Simultaneous single‐loop multimaterial and multijoint topology optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary As the aerospace and automotive industries continue to strive for efficient lightweight structures, topology optimization (TO) has become an important tool in this design process. However, one ever‐present criticism of TO, and especially of multimaterial (MM) optimization, is that neither method can produce structures that are practical to manufacture. Optimal joint design is one of the main requirements for manufacturability. This article proposes a new density‐based methodology for performing simultaneous MMTO and multijoint TO. This algorithm can simultaneously determine the optimum selection and placement of structural materials, as well as the optimum selection and placement of joints at material interfaces. In order to achieve this, a new solid isotropic material with penalization‐based interpolation scheme is proposed. A process for identifying dissimilar material interfaces based on spatial gradients is also discussed. The capabilities of the algorithm are demonstrated using four case studies. Through these case studies, the coupling between the optimal structural material design and the optimal joint design is investigated. Total joint cost is considered as both an objective and a constraint in the optimization problem statement. Using the biobjective problem statement, the tradeoff between total joint cost and structural compliance is explored. Finally, a method for enforcing tooling accessibility constraints in joint design is presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".