An enhanced proportional topology optimization method with new density filtering weight function for the minimum compliance problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes an enhanced proportional topology optimization (EPTO) method to solve the structural topology optimization problem of minimizing compliance under material volume constraints. In the proposed method, a new filtering weight function based on the improved Heaviside threshold function is adopted to filter element density during the optimization process. The optimization process of the EPTO method consists of an inner loop and an outer loop. In the inner loop, density distribution is modified in combination with a new filtering weight function. By locally averaging the weighted element compliance, an improved density distribution function in the inner loop is put forward to make the topology configuration of the optimized structure more reasonable. In addition, the projection method is used to reduce the number of intermediate density elements, thereby obtaining optimization results with clear boundaries. In the outer loop, a new termination criterion is adopted, which terminates the optimization process by determining that the relative error of the objective function in several consecutive iterations is less than the specified value. The effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed method are demonstrated through several numerical examples involving two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) topology optimization problems. The results of numerical examples show that the proposed method can not only accelerate the convergence of optimization iterations, but also obtain optimized structures with smaller objective function values and better topology configurations. HIGHLIGHTSA new density filtering weight function is proposed based on an improved Heaviside threshold function.An improved inner loop density distribution formula is proposed by combining a new filtering weight function.Using projection based methods to suppress the appearance of intermediate density elements.Verify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm by comparing the optimization results with existing algorithms such as top88 and PTO.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".