Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reanalysis of 2D and 3D truss structures considering simultaneous variations in topology, geometry and size

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Approximate reanalysis methods provide effective processes to achieve structural approximate responses without solving the complete set of modified implicit analysis equations. This paper presents methods for carrying out approximate reanalysis of 2D and 3D trusses. Apparently, for the first time, the simultaneous modifications in topology, geometry and size of the structures are taken into account. Three numerical methods, namely, combined approximation, rational approximation and Sherman–Morrison–Woodbury approximation (SMWA), are analyzed and compared for this purpose. The flowchart corresponding to each scheme is presented. Design variables considered are nodal coordinates and cross sectional properties. Moreover, an arrival with bounds between zero and arbitrary amounts includes the variations of the variables. Unlike most works, large trusses with many members are analyzed as numerical examples. Based on obtained outcomes in the several instances, a comparison is conducted between the three schemes and benefits and drawbacks of each method are thoroughly discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Materna D, Kalpakides VK (2016) Nonlinear reanalysis for structural modifications based on residual increment approximations. Comput Mech 57:1–18

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Jian-june H, Xiang-zi C, Bin X (2015) Structural modal reanalysis for large, simultaneous and multiple type modifications. Mech Syst Signal Process 62–63:207–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zheng SP, Wu BS, Li ZH (2015) Vibration reanalysis based on block combined approximations with shifting. Comput Struct 149:72–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Song Q et al (2015) Application of Sherman–Morrison–Woodbury formulas in instantaneous dynamic of peripheral milling for thin-walled component. Int J Mech Sci 96–97:79–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. He JJ, Jiang JS, Xu B (2007) Modal reanalysis method for structural large topological modifications with added degrees of freedom and non-classical damping. Finite Elem Anal Des 44:75–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheng Z, Wang H (2019) An exact and efficient X-FEM-based reanalysis algorithm for quasi-static crack propagation. Appl Math Model 72:601–622

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Yang Z, Chen S, Wu B (2001) Eigenvalue reanalysis of structures using perturbations and Pade approximation. Mech Syst Signal Process 15:257–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu BS, Lim CW, Li ZG (2004) A finite element algorithm for reanalysis of structures with added degrees of freedom. Finite Elem Anal Des 40:1791–1801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yang J, Xu J, Chen Q (2010) "A New method of reanalysis: multi-sample compression algorithm for the elastoplastic FEM. Comput Mech 46:783–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kirsch U (2002) Design-oriented analysis of structures. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Kirsch U (2008) Reanalysis of structures. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Kirsch U (2003a) Design-oriented analysis of structures—a unified approach. ASCE J Eng Mech 129:264–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kirsch U (2003b) A unified reanalysis approach for structural analysis, design, and optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 25:67–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kirsch U (2000) Combined approximations—a general reanalysis approach for structural optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 20:97–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kirsch U (1984) Approximate behavior models for optimum structural design. In: Atrek E et al (eds) New directions in optimum structural design. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kirsch U (1991) Reduced basis approximation of structural displacements for optimal design. AIAA J 29:1751–1758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirsch U (1999) Efficient, accurate reanalysis for structural optimization. AIAA J 37:1663–1669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kirsch U, Papalambros PY (2001) Exact and accurate solutions in the approximate reanalysis of structures. AIAA J 39:2198–2205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sidi A (1994) Rational approximations from power series of vector-valued meromorphic functions. J Approx Theory 77:89–111

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Wu BS, Li ZG, Li SH (2003) The implementation of a vector-valued rational approximate method in structural reanalysis problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 192:1773–1784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fuchs MB, Maslovitz G (1992) Approximate reanalysis based on the exact analytic expressions. AIAA J 30:1632–1637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fuchs MB, Maslovitz G (1994) Internal forces expressed as ratios of polynomials in the unimodal stiffnesses. Struct Optim 8:24–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fuchs MB (1991) Unimodal beam elements. Int J Solids Struct 27:533–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fuchs MB (1997) Unimodal formulation of the analysis and design problems for framed structures. Comput Struct 63:739–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Impollonia N (2006) A method to derive approximate explicit solutions for structural mechanics problems. Int J Solids Struct 43:7082–7098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kolakowski P, Wiklo M, Holnicki-Szulc J (2008) The virtual vistortion method: a versatile reanalysis tool for structures and systems. Struct Multidiscip Optim 36:217–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Xu T, Zuo W, Xu T, Song G, Li R (2010) An adaptive reanalysis method for genetic algorithm with application to fast truss optimization. Acta Mech Sin 26:225–234

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang G, Wang H, Li G (2014) A reanalysis method for local modifications and application in large-scale problems. Struct Multidiscip Optim 49:915–930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gao G, Wang H, Li E, Li G (2015) An exact block-based reanalysis method for local modifications. Comput Struct 158:369–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zuo W, Bai J, Yu Y (2016) Sensitivity reanalysis of static displacement using Taylor series expansion and combined approximate method. Struct Multidiscip Optim 53:953–959

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim Y, Eun H (2018) Reanalysis of modified structures by adding or removing substructures. Adv Civ Eng (3084078)

  32. Hosseinzadeh Y, Taghizadeh N, Jalili S (2018) A new structural reanalysis approach based on the polynomial-type extrapolation methods. Struct Multidiscip Optim 58:1033–1049

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Koohestani K (2018) Structural reanalysis via force method. Int J Solids Struct 136–137:103–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Long K et al (2019) A novel minimum weight formulation of topology optimization implemented with reanalysis approach. Int J Numer Meth Eng 120:567–579

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Wu Y et al (2019) A novel dynamic isogeometric reanalysis method and its application in closed-loop optimization problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 353:1–23

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Cheng Z et al (2019) An exact and efficient X-FEM-based reanalysis algorithm for quasi-static crack propagation. Appl Math Model 72:601–622

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Liu J et al (2020) An efficient auxiliary projection-based multigrid isogeometric reanalysis method and its application in an optimization framework. Int J Numer Methods Eng 121:2857–2873

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Akgun MA, Garcelon JH, Haftka RT (2001) Fast exact linear and nonlinear structural reanalysis and the Sherman–Morrison–Woodbury formulas. Int J Numer Methods Eng 50:1587–1606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hager WW (1989) Updating the inverse of a matrix. SIAM Rev 31(2):221–239

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

    Mohammad Rezaiee-Pajand & Mehran Momenipour

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Toos Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran

    Mehran Momenipour & Seyed Mojtaba Hozhabrossadati

Authors
  1. Mohammad Rezaiee-Pajand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehran Momenipour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seyed Mojtaba Hozhabrossadati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seyed Mojtaba Hozhabrossadati.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors confirm that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rezaiee-Pajand, M., Momenipour, M. & Hozhabrossadati, S.M. Reanalysis of 2D and 3D truss structures considering simultaneous variations in topology, geometry and size. Engineering with Computers 38, 2341–2359 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-01209-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-01209-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation