4.7 Article

Topology optimization using PETSc: a Python wrapper and extended functionality

期刊

STRUCTURAL AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY OPTIMIZATION
卷 64, 期 6, 页码 4343-4353

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00158-021-03018-7

关键词

Topology optimization; Parallel computing; Large scale; PETSc; Python C-Extension module; Python wrapper; 3D printing; Porous structures; Robust design; Infill

资金

  1. ETH Zurich
  2. European Union [812765]
  3. Villum Investigator Project InnoTop - Villum Foundation
  4. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [812765] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a Python wrapper and extended functionality of a parallel topology optimization framework, making it easier for users to define problems, expand the potential user base, and use it for educational purposes. By adding features such as passive domains and local volume constraints, the framework can be better applied to real-world design applications.
This paper presents a Python wrapper and extended functionality of the parallel topology optimization framework introduced by Aage et al. (Topology optimization using PETSc: an easy-to-use, fully parallel, open source topology optimization framework. Struct Multidiscip Optim 51(3):565-572, 2015). The Python interface, which simplifies the problem definition, is intended to expand the potential user base and to ease the use of large-scale topology optimization for educational purposes. The functionality of the topology optimization framework is extended to include passive domains and local volume constraints among others, which contributes to its usability to real-world design applications. The functionality is demonstrated via the cantilever beam, bracket and torsion ball examples. Several tests are provided which can be used to verify the proper installation and for evaluating the performance of the user's system setup. The open-source code is available at https:// github. com/thsmit/, repository TopOpt_in_PETSc_wrapped_in_Python.

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

4.7
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