Struct Multidisc Optim (2009) 37:625634

DOI 10.1007/s00158-008-0253-4

RESEARCH PAPER

Optimal hole shape for minimum stress concentration

using parameterized geometry models
Zhixue Wu

Received: 1 December 2007 / Revised: 11 February 2008 / Accepted: 13 February 2008 / Published online: 8 April 2008
Springer-Verlag 2008

Abstract The goal of this work is to obtain optimal

hole shape for minimum stress concentration in twodimensional finite plates using parameterized geometry
models. The boundary shape for a hole is described by
two families of smooth curves: one is a generalized circular function ((x/R)1 + (y/R)2 = 1) with powers as
two parameters; the other one is a generalized elliptic
function ((x/a)1 + (y/b )2 , a and b are ellipse axes)
with powers as two parameters and one of the ellipse
axes as the third parameter. Special attention is devoted
to the practicability of parameterized equations and
the corresponding optimal results under the condition
with and without the curvature radius constraint. A
number of cases were examined to test the effectiveness
of the parameterized equations. The numerical examples show that extremely good results can be obtained
under the conditions with and without curvature radius constraint, as compared to the known solutions in
the literature. The geometries of the optimized holes
are presented in a form of compact parametric functions, which are suitable for use and test by designers. It is anticipated that the implementation of the
suggested parameterized equations would lead to considerable improvements in optimizing hole shape with
high quality.
Keywords Shape optimization Stress concentration
Stress minimization Hole Finite element analysis

Z. Wu (B)
Mechanical Engineering College, Yangzhou University,
Yangzhou 225009, Peoples Republic of China
e-mail: zhixue_wu@yahoo.com

1 Introduction
A plate with a circular hole is a classic example of stress
concentration. Because of the potentially serious consequences of the development of fatigue crack in the
stress concentration region, many cost and effort are
often expended by designers to determine the optimum
shape for this region, i.e. the shape which minimizes the
peak stress. Extensive literature has been published on
shape optimization for minimum stress concentration,
and new methods still appear. However, it is often
difficult to find the optimal profile of a structure due to
its highly non-linear character, particularly for design
engineers (not experts in optimization techniques).
As for a shape optimization problem, the design
boundary should be allowed to vary. An adequate
selection of a geometric representation method for
the boundary and the minimum number of appropriate design variables is of fundamental importance
in order to achieve an automatic design cycle during
the optimization process. Several means for selecting
geometric design variables are available when the finite element method is used to perform the analysis.
In many studies, design boundaries of the structures
were usually defined by spline curves passing through
a number of key points or control points (Sonmez 2007;
Annicchiarico and Cerrolaza 1999, 2001; Schnack and
Weikl 2002; Wu 2005; Cervera and Trevelyan 2005;
Schmid et al. 2005). Positions of these points thus
become design variables and then the shape of the
design boundary can be updated iteratively by adjusting
these variables using an optimization algorithm. Clearly
more accurate results can be achieved with more key
points, and consequently more computational time will
be taken. Furthermore, naively increasing the density

626

human intervention and automatically produce the best

design. In this respect, the previous methods had only a
relative success. Considering that optimization modules
have been incorporated into a number of commercial
finite element packages, for instance in ANSYS, robustness, accuracy and ease of use should be emphasized
when selecting the geometric representation method
for the hole boundary and an optimization algorithm
in practical design environment. In this work, a simple
parameterization of the boundary shape for a hole is
proposed, and the success of the method in generating
optimal but realistic solutions is verified using several
finite element analysis examples. The geometries of the
optimized holes are presented in a form of compact
parametric functions, which are suitable for use and test
by designers.

2 Parameterization of the hole

The optimization problem for minimum stress concentration in two-dimensional finite plates is shown in
Fig. 1, where the shape of the hole boundary are design
parameters. The design domain is the region around
the hole boundary limited to within a square of side
D (= 2R). The choice of is due to possible practical
requirement, such as providing access to cables, ducting
works and so on, but developments presented in this
work are not restricted to this specific case. The plate

of geometric definition can increase the risk of rapid

changes in curvature and consequent stress concentrations. NURBS curves defined by a polygon or Bezier
curves defined by the so-called characteristic triangle
can also be used to define a shape. For NURBS curves,
generalized coordinates (including position and weight)
at each vertex of the polygon were selected as design
variables (Wang et al. 1999). The shape parameters,
which continuously change the curve, and the position
of end points were treated as design variables for Bezier

curves (standard or modified; Wilczynski

1997). The
design boundary can also be represented directly by the
nodal coordinates of the discrete finite element model
if using an appropriate optimization method. Some
researchers defined the nodal positions as design variables in their gradientless shape optimization method
(Heller et al. 1999; Waldman et al. 2001; McDonald
and Heller 2004). The advantage of this method is that
extremely high fidelity of the optimal shape (free-form)
can be achieved since there is no any restriction of the
optimal geometry. The disadvantage is also apparent,
such as the requirements of an adequate scheme for
smoothing of nodal movements due to the fact that the
boundary node stresses are highly sensitive to the positions of the neighboring boundary nodes, particularly
for highly refined meshes.
Some analytical equations can be used to describe
boundary curve (Phan and Phan 1999; Pedersen 2000,
2004a, b, 2007; Van Miegroet and Duysinx 2007); the
parameters in the equations then control the size and
shape of the design boundary. The advantage of using
these equations is that one may define the shape of
the model using just a few design variables and obtain a smooth boundary. The disadvantage is that the
possible design achieved by an analytical equation is
also highly limited to the number of variables in the
expression. Another and more important disadvantage
may be the availability of a proper parametric expression. Although this method is not a global search algorithm, because of its simplicity and effectiveness, it has
been applied to many structural optimization problems.
For example, Peterson (2007) has applied analytical
two parameters modeling to the shape optimization
for minimum stress concentration, and extremely good
results were reported.
The theme of this paper is on optimal hole shape for
minimum stress concentration in two-dimensional finite
plates. For this issue, a number of finite-element-based
methods have been given in the literature. However,
a designer cannot be expected to be experts in optimization techniques. While using a shape optimization
algorithm, she or he is just to state the boundary conditions and let the algorithm do some iteration without

Z. Wu

x
D
Design domain
W

Fig. 1 An internal central hole in a rectangular plate

Optimal hole shape for minimum stress concentration using parameterized geometry models

0.8

1 =2 , 2 =5

0.8

0.6

627

=2

increases
0.4

1 =5 , 2 =2

0.4

0.2

0.2

= 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 10

0
0

0.2

=5

y/R

y/R

0.6

=3.5

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4

x/R

0.6

0.8

x/R

Fig. 2 Hole shapes described using the super-circular equations (in the two first quadrant): a three using (1); b comparison of the hole
shapes between (1) and (2)

is modeled using the finite element method; the hole

boundary is described by an analytical expression that
controls the position of the nodes on the boundary, and
the design description is therefore not directly related
to the nodes of the finite element formulation.
The starting point is the super-circular shape which
has been used before in relation to optimization
(Pedersen 2000, 2004a). The shape here in 2D is defined
by the equation in rectangular coordinates (x, y)


x
R


+

y
R

The super-ellipse can also be used to optimize the

hole shape (Pedersen 2000, 2004a, 2007), which is given
in parametric form as (in a local coordinate system, see
Figs. 3 and 8)
     
x
y
+
=1
(3)
a
b
where, power is the shape parameter, a and b are
ellipse axes. All the three parameters may be selected


=1

(1)

y
where power is the shape parameter that control
the shape of the hole boundary, as shown in Fig. 2a.
The drawback of only one parameter in (1) is that the
curve must be symmetric about the line x = y. This
will limit greatly the variation of the design boundary.
To increase further the flexibility, we use the following
parameterized equation to define the hole shape:
x
R

1


+

y
R

Super-ellipse

2
=1

(2)

where power 1 and 2 are the two parameters controlling the hole shape of the boundary. This equation has
also been used in relation to optimization of 2D filets
using X-FEM and level set description (Van Miegroet
and Duysinx 2007). Comparing to the one-parameter
description, the flexibility of the hole shapes described
using two-parameters is increased greatly, as shown in
Fig. 2b.

R(b)

y'

Super-circle

O'

x(x')

Fig. 3 Hole shapes described using the super-elliptic equation (in

the first quadrant)

628

Z. Wu

(2007). It is expected that better results can be achieved

with the one additional design variable.
Since the hole is described by the parametric functions given in (1)(4), there is a continuous curvature of
the hole if the powers (1 and 2 ) 2. There is only a
continuous slop of the curve when 1 < (1 and 2 ) < 2.
In this case, we find no severe stress concentration at
the end points with discontinuous curvatures. However,
it should be noted that a somewhat different load
condition may easily change this situation and part of
the curve will be outside of design domain shown in
Fig. 1.
y

3 Numerical results and discussions

Fig. 4 A typical finite element mesh around a hole

as the design variables according to the prescribed

constraint on the design domain. In this study, one of
ellipse axes must be equal to R, and only two parameters (power and one of ellipse axes) can be taken
as design variables due to the constraint on the design
domain, as shown in Fig. 1. In this case, the optimal
hole boundary consists of a segment of the boundary of
the design domain besides the super elliptic arc, see
Fig. 3. The designer should select the correct ellipse axis
as the design variable (based on his or her intuition)
in order to achieve better result. Similarly, we use two
powers in the super-elliptic equation to define the hole
shape:
  1   2
x
y
+
= 1.
(4)
a
b
Equation (4) has also been used to define the boundary
of 2D filets in the work of Van Miegroet and Duysinx

Table 1 Stress concentration

for infinite plate with a hole
under uniform tension

For all analyses, linear elastic constitutive model is used

with Youngs modulus of 200 GPa and Poissons ratio
of 0.30, and plane stress condition is assumed. All the
finite element analyses are carried out using software
package ANSYS 9.0. The finite element meshes are
created with eight-node quadrilateral isoparametric elements. Considering that stress analysis is highly depending on the finite element modeling, the meshes
near the hole boundary are refined to produce reasonable results, as shown in Fig. 4. The problems in all the
examples are symmetric about both coordinates axes,
so only a quarter of the complete plate is modeled in
the finite element analyses.
3.1 Problem formulation
An optimal shape design for minimum stress concentration can be formulated as a minimization problem
under certain constraints as follows:
minimize

f (X)

subject to

gi (X) 0
X Lj

Xj

(5)

XU
j

i = 1, . . . , Ng

(6)

j = 1, . . . , N

(7)

Curvature constraint

Expression

Stress concentration

Design

=0

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

2.578
2.283
2.182
2.141
2.578
2.283
2.253
2.221

= 3.018
1 = 7.465, 2 = 1.800
= 1.890, a = 0.250R
1 = 1.467, 2 = 2.008, a = 0.209R
= 3.018
1 = 7.465, 2 = 1.800
= 2.112, a = 0.363R
1 = 2.358, 2 = 1.968, a = 0.364R

= 0.15

Optimal hole shape for minimum stress concentration using parameterized geometry models

629

3.5

0.8

Normalized tangential stress ( / 0)

Eq.(1)
Eq.(4)
Eq.(3)

y/R

0.6

Eq.(2)
0.4

Circular arc

0.2

x
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

2.5
2
1.5
1

Eq.(1)

Eq.(2)

-0.5

Eq.(3)

-1

Eq.(4)

-1.5

Circular arc

0.5

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Angle about hole, (degree)

x/R

Fig. 5 Stress-minimization results without minimum curvature radius constraint, a optimal hole shapes and b stress distributions about
the hole boundaries

with the objective function f (X), N design variables

X j, Ng inequality constraints gi (X). The design variables X j are bound by lower and upper limits X Lj
and X U
j .
For this problem, the design boundary is modeled using parameterized (1)(4), thus the powers and ellipse
axes are selected as the design variables. The objective
function f (X) could be the maximum effective stress

(principal, von Mises or Tresca stresses) over the region

where a stress concentration occurs. Equation (6) is
minimum curvature radius constraint here. Equation
(7) is called side constraints, and is used to limit the
region of search for the optimization problem. The side
constraints are introduced to prevent unreasonable or
meaningless solutions. Here, we set 1.1 < (1 and
2 ) < 30 and 0 < a (or b ) < R.

3.5
3

0.8

Normalized tangential stress ( / 0)

Eq.(1)
Eq.(4)
Eq.(3)

y/R

0.6

Eq.(2)
0.4

Circular arc

0.2

x
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

x/R

0.8

2.5
2
1.5
1

Circular arc

0.5

Eq.(1)

Eq.(2)

-0.5

Eq.(3)

-1

Eq.(4)

-1.5

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Angle about hole, (degree)

Fig. 6 Stress-minimization results with minimum curvature radius constraint = 0.15, a 19 optimal hole shapes and b stress distributions
about the hole boundaries

630
Curvature
constraint

D/W

Expression

Stress
concentration

Design

=0

0.140

(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)

2.009
1.883
1.840
1.743
1.678
1.616
1.518
1.479
1.375
1.365
1.260
1.243
1.204
1.174
2.009
1.971
1.840
1.817
1.678
1.677
1.561
1.561
1.447
1.447
1.339
1.330
1.295
1.271

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0.250
0.377
0.518
0.650
0.775
0.837
= 0.20

0.140
0.250
0.377
0.518
0.650
0.775
0.837

No specific optimization method is suggested since

the optimization problem becomes extremely simple
due to the use of the parameterized equations. The
First Order Optimization Method provided in the optimization module of the software package is used
in the numerical examples. This method of optimization calculates and makes use of derivative information. The constrained problem is transformed into
an unconstrained one via penalty functions. Derivatives are formed for the objective function and
the state variable penalty functions, leading to a
search direction in design space. Various steepest descent and conjugate direction searches are performed
during each iteration until convergence is reached.
Each iteration is composed of sub-iterations that include search direction and gradient (i.e., derivatives)
computations.
To examine the robustness and the practicability
of the optimal shape achieved using the parameterized geometry, the design optimization is also performed with minimum curvature radius constraint =
Rmin /R, where Rmin is the prescribed minimum curvature radius.

= 7.9659,
= 1.5181,
= 7.9728,
= 1.6848,
= 9.9534,
= 2.2495,
= 13.042,
= 3.0742,
= 22.082,
= 9.4254,
= 23.806,
= 11.899,
= 20.050,
= 12.472,
= 7.9659,
= 2.7963,
= 7.9728,
= 2.8191,
= 9.9534,
= 3.5976,
= 9.3378,
= 4.8940,
= 8.7845,
= 3.9612,
= 7.1989,
= 3.0279,
= 7.0908,
= 2.5761,

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

= 1.7546
= 2.0058, a = 0.2092R
= 1.8237
= 1.9995, a = 0.2168R
= 1.8386
= 2.0409, a = 0.2367R
= 2.3226
= 2.1101, a = 0.1805R
= 3.9435
= 3.1323, a = 0.3190R
= 8.3982
= 5.4890, a = 0.2064R
= 13.218
= 11.167, a = 0.1698R
= 1.7546
= 1.9553, a = 0.4235R
= 1.8237
= 1.9853, a = 0.4263R
= 1.8386
= 2.1035, a = 0.4654R
= 2.7623
= 2.8282, a = 0.5644R
= 4.8221
= 5.0587, a = 0.4698R
= 6.7957
= 8.2125, a = 0.5301R
= 7.2897
= 10.145, a = 0.5855R

3.2 The benchmark case: a hole in an infinite plate

under uniaxial tension at infinity
This example is widely used in the literature as a test
problem. To simulate the problem of a hole in an
2.5
Tran and Nguyen (1999)
Eq.(2) , = 0

Stress concentration

Table 2 Stress concentration

for finite plate with a hole
under uniform tension

Z. Wu

Eq.(4) , = 0

Eq.(2) , = 0.2
Eq.(4) , = 0.2

1.5

1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

D/W
Fig. 7 Comparison of the present results with those from Tran
and Nguyen (1999)

Optimal hole shape for minimum stress concentration using parameterized geometry models

y = 22.5MPa

y(y')
Ellipse

x'

300mm

O'

R-b

x = 45MPa

R=40mm

300mm
Fig. 8 A biaxially loaded plate of finite two sizes with a
central hole

631

finite element modeling used. It can also be seen from

Table 1 that the minimum curvature radius constraint
of = 0.15 has a slightly adverse affect on the stress
concentrations achieved using super-elliptic equations
but no affect on those achieved using super-circular
equations. The reason can be found in Figs. 5 and 6.
For the case without the minimum curvature radius
constraint, the resulting optimal shape and stress distributions are given in Fig. 5a and b, respectively (using
quarter symmetry). It can be seen that an almost uniform stress state is obtained along the boundary of the
super-elliptic shape. But the curvature radius of stress
near the connecting end of the super-elliptic shape
is very small and the corresponding stress gradient is
extremely large. Figure 6a and b compare the resulting
optimal shape and stress distributions achieved with
and without the minimum curvature radius constraint.
As anticipated, the curvature radius near the connecting end of the super-elliptic shape is slightly larger
than the prescribed value and the corresponding stress
gradient becomes smaller.
The super-circular equation with double-powers is
very simple, easy to use, and can be used to achieve
good result. It is natural that better result can be
achieved while using (4) than using (3) because of one
additional design variable. In the following analyses,
only (2) and (4) will be used.

infinite plate, the plate is treated as finite with the

ratio of the width of the plate to the diameter of
the hole equal to 500. An arbitrary uniform tension
stress of 0 = 1 MPa is applied along y direction at
the border of L/2. In this case, the analysis produces the maximum tangential stress 2.998 MPa for
the circular hole, which is great agreement with the
analytical solution of 3.0 MPa. Then, optimal shapes
of the hole are determined using the parameterized
equations (1)(4). A summary of the results is given in
Table 1, including all the design parameters. The stress
concentration is defined by max /0 , where max is the
maximum tangential stress. It is seen from Table 1 that
the optimized solutions obtained using super-elliptic
equations are better than those achieved using supercircular equations. It was reported that the lowest stress
concentration for this problem is 2.18, which was obtained using a gradientless shape optimization method
(McDonald and Heller 2004). Comparing with the last
solution 2.141, this small difference may be due to the

A plate of finite width with a hole is a common structural component in many engineering applications.
Tran and Nguyen (1999) has utilized a finite element
method to simulate the photoelastic stress minimization method (Durelli et al. 1981) to find the optimal
hole shape. The same problem is solved here to examine the effectiveness of the parameterized geometry
models.
The finite plate shown in Fig. 1 (L = 3 W) is under
uniform tension of 1 MPa along y direction. Table 2
shows the results of stress concentration and all the
design parameters in the conditions with and without

Table 3 Stress concentration

for finite plate with a hole
under biaxial tension

3.3 Optimal hole shape in finite plate under uniaxial

tension

Curvature
constraint

Expression

Min-Max
Von-Mises stress

Design

=0

(2)
(4)
(2)
(4)

108.7
102.8
108.7
105.5

1
1
1
1

= 0.2

= 1.9222,
= 2.0170,
= 1.9222,
= 1.9480,

2
2
2
2

= 3.9910
= 1.5761, b = 0.3914R
= 3.9910
= 2.2241, b = 0.5415R

632

Z. Wu

b 140

120
0.8
100

0.6

Von-Mises stress

Eq.(2), = 0 and 0.2

y/R

Eq.(4) , = 0.2

0.4

Eq.(4) , = 0

60

Circular arc
Eq.(2) , = 0 and 0.2

40

Circular arc

0.2

80

Eq.(4) , = 0.2
20

Eq.(4) , = 0

x
0

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

x/R

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Angle about hole, (degree)

Fig. 9 Stress-minimization results with and without minimum curvature radius constraint, a optimal hole shapes and b stress
distributions about the hole boundaries

minimum curvature radius constraint. The stress concentration is defined by max /nom , where max is the
maximum tangential stress and nom is the mean value
based on the minimum net cross section. Comparison
of the present results with those by Tran and Nguyen
(1999) is plotted in Fig. 7. It can be seen that the present
results without minimum curvature radius constraint
are in very good agreement with those from Tran and
Nguyen (1999). As expected, the stress concentration
is slightly higher if the minimum radius was taken
into consideration. It should also be noted that the
difference between the results achieved using (2) and
(4) is very small when the minimum curvature radius
constraint is applied.

and B are fixed). The second is the region around the

hole boundary limited to within a square (point A, B,
C and D are fixed).

y
y'
a

3.4 Optimal hole in finite plate under biaxial tension

O
Hole design in an infinite plate under a biaxial field
is classical structural optimization problem. For this
problem, the analytical solution is elliptic design with
ratio of ellipse axes directed in the principal stress
directions and with ratio equal to the ratio of the principal stresses. However, this solution should be modified
for finite models. Here, the optimization problem of
a biaxially loaded plate of finite sizes with a hole at
its center, as shown in Fig. 8, is studied using the
parameterized geometry models. Two types of design
constraint are considered. One is the classical design
domain of the hole with diameter of AB (only point A

x
x'

Design domain

Fig. 10 Shape optimization of a hole with rotating design

domain

Optimal hole shape for minimum stress concentration using parameterized geometry models

Equation (4) is used to describe the optimal hole

shape under the first type of design constraint. We
find the maximum Von-Mises stress is 69.93 MPa with
design parameters of 1 = 2.000, 2 = 2.0005 and b/R =
0.5098 (the ratio of the minor to major axes). This
solution can be directly compared to the solution of
70.30 MPa in (Wu 2005). This small difference can be
ascribed to the finite element modeling used.
Table 3 shows the results of the maximum VonMises stress and all the design parameters under the
second type of design constraint. Wu (2005) reported
that the minimum Von-Mises stress for this problem
is 102.43 MPa, which was obtained using a gradientless
shape optimization method. It can be seen from Table 3
that the present solutions without minimum curvature
radius constraint are in very good agreement with this
value. Particularly comparing with the super-elliptic
solution of 102.8 MPa, there is almost no difference
between them. The resulting optimal shape and VonMises stress distributions are given in Fig. 9a and b for
the cases of with and without the minimum curvature
radius constraint. It can also be seen that an almost
uniform stress state is obtained along the boundary of
the super-elliptic shape if no curvature constraint is
applied. But the curvature radius near the connecting
end of the super-elliptic shape is small and the corresponding stress gradient is large. The curvature radius
near the connecting end of the super-elliptic shape is increased and the corresponding stress gradient becomes
smaller while the curvature constraint is applied. As a
result, a small additional price had to be paid, i.e. the
stress level is slightly higher.

4 Concluding remarks
Parameterized geometric descriptions for the hole
shape design are proposed to obtain minimum stress
concentration in two-dimensional finite plates. The
numerical examples show the effectiveness and practicability of the parameterized equations under the
conditions with and without the curvature radius constraint. Results in the tables are suitable for use and
test due to compact parametric functions. It is obvious
that the super-elliptic equation with three parameters is
the best one for the optimal design of hole shape. The
super-circular equation with double-powers can also
achieve good results, particularly when the minimum
curvature radius constraint is applied. Considering its
simplicity and ease of use by designers, this equation is
also suggested. It is anticipated that the implementation

633

of the suggested parameterized equations would lead

to considerable improvements in optimizing hole shape
with high quality.
If the design domain is allowed to rotate round
the centre position of the hole, O, the present method
could be extended to solve optimization problems
where the principal planes are not known in advance.
One can add an angular variable , defining the orientation of the ellipse or circle, as one of the design
variables, as shown in Fig. 10. In this way, better results
could be expected. Even so, the effectiveness and practicability of the parameterized geometric descriptions
for the hole shape design should be validated further
for the problem under complex loading conditions.
The initial motivation for this work is only about
optimal hole shape for minimum stress concentration.
However, it is expected that the parameterized equations can also be used to the shape optimization of
many general notches, such as fillets, which have typically consisted of circular or elliptical profiles. This
could be a subject of a future study.
Acknowledgements This research was jointly sponsored by
State Leading Academic Discipline Fund and Shanghai Leading
Academic Discipline (Project no. Y0102 and BB67), which are
greatly appreciated by the author.

References
Annicchiarico W, Cerrolaza M (1999) Finite elements, genetic
algorithms and -splines: a combined technique for shape
optimization. Finite Elem Anal Des 33:125141
Annicchiarico W, Cerrolaza M (2001) Structural shape optimization 3D finite-element models based on genetic algorithms and geometric modeling. Finite Elem Anal Des 37:
403415
Cervera E, Trevelyan J (2005) Evolutionary structural optimization based on boundary representation of NURBS. Part 1:
2D algorithms. Comput Struct 83:19021916
Durelli AJ, Erickson K, Rajaiah K (1981) Optimum shapes of
central holes in square plates subjected to uniaxial uniform
load. Int J Solids Struct 17:787793
Heller M, Kaye R, Rose LR (1999) A gradientless finite element
procedure for shape optimization. J Strain Anal Eng Des
34:323336
McDonald M, Heller M (2004) Robust shape optimization of
notches for fatigue-life extension. Struct Multidisc Optim
19:169182
Phan A-V, Phan T-N (1999) A structural shape optimization system using the two-dimensional boundary contour method.
Arch Appl Mech 69:481489
Pedersen NL (2004a) Optimization of holes in plates for control
of eigenfrequencies. Struct Multidisc Optim 28:110
Pedersen P (2000) On optimal shapes in materials and structures.
Struct Multidisc Optim 19:169182

634
Pedersen P (2004b) Design study of hole positions and hole
shapes for crack tip stress releasing. Struct Multidisc Optim
28:243251
Pedersen P (2007) Suggested benchmarks for shape optimization
for minimum stress concentration. Struct Multidisc Optim
35:273283
Schmid F, Hirschen K, Meynen S, Schafer M (2005) An enhanced approach for shape optimization using an adaptive
algorithm. Finite Elem Anal Des 41:521543
Schnack E, Weikl W (2002) Shape optimization under fatigue
using continuum damage mechanics. Comput Aided Design
34:929938
Sonmez FO (2007) Shape optimization of 2D structures using
simulated annealing. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg
196:32793299
Tran D, Nguyen V (1999) Optimal hole profile in finite plate
under uniaxial stress by finite element simulation of Durellis

Z. Wu
photoelastic stress minimisation method. Finite Elem Anal
Design 32:120
Van Miegroet L, Duysinx P (2007) Stress concentration minimization of 2D filets using X-FEM and level set description.
Struct Multidisc Optim 33:425438
Waldman W, Heller M, Chen GX (2001) Optimal free-form
shapes for shoulder fillets in flat plates under tension and
bending. Int J Fatigue 23:185190
Wang X, Zhou J, Hu Y (1999) A physics-based parameterization method for shape optimization. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 175:4151

Wilczynski
B (1997) Shape optimisation for stress reduction
around single and interacting notches based on the fictitious stress method. Eng Anal Bound Elem 19:117128
Wu Z (2005) An efficient approach for shape optimization of
components. Int J Mech Sci 47(10):15951610