MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213881555 · doi:10.1115/detc2021-67317

Multi-Material and Multi-Joint Topology Optimization for Lightweight and Cost-Effective Design

2021· article· en· W3213881555 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Crispo, Stephen Roper, Rubens Bohrer, Rosalie Morin, Il Yong Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTopology Optimization in Engineering
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopology optimizationComputer sciencePolygon meshConstraint (computer-aided design)AerospaceInterpolation (computer graphics)Topology (electrical circuits)Compliant mechanismJoint (building)Automotive industryInterface (matter)Mathematical optimizationMechanical engineeringFinite element methodEngineeringStructural engineeringFrame (networking)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lightweighting and cost reduction are overarching research themes in aerospace and automotive industries, leading to the exploration of new materials, advanced manufacturing methods, and design optimization algorithms. Multi-material topology optimization is an important tool that can generate unconventional designs leveraging the differing mechanical properties of multiple material types to increase performance. However, these approaches do not consider joining design during optimization, which can ultimately result in higher cost, worse performance, and unrealistic designs that must be altered in the interpretation stage. This work presents a multi-material and multi-joint topology optimization methodology that models joints at the interfaces between dissimilar materials, controls the joining pattern using joint design variables, and reduces cost through the addition of a joining cost constraint. Design variable interpolation schemes, interface detection for unstructured meshes, and sensitivity analysis are outlined in detail in this paper. The approach is applied to a real-world rocker arm geometry to demonstrate the importance of considering joints during multi-material topology optimization. The results of the numerical example indicate that the methodology can successfully detect interfaces in unstructured meshes and strategically place joints to maximize stiffness of the structure. A parameter study of various joining cost constraint levels illustrates how the optimizer alters part topology and joining design to reduce cost.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopology Optimization in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207