4.6 Article

Topology optimization for three-dimensional elastoplastic architected materials using a path-dependent adjoint method

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nme.6604

关键词

adjoint sensitivity analysis; energy absorption; metamaterials; periodic boundary conditions; von Mises plasticity

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) I/UCRC Center for Novel High Voltage/Temperature Materials and Structures [IIP-1362146]
  2. NSF [MOMS-1926353]
  3. Zhejiang University-University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Institute Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces a computational design framework for obtaining three-dimensional periodic elastoplastic architected materials with enhanced performance, using a nonlinear finite element model and path-dependent adjoint sensitivity formulation for optimization. The optimization problem is parametrized using the solid isotropic material penalization method to produce materials with enhanced performance.
This article introduces a computational design framework for obtaining three-dimensional (3D) periodic elastoplastic architected materials with enhanced performance, subject to uniaxial or shear strain. A nonlinear finite element model accounting for plastic deformation is developed, where a Lagrange multiplier approach is utilized to impose periodicity constraints. The analysis assumes that the material obeys a von Mises plasticity model with linear isotropic hardening. The finite element model is combined with a corresponding path-dependent adjoint sensitivity formulation, which is derived analytically. The optimization problem is parametrized using the solid isotropic material penalization method. Designs are optimized for either end compliance or toughness for a given prescribed displacement. Such a framework results in producing materials with enhanced performance through much better utilization of an elastoplastic material. Several 3D examples are used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the mathematical framework.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据