You are on page 1of 99

Design Optimization of a Boom for Drill Rigs

Ida Haglund
Anna Hkansson



EXAM WORK 2011
Mechanical Engineering
Postadress: Besksadress: Telefon:
Box 1026 Gjuterigatan 5 036-10 10 00 (vx)
551 11 Jnkping

Postadress: Besksadress: Telefon:
Box 1026 Gjuterigatan 5 036-10 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: 2011-06-08



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
auto-generated 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was recorded while creating the model and dimensions have been replaced by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 two-dimensional 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 FEA-model and to perform the optimizations. Two single-
objective and one multi-objective 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 multi-objective 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
Denavit-Hartenberg
Design optimization
Multi-objective 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 FE-ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 2
2.2.1 FE-elements ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 OPTIMIZATION THEORY .............................................................................................................. 4
2.3.1 The Optimization Process ................................................................................................. 4
2.3.2 Multi-objective 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 Box-Behnken Designs ..................................................................................................... 28
2.5.9 Latin Square Design ....................................................................................................... 30
2.5.10 Plackett-Burman 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 MOGA-II algorithm ................................................................................................. 35
3 Method and implementation ................................................. 37
3.1 COVERAGE AREA ...................................................................................................................... 37
3.2 THE EXISTING FEA-MODEL ....................................................................................................... 38
3.3 THE NEW FEA-MODEL .............................................................................................................. 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 single-objective optimization problem 1 ................................................ 47
3.4.2 Formulation of single-objective optimization problem 2 ................................................ 47
3.4.3 Formulation of multi-objective optimization problem .................................................... 48
3.5 OPTIMIZATION WORKFLOWS IN MODEFRONTIER ............................................................... 49
3.5.1 Single-objective optimization workflow 1 in modeFRONTIER ................................... 49
3.5.2 Single-objective optimization workflow 2 in ModeFRONTIER .................................. 50
3.5.3 Multi-objective optimization workflow in modeFRONTIER ....................................... 52
4 Findings and analysis ............................................................... 54
4.1 SINGLE-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION 1 IN MODEFRONTIER .................................................... 54
4.2 SINGLE-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION 2 IN MODEFRONTIER .................................................... 63
4.3 MULTI-OBJECTIVE 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 multi-objective problem ................................................................... 71
5.1.3 Used algorithms .............................................................................................................. 72
5.2 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 73
5.3 FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 73
5.3.1 More realistic FEA-model .............................................................................................. 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 five-axis boom and the largest boom in the BUT-series. 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 two-dimensional 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 sub-questions 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 FE-analysis 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 FE-analysis 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 FE-analysis 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 FEA-model and new
FEA-model 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
Denavit-Hartenberg Convention, or DH convention, is commonly used.
In this methodology it is assumed that all joints only have a single degree-of-
freedom. Links with more than one degree-of-freedom can be modeled as a
sequence of one-degree-joint 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
i-1


2.
The axis x
i
intersects with the axis z
i-1
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, oi-1 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 Denavit-Hartenberg is found in Appendix C
Forward Kinematics.
2.2 FE-analysis
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
i-1
y
i
y
i-1
x
i
x
i-1
z
i-1
z
i

2

Theoretical background
2.2.1 FE-elements
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 FEA-model are continuum,
beam and truss elements which main features are explained below (Dassault
Systmes, 2009).
Beam and truss elements are both one-dimensional line elements which act in two
or three dimensions and have been assigned stiffness against deformations. By
approximating that a three-dimensional part is slender, the beam or truss can be
treated as a one-dimensional element in three dimensions given a constant cross
section. This assumption can only be made if the cross-section 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; 2-node straight elements that have a constant stress and use linear
interpolation for positions and displacements, or 3-node 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 cross-section selection affects the beam
behavior and can either be chosen from the list in Abaqus or created manually.
They can either be solid or thin-walled 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 well-arranged 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 cross-sectional 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 re-formulated 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 multi-objective optimization, the subject is treated in the next section
of this report.
6

Theoretical background
2.3.2 Multi-objective 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 single-objective 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 re-formulating objectives into constraints, multi-objective problems
and their solutions can be managed in a more efficient way by the concept of
Pareto optimality (Messac & Mullur, 2007).
For multi-objective 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 multi-objective
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 multi-objective 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 bi-objective 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 multi-physical problems
(Jurecka, 2007).
Fast optimizers in modeFRONTIER

uses four different methods for


metamodeling; polynomial singular value decomposition, Kriging, radial basis
function models and neural networks.
2.4.1 Response surface models
A certain type of metamodels are so called response surface models (RSM), just as
other types of metamodels RSMs provides the user with an analytical surface of
the predicted behavior. Another name for RSM is polynomial regression models,
since polynomials are fitted to the training data by regression functions (Jurecka,
2007).
The aim with RSM is to create an explicit functional relationship by fitting free
parameters of a regression function (v,) to the response values. The
relationship between input variable v and the output value y is given by

9

Theoretical background
y = q(v, ) +s
where is the inaccuracy of the model and are so called regression variables. By
least square approach the regression coefficients can be estimated, this by
minimization of the residuals. Residuals are the noted difference between the
observed values and the predicted values. Depending on the propagation of the
residual values is possible to determine the quality of the response surface. If the
plotting the residuals show no distinct pattern then the regression model can be
considered suitable (Jurecka, 2007).
Taylor expansion makes it possible for the regression function to be fitted to
higher order problems. A linear function would look like
q(v, ) =

+
|
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 sub-regions 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 non-zero 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

Interpolation at the observed values at the sample points is according to Jurecka


assured due to local deviation. The sample points becomes the same as the
optimal values and no residuals remains (Jurecka, 2007).
In modeFRONTIER the predicted values are expressed as a linear combination
of the values for training: linear Kriging e timator. Mathematically formulated as s
(x) = 2
|
(x)y
|
n
|=1

where the weights
i
are point-dependent (Rigoni, 2010).
The correlation between the different variables is described by a covariance
function. The model function of the covariance is also known as variograms,
which expresses the spatial variation. The miscalculation of the predicted values is
minimized by estimation of spatial distribution. By the covariance function the
smoothness of the model can be controlled, this also determines whether the
algorithm is approximate or interpolative (Lovison, 2007).
A covariance function controls the smoothness of the model and determines the
correlation as a function between the different points. The covariance function is
formulated as
Cuu(x
1
, x
2
) = o - y([x
1
-x
2
[)
where is the asymptotical value of the variogram function (h). The variogram
type of default is Gaussian (Rigoni, 2010).
There are three different parameters which can be varied of the variogram; range,
sill and noise. The range decides whether the outcome of two points should be
correlated or not; depending on the distance between the tested points. Sill is the
asymptotical value and determines the variability function. The noise depends on
the standard error of the expected response. If the noise of the variogram is large
it will result in smooth response, while exact interpolation will be achieved by the
noise set to zero (Rigoni, 2010).
11

Theoretical background
2.4.3 Radial basis function models
Radial basis function models are metamodels especially well-suited for
approximating functions depending on many variables/parameters or depending
on numerous data. Radial basis functions (RBF) also manages scattered data
which is data sampled independent of a grid (Buhmann, 2003). What scattered
data and data from grids are is closer explained in section 2.5 Design of experiments.
This type of metamodel combines a polynomial part and a radial basis function
for prediction of the response. Radial basis functions are, according to Buhmann,
usually approximations of finite linear combinations of translates of a radially
symmetric basis function, say ([ [), where [ [ is the Euclidean norm (2003,
p. 3). Radial symmetry in this case means that possible rotations have no effect on
the value of the function, since the function value is dependent only on the
Euclidean distance (Buhmann, 2003).
Radial functions can take various forms, for instance a cubic function is (i) = i
3

and the Gaussian function (i) = e
-ar
2
where i u and a > u is a constant.
While interpolation is ensured by the radial function, the polynomial part of the
model provides a global trend of the behavior. The set of regression parameters
should not be larger than the training set and the polynomial part should be
chosen thenceforth. Some radial functions, like the Gaussian, do not require a
polynomial term (Jurecka, 2007).
In ModeFRONTIER the RBF interpolant is formulated as
x(x) = c
j
([x -x
j
[6)
n
j=1

where [ [ as previously mentioned is the Euclidean norm, and (i) is a radial
function chosen by the user. n is the number of sampling points from the function
f(x) and is a scaling parameter (Rigoni, 2007).
The available radial functions in ModeFRONTIER are concluded in Table 2.1.
For the radial basis function requiring a polynomial term an extra column has
been added, where m is the degree of the polynomial. The form of the polynomial
term is
p
m
(x) = h
j
a
j
(x) e 3
m
d
n
j=1

where all the real-valued polynomials in d variables of m degrees are enclosed by
the linear space J
m
d
. |n
]
(x)| is the basis of the space. The dimension of J
m
d
is
denoted q and is defined as
q = [
m+ d
d

For a number three variables and a second order polynomial the polynomial
design space would be 10-dimensional (Rigoni, 2007).

12

Theoretical background
Table 2.1: Radial basis functions available in modeFRONTIER for functions requiring an additional
polynomial term the degree of the polynomial m for a certain number of d variables has been specified.

Gaussian



(r) = c
-
2


Duchons Polyharmonic
Spline



(r) = _
r
3
r
2
log(r)

u ouu
u even
m = (J +
m = J2
1)2
Hardys MultiQuadrics


(r) = (1 +r
2
)
(12)

m = u
Inverse MultiQuadrics


(r) = (1 +r
2
)
(-12)


Wendlands Compactly
Supported C
2


(r) = _
(1 -r)
+
3
(Sr + 1)
(1 -r)
+
4
(4r + 1)
(1 -r)
+
5
(Sr + 1)

u = 1
u = 2, S
u = 4, S

2.4.4 Neural Networks
Neural networks is a metamodeling type which imitates the human brain for
processing data. A human brain consist of over a 100 billion neurons connected
by 10 000 synapses forming a complex network able of reasoning and storing of
data (Jurecka, 2007).
The nodes in a neural network are a mathematical model of a neuron. In the
network information is passed through an input layer to an output layer via a
hidden layer. All components in the network is uniquely numbered in order to be
identified, nodes are continuously number and denoted index i. Connectors are
denoted by a double index ij where the first letter i stands for the receiving unit
and the second letter j the emitting unit. A single unit i only accept one-
dimensional data which is transformed by an activation function
i
into nodal
output o
i
. Net input, which is the scalar input of node i, is symbolized by net
i
(Jurecka, 2007).
The net input is defined as
net
|
= w
|j
u
j
jeA
|

where A
i
is the set of nodes that are anterior to unit i and w
ij
are characteristic
properties defined as individual weights. The output value from node i is passed
forward to all posterior nodes after being evaluated of the activation function net
i
(Jurecka, 2007). The data flow is illustrated in Figure 2.6.
13

Theoretical background
o
1

Figure 2.6: Data processing in a neural network at a node i with four anterior nodes and three posterior nodes.
In modeFRONTIER

the data transfer process is given by net input u of the


scalar input x
i
, the weights w
i
, but the free parameters of the model is also taken in
account. The free parameters are represented by bias b. The net input u is
processed by the activation function f giving output y (Rigoni, 2010).
Mathematically formul ed as at
u = w
|
x
|
+ h
n
|=1
y = (u) = _w
|
x
|
+ h
n
|=1
_
As previously mentioned, neural networks imitates the brain and its ability to learn
from examples. The networks weights and biases are altered to minimize
prediction errors by a given training set and a target for the output (Rigoni, 2010).
If the number of neurons in a single non-linear hidden layer is sufficiently high it
is possible to represent any arbitrary function with a linear output by a neural
network. ModeFRONTIER

uses feedforward networks where the output from
a node only is passed on through the subsequent layers, see Figure 2.7. The
opposing to such networks is so called recurrent networks where the output from
one node can be passed as input on another node on the same layer (Jurecka,
2007).

Figure 2.7: Neural network with one hidden layer where variables are transferred through the different layers.
y
v
1

v
2

v
3

v
4

v
5











Input layer










Output layer










Hidden layer
w
i1

o
3

o
4

o
1
= p

(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

this can be avoided with the right covariance function, see


closer explanation in section 2.4.2 Kriging. Compared to RSM the Kriging
approximations are much more demanding concerning computational time since
the fitting to sample points is optimized. Kriging is as a result of the
computational demand not suitable for problems concerning more than 50 input
variables (Jurecka, 2007).
Just as Kriging, the RBF models are very flexible and have a wide range of
application. This due to the wide diversity of radial basis functions available. The
lowest order of the polynomial term has to be regarded in order to produce an
exclusive solution. The limit of 50 variables is not an issue for RBF models since
they are cheaper in computational time compared to Kriging which has to
incorporate optimization of the fitting to sample points. Given enough amount of
proper training points the RBF will produce accurate predictions even for higher
non-linear problems (Jurecka, 2007).
15

Theoretical background
Neural networks ability to combine hidden layers and number of nodes in various
ways make them very adaptable to different types of problems. The versatility put
demands on the experience of the user and it is necessary to make conscious
decisions between the different alternatives when setting up a neural network
(Jurecka, 2007).
Common for all metamodels above is that they all require a proper set of sample
points in order to create accurate predictions for the response. How the Design of
Experiments should be planned and set up is treated in next section in this report.
2.5 Design of Experiments
In this report it has been previously stated that the best training points are the
points providing as much information as possible in relation to a minimum effort.
How these training points should be selected is a subject within the area of Design
of Experiments DoE and the methodologies associated. In this section some
different methods is closer described. The selection of techniques has been made
according to the methods available in the software used in this thesis work.
An experimental design is a set of experiments to be carried out and the
experiment is expressed by a number of input variables, or factors. The factors are
generally design variables and noise factors of the problem. Once it has been
established what variables and noise parameters to take in consideration for the
experiment it is possible to select a suitable DoE-technique. The proper DoE
chosen depends on some different factors. First, what is the aim of the
experiment? The prerequisites are different whether the aim is to create a training
set for a metamodel or to obtain information about factor relations. Second, the
understanding and knowledge of the problem to be analyzed. It is relevant to
recognize whether the behavior of the response, if is linear or non-linear, and to
identify regions of particular interest or non-interest. Third, and last, is the
number of experiments desired or required. The conflict between the amount of
information obtained and the calculation time of the experiment must assessed
(Jurecka, 2007).
Generally for Design of Experiments the design variables are scaled, or
normalized, to an interval of -1 x

1 (Strmberg, 2010). If a design domain


of the variables x

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
|
m|n
2
]
_
x
|
max
-x
|
m|n
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 so-called quasi- or pseudo-random 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
pseudo-random sequence in modeFRONTIER.
Figure 2.10: Scatter plot of the distribution of a
pseudo-random Sobol sequence in
modeFRONTIER.
Quasi-random sequences are finite or infinite sequences with a set of points with
very small discrepancies. Pseudo-random 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, pseudo-random sequences pass as random in several statistical tests
(Niederreiter, 1978).
In modeFRONTIER

a Sobol sequence is generated by simply entering the


number of desired designs, see Figure 2.11.

Figure 2.11: ModeFRONTIER interface for Sobol.
2.5.2 Latin Hypercube Designs
Latin hypercube designs (LHD) a type of space-filling designs where the factor
space is normalized and every factor range divided by m strata, resulting in a factor
space divided into m
n
cells, n being the dimensions. Every strata is addressed once
by selecting a subset of cells randomly in such way, see Figure 2.12. A sampling
point is commonly placed in the middle of the cell, but can be positioned within
the cell by random sampling according a uniform distribution.
18

Theoretical background
The result is a LHD where the observations are equally distributed over the range
of the individual factors. The segmentation of the factor space assures that no
replicates are generated. However, the space-filling with respect to the total factor
space may be poor (Jurecka, 2007), see Figure 2.13.
2 2

Figure 2.12: Latin Hypercube Design with 8 strata. Figure 2.13: Latin Hypercube Design with 8
strata with poor space-filling properties.
ModeFRONTIER

provides two types of LHD Uniform Latin Hypercube,


Figure 2.14, and Latin Hypercube - Monte Carlo, Figure 2.15.
Figure 2.14: Available settings for Uniform Latin Hypercube Designs in modeFRONTIER.
LHD Monte Carlo combines LHD and Monte Carlo sampling (MC) for design
of experiments. MC methods solves an integral based on a number of sampling
points at which the function is evaluated. The sampling points are chosen with
respect to probability density of the noise variables (Jurecka, 2007).
The solution of the integral is formulated as

where is a function, is the probability density of the noise variables Z
and is a weight.
1








1








19

Theoretical background
While Plain MC sampling determines the sampling points randomly in consistency
with probability density of the noise variables, Stratified MC sampling use
partitioning of the entire noise space. This partitioning resembles the proceeding
of Latin Hypercube Design and its division of the factor space into stratums. For
Stratified MC, in contrast to Plain MC, the sampling is carried out in a systematic
way; exploring subsets of noise space that may be of importance but otherwise
might have been left out. That is, regions with high influence on the investigated
statistics but with small probability (Jurecka, 2007).

Figure 2.15: Available settings for Latin Hypercube Monte Carlo in modeFRONTIER.
2.5.3 Incremental Space Filler
One of the easiest ways to create an even distribution of sampling point is by
placing them in a n-dimensional grid within the factor space, see Figure 2.16. One
disadvantage with this type of sampling is that the designer cannot freely decide
which arbitrary points to be included and the segmentation of the factor space
determine the total amount of sampling points. Another weakness is that a
projection of the design onto a subspace with reduced dimensionality would yield
many replicated points (Jurecka, 2007, p. 146), which is undesirable in cases
where irrelevant factors has been identified (Jurecka, 2007).

Figure 2.16: Design sequence sampled
from a grid. with distance criterion
Figure 2.17: Latin Hypercube Design
1
2








min d
2
1
20

Theoretical background
Instead of sampling point from a grid a distance-based criterion can be added for
better space-filling properties (Jurecka, 2007), see Figure 2.17. For example, a
minimum distance are so called maximin distance
designs, modeFRONTIER provides the Incremental Space Filler (ISF) which is
a uniform way. The ISF algorithm is among other
Figure 2.18: Illustration of settings for Incremental Space Filler in modeFRONTIER.
2.5.4
If a design sequence is to be considered orthogonal if the scalar product of any of
the column vectors being evaluated is zero, or in other words, X
T
X is diagonal
matrix. An important characteristic of orthogonal arrays is the resolution R, which
explains the independent estimation of main and the interaction effects.
minimum criterion for the Euclidian distance d between the sampling points v
k

and v
l

Designs which maximizes the

such a design, see Figure 2.18.
The points are added sequentially with a specified radius from an existing design
point, filling the design space in
things used for extending the design database with points around the Pareto front
when running Fast optimizers in modeFRONTIER (Rigoni, 2010), see
description of fast optimizers in Section 2.6: Fast optimizers in modeFRONTIER.
Two variants of the algorithm are available in modeFRONTIER, the Genetic
Algorithm Optimization (GOA) and Voronoi-Delaunay Tessellation (VDT).The
GOA implements a genetic algorithm for internal optimization of the distance
criterion. The method is approximative but works in a fast and robust way, in
contrary to the VDT, which is a time-consuming method that will generate an
exact solution for maximization of the minimum distance (Rigoni, 2010).


Taguchi Orthogonal Array Designs
21

Theoretical background
The method might seem limited but the result is less computational effort. This
due to the fact that interaction factors of interest are introduces as independent
f noise factors are the environment the
treatment combinations,
factors, :
1
:
2
- :
3
(Jurecka, 2007). As a result the number of sampling points will
be reduced, see Table 2.2 and Table 2.3.
In modeFRONTIER

it is possible to design experiments by a technique called


Taguchi Orthogonal Arrays (TOA). TOA are orthogonal arrays which also
considers both noise and design factors. Design factors, or Control factors, are
parameters of the design that are effortless and cheap to control. Noise factors are
factors that are hard or impossible to control but that might affect the
performance of the product. Examples o
product will function in, called an external factor, and material defects or
variation, also termed internal factor (Dean et. al, 1999).
Two types of designs exist for TOA, mixed and product arrays. Product arrays
consist of one fractional factorial experiment for the design factors and one for
the noise factors. All combinations of design factors are considered in
coordination with every possible combination of noise factors. Robustness is said
to be achieved if the product work consistently well regardless of unrestrained
variation of noise factor levels. Mixed arrays consider
which are level combinations of design and noise factors. The robust settings for
the design factors are obtained by investigation of the interaction between the
noise and design factors (Dean et. al, 1999).


NO. OF SAMPLING POINTS
Full Factorial Orthogonal Array
2
3
8 4
Full Factorial Orthogonal array
:
1
u
2
u
3
u
1
u
2
u
3

-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1
2
8
256 7
1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1
-1 1 -1 1 -1 -1
2
10
1 024 11
1 1 -1 1 1 1
2 32 768
15
16
1 -1 1
1 -1 1
3
13
1 594 323 27
4
5
1 024 6
-1 1 1
1 1 1

Table 2.2: Comparison of the num f experiments
generated by Full Factorial Design
ogonal Array D n.
Table 2.3: Design sequence of the va les v1. v2
and v3 by Full Factorial Design
omp d to Orth gonal Array Design.
H rent settings fo OA designs in od RO TIER

can be applied
is seen in Figure 2.19.
ber o
and Orth esig
riab

c are o
ow the diffe r T m eF N

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 9-factorial design
with the two variables n1 and n2.
Figure 2.20: A 9-factorial design 2 variables varied over
3l evels
23

Theoretical background
L oria
estimated by 3-level 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
n-p

efining the reduction of the sequence
exp ill be reduced (Dean et.
to be governed mainly by only a few of them and by low-order
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 2-level 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

it is possible for the user to set the level of each variable.


A brief summary points out the fact that the full factorial is suitable for problems
with less than 8 variables and

.5.6 Fractional Factorial Designs
n
experiments a reduced factorial produces a subset
of the full factorial sequence. A fracti
experiments, where p>0 is an integer d
compared to the full factorial. The expression (1m)
p
is used to calculate the
fractional of the full design (Jurecka, 2007).
Due to the fact that only that only a fraction of the behavior is observed, each
main-effect and interaction contrast cannot be estimated independently. On the
other hand, the computational effort for the eriment w
al, 1999).
Fractional Factorial Designs are motivated by some different arguments. One is
the fact that in systems which depends on a large number of input variables are
expected
24

Theoretical background

Figure 2.22: Illustration of the projection of a 23-1 fractional factorial design into three 22 full factorial designs.
Fractional factorial is in modeFRONTIER

referred to as reduced factorial and


is based on a 2-level factorial sequence, see Figure 2.23. By selecting the largest
number in the Number of Designs-window will result in a full factorial. For a
problem with 8 variables the largest number available would be 256.
2.5.7 Central Composite Designs
For fitting second-order polynomials Central Composite Design (CCD) is one of
the most popular techniques. It combines points from a two-level full factorial (or
fractional factorial) sequence with a center point and so called star points. Star
points a from
the origin. On the axis x x = o
at x = -o, see Figure 2.24. The number of star points will be 2p for a number of
p factors (Dean et. al, 1999).
Figure 2.23: Available settings for a Reduced Factorial Design in modeFRONTIER
re points which are located on all coordinate axes with a distance _o
two points will be positioned; one at and another
25

Theoretical background
Figure 2.24: Illustration of distribution of points for a factorial desi
The value of is chosen depending on the properties required of n
the expression
=

gn, the center point and the star points.


the design, ofte
4

is used for establishing a suitable value for o, where
factorial points (Dean et. al, 1999). For this expression the resulting CCD will be
rota portant the predictio cy. The
prediction discrepancy e
de
contribute largely to tion the linear terms and they are
the only points which contribute to of the teraction terms. The
center point provides information ab of the s m and estimation of
is given by
n
]
are the orthogonal
table, which is an im condition for n discrepan
will be equal on a sphere around the center point if th
sign is rotatable (Jurecka, 2007).
The three types of points play different roles in providing information. The
factorial points the estima
computat
out curvatu
ion in
re yste
quadratic terms. It also provides the pure error of the design. If curvature is
found in the system the star point will estimate the quadratic terms in an efficient
way (Meyers & Montgomery, 2002)
Two types of regions can be taken in consideration for CCD, spherical and
cuboidal regions. If the region interest is spherical a suitable value for
u = n
where n is the number of factors. This way of choosing will not result in an
exact rotatable design instead the value will create better solution from a
prediction point of view. A spherical CCD will put all the star points and factorial
points on a sphere with radius

n (Montgomery, 2005).
For cuboidal regions of interest it is suitable to use face-centered 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 =

n and with five levels for each factor,


and a cuboidal region for o = 1 and a three-level design. The CCD can also
provide for situation where o =

n or o = 1 cannot be used, the value of can


be adopted depending on the circumstances (Meyers & Montgomery, 2002). For
central composite design for three variables, see Table 2.5.
In modeFRONTIER

it is possible to choose between two es C D, see figure


2.26. The first type, Cubic Face Centered, places points at all vertexes of the cube,
as in Figure 2.25, the second type, Inscribed Composite D n, p
the vertexes of a scaled hypercube within the cube


Point No. :
1
:
2
:
3

1 -1 -1 -1
2 -1 -1
3 -1 1 -1
4 -1 1 1
typ C
esig laces points at
.
5 1 -1 -1
6 1 -1 1
7 1 1 -1
8 1 1 1
9 - 0 0
10 0 0
11 0 - 0
12 0 0
13 0 0 -
14 0
15 0 0 0
Table 2.5: Central Comp te
Design sequence e factors.

Figure 2.25: Illustration of a face-centered CCD sequence for three
factors and o = 1, the 8 corner points are full factorial points, the 6
points on the axes are star points and the middle point is the center point.
osi
for thre
27

Theoretical background
Figure 2.26: Parameter settings for Central Composite Designs in modeFRONTIER.
2.5.8 Box-Behnken Designs
For Box-Behnken Designs (BBD) is a special methodology which constructs
balanced incomplete block designs, see Table 2.6. The variables are treated in
pairs, for an example of three variables: in the first block variable 1 and 2 is paired
together in a 2
2
factorial while variable 3 is fixed at the center. In the second block
variable 2 is fixed at the center and instead variable 1 and 3 is paired together. This
proceeding holds for a number of variables 2 < n < 6 (Meyers & Montgomery,
2002).
Treatment
Block 1 2 3
1
X X
2
X X
3
X X
Table 2.6: Demonstration of the order in which
the variables are paired together.
For problems with 6 or more variables the procedure is slightly different, for a
closer description see Meyers & Montgomery, 2002.
The resulting design sequence of Box-Behnken with three variables is shown in
Table 2.7 and Figure 2.27.
28

Theoretical background
BBD is closely related to Central Composite Designs but has the advantage of
avoiding extreme values of the factors by not taking the corners of the factor
space in consideration. On the other hand, the same characteristic of avoiding
extreme factor settings result in BBD not being suitable for prediction of behavior
in the corners of the factor space. As a conclusion this type of design should be
used for cases where there is no interest of predictions of the corner points. Since
BBD is a spherical design it is rotatable, or near rotatable, and all sampling points
will have same distance to the center point (Jurecka, 2007).
Table 2.7: Design sequence for three variables generated
by Box-Behnken. The last
row is the center point
Point No. :
1
:
2
:
3

1 -1 -1 0
2 -1 1 0
3 1 -1 0
4 1 1 0
5 -1 0 -1
6 -1 0 1
7 1 0 -1
8 1 0 1
9 0 -1 -1
10 0 -1 1
11 0 1 -1
12 0 1 1
13 0 0 0
Figure 2.27: Illustration of Box-Behnken Design for
three variables.
Box-Behnken Design is available in modeFRONTIER

without any settings for


the user to configure, see Figure 2.28.
Figure 2.28: Box-Behnken Designs in modeFRONTIER.
29

Theoretical background
2.5.9 Latin Square Design
The Latin Square Designs (LSD) are n x n arrays with Latin letters arranged in
such way that each of the letters only occurs once in each column and in each
row, see Figure 2.29. If the letters in the first row and the first column of the Latin
Square are in alphabetical order the square is known as a standard Latin square
(Dean et. al, 1999).
LSD is used to eliminate two sources of problems concerning the changeability,
Latin squares make it possible to block in two directions in a systematic way.
Small Latin Squares has the disadvantage that they have a fairly small number of
error degrees of freedom, the error degree of freedom for a 3x3 Latin Square is
equal to 2 . This disadvantage is compensated by replication of the squares; thus,
increasing the error degrees. A common procedure for selecting a Latin square is
to take a Latin square from a table providing standard Latin squares and randomly
rearrange the order of rows, columns and letters of the square (Montgomery,
2005).
A B C D
B D A C
C A D B
D C B A

A B C D E
B D A E C
C E D B A
D A E C B
E C B A D

Figure 2.29: Examples of 4x4 and a 5x5 standard Latin Square.
In modeFRONTIER

it is possible to create a 20x20 Latin Square, generating


400 design experiments, see Figure 2.29.
Figure 2.29: Latin Square Designs in modeFRONTIER.
30

Theoretical background
2.5.10 Plackett-Burman Designs
Plackett-Burman Designs (PBD) are fractional designs for a number of
variables for N runs. N is a multiple of four and when N is power
of 2 the designs are the same as the respective fractional design. For some
special cases (for N=12, 20, 24, 28, 36), called nongeometric PBD, this type of
Design of Experiment can be of interest (Myers & Montgomery, 2002).
In modeFRONTIER

it is possible to determine the order of the variables, see


Figure 2.30. The order of the variables is of significance due to the messy alias
structure of PBD. The limited area of interest and the fact that the method is
recommended to be used carefully by Myers & Montgomery, 2002, no closer
explanation is provided for this method.
Figure 2.30: Settings for the Plackett-Burman Designs in modeFRONTIER.
2.6 Fast optimizers in modeFRONTIER
The fast optimizers in modeFRONTIER

uses metamodeling to speed up the


optimization process, a detailed description of metamodeling is found in Section
2.4: Metamodeling. In the following sections the working process of the fast
optimizers is described in detail, as well as a closer explanation of the algorithms
implemented in modeFRONTIER

; SIMPLEX and MOGA-II.


2.6.1 Working process
The working process of the fast optimizers is an iterative procedure where
metamodels are trained and evaluated. Figure 2.31 illustrates the general steps of
the work process.
31

Theoretical background

Figure 2.31: The iterative process of fast optimizers.
Initially the algorithm takes in consideration a number of design experiments;
FSIMPLEX will use a number of N+1 (for a number of N variables) from the
DoE as an initial population, while FMOGA-II will use the entire DoE table. The
initial population m will be evaluated by means of the real solver and used for
RSM training. If a set exists of previously tested points the RSM will be trained
using them as a validation set instead of the initial population (Rigoni, 2010).
In the first iteration RSM by default, depending on the scale of the problem, is
engaged in the virtual exploration and optimization. For the subsequent iterations
RSM is selected depending on the performance throughout the previous iteration.
The training in this step only focuses on training RSM for the exploitation and
optimization. The training set can be limited by the user in modeFRONTIER

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 FMOGA-II, or FSIMPLEX, is run
over the best available meta-models. 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 non-linear 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 2-dimension (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 Nelder-Mead 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 MOGA-II algorithm
The MOGA-II is a multi-objective optimization algorithm which uses multi-
search elitism and directional crossover. Multi-search elitism contributes to the
robustness of the algorithm. For single-objective problem elitism is easily defined
and copied to the next generation, however, for multi-objective 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 Multi-objective 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 multi-objective 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
non-dominated 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 non-dominated
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 non-dominated 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; two-point 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, non-dominated 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
FEA-model. 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 two-dimensional 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 ground-level 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 Denavit-Hartenberg for a two-link kinematic chain.
3.2 The existing FEA-model
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; self-weight, self-weight plus drilling force and merely the
drilling force.
38

Method and implementation
The average force and moment are saved as well as jpeg-pictures.
3.3 The new FEA-model
As a result of the insufficient FEA-model 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 FEA-model
A macro was recorded for each part while it was constructed which resulted in
python-code 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 FEA-model.
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 bi-objective 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 single-objective optimization problem 1
The first optimization problem is a single-objective 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


mtn-0b]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 :

is allowed to vary in. The problem above is


formulated as a minimization problem since its the conventional manner within
optimization methodology.
In the first optimization workflow, the optimization problem is treated as the
single-objective problem above.
3.4.2 Formulation of single-objective optimization problem 2
The second optimization problem is a single-objective minimization problem. The
aim is to minimize the objective function, dependent on 2 variables while fulfilling
the 170 constraints of the problem. The problem has mathematically been
formulated as

b mtn 0 ]ccti:c
x. t. - ,17u)

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
single-objective problem above.
3.4.3 Formulation of multi-objective optimization problem
The third optimization problem is a bi-objective 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 re-formulate the problem as a weighted objective function and
solving a single-objective problem



m|n 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

are state variables and :

are design variables of the


problem, :

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 single-objective
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

are state variables and :

are design variables of the problem, :

I
and :

u
are
the lower and upper limit of the interval :

is allowed to vary in.


Method and implementation
In the third formulation the objectives are retained and is instead treated as a bi-
objective problem, mathematically formulated as
0b]ccti:c1 -0 t mtn | b]cc i:c2]
1


x. t. - u)

mux
u (i = 1,2, ,17
:

I
:

u
(i = 1,2, ,9)


where

are state variables and :

are design variables of the problem, :

I
and :

u
are
the lower and upper limit of the interval :

is allowed to vary in.


The third optimization workflow in ModeFRONTIER treats the optimization
problem as the bi-objective problem above.
3.5 Optimization workflows in modeFRONTIER
In this thesis the commercial software modeFRONTIER

has been used for


creating an optimization workflow, a detailed description of how to build a
workflow which solves a simple multi-objective optimization problem is included
in Appendix I: Solving a simple multi-objective optimization problem in
modeFRONTIER. In this section, the three different workflows built for
optimization of the BUT45 L is described, see a more thorough description of the
problems in Section 3.4: Mathematical formulation of the optimization and Appendix H:
Mathematical formulation of the optimization problems.
3.5.1 Single-objective optimization workflow 1 in modeFRONTIER
The first optimization workflow, see Figure 3.21, is built to solve a single-
objective maximization problem. Workflows in modeFRONTIER

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 single-objective 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 Objective-node.
Approaching the workflow from left to right, see Figure 3.22; the Scheduler-
nodes, the DOE-node 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 End-node 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 single-objective optimization problem 1.
3.5.2 Single-objective 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 Single-objective optimization workflow 1 is used and 2 variables are allowed
to vary.

50

Method and implementation

Figure 3.23: Optimization workflow of the first single-objective problem in modeFRONTIER.
Starting from the top and moving down; 11 design variables (2 variables and 9
constants) are sent to an Input file-node. The Input file-node sends the data on to
a DOS Batch-node and on to ABAQUS. ABAQUS process the data into 172
output-variables where 2 output-variables are passed on to an objective-function
and remaining 170 output-variables are used as input to Design constraint-nodes.
Approaching the workflow from left to right, see Figure 3.24; the Scheduler-
nodes, the DOE-node 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 DOS-node commands ABAQUS to read the
Input file and perform a FE-analysis on the boom. Once ABAQUS has
completed the Logic end-node terminates the process flow.
A detailed description of this workflow is found in Appendix K: Workflow; the
single-objective optimization problem 2.
51

Method and implementation
3.5.3 Multi-objective optimization workflow in modeFRONTIER
In the same way as the problem in Appendix I: Solving a multi-objective 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 objective-node and 50 output variables
an Input file-node. The Input file-node sends the data on to a DOS Batch-node
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 output-variables are passed on to an objective-function and
remaining 170 output-variables are used as input to Design constraint-nodes.
Approaching the workflow from left to right, see Figure 3.26; the Scheduler-
nodes, the DOE-node and the chosen optimization algorithm, is the starting point
of the optimization. Sobol Design is used for setting up the DoE and FMOGA-II
is the algorithm used, see Section 2.6.3: The MOGA-II 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 DOS-node commands ABAQUS to read the
Input file and perform a FE-analysis on the boom. Once ABAQUS has
completed the Logic end-node terminates the process flow.
A detailed description of this workflow is found in Appendix L: Workflow; the
multi-objective optimization problem.
Findings and analysis
4 Findings and analysis
The results of the three optimizations will be described in this chapter.
4.1 Single-objective 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 Single-objective 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 Multi-objective optimization in modeFRONTIER
The multi-objective 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
multi-objective 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 FE-analysis 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
well-informed 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 FEA-software in the optimization
workflow. Part geometry can, instead of being generated in the FEA-software, be
imported from a CAD-software into the FEA-software.
5.1.2 Formulation of the multi-objective problem
In Section 3.4.3: Formulation of the multi-objective optimization problem three different
formulations of the multi-objective problem where presented.
The first formulation treat the multi-objective 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 multi-objective 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: Multi-objective 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 decision-making 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 single-objective optimization problems 1 and 2, see Section
3.5.1: Singe-objective optimization work flow 1 in ModeFRONTIER and Section 3.5.2:
Singe-objective 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 non-linear 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 singe-objective
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 single-objective problem the use of RSM is motivated by the
computational time for the FE-analysis. One design validation takes
approximately 30 minutes to complete. The validation of one design is too
expensive to waste on nonessential designs.
For the multi-objective problem, the FMOGA-II algorithm has been used, see
Section 2.6.3: The MOGA-II algorithm. The optimizer, just as the FSIMPLEX,
implements metamodels to predict the behavior of the problem and speed up the
optimization process. For the multi-objective 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 FE-analysis. Also, the FMOGA-II is the only available
optimizer in ModeFRONTIER which both implements metamodels and
manages multi-objective problems.
5.2 Discussion of findings



CONFIDENTIAL



5.3 Further improvements
Due to a limited time-plan 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 FEA-model
The FEA-model 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 FEA-model 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 re-dimensioned to correspond with the
altered part. In the FEA-model 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 re-designed in the
same degree as a solution generated by a more approximate model. Also, setting
up a design optimization workflow requires a one-time 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, Multi-objective optimization: concepts and methods (p. 121-147).
Singapore :World Scientific, ISBN 981-256-962-6.
Atlas Copco, (2007). Rocket Boomer E-series rigs geared up for efficient tunneling.
http://www.atlascopco.com/us/News/ProductNews/070423_Rocket_Bo
omer_E-series_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, 88-100.
Buhmann, M., (2003). Radial Basis Functions: Theory and Implementations.
New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-63338-9.
Dassault Systmes, (2009). Abaqus 6.9-EF Documentation. Providence, RI:
Dassault Systmes.
Dean, A. & Voss, D., (1999) Design and analysis of experiments.
New York: Springer, ISBN 0-387-98561-1
Jurecka, F., (2007). Robust design optimization based on metamodeling techniques.
Aachen : Shaker, ISBN 978-3-8322-6390-4.
Lovision, A., (2007). Kriging (Esteco Technical Report 2007-003). Trieste:
Esteco.
Lundgren, J., Rnnqvist, M. & Vrbrand, P., (2008). Optimeringslra.
Lund: Studentlitteratur, ISBN 978-91-44-05314-1.
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 0-471-41255-4.
Montgomery, D., (2005). Design and analysis of experiments (6. ed.).
Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, ISBN 978-0-471-48735-7.
Niederreiter, H., (1978). Quasi-Monte Carlo methods and pseudo-random
numbers. Bulletin of the American mathematical society, volume 84, 957-1041.
Poles, S., (2003a). The SIMPLEX method (Esteco Technical Report 2003-
005). Trieste: Esteco.
Poles, S., (2003b). MOGA-II and improved multi-objective genetic
algorithm (Esteco Technical Report 2003-006). Trieste: Esteco.
76

References
77

Rigoni, E., (2007). Radial Basis Functions Response Surfaces (Esteco Technical
Report 2007-001). Trieste: Esteco.
Rigoni, E., (2010). Fast Optimizers: General Description (Esteco Technical
Report 2010-004). Trieste: Esteco.
Spong, M., Hutchinson, S. & Vidyasagar, M. (2006). Robot modeling and
control. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, ISBN 978-0-471-64990-8.
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
Denavit-Hartenberg Convention ......... 5
FE-analysis .......................................... 6
FE-elements ........................................ 7
Forward Kinematics ............................ 5
metamodels ................................. 12, 13
Multi-objective 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 Denavit-Hartenberg for a two-link kinematic
chain
Appendix F Load cases
Appendix G New FEA-model relations
Appendix H Mathematical formulation of the optimization problems
Appendix I Solving a simple multi-objective problem in
modeFRONTIER
Appendix J Workflow; the single-objective optimization problem 1
Appendix K Workflow; the single-objective optimization problem 2
Appendix L Workflow; the multi-objective 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 Denavit-Hartenberg
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 right-handed
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
i-1
z
i
plane if z
i1
and z
i

intersect.
Step 5: Establish y
i
to complete a right-handed frame.
Step 6: Establish the end-effector 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
right-hand 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 Denavit-Hartenberg for a two-link kinematic chain
Setting up Denavit-Hartenberg for a two-link
kinematic chain
Consider a two-link 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 two-link kinematic chain with coordinate frames assigned according to
DH-convention.
The origin is located where the -axis intersects with the paper. All z-axes 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 Denavit-Hartenberg
convention. The A-matrices 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 Denavit-Hartenberg for a two-link 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 T-matrices 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 FEA-model relations
New FEA-model relations
















CONFIDENTIAL


Appendix H Mathematical formulation of the optimization problems
Mathematical formulation of the optimization
problems













CONFIDENTIAL




Appendix I Solving a simple multi-objective problem in modeFRONTIER
Solving a simple multi-objective 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 cross-section 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 multi-objective problem in modeFRONTIER


Every variable is included in the flow as an Input variable-node 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 variable-node, 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 FE-calculations. The script, which is
enabled in the flow by the Input file-node 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

to distinguish what values to change.


our


Figure I.3: Possible settings for the Input file-node. At the button Edit Input File it is possible to select the
Python script and make adjustments to the script and enter the variables in the flow, see Figure 4.
Appendix I Solving a simple multi-objective problem in modeFRONTIER

Figure I.4: The Input file-node editor.
The Input file-node is connected to a DOS Batch Script-node which
commands the startup of Abaqus CAE and prompts Abaqus to run the Python
script, see Figure I.5.


Figure I.5: Properties of the DOS-node, commands are written under Edit DOS Batch Script.


Appendix I Solving a simple multi-objective problem in modeFRONTIER
The DOS-node get input from the Scheduler-nodes where the first
node is a DOE-node, which sets up a design matrix for the various variables, see
Figure I.6. It is possible for the user to import user-defined design experiments or
select among a large variety of DOE methods. Every DoE method has different
settings. In this example Sobol has been used to generate five design experiments.


Figure I.6: Properties of the DOE-node.



Appendix I Solving a simple multi-objective problem in modeFRONTIER
The second node is an algorithm-node, which retrieves the design experiments
from the DOE-node and passes them forward to the DOS-node, see Figure I.7.
The user has several different optimization algorithms to select among, different
algorithms are suitable for different types of problems. Just as for the DoE
methods, every algorithm has different settings. In the example FSIMPLEX is the
algorithm used.

Figure I.7: Properties of the Scheduler-node.

The DOS-node is connected to an ABAQUS-node which retrieves files
required for analyzing and interpreting the result of the FE-analysis from the
DOS-node. The ABAQUS-node gets input files from the Transfer file-node ,
see Figure I.8.



Appendix I Solving a simple multi-objective problem in modeFRONTIER



Figure I.8: Properties of the ABAQUS-node.
The Transfer file-node, just as the name implies, transfer necessary files to the
ABAQUS-node. The location of the different transfer files is specified manually
by the user, the files can copied or moved to a destination, see Figure I.9.


Figure I.9: Properties of the Transfer file-node.

To the ABAQUS-node a Support file-node is connected; when files are c
outside the system they have to be retrieved by specifying the direction of the file,
see Figure I.10. The user adds a file from outside the system that will be included
in the optimization, in this case; the report file generated by ABAQUS.
reated

Appendix I Solving a simple multi-objective problem in modeFRONTIER


Figure I.10: Properties of the Support file-node.

The support file is processed by the ABAQUS-node and passed on as output to
the Output-file node , see Figure I.11.


Figure I.11: Properties of the Output file-node, the output file is a report file from ABAQUS which has been
retrieved outside the system for every FEA simulation.

The user has to open the Output-file, look up the sought output data, see Figure
I.12, and tag it in order for modeFRONTIER

to locate the data during the


optimization.



Appendix I Solving a simple multi-objective problem in modeFRONTIER



Figure I.12: The user tags the data to be retrieved from the Output-file. The data is then passed on to the
Output variable-node, in this case the total volume of the two beams is tagged for retrieval.
The data is processed by the ABAQUS-node and turned into output for the
Output variable-node . The node retrieves the desired output directly from the
ABAQUS-node or the Output file-node, see Figure I.13.


Figure I.13: Properties of the Output variable-node

In this example; the volume of the beams is retrieved from the ABAQUS report
file, while the stress is retrieved from the ODB-file in ABAQUS and has to be
located and tagged within the ABAQUS-node, see Figure I.14.

Appendix I Solving a simple multi-objective problem in modeFRONTIER



Figure I.14: Introspection of the ODB-file at the ABAQUS-node
All Output varia node in
se o
.
ble-data is passed forward as input to the Objective
which the objective function is written as a mathematical expression. The u r als
specifies whether the objective should be maximized or minimized, see Figure
I.15. This workflow has one objective which minimizes the volume and one which
minimizes the stress.

Appendix I Solving a simple multi-objective problem in modeFRONTIER

Figure I.15: Properties of the Objective-node.

The fourth and last node connected to the ABAQUS-node is the Logic End-node
which terminates the process flow, see Figure I.16.


Figure I.16: Properties of the Logic End-node.

The final work flow can be seen in Figure I.17. The workflow can be approached
in two ways; from top to bottom, the data flow, and from left to right, the process
flow.



Appendix I Solving a simple multi-objective problem in modeFRONTIER

Figure I.17: The final optimization workflow.

Concluding the workflow: the optimization algorithm used to solve the problem
was FMOGA-II, implementing Sobol as DOE-method. The algorithm was
allowed to run 25 iterations before exiting, resulting in a total number of 175
design tested. The result of the optimization is the Pareto front seen in Figure
I.18.

Figure I.18: Pareto front of the bi-objective problem.


Appendix I Solving a simple multi-objective problem in modeFRONTIER

Depending on the weight of the two objectives, optimal designs are picked from
the Pareto front. If the most important objective is to reduce stress; the designs in
the lower right corner is the best performing. For these designs where the weight
of Objective 1 is insignificant, volume has no importance. If instead minimizing
volume is the most important objective, the designs should be retrieved from
upper left corner. These designs will have low volume but high stresses, the
weight of Objective 2 is insignificant. Designs picked from other positions on the
Pareto front are compromises between the objectives, but are still optimal
depending on how the different properties of the design are valued by the
Engineer.
In Figure I.19 three different designs from different positions on the Pareto front
are presented, the designs are marked with green in Figure 18. Design A is picked
from the lower right corner, Design B is picked from the middle of the Pareto
front and Design C is picked from the upper left corner.



Design A Design B Design C


Large Volume Medium Volume Low Volume


Low Stress Medium Stress High Stress
Figure I.19: Three Pareto optimal solutions provided by the workflow in modeFRONTIER

.

Appendix J Workflow; the single-objective optimization problem 1
Workflow; the single-objective optimization
problem 1













CONFIDENTIAL







Appendix K Workflow; the single-objective optimization problem 2
Workflow; the single-objective optimization
problem 2











CONFIDENTIAL





Appendix L Workflow; the multi-objective optimization problem

Workflow; the multi-objective optimization
problem














CONFIDENTIAL