Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 201 (2022) 103695

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Finite Elements in Analysis & Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/finel

Topology optimization for transient response problems involving

thermoelastic materials
S. Ogawa a,b , T. Yamada a ,∗
a Department of Strategic Studies, Institute of Engineering Innovation, The University of Tokyo, 11-16, Yayoi-2, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8656, Japan
b
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd, 1-1 Shinhama, 2-chome, Arai-cho, Takasago City, Hyogo, 676-8686, Japan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: A topology optimization method is proposed for transient response problems involving thermoelastic models,
Topology optimization where the objective is to optimize the structure considering time-dependent dynamic and thermal loads.
Multi-objective optimization The proposed method can be applied to problems involving thermal deformation and stress, which damage
Dynamics analysis
heated machine parts. This paper presents a transient response analysis of a thermoelastic model subjected to
Thermoelasticity
mechanical and thermal loads having arbitrary profiles with respect to time. This can be formulated as a multi-
Adjoint sensitivity analysis
Stress minimization
objective optimization problem to obtain a structure that minimizes the deformation and maximum stress. A
sensitivity analysis was conducted by using the adjoint variable method and the discretize-then-differentiate
approach. The proposed method was applied to numerical examples for validation.

1. Introduction Topology optimization has already been applied to static problems

Machine parts such as gas turbines and aircraft engines are used
in high-temperature environments and can be damaged by thermal
deformation and stress. Particularly, the machine performance can
deteriorate over time because of increasing thermal deformation and
fatigue. To solve this problem, the thermal deformation and stress
should be reduced, which involves optimizing the structure of the ma-
chine parts. However, the external and thermal loads change over time
depending on the operating conditions of the machine. Thus, in the
structural optimization of heated machine parts, the deformation and
stress resulting from time-dependent dynamic and thermal loads must
be considered. Additionally, because thermal deformation and stress
are caused by differences between the thermal expansion coefficients of
multi-materials, the arrangement of composite materials must also be
optimized. Also, structures that preferentially reduce the deformation
or stress are not necessarily the same, which leads to a multi-objective
optimization problem to balance the tradeoffs. This problem has many
variables, which not only requires a complex design process with much
trial and error but also may not have a solution that satisfies the desired
conditions. One potential solution is topology optimization [1], which
is a method of optimizing the structure of the target object on the basis
of the governing equations of physical laws and mathematics. Topology
optimization can be applied to determine the optimal configuration
of a composite material for reducing thermal deformation and stress
considering time-dependent external and thermal loads.
such as stiffness maximization [2], stress minimization [3], and stress
constraint problems [4,5]. It is also being actively studied for dy-
namic problems such as the frequency response [6,7] and transient
response [8] with dynamic compliance as the objective function.
To apply topology optimization to thermal deformation and stress,
a thermoelastic model needs to be considered. For static problems,
many efforts have already been reported for minimizing deformation
and stress constraints. However, these approaches cannot be applied
to more advanced designs because the variation of external and ther-
mal loads over time cannot be considered in static problems. Gao
et al. [9] considered the thermoelastic behavior of multi-materials and
proposed a method for reducing deformation by minimizing structural
compliance through topology optimization. In the density method for
topology optimization, the structure is represented by the shading of
the element density inside the design domain, so the material properties
are related to the element density. Gao et al. adopted a new variable
called a thermal stress coefficient and extended the problem from a
single material to multi-materials. Furthermore, the RAMP method [10]
was shown to be more effective than the SIMP method [11] in regu-
larizing the material properties. Zhu et al. [12] dealt with minimizing
the structure compliance under temperature constraints for coupled
thermal and structural problems. Regarding other problems, Yamada
et al. [13] addressed the design problem of thermal actuators via
topology optimization of compliant mechanisms assuming thermoe-
lastic behavior. Deaton et al. [14] proposed a method for solving

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: t.yamada@mech.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp (T. Yamada).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2021.103695
Received 7 June 2021; Received in revised form 28 September 2021; Accepted 8 November 2021
Available online 30 December 2021
0168-874X/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada
thermoelastic problems considering stress constraints. They considered
the maximum stress constraint problem for finding a single material
configuration assuming a temperature difference from the uniform
stress-free temperature in the design domain. A constraint function for
stress was defined based on the p-norm concept, and the effectiveness
of the qp-reduction method [15,16] at stress relaxation to eliminate
singularities in the no-material domain was demonstrated. Takezawa
et al. [17] proposed a method for solving thermo-structural coupled
problems considering stress and heat transfer constraints. For the stress
constraint, they applied the same qp-reduction method as in Deaton
et al. However, the treatment of stress as an evaluation function in
the above optimization problems has only been considered for a single
material, and no studies have considered multi-materials. Other stress
relaxation methods have been proposed to eliminate the singularity
phenomenon, such as the epsilon relaxation method [18]. However,
all of these assume a single material, and the stresses evaluated by
dynamic structural analysis and stress constraint functions differ in the
grayscale domain. The case of no stress relaxation is assumed to lead
to excessive grayscale, so the cause of this problem and its solution
must still be explored. In topology optimization of density methods,
grayscale issues are well known. Therefore, there are several studies on
grayscale removal methods. Borrvall and Petersson [19] have proposed
Explicit penalization. This method considers a penalty function that has
only grayscale values in the objective function, and removes grayscale
by including this function and minimizing it. Alternatively, Sigmund
and Maute [20] have introduced projection schemes. In addition to fil-
tering the design variables, this approach uses the heaviside projection
to sharply represent the optimal configuration and remove grayscale.
A new initiative is the study of robust topology optimization in
thermoelastic models. Alacoque et al. [21] applied the robust topol-
ogy optimization to determine the microstructure of a multi-material
problem and showed computational examples such as negative thermal
expansion materials. Similarly, Li et al. [22] proposed a design method
for meta-materials with negative thermal expansion, considering the
uncertainty of material properties.
Compared with static problems, few studies have considered apply-
ing topology optimization to thermoelastic models of dynamic prob-
lems, and no studies have considered stress as an evaluation function.
Yang et al. [23,24] dealt with a dynamic compliance minimization
problem that considered a two-phase material for the equation of
motion expanded in the frequency domain. They showed that the
optimization results for the soft structure differed when the effect
of loading was considered. However, their study was limited in that
it focused on the frequency response and only considered harmonic
vibration loads such as sin(t), so their approach cannot be applied to
loads with arbitrary waveforms. Particularly, the thermal load in their
numerical example was time-invariant. In actual design problems, loads
and thermal loads often have complex waveforms other than harmonic
vibration. Therefore, such methods need to be extended to consider
loads and thermal loads with arbitrary time-dependent profiles.
Topology optimization can be applied to transient response prob-
lems with arbitrary load profiles. This method is highly versatile be-
cause it can be applied to load profiles that cannot be dealt with
by frequency response problems; the equations of motion are directly
solved by using the step-by-step integration method. However, this
leads to an optimization problem that depends on all deformation
histories considered in the analysis, which complicates the sensitiv-
ity analysis required to obtain the structure. Two sensitivity analysis
methods have been proposed: differentiate-then-discretize approach [8]
and discretize-then-differentiate approach [25]. Generally, transient
response analysis requires discretization in the time and space domains.
The differentiate-then-discretize approach applies a sensitivity analysis
on the equations of motion before the discretization in the time do-
main. By contrast, the discretize-then-differentiate approach applies the
sensitivity analysis on the equations of motion after discretization in
the time domain. Jacob et al. [26] discussed the difference between
2
Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695
the two approaches for transient response problems. Particularly, they
compared the accuracies of the two sensitivity analyses with a one-
dimensional model. They showed that the discretize-then-differentiate
approach is more accurate than the differentiate-then-discretize ap-
proach because the equations of motion are discretized in the time
domain, and the resulting equations are the same as those solved in
the numerical analysis. In particular, it is advantageous in that it can
ensure the accuracy of sensitivity even when the time increment size is
set large. As a result, the number of analysis steps can be reduced when
performing analysis on long time scales, which is highly effective from
the perspective of reducing the computational cost.
As an application of topology optimization to actual transient re-
sponse problems, Zhao et al. [27] discussed minimizing deformation of
a linearly elastic model by using the dynamic compliance and strain
energy as objective functions. They proposed setting the objective
function by applying the KS function and p-norm to minimize the
maximum displacement occurring at all times. However, the previous
studies focused on displacements, and no studies have considered stress
reduction or thermoelastic behavior. Therefore, topology optimization
for transient response problems needs to be expanded in scope to
reduce both deformation and stress considering thermoelastic behavior.
In this study, we developed a methodology for topology optimiza-
tion of a transient response problem considering thermoelastic behav-
ior, which is formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem
to minimize the deformation and maximum stress. Particularly, we
developed an objective function for multi-objective optimization and
addressed stress minimization for two-phase materials, which has not
yet been considered. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to ensure that
the optimized structure accurately considers the time-varying behav-
ior of the thermoelastic model. Section 2 discusses the thermoelastic
constitutive law and governing equations considered in the transient re-
sponse analysis. Section 3 describes the setup for topology optimization
of two-phase materials using the density method. Section 4 defines the
evaluation functions and sets up the multi-objective optimization prob-
lem of minimizing both deformation and stress. Section 5 describes the
sensitivity analysis of the optimization problem defined in Section 4.
Section 6 validates the sensitivity analysis based on values obtained
from the finite difference method as a benchmark. Sections 7 and
8 presents several numerical examples to demonstrate that the pro-
posed method can produce appropriate optimization results. Section 9
summarizes the conclusions and future work.
2. Governing equations
We considered a homogeneous isotropic thermoelastic material as-
suming a two-dimensional (2-D) plane stress condition. The Cauchy
stress 𝝈 is defined as
( )
𝝈 = 𝑪 𝑚 𝜺 − 𝜺𝑡ℎ , (1)
where 𝜺 and 𝜺𝑡ℎ are the strain and thermal strain, respectively. For a
2-D problem, the thermal strain is defined as
𝜺𝑡ℎ = 𝛼𝑚 𝛥𝑇 𝑰, (2)
where 𝛼𝑚 is the coefficient of thermal expansion, 𝛥𝑇 is the temperature
difference from the reference temperature for the thermal stress, and
𝑰 = (1, 1, 0)T . 𝑪 𝑚 is the elastic stiffness matrix and can be divided into
Young’s modulus 𝐸𝑚 and Young’s modulus-independent term 𝑪: ̄
̄
𝑪 𝑚 = 𝐸𝑚 𝑪. (3)
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695

Eqs. (2) and (3) can be used to rewrite Eq. (1) as follows: unconditional stability condition. By substituting Eqs. (13) and (14)
( ) into Eq. (7), we can express the equations of motion as
𝝈 = 𝐸𝑚 𝑪̄ 𝜺 − 𝛼𝑚 𝛥𝑇 𝑰 ( ) ( )
1 𝛾 ( ) 1 1
= 𝐸𝑚 𝑪𝜺 ̄
̄ − 𝐸𝑚 𝛼𝑚 𝑪𝛥𝑇 𝑰 𝑴+ 𝑪 𝒖𝑖 − 𝒖𝑖−1 + 𝑲𝒖𝑖 − 𝑴𝒗𝑖−1 − − 1 𝑴𝒂𝑖−1
𝛽𝛥𝑡 2 𝛽𝛥𝑡 𝛽𝛥𝑡 2𝛽
̄ − 𝛯𝑚 𝑪𝛥𝑇
= 𝐸𝑚 𝑪𝜺 ̄ 𝑰. (4) ( ) ( )
𝛾 𝛾 ext th
+ 1− 𝑪𝒗𝑖−1 + 1 − 𝛥𝑡𝑪𝒂𝑖−1 = 𝑭 𝑖 + 𝑭 𝑖 . (15)
We can obtain the thermal stress coefficient 𝛯𝑚 [9] by multiplying 𝛽 2𝛽
Young’s modulus 𝐸𝑚 by the thermal expansion coefficient 𝛼𝑚 . The The displacement 𝒖𝑖 of the next time step 𝑖 can be obtained by using
governing equations are the following equations of motion: the variables of the time step 𝑖 − 1.
⎧ −𝜌 𝒂 + ∇ ⋅ 𝝈 = 𝟎 on 𝛺,
⎪ 𝑚
3. Topology optimization
⎨ 𝒖=𝒖 on 𝛤𝑢 , (5)
⎪ 𝒕=𝒕 on 𝛤𝑡 .
⎩ 3.1. Concept of topology optimization considering two-phase materials
𝛺 is the domain occupied by the object, 𝛤𝑢 is the boundary where the
displacement 𝒖 is constrained, and 𝒖̄ is the specified displacement given Topology optimization for two-phase materials can be treated as
as a condition. 𝛤𝑡 represents the boundary where the external load acts, determining the optimal arrangement of two types of materials in a
𝒕 is the surface force vector, and 𝒕̄ is the surface force vector given as a fixed design domain 𝛺𝑑 . The domains occupied by material 1 and
condition. 𝒂 is the acceleration, and 𝜌𝑚 is the mass density. The weak material 2 can be denoted as 𝛺1 and 𝛺2 , respectively. The distribution
form of Eq. (5) can be written as of material 2 at an arbitrary position 𝒙 inside the fixed design domain
𝛺𝑑 is represented by the following characteristic function 𝜒 (𝒙):
𝜌𝑚 𝒂 ⋅ 𝛿𝒖 d𝛺 + 𝝈 ∶ 𝛿𝜺 d𝛺 = 𝒕̄ ⋅ 𝛿𝒖 d𝛤 , (6) {
∫𝛺 ∫𝛺 ∫𝛤𝑡
1 if 𝒙 ∈ 𝛺2
𝜒 (𝒙) = (16)
𝛿𝒖 and 𝛿𝜺 are the virtual displacement and strain, respectively. The 0 if 𝒙 ∈ 𝛺1 ,
constraint 𝛿𝒖 = 0 is satisfied at the displacement-defining boundary 𝛤𝑢 .
where the relation 𝛺𝑑 = 𝛺1 ∪ 𝛺2 is satisfied. The characteristic func-
Note that 𝝈 in Eq. (6) is the Cauchy stress tensor. In finite element
tion 𝜒 (𝒙) has no conditions other than integrability, so the topology
analysis, the equations of motion can be expressed as a matrix by
optimization problem is ill-posed because it allows infinitely small sub-
discretizing Eq. (6) in the spatial domain:
structures. This issue arises from the use of this characteristic function
𝑴𝒂 + 𝑲𝒖 = 𝑭 ext + 𝑭 th , (7) to represent the material distribution, regardless of the objective or
constraint function. The ill-posed problem needs to be replaced with
where 𝑴 is the mass matrix, 𝑭 is the external force vector, and 𝑭 th
ext
a well-posed problem that has a solution.
is the thermal load vector. The shape function 𝑵 and B-matrix 𝑩 used
in the finite element method can be defined as follows:
3.2. RAMP method and filtering method
𝑴= 𝑵 T 𝜌𝑚 𝑵 d𝛺, (8)
∫𝛺
We adopted the density method to replace the ill-posed problem
𝑲= 𝑩 T 𝐸𝑚 𝑪𝑩
̄ d𝛺, (9) with a well-posed problem. Based on the work by Gao et al. [9], we
∫𝛺
used the RAMP method [10] for two-phase materials to specify the ma-
ext
𝑭 (𝑡) = 𝑵 T 𝒕̄ (𝑡) d𝛤 , (10) terial distribution. To determine the arrangement of two materials with
∫𝛤𝑡
different physical properties, we can define the filling rate occupied by
𝑭 th (𝑡) = 𝑩 T 𝛯𝑚 𝑪𝛥𝑇
̄ (𝑡) 𝑰 d𝛺. (11) material 2 at position 𝒙 as the design variable 𝒔 (0 ≤ 𝑠 (𝒙) ≤ 1). In other
∫𝛺 words, if 𝑠 (𝒙) = 0 at position 𝒙, the domain is filled with material 1; if
In transient response analysis, the external force vector 𝑭 ext and ther- 𝑠 (𝒙) = 1, the domain is filled with material 2.
mal load vector 𝑭 th depend on the time 𝑡. Furthermore, if we consider To address the possibility of deriving fine structures including the
the damping force proportional to the velocity 𝒗, the equations of checkerboard phenomenon [29], we adopted the density filter [30].
motion given in Eq. (7) can be extended as follows: In finite element analysis, the design variable 𝑠 (𝒙) can be defined
for each finite element. In this case, we used the design variable
𝑴𝒂 + 𝑪𝒗 + 𝑲𝒖 = 𝑭 ext + 𝑭 th , (12) 𝑠𝑒 (𝑒 = 1, 2, … , 𝑁) of the 𝑒th element discretized by 𝑁 finite elements
where 𝑪 is the damping matrix. In this study, we assumed that there to average the design variable with the surrounding values:
∑
is no damping term for simplicity and set 𝑪 = 𝟎. In the follow- 𝑤𝑗 𝑠𝑗
ing formulations, however, we include the damping matrix 𝑪 for 𝑗∈N𝑒
generality. 𝜌𝑒 (𝒔) = ∑ , (17)
𝑤𝑗
We employed the step-by-step integration method to solve the 𝑗∈N𝑒
equations of motion for our proposed topology optimization method
considering transient response behavior. Therefore, we apply one of the 𝜌𝑒 (𝒔) is the element density depending on the design variable 𝒔, and
implicit approaches, the Newmark 𝛽 method [28], to the discretization N𝑒 is the set of elements that exist in the domain where the distance
in the time direction. The advantage of this method is that it is an between the centers of an element and element 𝑒 is less than the filter
unconditionally stable time integration method and can be analyzed radius 𝑟f il . We define the weight coefficient 𝑤𝑗 as
by giving large time increments. In this case, we assume that the 𝑟f il − 𝑟𝑗
acceleration 𝒂 and velocity 𝒗 are given by 𝑤𝑗 = , (18)
𝑟f il
( )
1 ( ) 1 1 𝑟𝑗 is the distance between the centers of elements 𝑒 and 𝑗. In the RAMP
𝒂𝑖 = 𝒖𝑖 − 𝒖𝑖−1 − 𝒗𝑖−1 − − 1 𝒂𝑖−1 , (13)
𝛽𝛥𝑡 2 𝛽𝛥𝑡 2𝛽 method, Young’s modulus 𝐸𝑚 , thermal stress coefficient 𝛯𝑚 , and mass
( ) ( )
𝛾 ( ) 𝛾 𝛾 density 𝜌𝑚 are required to solve the equations of motion and are defined
𝒗𝑖 = 𝒖 − 𝒖𝑖−1 + 1 − 𝒗𝑖−1 + 1 − 𝛥𝑡𝒂𝑖−1 . (14)
𝛽𝛥𝑡 𝑖 𝛽 2𝛽 as functions of the element density 𝜌𝑒 :
{ ( ( )) ( )
Here, 𝑖 is the discretized time step, and 𝛥𝑡 is the time increment. 𝛽 and 1 − 𝑓𝑅1 𝜌𝑒 𝐸𝑚1 + 𝑓𝑅1 𝜌𝑒 𝐸2 𝐸𝑚1 ≤ 𝐸𝑚2
𝐸𝑚 = ( ) ( ( )) (19)
𝛾 are constants, which we set to 𝛽 = 0.25 and 𝛾 = 0.5 to realize the 𝑓𝑅2 𝜌𝑒 𝐸𝑚1 + 1 − 𝑓𝑅2 𝜌𝑒 𝐸𝑚2 𝐸𝑚1 > 𝐸𝑚2 ,

3
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695
{ ( ( )) ( )
1 − 𝑓𝑅1 𝜌𝑒 𝛯𝑚1 + 𝑓𝑅1 𝜌𝑒 𝛯𝑚2 𝛯𝑚1 ≤ 𝛯𝑚2
𝛯𝑚 = ( ) ( ( )) (20)
𝑓𝑅2 𝜌𝑒 𝛯𝑚1 + 1 − 𝑓𝑅2 𝜌𝑒 𝛯𝑚2 𝛯𝑚1 > 𝛯𝑚2 ,
( )
𝜌𝑚 = 1 − 𝜌𝑒 𝜌𝑚1 + 𝜌𝑒 𝜌𝑚2 , (21)

where (⋅)𝑚1 and (⋅)𝑚2 are material properties specific to material 1 and
material 2, respectively. 𝑓𝑅1 and 𝑓𝑅2 are interpolation functions in the
RAMP method and are defined as follows:
( ) 𝜌𝑒
𝑓𝑅1 𝜌𝑒 = ( ), (22)
1 + 𝑝 R 1 − 𝜌𝑒
( ) 1 − 𝜌𝑒
𝑓𝑅2 𝜌𝑒 = , (23)
1 + 𝑝 R 𝜌𝑒
𝑝𝑅 is the penalty coefficient of the RAMP method and was set to
𝑝𝑅 = 8. By defining the material properties as functions of the element
density 𝜌𝑒 (𝒔), the shape of the object in the fixed design domain can
be reflected in the dynamic analysis. In the topology optimization for
transient response problems, considering a single material, an unstable
phenomenon called spurious mode occurs. Usually, the stiffness is 0
in a void. However, in the fixed design domain, a small stiffness must
be given to the elements in the void domain for the convenience of Fig. 1. Profiles of interpolation functions..
analysis. This minim stiffness results in fictitious vibrations. Since it
affects the optimization results, the interpolation function of the mate-
rial properties should be considered to avoid this issue [25]. However, the p-norm obtained at each time in the time domain, the evaluation
spurious modes are not an issue in this study. The reason for this is that function becomes the sum of the maximum stresses occurring each time
we are dealing with a two-phase material, and even relatively less rigid and maintains the following relationship:
materials have much higher stiffness than a void. 𝑇
𝑣𝑀
𝑝 → ∞ ⇒ 𝑓𝑠 → 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 dt. (29)
4. Multi-objective optimization problem for deformation and max- ∫0
imum stress minimization Minimizing 𝑓𝑠 obtains the optimal structure for minimizing the max-
imum stress for all times covered in the analysis. However, because
4.1. Evaluation function 1: Squared norm of dynamic compliance 𝑝 → ∞ cannot be treated numerically, we used the large value of 𝑝 = 8.
The density method obtains a grayscale (intermediate density do-
We defined the squared norm of dynamic compliance as the eval- main) where the design variable is 0 < 𝑠𝑒 < 1. With the RAMP method,
uation function for the deformation under both an external force 𝑭 ext the dynamic analysis considers Young’s modulus 𝐸𝑚 as a small value in
and thermal load 𝑭 th , the grayscale compared with the case of a linear interpolation function,
[ 𝑇𝑓 ]1∕2 as shown in Fig. 1. Consequently, directly using this stress to evaluate
{ T ( ext )}2
𝑓𝑐 = 𝒖 𝑭 + 𝑭 th dt , (24) the objective function leads to inappropriate results inside the grayscale
∫0
because the stress is considered small in the domain of concern. To
where 𝑡 is the time and 𝑇𝑓 is the last time considered in the analysis. avoid this problem, the qp-reduction method [5] is considered, which
This evaluation function can be minimized to obtain a structure that gives an interpolation function of the following equation:
minimizes the deformation that occurs during the time covered by
the analysis. In the case of transient response problems, the condition 𝑔(𝜌) = 𝜌1∕2 . (30)
( )
𝒖T 𝑭 ext + 𝑭 th > 0 does not always hold. Therefore, we used the
As shown in Fig. 1, regularization of the von Mises stress by the
squared norm to ensure that the evaluation function is a minimization
function 𝑔(𝜌) allows a higher stress in the grayscale than the RAMP
problem.
method, which avoids the above problem. However, the qp-reduction
method is based on the assumption of a single material and cannot
4.2. Evaluation function 2: p-norm for the von Mises stress
be applied to two-phase materials. Furthermore, the stress obtained
by dynamic analysis in the grayscale is theoretically different from
We defined the p-norm with respect to the von Mises stress as the
the stress evaluated by the p-norm. Therefore, a different method is
evaluation function for the maximum stress on an object:
necessary for grayscale elimination.
𝑇𝑓
𝑓𝑠 = 𝜎 𝑃 𝑁 dt, (25)
∫0 4.3. Evaluation function 3: Explicit penalization term
{ }1∕𝑝
𝑃𝑁
( 𝑣𝑀 )𝑝
𝜎 = 𝜎 d𝛺 , (26)
∫𝛺 One of the disadvantages of the density method is the grayscale
remaining in the optimization result. Particularly, the grayscale prob-
𝜎 𝑣𝑀 is the von Mises stress. In the case of a 2-D plane stress condition,
lem has been reported for topology optimization considering thermal
the von Mises stress can be expressed in vector notation as the following
( )T stress [9]. A large grayscale may remain in the solutions to stress min-
components, where the Cauchy stress is denoted by 𝝈 = 𝜎𝑥 , 𝜎𝑦 , 𝜏𝑥𝑦 :
imization problems. We applied the explicit penalization term [19,27]
√
𝜎 𝑣𝑀 = 𝜎𝑥2 + 𝜎𝑦2 − 𝜎𝑥 𝜎𝑦 + 3𝜏𝑥𝑦
2 , (27) to eliminate the grayscale:
( )
∫ 𝜌 − 𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛 (1 − 𝜌) d𝛺
𝑝 is the exponent of the p-norm, and the following holds [31]: 𝑓𝑝 = 𝛺 , (31)
∫𝛺 d𝛺
𝑝 → ∞ ⇒ 𝜎 𝑃 𝑁 → 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑣𝑀
. (28)
where 𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛 is the minimum value of the element density. This eval-
In other words, we can apply the p-norm to evaluate the maximum uation function has a value only in the grayscale 𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛 < 𝜌 < 1. By
stress in the object domain with a single global evaluation function minimizing this function, we can obtain a structure that removes the
rather than local evaluation functions. Furthermore, by integrating grayscale.

4
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695

4.4. Formulation of the optimization problem Based on Eqs. (40)–(42), 𝑹𝑖 = 𝟎, 𝑯 𝑖 = 𝟎, and 𝑳𝑖 = 𝟎. Thus, 𝑓̃ and 𝑓
are equivalent. The objective function can be partially differentiated by
We defined the topology optimization of the transient response the element density 𝜌𝑗 considering the dependency of each variable:
problem through the following equations:
𝜕 𝑓̃ 𝜕𝑓 ∑ 𝜕𝑓 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝑛
( ) 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓𝑝 = +
min𝑓 𝒔, 𝝆, 𝒖𝑛 , … , 𝒖0 = 𝑤𝑐 𝑐 + 𝑤𝑠 𝑠 + 𝑤𝑝 , (32) 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝑖=0 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝜌𝑗
𝒔 𝑓𝑐0 𝑓𝑠0 𝑓𝑝0
(
∑𝑛
𝜕𝑹𝑖 𝜕𝑹𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝑹𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖−1
s.t.ℎ (𝒔) = 𝜌 d𝛺 − 𝑉lim ≤ 0, (33) + 𝝀T𝑖 + +
∫𝛺𝑑 𝑖=0
𝜕𝜌 𝑗 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝜌 𝑗 𝜕𝒖𝑖−1 𝜕𝜌𝑗
( ) )
𝑹𝑖 𝒔, 𝝆, 𝒖𝑖 , 𝒖𝑖−1 , 𝒗𝑖−1 , 𝒂𝑖−1 = 𝟎, (34) 𝜕𝑹𝑖 𝜕𝒗𝑖−1 𝜕𝑹𝑖 𝜕𝒂𝑖−1
+ +
( ) 𝜕𝒗𝑖−1 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝒂𝑖−1 𝜕𝜌𝑗
𝑯 𝑖 𝒖𝑖 , 𝒖𝑖−1 , 𝒗𝑖−1 , 𝒂𝑖 , 𝒂𝑖−1 = 𝟎, (35) (
( ) ∑𝑛
𝜕𝑯 𝑖 𝜕𝒖 𝑖 𝜕𝑯 𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖−1
𝑳𝑖 𝒖𝑖 , 𝒖𝑖−1 , 𝒗𝑖 , 𝒗𝑖−1 , 𝒂𝑖−1 = 𝟎, (36) + 𝝁T𝑖 +
𝑖=0
𝜕𝒖 𝑖 𝜕𝜌 𝑗 𝜕𝒖 𝑖−1 𝜕𝜌𝑗
0 < 𝑠𝑒 ≤ 1. (37) )
𝜕𝑯 𝑖 𝜕𝒗𝑖−1 𝜕𝑯 𝑖 𝜕𝒂𝑖 𝜕𝑯 𝑖 𝜕𝒂𝑖−1
+ + +
We introduce the weight coefficients 𝑤𝑐 , 𝑤𝑠 , and 𝑤𝑝 and define the 𝜕𝒗𝑖−1 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝒂𝑖 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝒂𝑖−1 𝜕𝜌𝑗
(
objective function 𝑓 as the weighted sum function of 𝑓𝑐 , 𝑓𝑠 , and 𝑓𝑝 . ∑
𝑛
𝜕𝑳𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝑳𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖−1
+ 𝜼T𝑖 +
This allows us to control the optimal structure according to the weight 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝒖𝑖−1 𝜕𝜌𝑗
𝑖=0
coefficients. 𝑓𝑐0 , 𝑓𝑠0 , and 𝑓𝑝0 are the values of the objective function for )
𝜕𝑳𝑖 𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝜕𝑳𝑖 𝜕𝒗𝑖−1 𝜕𝑳𝑖 𝜕𝒂𝑖−1
the initial structure. The evaluation functions 𝑓𝑐 and 𝑓𝑠 are discretized + + + . (46)
𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝒗𝑖−1 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝒂𝑖−1 𝜕𝜌𝑗
and evaluated in the time domain as follows:
∑
𝑛
𝑓= 𝑓 𝑖 𝑤𝑖 . (38) 𝜕 𝑓̃ 𝜕𝑓 ∑𝑛
𝜕𝑹𝑖
𝑖=0 = + 𝝀T
𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝑖=0 𝑖 𝜕𝜌𝑗
where 𝑛 is the total number of analysis steps, 𝑓𝑖 is the evaluation ( )
𝜕𝑓 𝜕𝑹𝑛 𝜕𝑯 𝑛 𝜕𝑳𝑛 𝜕𝒖𝑛
function, and 𝑤𝑖 is the weight coefficient of the integration at time + + 𝝀T𝑛 + 𝝁T𝑛 + 𝜼T𝑛
𝜕𝒖𝑛 𝜕𝒖𝑛 𝜕𝒖𝑛 𝜕𝒖𝑛 𝜕𝜌𝑗
step 𝑖. We adopted the highly accurate trapezoidal integration, so
𝑛−1 (
∑
we assumed the time increment 𝛥𝑡 as constant and set the weight 𝜕𝑓 𝜕𝑹 𝑖 𝜕𝑹 𝑖+1
+ + 𝝀T𝑖 + 𝝀T𝑖+1
coefficient 𝑤𝑖 as follows [26,27]: 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖
𝑖=0
)
2𝑤0 = 𝑤1 = ⋯ = 𝑤𝑛−1 = 2𝑤𝑛 = 𝛥𝑡. (39) 𝜕𝑯 𝑖 𝜕𝑯 𝑖+1 𝜕𝑳𝑖 𝜕𝑳𝑖+1 𝜕𝒖𝑖
+𝝁T𝑖 + 𝝁T𝑖+1 + 𝜼T𝑖 + 𝜼T𝑖+1
𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝜌𝑗
𝐻 is a constraint function for the volume 𝑉lim . 𝑹𝑖 , 𝑯 𝑖 , and 𝑳𝑖 are given 𝜕𝑳𝑛 𝜕𝒗𝑛
by Eqs. (13)–(15) and can be solved with Newmark 𝛽 method at time +𝜼T𝑛
𝜕𝒗𝑛 𝜕𝜌𝑗
step 𝑖: ( )
( ) ∑
𝑛−1
𝜕𝑹𝑖+1 𝜕𝑯 𝑖+1 𝜕𝑳𝑖 𝜕𝑳𝑖+1 𝜕𝒗𝑖
1 𝛾 ( ) + 𝝀T𝑖+1 + 𝝁T𝑖+1 + 𝜼T𝑖 + 𝜼T𝑖+1
𝑹𝑖 = 𝑴+ 𝑪 𝒖𝑖 − 𝒖𝑖−1 + 𝑲𝒖𝑖 − 𝑭 ext 𝑖 − 𝑭𝑖
th
𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝜕𝜌𝑗
𝛽𝛥𝑡2 𝛽𝛥𝑡 𝑖=0
( ) 𝜕𝑯 𝑛 𝜕𝒂𝑛
−
1
𝑴𝒗𝑖−1 −
1
− 1 𝑴𝒂𝑖−1 +𝝁T𝑛
𝛽𝛥𝑡 2𝛽 𝜕𝒂𝑛 𝜕𝜌𝑗
( ) ( ) ( )
𝛾 𝛾 ∑
𝑛−1
𝜕𝑹𝑖+1 𝜕𝑯 𝑖 𝜕𝑯 𝑖+1 𝜕𝑳𝑖+1 𝜕𝒗𝑖
+ 1− 𝑪𝒗𝑖−1 + 1 − 𝛥𝑡𝑪𝒂𝑖−1 , (40) + 𝝀T𝑖+1 + 𝝁T𝑖 + 𝝁T𝑖+1 + 𝜼T𝑖+1 ,(47)
𝛽 2𝛽 𝜕𝒂𝑖 𝜕𝒂𝑖 𝜕𝒂𝑖 𝜕𝒂𝑖 𝜕𝜌𝑗
( ) 𝑖=0
1 ( ) 1 1
𝑯 𝑖 = −𝒂𝑖 + 𝒖𝑖 − 𝒖𝑖−1 − 𝒗 − − 1 𝒂𝑖−1 , (41) where 𝜕𝒖𝑖 ∕𝜕𝜌𝑗 , 𝜕𝒗𝑖 ∕𝜕𝜌𝑗 , and 𝜕𝒂𝑖 ∕𝜕𝜌𝑗 are implicit derivative terms with
𝛽𝛥𝑡2 𝛽𝛥𝑡 𝑖−1 2𝛽
( ) ( ) high computational costs when calculated directly. To avoid direct
𝛾 ( ) 𝛾 𝛾
𝑳𝑖 = −𝒗𝑖 + 𝒖 − 𝒖𝑖−1 + 1 − 𝒗𝑖−1 + 1 − 𝛥𝑡𝒂𝑖−1 . (42) computation, the adjoint equations can be solved to obtain the adjoint
𝛽𝛥𝑡 𝑖 𝛽 2𝛽
variables 𝝀, 𝝁, and 𝜼, where the coefficients of the related terms are
5. Sensitivity analysis zero.
By arranging the coefficients of the implicit derivative terms of
We conducted a sensitivity analysis on the objective function given Eq. (47) for time step 𝑛, we obtain the following adjoint equations:
by Eq. (32). Because the design variable 𝒔 is transformed into the
elemental density by the density filter in Eq. (17), it can be obtained 𝝁𝑛 = 𝟎, (48)
with the chain rule: 𝜼𝑛 = 𝟎, (49)
𝜕𝑓 ∑ 𝜕𝑓 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝑹𝑛 𝜕𝑓 𝜕𝑯 𝑛 𝜕𝑳𝑛
= . (43) 𝝀 =− − 𝝁 − 𝜼 . (50)
𝜕𝑠𝑒 𝑗∈M 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝑠𝑒
𝑒
𝜕𝒖𝑛 𝑛 𝜕𝒖𝑛 𝜕𝒖𝑛 𝑛 𝜕𝒖𝑛 𝑛

We obtain 𝜕𝜌𝑗 ∕𝜕𝑠𝑒 directly from Eq. (17): Similarly, the coefficients of the implicit derivative terms for steps
𝜕𝜌𝑗 0 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ 𝑛 − 1 can be rearranged to obtain the following equations:
𝑤
= ∑𝑒 . (44)
𝜕𝑠𝑒 𝑤𝑘 𝜕𝑓 𝜕𝑹𝑖 𝜕𝑹𝑖+1 𝜕𝑯 𝑖
+ 𝝀T𝑖 + 𝝀T𝑖+1 + 𝝁T𝑖
𝑘∈M𝑗 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖
This leaves 𝜕𝑓 ∕𝜕𝜌𝑗 , which we determined by using the adjoint variable T 𝜕𝑯 𝑖+1 T 𝜕𝑳𝑖 T 𝜕𝑳𝑖+1
+𝝁𝑖+1 + 𝜼𝑖 + 𝜼𝑖+1 = 𝟎, (51)
𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖
method. We can introduce the three adjoint variables 𝝀, 𝝁, and 𝜼 for
𝜕𝑹𝑖+1 𝜕𝑯 𝑖+1 𝜕𝑳𝑖 𝜕𝑳𝑖+1
the equations of motion and rewrite the objective function as follows: 𝝀T𝑖+1 + 𝝁T𝑖+1 + 𝜼T𝑖 + 𝜼T𝑖+1 = 𝟎, (52)
𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝜕𝒗𝑖
∑
𝑛 ∑
𝑛 ∑
𝑛
𝜕𝑹𝑖+1 𝜕𝑯 𝑖 𝜕𝑯 𝑖+1 𝜕𝑳𝑖+1
𝑓̃ = 𝑓 + 𝝀T𝑖 𝑹𝑖 + 𝝁T𝑖 𝑯 𝑖 + 𝜼T𝑖 𝑳𝑖 . (45) 𝝀T𝑖+1 + 𝝁T𝑖 + 𝝁T𝑖+1 + 𝜼T𝑖+1 = 𝟎. (53)
𝑖=0 𝑖=0 𝑖=0 𝜕𝒂𝑖 𝜕𝒂𝑖 𝜕𝒂𝑖 𝜕𝒂𝑖

5
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695

𝜕𝑓𝑝
Based on Eqs. (41) and (42), Eqs. (51)–(53) can be summarized by using = 𝟎. (75)
𝜕𝑳𝑖 ∕𝜕𝒗𝑖 = −1 and 𝜕𝑯 𝑖 ∕𝜕𝒂𝑖 = −1: 𝜕𝒖𝑖

𝜕𝑹𝑖+1 𝜕𝑯 𝑖+1 𝜕𝑳𝑖+1 The following relationship is derived:

𝝁𝑖 = 𝝀 + 𝝁 + 𝜼 , (54) { }1∕𝑝−1
𝜕𝒂𝑖 𝑖+1 𝜕𝒂𝑖 𝑖+1 𝜕𝒂𝑖 𝑖+1 ( PN )1−𝑝 ( 𝑣𝑀 )𝑝
𝜕𝑹𝑖+1 𝜕𝑯 𝑖+1 𝜕𝑳𝑖+1 𝜎𝑖 = 𝜎𝑖 d𝛺 . (76)
∫𝛺
𝜼𝑖 = 𝝀 + 𝝁𝑖+1 + 𝜼 , (55)
𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝑖+1 𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝑖+1 ̄ ̄ 𝑖𝑰
𝑒 − 𝛯 𝑪𝛥𝑇
Because the Cauchy stress 𝝈 is expressed as 𝝈 𝑖 = 𝐸𝑚 𝑪𝑩𝒖 𝑖 𝑚
𝜕𝑹𝑖 𝜕𝑓 𝜕𝑹𝑖+1 𝜕𝑯 𝑖
𝝀 =− − 𝝀 − 𝝁 when using the displacement 𝒖𝑒 of element 𝑒, 𝜕𝝈 𝑖 ∕𝜕𝒖𝑖 becomes
𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝑖+1 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝑖
𝜕𝑯 𝑖+1 𝜕𝑳𝑖 𝜕𝑳𝑖+1 𝜕𝝈 𝑖
− 𝝁𝑖+1 − 𝜼 − 𝜼 . (56) = 𝑩 T 𝐸𝑚 𝑪.
̄ (77)
𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝑖+1 𝜕𝒖𝑖
By using Eq. (27), which defines the von Mises stress, we can obtain
Eqs. (48)–(50) and (54)–(56) are the adjoint equations, and the specific
each component of 𝜕𝜎𝑖𝑣𝑀 ∕𝜕𝝈 𝑖 :
coefficients can be obtained with Eqs. (40)–(42):
( ) ( )
𝜕𝑹𝑖 1 𝛾 𝜕𝜎𝑖𝑣𝑀 2 𝜎𝑥 𝑖 − 𝜎𝑦 𝑖
= 𝑴+ 𝑪 + 𝑲, (57) ( ) = , (78)
𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝛽𝛥𝑡2 𝛽𝛥𝑡 𝜕 𝜎𝑥 𝑖 2𝜎𝑖𝑣𝑀
𝜕𝑹𝑖+1 𝛾 ( ) ( )
1 𝜕𝜎𝑖𝑣𝑀 2 𝜎𝑦 𝑖 − 𝜎𝑥 𝑖
=− 𝑴− 𝑪, (58)
𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝛽𝛥𝑡2 𝛽𝛥𝑡 ( ) = , (79)
( ) 𝜕 𝜎𝑦 𝑖 2𝜎𝑖𝑣𝑀
𝜕𝑹𝑖+1 𝛾 𝛾 ( )
=− 𝑴 + 1− 𝑪, (59) 𝜕𝜎𝑖𝑣𝑀 3 𝜏𝑥𝑦 𝑖
𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝛽𝛥𝑡 𝛽
( ) ( ) ( ) = . (80)
𝜕𝑹𝑖+1 1 𝛾 𝜕 𝜏𝑥𝑦 𝑖 𝜎𝑖𝑣𝑀
=− −1 𝑴 + 1− 𝛥𝑡𝑪, (60)
𝜕𝒂𝑖 2𝛽 2𝛽 𝜕𝑓 ∕𝜕𝜌𝑗 is given by

𝜕𝑯 𝑖 1 𝜕𝑓 𝑤 𝜕𝑓𝑐 𝑤 𝜕𝑓𝑠 𝑤𝑝 𝜕𝑓𝑝

= , (61) = 𝑐 + 𝑠 + . (81)
𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝛽𝛥𝑡2 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝑓𝑐0 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝑓𝑠0 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝑓𝑝0 𝜕𝜌𝑗
𝜕𝑯 𝑖+1 1 The sensitivity of each evaluation function to the element density 𝜌𝑗 is
=− , (62)
𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝛽𝛥𝑡2 given by
𝜕𝑯 𝑖+1 1
1 −1∕2 ∑ { T ( ext
𝑛
=− , (63) 𝜕𝑓𝑐 )} T 𝜕𝑭 th
𝑖
𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝛽𝛥𝑡 = 𝑓𝑐 𝒖𝑖 𝑭 𝑖 + 𝑭 th 𝒖𝑖 𝑤
( ) 𝜕𝜌𝑗 2 𝑖 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝑖
𝜕𝑯 𝑖+1 1 𝑖=0
=− −1 , (64)
1 −1∕2 ∑ { T ( ext
𝑛
𝜕𝒂𝑖 2𝛽 )} 𝜕𝛯
= 𝑓 𝒖𝑖 𝑭 𝑖 + 𝑭 th 𝜺T 𝑚 𝑪𝛥𝑇
̄ 𝑖 𝑰 d𝛺 𝑤𝑖 , (82)
2 𝑐 𝑖=0
𝑖 ∫𝛺𝑗 𝑖 𝜕𝜌𝑗
𝜕𝑳𝑖 𝛾
= , (65) 𝜕𝑓𝑠 ( )1−𝑝 ∑𝑛
( 𝑣𝑀 )𝑝−1 𝜕𝜎𝑖𝑣𝑀 𝜕𝝈 𝑖
𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝛽𝛥𝑡 = 𝜎𝑖PN 𝜎 d𝛺 𝑤𝑖
𝜕𝜌𝑗 ∫𝛺𝑗 𝑖 𝜕𝝈 𝑖 𝜕𝜌𝑗
𝜕𝑳𝑖+1 𝛾 𝑖=0
=− , (66)
𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝛽𝛥𝑡 ( )1−𝑝 ∑
𝑛
( 𝑣𝑀 )𝑝−1 𝜕𝜎𝑖𝑣𝑀
= 𝜎𝑖PN 𝜎𝑖
𝜕𝑳𝑖+1 𝛾 ∫ 𝜕𝝈 𝑖
=1− , (67) 𝑖=0 𝛺𝑗
𝜕𝒗𝑖 𝛽 ( )
( ) 𝜕𝐸𝑚 𝜕𝛯𝑚
× ̄ 𝑖−
𝑪𝜺 ̄ 𝑖 𝑰 d𝛺 𝑤𝑖 ,
𝑪𝛥𝑇 (83)
𝜕𝑳𝑖+1 𝛾 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝜌𝑗
= 1− 𝛥𝑡. (68)
𝜕𝒂𝑖 2𝛽 𝜕𝑓𝑝 1 − 2𝜌𝑗 + 𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛
= . (84)
By using the adjoint variables 𝝀, 𝝁, and 𝜼 obtained from the adjoint 𝜕𝜌𝑗 ∫𝛺 d𝛺
equations, the sensitivity of the objective function is given by
6. Validation of the design sensitivity
𝜕 𝑓̃ 𝜕𝑓 ∑ 𝜕𝑹𝑖
𝑛
= + 𝝀T . (69)
𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝑖=0 𝑖 𝜕𝜌𝑗 For topology optimization based on the gradient method, the opti-
Eq. (40) can be reverted to the equations of motion before Newmark 𝛽 mal structure is determined by the sensitivity of the objective function
method is applied: to the design variables, so an accurate calculation of the sensitivity
is necessary. We validated the formulated equations for the design
𝑹𝑖 = 𝑴𝒂𝑖 + 𝑪𝒗𝑖 + 𝑲𝒖𝑖 − 𝑭 ext th
𝑖 − 𝑭𝑖 . (70) sensitivity by comparing them with the sensitivity obtained from the
finite difference method.
𝜕𝑹𝑖 ∕𝜕𝜌𝑗 can be obtained explicitly:

𝜕𝑹𝑖 𝜕𝑴 𝜕𝑪 𝜕𝑲 𝜕𝑭 ext
𝑖 𝜕𝑭 th
𝑖
6.1. Finite difference method
= 𝒂𝑖 + 𝒗𝑖 + 𝒖𝑖 − − . (71)
𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝜌𝑗 𝜕𝜌𝑗
The finite difference method calculates the sensitivity by using the
We then obtain the remaining terms 𝜕𝑓 ∕𝜕𝜌𝑗 and 𝜕𝑓 ∕𝜕𝒖 as follows. First, central difference of the evaluation function:
𝜕𝑓 ∕𝜕𝒖𝑖 is given by
𝜕𝑓 𝑓 (𝒔 + 𝛥̃𝒔) − 𝑓 (𝒔 − 𝛥̃𝒔)
𝑤𝑝 𝜕𝑓𝑝 = (85)
𝜕𝑓 𝑤 𝜕𝑓𝑐 𝑤 𝜕𝑓𝑠 𝜕𝑠𝑒 2𝛥𝑠𝑒
= 𝑐 + 𝑠 + . (72)
𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝑓𝑐0 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝑓𝑠0 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝑓𝑝0 𝜕𝒖𝑖 𝛥𝑠̃𝑒 = 𝛿𝑒𝑗 𝛥𝑠𝑗 (86)
The sensitivity of each evaluation function to the displacement 𝒖𝑖 is
where 𝛿𝑒𝑗 is Kronecker’s delta and 𝛥𝑠𝑒 is a small change in the design
given by
variable. 𝛥̃𝒔 is a vector in which only the e-numbered component has
𝜕𝑓𝑐 1 −1∕2 { T ( ext )} ( ext ) 𝛥𝑠𝑒 and all other components are zero. The design variable set for each
= 𝑓𝑐 𝒖𝑖 𝑭 𝑖 + 𝑭 th
𝑖 𝑭 𝑖 + 𝑭 th
𝑖 𝑤𝑖 , (73)
𝜕𝒖𝑖 2 element is changed sequentially by 𝛥𝑠𝑒 , and the evaluation function is
𝜕𝑓𝑠 ( PN )1−𝑝 ( 𝑣𝑀 )𝑝−1 𝜕𝜎𝑖𝑣𝑀 𝜕𝝈 𝑖 calculated each time. Therefore, as the number of elements increases,
= 𝜎𝑖 𝜎 d𝛺 𝑤𝑖 , (74) the computation cost becomes enormous and impractical. Although the
𝜕𝒖𝑖 ∫𝛺 𝑖 𝜕𝝈 𝑖 𝜕𝒖𝑖

6
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada
Fig. 2. Analysis model: (a) 1/2 sector model used in actual numerical calculations, (b) Entire structure.
Fig. 3. Load profile: (a) transient load, (b) temperature difference from reference temperature for thermal stress that defines the thermal load.
method contains a small numerical error, it is accurate enough to obtain
appropriate optimization results. Therefore, it is used as a benchmark
to validate the proposed method.
6.2. Initial stage condition
Fig. 2(a) shows a 2-D rectangular model with dimensions of 800 mm
× 500 mm to represent the fixed design domain. We verified this model
under the condition of a small number of elements by dividing it into
8 × 5 = 40 quadrilateral elements. To consider two-phase materials
with different properties, we set the material properties to Young’s
modulus of 𝐸𝑚1 = 70 GPa and 𝐸𝑚2 = 430 GPa, coefficients of thermal
expansion of 𝛼𝑚1 = 2.5×10−5 and 𝛼𝑚2 = 3.1×10−6 , and mass densities of
𝜌𝑚1 = 2700 kg∕m3 and 𝜌𝑚2 = 4000 kg∕m3 . Material 1 had a low stiffness
and high thermal expansion, and Material 2 had a high stiffness and low
thermal expansion to simulate aluminum and ceramic, respectively. For
the boundary conditions, 𝛤𝑢 was completely constrained at both ends,
( )
and 𝛤𝑡 was subjected to an external load of 𝐹 (𝑡) = 2.0×104 sin3 4𝜋𝑡∕𝑇𝑓
𝑁 with a positive downward direction, as shown in Fig. 3(a). Because
this external load is not a harmonic vibration, it cannot be considered
as a frequency response problem and can only be solved as a transient
response problem. We applied a time-varying thermal load to the entire
analytical model by uniformly applying a time-varying 𝛥𝑇 (𝑡) with the
profile shown in Fig. 3(b). This thermal load simulates the operation
of a machine from the initial stage to the steady state. We assumed the
initial conditions as quiescent, so 𝒂0 = 𝟎, 𝒗0 = 𝟎 and 𝒖0 = 𝟎 at analysis
step 𝑖 = 0.
To confirm that the sensitivity of each evaluation function could be
calculated correctly regardless of the temperature difference 𝛥𝑇 and
time increment 𝛥𝑡, we uniformly divided the time domain into n = 50
steps. Then, we evaluated the squared norm of dynamic compliance
(𝑤𝑐 = 1.0, 𝑤𝑠 = 0.0, 𝑤𝑝 = 0.0) and p-norm (𝑤𝑐 = 0.0, 𝑤𝑠 = 1.0, 𝑤𝑝 = 0.0)
under four conditions: (a) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K and 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−2 s, (b)
7
Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695
𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K and 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−2 s, (b) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K and 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−2
s, and (d) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K and 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−2 s. We uniformly assigned se
= 0.5 to the design variables in the fixed design domain.
Figs. 4 and 5 compare the sensitivities obtained by the proposed
method and finite difference method. The horizontal axis is the number
of finite elements, and the vertical axis is the sensitivity of each ele-
ment. The sensitivities obtained by the finite difference method and the
proposed method were consistent for both the squared norm of dynamic
compliance and p-norm, regardless of the magnitude of the thermal
load and time increments. We confirmed that the proposed method
calculates the sensitivity with high accuracy regardless of the analysis
conditions. Therefore, the formulated equations were validated.
6.3. Random condition
During topology optimization calculations, it is always necessary
to evaluate the exact sensitivity. In general, as the optimization cal-
culation proceeds, a distribution of the design variables in the fixed
design domain occurs. Therefore, the validity of the sensitivity, in this
case, is examined. The geometry, boundary conditions, and material
properties of the analytical model are assumed to be the same as those
of the initial stage condition. The time increment is assumed to be
𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−4 s. The design variables are randomly distributed in the
range of 0 ≤ 𝑠𝑒 ≤ 1 to assume general conditions. Fig. 6 shows the
model under consideration.
Figs. 7 and 8 are the results of each study with the squared norm
of dynamic compliance and p-norm set as the objective function. In all
results, the distribution is the same as the sensitivity obtained from the
finite difference method. This indicates that the proposed method can
accurately derive the sensitivity even when the design variables have
arbitrary distributions, demonstrating the validity of the method.
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695

Fig. 4. Initial stage condition: sensitivity validation results of the squared norm of dynamic compliance (𝑤𝑐 = 1.0, 𝑤𝑠 = 0.0, 𝑤𝑝 = 0.0): (a) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K and 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−2 s, (b)
𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K and 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−4 s, (c) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K and 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−2 s, (d) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K and 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−4 s.

Fig. 5. Initial stage condition: sensitivity validation results of p-norm (𝑤𝑐 = 0.0, 𝑤𝑠 = 1.0, 𝑤𝑝 = 0.0): (a) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K and 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−2 s, (b) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K and 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−4 s,
(c) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K and 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−2 s, (d) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K and 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−4 s.

8
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada
Fig. 6. Distribution of design variables for the random condition.
7. Numerical examples 1: rectangular model
7.1. Analysis model and conditions
Fig. 2(b) shows a fixed design domain with a 2-D rectangular shape
and dimensions of 1600 mm × 500. Because of the symmetry of the fixed
design domain, we used the 1/2 sector model in Fig. 2(a) as the analysis
model. This model is consistent with that used to validate the design
sensitivity as described in Section 6, and the constraint conditions, load
profile, and material properties were the same. We set the number of
elements to 80 × 50 = 4000. We fixed the following analysis conditions:
the time increment 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−4 s, number of divisions in the time
domain 𝑛 = 50 steps, and final time 𝑇𝑓 = 𝛥𝑡 × 𝑛 = 5.0 × 10−3 s. We only
changed the maximum temperature difference 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 when necessary.
We uniformly set the initial design variables to 𝑠𝑒 = 0.5 over the entire
design domain, and we set the constraint condition so that material
Fig. 7. Random condition: sensitivity validation results of the squared norm of dynamic compliance (𝑤𝑐 = 1.0, 𝑤𝑠 = 0.0, 𝑤𝑝 = 0.0): (a) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K, (b) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K.
Fig. 8. Random condition: sensitivity validation results of p-norm (𝑤𝑐 = 0.0, 𝑤𝑠 = 1.0, 𝑤𝑝 = 0.0): (a) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K, (b) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K.
9
Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695
2 was less than 50% of the volume of the fixed design domain. For
the optimization algorithm, we used the globally convergent method
of moving asymptotes (GCMMA) [32] to update the design variables
based on the sensitivity analysis.
7.2. Influence of the magnitude of the thermal load on the optimal structure
To demonstrate the effect of the magnitude of the thermal load on
the optimization results, we evaluated the squared norm of dynamic
compliance (𝑤𝑐 = 1.0, 𝑤𝑠 = 0.0, 𝑤𝑝 = 0.0) and p-norm (𝑤𝑐 = 0.0,
𝑤𝑠 = 1.0, 𝑤𝑝 = 0.0) under four conditions: (a) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0 K, (b)
𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K, (c) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 50 K, and (d) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K.
Fig. 9 shows the optimization results when the squared norm of
dynamic compliance (𝑤𝑐 = 1.0, 𝑤𝑠 = 0.0, 𝑤𝑝 = 0.0) was the objective
function. The left side shows the optimal structures for conditions
(a)–(d). The blue domain represents material 1, and the red domain rep-
resents material 2. Under condition (a), there was no thermal load. The
stiffer material 2 connected the displacement-constrained boundary 𝛤𝑢
and load-acting boundary 𝛤𝑡 to suppress the deformation caused by the
transient load. The structure changed as the thermal load increased
under conditions (b)–(d). Under condition (d), which had the largest
thermal load, material 1 was surrounded by material 2 because the
thermal deformation caused by material 1 was suppressed by the low
thermal expansion of material 2. The right side of the figure shows
the transition of the objective function under each condition. Under all
conditions, the objective function returned a smaller value than that
for the initial structure and eventually converged. This confirmed that
the proposed method can derive a reasonable optimization result for
the squared norm of dynamic compliance and reduce the deformation.
Note that in condition (d), there is a jump in the optimization history.
This is because we are solving a problem that is difficult to converge.
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada
Fig. 9. Optimization results and history of the objective function with the square norm of dynamic compliance: (a) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0 K, (b) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K, (c) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 50 K, (d) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100
K.
Fig. 10. Optimization results and history of the objective function with p-norm: (a) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0 K, (b) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K, (c) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 50 K, (d) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K.
(d) is the condition where the effect of thermal load is the largest. It
is a complex optimization problem because the thermal load is one of
the structure-dependent loads. Therefore, convergence may deteriorate.
Improvement of the optimization algorithm may solve this problem, but
it will be future work.
Fig. 10 shows the optimization results when the p-norm (𝑤𝑐 = 0.0,
𝑤𝑠 = 1.0, 𝑤𝑝 = 0.0) was the objective function. The left side shows
the optimal structure for conditions (a)–(d), and the right side shows
the transition of the p-norm value at each optimization step under each
condition. The value of the p-norm was smaller than that of the initial
structure under all conditions and finally converged. This indicates
that we performed the optimization calculation properly. However,
the optimization results did not return an appropriate solution for the
composition of two-phase materials because the grayscale (shown in
green) remained over a wide range. With the RAMP method, Young’s
modulus in the grayscale was smaller than the linearly complemented
element density, so the stress in the grayscale was underestimated by
the p-norm calculation. This resulted in an inappropriate structure for
minimizing the maximum stress.
Fig. 11 shows the optimization results under the same conditions
with 𝑤𝑝 = 0.25 and considering the explicit penalization term to remove
the grayscale. The results under all conditions (a)–(d) are binarized
structures of material 1 and material 2 with almost no grayscale. The
10
Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695
right side shows that the p-norm values converged to a small value rel-
ative to the initial structure, which indicates that the optimal structure
was derived under the given conditions. These results confirmed that
the stress minimization problem for two-phase materials can be solved
by considering the explicit penalization term in addition to the p-norm
to eliminate grayscale.
7.3. Effect of the exponent of the p-norm
As shown in Eq. (28), by setting exponent 𝑝 → ∞, the maximum
stress can be evaluated. However, from the viewpoint of stability of
numerical calculation, it is necessary to set a finite value. The accuracy
with which the p-norm can evaluate the maximum stress depends on
the exponent 𝑝 of the p-norm. Therefore, the effect of this parameter
on the reproducibility of the maximum stress will be investigated. The
analytical conditions were set to 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K to consider the effects of
mechanical and thermal loading. Other boundary conditions, material
properties, number of analytical steps, and time increments are the
same as in Section 7.2. The objective function was set to the p-norm
(𝑤𝑐 = 0, 𝑤𝑠 = 1.0, 𝑤𝑝 = 0.25). The p-norm histories calculated from
the exponents 𝑝 = 4, 𝑝 = 8, 𝑝 = 16, and 𝑝 = 32 are compared with
the maximum von Mises stress obtained directly from the analysis. The
design variable 𝑠𝑒 = 0.5 is assumed to be a uniformly given condition.
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada
Fig. 11. Optimization results and history of the objective function with p-norm (the explicit penalization term 𝑤𝑝 = 0.25): (a) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0 K, (b) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K, (c) 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 50 K, (d)
𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K.
Fig. 12. Comparison of maximum von Mises stress and p-norm at each time: (a) 𝑝 = 4,
(b) 𝑝 = 8, (c) 𝑝 = 16, (d) 𝑝 = 32, (e) Maximum von Mises stress.
Fig. 12 shows the comparison results. When the p-norm is computed
at 𝑝 = 4, the overall value of the p-norm is larger than the actual
maximum von Mises stress, and it cannot be reproduced. As the value
of 𝑝 = 8 or 𝑝 = 16 is increased, the accuracy of the reproduction is
improved. However, when the value is further increased to 𝑝 = 32,
the reproducibility decreases. This is due to a numerical issue. In other
words, the range of 𝑝 = 8 and 𝑝 = 16 is appropriate to maintain
numerical stability and high reproducibility.
In addition, the optimization results for 𝑝 = 8 and 𝑝 = 16 and the his-
tory of the maximum von Mises stress in the structure after convergence
are shown in Fig. 13. Although the obtained optimal configurations are
different, the maximum von Mises stresses are of similar values. There
is no significant difference between the two solutions. Therefore, 𝑝 = 8,
which is considered to be more numerically stable, is adopted in the
following study.
The history of the maximum stress has a different waveform from
that of the applied mechanical load. This is due to the effect of the
inertia term. In a steady-state problem, the waveform of the maximum
stress and the waveform of the mechanical load should match. There-
fore, to reproduce this phenomenon, it is necessary to formulate an
unsteady-state topology optimization problem that considers the inertia
term.
11
Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695
7.4. Effect of the number of analysis steps and the time increment size
In topology optimization for transient response problems, the fine-
ness of the total number of analysis steps 𝑛 and the time increment size
are related to the analysis accuracy and may affect the optimization
results. However, increasing the number of steps 𝑛 increases the com-
putational cost while improving the analysis accuracy. Therefore, it is
necessary to set an appropriate value. The analytical model, boundary
conditions, and material properties are the same as in Section 7.1. We
use two objective functions, the square norm of dynamic compliance
and the p-norm. The number of analytical steps for each objective
function is (a) 𝑛 = 50 and (b) 𝑛 = 100. In (a), we set the time increment
𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−4 s as in Section 7.1, and in (b), we set the size to
𝛥𝑡 = 5.0 × 10−5 s, which is 1∕2 times, to match the condition (a).
Fig. 14 shows the optimization results in the squared norm of dy-
namic compliance. Almost the same topology is obtained regardless of
the total number of steps 𝑛. Fig. 15 shows the results for the case where
p-norm is the objective function. Fig. 15 left shows the obtained optimal
configurations, but with a different structure. However, comparing the
time histories of the maximum von Mises stresses shown in Fig. 15
right, the maximum values are of similar magnitude. Therefore, there is
no significant advantage difference between the two structures in terms
of maximum stress minimization. These indicate that the fineness of
about 𝑛 = 50 in total analysis steps is sufficient to obtain an appropriate
optimal structure. In the above, the effect of the total number of
analysis steps 𝑛 on the two objective functions are understood. If we set
𝑛 = 50 steps for these problems, we can derive an appropriate optimal
configuration. We use this value in subsequent studies.
7.5. Effect of the explicit penalization term
We set the explicit penalization term to remove grayscale, but
it does not necessarily have the same sensitivity distribution as the
squared norm of dynamic compliance or p-norm. Therefore, the final
optimal structure depends on the effect of the explicit penalization
term, which becomes a multi-objective optimization problem consid-
ering the deformation, stress, and degree of grayscale removal. To
show the effect of the explicit penalization term on the optimization
results, we conducted a parametric study with different values of the
weight coefficient 𝑤𝑝 for the objective function. We set the maximum
temperature difference that defines the thermal load to two conditions:
𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K and 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K. Five cases were considered for the
weight factor 𝑤𝑝 of the explicit penalization term: (a) 𝑤𝑝 = 0, (b)
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695

Fig. 13. Left: Optimization results of the objective function with p-norm (the explicit penalization term 𝑤𝑝 = 0.25), Right: time history of maximum von Mises stress: (a) 𝑝 = 8,
(b) 𝑝 = 16.

Fig. 14. Optimization results of the objective function with the square norm of dynamic compliance: (a) 𝑛 = 50 steps, (b) 𝑛 = 100 steps.

Fig. 15. Left: Optimization results of the objective function with p-norm, Right: time history of maximum von Mises stress: (a) 𝑛 = 50 steps, (b) 𝑛 = 100 steps.

𝑤𝑝 = 0.25, (c) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.5, (d) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.75, and (e) 𝑤𝑝 = 1.0. The evaluation
functions were the squared norm of dynamic compliance and p-norm.
Figs. 16 and 17 show the optimization results when the squared
norm of dynamic compliance was the objective function. Figs. 18 and
19 show the results when the p-norm was the objective function. The
left side of each figure shows the optimization results obtained under
each condition, and the right side shows the relationship between the
weight coefficient of the explicit penalization term and the calculated
value of the evaluation function for each optimal structure. In this
study, we focused on minimizing the objective function, so structures
with smaller values were superior. Under all conditions, increasing the
weight coefficient of the explicit penalization term increased the value
returned by each evaluation, and the performance decreased. In other
words, if the weight of the explicit penalization term is too large, a
suboptimal structure for other evaluation functions is obtained. Because
the purpose of the explicit penalization term is to remove grayscale, the
minimum weight factor 𝑤𝑝 that ensures no grayscale remains is desired.
For this example, we found that a weight coefficient of 𝑤𝑝 = 0.25 was
sufficient to remove the grayscale.
7.6. Multi-objective optimization: Minimizing the deformation and maxi-
mum stress
To confirm that the proposed method obtains the optimal structure
that minimizes both the deformation and maximum stress considering
thermoelastic behavior, we performed a multi-objective optimization
with the squared norm of dynamic compliance and p-norm as evalua-
tion functions and the weight coefficients 𝑤𝑐 and 𝑤𝑝 as parameters. We
set the maximum temperature difference to two conditions: 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20
K and 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K. As discussed in Section 7.3, we set the weight
coefficient of the explicit penalization term to 𝑤𝑝 = 0.25 to eliminate
grayscale. We considered five conditions for the weight coefficients 𝑤𝑐
and 𝑤𝑝 : (a) 𝑤𝑐 = 1.0 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.0, (b) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.75 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.25, (c)
𝑤𝑐 = 0.5 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.5, (d) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.25 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.75, and (e) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.0
and 𝑤𝑠 = 1.0.
Figs. 20 and 21 show the optimization results under the thermal
load conditions 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K and 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K, respectively.
The optimal structure is shown on the left of each figure, and
the relationship between the squared norm of dynamic compliance

12
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695

Fig. 16. Left: Optimization results for minimizing the squared norm of dynamic compliance, Right: Relationship between the weights of the explicit penalization term and the
evaluation function values (𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K): (a) 𝑤𝑝 = 0, (b) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.25, (c) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.5, (d) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.75, (e) 𝑤𝑝 = 1.0.

Fig. 17. Left: Optimization results for minimizing the squared norm of dynamic compliance, Right: Relationship between the weights of the explicit penalization term and the
evaluation function values (𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K): (a) 𝑤𝑝 = 0, (b) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.25, (c) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.5, (d) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.75, (e) 𝑤𝑝 = 1.0.

and the p-norm after convergence is shown on the right. The opti-
mization results confirmed that intermediate optimal structures can be
obtained from minimizing the squared norm of the dynamic compliance
(i.e., condition (a)) and p-norm (i.e., condition (e)) depending on the ra-
tio of the two weight coefficients 𝑤𝑐 and 𝑤𝑠 . The results also indicated
that the two evaluation functions have a tradeoff relationship. This
implies that no solution can minimize both the deformation and maxi-
mum stress simultaneously. Thus, this is a multi-objective optimization
problem where the optimal solution depends on the priorities of the two
objectives. In engineering applications, the desired optimal structure
can be obtained by setting the weight coefficients of the objective
functions according to the required deformation and maximum stress.
Thus, the proposed method can be applied to derive multi-objective
optimal solutions to dynamic problems considering the behavior of
thermoelastic models.
8. Numerical examples 2: L-shape model
8.1. Analysis model and conditions
We examine whether the proposed method can achieve multi-
objective optimization of displacement and maximum stress for dif-
ferent models. Fig. 22 shows the geometry and boundary conditions
of the fixed design domain of the L-shape model. The number of
elements is 6400. The top surface is assumed to be completely fixed.
The mechanical load and thermal load profiles are the conditions of
Fig. 3. The mechanical load is assumed to be positive in the downward
direction, and the thermal stress is assumed to be the maximum value
of the temperature difference from the reference 𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K. The
Young’s modulus of the material is assumed to be 𝐸𝑚1 = 2 GPa and
𝐸𝑚2 = 430 GPa. The thermal expansion coefficients are 𝛼𝑚1 = 1.0 × 10−5

13
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada
Fig. 18. Left: Optimization results for minimizing the p-norm, Right: Relationship between the weights of the explicit penalization term and the evaluation function values
(𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 20 K): (a) 𝑤𝑝 = 0, (b) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.25, (c) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.5, (d) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.75, (e) 𝑤𝑝 = 1.0.
Fig. 19. Left: Optimization results for minimizing the p-norm, Right: Relationship between the weights of the explicit penalization term and the evaluation function values
(𝛥𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 100 K): (a) 𝑤𝑝 = 0, (b) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.25, (c) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.5, (d) 𝑤𝑝 = 0.75, (e) 𝑤𝑝 = 1.0.
and 𝛼𝑚2 = 3.1 × 10−6 . The mass densities are set to 𝜌𝑚1 = 20 kg∕m3 and
𝜌𝑚2 = 4000 kg∕m3 . The total number of analysis steps is set to 𝑛 = 50
steps, and the time increment is set to 𝛥𝑡 = 1.0 × 10−4 s. In this case,
𝑇𝑓 = 𝛥𝑡 × 𝑛 = 5.0 × 10−3 s. The initial conditions are the stationary
condition, 𝒂0 = 𝟎, 𝒗0 = 𝟎, and 𝒖0 = 𝟎. The objective function fixes the
Explicit penalization weight as 𝑤𝑝 = 0.5. We vary the squared norm of
dynamic compliance weight 𝑤𝑐 and the p-norm weight 𝑤𝑠 to obtain the
multi-objective optimal solution. We derive the optimal configuration
for four conditions: (a) 𝑤𝑐 = 1.0 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.0, (b) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.75 and
𝑤𝑠 = 0.25, (c) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.5 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.5, (d) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.25 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.75, and
(e) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.0 and 𝑤𝑠 = 1.0. The constraints give a volume constraint
that material 2 is less than 50% of the fixed design domain. The design
variables for the initial structure are uniformly set to 𝑠𝑒 = 0.5 for the
entire model. The optimization algorithm is GCMMA [32].
14
Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695
8.2. Results of multi-objective optimization
Fig. 23 shows the obtained optimal structures and Fig. 24 shows
the relationship between the square norm of dynamic compliance and
p-norm after computational convergence. In this study, the conditions
of small-time increment and high frequency of loading are considered.
Therefore, in (a) minimization of the squared norm of dynamic com-
pliance, to suppress the vibration displacement around the load-acting
surface, more rigid materials2 are placed in this domain. On the other
hand, if the weight of the p-norm in the objective function is increased,
the structure becomes very complicated and it is difficult to consider
the features. For this reason, we check Fig. 24 to determine the validity
of the obtained results. In condition (e), where the effect of p-norm
is large, the value of p-norm is appropriately reduced, indicating that
it is correctly solved as a multi-objective optimization. In conclusion,
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada
Fig. 20. Multi-objective optimization results for the squared norm of dynamic compliance and p-norm (𝛥𝑇 = 20 K): (a) 𝑤𝑐 = 1.0 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.0, (b) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.75 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.25, (c)
𝑤𝑐 = 0.5 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.5, (d) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.25 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.75, (e) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.0 and 𝑤𝑠 = 1.0.
Fig. 21. Multi-objective optimization results for the squared norm of dynamic compliance and p-norm (𝛥𝑇 = 100 K): (a) 𝑤𝑐 = 1.0 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.0, (b) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.75 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.25, (c)
𝑤𝑐 = 0.5 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.5, (d) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.25 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.75, (e) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.0 and 𝑤𝑠 = 1.0.
we show that the optimal structure can be derived from the proposed
method even for complex analytical conditions.
9. Conclusions
We proposed a topology optimization method for transient response
problems considering the behavior of thermoelastic models to account
for time-dependent external and thermal loads. We present our findings
and future work below.
• Because deformation and stress are caused by the different ther-
mal expansion coefficients of multi-materials, topology optimiza-
tion can be applied to finding the optimal configuration of two-
phase materials.
15
Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695
• We introduce an objective function to eliminate the grayscale
domain and to control the deformation and maximum stress
because of external forces and thermal loads. This is a weighted
sum function comprising three evaluation functions: the squared
norm of dynamic compliance, the p-norm, and the explicit penalty
term. By adjusting the weight coefficients of the squared norm
of dynamic compliance and p-norm, an optimal structure can
be derived for minimizing both the deformation and maximum
stress.
• When the p-norm is the objective function for minimizing the
maximum stress, using the RAMP method to regularize Young’s
modulus retains a large grayscale in the optimization results.
This problem can be solved by adding the explicit penalization
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada
Fig. 22. L-shape model.
Fig. 23. Multi-objective optimization results for the squared norm of dynamic compliance and p-norm: (a) 𝑤𝑐 = 1.0 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.0, (b) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.75 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.25, (c) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.5 and
𝑤𝑠 = 0.5, (d) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.25 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.75, (e) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.0 and 𝑤𝑠 = 1.0.
term to the objective function, which can be extended to two-
phase material problems without any special relaxation of the
evaluation stress. The grayscale removal method applies to other
topology optimization problems and is highly versatile. Stress
minimization of two-phase materials has not been considered in
previous studies and was addressed in this study.
• We conducted a sensitivity analysis to consider the effects of
time-dependent external forces and thermal loads. The topology
optimization of transient response problems requires a sensitivity
analysis that considers the deformation state at all times. We
used the discretize-then-differentiate approach for the sensitivity
analysis, which ensures high accuracy regardless of the time
increment. We validated the proposed method validated by com-
paring its sensitivity values with those obtained from the finite
difference method.
16
Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695
• We presented numerical examples to show that an optimal struc-
ture can be derived for both the deformation and maximum
stress. By controlling the weight coefficients of the objective
functions, the deformation and maximum stress can be priori-
tized as needed. We conducted a parametric study on the weight
coefficients of the explicit penalization term, which confirmed
that grayscale can be removed without significantly degrading the
performance regarding deformation and stress.
• The scope of this study was limited to problems where the object
has a uniform temperature. To expand the scope of application,
we need to couple topology optimization with the unsteady heat
conduction problem. This will enable the optimization to consider
changes in temperature distribution depending on the structure.
Additionally, We identified an issue where the convergence of the
optimization becomes worse when the effect of thermal loading
S. Ogawa and T. Yamada
Fig. 24. Relationship between the squared norm of dynamic compliance and p-norm:
(a) 𝑤𝑐 = 1.0 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.0, (b) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.75 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.25, (c) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.5 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.5, (d)
𝑤𝑐 = 0.25 and 𝑤𝑠 = 0.75, (e) 𝑤𝑐 = 0.0 and 𝑤𝑠 = 1.0.
becomes larger. This can be solved by improving the optimization
algorithm. This will be a future work.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
S. Ogawa: Software, Validation, Methodology, Visualization, Writ-
ing and Editing. T. Yamada: Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] M.P. Bendsøe, O. Sigmund, Topology Optimization, Theory, Method and Ap-
plications, Springer–Verlag, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05086-
6.
[2] M.P. Bendsøe, N. Kikuchi, Generating optimal topologies in structural design
using a homogenization method, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 71 (2)
(1988) 197–224.
[3] G. Allaire, F. Jouve, H. Maillot, Topology optimization for minimum stress design
with the homogenization method, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 28 (2004) 87–98,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0442-8.
[4] P. Duysinx, O. Sigmund, New development in handling stress constraints in
optimal material distribution, in: 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, a Collection of Technical Papers
(Held in St. Louis, Missouri), Vol. 3, 1988, pp. 1501–1509, http://dx.doi.org/10.
2514/6.1998-4906.
[5] E. Holmberg, B. Torstenfelt, A. Klarbring, Stress constrained topology optimiza-
tion, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 48 (2013) 33–47, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00158-012-0880-7.
[6] Z.D. Ma, N. Kikuchi, I. Hagiwara, Structural topology and shape optimization for
a frequency response problem, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 13 (1993)
157–174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00370133.
[7] A. Takezawa, M. Daifuku, Y. Nakano, K. Nakagawa, T. Yamamoto, M. Kitamura,
Topology optimization of damping material for reducing resonance response
based on complex dynamic compliance, J. Sound Vib. 365 (2016) 230–243,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2015.11.045.
[8] J. Zhao, C. Wang, Dynamic response topology optimization in the time do-
main using model reduction method, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 53 (1) (2015)
101–114, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-015-1328-7.
[9] T. Gao, W. Zhang, Topology optimization involving thermo-elastic stress loads,
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 42 (2010) 725–738, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00158-010-0527-5.
17
Finite Elements in Analysis & Design 201 (2022) 103695
[10] M. Stolpe, K. Svanberg, An alternative interpolation scheme for minimum
compliance topology optimization, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 22 (1) (2001)
116–124, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001580100129.
[11] M.P. Bendsøe, O. Sigmund, Material interpolation schemes in topology opti-
mization, Arch. Appl. Mech. 69 (1999) 635–654, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s004190050248.
[12] X. Zhu, C. Zhao, X. Wang, Y. Zhou, P. Hu, Z. Ma, Temperature-constrained
topology optimization of thermo-mechanical coupled problems, Eng. Optim. 51
(5) (2019) 1–23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2018.1554065.
[13] T. Yamada, S. Yamasaki, S. Nishiwaki, K. Izui, M. Yoshimura, Design of compliant
thermal actuators using structural optimization based on the level set method, J.
Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 11 (1) (2011) 11005–11012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/
1.3563049.
[14] J.D. Deaton, R.V. Grandhi, Stress-based design of thermal structures via topology
optimization, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 53 (2) (2016) 253–270, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s00158-015-1331-z.
[15] M. Bruggi, On an alternative approach to stress constraints relaxation in topology
optimization, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 36 (2) (2008) 125–141, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s00158-007-0203-6.
[16] M. Bruggi, P. Venini, A mixed fem approach to stress-constrained topology
optimization, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 73 (12) (2008) 1693–1714,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.2138.
[17] A. Takezawa, G.H. Yoon, S.H. Jeong, M. Kobashi, M. Kitamura, Structural
topology optimization with strength and heat conduction constraints, Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 276 (2014) 341–361, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cma.2014.04.003.
[18] G.D. Cheng, X. Guo, Epsilon-relaxed approach in structural topology optimiza-
tion, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 13 (1997) 258–266, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF01197454.
[19] T. Borrvall, J. Petersson, Topology optimization using regularized intermediate
density control, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 190 (2001) 4911–4928,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(00)00356-X.
[20] O. Sigmund, K. Maute, Topology optimization approaches, Struct. Multidiscip.
Optim. 48 (2013) 1031–1055, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-013-0978-6.
[21] L. Alacoque, R.T. Watkins, A.Y. Tamijani, Stress-based and robust topology
optimization for thermoelastic multi-material periodic microstructures, Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 379 (1) (2021) 113749, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cma.2021.113749.
[22] H. Li, H. Li, M. Xiao, Y. Zhang, J. Fu, L. Gao, Robust topology optimization
of thermoelastic metamaterials considering hybrid uncertainties of material
property, Compos. Struct. 248 (2020) 112477, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2020.112477.
[23] X. Yang, Y. Li, Topology optimization to minimize the dynamic compliance of a
bi-material plate in a thermal environment, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 47 (2013)
399–408, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-012-0831-3.
[24] X. Yang, Y. Li, Structural topology optimization on dynamic compliance at
resonance frequency in thermal environments, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 49
(2014) 81–91, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-013-0961-2.
[25] S. Ogawa, T. Yamada, Topology optimization of dynamic problems based on
finite deformation theory, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 122 (2021)
4486–4506, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.6710.
[26] J.S. Jakob, P.B. Nakshatrala, D.A. Tortorelli, On the consistency of adjoint
sensitivity analysis for structural optimization of linear dynamic problems, Struct.
Multidiscip. Optim. 49 (2014) 831–837, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-013-
1024-4.
[27] J. Zhao, C. Wang, Topology optimization for minimizing the maximum dynamic
response in the time domain using aggregation functional method, Comput.
Struct. 190 (2017) 41–60, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2017.05.002.
[28] N.M. Newmark, A method of computation for structural dynamics, Method
Comput. Struct. Dyn. 85 (3) (1959) 67–94, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/JMCEA3.
0000098.
[29] O. Sigmund, J. Peterson, Numerical instabilities in topology optimization: A
survey on procedures dealing with checkerboards, mesh-dependencies and local
minima, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 16 (1) (1998) 68–75, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/BF01214002.
[30] T.E. Bruns, O. Sigmund, D.A. Tortorelli, Numerical methods for the topology
optimization of structures that exhibit snap-through, Internat. J. Numer. Methods
Engrg. 55 (10) (2002) 1215–1237, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.544.
[31] C. Le, J. Norato, T. Bruns, C. Ha, D.A. Tortorelli, Stress-based topology op-
timization for continua, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 41 (2010) 605–620, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-009-0440-y.
[32] K. Svanberg, A class of globally convergent optimization methods based on con-
servative convex separable approximations, SIAM J. Optim. 12 (2002) 555–573,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S1052623499362822.