of
optimization, explaining metamodels, different design of experiments and the fast
optimizers available in modeFRONTIER.
2.1 Forward Kinematics
In order to calculate the coverage area of a boom, the original developer of the
calculation program turned to the area of robot control and modeling. A boom is
similar to a robot arm in the way that they both consist of links and joints which
forms a kinematic chain. To determine the position of an end effector of a
kinematic chain, depending on the known values of the joint variables, forward
kinematics is used. Within the area of forward kinematics a method called the
DenavitHartenberg Convention, or DH convention, is commonly used.
In this methodology it is assumed that all joints only have a single degreeof
freedom. Links with more than one degreeoffreedom can be modeled as a
sequence of onedegreejoint with zero spacing. By this assumption it is possible
to describe the displacement of the joint in terms of one rotation (or one
translation for prismatic joints). Every link on the kinematic chain is assigned a
rigid coordinate frame. As a joint is being put into action the connected link will
move in space. The position of a link is described in terms of the preceding link in
a homogenous transformation matrixA. This matrix is a function of the rotation
of the joint (Spong et. al, 2006).
Introducing a framework and assigning the coordinates frames according to the
DH convention makes it possible to represent the motion of each link with four
basic transformations. An arbitrary homogeneous transformation matrix generally
consists of six parameters. By making the following assumptions the reduction in
parameters can be made (Spong et. al, 2006):
1.
The axis x
i
is perpendicular to the axis z
i1
2.
The axis x
i
intersects with the axis z
i1
The rigidly attached frame to the link does not have to lie within the physical link
but can exist in free space. The Figure 2.1 shows how coordinate frames which
fulfills the assumptions for DH convention will look like.
Due to the DH convention of assigning coordinate frames the transformation
matrix A now depends on the following four parameters, two rotations, and ,
and two translations, a and d. The matrix A looks like the following:
A = _
cos 6
1
sin 6
1
sin 6
1
 sinu
1
a
1
 cos 6
1
sin 6
1
cos 6
1
 cos u
1
cos 6
1
 sinu
1
a
1
 sinu
1
u sin u
1
cos u
1
d
1
u u u 1
_
1
Theoretical background
The parameter a is usually named link length, is named link twist, d is the named
link offset and is the joint angle. How these are measured can be seen in Figure 2.1.
The first three parameters are constant for a known link while the joint angle is
variable (Spong et. al, 2006).
a
Figure 2.1: Coordinate frames, oi1 and oi, which satisfies the assumptions made in the DH convention (Spong
et. al, 2006).
There is no unique way of assigning the coordinate frames, derivation may differ
but the result will end up the same. A summary of the procedure of assigning
coordinate frames according to DenavitHartenberg is found in Appendix C
Forward Kinematics.
2.2 FEanalysis
When designing new products, the physical behavior of the geometry is important
to analyze since it can predict how the final product will respond when in use. By
dividing the investigated geometry into smaller parts, so called finite elements that
are connected by shared nodes, the behavior of each element as well as the total
performance of the physical structure can be obtained. Every element represents a
discrete part of the total geometry and a collection of elements are called mesh
(Dassault Systmes, 2009).
The stress and strain in each element can be determined by computing the
displacement of the nodes. Both the magnitude and distribution can be analyzed.
The most critical regions can give the engineer a hint of where and how to
redesign the object with a more equally distributed stress as a result. When
computers are used to simulate the finite elements, a fast and accurate result will
be achieved on the condition that suitable selections are made by the engineer
throughout the procedure. (Dassault Systmes, 2009)
d
o
i
o
i1
y
i
y
i1
x
i
x
i1
z
i1
z
i
2
Theoretical background
2.2.1 FEelements
There are eight commonly used element types for stress analysis available in
Abaqus; continuum, beam, truss, shell, rigid, membrane, infinite and connector
elements. The three element types used in the new FEAmodel are continuum,
beam and truss elements which main features are explained below (Dassault
Systmes, 2009).
Beam and truss elements are both onedimensional line elements which act in two
or three dimensions and have been assigned stiffness against deformations. By
approximating that a threedimensional part is slender, the beam or truss can be
treated as a onedimensional element in three dimensions given a constant cross
section. This assumption can only be made if the crosssection is small compared
to the axial length. The type of deformations that can be supported is the main
difference between beam and truss elements. (Dassault Systmes, 2009)
Truss elements
The only supported deformations in trusses are compression and tension i.e.
originated from axial forces. No forces normal to the truss axis or moments are
supported. If the cross section is not manually defined in Abaqus, an area will be
assumed by the software. A material must be selected but it is not allowed to
define a material orientation in trusses. Two types of truss elements are available
in Abaqus; 2node straight elements that have a constant stress and use linear
interpolation for positions and displacements, or 3node curved elements that uses
quadratic interpolation which offers a varying strain along the structure (Dassault
Systmes, 2009).
Beam elements
In beam elements deformations can arise from axial forces, shear, torsion and
bending forces in contrast to truss elements where only axial forces are supported.
The beam section can generally not be deformed in its own plane and the use of
beam elements should therefore be considered carefully in each case. An
exception to this assumption is for example when open section beams are used
and warping occurs (Dassault Systmes, 2009).
Beams have few degrees of freedom and are geometrically simple which implies
that the computational time is reduced, one of the main advantages with beam
elements. The required bending moment must be defined as a function of the
curvature, the torque as a function of twist, or the axial force as a function of
strain. Two types of section definitions are available in Abaqus; general beam
section where the cross section properties are established in the preprocessor once
or a beam section integrated during the analysis where the behavior is recomputed
during the analysis (Dassault Systmes, 2009).
The beam is created along a wire region and the section profile must be defined as
well as the section orientation. The crosssection selection affects the beam
behavior and can either be chosen from the list in Abaqus or created manually.
They can either be solid or thinwalled and for the later closed or open sectioned
(Dassault Systmes, 2009).
3
Theoretical background
Continuum elements
Continuum or solid elements are the standard volume elements in Abaqus and can
be used when contact, plasticity and large deformations occur but also in linear
analysis. There are several solid element types available and it is important to
choose a suitable type for the particular case. Some characteristics that can be
considered is if the element should include hexahedral/quadrilaterals or
tetrahedral/triangles, first or second order, reduced or full integration, normal,
hybrid or incompatible mode formulation. To get an accurate result the elements
should have as equal size and be as wellarranged as possible. The solid part must
be assigned a section which can consist either of one material consistently or
several layers of materials in a laminated composite design (Dassault Systmes,
2009).
2.3 Optimization Theory
By using optimization to a defined problem, a solution can be found that fulfills
the given requirements and maximizes or minimizes the outcome.
2.3.1 The Optimization Process
For carrying out an optimization there exist some methodology/process for
setting up and solving the assignment, see Figure 2.2. In this section the process
and the activities for each step is explained.
First of all the problem has to be identified in order to be simplified and
formulated in a mathematical way. The reality is often very complex and
reasonable estimations and delimitations have to be made for the problem to be
solvable. At the same time it is important that the problem is not too generalized
to represent the real conditions in a correct way. It is a careful balance between
solubility and accuracy where decisions has to be taken according to the desired
level of ambition. The identification process is a good source to acquire
knowledge and understanding of the system and the relations within (Lundgren et.
al, 2003).
The outcome of the first step is a simplified problem; the way in which the
simplified model is described mathematically is called an optimization model. The
problem has to be formulated in terms of an objective functiondepending on
different variables which are limited by a number of constraints (Lundgren et. al,
2003).
4
Theoretical background
ACTUAL
PROBLEM
Identification,delimitation&simplification
SIMPLIFIED
PROBLEM
Mathematicalformulation
OPTIMIZATION
MODEL
Optimization
method
SOLUTION Evaluation
RESULT
Figure 2.2: A flow chart of optimization process; the various activities and outcome of each step.
The objective function, or target function, is a function of the design variables. The
design variables are parameters which can be changed in order to alter the design.
They are generally continuous but might be discrete, e.g. due to the available
assortment of cylinder sizes. Design variables can be; dimensions of beam cross
sections or lengths, or other attributes, like holes and fillets. Depending on the
design variable type structural optimization can be divided into three different
disciplines; sizing, shape optimization and topology optimization (Jurecka, 2007),
see Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3: Illustration of the various disciplines in structural optimization; size, shape and topology
optimization.
5
Theoretical background
Size optimization is the simplest optimization task and can be used to solve
problems concerning the minimum crosssectional area of truss elements for a
fixed geometry. Shape optimization involves geometrical parameters and changes
the shape within several limits. In topology optimization material can be added or
removed. In structural optimization a problem can concern combinations of the
different disciplines (Jurecka, 2007).
The constraints, or design requirements, can also depend on state variables derived
from constraints on the state of the system. These state variables can be included
in the objective function. The state constraints are often limited to be equal or
above/under a certain value while the design variables can change within an
interval x
I
x x
u
(Strmberg, 2010). The constraints are formulated as equality
b(x) = u or inequality constraints g(x) u, as for the state variables. The upper and
lower limit of the design variables defines the design space while the constraints of
the variables divide the design space into a feasible and unfeasible domain
(Jurecka, 2007), see Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4: The feasible region, grey area, restricted by the function g(x) and the function (x), and by the
constraints x u and y u.
(x)
g(x)
The objective function (x) is a formulation of what is to be optimized; the objective
is a measurement of the performance of the different variable combinations.
Often it is formulated as a minimization problem, but this does not cause
restrictions; maximization problems are simply reformulated to minimization
problems (Jurecka, 2007).
As the problem has been formulated mathematically and the optimization model
is fully defined it is possible to determine what optimization method to use and
what algorithm to be implemented. As all the previous steps have been worked
thru a suggestion for a solution is generated. The solution has to be evaluated and
validated since the generalizations and simplifications of the problem will generate
an approximate solution. The end of the optimization process is reached when the
solution suggestion has been processed into a satisfactory result (Lundgren et. al,
2003).
Optimization problems with two or more objective functions are dealt with within
the area of multiobjective optimization, the subject is treated in the next section
of this report.
6
Theoretical background
2.3.2 Multiobjective optimization and Pareto optimality
For optimization problems with several objectives the functions might be
conflicting; e.g. trying to reduce mass while striving for lower stresses. No explicit
optimal solution can be distinguished for these problems; all optimal solutions will
be compromises between the different objectives. For problems where the
objectives are interchangeable, all functions, except one, will be unnecessary.
For singleobjective problems and problems with several compatible objectives it
is fairly easy to determine the optimal solution, in contrast to problems with
multiple conflicting objectives (Messac & Mullur, 2007).
One way of dealing with several objective functions is to minimize one of them
and treat the other objectives as constraints. A downside with turning a soft
preference to a hard constraint is that the final solution might largely depend on
the chosen value for the constraint and may lead to an inadequate solution.
Instead of reformulating objectives into constraints, multiobjective problems
and their solutions can be managed in a more efficient way by the concept of
Pareto optimality (Messac & Mullur, 2007).
For multiobjective problems two different questions is important to consider;
how is the solution defined for this type of problem and how is the problem
solved? One answer to the first question is; for Pareto optimality a solution is to
be considered optimal if the improvement of one objective will lead to a
deterioration of another objective. This means a compromise between the
different objectives and compromises are a central subject within multiobjective
optimization. An optimal solution will be the one resulting in an optimal
compromise, or tradeoff, between the design objectives. Identification of a
representative Pareto optimal set is the aim for many of the current
methodologies for managing multiobjective problems (Messac & Mullur, 2007).
Pareto optimal sets can at times easily be identified in a design space as a so
called Pareto front, see Figure 2.4. The Pareto front consists of all Pareto optimal
points of the dominated region in the design space. No Pareto optimal solution is
better than another, mathematically seen  it is up to the Engineer to determine
the weight of the different objectives, and this is the answer to the second
question. What is provided by the Pareto front is a good visualization of
characteristics of the different objectives and guidance in decision making (Messac
& Mullur, 2007).
7
Theoretical background
Figure 2.4: Pareto front for a biobjective problem.
2.4 Metamodeling
In order to reduce computational time for complex optimization problems
metamodels are used for reducing the number of design evaluations. A metamodel
is an approximate mathematical expression for a correlation between the different
input variables and the outcome of an optimization problem. Briefly described
metamodels describes the response of the outcome as the variables alter and
provide predictions of the behavior for untested points.
Reliable metamodels are generally created from an existing set of design of
experiments, DoE. What characterizes a proper set of test points, or training data,
is that they provide as much information as possible in relation to a minimum
effort (Jurecka, 2007). How Design of Experiments (DoE) is planned is treated
more thoroughly later on in this report.
8
Theoretical background
Behavior models of an original design are more complex providing more accurate
results than a metamodel, on the downside the computational time for these
might require numerous amount of time. In comparison, metamodels are cheaper
to evaluate and are an efficient way of reducing time (Jurecka, 2007). Nevertheless
it must be noticed that metamodels are approximations, the optimal solution for
the metamodel might not always be the optimal solution for the original problem.
However, the solution of the metamodel can provide a solution close enough to
the optimal design to upgrade the original design (Strmberg, 2010).
Figure 2.5: Response surface in MATLAB.
Aside from reducing computational time there are a number of various benefits
with metamodels. One is better understanding of the problem and design space as
the engineer investigates the system and correlations. Metamodels can also
increase the computational speed as design experiments can be carried out and
evaluated simultaneously. Multiple information sources can be included in a
metamodel; this enables evaluation and analysis of multiphysical problems
(Jurecka, 2007).
Fast optimizers in modeFRONTIER
+

v

n
=1
Taylor expansion gives a function suitable for second orders
q(v, ) =
+

v

n
=1
+
j
v

v
j
+

v

2
n
=1
n
j=1
j>1
n
=1
Usually the RSM are sequentially fitted to different subregions of the problem in
an iterative process, this in order to create as good predictions as possible
(Jurecka, 2007).
Polynomial Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) in modeFRONTIER
functions in the same way as the polynomial regression models, or RSM.
Polynomial SVD is described as an effective, but imprecise response surface
method for producing metamodels. The square of errors are minimized by
producing the best fitting polynomial based on the available training set, as
previously stated for RSM. The speed of the training process make SVD suitable
for generating reliable guesses and detecting regions of interest rather than
providing the strict behavior of the function (Rigoni, 2010).
2.4.2 Kriging
Kriging was originally a statistical method used within the area of geostatistics but
is today a popular tool for metamodeling and RSM. Its popularity depends on the
ability of interpolating response values in an exact way from a set of training
points. The Kriging approximation is formulated as
y = q(v, ) + Z(u) + s
10
Theoretical background
The term ) , ( v has previously been identified as a polynomial with the free
parameters and is the approximate errors. Z(v) is a Gaussian random process
where the mean is zero, variance and nonzero covariance (Jurecka, 2007)
Kriging interpolation uses known design values to predict the values of the
untested points, this by weighting the sum of the known data and minimizing the
mean squared error. All covariance of the sample points in the search area are
collected in a matrix. This matrix is then inverted to get the weight, as a result
large divergences turns into small weights (Lovison, 2007).
2
(nct
)
net
I
= w
]
o
]
4
]=1
w
i4
o
2
p
(nct
)
w
i3
w
i2
o
i
o
i
o
i
14
Theoretical background
The neural network in modeFRONTIER the hidden layer has a sigmoid (s
shaped) function and the output has a linear activation function. The training
algorithm is carried out with a fixed number of iterations and initially the
networks weights are set to random small values. The number of neurons in the
hidden layer is also automatically set in the software (Rigoni, 2010).
2.4.5 Advantages and disadvantages of different metamodels
Since several different methods for metamodeling are used in modeFRONTIER
the imperfections of the different models are compensated for a metamodel
having weaknesses concerning one type of problem might prove to be
advantageous for other types. By sequentially execution of the different models
and applying the one with best result, the computational effort is utilized where
required the most. In the following section some of the advantages and
disadvantages with the different metamodeling types are reviewed.
According to Jurecka, polynomial regression models have shown to be especially
suitable for problems with less than 10 variables and problems where the problem
is governed by linear or quadratic effects. Since RSMs are smoothing they also are
suitable for problems where the original response suffer from large amounts of
noise. They are also attractive for their cheap fitting process and the
computational effort for predictions is insignificant (Jurecka, 2007).
One of the most attractive characteristics of Kriging models are their flexibility.
There is a large variety of correlation formulations that are feasible. The
combination of a Gaussian process and a polynomial function makes the model
suitable for universal applications, since the Gaussian compensates for possible
deficiencies of the polynomial term. One disadvantage with Kriging is that if the
sample points lay to close to each other the correlation matrix will be ill
conditioned and the predictions of the response will be unreliable. Another
disadvantage is the sensitivity to noise, this due to its interpolative capability
(Jurecka, 2007).
In modeFRONTIER
mn
x
mux
, (i = 1,2) is taken into consideration the
mapping into the u
1
u
2
plane will be defined as
u

=
x

 _
x

max
+x

mn
2
]
_
x

max
x

mn
2
]
The mapping process is illustrated in Figure 2.8
16
Theoretical background
Figure 2.8: Illustration of the normalization and mapping of designs.
2.5.1 Sobol Design
Consider a case where a number of n points x
n
should be generated and well
distributed in a design space B
d
= u, 1]
d
with J dimensions. How well the points
are scattered over the space is measured in terms of discrepancy. A definition of
the discrepancy can b d he following w ley & Fox, 1988): e formulate in t ay (Brat
For a set of points x
1
, x
2
, , x
n
e B
d
and a subset B c B
d
, a counting function
C
n
(B) is defined as the number of points x
I
e B. For every x = (x
1
, x
2
, , x
d
) e
B
d
, let B
x
be the rectangu r  e la d dim nsional region
= , x
1
) , x
2
) , x
d
) H
x
with the volume x
1
x
2
x
d
.The discrepancy of the points x
1
, x
2
, , x
n
then
becomes
D

(x
1
, x
2
, , x
n
) = xup
xeD
d
C
n
(T
x
)  nx
1
x
2
x
d

Sobol and other socalled quasi or pseudorandom sequences aim to minimize
the discrepancy for better spacing and are used for optimization and simulation
(Bratley and Fox, 1988), see Figure 2.9 and Figure 2.10 for comparison of the
distribution for a random sequence and a Sobol sequence.
u
1
u
2
1
1
1
1
x
2
mux
x
2
x
1
x
1
mn
x
2
mn
x
1
mux
17
Theoretical background
Figure 2.9: Scatter plot of the distribution of a
pseudorandom sequence in modeFRONTIER.
Figure 2.10: Scatter plot of the distribution of a
pseudorandom Sobol sequence in
modeFRONTIER.
Quasirandom sequences are finite or infinite sequences with a set of points with
very small discrepancies. Pseudorandom points are in fact not random at all, but
are generated by simple arithmetic algorithms. For defining a random sequence of
random point the following principles has been used as criterias; first, the
distribution of the sequence must satisfy some distribution properties, and second,
the properties should be unchanged for given selection rules for subsequences.
Nevertheless, pseudorandom sequences pass as random in several statistical tests
(Niederreiter, 1978).
In modeFRONTIER
22
Theoretical background
Figure 2.19: Possible settings for Taguchi Orthogonal Arrays in the modeFRONTIER interface.
2.5.5 Full factorial designs
ill be
m
n
distributed evenly over a region of interest (Strmberg, 2010). Mathematically
e; a case of 2 design vari les varied over 3 levels would generate 9
test points and would be called a 9 experiment. The formation of 9
factorial design is illustrated in Figure 2.20 and Table 2.4.
A factorial design is design where a number of n design variables are varied over a
predetermined number of m levels. The generated number of experiments w
expressed as
_m

n
=1
As an exampl ab
factorial
Point n
1
n
2
1
1
1 1
2 1 0
3 1 1
4 0 1 1 1
1
1
0 5 0
6 0 1
7 1 1
8 1 0
9 1 1
Table 2.4: Set up of a 9factorial design
with the two variables n1 and n2.
Figure 2.20: A 9factorial design 2 variables varied over
3l evels
23
Theoretical background
L oria
estimated by 3level als. As rule of thumb, a le sed
to fit a polynomial of degree d. The drawback with full factorial experiments is the
r of experiments is to apply the method
less than 4 levels, see Figure 2.21.
Figure 2.21: In modeFRONTIER the user decides the level of every single variable. It is possible to select
higher levels for some variables and a lower for another variable.
2
While full factorial generates m
onal factorial sequence contains m
np
efining the reduction of the sequence
exp ill be reduced (Dean et.
to be governed mainly by only a few of them and by loworder
interaction. Another argument is the projection of the design onto other levels; if
a number of p factors is excluded from the design sequence due to irrelevance the
consistent dimensions of the design space is removed (Jurecka. 2007). The original
fraction factorial design becomes a full factorial design, see Figure 2.22.
inear effects are estimated by 2level fact
factori
ls while quadratic behavior is
vel of d+1 has to be asses
fact that the experimental effort increases rapidly when the number of levels or
variables is increased (Jurecka, 2007).
A 3 level factorial with 9 variables would result in 19 683 experiments. Running a
sequence with 3
9
experiments would fast yield a great amount of computational
time. A way to decrease the numbe
Fractional Factorial instead.
In modeFRONTIER
n (Montgomery, 2005).
For cuboidal regions of interest it is suitable to use facecentered CCD, where
is of no greater importance when t of interest is obviously cuboidal
o = 1. In this case the star points will be located at the centers of the faces of the
factorial cube, see Figure 2.25. This ty ign is not rotatable, but rotatability pe of des
he region
(Meyers & Montgomery, 2002).
For sequential experimentation CCD is an efficient design which not involve a too
large number of design points while still providing a reasonable amount of data
for testing lack of fit. It is also a flexible design in its use of star points; it can
Full Factorial Points Center Point Star Points
26
Theoretical background
accommodate a spherical region by o =
by
specifying the maximum size, this reduces the computational time (Rigoni, 2010).
In the step virtual exploration the database is improved by using the Incremental
Space Filler (ISF), see description of ISF in section 2.5.3 Incremental Space Fillers.
ISF is used for sampling new points around the current Pareto front and to
increase robustness of the optimizer (Rigoni, 2010).
During the virtual optimization process the FMOGAII, or FSIMPLEX, is run
over the best available metamodels. As a population for next iteration the
database is built up of 50 % random points and 50 % of points from the current
Pareto front. The Pareto front points contribute to faster convergence and the
random points increases the robustness of the optimizer. A number of 2m designs
are extracted from virtual design database for the validation step. Any duplication
of previous evaluated points is removed from the database, when a number of m
designs remain convergence is reached (Rigoni, 2010).
In the validation process a number of m designs are randomly extracted from 2m
designs from the virtual optimization step. The designs are then validated in terms
of a real solver and constitute the validation set for evaluation of the different
metamodels applied (Rigoni, 2010).
Metamodel
training
Virtual
exploration
Virtual
optimization
Validation
process
Metamodel
evaulation
32
Theoretical background
The performance of the metamodels is evaluated and compared to the predicted
result in the training step. The divergence of the predicted value and the observed
value becomes a measurement of the metamodels performance. The best
performing metamodel is used as the primary model for the next iteration and no
other metamodels are trained. If the performance would impair, all metamodels
will be available for training and evaluation once again (Rigoni, 2010).
Fast optimizers are slow in terms of net computational time since they train
metamodels and run ISF algorithm. Fast optimizers are primarily useful for
optimizations involving an expensive CAE solver where the time for training and
ISF negligible compared to the computational time of the solver (Rigoni, 2010).
2.6.2 The SIMPLEX algorithm
The original SIMPLEX is a robust algorithm for nonlinear optimization
problems. Due to the name it gets easily mixed up with the simplex method used
for linear programming but should not be associated with each other.
For a number of N dimensions the simplex will be a polyhedron with N+1 corner
points, see Figure 2.32.
Figure 2.32: A simplex, ABC, in a 2dimension (Poles, 2003 A).
The simplex will expand and contract searching for the minimum of the objective
function. Through the iterative process the values at the corner points of the
simplex are evaluated and replaced by lower function values. The operation
procedure is the described by the three steps: reflection, expansion and
contraction (Poles, 2003 A).
In reflection, the worst vertex value is projected, or reflected, on the opposite
surface to obtain a new value. As a consequence the movement will always be in a
favorable direction (Poles, 2003 A). Figure 2.33 illustrates the reflection
movement.
33
Theoretical background
Figure 2.33: Reflection movement of the simplex ABC (Poles, 2003 A).
Formulated mathematically this becomes
D = (1 +u)H uA
where A is the worst vertex, D is the new point, H is the centroid of all points
except for the reflected and 0 > is a reflection coefficient.
When reflection produces a new point that produces a better value than the
previous the simplex expands. In expansion movement the simplex expands in the
same direction as the previous movement. Point D is then rejected and instead the
new point E is included, since it is expected that expansion in the same direction
will produce an even better value (Poles, 2003 A) see Figure 2.34.
Figure 2.34: Expansion of the simplex ABC (Poles, 2003 A).
Mathematically expressing expansion
F = D+ (1 )H
where H is the centroid of all points (except point D), D is the reflected point
from previous step and 1 > is the expansion coefficient.
If the reflection movement was unable to produce a better point than all the other
points of the simplex, except for the worst vertex, the simplex contracts. In the
contraction movement the reflected point D will be rejected and instead a new
point E will be included (Poles, 2003 A). How the contraction movement is
carried out can be seen in Figure 2.35,
34
Theoretical background
Figure 2.35: Contraction of the simplex ABC (Poles, 2003 A).
The contractions is mathematically expressed as
F = D+ (1 )H
where H is the centroid of all points (except point D), D is the reflected point
from previous step and [ 1 , 0 ] is the expansion coefficient.
The SIMPLEX method is based on the NelderMead Simplex algorithm but has
been altered to obey possible constraints of the problem. This has been done by
addition of a penalty function to the objective function. The penalty function is
dependent on the sum of all deviations of the vertices and penalizes any violation
of the constraints. In order to avoid premature convergence of the algorithm a
penalty parameter adapting to the present extreme values of the function has been
introduced. The SIMPLEX terminates when no improvement of the values is
found, given a certain tolerance (Poles, 2003 A).
2.6.3 The MOGAII algorithm
The MOGAII is a multiobjective optimization algorithm which uses multi
search elitism and directional crossover. Multisearch elitism contributes to the
robustness of the algorithm. For singleobjective problem elitism is easily defined
and copied to the next generation, however, for multiobjective problems the
reality is quite different. Since the problem includes more than one objective there
will also exist more than one elite solution. By introduction of Pareto optimality
an acceptable solution easier can be distinguished (Poles, 2003 B). Pareto
optimality is closer explained in section 2.3.2 Multiobjective optimization and Pareto
optimality.
In combination with the Pareto optimal solutions the algorithm practices
dominance for producing a new generation. How, is explained in the following
example: Figure 2.36 illustrates a point A of a multiobjective problem with the
two objectives f(x) and g(x). Point A defines two zones, where the green area
represents a set of dominated points and the remaining area represents a set of
nondominated points.
35
Theoretical background
If point A is previously generated and point B is a part of the current generation; a
movement in the direction of B would be favorable since B in the nondominated
set is dominating point A. Transitions like that are preserved since this kind of
evolution always is desired. If evolution instead would to bring point A to point C
or C, which are nondominated over A; the transition would nonetheless be
preserved to favor scattering along the Pareto front. A transition of point A in the
direction of point D on the other hand would be rejected; since A is dominating
D (Poles, 2003 B).
Elitism helps preserve the individuals that have the best dispersion and the ones
that are closest to the Pareto front. For reproduction the algorithm uses four
different operators; twopoint crossover, directional crossover, mutation and
selection. Throughout the reproduction process the algorithm uses the different
operators and applies them to the current individual (Rigoni, 2010).
Direction crossover is the main reason of the algorithm efficiency; by comparing
fitness values of the individuals direction improvement can be detected.
Evaluation takes place by comparing fitness of an individual with the fitness of
two other individuals. The two individuals belonging to the same generation are
selected by two different random walks. The new individual is then created from
transition in a randomly weighted direction (Poles, 2003 B).
Figure 2.36: Point A is dominated by point B, nondominated by point C and C, while dominating point D.
Transition in the direction of point B is preferable, while transition in direction of point C and C is acceptable.
(x)
g(x)
B
p
C
C
D
A
36
Method and implementation
3 Method and implementation
In this section describes the coverage area as well as the current and the new
FEAmodel. The mathematical formulation of the optimization problem will be
presented and also how to set up an optimization problem in the optimization
software modeFRONTIER.
3.1 Coverage area
The coverage area is the twodimensional surface, facing the boomer, which is
enclosed by the maximum range of the boom, see Figure 3.1. It is the coverage
area that determines the size of the drift and consequently the size of the vehicles
able to work and travel in it. It is therefore of great importance for Atlas Copco to
offer their clients a boomer with a large coverage area.
CONFIDENTIAL
By optimizing the coverage area, a solution can be found that provide the largest
possible area while the strength in the structure is preserved.
Figure 3.1 Coverage area of a two boom hydraulic tunneling rig (Technical specification, Boomer E3 C)
To use the coverage area in the optimization, a MATLAB program was created
that calculates both the total coverage area and the area above groundlevel with
forward kinematics, see section 2.1. The program is based on an existing
calculation procedure currently used by the company. It was designed for the
existing boom and does not act correct when the dimensions are changed. Three
main changes have been made in the procedure with a more realistic outcome as a
result;
CONFIDENTIAL
37
Method and implementation
As an objective function in the optimization the coverage area over ground level is
to be maximized since a hole seldom is drilled under ground level. The thorough
calculation procedure will be explained in Appendix D: Calculation of coverage area
and a reference example of a double pendulum can be found in Appendix E: tting
up a DenavitHartenberg for a twolink kinematic chain.
3.2 The existing FEAmodel
Atlas Copco is currently using a simplified model of the boom where all parts are
replaced by beam and truss elements, se section 2.2. The masses of each part are
applied as concentrated mass forces on specified nodes, see Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 The existing beam model
The model is used to calculate the average forces in different sections and to
compare the results if dimensional changes are made.
CONFIDENTIAL
The program is composed like follows;
The dimensions and angles for fourteen load cases are added as
parameters.
Element types and real constants such as masses are defined. The material
properties Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio are added as well as densities.
The nodes are generated at chosen dimensions. Since the cylinder links
position varies with the boom lift, boom swing and the dimension as, a
local coordinate system are created.
All the elements are created by selecting a start node and end node for each
beam, an element type and a material.
The mass elements are placed on nodes.
Boundary conditions and loads are given and an analysis is performed for
three load cases; selfweight, selfweight plus drilling force and merely the
drilling force.
38
Method and implementation
The average force and moment are saved as well as jpegpictures.
3.3 The new FEAmodel
As a result of the insufficient FEAmodel used presently, a new model was created
in the commercial software Abaqus CAE. Solid parts were mixed with beams and
trusses to shorten the computation time, all in all 19 different parts, see Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3 The new FEAmodel
A macro was recorded for each part while it was constructed which resulted in
pythoncode segments describing every action in the creation process. These
scripts where compiled into one document and new macros were recorded and
added. Individual materials and sections were created and the materials were given
material properties such as youngs modulus, poisons ratio and density. Since
every part got a density, the mass and center of gravity were enabled to change
automatically if the dimensions are modified. The same materials as in the current
boom were used but individual densities simplify a change of material for a
specific part in the future. A section was assigned to each part and a suitable mesh
was chosen individually.
The parts from boom support to the first flange were assembled. Created planes,
axis and points were used as references when the parts were put together. Since
the tripod cylinders direction and length depends on the current boom lift and
boom swing, they were created after the cylinder links and cylinder ends were
aligned. After that, the rest of the boom was assembled and the whole model was
constrained with allowed degrees of freedom. The boom support was fixed with a
boundary condition and loads such as gravity, additional masses and a
concentrated force on the drill end were added.
39
Method and implementation
A simulation of the model was made for ten different load cases, Appendix F:
Load Cases, and the obtained outcome were written to a report file. The load cases
were selected together with the engineers at Atlas Copco and are positions when
the largest stresses occur in the structure. The python script was worked out in
detail and the ten changeable dimensions were replaced by parameters. Each part
was investigated thoroughly to make sure that relations between the parametric
dimensions and affected dimensions were added to enable all possible
configurations. A more detailed description of the model and the relations of each
part can be found in Appendix G: New FEAmodel.
3.3.1 Boom support
The boom support is mounted on the boomer and contains three hinges; one
where the boom link is fastened and two for the cylinder links, see Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4. Left: beam model Middle: The new model Right: The actual boom support
On the current beam model four nodes are created; one on the back of the plate,
one in the boom swing hinge and one in each of the two cylinder link hinges.
Three beams are used to connect them and the total mass is divided in four and
placed on the nodes.
In the new model the boom support is replaced by a solid part with a shape that
resembles the authentic boom support. Two parameters have been added and
several relations have been created to ensure that the surrounding dimensions will
work together.
3.3.2 Boom link
The boom link connects the boom support with the fork and contains both the
boom swing hinge and boom lift hinge, see Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5. Left: beam model Middle: The new model Right: The actual boom link
40
Method and implementation
The current boom link is substituted by a beam between the boom swing hinge
and boom lift hinge. The mass is divided equally on the two nodes.
The new boom link is a solid part with one parameter that controls the lateral
distance between the two hinges.
3.3.3 Cylinder link
There are two cylinder links in the model, connecting each one of the cylinders to
the boom support, see Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6. Left: beam model Middle: The new model Right: The actual cylinder link
As in the boom link, the cylinder link is replaced by a beam between two nodes in
the current model. The nodes are placed in the middle of the hinges and the total
mass is divided equally on them.
In the new model, a solid part is created which enables the center of gravity to
move and the total mass to change if the dimensions are modified.
3.3.4 Fork
The rear end of the boom beam is called fork and has a boom lift hinge in the end
that is not attached to the boom beam, see Figure 3.7.
Figure 3.7. Left: The new model Right: The actual fork
In the current beam model the fork is not a separate part but is included in boom
beam 1.
3.3.5 Boom beam 1
Boom beam 1, see Figure 3.8, is connected with the fork in one end and the boom
ears are attached at the distance a2 as well as a flange in the other end.
41
Method and implementation
Figure 3.8. Left: beam model Middle: The new model Right: The actual boom beam 1
In the current model the boom beam is a combination of the fork, boom beam 1,
boom ears and flange. Five mass nodes share the total mass equally. If the length,
cross section and the dimension a2 would change in this model the total mass
would still be the same and center of gravity would not change realistic.
In the new model the boom beam is separated from the other parts and a beam
element is used to save computation time. In that way, the masses of the fork,
boom ears and flange will act on the right distances.
3.3.6 Boom ears
The boom ears are attached on the boom beam and contain two brackets that
holds the boom cylinders, see Figure 3.9.
Figure 3.9. Left: The new model Right: The actual boom ears
In the current model the boom ears are represented by one point in each of the
two brackets, one point in the center of boom beam 1 at the distance a2 from the
boom link and one point in the rear bearing position.
In the new model, a solid part has been created that resembles the real boom ears.
3.3.7 Tripod cylinders
The tripod cylinders or boom cylinders are two hydraulic cylinders that controls
the boom lift and boom swing, see Figure 3.10. They are attached in the cylinder
links in one end and boom ear brackets in the other.
Figure 3.10. Left: beam model Middle: The new model Right: The actual cylinders
42
Method and implementation
In the current model, truss elements are created and the mass is divided equally on
the start node and end node.
The length of the cylinders is dependent of the boom lift and boom swing in the
current position and they are therefore created after the boom have been
assembled up to the first flange. Truss elements are chosen since no bending
forces can be prepossessed in the cylinders.
3.3.8 Cylinder ends
To connect the cylinders and the boom ears, cylinder ends are added to the
model. They are positioned in the boom ear brackets and connected normal to the
cylinder trusses, see Figure 3.11.
Figure 3.11. The new model
3.3.9 Flange
In the end of boom beam 1 a flange is mounted to strengthen the beam. The
flange is currently included in the total weight of boom beam 1, see Figure 3.12.
Figure 3.12. Left: The new model Right: The actual flange
In the new model, the flange is generated as a separate part which ensures that the
center of gravity will act on the right place.
3.3.10 Boom beam 2
Boom beam 2 is the telescopic beam that runs in boom beam 1 with the interval
given by the boom extension, see Figure 3.13.
43
Method and implementation
Figure 3.13. Left: beam model Middle: The new model Right: The actual boom beam 2
The current boom beam 2 is made of four beams between five points. The part
gear flange is included and to compensate, one point is placed on each side of the
gear flange.
3.3.11 Gear flange
Gear flange is attached to the end of boom beam 2 and is the part that connects it
to the first gear case, see Figure 3.14.
Figure 3.14. Left: The new model Right: The actual gear flange
The gear flange is currently a part of boom beam 2 but is in the new model
represented by a separate part.
3.3.12 Gear case
There are two gear cases in the model, one that regulates the feed rotation and
one that controls the feed swing, see Figure 3.15. The first is connected to the
gear flange in one end and the knee in the other. The second gear case is placed
between the knee and bracket.
Figure 3.15. Left: beam model Middle: The new model Right: The actual gear case
In the current model, the gear case is a beam between two nodes of which the
mass is divided equally on. The gear case is replaced by a solid part in the new
model.
44
Method and implementation
3.3.13 Knee
The knee is an angled part that is connected with one gear case on each side, see
Figure 3.16.
Figure 3.16. Left: beam model Middle: The new model Right: The actual knee
In the current model, two beams are connected through three nodes and in the
new model the knee is a solid part.
3.3.14 Bracket
The bracket is attached to the second gear case and has a banana shaped part that
is located slightly adjacent to the middle and that holds the tilt cylinder.
In the beam model, the bracket consists of four nodes as can be seen in Figure
3.17. The mass is applied in the center of the lower hinge where the feeder fork is
attached.
Figure 3.17. Left: beam model Middle: The new model Right: The actual bracket
In the new model, the bracket is replaced by a solid part which guarantees that the
center of gravity is placed in the right location.
3.3.15 Feeder fork
The feeder fork is connected with the bracket in the feed tilt hinge and is the part
of which the feeder lies upon, see Figure 3.18.
45
Method and implementation
Figure 3.18. Left: The new model Right: The actual feeder fork
In the current model, the feeder fork is a part of the structure feeder console
which in the new model is divided into feeder fork and feeder.
3.3.16 Feeder
The feeder is placed on the feeder fork and holds the feeder beam where the drill
is mounted, see Figure 3.19.
Figure 3.19. Left: beam model Middle: The new model Right: The actual feeder
The current feeder is a beam structure that runs between a number of nodes. The
mass of the feeder and the feeder beam is divided in two and placed in the rear
and front of the feeder.
The new feeder is a solid part that bears the total mass of the feeder and the
magazine.
3.3.17 Feeder beam, Steel holder and Feeder steel
The feeder beam lies on the feeder and contains two steel holders which hold the
feeder steel, see Figure 3.20.
Figure 3.20. Left: beam model Right: The new model
The feeder beam, steel holders and feeder steel is a structure that does not belong
to the optimization problem described by Atlas Copco. In this model, a
simplification of the parts are included anyway to obtain the correct masses and to
enable the working force to operate in the right point
46
Method and implementation
3.4 Mathematical formulation of the optimization
In accordance with previously presented theories the design objective, constraints
and variables for the BUT45 was formulated in a mathematical manner. Three
different optimizations problems has been formulated, two of them as single
objective and the third as a biobjective problem. In this section the optimization
problems are briefly described, for a full version of the formulation see Appendix
H: Mathematical formulation of the optimization problems.
3.4.1 Formulation of singleobjective optimization problem 1
The first optimization problem is a singleobjective maximization problem. The aim
is to maximize the objective function, dependent on 9 variables while fulfilling the
constraints. The problem has mathematically been formulated as
mtn0b]ccti:c
x. t. + u x :
9
:
2
I
:
u
(i = 1,2, ,9)
where v
I
are the design variables of the problem, :
I
and :
u
are the lower and
upper limit of the interval :
mux
u (i = 1,2,
:
I
:
u
(i = 1,2)
47
Method and implementation
where
I
are state variables and v
I
are the design variables of the problem, v
I
I
and
v
I
u
are the lower and upper limit of the interval v
I
is allowed to vary in.
In the second optimization workflow, the optimization problem is treated as the
singleobjective problem above.
3.4.3 Formulation of multiobjective optimization problem
The third optimization problem is a biobjective problem which can be treated in
some different ways. The two objectives depend on 9 variables with 170
constraints which must be fulfilled.
One way is to reformulate the problem as a weighted objective function and
solving a singleobjective problem
mn 0b]ccti:c1  (1 o) 0b]ccti:c2  o
x. t.  u)
mux
u (i = 1,2, ,17
:
I
:
u
(i = 1,2, ,9)
where u u 1 and
I
and :
u
are the lower and upper limit of the interval :
is allowed to
vary in. The value of u is subjective number depending on the weight of the
objective. The Engineer chooses a value of alpha in such way that it represents the
importance of respective objective.
Another way, is by conversion of one objective function to a constraint, solve the
problem as a singleobjective
mtn 0b]ccti:c 1
x. t.  2 x 0b]ccti:c u
mux
(i = 1,2, ,17 u u)
:
I
:
u
(i = 1,2, ,9)
48
where
I
and :
u
are
the lower and upper limit of the interval :
I
:
u
(i = 1,2, ,9)
where
I
and :
u
are
the lower and upper limit of the interval :
can be
approached in two ways; from top to bottom, data flow, and from left to right,
process flow.
49
Method and implementation
Figure 3.21: Optimization workflow of the first singleobjective problem in modeFRONTIER.
Starting from the top and moving down; 9 design variables (8 variables and 1
constant), ruled by 1 constraint, are sent to MATLAB which processes the data
and pass it on as an output variable to the Objectivenode.
Approaching the workflow from left to right, see Figure 3.22; the Scheduler
nodes, the DOEnode and the chosen optimization algorithm, is the starting point
of the optimization. Sobol Design is used for setting up the DoE and SIMPLEX
is the algorithm used, see Section 2.5.1: Sobol Design for details on planning design
experiments and 2.6.2: The SIMPLEX algorithm for algorithm description.
Figure 3.22: Illustration of the process sequence in the workflow.
In the next process MATLAB run the necessary calculations for the output
variable. The Logic Endnode terminates the process flow. A detailed description
of this workflow and the configurations made in the different node is found in
Appendix J: Workflow; the singleobjective optimization problem 1.
3.5.2 Singleobjective optimization workflow 2 in ModeFRONTIER
The second optimization workflow, see Figure 3.23, is built to solve a single
objective minimization problem. As constant input variables the optimal design of
the Singleobjective optimization workflow 1 is used and 2 variables are allowed
to vary.
50
Method and implementation
Figure 3.23: Optimization workflow of the first singleobjective problem in modeFRONTIER.
Starting from the top and moving down; 11 design variables (2 variables and 9
constants) are sent to an Input filenode. The Input filenode sends the data on to
a DOS Batchnode and on to ABAQUS. ABAQUS process the data into 172
outputvariables where 2 outputvariables are passed on to an objectivefunction
and remaining 170 outputvariables are used as input to Design constraintnodes.
Approaching the workflow from left to right, see Figure 3.24; the Scheduler
nodes, the DOEnode and the chosen optimization algorithm, is the starting point
of the optimization. Sobol Design is used for setting up the DoE and FSIMPLEX
is the algorithm used.
Figure 3.24: Illustration of the process sequence in the workflow.
A MATLAB process run the calculations required for providing the next
process step with information and for providing the objective with input variables.
When MATLAB is finished, the DOSnode commands ABAQUS to read the
Input file and perform a FEanalysis on the boom. Once ABAQUS has
completed the Logic endnode terminates the process flow.
A detailed description of this workflow is found in Appendix K: Workflow; the
singleobjective optimization problem 2.
51
Method and implementation
3.5.3 Multiobjective optimization workflow in modeFRONTIER
In the same way as the problem in Appendix I: Solving a multiobjective problem in
modeFRONTIER, an optimization workflow of the BUT45 L has been set up,
see Figure 3.25.
Figure 3.25: Optimization workflow of the BUT45 L in modeFRONTIER.
Starting from the top and moving down; 11 design variables are sent to
MATLAB for processing. MATLAB passes on the information in two
directions; it sends 1output variable to an objectivenode and 50 output variables
an Input filenode. The Input filenode sends the data on to a DOS Batchnode
and on to ABAQUS, which also retrieve the same 11 design variables which
MATLAB has been processing. ABAQUS process the data into 172 output
variables where 2 outputvariables are passed on to an objectivefunction and
remaining 170 outputvariables are used as input to Design constraintnodes.
Approaching the workflow from left to right, see Figure 3.26; the Scheduler
nodes, the DOEnode and the chosen optimization algorithm, is the starting point
of the optimization. Sobol Design is used for setting up the DoE and FMOGAII
is the algorithm used, see Section 2.6.3: The MOGAII algorithm for details of the
optimization algorithm.
Figure 3.26: Illustration of the process sequence in the workflow.
A MATLAB process run the calculations required for providing the next
process step with information and for providing Objective1 with input variables.
52
Method and implementation
53
When MATLAB is finished, the DOSnode commands ABAQUS to read the
Input file and perform a FEanalysis on the boom. Once ABAQUS has
completed the Logic endnode terminates the process flow.
A detailed description of this workflow is found in Appendix L: Workflow; the
multiobjective optimization problem.
Findings and analysis
4 Findings and analysis
The results of the three optimizations will be described in this chapter.
4.1 Singleobjective optimization 1 in modeFRONTIER
The aim of this optimization was to find a maximized coverage area. Running
time for the optimization process was 3 min, 28 sec, during which 357 design
experiments was validated, see Figure 4.1. An increase of the coverage area could
be identified.
CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 4.1: History of the Objective function for SIMPLEX.
CONFIDENTIAL
54
Findings and analysis
4.2 Singleobjective optimization 2 in
modeFRONTIER
The objective function was to minimize the weight of the two boom beams.
Running time for the optimization was 9 hours, 55 min, 18 sec, during which 21
design experiments was validated, see Figure 4.7. The optimization gave results
where the weight was kept or even reduced compared to the current boom.
CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 4.7: History of the Objective function for SIMPLEX.
CONFIDENTIAL
63
Findings and analysis
4.3 Multiobjective optimization in modeFRONTIER
The multiobjective optimization in modeFRONTIER gave, with the chosen
settings, an increased coverage area while the volume was decreased. All stresses
were kept within the given limitations. The optimization ran for around 135 hours
and executed 277 design validations, where 10 load cases were evaluated for each
design, see Figure 4.9. The designs validations were divided upon 6 iterations and
between each iteration a training set were performed. Since FMOGAII is a large
multiobjective optimization, no convergence occurred and no obvious pareto
front could be seen. The designs can be seen in Figure 4.9 as the volume relative
the coverage.
CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 4.9 Volume relative coverage area where the yellow symbols represents unfeasible designs. The marked
design is the chosen solution suggestion.
CONFIDENTIAL
65
Discussion and conclusions
5 Discussion and conclusions
The methods and results will be discussed and further improvements will be
proposed in this chapter.
5.1 Discussion of method
During the project, many essential decisions were taken that had great impact on
the results.
5.1.1 Using modeFRONTIER
One of the most crucial decisions taken throughout this project has been using
modeFRONTIER for building the optimization workflow. An alternative way
of solving the problem might have been to use Matlab to run different commands
for calling the software needed for FEanalysis and running response surface and
algorithm scripts. This solution would have put demands on the programming
skills of the students and further delimitations would have to be made in order to
fit the time plan. The workflow would also have been limited to the selected
design of experiment method, algorithm and metamodeling technique.
The flexibility of modeFRONTIER allows the user to implement and evaluate
different optimizers without any major effort and knowledge. This as an
advantage as well as a disadvantage; it is of great importance that the Engineer is
wellinformed with the consequences of different settings and algorithms. The
nodes in the program must not be treated as black boxes where the Engineer has
no or very little knowledge of the procedures taking place.
Another reason of implementing modeFRONTIER is the compability with the
software used at Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB in rebro. It is possible to include
Matlab as well as the various CAD and FEAsoftware in the optimization
workflow. Part geometry can, instead of being generated in the FEAsoftware, be
imported from a CADsoftware into the FEAsoftware.
5.1.2 Formulation of the multiobjective problem
In Section 3.4.3: Formulation of the multiobjective optimization problem three different
formulations of the multiobjective problem where presented.
The first formulation treat the multiobjective problem by implementing a
weighted formulation, this formulation make it possible for the Engineer to
determine the importance of the different characteristics. On the other hand, it
puts considerable demands on the knowledge of system and of the problem.
Also, the favoring of one objective before another could result in missing out on
possible solutions that the Engineer unaware of.
71
Discussion and conclusions
The second formulation treats one of the objectives as a constraint. It made the
problem easier to solve in terms of finding the optimal solution but the solution
could be inadequate. As previously mentioned, the downside with turning a soft
preference to a hard constraint is that the final solution might largely depend on
the chosen value for the constraint. The Engineer has to be careful in the decision
concerning the limits of the constraint.
The third formulation treats the problem as a multiobjective problem, which is
harder to solve in terms of finding the solution. By introducing the concept of
Pareto optimality and Pareto fronts in Section 2.3.2: Multiobjective optimization and
Pareto optimality it was established that every design point on the Pareto front
mathematically was an optimal design. This generates a large number of solutions
but it also gives the Engineer a good overview of possible solutions. In contrast to
the first formulation, the favoring of the objectives is done after the problem has
been solved. It is possible for the Engineer to evaluate and validate the solutions
before possible rejection of the design solution.
In this thesis, the third formulation of the problem has been implemented since it
provides all possible solutions without decisions having to be made that way affect
the outcome in a negative way. In this way the decisionmaking of the optimal
design is passed forward to the specialists at Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB.
5.1.3 Used algorithms
For solving for the singleobjective optimization problems 1 and 2, see Section
3.5.1: Singeobjective optimization work flow 1 in ModeFRONTIER and Section 3.5.2:
Singeobjective optimization work flow 2 in ModeFRONTIER, the SIMPLEX and the
FSIMPLEX algorithm has been used. As described in Section 2.6.2: The
SIMPLEX algorithm, the SIMPLEX is an optimization algorithm that gives an
accurate result even for nonlinear problems. When searching for a solution the
contraction and reflection movement assures that the SIMPLEX always move in a
positive direction and towards a better solution. The fast version of SIMPLEX,
the FSIMPLEX, which utilizes response surfaces for speeding up the
optimization, could also have been utilized for solving first the singeobjective
problem. Since the calculation of the coverage area only takes approximately
0.5sec, it is considered unnecessary to use response surfaces to predict the
behavior the time for evaluating the different RSM models will take substantially
much more time than the actual validation of the design.
For the second singleobjective problem the use of RSM is motivated by the
computational time for the FEanalysis. One design validation takes
approximately 30 minutes to complete. The validation of one design is too
expensive to waste on nonessential designs.
For the multiobjective problem, the FMOGAII algorithm has been used, see
Section 2.6.3: The MOGAII algorithm. The optimizer, just as the FSIMPLEX,
implements metamodels to predict the behavior of the problem and speed up the
optimization process. For the multiobjective problem, as for the second single
objective, the use of metamodels is highly motivated by the demanding
72
Discussion and conclusions
73
computational time for the FEanalysis. Also, the FMOGAII is the only available
optimizer in ModeFRONTIER which both implements metamodels and
manages multiobjective problems.
5.2 Discussion of findings
CONFIDENTIAL
5.3 Further improvements
Due to a limited timeplan the content of the thesis have been delimited. An
understanding of the boom has been developed during the project and further
improvements are presented below.
5.3.1 More realistic FEAmodel
The FEAmodel in this thesis has been created based on the understanding about
the boom that was obtained during the time of the project. An engineer at Atlas
Copco with more experience might find ways to improve the FEAmodel further
with a more accurate analysis as result.
By extending the parameterization of the model the total weight of the boom can
be affected in a more realistic way. A change in the dimensions of one part would
in real life often lead to other parts being redimensioned to correspond with the
altered part. In the FEAmodel used in this project only the parts with dimensions
that are used as design variables in the optimization are changed. Resulting in the
weight reduction being less than it would have been if the model would have been
fully parameterized.
By extending the model, taking in consideration more relations and conditions, a
solution suggestion closer to a final result might be achieved. The computational
effort and the time for building the model will increase but in the end time can be
saved. This since the design suggestion might not have to be redesigned in the
same degree as a solution generated by a more approximate model. Also, setting
up a design optimization workflow requires a onetime effort of the Engineer,
solving of the workflow is taken care by computers and do not require constant
supervision.
CONFIDENTIAL
References
6 References
Arora, J., (2007). Optimization of Structural and Mechanical Systems. A. Messac
& A. A. Mullur, Multiobjective optimization: concepts and methods (p. 121147).
Singapore :World Scientific, ISBN 9812569626.
Atlas Copco, (2007). Rocket Boomer Eseries rigs geared up for efficient tunneling.
http://www.atlascopco.com/us/News/ProductNews/070423_Rocket_Bo
omer_Eseries_rigs_geared_up_for_efficient_tunnelling.asp (Acc. 8 June
2011)
Atlas Copco, (2009). Technical Specification COP 3038.
http://pol.atlascopco.com/SGSite/SGAdminImages/PrintedMatters/5723
.pdf (Acc. 26 May 2011)
Bratley, P. & Fox, B., (1988). ALGORITHM 659 Implementing Sobols
Quasirandom Sequence Generator . ACM Transactions on Mathematical
Software., volume 14, 88100.
Buhmann, M., (2003). Radial Basis Functions: Theory and Implementations.
New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521633389.
Dassault Systmes, (2009). Abaqus 6.9EF Documentation. Providence, RI:
Dassault Systmes.
Dean, A. & Voss, D., (1999) Design and analysis of experiments.
New York: Springer, ISBN 0387985611
Jurecka, F., (2007). Robust design optimization based on metamodeling techniques.
Aachen : Shaker, ISBN 9783832263904.
Lovision, A., (2007). Kriging (Esteco Technical Report 2007003). Trieste:
Esteco.
Lundgren, J., Rnnqvist, M. & Vrbrand, P., (2008). Optimeringslra.
Lund: Studentlitteratur, ISBN 9789144053141.
Mathworks, (2011). MATLAB documentation
http://www.mathworks.com/help/?s_cid=global_nav (Acc. 8 June 2011)
Myers, R. & Montgomery, D., (2002). Response surface methodology: process and
product optimization using designed experiments (2. ed.). New York: Wiley,
ISBN 0471412554.
Montgomery, D., (2005). Design and analysis of experiments (6. ed.).
Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, ISBN 9780471487357.
Niederreiter, H., (1978). QuasiMonte Carlo methods and pseudorandom
numbers. Bulletin of the American mathematical society, volume 84, 9571041.
Poles, S., (2003a). The SIMPLEX method (Esteco Technical Report 2003
005). Trieste: Esteco.
Poles, S., (2003b). MOGAII and improved multiobjective genetic
algorithm (Esteco Technical Report 2003006). Trieste: Esteco.
76
References
77
Rigoni, E., (2007). Radial Basis Functions Response Surfaces (Esteco Technical
Report 2007001). Trieste: Esteco.
Rigoni, E., (2010). Fast Optimizers: General Description (Esteco Technical
Report 2010004). Trieste: Esteco.
Spong, M., Hutchinson, S. & Vidyasagar, M. (2006). Robot modeling and
control. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, ISBN 9780471649908.
Strmberg, N., (2010). Nonlinear FEA and Design Optimization for Mechanical
Engineers. Jnkping: Jnkping University, School of Engineering.
Search terms
7 Search terms
Beam elements .................................... 7
Continuum elements ........................... 8
coverage area ...................................... 2
DenavitHartenberg Convention ......... 5
FEanalysis .......................................... 6
FEelements ........................................ 7
Forward Kinematics ............................ 5
metamodels ................................. 12, 13
Multiobjective optimization ............ 11
objective function ......................... 810
Optimization ....................................... 8
Pareto front ................................. 11, 12
response surface models (RSM) ....... 13
The Optimization Process ............. 810
Truss elements .................................... 7
78
Appendices
8 Appendices
Appendix A Drawing of BUT 45 L
Appendix B Angles and variables
Appendix C Forward Kinematics
Appendix D Calculation of coverage area
Appendix E Setting up a DenavitHartenberg for a twolink kinematic
chain
Appendix F Load cases
Appendix G New FEAmodel relations
Appendix H Mathematical formulation of the optimization problems
Appendix I Solving a simple multiobjective problem in
modeFRONTIER
Appendix J Workflow; the singleobjective optimization problem 1
Appendix K Workflow; the singleobjective optimization problem 2
Appendix L Workflow; the multiobjective optimization problem
Appendix A Drawing of BUT45 L
Drawing of BUT 45 L
Appendix B Angles and variables
Angles and variables
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix C Forward Kinematics
Forward Kinematics
An algorithm for assigning the coordinate frames according to the DenavitHartenberg
Convention.
The following text is an extract from p.110111 from the book: Spong et. al,
(2006) Robot Modeling and Control and describes a procedure for deriving the
forward kinematics based on DH convention.
Step l: Locate and label the joint axes z
0
, . . . , z
n1
.
Step 2: Establish the base frame. Set the origin anywhere on the z
0
axis.
The x
0
and y
0
axes are chosen conveniently to form a righthanded
frame.
For i = 1, . . . , n 1, perform Steps 3 to 5.
Step 3: Locate the origin o
i
where the common normal to z
i
and z
i1
intersects z
i
. If z
i
intersects z
i1
locate o
i
at this intersection. If z
i
and
z
i1
are parallel, locate o
i
in any convenient position along z
i
.
Step 4: Establish x
i
along the common normal between z
i1
and z
i
through
o
i
, or in the direction normal to the z
i1
z
i
plane if z
i1
and z
i
intersect.
Step 5: Establish y
i
to complete a righthanded frame.
Step 6: Establish the endeffector frame o
n
x
n
y
n
z
n
. Assuming the n
th
joint is
revolute, set z
n
= a parallel to z
i1
. Establish the origin o
n
conveniently along z
n
, preferably at the center of the gripper or at
the tip of any tool that the manipulator may be carrying. Set y
n
= s
in the direction of the gripper closure and set x
n
= n as s a. If the
tool is not a simple gripper set x
n
and y
n
conveniently to form a
righthand frame.
Step 7: Create a table of link parameters a
i
, d
i
,
i
,
i
.
a
i
= distance along x
i
from the intersection of the x
i
and z
i1
axes to
o
i
.
d
i
= distance along z
i1
from o
i1
to the intersection of the x
i
and z
i1
axes. If joint i is prismatic d
i
is variable.
i
= the angle from z
i1
to z
i
measured about x
i
.
i
= the angle between x
i1
and x
i
measured about z
i1
. If joint i is
revolute,
i
is variable
Step 8: Form the homogeneous transformation matrices A
i
by substituting
the above parameters into Equation (3.10)*.
*Note: Equation (3.10) refers to the A matrix presented in Chapter 2.1: Forward Kinematics, p.5
Appe dix C n Forward Kinematics
Step 9: Form I
n
0
= A
1
A
n
. This then gives the position and orientation
of the tool frame expressed in base coordinates.
Appendix D Calculation of coverage area
Calculation of Coverage Area
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E Setting up DenavitHartenberg for a twolink kinematic chain
Setting up DenavitHartenberg for a twolink
kinematic chain
Consider a twolink kinematic chain, as seen in Figure E.1: the base frame, or the
origin of the chain, is established as shown. The length of link1 is and the
length of link2 is .
0
o
1
a
2
a
2
1
2
y
1
x
0
x
0
y
1
2
1
y
2
x
Figure E.1: A twolink kinematic chain with coordinate frames assigned according to
DHconvention.
The origin is located where the axis intersects with the paper. All zaxes are
normal to the page and all origins are located in the same way at the intersection
with the paper. The direction of axis is set in an arbitrary manner, while the
subsequent frames and are fixed by the DenavitHartenberg
convention. The Amatrices of the links now become
0
o
0
z
2
x o
0
x
2 2
z y
1 1 1 1
z y x o
2
=
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
sin 0 cos sin
cos 0 sin cos
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1
a
a
A
and
Appendix E Setting up DenavitHartenberg for a twolink kinematic chain
=
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
sin 0 cos sin
cos 0 sin cos
2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
2
a
a
A
Assembling the Tmatrices of the links gives
1
0
1
A T =
and
+ + + +
+ + + +
= =
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
) sin( sin 0 ) cos( ) sin(
) cos( cos 0 ) sin( ) cos(
2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1
2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
2 1
0
2
a a
a a
A A T
The coordinates of the end of link2, with respect to the base frame, is now given
by position [1, 4] and [2, 4] in the matrix:
0
2
T
) cos( cos
2 1 2 1 1
+ + = a a x
) sin( sin
2 1 2 1 1
+ + = a a y
0 = z
Appendix F Load Cases
Load Cases
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix G New FEAmodel relations
New FEAmodel relations
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix H Mathematical formulation of the optimization problems
Mathematical formulation of the optimization
problems
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix I Solving a simple multiobjective problem in modeFRONTIER
Solving a simple multiobjective problem in
modeFRONTIER.
In this appendix a simple optimization problem is presented as an example of how
optimization problems can be solved using modeFRONTIER
.
A structure of two beams with a rectangular crosssection is loaded with a force F,
se Figure I.1.
45
1
F
Figure I.1: A beam structure bearing a load F.
The aim is to reduce weight by minimizing the volume V and to reduce the stress
S under a given load F. The problem has two conflicting objectives
minv
and
minS
which will be dependent o u v n the fo r ariables
[m] u.u2 a
1
u.1u
[m] u.u2 h
1
u.1u
[m] u.u2 a
2
u.1u
u.u2 h
2
u.1u [m]
where a
1
is the width and b
1
is the height of beam 1, a
2
is the width and b
2
is the
height of beam 2. The load F is equal to 100 kN.
Appendix I Solving a simple multiobjective problem in modeFRONTIER
Every variable is included in the flow as an Input variablenode and the value/
interval for the input variable is entered under properties (variables are set as a
constant or variable), see Figure I.2.
Figure I.2: Settings for the Input variablenode, the variable can be set as constant or variable.
The variables are linked to a Python script which automatically builds the beam
structure in Abaqus CAE and perform FEcalculations. The script, which is
enabled in the flow by the Input filenode has been parameterized for the f
variables, see Figure I.3 and Figure I.4. The variables are tagged in the script in
order for modeFRONTIER
.
Appendix J Workflow; the singleobjective optimization problem 1
Workflow; the singleobjective optimization
problem 1
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix K Workflow; the singleobjective optimization problem 2
Workflow; the singleobjective optimization
problem 2
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix L Workflow; the multiobjective optimization problem
Workflow; the multiobjective optimization
problem
CONFIDENTIAL