Fem Structural Optimisation

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING
Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nme.2874
A structural optimization method based on the level set method

using a new geometry-based re-initialization scheme
Shintaro Yamasaki, , Shinji Nishiwaki, Takayuki Yamada, Kazuhiro Izui
and Masataka Yoshimura
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Kyoto University, Yoshida Honmachi,
Sakyo-ku, Kyoto City 606-8501, Japan
SUMMARY
Structural optimization methods based on the level set method are a new type of structural optimization
method where the outlines of target structures can be implicitly represented using the level set function, and updated by solving the so-called HamiltonJacobi equation based on a Eulerian coordinate
system. These new methods can allow topological alterations, such as the number of holes, during the
optimization process whereas the boundaries of the target structure are clearly defined. However, the
re-initialization scheme used when updating the level set function is a critical problem when seeking
to obtain appropriately updated outlines of target structures. In this paper, we propose a new structural
optimization method based on the level set method using a new geometry-based re-initialization scheme
where both the numerical analysis used when solving the equilibrium equations and the updating process
of the level set function are performed using the Finite Element Method. The stiffness maximization,
eigenfrequency maximization, and eigenfrequency matching problems are considered as optimization
problems. Several design examples are presented to confirm the usefulness of the proposed method.
Copyright q 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 17 June 2008; Revised 2 June 2009; Accepted 19 January 2010
KEY WORDS:
structural optimization; level set method; re-initialization; finite element method
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper discusses a structural optimization method based on the level set method that uses a
new geometry-based re-initialization scheme. Structural optimization has been successfully applied
to a wide range of design problems in many industries, such as mechanical, automotive, and
civil industries. Structural optimization can be generally classified into three categories: sizing
Correspondence
to: Shintaro Yamasaki, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Kyoto University, Yoshida
Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto City 606-8501, Japan.
E-mail: beetle@ruby.dti.ne.jp
Contract/grant sponsor: Mizuho Foundation for the Promotion of Sciences
Copyright q
2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
optimization, shape optimization, and topology optimization. Shape and topology optimizations
are more likely to yield high-performance designs, due to the large number of degrees of freedom
available for design variable settings.
Shape optimization originated from the work of Zienkiewicz and Campbell [1]. The basic idea
is to update the boundaries of the structure that are represented by the shapes of finite elements
using sensitivity analysis and an optimization method. Later, this approach was found to encounter
numerical convergence problems [2], and several methods have been proposed to mitigate them.
Imam [2] proposed three techniques: the design element technique, the super-curves technique,
and the shape superposition technique. Braibant and Fleury [3, 4] proposed a structural shape
optimization method where the shape boundary is represented using spline curves, such as Bezier
and B-spline curves, with design variables as spline curve control points. Bennett and Botkin [5, 6]
developed a structural shape optimization method with automated mesh generation. Kikuchi et al.
[7] applied an adaptive mesh method in the Finite Element Method (FEM) to obtain sufficient
boundary smoothness during the optimization process. Belegundu and Rajan [8] developed the
Natural Design Variable method where fictitious loads applied on the shape boundary are used as
design variables. Azegami et al. [9, 10] proposed the Traction Method where the shape sensitivity
is replaced with the displacement field obtained by applying a fictitious traction based on the shape
sensitivity. A comprehensive review of shape optimization research can be found in the literature
[11, 12].
Topology optimization allows changes not only in shape but also in the topology of target structures, and can provide high-performance structural configurations, whereas topological changes
are hard to perform in shape optimization. Topology optimization has been successfully applied to
a variety of structural optimization problems, such as the stiffness maximization problem [13, 14]
and eigenfrequency problems [15, 16], since Bendse and Kikuchi [13] first proposed the so-called
Homogenization Design Method (HDM). The basic ideas consist of (1) the extension of a design
domain to a fixed design domain and (2) replacement of the optimization problem with a material
distribution problem, using the characteristic function expressed in the papers of Murat and Tartar
[17], Belytschko et al. [18], and Norato et al. [19]. A homogenization method is utilized to deal
with the extreme discontinuity of the material distribution and to provide material properties viewed
in a global sense as homogenized properties. This method, called the HDM, has been applied
to a variety of design problems, and the density approach [20, 21], also called the SIMP (Solid
Isotropic Material with Penalization) method [22] in structural mechanics problems, is another
currently used method. The basic idea of SIMP is the use of a fictitious isotropic material whose
elasticity tensor is assumed to be a function of penalized material density, expressed by an exponent
parameter. Bendse and Sigmund [23] asserted the validity of the SIMP method in view of the
mechanics of composite materials and it has been widely used and applied to a variety of design
problems because of its simple formulation and facile implementation.
Unfortunately, topology optimization methods tend to suffer from numerical problems [24, 25],
such as mesh dependency, checkerboard patterns, and gray scales. Several methods have been
proposed to mitigate these problems, such as the use of high-order finite elements [24], filtering
schemes [25], and the perimeter control method [26]. Although the filtering schemes and the
perimeter control method are now popular means of avoiding these numerical problems, these
methods crucially depend on artificial parameters for which there is no rational guideline for
determining appropriate a priori parameter values.
On the other hand, Xie and Steven [27] developed a different type of topology optimization
method, the so-called Evolutionary Structural Optimization (ESO) method. In this method, the
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
A STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD BASED ON THE LEVEL SET METHOD
design domain is represented using a fixed finite element mesh and the shape and topology of the
structure is represented as a subset of finite elements. The contribution to the objective function
of each finite element is evaluated and finite elements whose contribution is relatively low are
gradually removed from the subset representing the structure. As a result, the optimal configuration
is obtained as an optimal subset of finite elements. The ESO method has been applied to various
structural design problems, such as stiffness problems [27], eigenfrequency problems [28], and
heat conduction problems [29].
Recently, a new type of structural optimization method based on the implicit moving interface
using the level set method has been proposed [3032]. The level set method was originally proposed
by Osher and Sethian [33] as a versatile method to implicitly represent evolutional interfaces in a
Eulerian coordinate system. Complex shape and topological changes can be handled using the level
set function that is an implicit function of a higher dimension. The evolution of the interfaces with
respect to time is tracked by solving the so-called HamiltonJacobi partial differential equation
(PDE), which is also called the level set equation, with an appropriate normal velocity that is the
moving interface velocity normal to the interface. The level set method is potentially useful in a
variety of applications, including fluid mechanics [3436], phase transitions [37], image processing
[3840], and solid modeling in CAD [41].
Sethian and Wiegmann [30] first proposed a structural optimization method based on the level
set method. In their method, the shape boundaries of the structure are represented using the level
set function, and the level set function is updated using an ad hoc method based on the Von
Mises stress. Osher and Santosa [42] proposed a structural optimization method where the shape
sensitivity is used as the normal velocity, and the structural optimization is performed by solving the
level set equation using the upwind scheme. This proposed method was applied to eigenfrequency
problems for an inhomogeneous drum using a two-phase optimization of the membrane where the
mass density assumes two different values, whereas the elasticity tensor is constant over the entire
domain.
Wang et al. [31] proposed a structural shape optimization method based on the level set method
for structures composed of a linear elastic material. They formulated the normal velocity based on
the shape sensitivity and solved the level set equation using the upwind scheme. They demonstrated
that appropriate optimal configurations can be obtained using their proposed method for the
minimum compliance problem. Wang and Wang [43] extended their method to obtain optimal
structures composed of multi-materials, where m level set functions are used to represent 2m
different material phases, a representation model called the color level set model. Wang and Wang
[44] later proposed a new, improved optimization method where the superimposed FEM is used
to compute the displacement field, to obtain optimal configurations for the minimum compliance
problem. The displacement field computed using the superimposed FEM is comparatively more
accurate than the simple ersatz material approach that Allaire et al. [32] proposed.
Allaire et al. [32] independently proposed a level set method based structural optimization
method that also employs the upwind scheme, and discussed cases concerning structures composed
of a linear elastic material as well as non-linear hyperelastic material. They obtained optimal configurations for the minimum compliance problem in both cases with structures composed of linear
elastic and non-linear hyperelastic material, and obtained optimal configurations for compliant
mechanism design problems for structures composed of a linear elastic material. A simple ersatz
material approach was employed to compute the displacement field of the structure. Allaire and
Jouve [45] extended a level set method based structural optimization method for lowest eigenfrequency maximization problems and minimum compliance problems having multiple loads.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
Haber [46] proposed a structural optimization method for eigenfrequency minimization and
maximization problems, where the shape boundaries of the structure are represented using the
level set function and the level set function is updated using Sequential-Quadratic-Programming.
Wang et al. [47] proposed a structural optimization method based on the level set method where
an image processing based approach is employed to preserve the connectivity of the structure, and
demonstrated that the appearance of de facto hinges can be effectively suppressed in compliant
mechanism design problems.
In the above level set method based structural optimization methods, the shape boundaries are
evolved from an initial configuration using certain procedures (typically, solving the level set
equation), and an optimal configuration is finally obtained. The obtained optimal configuration,
therefore, strongly depends on the given initial configuration. As Allaire et al. [48] discussed,
such dependency is problematic, especially in two-dimensional cases. Several methods have been
proposed in an attempt to mitigate this problem. Allaire et al. [48] proposed a level set method
based structural optimization method incorporating a method for introducing holes, based on
topological derivatives [49], and optimal configurations were obtained for the minimum compliance
problem and compliant mechanism design problems. The shape boundary evolution based on the
shape sensitivity, and topological changes using a method for introducing holes, were sequentially
performed, and appropriate optimal configurations were obtained using several different initial
configurations, despite the possibility of local minima still existing, as was pointed out. Zhuang et al.
[50] proposed a structural shape and topology optimization method for heat conduction problems,
in which the shape boundary evolution and topological changes were sequentially performed, such
as with the method proposed by Allaire et al. [48].
Burger et al. [51] proposed a level set method based optimization method where the level
set equation is modified by adding a source term that depends on the topological derivative.
They applied their proposed method to the minimization of the least squares functional and
demonstrated that the shape and topology optimization were successfully performed. Based on
their contribution, He et al. [52] proposed a level set method based structural optimization
method incorporating the topological derivative and solved structural optimization problems with
respect to photonic crystals and acoustic drums. Amstutz and Andra [53] proposed a structural
optimization method where the level set function is updated based on the topological derivative instead of the shape sensitivity, and applied their method to the minimum compliance
problem, compliant mechanism design problems and a multidisciplinary optimization problem
for a ceramic filter. Belytschko et al. [18] proposed a level set method based topology optimization method where the nodal values of the implicit function are updated using a heuristic
scheme.
Some proposed structural optimization methods have been based on an approach where the
level set function is represented using a superposition of Radial Basis Functions (RBFs). Wang
and Wang [54] and Wang et al. [55] represented the level set function using a superposition of
Multiquadratic RBFs. Such representation converts the original shape and topology optimization
performed by solving the level set equation to a sizing optimization with respect to the expansion
coefficients. In their structural optimization method, a re-initialization process is not required, and
the shape and topology of the structure are concurrently changed using the normal velocity that
is extended to the entire design domain, and optimal configurations for the minimum compliance
problem were successfully obtained. Wang and Wang [56] and Wang et al. [57] also applied inverse
multiquadratic RBFs in their structural optimization method and obtained optimal configurations
for the minimum compliance problem. Luo et al. [58] employed compact support RBFs to represent
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
the level set function, and performed structural optimization for a compliant mechanism design
problem.
Chen et al. [59] constructed the level set function using B-splines and parameterized primitives combined with R-functions, and shape and topology optimization with parametric control
was performed for the minimum compliance problem. Wei and Wang [60] proposed a structural optimization method based on the piecewise constant level set method [61, 62] where
multi-phases are represented using a level set function. Luo et al. [63] proposed a structural
optimization method based on the level set method where the level set equation is solved
using a semi-implicit additive operator splitting (AOS) scheme. In their method, topological
changes are automatically carried out during the optimization without the need for artificial
schemes.
One of the challenging tasks, and a critical issue, in level set method based structural optimization
is to develop level set function updating schemes that can be easily implemented, since solving
the level set equation to update the level set function requires sophisticated numerical techniques
like the upwind scheme. In this paper, to mitigate the above problem, we propose a new structural
optimization method that updates the level set function based on a simplified level set equation that
is obtained using the explicit method and ensuring that the level set function maintains the signed
distance characteristic with respect to the shape boundaries at every update iteration. Unlike the
ordinary level set equation formulated as a HamiltonJacobi PDE, the simplified level set equation
used here does not include terms pertaining to a spatial differential. The FEM is employed for the
spatial discretization of the simplified level set equation, and sophisticated numerical techniques
like the upwind scheme are not needed. Furthermore, the Neumann boundary condition is not
required when solving the simplified level set equation using the FEM, unlike the upwind scheme
where it is required, and this further simplifies the numerical implementation of the proposed
method. This is of great benefit when performing structural optimizations based on the level set
method, especially for three-dimensional cases.
The level set function is re-initialized at every iteration during the optimization procedure and
the proposed method provides that the level set function maintains the signed distance characteristic
with respect to the shape boundaries at every iteration, which enables the level set equation to
be simplified. As we observe that the numerical accuracy of the re-initialization using certain
previously proposed re-initialization schemes [34, 41] depends upon the distribution of the level set
function, we developed a new geometry-based re-initialization scheme where the shape boundary
is discretized to a set of points on the shape boundary and the value of the level set function at
each node is computed as the signed distance from the nearest point. The proposed re-initialization
scheme strictly reconstructs the level set function based on the definition of the signed distance
function, so that the signed distance characteristic is preserved, while the shape boundaries are
almost perfectly preserved.
Re-initializing the level set function at every iteration prevents topological changes like the
introduction of holes, especially for two-dimensional cases, hence the obtained optimal configurations strongly depend on the initial configurations. To avoid this problem, we employ a method
for introducing holes based on the topological derivatives, such as that used by Allaire et al. [48].
The proposed method is applied to the minimum compliance problem, the lowest eigenfrequency
maximization problem and the eigenfrequency matching problem, and several numerical examples
are provided for both two- and three-dimensional cases to confirm the usefulness of the proposed
method. The FEM is employed to solve both the equilibrium equations and the simplified level
set equation.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the minimum compliance problem, the lowest eigenfrequency maximization problem and the eigenfrequency matching
problem are formulated based on the proposed structural optimization method. In Section 3, the
new geometry-based re-initialization scheme is introduced, and how it differs from previously
proposed re-initialization schemes is also explained. Section 4 explains the optimization algorithm
and the numerical techniques required to successfully obtain appropriate optimal solutions, and
several numerical examples are provided in Section 5 to confirm the validity and utility of the
proposed optimization method. Finally, conclusions are provided in Section 6.
2. FORMULATIONS
2.1. Concept of structural optimization based on the level set method
Here, we briefly discuss the basic concepts of the structural optimization method based on the
level set method that was originally developed by Osher and Sethian [33] as a method capable of
implicit geometrical representation. Let us define a reference and bounded domain D, a domain
filled with a solid material, i.e. a material domain that denotes the domain to be designed such
that D, and another complementary domain representing a void that exists, i.e. a void domain
D\. The level set function (x) is introduced to represent a boundary between the material
domain and the void domain, where x stands for a position in D. That is, the boundary is expressed
using the level set function (x) as follows:
(x) > 0 for x \(*\*D)
(x) = 0 for x *\*D
(1)
(x) < 0 for x D\

where * and *D are, respectively, the boundaries of and D. Using the above level set function,
an arbitrary shape and topology of the material domain in the reference domain D can be
implicitly represented. Now we introduce a fictitious time t, and assume that the level set function
is also implicitly a function of t, to represent shape and topology changes in the material domain
over time. That is, as time t is advanced, the boundary (x) = 0 is updated as an evolving boundary
process that reaches an optimal configuration. Furthermore, an arbitrary iso-contour S(, t) is
embedded in the level set function, and is described as
S(, t) = {x(t)|(x(t), t) = }
(2)
where is an arbitrary value, and x(t) is a point on the iso-contour. By differentiating the above
equation with respect to time t, we obtain the following equation, the so-called HamiltonJacobi
equation, which is also called the level set equation:
*(x, t)
dx
+(x, t) = 0
(3)
dt
*t
Let the normal velocity function be VN (x, t), which represents the normal velocity of the evolving
iso-contour expressed by S(, t), formulated as
VN (x, t) = V(x, t)
Copyright q
(x, t)
|(x, t)|
(4)
DOI: 10.1002/nme
where V(x, t) is the velocity vector of the evolving iso-contour which is defined as
V(x, t) =
dx
dt
(5)
Substituting Equation (4) into Equation (3), we have

*(x, t)
+ VN (x, t)|(x, t)| = 0
*t
(6)
The above equation represents the evolution of the boundary (x) = 0. Thus, the structural optimization problem can be solved by providing appropriate velocity function values of VN (x, t) for
use in the above equation. The optimal configuration is finally obtained when the KarushKuhn
Tucker (KKT) conditions are satisfied. However, obtaining numerical solutions to Equation (6)
usually requires the use of sophisticated numerical techniques. Wang et al. [31] and Allaire et al.
[32] solved this equation using the upwind scheme, a numerical technique of the Finite Difference
Method (FDM) that is used to stably solve hyperbolic type differential equations. Sethian [41] and
Park et al. [64], respectively, introduced the PetrovGalerkin method and the least-squares FEM
to solve Equation (6) using the FEM.
The level set function can maintain a characteristic of a specific function. When the level set
function is a signed distance function with respect to the shape boundary (x) = 0, the level set
function is defined as

d(x, *\*D)
if x
(7)
(x) =
d(x, *\*D) if x
/
where d(x, *\*D) is defined by
d(x, *\*D) =
inf
y*\* D
d(x, y)
(8)
and d(x, y) is the distance between x and y. The signed distance function defined in Equation (7)
also yields the following relation.
|(x)| = 1
(9)
Mulder et al. [65] demonstrated that initializing the level set function as a signed distance function
provides more accurate numerical solutions than initializing the level set function as a color
function that is similar to the Heaviside function. In terms of reducing numerical errors like the
tentpole phenomenon, Chopp [66] suggested that the level set function be periodically re-initialized
as a signed distance function. Furthermore, Allaire and Jouve [45] periodically re-initialized the
level set function to prevent it from becoming too flat or too steep, since these conditions cause
large errors in the location of the shape boundaries and also yield large errors in the evaluation
of the level set function gradient when using finite differences. Thus, the need to periodically
re-initialize the level set function as a signed distance function with respect to the shape boundaries
is commonly accepted and several re-initialization schemes have been proposed to this end, of
which the Fast Marching Method based scheme [41] and the scheme based on PDE solutions [34]
are most often used. In most previous research [31, 32, 45], since the re-initialization of the level
set function is performed once every few iterations during the optimization procedure, the level set
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
function does not always maintain the signed distance characteristic represented by |(x)| = 1,
therefore, Equation (6) is solved both temporally and spatially.
Here, we propose a new scheme to solve Equation (6). In this new scheme, instead of solving
Equation (6) both temporally and spatially, the equation is solved only temporally with the explicit
method and a re-initialization scheme. Equation (6) is discretized with respect to time using the
explicit method as follows:
(x, t +t)(x, t)
+ VN (x, t)|(x, t)| = 0
t
(10)
where t is the time increment. As the first step in solving the above equation, (x, t) is reinitialized as a signed distance function. As |(x, t)| = 1 when (x, t) is a signed distance
function, Equation (10) can be simplified as follows by re-initializing (x, t) at every update
iteration.
(x, t +t)(x, t)
+ VN (x, t) = 0
t
(11)
The weak form of the above equation can be easily derived as

(x, t +t)(x, t)
d+ VN (x, t)d = 0 for
t
D
D
(12)
where is the space of admissible level set functions. Then, as the second step in solving
Equation (10), the updated level set function (x, t +t) is calculated using the above-simplified
equation. This updating procedure is iterated until the optimal solution is obtained. Note that
(x, t +t) is not required to be a signed distance function just after the update, since Equation (10)
contains no spatial differential term concerning (x, t +t) due to the discretization using the
explicit method.
Formerly, updating the level set function based on Equation (6) required the use of the sophisticated techniques mentioned above, but updating the level set function using Equation (12) can stably
provide numerical solutions without the use of such techniques, in exchange for the computational
costs of the re-initialization.
In this research, we always re-initialize the level set function before the update, as a signed
distance function, and then update the level set function by numerically solving Equation (12)
using the FEM. We iterate this updating procedure until the optimal solution is obtained. The
effectiveness of the updating scheme depends on the numerical accuracy of the re-initialization,
hence we developed a new geometry-based re-initialization scheme that is better at guaranteeing the
signed distance characteristic represented by |(x)| = 1 than previous methods. Further discussion
appears in Section 5, along with the numerical results.
Concerning boundary conditions, appropriate boundary conditions on *D must be set in some
cases while solving Equation (6). Wang et al. [31] and Allaire and Jouve [45] imposed the following
Neumann boundary condition:
*
= 0 on *D
*n
(13)
where n is the normal of *D. This boundary condition is required when the level set equation is
solved using the upwind scheme based on the FDM, since the upwind side of * always exists in
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
reference domain D that maintains the above condition. Furthermore, as Allaire and Jouve [45]
discussed, topological changes due to the introduction of holes from outside the reference domain
D as a consequence of spurious values created by the boundary conditions do not occur. However,
in the proposed method, the above boundary condition is not required, since the level set function
is updated based on Equation (12), which has no spatial differential operator. That is, the level set
function is updated based on Equation (12) alone, with no additional boundary conditions. As will
be demonstrated in Section 5 using several numerical examples, appropriate optimal configurations
can be obtained without applying the condition represented in Equation (13).
2.2. Formulation of structural optimization problems
Consider the minimization problem of an objective functional F() under a constraint functional
G(). The structural optimization problems are formulated as follows based on the level set
method:
Minimize
Subject to
F()
(14)
G()G max
(15)
for
where G max is the upper limit value of G(). The shape derivatives of F() and G() are then
defined as the Frechet derivatives with respect to . Here we consider the case where the Frechet
derivative representing the shape derivative of F() can be described as

dF()
f ((x)) d
(16)
, =
d
D
where is the variation of the level set function such that , and f ((x)) is used to express
the integrand with in the shape derivative of F(). We also consider the case where the shape
derivative of G() can be described as

dG()
(17)
, = g((x)) d
d
D
where g((x)) is used to express the integrand with in the shape derivative of G(). For the
structural optimization problems discussed in this paper, the Frechet derivatives of F() and G()
can be derived using the above expressions.
Here, we adopt the method presented in [31] to solve the above optimization problem. That
is, we introduce a Lagrangian F()

and minimize it by solving the level set equation. F()
is
formulated as
F()
= F()+(G() G max )
(18)
where is the Lagrange multiplier. Based on the discussion in [31], we express VN (x, t) in
Equation (12) as follows:
VN (x, t) = f ((x, t))+g((x, t))
Copyright q
(19)
DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
where is obtained as
=
if G()<G max
f ((x, t))g((x, t))d
2
D g((x, t)) d
if G() = G max
(20)
We update the level set function by solving Equation (12) with VN (x, t) in Equation (19) during
the optimization procedure, and observe that the objective functional monotonously decreases.
When the objective functional converges, the optimal solution is obtained. In the following section,
we formulate a minimum compliance problem in the static case, and a maximum eigenfrequency problem and eigenfrequency matching problem in the dynamic case, using the above
formulations.
The level set function updating scheme based on Equations (12) and (19) is similar to the
Optimality Criteria method, although a fictitious time t is introduced here. As the Optimality
Criteria method is unsuitable for dealing with a large number of constraints, the level set
function updating scheme we use could be improved by incorporating non-linear programming
methods for situations where many constraints are imposed. Although the method described in
this paper can only deal with a single constraint, we hope to examine structural optimization
methods incorporating the level set method and non-linear programming methods in the future
research.
2.3. The minimum compliance problem
First, the minimum compliance problem is formulated. Suppose that a reference domain D is fixed
at boundary *Du and is subjected to traction t at boundary *Dt . Here, the boundary *Dt is assumed
to be coincident with the boundary where traction t is applied in the domain . A body force b
may also be applied throughout the domain . Let the displacement field be denoted as u in the
static equilibrium status. Then, the minimum compliance problem under the volume constraint of
the entire reference domain is formulated as follows, using the formulations in Section 2.2:

Minimize
F() =
buH ((x))d+
D
* Dt
tu d
(21)

Subject to
G() =
H ((x))dG max
(22)
a(u, v, ) = L(v, )
for
,
u U,
(23)
v U
where H ((x)) is the Heaviside function such that

H ((x)) =
Copyright q
0 ( (x)<0 )
1 ( (x)0 )
(24)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
The bilinear form a(u, v, ) and the load linear form L(v, ) are here defined by

a(u, v, ) =
(v) : D : (u)H ((x)) d

L(v, ) =
(25)

bvH ((x)) d+
* Dt
tv d
(26)
where is the linearized strain tensor, D is the elasticity tensor, and

U = {v = vi ei : vi H 1 (D) with v = 0 on *Du }
(27)
Next, the shape derivatives of F() and G() with respect to are derived. The shape derivative
of F() is obtained by

dF()
(28)
, = {2bu(u) : D : (u)}((x)) d
d
D
where ((x)) is the Dirac delta function. For details concerning the derivation of the above
equation, see Appendix A. On the other hand, the shape derivative of G() is simply obtained by

dG()
*G()
, =
(29)
, = ((x)) d
d
*
D
Thus, we have
f ((x)) = {2bu(u) : D : (u)}((x))
(30)
g((x)) = ((x))
(31)
2.4. The eigenfrequency optimization problems

Next, the eigenfrequency optimization problems are considered. Suppose that a reference domain
D is fixed at boundary *Du , and a linear elastic structure occupying the domain is freely
vibrating. Let k be the k-th eigenfrequency and uk be the corresponding k-th eigenmode. The
k-th eigenvalue k is expressed as k = 2k . Body forces applied to the elastic body and damping
effects are assumed to be ignored for simplicity in the formulation.
Here, we consider two optimization problems, i.e. the lowest (first) eigenfrequency maximization
and the matching of the eigenfrequency with a target value. For the lowest (first) eigenfrequency
maximization problem, the objective functional is formulated as follows:
F() = 21 = 1
(32)
Note that by prefixing a minus sign to the eigenvalue, the maximization problem is transformed
into a minimization problem. However, if the objective functional only takes the lowest eigenfrequency into account, the sequence of the eigenmodes may change during the optimization
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
procedure, preventing the objective functional from converging. To avoid this problem, we adopt
the formulation proposed by Ma et al. [16]. The objective functional is then formulated as:
1

q
q 1

1 1
F() =
=
(33)
2
k=1 k
k=1 k
where q is an appropriate number of eigenfrequencies from the lowest eigenmode. The optimization
problem under the volume constraint of the entire reference domain is now formulated as:

Minimize
Subject to

q 1 1

F() =
k=1 k

H ((x)) dG max
G() =
(34)
(35)
a(uk , v, ) = k b(uk , v, )
for
,
uk U,
(36)
v U,
k = 1, . . ., q
where the bilinear form b(uk , v, ) is here defined by

b(uk , v, ) = vuk H ((x)) d
(37)
and is the mass density.

The shape derivative of F() is described as follows:

q
q
1 2
{(u
)
:
D
:
(u
)+
u
u
}((x))
d
dF()
k
k
k
k
k
D
, =
d
2k D uk uk H ((x)) d
k=1 k
k=1
(38)
For details concerning the derivation of the above equation, see Appendix B. As the eigenmode
can be normalized with respect to the mass density such that

uk uk H ((x)) d= 1
(39)
D
we finally obtain

q 1

f ((x)) =
k=1 k
2
q {(u ) : D : (u )+ u u }((x))

k
k
k
k k
k=1
2k
g((x)) = ((x))

(40)
(41)
Next, the matching of the eigenfrequency with a target value is considered. Let obj,s be a target
value of the s-th eigenfrequency. The objective functional is formulated as follows:
F() = (2s 2obj,s )2 = (s obj,s )2
Copyright q
(42)
DOI: 10.1002/nme
However, in this formulation as well, the sequence between the target eigenmode and the adjacent
eigenmodes may change during the optimization procedure, and to avoid this, the following
objective functional is proposed:

2

2 2
s+1
s+1

k obj,k 2
k
obj,k
F() =
wk
=
wk
(43)
k=s1
obj,k
2obj,k
k=s1
where wk is a weighting coefficient for the k-th eigenfrequency matching and obj,k = 2obj,k . By
setting obj,s1 to a sufficiently smaller value than obj,s and obj,s+1 to a sufficiently larger
value than obj,s , we can avoid sequence changes between the target eigenmode and adjacent
eigenmodes. When the target eigenfrequency is the lowest eigenfrequency, only the lowest and
second eigenfrequencies are taken into account, by setting w0 = 0.
Thus, the optimization problem is formulated under the volume constraint of the entire reference
domain as follows:

s+1

k obj,k 2
Minimize F() =
wk
(44)
obj,k
k=s1

Subject to G() =
H ((x)) dG max
(45)
D
a(uk , v, ) = k b(uk , v, )
for
,
uk U,
v U,
(46)
k = s 1, s, s +1
The shape derivative of F() is described as

s+1

: (uk )k uk uk }((x)) d
k obj,k
dF()
D {(uk ) : D
2wk
, =
d
2obj,k
k=s1
D uk uk H ((x)) d
(47)
For details concerning the derivation of the above equation, see Appendix C. As the eigenmode
can be normalized in the same way as the eigenmode in Equation (39), we have

s+1

k obj,k
(48)
f ((x)) =
2wk
((uk ) : D : (uk )k uk uk )((x))
2obj,k
k=s1
g((x)) = ((x))
(49)
3. RE-INITIALIZATION SCHEME
As briefly explained in Section 2.1, the level set function can maintain the characteristic of a
specific function. In discussions concerning the level set theory, Osher and Fedkiw [67] pointed
out that one can obtain more accurate numerical results by preserving the characteristic of the
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
level set function as a signed distance function. Mulder et al. [65] compared the numerical results
obtained by either initializing the level set function as a signed distance function or initializing the
level set function as a color function that is a non-smooth function used to track interfaces, and
is similar to the Heaviside function, and demonstrated that more accurate numerical results can be
obtained by initializing the level set function as a signed distance function. Several re-initialization
schemes have been proposed to reconstruct the level set function as a signed distance function
with respect to the shape boundaries while preserving the shape boundaries. Here, we first briefly
discuss the previously proposed schemes and their drawbacks. Next, we explain the details of a
newly developed re-initialization scheme that can maintain higher accuracy of the signed distance
function than the previous schemes.
3.1. Previously proposed schemes
Chopp [66] proposed a re-initialization scheme where the iso-contour representing the shape
boundaries is discretized and then distances from the discretized iso-contour are computed. The
idea of this scheme is simple and straightforward, but the author does not provide details of the
method used to discretize the iso-contour.
Sussman et al. [34] proposed a different re-initialization scheme, where the level set function is
re-initialized by solving a PDE called the re-initialization equation, instead of explicitly computing
the distance from the shape boundaries. The PDE includes an approximated sign function where an
artificial parameter is used for numerical purposes. We denote this parameter as in the following
discussion. Sethian [41] proposed another re-initialization scheme using the Fast Marching Method.
The PDE-based scheme proposed by Sussman et al. [34] and the Fast Marching Method based
scheme [41] are often used to re-initialize the level set function in the level set method based
structural optimization methods mentioned above, but these re-initialization schemes have certain
drawbacks, such as the PDE-based schemes requiring an artificial parameter . As demonstrated
in Section 5.1, when the PDE-based scheme is implemented using the first-order upwind scheme
with second-order Essentially Non Oscillatory (ENO) scheme [67], suitable values for the number
of iterations, the Courant number and all depend upon the distribution of the level set function.
Since the distribution of the level set function varies during the optimization procedure, it is difficult
to re-initialize the level set function successfully during the optimization procedure. In the Fast
Marching Method based scheme, although there is no artificial parameter like the , the level set
function values at nodes close to the shape boundaries cannot be re-initialized. Therefore, another
re-initialization scheme must be employed to re-initialize the level set function values at nodes
close to the shape boundaries when the level set function is re-initialized using the Fast Marching
Method based scheme. And, as demonstrated in Section 5.1, when we employ the conventional
scheme introduced by Osher and Fedkiw [67], adherence to the signed distance characteristic
represented by |(x)| = 1 is not guaranteed. Therefore, we developed a new geometry-based
re-initialization scheme as described below.
3.2. A new geometry-based re-initialization scheme
As briefly discussed in Section 2.1, appropriate optimal solutions can be obtained by solving
Equation (12) while rigorously maintaining the signed distance characteristic represented by
|(x)| = 1 using a suitable re-initialization scheme during the optimization procedure. However,
this maintenance cannot always be rigorously accomplished using the previously proposed schemes,
as explained in the above section and Section 5. Here, a new re-initialization scheme is developed
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
to maintain the signed distance characteristic with sufficient rigor. The basic idea is to discretize
the iso-contour representing the shape boundaries and then compute distances from the discretized
iso-contour, which is similar to the scheme proposed by Chopp [66]. The details for discretizing
the iso-contour representing the shape boundaries, and the re-initialization procedure, are explained
below. As the re-initialization scheme is performed after the numerical analysis for solving the
equilibrium equations using the FEM, as shown in Figure 5 in Section 4.4, the re-initialization
occurs after discretization has been performed in the reference domain D using finite elements.
First, all finite elements that cross the shape boundary (x) = 0 are selected. For each of the
selected elements, an appropriate number of points are set on (x) = 0 by interpolating the curve
representing (x) = 0 using the shape function of the FEM as shown in Figure 1. That is, the
level set function is mapped on the parametric coordinates ( ,
, ) as shown in Figure 2, and is
interpolated as
( ,
, ) = NTUe
(50)
where N is the shape function vector and Ue is the nodal value vector of the level set function in
an element. For example, in the case where the reference domain D is discretized using four-node
quadrilateral elements in the two-dimensional problem, the level set function is interpolated as
( ,
) = 14 (1 )(1
)e (1, 1)+ 14 (1+ )(1
)e (1, 1)
+ 14 (1 )(1+
)e (1, 1)+ 14 (1+ )(1+
)e (1, 1)
(51)
(x) = 0
D\
Figure 1. Points on the shape boundary in an element.
node3
node3
( 1 , 1)
node4
node4
(1 , 1)
D\
D\
node2
x
node1
(b)
(a)
node1
( 1 , 1)
node2
(1 , 1)
Figure 2. Element coordinates: (a) original coordinate and (b) parametric coordinate.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
and, in the case where the reference domain D is discretized using eight-node hexahedral elements
in the three-dimensional problem, the level set function is interpolated as
( ,
, ) = 18 (1 )(1
)(1)e (1, 1, 1)+ 18 (1+ )(1
)(1)e (1, 1, 1)
+ 18 (1 )(1+
)(1)e (1, 1, 1)+ 18 (1+ )(1+
)(1)e (1, 1, 1)
+ 18 (1 )(1
)(1+)e (1, 1, 1)+ 18 (1+ )(1
)(1+)e (1, 1, 1)
+ 18 (1 )(1+
)(1+)e (1, 1, 1)+ 18 (1+ )(1+
)(1+)e (1, 1, 1)
(52)
An appropriate number of points on ( ,

, ) = 0 are obtained as intersectional points between
the shape boundaries representing equations obtained using the above interpolation functions and
the following equations, respectively, as shown in Figure 3,

2
( ,
) = 1+ k,
for k = 0, 1, . . ., n p
np
(53)

2
( ,
) = , 1+ k
for k = 0, 1, . . ., n p
np
in the two-dimensional case, and

2
2
( ,
, ) = 1+ k, 1+ l,
np
np

2
2
( ,
, ) = 1+ k,
, 1+ l
np
np

2
2
( ,
, ) = , 1+ k, 1+ l
np
np
for k,l = 0, 1, . . ., n p
for k,l = 0, 1, . . ., n p
(54)
for k,l = 0, 1, . . ., n p
in the three-dimensional case, where n p is a parameter that determines the number of intersectional
points. This parameter also affects the accuracy of the re-initialization. By increasing the value
of n p , the level set function can be re-initialized more accurately, at the expense of increased
computational cost. The above operations are performed for each of the selected elements that
cross the shape boundary. Finally, a set of points representing the shape boundaries (x) = 0 is
obtained in the reference domain D, as shown in Figure 4, with the obtained set of points here
called P.
Next, for each node, we calculate the distance between it and each of the points in P, and obtain
the shortest distance. We then examine the sign of the level set function at each node, according to
the rule that if a node is located in the material domain, its sign must be positive, whereas nodes
located in the void domain are negatively signed, with all values being calculated distances. We
determine the updated value of the level set function at the i-th node reinit,i using the following
equation derived from Equations (7) and (8)
reinit,i = sgn(prereinit,i ) inf d(xi , p)
pP
Copyright q
(55)
DOI: 10.1002/nme
D\
D\
Intersection points of
and (
) = 1 + n2 k ,
Intersection points of
2
and ( ) = ,1 + n k
Figure 3. Intersection points on the shape boundary in an element.
(x ) = 0
D\
Figure 4. A set of points P.
where prereinit,i is the level set function value before the re-initialization at the i-th node, xi is
the coordinates of the i-th node, and d(xi , p) is the distance between xi and p.
As the above scheme sets the points inside the finite elements when computing distances, more
accurate computation of the level set function values can be expected when compared with previous
schemes based on the PDE [34], since these evaluate the level set function values only at nodes. In
Section 5.1, we compare the proposed scheme with previous schemes and show that the proposed
scheme provides more accurate computation results.
Furthermore, since the proposed scheme is a FEM-based scheme that allows discretization using
an unstructured mesh, the re-initialization here can also be performed based on a discretization
using an unstructured mesh, whereas discretization using a structured mesh is required when the
level set function is re-initialized using a FDM-based scheme such as the PDE-based scheme
proposed by Sussman et al. [34], and the Fast Marching Method based scheme [41]. Also, in
our proposed method, any type of finite element can be used for the re-initialization, in addition
to four-node quadrilateral elements and eight-node hexahedral elements. In Sections 5.2.1 and
5.3.1, we demonstrate that essentially identical optimal configurations can be obtained using the
proposed scheme regardless of whether the reference domain is discretized using a structured or
unstructured mesh.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
4. NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATIONS
4.1. Relaxed heaviside function
In structural optimization methods based on the level set method, a numerical technique to solve
the equilibrium equations in a Eulerian coordinate system is introduced. For this purpose, we adopt
the idea proposed by Wang and Wang [43]. That is, we relax the Heaviside function H ((x))
in Equation (24) and the Dirac Delta function ((x)), and introduce a scheme to deactivate
elements whose element stiffness and mass matrices are the zero matrix. Here, we denote the
relaxed Heaviside function as H ((x)) and employ the approximated Heaviside function used in
[68] for H ((x)). We also denote the relaxed Dirac Delta function as ((x))
and employ the
approximated Dirac Delta function used in [68] for ((x)). In these two approximated functions,
parameter h is used to represent the bandwidth between the complete material domain (where
h<(x)) and the complete void domain (where (x)<h), such that the bandwidth is equal to 2h.
Computational costs will be reduced if meaningless elements can be deactivated and this has an
additional benefit for the eigenfrequency optimization problems. When the ersatz material approach
[32] is employed, meaningless eigenmodes caused by extremely low density in the void domain,
called localized modes [69], may appear [45]. Such localized modes can be perfectly eliminated
by deactivating meaningless elements.
4.2. Computation of the normal velocity
In the proposed method, the normal velocity VN is represented by Equation (19) that is a function
of f ((x)) and g((x)). Furthermore, f ((x)) and g((x)) include the Dirac Delta function
when the Heaviside function is used for the optimization formulation, as explained in Sections
2.3 and 2.4. As the Dirac Delta function is numerically approximated as explained in the above
section, f ((x)), g((x)) and, as a result, the normal velocity VN , are numerically approximated.
Using the relaxed Dirac Delta function ((x)),

f ((x)) for the minimum compliance problem
is reformulated as
f ((x)) = {2bu(u) : D : (u)}((x))
(56)
In the above equation, f ((x)) has a non-zero value concerning the body force b and the elasticity
tensor D, which ideally would, respectively, be a zero vector and a zero tensor in the void domain,
at the neighborhood of the boundaries in the void domain, due to the approximation of the Dirac
Delta function. According to our preliminary numerical examinations, this situation causes the
observed numerical instabilities such as non-smoothness of the boundaries. One way to avoid these
numerical instabilities is to set parameter h explained in the above section to a sufficiently small
positive value, but this approach is not adopted since h must be set to a value larger than the mesh
size due to the numerical integration. Here, we again use the relaxed Heaviside function H ((x)) as
an alternative approach. That is, by multiplying b and D by H ((x)), f ((x)) is reformulated as,
f ((x)) = {2bu(u) : D : (u)}((x))

H ((x))
(57)
Although we use Equation (57) instead of Equation (56), f ((x)) has a non-zero value in the
neighborhood of the boundaries in the void domain, but this value is negligible, allowing the
numerical instabilities to be avoided.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
Similarly, f ((x)) for the lowest eigenfrequency maximization problem and the eigenfrequency
matching problem are, respectively, reformulated as,

q
q
1 2
{(uk ) : D : (uk )+k uk uk }((x))
H ((x))
(58)
f ((x)) =
2k
k=1 k
k=1
and
f ((x)) =
s+1

k=s1

2wk
k obj,k
H ((x))
((uk ) : D : (uk )k uk uk ) ((x))
2obj,k
(59)
On the other hand, for the three optimization problems, g((x)) is reformulated as,
g((x)) = ((x))
(60)
The normal velocity VN is computed based on the above reformulations.

4.3. Level set function updating scheme
Once the value of the level set function (x) and the normal velocity VN in the entire reference
domain are computed, the level set function is evolved forward in time. The following equation
with respect to the evolution of the level set function is derived by discretizing Equation (12) using
the FEM.
E{Ut+t Ut }
+VtN = 0
t
(61)
where Ut is the nodal value vector of the level set function at time t. E and VtN are described as
follows:
ne

E=
NNT d
j =1 V e
VtN
ne

j =1 V e
(62)
VN (x, t)N d

where n e is the number of elements and nj e=1 represents the union set of the elements. Based on
Equation (61), the following equation is derived:
Ut+t Ut = tE1 VtN
(63)
Next, a procedure for computing appropriate values of t in the above equation is discussed.
By introducing dlim , a parameter representing the maximum variation of the level set function
values in the reference domain when the level set function is updated, the following relation with
respect to t is derived:
t =
Copyright q
dlim
E1 VtN
(64)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
where dlim must satisfy the following CourantFriedrichsLewy (CFL)-condition given by

dlim
1
x
(65)
and x is the distance between adjacent nodes. Thus, t is computed using Equation (64), and
the level set function is then updated using Equation (63).
4.4. Optimization algorithm
We now construct the optimization algorithm using the numerical techniques explained in
Sections 4.14.3. Figure 5 shows a flowchart of the optimization process. As shown in this
figure, the initial configuration is first set and then the level set function is initialized as a signed
distance function. Next, the equilibrium equations are solved using the FEM. That is, in the
minimum mean compliance problem, the displacement field is computed by solving Equation (23),
and in the eigenfrequency optimization problems, the eigenmodes are computed by solving
Equations (36) or (46). The objective functional and f ((x)) are then computed. If the objective
functional converges, the optimization process terminates, otherwise the constraint functional
and g((x)) are computed. Next, the level set function is updated based on Equation (63) using
the FEM, and re-initialized. As the level set function is numerically updated using temporal
and spatial discretization, the inequality constraint in Equation (15) may be violated when the
level set function is updated. Therefore, if the constraint is violated, the level set function is
modified to satisfy the constraint. Finally, we examine whether a topological change, i.e. the
introduction of one or more holes based on the topological derivatives, is needed. If a topological
change is required, an appropriate number of holes are introduced. The optimization process then
returns to the first step. Concerning the level set function modification scheme to satisfy the
constraint, we adopt a level set function modification scheme similar to the modification scheme
proposed by Osher and Santosa [42] where the Lagrange multiplier is modified using Newtons
method. In our scheme, we modify the level set function value at each node by adding a constant
value to it.
5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
In this section, we first compare the effectiveness of the proposed re-initialization scheme with
the above-mentioned Fast Marching Method- and PDE-based re-initialization schemes. We then
examine the results for both two- and three-dimensional cases for several numerical examples to
confirm the utility of the proposed method for the minimum compliance and the eigenfrequency
optimization problems.
5.1. Performance of re-initialization schemes
We now compare the effectiveness of the proposed re-initialization scheme, the Fast Marching
Method based re-initialization scheme, and the PDE-based re-initialization scheme proposed by
Sussman et al. [34]. Four level set functions are prepared for this examination. In Case 1, the level
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
Initialize the level set function

Solve the equilibrium equations using the FEM
Compute the objective functional and f ( (x ))
No
Convergence?
Ye s
End
Compute the constraint functional and g ( (x ))

Update the level set function using the FEM
Re-initialize the level set function
The constraint satisfied?
No
Modify the level set function

to satisfy the constraint
Ye s
Topological
change needed?
Ye s
Introduce holes using

the topological derivatives
No
Figure 5. Flowchart of the optimization process.
set function (x, y) is given by

(x, y) = 2( x 2 + y 2 +1.5)
for
(x, y) D,
D = {(x, y)|5x5, 5y5}
(66)
In Case 2, the level set function (x, y) is given by
(x, y) = min( 2x + 2y +3, 2x + 2y +3, 2x 2y +3, 2x 2y +3)

for
(x, y) D,
D = {(x, y)|5x5, 5y5}
(67)
In Case 3, the level set function (x, y) is given by

(x, y) = ( x 2 + y 2 +1.5)+0.1 cos(4x)+0.1 cos(4y)
for
Copyright q
(x, y) D,
D = {(x, y)|5x5, 5y5}
(68)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
-5
-5
-10
-10
-15
-5
x
0
5
(a)
-2.5
-12.5
-5
-25
0
-5
-5
-37.5
-5
0
5
12.5
(b)
2.5
5
x
-5
-7.5
-5
(c)
-15
-5
5
x
(d)
0
5
-5
Figure 6. Distributions of (x) for Cases 14: (a) Case 1; (b) Case 2; (c) Case 3; and (d) Case 4.
and in Case 4, the level set function (x, y) is given by

(x, y) = ( x 2 + y 2 +1.5){0.9 cos(4x)+1}{0.9 cos(4y)+1}
for (x, y) D,
D = {(x, y)|5x5, 5y5}
(69)
In these four cases, the reference domain D is discretized using a structured mesh with 100100
elements. The distributions of (x) for Cases 14 are shown in Figure 6.
The numerical implementation and parameter settings with respect to the three re-initialization
schemes are explained below. For the proposed re-initialization scheme, Parameter n p explained
in Section 3.2 is set to 8. For the Fast Marching Method based re-initialization scheme, the
conventional scheme introduced by Osher and Fedkiw [67] is employed to re-initialize the level
set function values at nodes close to the shape boundaries. That is, if the level set function (x)
changes sign in a coordinate direction, linear interpolation is used to locate the shape boundary
and determine a candidate value for (x), and then (x) is re-initialized using the candidate that
has the smallest magnitude. For the PDE-based re-initialization scheme, the first-order upwind
scheme with second-order ENO scheme [67] is employed, and the number of iterations, the
Courant number, and parameter are, respectively, set to 600, 0.01, and 0.1 in Cases 1 and 2.
These parameters are, respectively, set to 400, 0.01, and 0.2 in Case 3, and 200, 0.01, and 0.2 in
Case 4.
First, the shape boundaries after the re-initialization are examined. Figures 710, respectively,
show the shape boundaries before and after the re-initialization for Cases 14. As shown in these
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 7. Shape boundaries before and after re-initialization for Case 1: (a) shape boundary before
re-initialization; (b) shape boundary after re-initialization using the proposed re-initialization scheme; (c)
shape boundary after re-initialization using the Fast Marching Method based re-initialization scheme; and
(d) shape boundary after re-initialization using the PDE-based re-initialization scheme.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
figures, each of the re-initialization schemes discussed here almost perfectly preserves the shape
boundaries. That is, the given shape boundaries after the re-initialization are almost identical with
the shape boundaries before the re-initialization.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Table I. ||AVG in Cases 14.
| |AVG
Level set function
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Before re-initialization
After re-initialization using
the proposed scheme
the Fast Marching Method based scheme
the PDE-based scheme
2.000
2.000
1.828
1.222
1.001
1.081
1.001
1.002
1.210
1.018
0.9745
1.085
1.065
0.9754
1.072
1.150
Next, adherence to the signed distance characteristic represented by |(x)| = 1 is evaluated.

As a measure of this adherence, we introduce ||AVG which is formulated as
nb
d

V e |(x)|
||AVG =
(70)
jb =1
V e d
n
where n b is the number of elements that cross the shape boundary and jbb=1 represents the union
set of such elements. Thus, the adherence to the signed distance characteristic is evaluated with
respect to the elements that cross the shape boundary, since the normal velocity VN formulated in
Section 4.2 has a non-zero value only near the shape boundaries. When ||AVG is sufficiently
close to 1, we deem that the adherence near the shape boundaries is sufficient. Table I shows
the values of ||AVG for Cases 14, and the numerical error for the worst case is 15.0% when
the PDE-based re-initialization scheme is used and 21.0% when the Fast Marching Method based
scheme is used. In contrast, when the proposed re-initialization scheme is used, the numerical
error in the worst case is only 2.6%.
Although we searched for suitable values for the number of iterations, the Courant number
and parameter for use with the PDE-based re-initialization scheme, adherence to the signed
distance characteristic represented by |(x)| = 1 was not always preserved. Furthermore, suitable
values for these parameters depend upon the distribution of the level set function, hence we
conjecture that the PDE-based scheme implemented using the first-order upwind scheme with
second-order ENO scheme is unsuitable for the proposed structural optimization method where
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
Table II. CPU time in Cases 14.

Computation time (s)
Number of elements
5050
100100
200200
400400
800800
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
0.037
0.280
2.220
17.41
136.6
0.051
0.397
3.076
24.23
192.6
0.046
0.368
3.200
25.20
198.2
0.038
0.283
2.219
17.48
135.4
the level set function is re-initialized at every iteration. For the Fast Marching Method based
re-initialization scheme, we employed the conventional scheme introduced by Osher and Fedkiw
[67] to re-initialize the level set function values at nodes close to the shape boundaries. As
this is a conventional scheme based on linear interpolation, the re-initialization using the Fast
Marching Method based re-initialization scheme yielded large numerical errors when the shape
boundaries crossed the finite elements diagonally. On the other hand, the proposed scheme strictly
reconfigures the level set function based on the definition of the signed distance function, and allows
reasonable values to be set for parameter n p as demonstrated in the above examples, where suitable
values for this parameter do not depend upon the distribution of the level set function. Therefore,
the re-initialization using the proposed re-initialization scheme was successfully performed in
Cases 14.
Finally, the time complexity for a single re-initialization process using the proposed reinitialization scheme is evaluated. To evaluate the time complexity, we measure the CPU time
required to carry out calculations for Cases 14, using different mesh sizes. That is, for each
of the cases, the reference domain D is discretized using 5050 elements, 100100 elements,
200200 elements, 400400 elements, and 800800 elements. A UNIX operating system is
used with a 3.00 GHz Intel Pentium D processor. Parameter n p is set to 8. Table II shows the
average CPU time for 10 re-initializations performed in Cases 14. As this table show, for each
of the cases, when the number of elements quadruples, the CPU time increases roughly by a
3
factor of 8. Therefore, the time complexity for two-dimensional cases is O(N 2 ), where N is
the number of elements. We conjecture that these results are due to the following reasons. For
1
two-dimensional cases, the number of points in P shown in Figure 4 is of order O(N 2 ), since the
shape boundary is a one-dimensional line and the reference domain is a two-dimensional area.
With the number of nodes in the entire reference domain of order O(N ), the time complexity is
3
O(N 2 ), since the CPU time is proportional to the product of the number of points P and the
number of nodes in the entire reference domain. For three-dimensional cases, the time complexity
5
2
is O(N 3 ), since the number of points in P shown in Figure 4 is O(N 3 ). Note that since the time
complexity of the Fast Marching Method based scheme is O(N log N ) [67], the time complexity
of the proposed re-initialization scheme could be improved by incorporating the Fast Marching
Method. That is, using the Fast Marching Method to re-initialize the level set function values at
nodes beyond the neighborhood of the shape boundaries and using the proposed method for nodes
close to the shape boundaries, the time complexity issue could be improved. Unfortunately, this
hybrid scheme cannot be used for unstructured meshes.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
Material domain
10
y
x
(a)
(b)
y
x
Force : 1000
0.2
Figure 11. Reference domain and initial configuration for the two-dimensional case: (a) reference domain
and (b) initial configuration.
Figure 12. Boundary conditions for the two-dimensional minimum compliance problem.
We conclude that the proposed re-initialization scheme provides sufficient adherence to the
signed distance characteristic in the neighborhood of the shape boundaries, while almost perfectly
preserving the shape boundaries. Note that the adherence to the signed distance characteristic was
evaluated only near the shape boundaries in these examples, but the proposed re-initialization
scheme provides sufficient adherence to the signed distance characteristic represented by
|(x)|=1 almost everywhere in the reference domain, except at singular points, since the level
set function is simply reconstructed based on the distance from the shape boundaries.
5.2. Minimum compliance problem
In this section, numerical examples are presented to confirm the utility of the proposed optimization
method for the two- and three-dimensional minimum compliance problems. The isotropic linear
elastic material has Youngs modulus = 2.1108 and Poissons ratio = 0.3. Parameter h explained
in Section 4.1 is set to 0.1, and parameter dlim in Equation (64) is set to 0.1.
5.2.1. Two-dimensional problem. Figure 11(a) shows the reference domain. The reference domain
is discretized using a structured or unstructured mesh and four-node quadrilateral plane stress
elements of length 0.1. Figure 11(b) shows the initial configuration. The maximum allowable
area of the material domain G max is set to 15, i.e. 30% of the area of the reference domain D.
Parameter n p explained in Section 3.2 is set to 8. Figure 12 shows the boundary conditions for the
two-dimensional minimum compliance problem. As shown, the left side of the reference domain
is fixed, and a vertical traction is applied at the center of the right side.
First, we examine the relation between the optimal configurations and the reference domain
discretizations where a structured or unstructured mesh is used. Figure 13(a) shows the optimal
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
(a)
(b)
Figure 13. Optimal configurations for the two-dimensional minimum compliance problem: (a)
the reference domain is discretized using a structured mesh and (b) the reference domain is
discretized using an unstructured mesh.
configuration where the reference domain is discretized using a structured mesh and Figure 13(b)
shows the optimal configuration where the reference domain is discretized using an unstructured
mesh. In both cases, the level set function is re-initialized using the proposed re-initialization
scheme. The mean compliance of the optimal configurations shown in Figure 13(a),(b) are,
respectively, 0.4443 and 0.4446. As these figures show, essentially identical optimal configurations are obtained using the proposed method regardless of whether the reference domain is
discretized using a structured or unstructured mesh. These obtained optimal configurations, with
the volume constraint active, are nearly identical to the optimal configurations that other researchers
obtained using previously proposed structural optimization methods based on the level set method
[32, 48, 53, 54]. Note that the optimal configuration in Figure 13(b) shows that an appropriate
optimal configuration can be obtained when the reference domain is discretized using an unstructured mesh, but this does not guarantee that appropriate optimal configurations will always be
obtained regardless of the mesh shape and size.
Next, the effect that the three different re-initialization schemes have upon the optimal configurations is examined. Figure 14(c) shows the optimal configuration where the level set function
is re-initialized using the Fast Marching Method based re-initialization scheme, and Figure 14(d)
is an enlarged view of Figure 14(c). The Fast Marching Method based re-initialization scheme is
implemented using the conventional scheme introduced by Osher and Fedkiw [67]. Figure 14(a)
shows the optimal configuration where the level set function is re-initialized using the proposed
re-initialization scheme, that is Figure 14(a) is the same as Figure 13(a). Figure 14(b) is an
enlarged view of Figure 14(a). Comparing Figures 14(b) and (d), the shape boundaries show
obvious corrugation when the Fast Marching Method based scheme is used. As explained in
Section 5.1, re-initialization using the Fast Marching Method based re-initialization scheme yields
large numerical errors when the shape boundaries cross the finite elements diagonally, and we
conjecture that these errors are the cause of the corrugations when the Fast Marching Method based
re-initialization scheme is used. On the other hand, when re-initialization is performed using the
PDE-based re-initialization scheme where the first-order upwind scheme with second-order ENO
scheme is employed, suitable values for the number of iterations, the Courant number, and parameter must be given a priori. However, finding suitable values that remain constant during the
optimization procedure is problematic, hence the structural optimization could not be performed.
The effect of the initial configurations upon the resulting optimal configurations are now examined. The initial configurations are shown in Figure 15(a),(c),(e), and (g). When Figure 15(a) is the
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 14. Optimal configurations for the two-dimensional minimum compliance problem: (a) obtained
using the proposed re-initialization scheme; (b) enlarged view of (a); (c) obtained using the Fast Marching
Method based re-initialization scheme; and (d) enlarged view of (c).
initial configuration, lacking a hole, Figure 15(b) is the obtained optimal configuration. Figure 15(c)
shows the initial configuration with one hole and Figure 15(d) is the obtained optimal configuration.
Figure 15(e) is the initial configuration with four holes and Figure 15(f) is the obtained optimal
configuration. Finally, Figure 15(g) is the initial configuration with a large number of holes and
Figure 15(h) is the obtained optimal configuration. For all these cases, the level set function is reinitialized using the proposed re-initialization scheme. These optimal configurations are essentially
identical and appropriate. That is, in cases where the boundary conditions are imposed as shown in
Figure 12, an appropriate optimal configuration can be obtained for all initial configurations here.
When the initial configuration is as shown in Figure 15(a), the area of the material domain obviously violates the volume constraint, hence the maximum allowable area of the material domain
G max was gradually decreased during the optimization procedure. The ultimately obtained optimal
configuration shown in Figure 15(b) satisfies the volume constraint, and this was true in the other
cases as well.
5.2.2. Three-dimensional problem. Figure 16(a) shows the reference domain. The reference
domain is discretized using a structured mesh and eight-node hexahedral elements whose length
is 0.1. Figure 16(b) shows the initial configuration. The maximum allowable volume of the
material domain G max is set to 4.8, i.e. 30% of the volume of the reference domain D. Parameter
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Figure 15. Initial configurations and resulting optimal configurations: (a) initial configuration lacking a
hole; (b) optimal configuration when initial configuration is (a); (c) initial configuration with a hole; (d)
optimal configuration when initial configuration is (c); (e) initial configuration with four holes; (f) optimal
configuration when initial configuration is (e); (g) initial configuration with a large number of holes; and
(h) optimal configuration when initial configuration is (g).
n p explained in Section 3.2 is set to 4. The re-initialization is performed using the proposed
re-initialization scheme. Figure 17 shows the boundary conditions, with the left side of the
reference domain fixed, and a vertical traction applied at the center of the right side.
Figure 18 shows the optimal configuration. In this case, the volume constraint is active. The
mean compliance of the optimal configuration is 0.2157 whereas the mean compliance of the initial
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
Material domain
2
y
x
(a)
(b)
Figure 16. Reference domain and initial configuration for the three-dimensional case: (a) reference domain
and (b) initial configuration.
z
y
x
Force : 1000
0.2
0 .2
Figure 17. Boundary conditions for the three-dimensional minimum compliance problem.
configuration is 0.7376. Interestingly, the obtained optimal configuration is similar to the optimal
configuration for the two-dimensional case obtained using the HDM [32]. In the non-penalized
optimal configuration obtained using the HDM, the edges of the cantilever are dense, although
grayscales appear inside the cantilever boundaries. Similarly, in the three-dimensional optimal
configuration obtained using the proposed method, the outer portions of the cantilever are rather
wide, but thin suddenly toward the center.
5.3. Lowest eigenfrequency maximization problem
The utility of the proposed method for the two- and three-dimensional lowest eigenfrequency
maximization problems is now examined. In the numerical examples here, the lowest, second and
third eigenfrequencies are the target eigenfrequencies, that is parameter q in Equation (33) is set
to 3. The isotropic linear elastic material has Youngs modulus = 2.1108, Poissons ratio = 0.3,
and mass density = 7.8106. Parameter h explained in Section 4.1 is set to 0.1, and parameter
dlim in Equation (64) is set to 0.1.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
y
x
0.2
0.2
Figure 18. Optimal configuration for the three-dimensional minimum compliance problem.
y
x
Concentrated mass : 0.16
Figure 19. Boundary conditions for the two-dimensional eigenfrequency optimization problems.
5.3.1. Two-dimensional problem. Figure 11(a) shows the reference domain. The reference
domain is discretized using a structured or unstructured mesh where four-node quadrilateral
plane stress elements of length 0.1 are used. Figure 11(b) shows the initial configuration. The
upper limit for the area of the material domain G max is set to 15, i.e. 30% of the area of
the reference domain D. Parameter n p explained in Section 3.2 is set to 8. Figure 19 shows
the boundary conditions, where the left and right sides of the reference domain are fixed,
and a concentrated mass is set at the center of the reference domain. The lowest, second,
and third eigenfrequencies of the initial configuration, respectively, reach 1189, 4077, and
14 050 Hz.
First, we examine the effect that using reference domain discretizations with a structured or
unstructured mesh has upon the optimal configurations. The level set function is again re-initialized
using the proposed re-initialization scheme. Figure 20(a) shows the optimal configuration where
the reference domain is discretized using a structured mesh. Figure 20(b) shows the optimal
configuration where the reference domain is discretized using an unstructured mesh. In both
cases, the volume constraint is active. The lowest, second, and third eigenfrequencies of the two
optimal configurations are shown in Table III. These results show that essentially identical optimal
configurations are obtained using the proposed method regardless of whether the reference domain
is discretized using a structured or unstructured mesh, similar to the results for the two-dimensional
minimum compliance problem. The lowest eigenmode of the two optimal configurations is the
y-directional first bending mode where the vibration amplitude at the center of the structure is
largest, and the stiffness of the optimal configurations with respect to this first bending mode
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
(a)
(b)
Figure 20. Optimal configurations for the two-dimensional lowest eigenfrequency maximization
problem: (a) the reference domain is discretized using a structured mesh and (b) the reference domain
is discretized using an unstructured mesh.
Table III. Lowest, second, and third eigenfrequencies for the optimal configurations in Section 5.3.1.
Figures
Lowest
eigenfrequency (Hz)
Second
eigenfrequency (Hz)
Third
eigenfrequency (Hz)
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
2019
2019
1430
2056
3370
3372
3713
2289
13 720
13 730
14 070
12 540
20(a)
20(b)
21
22
is effectively improved. Thus, the proposed method provides a good maximization of the lowest
eigenfrequency.
Next, we examine the effect that introducing holes has on the optimal configurations. Figure 20(a)
shows a case where topological changes using the scheme for introducing holes are allowed,
whereas Figure 21 shows the optimal configuration where topological changes using the scheme
for introducing holes are not used, and whose lowest, second, and third eigenfrequencies are shown
in Table III. Comparing Figures 20(a) and 21, higher stiffness in the y-direction at the location of
the non-structural mass is obtained when topological changes due to the introduction of holes are
allowed. Such stiffness increases the frequency of the lowest eigenmode, the first bending mode
where the anti-node is located at center of the reference domain. Therefore, the topological changes
that occur as a consequence of introducing holes offer the possibility of optimal configurations
that have higher eigenfrequencies.
Finally, we examine a case where the objective functional is as formulated in Equation (32),
where only the lowest eigenfrequency is regarded as an objective functional. In such cases, the
objective functional may fail to converge due to changes in the sequence of the eigenmodes.
Figure 22 shows the optimal configuration for a case where the objective functional is formulated
as in Equation (32), and the lowest, second, and third eigenfrequencies are as shown in Table III. As
the sequence of the eigenmodes did not change during the optimization procedure in this setting,
the objective functional converged. As shown in Figure 22, two holes are observed near the center
of the reference domain, while such holes are not present in the optimal configuration shown in
Figure 20(a). However, comparing the lowest eigenfrequencies for the cases shown in Figures
20(a) and 22, the values only differ by 2%. Therefore, the formulation explained in Section 2.4
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
Figure 21. Optimal configuration obtained when a hole introducing method based on the
topological derivative is not used.
Figure 22. Optimal configuration obtained when only the lowest eigenfrequency is maximized.
that aims to protect the convergence of the objective functional does not significantly degrade the
obtained optimal configuration.
5.3.2. Three-dimensional problem. Figure 16(a) shows the reference domain of the threedimensional problem. The reference domain is discretized using a structured mesh and eight-node
hexahedral elements of length 0.1. Figure 16(b) shows the initial configuration. The maximum
allowable volume of the material domain G max is set to 4.8, i.e. 30% of the volume of the
reference domain D. The re-initialization is performed using the proposed re-initialization scheme.
Parameter n p explained in Section 3.2 is set to 4. Figure 23 shows the boundary conditions,
where the left and right sides of the reference domain are fixed, and a concentrated mass is set at
the center of the reference domain. The lowest, second, and third eigenfrequencies of the initial
configuration respectively reach 45 460, 49 290, and 85 560 Hz.
Figure 24 shows the optimal configuration of this three-dimensional case. The lowest, second,
and third eigenfrequencies of the optimal configuration, respectively, reach 52 390, 52 590, and
82 680 Hz. The optimal configuration of this three-dimensional case is an axially symmetric
configuration of the two-dimensional case shown in Figure 20(a), which we consider very
reasonable.
5.4. Eigenfrequency matching problem
Numerical examples for the two- and three-dimensional eigenfrequency matching problem are now
presented. In this section, parameter h explained in Section 4.1 is set to 0.1, and parameter dlim in
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
z
y
x
Concentrated mass : 4
104
( size : 0.2 0.2 0.2)
Figure 23. Boundary conditions for the three-dimensional eigenfrequency optimization problem.
y
x
Figure 24. Optimal configuration for the three-dimensional lowest eigenfrequency maximization problem.
Equation (64) is set to 0.01. The material properties are the same as for the lowest eigenfrequency
maximization problem.
5.4.1. Two-dimensional problem. The reference domain shown in Figure 11(a) is discretized using
a structured mesh and four-node quadrilateral plane stress elements of length 0.1. The initial
configuration is shown in Figure 11(b). The upper limit for the area of the material domain G max
is set to 15, i.e. 30% of the area of the reference domain D. The re-initialization is performed
using the proposed re-initialization scheme. Parameter n p explained in Section 3.2 is set to 8. The
boundary conditions are shown in Figure 19. The lowest, second, third, and fourth eigenfrequencies
of the initial configuration, respectively, reach 1189, 4077, 14 050, and 16 290 Hz.
First, the lowest eigenfrequency matching cases are examined. The weighting coefficients w1 and
w2 in Equation (43) are, respectively, set to 0.9 and 0.1. Figure 25 shows the optimal configurations
whose lowest eigenfrequency is matched to a specified target value. The lowest eigenfrequency
target values for the cases shown in Figure 25(a)(e) are, respectively, set to 300, 600, 900,
1500, and 1800 Hz. In all of these cases, the target value of the second eigenfrequency is set to
4000 Hz to avoid changes in sequence between the lowest and second eigenmodes. The lowest and
second eigenfrequencies of the optimal configurations are shown in Table IV. For the cases shown
in Figure 25(a)(c), topological changes are not performed and the volume constraint remains
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Figure 25. Optimal configurations whose lowest eigenfrequency is matched to specified target value: (a)
lowest eigenfrequency target value = 300 Hz; (b) lowest eigenfrequency target value = 600 Hz; (c) lowest
eigenfrequency target value = 900 Hz; (d) lowest eigenfrequency target value = 1500 Hz; and (e) lowest
eigenfrequency target value = 1800 Hz.
inactive. On the other hand, topological changes are carried out in the cases shown in Figure 25(d,
e), and the volume constraint becomes active. As the lowest eigenfrequency reaches a maximum
value of 1430 Hz in the case shown in Figure 21 where topological changes using the scheme for
introducing holes are not allowed, it appears that topological changes must be allowed when the
aim is to achieve target values above 1430 Hz.
Next, the second and third eigenfrequencies matching cases are examined. Figure 26(a) shows
the optimal configuration whose target value for the second eigenfrequency is specified as 3400 Hz.
In this case, the target values of the lowest and third eigenfrequencies are, respectively, set to
1200 Hz and 14 000 Hz to avoid changes in the sequence among the three eigenmodes, and the
weighting coefficients w1 , w2 , and w3 are, respectively, set to 0.1, 0.8, and 0.1. Figure 26(b) shows
the optimal configuration whose target value for the third eigenfrequency is 7000 Hz. The target
values of the second and fourth eigenfrequencies are, respectively, set to 4000 and 16 000 Hz to
avoid changes in the sequence among the three eigenmodes, and the weighting coefficients w2 ,
w3 , and w4 are, respectively, set to 0.1, 0.8, and 0.1. In both cases, the volume constraint is
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
Table IV. Lowest, second, third, and fourth eigenfrequencies for the optimal configurations in
Section 5.4.1.
Figures
Lowest
eigenfrequency
(Hz)
Second
eigenfrequency
(Hz)
Third
eigenfrequency
(Hz)
Fourth
eigenfrequency
(Hz)
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
299.6
601.4
900.5
1499
1786
1201
1800
3537
3816
3983
3932
3678
3399
3432
3357
13 870
6980
16 273
25(a)
25(b)
25(c)
25(d)
25(e)
26(a)
26(b)
27
(a)
(b)
Figure 26. Optimal configurations whose 2nd or 3rd eigenfrequency is matched to specified target value:
(a) 2nd eigenfrequency target value = 3400 Hz and (b) 3rd eigenfrequency target value = 7000 Hz.
Figure 27. Optimal configuration whose lowest eigenfrequency target value = 1800 Hz
(2nd eigenfrequency is not matched).
inactive. The eigenfrequencies of these optimal configurations are listed in Table IV. As shown in
these figures, clear optimal configurations are obtained even for cases where the second or third
eigenfrequencies are specified.
Finally, we examine a case where only the lowest eigenfrequency is matched to 1800 Hz whereas
the second eigenfrequency is not matched to a specified target value. Figure 27 shows the optimal
configuration, and the lowest and second eigenfrequencies, respectively, reach 1800 and 3357 Hz. In
this case, the volume constraint is active and as a result, the sequence between the lowest and second
eigenmodes is not changed during the optimization procedure. The obtained optimal configuration
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
is similar to Figure 25(e) where the target values for the lowest and second eigenfrequencies are,
respectively, set to 1800 and 4000 Hz. Comparing the cases shown in Figures 25(e) and 27, the
second eigenfrequency in Figure 25(e) is closer to 4000 Hz, since the target value for the second
eigenfrequency is given as 4000 Hz. On the other hand, the lowest eigenfrequency in Figure 25(e)
fails to reach 1800 Hz, whereas the lowest eigenfrequency in Figure 27 matches the 1800 Hz target
exactly. However, since the lowest eigenfrequency in Figure 25(e) reaches 1786 Hz, and deviates
from the target value by only 1%, we consider that the lowest eigenfrequency is sufficiently
matched to the target value, because the target value for the second eigenfrequency is also given.
5.4.2. Three-dimensional problems. The reference domain shown in Figure 16(a) is discretized
using a structured mesh where eight-node hexahedral elements of length 0.1 are used. The initial
configuration is shown in Figure 16(b). The maximum allowable volume of the material domain
G max is set to 4.8, i.e. 30% of the volume of the reference domain D. The re-initialization is
performed using the proposed re-initialization scheme. Parameter n p explained in Section 3.2 is
set to 4. The boundary conditions are shown in Figure 23. The lowest and second eigenfrequencies
of the initial configuration, respectively, reach 45 460 and 49 290 Hz.
Figure 28 shows the obtained optimal configurations whose lowest eigenfrequency is matched
to a specified target value. The target values of the lowest eigenfrequency for the cases shown in
Figure 28(a)(c) are, respectively, set to 15 000, 25 000, and 35 000 Hz. In these cases, the target
value for the second eigenfrequency is set to 48 000 Hz to avoid changes in the sequence between
the lowest and second eigenmodes, and the weighting coefficients w1 and w2 in Equation (43) are,
respectively, set to 0.9 and 0.1. The eigenfrequencies of these optimal configurations are shown
in Table V. For these cases, topological changes are not performed and the volume constraint
remains inactive. The lowest eigenmode for these cases is the y-directional first bending mode
where the anti-node is located at the center of the reference domain, whereas the two nodes are
located at the left and right portions of the structure. Thus, the optimal configurations whose
lowest eigenfrequencies are relatively low, are obtained by decreasing the y-directional thickness
at the anti-node and the two nodes, as shown in Figure 28. Thus, it is confirmed that the proposed
method also provides the optimal configurations for the eigenfrequency matching problem in
three-dimensional cases.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we proposed a new structural optimization method based on the level set method and
applied it to the minimum compliance problem, the lowest eigenfrequency maximization problem
and the eigenfrequency matching problem. We achieved the following:
(1) A new structural optimization method based on the level set method was proposed. In the
proposed structural optimization method, the level set equation is discretized with respect to
time using the explicit method, and the level set function is re-initialized at every iteration.
In this manner, we guarantee the signed distance characteristic represented by |(x)| = 1,
and simplify the level set equation. Since updating the level set function based on this
simplified level set equation does not require sophisticated numerical techniques like the
upwind scheme, we employed the FEM for the spatial discretization and the level set function
updating scheme is easily implemented.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
y
x
(a)
y
x
(b)
y
x
(c)
y
x
Figure 28. Optimal configurations whose lowest eigenfrequency is the specified target value in
the three-dimensional cases (left: iso-parametric view and right: top view): (a) lowest eigenfrequency target value = 15 000 Hz; (b) lowest eigenfrequency target value = 25 000 Hz; and (c) lowest
eigenfrequency target value = 35 000 Hz.
(2) Based on the proposed structural optimization method, we formulated the minimum compliance, lowest eigenfrequency maximization, and eigenfrequency matching problems. An
optimization algorithm was also constructed for the above three problems using numerical
techniques explained in Section 4, which must be used to obtain appropriate optimal configurations.
(3) We developed a new geometry-based re-initialization scheme to guarantee the signed distance
characteristic represented by |(x)| = 1. The proposed re-initialization scheme provides
sufficient adherence to the signed distance characteristic represented by |(x)| = 1, while
almost perfectly preserving the shape boundaries. As the proposed re-initialization scheme
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
Table V. Lowest and second eigenfrequencies for the optimal configurations in Section 5.4.2.
Figures
Lowest
eigenfrequency (Hz)
Second
eigenfrequency (Hz)
15 060
25 130
34 910
33 230
41 880
47 310
Figure 28(a)
Figure 28(b)
Figure 28(c)
is not computationally intensive, the level set function can be re-initialized at every iteration,
which markedly improves the obtained optimal configurations.
(4) The effectivenesses of the proposed re-initialization scheme was compared with the Fast
Marching Method based re-initialization scheme and the PDE-based re-initialization scheme,
using the provided numerical examples. From this comparison, we concluded that only the
proposed re-initialization scheme effectively maintains the signed distance characteristic
represented by |(x)| = 1 while almost perfectly preserving the shape boundaries. Next,
several numerical examples for both two- and three-dimensional cases were provided to
confirm the usefulness of the proposed structural optimization method for the minimum
compliance problem, the lowest eigenfrequency maximization problem, and the eigenfrequency matching problem. We confirmed that appropriate and clear optimal configurations
were obtained using the proposed structural optimization method for these three optimization problems.
APPENDIX A
The shape derivative of F() in Equation (21) with respect to is now derived. The shape
derivative of F() is described as

dF()
*F()
*F()
,w +
,
(A1)
, =
d
*u
*
and the Frechet derivatives
*F()/*u, w and
*F()/*, are, respectively, given by

*F()
tw d
, w = bwH ((x)) d+
*u
D
* Dt
and

*F()
, = bu((x)) d
*
D
(A3)
where w is the variation of the displacement field u.

By setting v = w in Equation (23), we have

bwH ((x)) d+
tw d = (w) : D : (u)H ((x)) d
D
Copyright q
* Dt
(A2)
(A4)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
Substituting the above equation into Equation (A2) yields

*F()
, w = (w) : D : (u)H ((x)) d
*u
D
(A5)
The Frechet derivatives for a(u, v, ) and L(v, ) are, respectively, given by

*a(u, v, )
(v) : D : (w)H ((x)) d
,w =
*u
D

*a(u, v, )
(v) : D : (u)((x)) d
, =
*
D

*L(v, )
bv((x)) d
, =
*
D
We derive the following equation from Equation (23):

*a(u, v, )
*a(u, v, )
*L(v, )
,w +
, =
,
*u
*
*
Substituting Equations (A6)(A8) into the above equation yields

(v) : D : (w)H ((x)) d+ (v) : D : (u)((x)) d = bv((x))d
D
(A7)
(A8)
(A9)
(A10)
By setting v = u in the above equation, we have

(u) : D : (w)H ((x)) d= bu((x)) d (u) : D : (u)((x)) d
D
(A6)
(A11)
Furthermore, substituting the above equation into Equation (A5) yields

*F()
, w = bu((x)) d (u) : D : (u)((x)) d
*u
D
D
(A12)
Finally, after substitution of Equations (A3) and (A12) into Equation (A1), the shape derivative of
F() is obtained by

dF()
(A13)
, = {2bu(u) : D : (u)}((x)) d
d
D
APPENDIX B
The shape derivative of F() in Equation (34) with respect to is derived as

*k
*k

2
q
,
w
+
,

q
1
dF()
*uk
*
, =
d
2k
k=1 k
k=1
Copyright q
(A14)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
and the Frechet derivatives of b(uk , v, ) are given by

*b(uk , v, )
,w =
vwH ((x)) d
*uk
D

*b(uk , v, )
vuk ((x)) d
, =
*
D
(A15)
(A16)
where w is the variation of the k-th eigenmode uk . From Equation (36), we obtain the following:

*b(uk , v, )
*a(uk , v, )
*k
*a(uk , v, )
,w +
,w +
, w b(uk , v, )
, = k
*uk
*
*uk
*uk

*b(uk , v, )
*k
+k
, +
, b(uk , v, ) (A17)
*
*
Furthermore, substitution of Equations (A6), (A7), (A15) and (A16) into the above equation yields

(v) : D : (w)H ((x)) d+
D

vwH ((x)) d+
= k
D
(v) : D : (uk )((x)) d

D

*k
*k
vuk ((x)) d +
,w +
,
*uk
*
D
vuk H ((x)) d
(A18)
By setting v = uk in the above equation, we have

*k
*k
,w +
uk uk H ((x)) d
,
*uk
*
D

= (uk ) : D : (w)H ((x)) d+ (uk ) : D : (uk )((x)) d
D

uk uk ((x)) d
k
uk wH ((x)) d+

D
Furthermore, the following equation is derived by setting v = w in Equation (36).

(w) : D : (uk )H ((x)) d= k
wuk H ((x)) d
D
(A20)
Substituting the above equation into Equation (A19), we have

*k
*k
,w +
uk uk H ((x)) d
,
*uk
*
D

= (uk ) : D : (uk )((x)) dk
uk uk ((x)) d
D
Copyright q
(A19)
(A21)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
Using Equations (A14) and (A21), the shape derivative of F() is described as follows:

q

q
1 2
dF()
D {(uk ) : D : (uk )+k uk uk }((x)) d
, =
d
2k D uk uk H ((x)) d
k=1 k
k=1
(A22)
APPENDIX C
The shape derivative of F() in Equation (44) is derived as

s+1

k obj,k
*k
*k
dF()
,w +
,
2wk
, =
d
*uk
*
2obj,k
k=s1
(A23)
where w is the variation of the k-th eigenmode uk . Substituting Equation (A21) into the above
equation, we have

s+1
: (uk )k uk uk }((x)) d

k obj,k
dF()
D {(uk ) : D
(A24)
2wk
, =
d
2obj,k
k=s1
D uk uk H ((x)) d
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The first author sincerely appreciates having received support from the Mizuho Foundation for the
Promotion of Sciences.
REFERENCES
1. Zienkiewicz OC, Campbell JS. Shape optimization and sequential linear programming. In Optimum Structural
Design, Gallagher RH, Zienkiewicz OC (eds). Wiley: New York, 1973; 109126.
2. Imam MH. Three-dimensional shape optimization. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
1982; 18:661673.
3. Braibant V, Fleury C. Shape optimal design using B-splines. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 1984; 44:247267.
4. Braibant V, Fleury C. An approximation concepts approach to shape optimal design. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1985; 53:119148.
5. Bennett JA, Botkin ME. Shape optimization of two-dimensional structures with geometric problem description
and adaptive mesh refinement. AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS 24th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Material
Conference, Nevada, U.S.A., 1983.
6. Bennett JA, Botkin ME. Structural shape optimization with geometric problem description and adaptive mesh
refinement. AIAA Journal 1985; 23:458464.
7. Kikuchi N, Chung KY, Torigaki T, Taylor JE. Adaptive finite element methods for shape optimization of linearly
elastic structures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1986; 57:6789.
8. Belegundu AD, Rajan SD. A shape optimization approach based on natural design variables and shape functions.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1988; 66:87106.
9. Azegami H, Shimoda M, Katamine E, Wu ZC. A domain optimization technique for elliptic boundary value
problems. In Computer Aided Optimization Design of Structures IV, Structural Optimization, Hernandez S,
El-Sayed M, Brebbia CA (eds). Computational Mechanics Publications: Southampton, 1995; 5158.
10. Inzarulfaisham AR, Azegami H. Solution to boundary shape optimization problem of linear elastic continua with
prescribed natural vibration mode shapes. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 2004; 27:210217. DOI:
10.1007/s00158-003-0372-x.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
11. Haftka RT, Grandhi RV. Structural shape optimization: a survey. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 1986; 57:91106.
12. Saitou K, Izui K, Nishiwaki S, Papalambros P. A survey of structural optimization in mechanical product
development. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 2005; 5:214226. DOI:
10.1115/1.2013290.
13. Bendse MP, Kikuchi N. Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a homogenization method.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1988; 71:197224.
14. Suzuki K, Kikuchi N. A homogenization method for shape and topology optimization. Computer Methods in
15. Diaz AR, Kikuchi N. Solutions to shape and topology eigenvalue optimization using a homogenization method.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1992; 35:14871502.
16. Ma ZD, Kikuchi N, Cheng HC. Topological design for vibrating structures. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 1995; 121:259280.
17. Murat F, Tartar L. Optimality conditions and homogenization. In Nonlinear Variational Problems, Mario A,
Modica L, Spagnolo S (eds). Pitman Publishing Program: Boston, 1985; 18.
18. Belytschko T, Xiao SP, Parimi C. Topology optimization with implicit functions and regularization. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2003; 57:11771196. DOI: 10.1002/nme.824.
19. Norato J, Haber R, Tortorelli D. A geometry projection method for shape optimization. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2004; 60:22892312. DOI: 10.1002/nme.1044.
20. Bendse MP. Optimal shape design as a material distribution problem. Structural Optimization 1989; 1:193202.
21. Yang RJ, Chung CH. Optimal topology design using linear programming. Computers and Structures 1994;
53:265275.
22. Bendse MP, Sigmund O. Topology Optimization Theory, Methods and Applications. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg,
New York, 2003.
23. Bendse MP, Sigmund O. Material interpolation schemes in topology optimization. Archive of Applied Mechanics
1999; 69:635654.
24. Diaz AR, Sigmund O. Checkerboard patterns in layout optimization. Structural Optimization 1995; 10:4045.
25. Sigmund O, Petersson J. Numerical instabilities in topology optimization: a survey on procedures dealing with
checkerboards, mesh-dependencies and local minima. Structural Optimization 1998; 16:6875.
26. Haber RB, Jog CS, Bendse MP. A new approach to variable-topology shape design using a constraint on
parameter. Structural Optimization 1996; 11:112.
27. Xie YM, Steven GP. A simple evolutionary procedure for structural optimization. Computers and Structures
1993; 49:885896.
28. Yang XY, Xie YM, Steven GP, Querin OM. Topology optimization for frequencies using an evolutionary method.
Journal of Structural Engineering 1999; 125:14321438.
29. Li Q, Steven GP, Querin OM, Xie YM. Shape and topology design for heat conduction by evolutionary structural
optimization. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 1999; 42:33613371.
30. Sethian JA, Wiegmann A. Structural boundary design via level-set and immersed interface methods. Journal of
Computational Physics 2000; 163:489528.
31. Wang MY, Wang X, Guo D. A level set method for structural topology optimization. Computer Methods in
32. Allaire G, Jouve F, Toader AM. Structural optimization using sensitivity analysis and a level-set method. Journal
of Computational Physics 2004; 194:363393. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2003.09.032.
33. Osher S, Sethian JA. Fronts propagating with curvature dependent speed: algorithms based on HamiltonJacobi
formulations. Journal of Computational Physics 1988; 78:1249.
34. Sussman M, Smereka P, Osher S. A level set approach for computing solutions to incompressible two-phase
flow. Journal of Computational Physics 1994; 114:146159.
35. Chang YC, Hou TY, Merriman B, Osher S. A level set formulation of Eulerian interface capturing methods for
incompressible fluid flows. Journal of Computational Physics 1996; 124:449464.
36. Sussman M, Puckett EG. A coupled level set and volume-of-fluid method for computing 3D and axisymmetric
incompressible two-phase flows. Journal of Computational Physics 2000; 162:301337.
37. Son G, Dhir VK. Numerical simulation of film boiling near critical pressures with a level set method. Journal
of Heat Transfer 1998; 120:183192.
38. Ye JC, Bresler Y, Moulin P. A self-referencing level-set method for image reconstruction from sparse fourier
samples. International Journal of Computer Vision 2002; 50:253270.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
S. YAMASAKI ET AL.
39. Tsai R, Osher S. Level set methods and their applications in image science. Communications in Mathematical
Sciences 2003; 1:623656.
40. van den Doel K, Ascher UM. On level set regularization for highly ill-posed distributed parameter estimation
problems. Journal of Computational Physics 2006; 216:707723. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2006.01.022.
41. Sethian JA. Level set methods and fast marching methods. Cambridge Monographs on Applied and Computational
Mathematics (2nd edn). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 1999.
42. Osher S, Santosa F. Level-set methods for optimization problems involving geometry and constraints: frequencies
of a two-density inhomogeneous drum. Journal of Computational Physics 2001; 171:272288.
43. Wang MY, Wang XM. Color level sets: a multi-phase method for structural topology optimization with
multiple materials. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2004; 193:469496. DOI:
10.1016/j.cma.2003.10.008.
44. Wang SY, Wang MY. A moving superimposed finite element method for structural topology optimization.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2006; 65:18921922. DOI: 10.1002/nme.1527.
45. Allaire G, Jouve F. A level-set method for vibration and multiple loads structural optimization. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2005; 194:32693290. DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2004.12.018.
46. Haber E. A multilevel, level-set method for optimizing eigenvalues in shape design problems. Journal of
Computational Physics 2004; 198:518534. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2004.01.031.
47. Wang SY, Lim KM, Khoo BC, Wang MY. A geometric deformation constrained level set method for structural
shape and topology optimization. Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences 2007; 18:155181.
48. Allaire G, Gournay F, Jouve F, Toader AM. Structural optimization using topological and shape sensitivity via
a level set method. Internal Report 555, Ecole Polytechnique, France, 2004.
49. Sokolowski J, Zochowski A. On the topological derivative in shape optimization. SIAM Journal on Control and
Optimization 1999; 37:12511272.
50. Zhuang CG, Xiong ZH, Ding H. A level set method for topology optimization of heat conduction problem
under multiple load cases. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2007; 196:10741084.
DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2006.08.005.
51. Burger M, Hackl B, Ring W. Incorporating topological derivatives into level set methods. Journal of Computational
Physics 2004; 194:344362. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2003.09.033.
52. He L, Kao CY, Osher S. Incorporating topological derivatives into shape derivatives based level set methods.
Journal of Computational Physics 2007; 225:891909. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.01.003.
53. Amstutz S, Andra H. A new algorithm for topology optimization using a level-set method. Journal of
Computational Physics 2006; 216:573588. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2005.12.015.
54. Wang SY, Wang MY. Radial basis functions and level set method for structural topology optimization. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2006; 65:20602090. DOI: 10.1002/nme.1536.
55. Wang SY, Lim KM, Khoo BC, Wang MY. An extended level set method for shape and topology optimization.
Journal of Computational Physics 2007; 221:395421. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2006.06.029.
56. Wang SY, Wang MY. Structural shape and topology optimization using an implicit free boundary parametrization
method. Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences 2006; 13:119147.
57. Wang SY, Lim KM, Khoo BC, Wang MY. An unconditionally time-stable level set method and its application
to shape and topology optimization. Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences 2007; 21:140.
58. Luo Z, Tong L, Wang MY, Wang SY. Shape and topology optimization of compliant mechanisms
using a parameterization level set method. Journal of Computational Physics 2007; 227:680705. DOI:
10.1016/j.jcp.2007.08.011.
59. Chen J, Shapiro V, Suresh K, Tsukanov I. Shape optimization with topological changes and parametric control.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2007; 71:313346. DOI: 10.1002/nme.1943.
60. Wei P, Wang MY. A piecewise constant level set method for structural shape and topology optimization. The
Seventh World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Seoul, Korea, 2007.
61. Li HW, Tai XC. Piecewise constant level set method for multiphase motion. International Journal of Numerical
Analysis and Modeling 2007; 4:291305.
62. Tai XC, Christiansen O. Image segmentation using some piecewise constant level set methods with MBO type
of projection. International Journal of Computer Vision 2007; 73:6176. DOI: 10.1007/s11263-006-9140-x.
63. Luo J, Luo Z, Chen L, Tong L, Wang MY. A semi-implicit level set method for structural shape and topology
optimization. Journal of Computational Physics 2008; 227:55615581. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2008.02.003.
64. Park KS, Park SH, Youn SK. Level set based topology optimization using hole creation map. The Fourth
China-Japan-Korea Joint Symposium on Optimization of Structural and Mechanical Systems, Kunming, China,
2006.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
65. Mulder W, Osher S, Sethian JA. Computing interface motion in compressible gas dynamics. Journal of
Computational Physics 1992; 100:209228.
66. Chopp DL. Computing minimal surfaces via level set curvature flow. Journal of Computational Physics 1993;
106:7791.
67. Osher S, Fedkiw R. Level Set Methods and Dynamic Implicit Surfaces. Springer: New York, 2003.
68. Liu Z, Korvink JG, Huang R. Structure topology optimization: fully coupled level set method via FEMLAB.
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 2005; 29:407417. DOI: 10.1007/s00158-004-0503-z.
69. Pedersen NL. Maximization of eigenvalues using topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization 2000; 20:211.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme

Fem Structural Optimisation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fem Structural Optimisation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

A structural optimization method based on the level set method

structural optimization; level set method; re-initialization; finite element method

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

A STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD BASED ON THE LEVEL SET METHOD

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

A STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD BASED ON THE LEVEL SET METHOD

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

(x) < 0 for x D\

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD BASED ON THE LEVEL SET METHOD

Substituting Equation (4) into Equation (3), we have

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

The weak form of the above equation can be easily derived as

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

A STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD BASED ON THE LEVEL SET METHOD

is, we introduce a Lagrangian F()

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

f ((x, t))g((x, t))d

where H ((x)) is the Heaviside function such that

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

A STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD BASED ON THE LEVEL SET METHOD

(v) : D : (u)H ((x)) d

where is the linearized strain tensor, D is the elasticity tensor, and

2.4. The eigenfrequency optimization problems

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

where the bilinear form b(uk , v, ) is here defined by

and  is the mass density.

q {(u ) : D : (u )+ u u }((x))

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD BASED ON THE LEVEL SET METHOD

The shape derivative of F() is described as

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

A STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD BASED ON THE LEVEL SET METHOD

Figure 1. Points on the shape boundary in an element.

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

An appropriate number of points on ( ,

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD BASED ON THE LEVEL SET METHOD

Figure 3. Intersection points on the shape boundary in an element.

Figure 4. A set of points P.

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

Using the relaxed Dirac Delta function ((x)),

f ((x)) = {2bu(u) : D : (u)}((x))

f ((x)) = {2bu(u) : D : (u)}((x))

2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2010)

A STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD BASED ON THE LEVEL SET METHOD

and is the mass density.

q {(u ) : D : (u )+ u u }((x))

Using the relaxed Dirac Delta function ((x)),

f ((x)) = {2bu(u) : D : (u)}((x))

f ((x)) = {2bu(u) : D : (u)}((x))