Adaptive metamodel-assisted shape optimization for springback in metal forming processes
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper aims to propose a shape optimization strategy for springback shape in metal forming processes based on the adaptive metamodel of the spatial field that can reduce the computational time and cost. The first stage includes solving metal forming problem using finite element simulation and building of Reduction Order Model of spatial field based on Proper Orthogonal Decomposition. Then, the metamodel of spatial field is built using the combination of Reduction Order Model and Kriging method to replace the expensive high fidelity model. In the second stage, the metamodel of spatial field is used within the iterative optimization procedure to find the optimal design for the final shape after springback in the metal forming processes. This strategy allows reducing computational cost to achieve the optimal design with respect to the approach based on the traditional metamodel. The proposed methodology is illustrated with the “U-shape bending” from the Numisheet2011 benchmark problem. Two parameters: the blank holder force and the die radius are chosen to optimize the springback effect.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms · Topology Optimization in Engineering · Metal Forming Simulation Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (51)
Show source-provided references
1. Chatterjee A (2000) An introduction to the proper orthogonal decomposition. Curr Sci 78:808–817
2. Cressie N (1990) The origins of Kriging. Math Geol 22(3):239–25210.1007/BF00889887 ↗
3. Buhmann MD (2013) Radial basis functions: theory and implementations. Cambridge Monogr Appl Comput Math 37:8930–8945
4. Haykin S (1994) Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River
5. Forrester AIJ, Keane AJ (2009) Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog Aerospace Sci 45:50–7910.1016/j.paerosci.2008.11.001 ↗
6. Forrester AIJ, Bressloff NW, Keane AJ (2006) Optimization using surrogate models and partially converged computational fluid dynamics simulations. Proc R Soc A 462:2177–220410.1098/rspa.2006.1679 ↗
7. Jones DR, Schonlau M, Welch WJ (1998) Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions. J Global Optim 13:455–49210.1023/A:1008306431147 ↗
8. Jones DR (2001) A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. J Global Optim 21:345–38310.1023/A:1012771025575 ↗
9. Sobester A, Leary SJ, Kean AJ (2005) On the Design of Optimization Strategies Based on Global Response Surface Approximation Models. J Glob Optim 33:31–5910.1007/s10898-004-6733-1 ↗
10. Ghanbari H, Scheinberg K (2017) Black-box optimization in machine learning with trust region based derivative free algorithm, Computing Research Repository (CoRR). arXiv: 1703.06925
11. Tenne Y (2017) Machine-learning in optimization of expensive black-box functions. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 27(1):105–11810.1515/amcs-2017-0008 ↗
12. Carlberg K, Farhat C (2009) An adaptive POD-Krylov reduced-order model for structural optimization. 8th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization
13. Courard A, Néron D, Ladevèze P, Ballere L (2016) Integration of PGD-virtual charts into an engineering design process. Comput Mech 57:637–65110.1007/s00466-015-1246-y ↗
14. Chinesta F, Ammar A (2010) E Cueto:Proper generalized decomposition of multiscale models. Int J Numer Methods Eng 83:1114–113210.1002/nme.2794 ↗
15. Ravindran S (2000) A reduced-order approach for optimal control of fluids using proper orthogonal decomposition. Int J Numer Meth Fluids 34:425–44810.1002/1097-0363(20001115)34:5<425::AID-FLD67>3.0.CO;2-W ↗
16. Sirovich L (1987) Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures, Part1: Coherent structures, quarterly of applied mathematics 3. Brown University. Division Appl Math 45:561–571
17. Couplet M, Basdevant C, Sagaut P (2005) Calibrated reduced-order pod-galerkin system for fluid flow modeling. J Comput Phys 207:192–22010.1016/j.jcp.2005.01.008 ↗
18. Liberge E, Hamdouni A (2010) Reduced order modelling method via proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) for flow around an oscillating cylinder. J Fluids Struct 26:292–31110.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2009.10.006 ↗
19. Raghavan B, Breitkopf P, Tourbier Y, Villon P (2013) Towards a space reduction approach for efficient structural shape optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 48:987–100010.1007/s00158-013-0942-5 ↗
20. Quillieca G-L, Raghavanb B, Breitkop P (2015) A manifold learning-based reduced order model for springback shape characterization and optimization in sheet metal forming. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 285:621–63810.1016/j.cma.2014.11.029 ↗
21. Nayroles B, Touzot G, Villon P (1992) Generalizing the finite element method Diffuse approximation and diffuse elements. Comput Mech 10:307–31810.1007/BF00364252 ↗
22. Lafon P, Adragna P-A, Nguyen V-D (2016) Multi-objective optimization under uncertainty for sheet metal forming. MATEC Web of Conferences 80:1000410.1051/matecconf/20168010004 ↗
23. Meng F, Labergere C, Lafon P, Duguy M, Daniel L (2014) Multi-objective optimization based on meta-models of an aeronautical hub including the ductile damage constraint. Int J Damage Mech 23(8):1055–107610.1177/1056789514544481 ↗
24. McKay MD, Conover WJ, Beckman RJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2):239–245
25. Laurent L (2013) Stratégie multiparamétrique et métamodèles pour l’optimisation multiniveaux de structures. Ph.D. dissertation, ENS Cachan, Cachan, France
26. Saka Y, Gunzburger M, Burkardt J (2007) Latinized, improved lhs, and cvt point sets in hypercubes. Int J Numer Anal Model 4(3–4):729–743
27. Toal D-JJ, Bressloff N-W, Keane A-J (2010) Geometric filtration using proper orthogonal decomposition for aerodynamic design optimization. AIAA J 5:48
28. Hamdaoui M, Le Quilliec G, Breitkopf P, Villon P (2014) POD surrogates for real-time multi-parametric sheet metal forming problems. Int J Mater Form 7(3):337–35810.1007/s12289-013-1132-0 ↗
29. Dang V-T, Labergere C, Lafon P (2017) POD surrogate models using adaptive sampling space parameters for springback optimization in sheet metal forming. Procedia Eng 207(2017):1588–159310.1016/j.proeng.2017.10.1053 ↗
30. Liang YC, Lee HP, Lim SP, Lin WZ, Lee KH, Wu CG (2002) Proper orthogonal decomposition and its applications: part I – theory. J Sound Vib 252(3):527–54410.1006/jsvi.2001.4041 ↗
31. De Vuyst F (2013) PDE metamodeling using principal component analysis, . In: Breitkopf P, Coelho RF (eds) Multidisciplinary design optimization in computational mechanics. Wiley, Hoboken10.1002/9781118600153.ch3 ↗
32. Journel AG, Huijbregts CJ (1981) Mining geostatistics. Academic Press, London
33. Simpson TW, Peplinski J, Koch PN, Allen JK (2001) Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. Eng Comput 17:129–15010.1007/PL00007198 ↗
34. Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI (2006) Gaussian processes for machine learning. MIT Press, Cambridge
35. Lophaven SN, Nielsen HB, Sodergaard J (2002) DACE - A MATLAB Kriging Toolbox, Technical Report IMM-TR-2002-12, Informatics and Mathematical Modelling Technical University of Denmark
36. Couckuyt I, Dhaene T, Demeester P (2012) Oodace toolbox. Adv Eng Softw (Elsevier) 49(3):1–13
37. Couckuyt I, Dhaene T, Demeester P (2014) OoDACE toolbox: A flexible object-oriented Kriging implementation. J Mach Learn Res 15:3183–3186
38. Simpson TW, Peplinski JD, Koch PN, Allen JK (2001) Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: Survey and recommendations. Eng Comput 17:129–15010.1007/PL00007198 ↗
39. Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 4(4):409–43510.1214/ss/1177012413 ↗
40. Matérn B (1960) Spatial variation Lecture NotesStatist, vol 36. Springer, Berlin
41. Toal DJJ, Forrester AIJ, Bressloff NW, Keane AJ, Holden C An adjoint for likelihood maximization. In: Proceedings of the royal society of London a: Mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, vol 465, no 2111 (Nov. 8, 2009), pp 3267–328710.1098/rspa.2009.0096 ↗
42. Toal DJJ, Bressloff NW, Keane AJ (2008) Kriging hyperparameter tuning strategies. AIAA J 46(5):1240–125210.2514/1.34822 ↗
43. The Mathworks Inc (2004) Optimization toolbox for use with MATLAB: User’s guide, V. 3
44. Ugray Z, Lasdon L, Plummer J, Glover F, Kelly J, Martí R (2007) Scatter search and local NLP solvers: A multistart framework for global optimization. INFORMS J Comput 19(3):328–34010.1287/ijoc.1060.0175 ↗
45. SHWCH H, Chung K (2011) Benchmark study of the 8th international conference and workshop on numerical simulation of 3D sheet metal forming processes. Proc Numisheet 2011 37:8930– 8945
46. Nguyen V-D, Adragna P-A, Lafon P (2015) Multi-objective optimization under uncertainty and decision-making support for sheet metal forming. Key Eng Mater 651:1400–140510.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.651-653.1400 ↗
47. Hill R (1948) A theory of the yielding and plastic ow of anisotropic metals. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci 193:281–297. (Cited on page 40.)10.1098/rspa.1948.0045 ↗
48. Niederreiter H (1992) Random number generation and quasi-monte Carlo methods. SIAM, Philadelphia10.1137/1.9781611970081 ↗
49. Romeroa V-J, Burkardtb J-V, Gunzburgerb M-D, Petersonb J-S (2006) Comparison of pure and ”Latinized” centroidal Voronoi tessellation against various other statistical sampling methods. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:1266–128010.1016/j.ress.2005.11.023 ↗
50. Gorissen D, Crombecq K, Couckuyt I, Dhaene T, Demeester P (2010) A Surrogate Modeling and Adaptive Sampling Toolbox for Computer Based Design. J Mach Learn Res 11:2051–2055
51. Leary SJ, Bhaskar A, Keane AJ (2004) Derivative based surrogate model for approximating and optimizing the output of an expensive computer simulation. J Glob Optim 30:39–5810.1023/B:JOGO.0000049094.73665.7e ↗