Basic Study on Performance Comparison of Structural Optimization Software Systems

구조최적설계 소프트웨어의 성능 비교에 대한 기초연구

  • Received : 2014.09.01
  • Accepted : 2014.11.10
  • Published : 2014.12.01


Structural optimization is widely accepted in industrial fields. Structural optimization pursues improved performance of the structures. Recently, structural optimization is actively utilized due to the well-developed commercial design software systems. Three popular commercial structural optimization systems are investigated and compared. They are MSC.Nastran, Genesis and OptiStruct. The performance of the systems is analyzed based on the quality of the optimum solution and the computational time. Linear static response size, shape and topology optimizations are explored and compared with some test examples. For fair comparison, the systems are run in the same environment and the optimization parameters affecting the performance are unified. The optimization results are analyzed and the performances and characteristics of each software system are discussed.


  1. Haftka, R.T. and Gurdal, Z., 1992, "Elements of Structural Optimization," Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
  2. Reddy, J.N., 2004, "An Introduction to Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis," Oxford University Press., NY, U.S.A.
  3. Schmit, L.A., 1960, "Structural Design by Systematic Synthesis," Proceedings of 2nd ASCE Conference, NY, pp. 105-132
  4. Cook, R.D., Malkus, D.S., Plesha, M.E. and Witt, R.J., 2001, "Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, Fourth Edition," John Willy and Sons, Inc., NY, U.S.A.
  5. Bathe, K.J., 1996, "Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis," Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, U.S.A.
  6. Belytschko, T., Liu, W.K. and Moran, B., 2004, "Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures," John Wiley & Sons. Inc., NY, U.S.A.
  7. Park, Y.S., Lee, S.H. and Park., G.J., 1994, "A Study on the Comparison of Performances Between Direct Method and Approximation Method in Structural Optimization," Trans. Korean Soc. Mech. Eng., Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 313-322.
  8. Hong, U.P., Hwang, K.H. and Park., G.J., 2002, "A Comparative Study of Software Systems from the Optimization Viewpoint of Optimization," Trans. Korean Soc. Mech. Eng. A, Vol. 26, No.12, pp. 83-94.
  9. MD NASTRAN 2012.2 Quick Reference Guide, MSC.Software, U.S.A.
  10. GENESIS User's Manual, Version 12.0, 2010, Vanderplaats Research and Development Inc., Colorado, U.S.A.
  11. OptiStruct User's Manual, Version 12.0, 2012, Altair Engineering Inc., Troy, U.S.A.
  12. Park, G. J., 2007, Analytic Methods for Design Practice, Springer-Verlag, Germany.
  13. MD NASTRAN 2012.2, Design Sensitivity and Optimization User's Guide, MSC.Software, U.S.A.
  14. VRD, 2010. "BIGDOT - Large Scale Optimization Software Library," 23 May. 2014
  15. Fleury, C. and Braibant, V., 1986, "A New Dual Method Using Mixed Variables," International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 409-428.
  16. Haug, E.J. and Arora, J.S., 1979, Applied Optimal Design, New York, U.S.A.
  17. Shi, Q., Zhang, F. and Lian, J., 2009, "Comparison Analysis for Boom Strength of Excavators," Construction Machinery and Equipment, Vol.40, No. 7, pp. 40-43.
  18. GENESIS User's Manual Volume IV, Version 12.0, 2010, Vanderplaats Research and Development Inc., Colorado, U.S.A.
  19. ALTAIR OptiStruct Tutorials, Ver. 12.0, 2013, Altair Engineering, Inc., Troy, U.S.A.
  20. ALTAIR HyperStrudy Tutorials, Ver. 12.0, 2013, Altair Engineering, Inc., Troy, U.S.A.
  21. Shin., D.H., 2012, Design Process of a Railway-Car Body with Aluminum Extrusion Panels Using Structural Optimization, Master's theses, Hanyang University, Korea.
  22. MD NASTRAN 2012.2, Demonstration Problems, MSC.Software, U.S.A

Cited by

  1. Effect on Drive Point Dynamic Stiffness and Lightweight Chassis Component by using Topology and Topography Optimization vol.17, pp.3, 2018,