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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopology Optimization in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207