Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Topology Optimization Applications on Engineering Structures

Written By

Aykut Kentli

Submitted: 17 March 2019 Reviewed: 13 November 2019 Published: 16 December 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.90474

From the Edited Volume

Truss and Frames - Recent Advances and New Perspectives

Edited by Aykut Kentli

Chapter metrics overview

2,083 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Over the years, several optimization techniques were widely used to find the optimum shape and size of engineering structures (trusses, frames, etc.) under different constraints (stress, displacement, buckling instability, kinematic stability, and natural frequency). But, most of them require continuous data set where, on the other hand, topology optimization (TO) can handle also discrete ones. Topology optimization has also allowed radical changes in geometry which concludes better designs. So, many researchers have studied on topology optimization by developing/using different methodologies. This study aims to classify these studies considering used methods and present new emerging application areas. It is believed that researchers will easily find the related studies with their work.


  • topology optimization
  • finite element method

1. Introduction

Topology optimization (TO) is carried out to obtain an optimal structural layout [1]. It is one of the branches of optimization methods differing from size and shape optimization. As expected, as a type of optimization method, it has constant parameters, like applied loads, material type, etc., objective function and constraints which change for every problem, and lastly variable which are the parameters of the material layout. In shape optimization, it aimed to find the position of the member of the structure, while in size optimization, only finding the size of the members is enough. In both cases, there will be no change in the number of members. On the other hand, in topology optimization some part or member of the structure will be deleted and a new layout will be prepared [2]. It is generally preferred to use finite element method (FEM) as meshing eases to find the places to be deleted. But as an optimization algorithm, several kinds are used including both gradient-based such as optimality criteria methods and non-gradient-based algorithms such as genetic algorithm [3].

The topology optimization of structures has proven to be a valuable tool for the identification of the best concepts in early phases of the design process. It is widely used in lightweight design of structures in automotive and aerospace industry, as well as in civil engineering, material science, and biomechanics [1, 4, 5].

This chapter will give brief introduction on topology optimization and later give related studies under several classifications. There are several well-prepared and intensely examined review studies in literature, but some of them are on specific application area (vibration problems [6], continuum structures [7]) or are on a specific methodology (evolutionary algorithms [8, 9], level-set methods [10]), or recent studies are not included [11, 12]. This study mostly aims to present recent studies while giving brief description on previous ones.


2. Topology optimization

During the twentieth century, architects and engineers have used innovative and novel methods to develop optimum forms of structures and sculptures. While the techniques employed by these innovators generated efficient and aesthetic forms, they shared a common limitation: reaching optimum structure. Although the purpose of applying topology optimization has never been a standard procedure, developments in finding optimum structure form let the researchers and designers be free to constructing better designs [13, 14].

Topology optimization offers conceptual design for lighter and stiffer structures. It helps to reach to efficient and aesthetic designs within a small time interval (Figure 1). The benefits are:

  • Building weight-saving and complete designs.

  • Decrease needed time to present and test product.

  • By the help of FEM software, you are able to check your design from the perspective of:

    • Determining feasible design range.

    • Accurate checking for different loads and conditions.

    • Considering design and manufacturing constraints [15].

Figure 1.

Optimized unit by using topology optimization approach (Dassault) [15].

By the time, TO has shown its power and efficiency in the design of structures by the increase in advances on computational speed and power. Changes in computer hardware and software technology have also changed the approach to topology formation of structures. Nowadays, you could use a drawing software in forming different topologies as if it is a standard task, and so, you are able to alter old designs and produce new alternative designs in virtual environment. Designers and engineers are pleased to have such a powerful tool in their work [16].

2.1 General form

A topology optimization problem can be written in the general form of an optimization problem as [3, 17]:

minimizeρF=Fuρρ=ΩfuρρdVsubject toG0ρ=ΩρdVV0Gjuρρ0withj=1,.,mE1

The problem statement includes the following:

  • An objective function Fuρρ. Even though each problem could have different objective functions, generally the most used one is minimizing compliance, or in another word, maximizing the stiffness of the structure.

  • Main design variable: material distribution. Here material density at each point of the members ρu could be this variable. 1 represents the places where density is described, and 0 is for the places where the material is deleted or there is none. On the other hand, u defines if the state is linear or nonlinear [11].

  • The design space uρ. This points out how much volume exists in design. There are many design factors such as manufacturing and handling that should be taken into account in determination of this value. Once this value is determined, then no need to change these places in the optimization stage.

  • m constraints is a characteristic that the solution must satisfy Gjuρρ0. The examples are the maximum amount of material to be distributed (volume constraint) or maximum stress values.

  • Evaluating uρ often includes solving a differential equation. This is most commonly done using the finite element method since these equations do not have a known analytical solution [3].

2.2 Structural topology optimization

The topology of a structure is defined as a spatial arrangement of structural members and joints or internal boundaries. For both discrete and continuum structures, topology optimization helps to arrange association form of members as can be realized in Figure 2 [18].

Figure 2.

Variation of topology [18].

The conceptual process is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Conceptual process [18].

Structural optimization is concerned with maximizing the utility of a fixed quantity of resources to fulfill a given objective. In structural optimization the best “structural” design is selected regarding three categories: size optimization, shape optimization, and topology optimization [19]. The application of topology optimization to structures to reveal the best position and size of the parts in a continuum is the most favorite one. Michell presented the first solutions as seen in Figure 4. Today much more advanced techniques are used, and by the help of finite element method, it could be applied to complex problems. Weight savings are managed by engineers in several structures as a consequence of utilization of these methods. There are many examples in literature on the application of these methods [13, 2021]. Today, many commercial finite element software has an optimization module (Altair OptiStruct, Simulia Tosca, OPTISHAPE-TS, etc.) to obtain lighter structure, but several researchers have generated their codes [22, 23] or developed scripts [24] using these software’s programming languages.

Figure 4.

One of the first proposed solutions to a structural topology optimization problem [13].

Structural optimization concerns on getting the required task of the mechanical system and maximizing its efficiency by an ordered procedure. At the beginning the design variables should be selected carefully. Then, limitations of these variables and system performance factors will be defined. By changing variable values, it is possible to see the change in these factors so we are able to determine the best combination among the design space. As design variables, the size of the members or mechanical properties of materials could be selected similar to size optimization, and the configuration of members is also another possible parameter as in shape optimization. Material distribution and layout are the parameter that is concerned in topology optimization. As the objective function, the most used one is cost function (related to total weight) to be minimized. Stress and buckling conditions are mostly used constraints in literature [18]. The aim is to optimize parts or units for specific load cases and extreme situations.

Figure 5 shows a sample application of topology optimization in finding the best material distribution. Minimizing objective function is acquired by checking different structure forms step by step. Each time design is narrowed down by selecting the best form among feasible sets.

Figure 5.

Initial and optimized unit structure of a short cantilever.


3. Classification of methodologies

Topology optimization methods are mathematical techniques/approaches, and they can be programmed using different algorithms. These algorithms could be classified as follows: the criterion algorithm, the mathematical programming algorithm, and the intelligent algorithm.

The criterion algorithm obtains the optimality condition by the perceptual knowledge or the rational derivation. Result geometry will be gained by checking constraint violations and objective function value in an iterative way.

The perceptual criterion is usually the extension of the optimality condition of the full stress criterion of the size optimization. The rational criterion is derived usually by the Lagrange multiplier method of equality constraint. The ESO method is the typical criterion method.

Common mathematical programming algorithms like linear programming (LP) and nonlinear programming methods are also used in topology optimization of structures. The first attempts begin with using LP and successive LP methods later continued with sequential quadratic programming methods. Similar too criterion algorithm, mathematical programming algorithms are solved iteratively. Both stability and sensitivity of the structure are checked in each iteration. Of course it means that more calculation should be done for large-scale systems, and consequently low performance is observed for these cases. Fleury discussed the relationship between the criteria method and the mathematical programming method of size optimization. Fleury found that they both have given approximate results. This study refers still to the basics of the topology optimization [25, 26].

Genetic algorithm, simulated annealing algorithms, and particle swarm are the frequently used algorithms for topology optimization as the intelligent algorithm. The advantage of these algorithms is to keep it from too much calculations. The main idea is to search the optimum topology by checking only the objective function and constraints without calculating any gradients. On the contrary, solution speed can be slow, especially for large-scale system; finding optimum could take longer times [27, 28]. Several algorithms are also developed to combine topology optimization with additive manufacturing [29].

Two classes of approaches, the so-called material or micro-approaches and the geometrical or macro-approaches, are available [30, 31]. For the areas such as MEMS or biomaterial applications, classical continuum mechanics theories sometimes could not give accurate results. So, there are essential conceptual differences between these two types of approaches because of size effect.

Furthermore, another most commonly used classification merit of methodologies is if its discrete elements are used or not. The mainly used methods using discrete elements can be regarded, such as [18] ground structure approach (GSA) [21, 32], solid isotropic material with penalization (SIMP) method [33], homogenization method (HM) [34], evolutionary structural optimization (ESO) [35], and level-set method (LSM) [35]. On the other hand, the mainly used meshless methods are element-free Galerkin (EFG) [36], moving particle [37], and peridynamics [38]. Here, some of the studies post 2010 using these methodologies and their hybrids will be given under different headings.

3.1 Ground structure approach

Sokol and Rozvany [39] applied a hybrid method of linear programming and GSA to multi-load truss systems. Zhang et al. [40] combined GSA with simulated annealing to apply truss systems. Xu et al. [41] combined GSA with mixed integer linear programming for topology optimization of tensegrity structures. Zhang et al. [42] compared two different ground structure approach (macroelement and macropatch) on a skyscraper and arch bridge. Chun et al. [43] used a discrete filtering scheme in which thin bars are eliminated during reliability-based topology optimization. Gao et al. [44] considered principal stress trajectories to find the suitable nodal points to decrease the computational cost in building ground structure. Ha and Guest [45] applied the method to find the optimum 3D woven material structure and, in a later study, with their colleagues tested this structure [46]. Kosaka et al. [47] applied hybrid method of GSA and ESO to frame structures. Ramos and Paulino [48] considered the materials’ nonlinear behavior to solve several topology optimization benchmarking problems. Shakya et al. [49] combined particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm with GSA in order to detect and remove useless elements of truss systems. Sokol [50] used GSA in the optimization of large-scale pin-jointed frames considering a new member adding strategy. Wang and Zhang [51] proposed a new approach, parallel optimization tactic, in topology optimization of multi-material compliant mechanism. Zegard and Paulino provided a code for 2D [52] and 3D [53] domains to prevent creating members not intersecting with others. Zhang et al. [54] worked on arranging optimum structure of multi-material composite material using Zhang-Paulino-Ramos design variable update scheme with Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. Zhang et al. [21] used a different filtering scheme for the optimization of multi-materials (hyperelastic Ogden-based and bilinear materials).

3.2 Solid isotropic material with penalization method

Shao [55] has combined BESO with SIMP considering 3D printing applications. Lógó [56] has solved a continuum-type topology optimization problem considering uncertainties in load positions. Garcia-Lopez et al. [57] combined simulated annealing with SIMP to eliminate gray areas resulted by SIMP. Gebremedhen et al. [58] used SIMP to solve 3D stress-constrained topology optimization problems. Jantos et al. [59] used a new approach based on thermodynamics material modeling and not containing any filter and compared the results with SIMPs’. Jiao et al. [60] combined ESO with SIMP and used strain energy in their filtering function as sensitivity number. Kandemir et al. [61] proposed a new approach to define intermediate densities (gray areas) with new penalization factor. Marck et al. [62] applied SIMP to solve a multiobjective conductivity problem while using finite volume method (FVM) to solve the energy equation. Ospald and Herzog [63] used projected gradient method with SIMP to solve the structure problem of mold where short-fiber-reinforced polymer material is used in injection molding. Qiao et al. [64] applied the hybrid method of SIMP and BESO to a MBB beam and a cantilever beam and compared the results with literature. Schlinquer et al. [65] applied SIMP to design a mechanism used to amplify the displacement of a piezoelectric actuators. Tsai and Cheng [66] employed SIMP to design flywheel rotor having maximum stiffness. Wang et al. [67] combined topology and size optimization for a folding wing structural design. Yang et al. [68] accomplished topology optimization of an electric vehicle body by SIMP. Yang et al. [69] used SIMP for topology optimization of a hard disk drive. Yunfei et al. [70] applied SIMP to design a robot’s upper arm. Zhang and Ren [71] proposed a new optimality criterion method concerning minimum compliance. Zhang et al. [72] presented a new approach to control the length scale of structural members. Zhang et al. [73] presented a method for cellular structures with multiple types of microstructures. Zuo and Saitou [74] introduced power functions with scaling and translation coefficients and the cost properties for multiple materials.

3.3 Homogenization method

Allaire et al. applied HM to structures made of periodically perforated material in 2D [75] and 3D [76]. Zhang and Khandelwal [77] presented a nonlinear homogenization method to be able to design metamaterials. Lee et al. [78] proposed asymptotic homogenization method to solve topology optimization problem of magnetic composite materials. El-Kahlout and Kiziltas [79] used together MATLAB code to integrate material model derived using homogenization theory with COMSOL and solved several design problems where periodic dielectric materials with desired properties are aimed. Noguchi et al. [80] proposed a level-set-based topology optimization method for the design of hyperbolic acoustic metamaterials using a high-frequency homogenization method. Larsen et al. [81] proposed a new approach based on HM extracting discrete structure from the continuum model. Milani and Bruggi [82] used an adaptive meshing algorithm with HM to optimize multistory masonry wall loaded up to failure. Groen and Sigmund [83] presented a projection method to get better meshes during topology optimization. Xia and Breitkopf [84] implemented a MATLAB code which uses energy-based homogenization approach rather than the asymptotic approach. Bruggi and Milani [85] arranged strut-and-tie models in reinforced concrete structures. Kaminakis et al. [86] used hybrid algorithm based on evolutionary algorithms in the design of microstructures having auxetic behavior.

3.4 Evolutionary structural optimization

Martínez-Frutos and Herrero-Pérez [87] used evolutionary algorithm to increase the efficiency of GPU and enable to solve with smaller amount of device memory. Daróczy and Jármai [88] proposed a new bidirectional evolutionary structural optimization (BESO) algorithm based on fluid dynamics analogy. Tomšič and Duhovnik [89] discussed simultaneous topology and size optimization of trusses. Abdi et al. [90] used a combination of ESO with XFEM which uses isoline design approach. Ansola et al. [91] used ESO to optimize compliant mechanism under concentrated and thermal loads. Aulig and Olhofer [92] combined a neuro-evolution algorithm with a gradient-based optimizer and later proposed another algorithm considering state-based representation [93]. Azamirad and Arezoo [94] combined programming environment with Abaqus FEM software to optimize die components. Bureerat and Sriworamas [95] proposed multiobjective real-code population-based incremental learning (RPBIL) and a hybrid algorithm of RPBIL with differential evolution (DE) (termed RPBIL-DE) to solve water distribution network. Chen et al. [96] used ESO to optimize the rotary lobe of root vacuum pumps. Chen [97] used modified ESO algorithm for the optimization of plate structure under harmonic loading. Cho et al. [98] obtained optimum topology for the inner reinforcement of a vehicle’s hood having uncertainties in variables. Finotto et al. [99] used an algorithm combination of ground structure approach, nonlinear finite element analysis, and quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithms. Garcia-Lopez et al. [100] used multiobjective evolutionary algorithm handling uncertainties and also giving the Pareto frontier solutions to let user select the best solution. Greiner and Hajela [101] used multiobjective evolutionary algorithm using reunification criterion to increase search efficiency. Huang and Xie [102] used BESO utilizing an alternative material interpolation scheme. Huang et al. [103] used BESO to optimize the topology of PBC made of two-phase composites. Zuo and Xie [104] used ESO letting limiting displacement. Jantos et al. [105] added a control mechanism for growth factor where at each step Lagrange multiplier is used to find optimum. Jia et al. [106] used hybrid of ESO with LSM. Kaminakis et al. [107] proposed hybrid method of Particle Swarm Optimization and differential evolution in the design of microstructures. Kunakote and Bureerat [108] compared Pareto archive evolution strategy (PAES), population-based incremental learning (PBIL), non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA), strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm (SPEA), and multiobjective particle swarm optimization (MPSO). Li et al. [109] used a combination of SIMP and ESO. Li et al. [110] used BESO method in the design of hinge-free compliant mechanisms. Maleki Jebeli and Shariat Panahi [111] used GA as evolutionary algorithm to optimize the material property distribution in FG structures. Okamoto et al. [112] enhanced genetic algorithm, immune algorithm, additional search in the restricted design space with enabling island, and void distribution during FEM analysis to solve a typical magnetic circuit problem. Picelli et al. [113] used BESO to free vibration problems of acoustic-structure systems. Riehl and Steinmann [114] employed the traction method to define descent directions for shape variation. Shi et al. [115] used APDL and UIDL to implement BESO in ANSYS to improve results. Sun et al. [116] applied BESO a cantilever composite laminate under uniform in-plane pressure. Tominaga et al. [117] used GA algorithms for magnetostatic shielding to minimize the magnetic flux intensity in a specified region. Wang et al. [118] used to optimize constrained damping layer structure. Fritzen et al. [119] taken nonlinear elastoviscoplastic microscopic RVE into account at all points of the macroscopic design domain by using BESO. Later, Xia et al. [120] introduced a damping scheme on sensitivity numbers to the same approach. Zhu et al. [121] used bidirectional evolutionary level-set method allowing automatic hole generation. Zuo et al. [27] enhanced the BESO method to multiple constraints of displacement and frequency in addition to the amount of material usage.

3.5 Level-set method (LSM)

Allaire et al. [122] applied LSM with enabling local mesh modifications. Chen and Chen [123] considered geometric uncertainty and related problems. Van Dijk et al. [124] used uses a direct steepest-descent update of the design variables in a LSM. Dunning and Alicia Kim [125] developed a third dimension for 2D problems to adjust new hole positions and to prevent violations with boundaries. Emmendoerfer and Fancello [126] minimized mass under stress constraints using an augmented Lagrangian approach. Gomes et al. [127] interested in the reduction of the design space dimension by the help of a GUI. Guo et al. [128] used LSM in stress-related topology optimization problems. Otomori et al. applied LSM to the design of electromagnetic cloaks using a ferrite material [129] and a light-scattering layer for solar cell applications [130]. Guo et al. [131] developed a local and explicit feature control scheme. James et al. [132] used isoparametric finite element, and James and Martins [133] used a body-fitted, nonuniform finite element mesh to overcome irregular shape problems. Jang et al. [134] considered geometric uncertainties in the production of microsystems. Lim et al. [135] applied to magnetic actuator design problems. Liu et al. [136] adopted extended finite element method (XFEM) with unified structural optimization model help to cover the topology, shape, and sizing optimization at the same time. Luo et al. [137] combined meshless Galerkin method with LSM. Makhija and Maute [138] applied a generalized Heaviside enrichment strategy with XFEM formulation. Mohamadian and Shojaee [139] combined binary level-set method and Merriman-Bence-Osher scheme. Otomori et al. [140] used LSM in the design of negative permeability dielectric metamaterials. Shojaee and Mohammadian [141] combined piecewise constant level-set (PCLS) method with a MBO scheme. Shu et al. [142] used LSM to minimize frequency response which results in the reduction in the vibration of structure. Shu et al. [143] used LSM in the design of coupled structural-acoustic system with a focus on interior noise reduction. Suresh and Takalloozadeh [144] used LSM considering stress constraints. Xia et al. [145] used LSM to maximize the simple or repeated first eigenvalue of structure vibration. Xia et al. [146] built a strict 0–1 model considering stress to be minimized. Xia et al. [147] optimized both structure and support using traction free and Dirichlet boundaries separately. Yamasaki et al. [148] proposed a method combined application of boundary element mesh with LSM. Zhu and Zhang [149] used LSM without re-initialization for the optimization of compliant mechanisms. Zhu et al. [150] combined projection Lagrangian method with piecewise constant level-set functions to manage the optimization for elliptic boundary value problems. Zhu et al. [151] used LSM to optimize hinge-free compliant mechanisms with multiple outputs. Zhu and Zhang [152] developed an accelerated level-set evolution algorithm by adding an extra energy function to be able to optimize the distributed compliant mechanisms. Zhu et al. [153] developed a new LSM to manage multiobjective optimization of hinge-free compliant mechanisms.

3.6 Meshless methods

Lin et al. [154] generated a method mimicking leaf venation and using element-free Galerkin method to design heat conduction channels. Wang and Luo [155] proposed a meshless Galerkin level-set method using compactly supported radial basis functions to construct the meshless shape functions. Cui et al. [156] proposed a new method based on SIMP and using EFG method for multi-material optimization problems. Zhao [157] developed a new approach based on Pareto frontier solutions using EFG method. He et al. [158] combined density variable approach with EFG to optimize geometrically nonlinear structures. Evgrafov [159] proposed a method based on SIMP combined with Petrov-Galerkin methods based on minimizing the squared residual. Khan et al. [160] used EFG with LSM and also implemented sensitivity analysis. Gong et al. [161] developed a new method, particle moving, based on EFG considering density gradient and combined it with SIMP. Hur et al. [162] used a Spline-based meshfree method where nonuniform rational B-spline functions are used to smooth trimmed boundaries. Ren et al. [163] used a method combination of EFG and SIMP to design a two-material micro-compliant mechanism under stress constraints. Zhang et al. [164] applied a combined method of SIMP and direct coupling method of FE and EFG methods to decrease computational cost of meshless methods. Ai and Gao [165] integrated a parametric level-set method with a meshless method based on compactly supported radial basis functions. Wang et al. [166] applied EFG to the design of large displacement compliant mechanisms having geometrical nonlinearity. Yang et al. [167] applied EFG to the design of continuum structures under displacement constraints. Kefal et al. [38] combined BESO with a new meshless method peridynamics. Zheng et al. [168] used a combination of SIMP and EFG to optimize free vibrating continuum structures. Zhang et al. [169] used a directly coupled FE and EFG to optimize nonlinear hyperelastic structures. Luo et al. [36] used dual-level point-wise density approximation with EFG. Wu et al. [170] improved EFG by adding moving least squares approximation. Zheng et al. [171] used EFG to optimize geometrically nonlinear continuum structures. Zhao [172] combined BESO with EFG.


4. Emerging areas and recommendations

Sigmund and Maute [11] drawn a good framework on the classification of methodologies, and they pointed an important spot that differences between topology optimization approaches become small and an approach evolves into the other by the time such as evolutionary methods are converging towards discrete SIMP schemes. However, this trend has gone forward using hybrid approaches rather than becoming similar techniques to keep all the approaches having their advantages and limitations. There are many studies using hybrid methodologies given before under different headings, but there is still room for new applications. Especially from evolutionary algorithms perspective, using new optimization algorithms will enable to improve methodologies advanced up to now.

Another important area to work on is how uncertainties are handled. Topology optimization of small sized systems brings researchers to the position where small changes should be taken into account as todays’ technology is covering nano-sized systems beyond MEMS. In any case when changes are formed either because of manufacturing errors or that applied loads has caused comparatively large deformations on members, it will not be possible to use precise geometry and crisp size values in the optimization stage. So, handling uncertainties such as using fuzzy systems is still an open field to study.

Lastly, another rapidly growing area at the last decade is rapid prototyping. Even though there are abundant studies in literature (over a hundred studies could be easily found [173]), new algorithms on the application of BESO, handling composite/functionally graded materials, and considering support and structure in the meantime are the promising areas to study.

In addition to the aforementioned emerging areas, researchers are encouraged to study (1) to develop the efficiency of standard methods; (2) to construct new benchmarking problems; (3) to consider several constraints rather than buckling, stress, or displacement of such natural frequency; (4) to adapt meshes to nonlinear geometries with a more accurate way; (5) to develop GUIs to help researcher to observe/interfere the optimization stage; and (6) to implement new meshless methods rather than EFG such as peridynamics.


  1. 1. Zhu J, Gao T. Topology Optimization in Engineering Structure Design. London: ISTE Press - Elsevier; 2016
  2. 2. Banichuk NV. Introduction to Optimization of Structures. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2013
  3. 3. Querin OM, Victoria M, Gordoa CA, Ansola R, Martí P. Topology Design Methods for Structural Optimization. London: Academic Press; 2017
  4. 4. Bujny M, Aulig N, Olhofer M, Duddeck F. Evolutionary Crashworthiness Topology Optimization of Thin-walled Structures. Munich, Germany: ASMO UK; 2016
  5. 5. Zhang X, Zhu B. Topology Optimization of Compliant Mechanisms. Singapore: Springer; 2018
  6. 6. Zargham S, Ward TA, Ramli R, Badruddin IA. Topology optimization: A review for structural designs under vibration problems. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2016;53(6):1157-1177
  7. 7. Eschenauer HA, Olhoff N. Topology optimization of continuum structures: A review. Applied Mechanics Reviews. 2001;54(4):331-390
  8. 8. Huang X, Xie YM. A further review of ESO type methods for topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2010;41(5):671-683
  9. 9. Munk DJ, Vio GA, Steven GP. Topology and shape optimization methods using evolutionary algorithms: A review. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2015;52(3):613-631
  10. 10. van Dijk NP, Maute K, Langelaar M, Van Keulen F. Level-set methods for structural topology optimization: A review. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2013;48(3):437-472
  11. 11. Sigmund O, Maute K. Topology optimization approaches. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2013;48(6):1031-1055
  12. 12. Rozvany GI. A critical review of established methods of structural topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2009;37(3):217-237
  13. 13. Kingman J, Tsavdaridis KD, Toropov VV. Applications of topology optimization in structural engineering: High-rise buildings and steel components. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering,. Leeds; 2015;159(3097):1-23
  14. 14. Bendsoe MP, Olhoff N, Sigmund O, editors. IUTAM Symposium on Topological Design Optimization of Structures, Machines and Materials: Status and Perspectives. Vol. 137. Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.; 2006
  15. 15. Dassault Systems. Tosca structure: Optimize with ABAQUS, ANSYS, or MSC NASTRAN. 2019. Available from:
  16. 16. Bruggi M, Taliercio A. Topology optimization for the development of eco-efficient masonry units. In: Eco-Efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2015. pp. 425-445
  17. 17. Dems K. First-and second-order shape sensitivity analysis of structures. Structural Optimization. 1991;3(2):79-88
  18. 18. The Constructor: Civil Engineering Home. Topology Optimization of Structures. 2019. Available from:
  19. 19. Bendsoe M, Sigmund O. Topology optimization: Theory, methods and applications. Berlin: Springer; 2003
  20. 20. Jung D, Gea HC. Topology optimization of nonlinear structures. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design. 2004;40(11):1417-1427
  21. 21. Zhang X, Ramos AS, Paulino GH. Material nonlinear topology optimization using the ground structure method with a discrete filtering scheme. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2017;55(6):2045-2072
  22. 22. Aage N, Andreassen E, Lazarov BS. Topology optimization using PETSc: An easy-to-use, fully parallel, open source topology optimization framework. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2015;51(3):565-572
  23. 23. Suresh K. A 199-line Matlab code for Pareto-optimal tracing in topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2010;42(5):665-679
  24. 24. Bochenek B, Tajs-Zielińska K. GHOST—Gate to Hybrid Optimization of Structural Topologies. Materials. 2019;12(7):1152
  25. 25. Atrek E. SHAPE: A structural shape optimization program. In: Software Systems for Structural Optimization. Basel: Birkhäuser; 1993. pp. 229-249
  26. 26. Eschenauer HA, Geilen J, Wahl HJ. SAPOP. In: Software Systems for Structural Optimization. Basel: Birkhäuser; 1993. pp. 207-227
  27. 27. Zuo ZH, Xie YM, Huang X. Evolutionary topology optimization of structures with multiple displacement and frequency constraints. Advances in Structural Engineering. 2012;15(2):359-372
  28. 28. Abdi M, Ashcroft I, Wildman R. Topology optimization of geometrically nonlinear structures using an evolutionary optimization method. Engineering Optimization. 2018;50(11):1850-1870
  29. 29. Sigmund O, Clausen A, Groen JP, Wu J. Topology optimization of structures and infill for additive manufacturing. In: 1st ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Simulation for Additive Manufacturing; Munich, Germany. 2017
  30. 30. Li L. Topology optimization of structures with microstructural and elastoplastic-damage effects [PhD thesis]. University of Notre Dame; 2018
  31. 31. Luo Y, Li Q , Liu S. A projection-based method for topology optimization of structures with graded surfaces. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2019;118(11):654-677
  32. 32. Shieh RC. Massively parallel structural design using stochastic optimization and mixed neural net/finite element analysis methods. Computing Systems in Engineering. 1994;5(4-6):455-467
  33. 33. Bendsøe MP. Optimal shape design as a material distribution problem. Structural Optimization. 1989;1(4):193-202
  34. 34. Bendsøe MP, Kikuchi N. Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a homogenization method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 1988;71(2):197-224
  35. 35. Jiang C, Jia H. Evolutionary based intelligent algorithm for topology optimization of structure. In: Sixth International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications. Vol. 1. California: IEEE; 2006. pp. 897-902
  36. 36. Luo Z, Zhang N, Wang Y, Gao W. Topology optimization of structures using meshless density variable approximants. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2013;93(4):443-464
  37. 37. Liu WK, Jun S, Li S, Adee J, Belytschko T. Reproducing kernel particle methods for structural dynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 1995;38(10):1655-1679
  38. 38. Kefal A, Sohouli A, Oterkus E, Yildiz M, Suleman A. Topology optimization of cracked structures using peridynamics. Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics. 2019;31(6):1645-1672
  39. 39. Sokół T, Rozvany GIN. On the adaptive ground structure approach for multi-load truss topology optimization. In: Tenth World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Orlando, FL. 2013. pp. 20-24
  40. 40. Zhang XS, de Sturler E, Paulino GH. Stochastic sampling for deterministic structural topology optimization with many load cases: Density-based and ground structure approaches. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2017;325:463-487
  41. 41. Xu X, Wang Y, Luo Y. An improved multi-objective topology optimization approach for tensegrity structures. Advances in Structural Engineering. 2018;21(1):59-70
  42. 42. Zhang X, Maheshwari S, Ramos AS Jr, Paulino GH. Macroelement and macropatch approaches to structural topology optimization using the ground structure method. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2016;142(11):04016090
  43. 43. Chun J, Paulino GH, Song J. Reliability-based topology optimization by ground structure method employing a discrete filtering technique. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2019;60(3):1035-1058
  44. 44. Gao G, Liu ZY, Li YB, Qiao YF. A new method to generate the ground structure in truss topology optimization. Engineering Optimization. 2017;49(2):235-251
  45. 45. Ha S, Guest JK. Topology optimization of 3D woven micro-lattices using a projection-based ground structure approach. In: 17th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference. 2016. p. 3214
  46. 46. Ha SH, Lee HY, Hemker KJ, Guest JK. Topology optimization of three-dimensional woven materials using a ground structure design variable representation. Journal of Mechanical Design. 2019;141(6). DOI: 061403
  47. 47. Kosaka K, Matsumoto S, Fujii D. Topology optimization of frame structures using ESO method and ground structure method. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering. 2016;81(721):547-553
  48. 48. Ramos AS, Paulino GH. Convex topology optimization for hyperelastic trusses based on the ground-structure approach. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2015;51(2):287-304
  49. 49. Shakya A, Nanakorn P, Petprakob W. A ground-structure-based representation with an element-removal algorithm for truss topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2018;58(2):657-675
  50. 50. Sokół T. Topology optimization of large-scale trusses using ground structure approach with selective subsets of active bars. In: 19th International Conference on Computer Methods in Mechanics (CMM), Warsaw, Poland. 2011. pp. 9-12
  51. 51. Wang N, Zhang X. Multi-material topology optimization of complaint mechanism using ground structure approach. In: 2014 International Conference on Manipulation, Manufacturing and Measurement on the Nanoscale (3M-NANO). New York: IEEE; 2014. pp. 249-254
  52. 52. Zegard T, Paulino GH. GRAND—Ground structure based topology optimization for arbitrary 2D domains using MATLAB. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2014;50(5):861-882
  53. 53. Zegard T, Paulino GH. GRAND3—Ground structure based topology optimization for arbitrary 3D domains using MATLAB. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2015;52(6):1161-1184
  54. 54. Zhang XS, Paulino GH, Ramos AS Jr. Multimaterial topology optimization with multiple volume constraints: Combining the ZPR update with a ground-structure algorithm to select a single material per overlapping set. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2018;114(10):1053-1073
  55. 55. Shao G. Comparison of BESO and SIMP to do structural topology optimization in discrete digital design, and then combine them into a hybrid method. In: The International Conference on Computational Design and Robotic Fabrication. Singapore: Springer; 2019. pp. 199-209
  56. 56. Lógó J. SIMP type topology optimization procedure considering uncertain load position. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering. 2012;56(2):213-219
  57. 57. Garcia-Lopez NP, Sanchez-Silva M, Medaglia AL, Chateauneuf A. A hybrid topology optimization methodology combining simulated annealing and SIMP. Computers & Structures. 2011;89(15-16):1512-1522
  58. 58. Gebremedhen HS, Woldemicahel DE, Hashim FM. Three-dimensional stress-based topology optimization using SIMP method. International Journal for Simulation and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization. 2019;10:A1
  59. 59. Jantos DR, Riedel C, Hackl K, Junker P. Comparison of thermodynamic topology optimization with SIMP. Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics. 2019;31(2):521-548
  60. 60. Jiao H, Zhou Q , Fan S, Li Y. A new hybrid topology optimization method coupling ESO and SIMP method. In: Proceedings of China Modern Logistics Engineering. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2015. pp. 373-384
  61. 61. Kandemir V, Dogan O, Yaman U. Topology optimization of 2.5 D parts using the SIMP method with a variable thickness approach. Procedia Manufacturing. 2018;17:29-36
  62. 62. Marck G, Nemer M, Harion JL, Russeil S, Bougeard D. Topology optimization using the SIMP method for multiobjective conductive problems. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals. 2012;61(6):439-470
  63. 63. Ospald F, Herzog R. SIMP based topology optimization for injection molding of SFRPs. In: World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimisation. Cham: Springer; 2017. pp. 850-861
  64. 64. Qiao H, Wang S, Zhao T, Tang H. Topology optimization for lightweight cellular material and structure simultaneously by combining SIMP with BESO. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology. 2019;33(2):729-739
  65. 65. Schlinquer T, Mohand-Ousaid A, Rakotondrabe M. Displacement amplifier mechanism for piezoelectric actuators design using SIMP topology optimization approach. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). New Jersey: IEEE; 2018. pp. 1-7
  66. 66. Tsai TD, Cheng CC. Topology optimization of flywheel rotors using SIMP method: A preliminary study. In: Advanced Materials Research. Vol. 579. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications; 2012. pp. 427-434
  67. 67. Wang X, Lin Z, Xia R. SIMP based topology optimization of a folding wing with mixed design variables. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD). New Jersey: IEEE; 2013. pp. 417-421
  68. 68. Yang S, Qi C, Hu P, Wei ZY, Wang YL. Topology optimization of electric vehicle body in white based on SIMP method. In: Advanced Materials Research. Vol. 308. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications; 2011. pp. 606-609
  69. 69. Yang SY, Li H, Ou YB. Topology optimization of suspension of the hard disk drive based on SIMP method. In: Advanced Materials Research. Vol. 819. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications; 2013. pp. 356-361
  70. 70. Yunfei B, Ming C, Yongyao L. Structural topology optimization for a robot upper arm based on SIMP method. In: Advances in Reconfigurable Mechanisms and Robots II. Cham: Springer; 2016. pp. 725-733
  71. 71. Zhang H, Ren XH. Topology optimization of continuum structures based on SIMP. In: Advanced Materials Research. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications; 2011. pp. 255, 14-219
  72. 72. Zhang W, Zhong W, Guo X. An explicit length scale control approach in SIMP-based topology optimization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2014;282:71-86
  73. 73. Zhang Y, Xiao M, Li H, Gao L, Chu S. Multiscale concurrent topology optimization for cellular structures with multiple microstructures based on ordered SIMP interpolation. Computational Materials Science. 2018;155:74-91
  74. 74. Zuo W, Saitou K. Multi-material topology optimization using ordered SIMP interpolation. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2017;55(2):477-491
  75. 75. Allaire G, Geoffroy-Donders P, Pantz O. Topology optimization of modulated and oriented periodic microstructures by the homogenization method. Computers & Mathematics with Applications. 2019;78(7):2197-2229
  76. 76. Geoffroy-Donders P, Allaire G, Pantz O. 3-d topology optimization of modulated and oriented periodic microstructures by the homogenization method. Journal of Computational Physics. 2019;401:108994
  77. 77. Zhang G, Khandelwal K. Computational design of finite strain auxetic metamaterials via topology optimization and nonlinear homogenization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2019;356:490-527
  78. 78. Lee J, Yoo J, Min S, Yoon M. Topology optimization of anisotropic magnetic composites in actuators using homogenization design method. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2019;60(4):1423-1436
  79. 79. El-Kahlout Y, Kiziltas G. Inverse synthesis of electromagnetic materials using homogenization based topology optimization. Progress in Electromagnetics Research. 2011;115:343-380
  80. 80. Noguchi Y, Yamada T, Izui K, Nishiwaki S. Topology optimization for hyperbolic acoustic metamaterials using a high-frequency homogenization method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2018;335:419-471
  81. 81. Larsen SD, Sigmund O, Groen JP. Optimal truss and frame design from projected homogenization-based topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2018;57(4):1461-1474
  82. 82. Milani G, Bruggi M. Simple homogenization-topology optimization approach for the pushover analysis of masonry walls. International Journal of Architectural Heritage. 2018;12(3):395-408
  83. 83. Groen JP, Sigmund O. Homogenization-based topology optimization for high-resolution manufacturable microstructures. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2018;113(8):1148-1163
  84. 84. Xia L, Breitkopf P. Design of materials using topology optimization and energy-based homogenization approach in Matlab. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2015;52(6):1229-1241
  85. 85. Bruggi M, Milani G. Optimal FRP reinforcement of masonry walls out-of-plane loaded: A combined homogenization-topology optimization approach complying with masonry strength domain. Computers & Structures. 2015;153:49-74
  86. 86. Kaminakis NT, Drosopoulos GA, Stavroulakis GE. Design and verification of auxetic microstructures using topology optimization and homogenization. Archive of Applied Mechanics. 2015;85(9-10):1289-1306
  87. 87. Martínez-Frutos J, Herrero-Pérez D. GPU acceleration for evolutionary topology optimization of continuum structures using isosurfaces. Computers & Structures. 2017;182:119-136
  88. 88. Daróczy L, Jármai K. From a quasi-static fluid-based evolutionary topology optimization to a generalization of BESO. Engineering Optimization. 2015;47(5):689-705
  89. 89. Tomšič P, Duhovnik J. Simultaneous topology and size optimization of 2D and 3D trusses using evolutionary structural optimization with regard to commonly used topologies. Advances in Mechanical Engineering. 2014;6:864807
  90. 90. Abdi M, Wildman R, Ashcroft I. Evolutionary topology optimization using the extended finite element method and isolines. Engineering Optimization. 2014;46(5):628-647
  91. 91. Ansola R, Veguería E, Canales J, Alonso C. Electro-thermal compliant mechanisms design by an evolutionary topology optimization method. Engineering Computations. 2013;30(7):961-981
  92. 92. Aulig N, Olhofer M. Neuro-evolutionary topology optimization of structures by utilizing local state features. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. New York: ACM; 2014. pp. 967-974
  93. 93. Aulig N, Olhofer M. State-based representation for structural topology optimization and application to crashworthiness. In: 2016 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). New Jersey: IEEE; 2016. pp. 1642-1649
  94. 94. Azamirad G, Arezoo B. Topology optimization of stamping die components using evolutionary structural optimization method. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture. 2017;231(4):690-698
  95. 95. Bureerat S, Sriworamas K. Simultaneous topology and sizing optimization of a water distribution network using a hybrid multiobjective evolutionary algorithm. Applied Soft Computing. 2013;13(8):3693-3702
  96. 96. Chen XM, Lai XD, Zhang X, Zhou X. Evolutionary topology optimization design of rotary lobe of roots vacuum pumps. In: Advanced Materials Research. Vol. 798. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications; 2013. pp. 365-368
  97. 97. Chen LY. Structural-acoustic topology analysis based on evolutionary structural optimization. In: Applied Mechanics and Materials. Vol. 575. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications; 2014. pp. 343-349
  98. 98. Cho KH, Park JY, Ryu SP, Han SY. Reliability-based topology optimization based on bidirectional evolutionary structural optimization using multi-objective sensitivity numbers. International Journal of Automotive Technology. 2011;12(6):849-856
  99. 99. Finotto VC, Lucena DS, da Silva WL, Valášek M. Quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm for topology optimization of modular cabled-trusses. Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures. 2015;22(8):670-680
  100. 100. Garcia-Lopez NP, Sanchez-Silva M, Medaglia AL, Chateauneuf A. An improved robust topology optimization approach using multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. Computers & Structures. 2013;125:1-10
  101. 101. Greiner D, Hajela P. Truss topology optimization for mass and reliability considerations—Co-evolutionary multiobjective formulations. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2012;45(4):589-613
  102. 102. Huang X, Xie YM. Evolutionary topology optimization of continuum structures including design-dependent self-weight loads. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design. 2011;47(8):942-948
  103. 103. Huang X, Xie YM, Jia B, Li Q , Zhou SW. Evolutionary topology optimization of periodic composites for extremal magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2012;46(3):385-398
  104. 104. Zuo ZH, Xie YM. Evolutionary topology optimization of continuum structures with a global displacement control. Computer-Aided Design. 2014;56:58-67
  105. 105. Jantos DR, Junker P, Hackl K. An evolutionary topology optimization approach with variationally controlled growth. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2016;310:780-801
  106. 106. Jia H, Beom HG, Wang Y, Lin S, Liu B. Evolutionary level set method for structural topology optimization. Computers & Structures. 2011;89(5-6):445-454
  107. 107. Kaminakis NT, Stavroulakis GE. Topology optimization for compliant mechanisms, using evolutionary-hybrid algorithms and application to the design of auxetic materials. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2012;43(6):2655-2668
  108. 108. Kunakote T, Bureerat S. Multi-objective topology optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Engineering Optimization. 2011;43(5):541-557
  109. 109. Li YD, Kuang B, Liu J. SIMP-based evolutionary structural optimization method for topology optimization. In: Applied Mechanics and Materials. Vol. 651. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications; 2014. pp. 2237-2240
  110. 110. Li Y, Huang X, Xie YM, Zhou SW. Evolutionary topology optimization of hinge-free compliant mechanisms. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences. 2014;86:69-75
  111. 111. Maleki Jebeli S, Shariat Panahi M. An evolutionary approach for simultaneous optimization of material property distribution and topology of FG structures. Engineering Computations. 2015;32(2):234-257
  112. 112. Okamoto Y, Tominaga Y, Wakao S, Sato S. Topology optimization of magnetostatic shielding using multistep evolutionary algorithms with additional searches in a restricted design space. The International Journal for Computation and Mathematics in Electrical and Electronic Engineering. 2014;33(3): 894-913
  113. 113. Picelli R, Vicente WM, Pavanello R, Xie YM. Evolutionary topology optimization for natural frequency maximization problems considering acoustic–structure interaction. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design. 2015;106:56-64
  114. 114. Riehl S, Steinmann P. A staggered approach to shape and topology optimization using the traction method and an evolutionary-type advancing front algorithm. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2015;287:1-30
  115. 115. Shi DY, Han JS, Kong LC, Lin L. Research on evolutionary topology optimization in ANSYS. In: Key Engineering Materials. Vol. 572. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications; 2014. pp. 547-550
  116. 116. Sun XF, Yang J, Xie YM, Huang X, Zuo ZH. Topology optimization of composite structure using bi-directional evolutionary structural optimization method. Procedia Engineering. 2011;14:2980-2985
  117. 117. Tominaga Y, Okamoto Y, Wakao S, Sato S. Binary-based topology optimization of magnetostatic shielding by a hybrid evolutionary algorithm combining genetic algorithm and extended compact genetic algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics. 2013;49(5):2093-2096
  118. 118. Wang BQ , Wang BL, Huang ZY. Topology optimization for constrained layer damping plates using evolutionary structural optimization method. In: Advanced Materials Research. Vol. 894. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications; 2014. pp. 158-162
  119. 119. Fritzen F, Xia L, Leuschner M, Breitkopf P. Topology optimization of multiscale elastoviscoplastic structures. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2016;106(6):430-453
  120. 120. Xia L, Fritzen F, Breitkopf P. Evolutionary topology optimization of elastoplastic structures. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2017;55(2):569-581
  121. 121. Zhu B, Zhang X, Fatikow S, Wang N. Bi-directional evolutionary level set method for topology optimization. Engineering Optimization. 2015;47(3):390-406
  122. 122. Allaire G, Dapogny C, Frey P. A mesh evolution algorithm based on the level set method for geometry and topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2013;48(4):711-715
  123. 123. Chen S, Chen W. A new level-set based approach to shape and topology optimization under geometric uncertainty. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2011;44(1):1-18
  124. 124. Van Dijk NP, Langelaar M, Van Keulen F. Explicit level-set-based topology optimization using an exact Heaviside function and consistent sensitivity analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2012;91(1):67-97
  125. 125. Dunning PD, Alicia Kim H. A new hole insertion method for level set based structural topology optimization. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2013;93(1):118-134
  126. 126. Emmendoerfer H Jr, Fancello EA. A level set approach for topology optimization with local stress constraints. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2014;99(2):129-156
  127. 127. Gomes MA, Henriques B, Couto M, Carvalho A. A new tool for topology optimization with gradient-guided spectral level set methodology. In: 52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference 19th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference 13t. 2011. p. 2092
  128. 128. Guo X, Zhang WS, Wang MY, Wei P. Stress-related topology optimization via level set approach. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2011;200(47-48):3439-3452
  129. 129. Otomori M, Yamada T, Andkjær J, Izui K, Nishiwaki S, Kogiso N. Level set-based topology optimization for the design of an electromagnetic cloak with ferrite material. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics. 2013;49(5):2081-2084
  130. 130. Otomori M, Yamada T, Izui K, Nishiwaki S, Kogiso N. Level set-based topology optimization for the design of light-trapping structures. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics. 2014;50(2):729-732
  131. 131. Guo X, Zhang W, Zhong W. Explicit feature control in structural topology optimization via level set method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2014;272:354-378
  132. 132. James KA, Lee E, Martins JR. Stress-based topology optimization using an isoparametric level set method. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design. 2012;58:20-30
  133. 133. James KA, Martins JR. An isoparametric approach to level set topology optimization using a body-fitted finite-element mesh. Computers & Structures. 2012;90:97-106
  134. 134. Jang GW, van Dijk NP, van Keulen F. Topology optimization of MEMS considering etching uncertainties using the level-set method. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2012;92(6):571-588
  135. 135. Lim S, Yamada T, Min S, Nishiwaki S. Topology optimization of a magnetic actuator based on a level set and phase-field approach. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics. 2011;47(5):1318-1321
  136. 136. Liu T, Wang S, Li B, Gao L. A level-set-based topology and shape optimization method for continuum structure under geometric constraints. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2014;50(2):253-273
  137. 137. Luo Z, Zhang N, Gao W, Ma H. Structural shape and topology optimization using a meshless Galerkin level set method. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2012;90(3):369-389
  138. 138. Makhija D, Maute K. Numerical instabilities in level set topology optimization with the extended finite element method. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2014;49(2):185-197
  139. 139. Mohamadian M, Shojaee S. Binary level set method for structural topology optimization with MBO type of projection. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2012;89(5):658-670
  140. 140. Otomori M, Yamada T, Izui K, Nishiwaki S, Andkjær J. A topology optimization method based on the level set method for the design of negative permeability dielectric metamaterials. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2012;237:192-211
  141. 141. Shojaee S, Mohammadian M. Piecewise constant level set method for structural topology optimization with MBO type of projection. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2011;44(4):455-469
  142. 142. Shu L, Wang MY, Fang Z, Ma Z, Wei P. Level set based structural topology optimization for minimizing frequency response. Journal of Sound and Vibration. 2011;330(24):5820-5834
  143. 143. Shu L, Wang MY, Ma Z. Level set based topology optimization of vibrating structures for coupled acoustic–structural dynamics. Computers & Structures. 2014;132:34-42
  144. 144. Suresh K, Takalloozadeh M. Stress-constrained topology optimization: A topological level-set approach. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2013;48(2):295-309
  145. 145. Xia Q , Shi T, Wang MY. A level set based shape and topology optimization method for maximizing the simple or repeated first eigenvalue of structure vibration. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2011;43(4):473-485
  146. 146. Xia Q , Shi T, Liu S, Wang MY. A level set solution to the stress-based structural shape and topology optimization. Computers & Structures. 2012;90:55-64
  147. 147. Xia Q , Wang MY, Shi T. A level set method for shape and topology optimization of both structure and support of continuum structures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2014;272:340-353
  148. 148. Yamasaki S, Yamada T, Matsumoto T. An immersed boundary element method for level-set based topology optimization. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2013;93(9):960-988
  149. 149. Zhu BL, Zhang XM. Topology optimization of compliant mechanisms using level set method without re-initialization. In: Applied Mechanics and Materials. Vol. 130. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications; 2012. pp. 3076-3082
  150. 150. Zhu S, Wu Q , Liu C. Shape and topology optimization for elliptic boundary value problems using a piecewise constant level set method. Applied Numerical Mathematics. 2011;61(6):752-767
  151. 151. Zhu B, Zhang X, Wang N. Topology optimization of hinge-free compliant mechanisms with multiple outputs using level set method. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2013;47(5):659-672
  152. 152. Zhu B, Zhang X. A new level set method for topology optimization of distributed compliant mechanisms. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 2012;91(8):843-871
  153. 153. Zhu B, Zhang X, Wang N, Fatikow S. Topology optimization of hinge-free compliant mechanisms using level set methods. Engineering Optimization. 2014;46(5):580-605
  154. 154. Lin Q , Wang J, Hong J, Liu Z, Wang Z. A biomimetic generative optimization design for conductive heat transfer based on element-free Galerkin method. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer. 2019;100:67-72
  155. 155. Wang Y, Luo Z. A meshless level set method for shape and topology optimization. In: Advanced Materials Research. Vol. 308. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications; 2011. pp. 1046-1049
  156. 156. Cui M, Chen H, Zhou J, Wang F. A meshless method for multi-material topology optimization based on the alternating active-phase algorithm. Engineering with Computers. 2017;33(4):871-884
  157. 157. Zhao F. A meshless Pareto-optimal method for topology optimization. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements. 2013;37(12):1625-1631
  158. 158. He Q , Kang Z, Wang Y. A topology optimization method for geometrically nonlinear structures with meshless analysis and independent density field interpolation. Computational Mechanics. 2014;54(3):629-644
  159. 159. Evgrafov A. Discontinuous Petrov-Galerkin methods for topology optimization. In: International Conference on Engineering Optimization. Cham: Springer; 2018. pp. 260-271
  160. 160. Khan W, Islam S, Ullah B. Structural optimization based on meshless element free Galerkin and level set methods. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2019;344:144-163
  161. 161. Gong SG, Wei YB, Xie GL, Zhang JP. Study on topology optimization method of particle moving based on element-free Galerkin method. International Journal for Computational Methods in Engineering Science and Mechanics. 2018;19(5):305-313
  162. 162. Hur J, Kang P, Youn SK. Topology optimization based on spline-based meshfree method using topological derivatives. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology. 2017;31(5):2423-2431
  163. 163. Ren L, Yang R, Zhang W. Topology optimization design for two-material micro compliant mechanism with stress constraint. In: 2011 Second International Conference on Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering. New Jersey: IEEE; 2011, July. pp. 1843-1846
  164. 164. Zhang Y, Ge W, Zhang Y, Zhao Z. Topology optimization method with direct coupled finite element–element-free Galerkin method. Advances in Engineering Software. 2018;115:217-229
  165. 165. Ai L, Gao XL. Topology optimization of 2-D mechanical metamaterials using a parametric level set method combined with a meshfree algorithm. Composite Structures. 2019;229:111318
  166. 166. Wang Y, Luo Z, Wu J, Zhang N. Topology optimization of compliant mechanisms using element-free Galerkin method. Advances in Engineering Software. 2015;85:61-72
  167. 167. Yang X, Zheng J, Long S. Topology optimization of continuum structures with displacement constraints based on meshless method. International Journal of Mechanics and Materials in Design. 2017;13(2):311-320
  168. 168. Zheng J, Long S, Li G. Topology optimization of free vibrating continuum structures based on the element free Galerkin method. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2012;45(1):119-127
  169. 169. Zhang Y, Ge W, Zhang Y, Zhao Z, Zhang J. Topology optimization of hyperelastic structure based on a directly coupled finite element and element-free Galerkin method. Advances in Engineering Software. 2018;123:25-37
  170. 170. Wu Y, Ma YQ , Feng W, Cheng YM. Topology optimization using the improved element-free Galerkin method for elasticity. Chinese Physics B. 2017;26(8):080203
  171. 171. Zheng J, Yang X, Long S. Topology optimization with geometrically non-linear based on the element free Galerkin method. International Journal of Mechanics and Materials in Design. 2015;11(3):231-241
  172. 172. Zhao F. Topology optimization with meshless density variable approximations and BESO method. Computer-Aided Design. 2014;56:1-10
  173. 173. Liu J, Gaynor AT, Chen S, Kang Z, Suresh K, Takezawa A, et al. Current and future trends in topology optimization for additive manufacturing. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 2018;57(6):2457-2483

Written By

Aykut Kentli

Submitted: 17 March 2019 Reviewed: 13 November 2019 Published: 16 December 2019