2022
DOI: 10.1007/s00158-021-03124-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Topological control for 2D minimum compliance topology optimization using SIMP method

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it is worth noting that previous studies such as [5, 9-11, 14, and 21] have observed that mesh failure is dependent on the size of the sharp angles formed at the edges and vertices, irrespective of type of geometrical shape such as the honeycomb. By increasing the sharpness of the angles in a geometry, the meshing algorithm in many numerical modelling packages automatically finds it increasingly difficult to identify the best possible arrangement of elements [9][10]. The elements generated in the corner regions of the HC model showed low connectivity.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…However, it is worth noting that previous studies such as [5, 9-11, 14, and 21] have observed that mesh failure is dependent on the size of the sharp angles formed at the edges and vertices, irrespective of type of geometrical shape such as the honeycomb. By increasing the sharpness of the angles in a geometry, the meshing algorithm in many numerical modelling packages automatically finds it increasingly difficult to identify the best possible arrangement of elements [9][10]. The elements generated in the corner regions of the HC model showed low connectivity.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To determine the location, to create and shape voids in thin wall sections is very difficult when using the SIMP method for many software packages of TO. This is because such structures have a delicate structural connectivity, and by creating voids to optimise the wall sections, further structural discontinuities can easily occur [9][10]17]. Such voids can also lead to impractical designs because of the limitation of low Member with applied load…”
Section: The To Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One is geometric boundary representation-based methods [7][8][9]. The other is material representation-based methods [10][11][12], in which structural topology is defined by 0-1 distribution of material and evolved by making a material trade-off. Among them, the solid isotropic material with penalization (SIMP) is the most classic method based on variable density theory with the advantages of simple program implementation and stable solution.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It establishes the relationship between density and elastic modulus, takes the material density as the topological optimization design variable, and obtains the optimal distribution of structural materials through the presence or absence of materials. Compared with the homogenization method, the variable density method can directly obtain the relationship between the unit density and the elastic modulus without solving it again, which greatly reduces the variables of optimization design, simplifies the optimization solution process, and improves the calculation efficiency [8][9][10][11][12]. The evolutionary ESO method realizes structural topology optimization by imitating the biological evolution process and gradually deleting invalid or inefficient materials.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%