Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multimaterial topology optimization for finite strain elastoplasticity: theory, methods, and applications

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Simultaneously optimizing a structure's geometry and its material phases lets finite-strain plastic designs — dampers, beams, bumpers, cold-formed sheets — outperform intuitive layouts in stiffness, strength, and energy absorption.

desk verdict Solid, well-verified extension of multimaterial topology optimization to finite strain plasticity; the void interpolation caveat is real but likely minor. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02052 v1 pith:E6X4R54T submitted 2025-02-04 cs.CE math.OC

Yingqi Jia , Xiaojia Shelly Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CEmath.OC MSC 74P1574C1574S05
keywords topologyoptimizationfinitestrainelastoplasticitymultimaterialdesignisochoricplasticflowenergydissipationcrashworthinessadjointsensitivityanalysisautomaticdifferentiation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a single topology-optimization framework can design, in one pass, both the outer shape and the internal material mix of metallic structures that deform far into the plastic regime. That matters because plasticity is double-edged: yielding saps load capacity, yet plastic deformation absorbs energy that would otherwise damage a structure. The authors optimize dampers, beams, impact bumpers, and cold-formed sheets and report consistently larger energy dissipation or end force than intuitive designs, with 3D bumper energy gains growing from 105% to 259% as the number of candidate materials rises. The central point is that geometry and material phase are not separable design choices: the optimizer discovers mechanisms — X-shaped load paths, twisted stress-concentrating ribs, and a shift from kinematic to isotropic hardening as displacement grows — that neither choice alone produces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the return-mapping update for the elastic left Cauchy–Green tensor $b^e$. The paper modifies the classical Simo update (necessary but not sufficient for isochoric plastic flow) by solving a depressed cubic for the first invariant $I_1 = \mathrm{tr}(b^e)$ so that $\det(b^e) = 1$ holds exactly, yielding the update in Eq. (17). This single correction makes the finite element prediction agree with the semi-analytical uniaxial solution to about $10^{-10}$ and is what makes cyclic, multi-stage loading reliable. Around it the framework adds the void interpolation $\mathbf{qP} = \varphi\mathbf{P}(F) - \varphi\boldsymbol{\sigma}_l(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}(F)) + \boldsymbol{\sigma}_l(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}(F))$ that keeps void elements linear-elastic, the treatment of $\gamma$ as an independent state variable with its own residual (so nonlinear hardening is handled by Newton iteration instead of closed forms), and the reversed adjoint sweep of Appendix E that propagates sensitivities through the history-dependent states. The objective $J$ in Eqs. (39)–(40) ties it together: stiffness from first-load-step strain energy, strength from the final force–displacement product, and toughness from the area under the force–displacement curve.

What would settle it

Recompute the 3D four-material bumper and the cold-working profiled sheet on body-fitted solid-element meshes, the check Appendix F performs only for the 2D beam, or with the void stiffness parameter reduced by several orders of magnitude; if the ~259% and ~76% gains collapse, the void interpolation, not the multimaterial mechanics, produced them. A complementary physical test — 3D-printing an optimized versus an intuitive damper or bumper in the paper's alloy set and comparing measured force–displacement hysteresis — would settle whether the predicted energy gains exist outside the simulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that finite-strain elastoplastic response can be programmed by simultaneously optimizing structural geometry (a density field $\rho$) and material phase (a simplex-constrained set of material fields $\xi_n$), with a multi-objective $J = w_{\mathrm{stiff}}J_{\mathrm{stiff}} + w_{\mathrm{force}}J_{\mathrm{force}} + w_{\mathrm{energy}}J_{\mathrm{energy}}$ that tunes initial stiffness, end force, and total absorbed energy. To make the gradients reliable, the paper rebuilds the finite-strain elastoplasticity update so that plastic flow is exactly isochoric ($J^p \equiv 1$), correcting a known flaw in the classical return mapping that mispredicts stress on unloading; it also treats the consistency parameter $\gamma$ as an independent state variable so nonlinear hardening laws need no closed-form solution. Sensitivities are obtained by a reversed adjoint method with automatic differentiation, and voids are interpolated as linear-elastic material so the finite element analysis does not diverge under large deformations. On this machinery the paper reports optimized dampers with up to 32.84% more dissipated energy than an intuitive composite under multi-cycle loading, 3D bumpers with 105–259% more total energy (and up to 300% higher end force) as material count grows, a hyperelastic/elastoplastic beam family spanning the stiffness–strength tradeoff, and a cold-working profiled sheet gaining 75.56% in end force across processing and service stages while respecting price, weight, and CO2 constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The premise that void regions can be replaced by linear-elastic material with 'negligible errors' (Remark 3, Eq. 36) — verified only for one 2D beam in Appendix F — carries the 3D bumper and profiled-sheet results; if void elements stiffen or distort stress under large deformation, the reported gains could be artifacts of the interpolation rather than of the multimaterial design.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Optimized damper energy gains grow with loading complexity: 10.15% over the intuitive composite for a half cycle, 17–20% for single complete cycles, and 32.84% under multi-cycle loading, with most of the gain coming from later cycles.
  • Bumper improvements scale with design-space size: 105.41%, 160.49%, and 259.31% total-energy gains for bi-, tri-, and four-material optimizations, a pattern implying that intuition degrades as candidate materials multiply.
  • The framework reduces to earlier single-objective methods as special cases — the end-compliance objective alone and the total-energy objective alone — so the multi-objective version is a strict generalization of prior finite-strain plastic topology optimization.
  • Multi-stage optimization carries plastic history across manufacturing and service stages; the cold-worked profiled sheet gains 75.56% in end force while meeting cost, mass, and CO2 limits, indicating that non-mechanical constraints need not sacrifice mechanical performance.
  • The optimizations double as mechanism discovery: X-shaped central load paths shorten load transfer and enhance elastic absorption, twisted ribs concentrate stress to promote plastic dissipation, and the optimal material mix shifts from kinematic-hardening steel toward isotropic-hardening bronze as strain amplitude increases.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The void-as-linear-elastic assumption is the paper's unexamined hinge: extending the Appendix F body-fitted check to the 3D bumper and profiled sheet — or shrinking the void stiffness parameter by orders of magnitude — would confirm whether the reported 105–259% gains survive mesh-independent reanalysis.
  • Because the sensitivity machinery treats the consistency parameter as an independent state variable, the same code path should extend to rate-dependent (viscoplastic) and pressure-dependent constitutive laws with only the local material update replaced; this is a natural next test of the framework's generality.
  • The discovered mechanisms are stated as reusable rules — X-shaped load paths shorten load transfer, twisted ribs concentrate stress, and kinematic-hardening metals yield to isotropic-hardening ones as strain amplitude grows — and each is directly testable in physical experiments with 3D-printed multimetal specimens, which the paper's cited joining work suggests is feasible.
  • If those rules hold experimentally, they could be lifted out of the optimizer and applied as cheap design heuristics for energy-absorbing structures before any optimization is run.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multimaterial topology optimization framework for finite strain elastoplasticity. The forward problem is built on Simo's multiplicative plasticity, with a modified radial-return update designed to enforce isochoric plastic flow; the update is verified against a semi-analytical uniaxial cyclic solution (Appendix C) with errors around 1e-10. The optimization formulation uses density and material-phase variables with filtering/projection, a penalized interpolation of material constants, and a stress interpolation (Eq. (36)) that reduces to the finite strain elastoplastic stress in solids and to a small-strain linear elastic stress in voids. Sensitivities are obtained with a reversed adjoint method and automatic differentiation, and are verified against forward finite differences in Appendix E (relative errors roughly 1e-8 to 1e-4). Four application classes are optimized: 2D energy-dissipating dampers, hyperelastic/elastoplastic double-clamped beams, 3D bumpers with up to four materials, and multi-stage cold-working profiled sheets with cost, weight, and CO2 constraints. The paper reports substantial performance gains over intuitive designs, including 105% to 259% energy increases for the 3D bumpers and a 75.56% end-force increase for the profiled sheet.

Significance. If the framework is valid, it is a meaningful advance in topology optimization: it simultaneously optimizes geometry and material phase for finite strain elastoplastic responses, and it addresses the path-dependent sensitivity problem with a practical, verified implementation. The paper is unusually careful in its verification: the isochoric-flow update is checked against a semi-analytical solution, the sensitivities are checked against finite differences for all objective and constraint types used in the examples, and the authors build on an open-source implementation (FEniTop), which aids reproducibility. The optimized examples exhibit mechanisms (hardening-dominance transition, twisted load paths, multi-stage history dependence) that are likely to interest the topology-optimization and structural-design communities. The main uncertainty, discussed below, is whether the void constitutive interpolation in Eq. (36) is sufficiently innocuous in the 3D and ultra-large-deformation examples to support the quantitative performance gains claimed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (36), Remark 3, Appendix F] The claim in Remark 3 that the linear-elastic void interpolation in Eq. (36) 'brings negligible errors (as verified in Appendix F)' is not supported by the cited appendix. Appendix F compares voxel-based versus body-fitted meshes and quadrilateral versus crossed-triangular elements for the 2D beam Dsg. 5 shown in Fig. 7; it does not vary or remove the void constitutive model, and it does not cover the 3D bumpers (Figs. 8-10) or the profiled sheets (Figs. 11-12), where the reported 105-259% energy gains and 75.56% end-force gain are the main evidence for the framework's effectiveness. Because Eq. (36) reduces to the linear elastic stress sigma_l(epsilon(F)) in voids, and because the stiffness floor epsilon_rho in Eq. (35) is never specified, the magnitude of spurious void resistance under large deformations is not quantified. I request a direct test of this assumption: for example, vary epsilon_rho over several orders of magnitude and recompute at least one 3D objective, or re-analyze an optimized 3D design on a body-fitted mesh without void elements, and report the effect on the optimized topology and on the reported gains.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (39)] The multi-objective function in Eq. (39) is used without normalization, but the beam study interprets the weight ratios w_stiff:w_force as controlling the stiffness-strength trade-off (Dsgs. 2-5 in Fig. 7). Because J_stiff and J_force are evaluated at different load steps of the same loading ramp, their magnitudes can differ by orders of magnitude, so the actual objective is not necessarily the stated weighted combination unless the terms are scaled. Please report the magnitudes of the three objective terms in each optimized design, and either normalize them before weighting or discuss how the chosen weights map to the observed trade-off.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2.4, Eq. (24)] The notation F^{-J} is used for the inverse transpose without definition; define it at first use or replace it with the standard F^{-T} to avoid confusion.
  2. [Algorithm 1 and Eqs. (16)-(23)] The variable pgamma_{n+1} is introduced as Delta t gamma_{n+1}; the name is easy to misread as a function. Consider renaming it Delta gamma_{n+1} throughout.
  3. [Appendix F, Table F.3] The relative differences are reported as unsigned percentages for the body-fitted row and signed percentages for the triangular row; state the reference design used for each column so the reader knows the direction of the error.
  4. [Section 4.4.1] The 13-step transition from the processing stage to the service stage is described only as removal of support/load blocks and restoration to a stress-free state; specify the boundary conditions and loading sequence actually applied in those steps.
  5. [Remark 3] The phrase 'as in the air' is informal; consider rewording to 'the void stiffness is negligible compared with the solid stiffness' and provide the value of epsilon_rho.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is self-contained and independently verified; self-citations are methodological continuity, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The finite strain elastoplasticity theory is taken from Simo (1988a,b), and the isochoric-flow update in Eq. (17) is derived in Appendix A from the volume-conservation constraint and verified in Appendix C.2 against a semi-analytical solution with 2-norm errors on the order of 1e-10. The path-dependent sensitivity analysis is derived in Appendix E from the discretized residuals and verified against forward finite differences with relative errors in the range 1e-8 to 1e-4, so the gradients are not fitted to the objectives. The objective functions in Eq. (40) are standard energy and end-force integrals, and no parameter is calibrated to the reported performance numbers and then 'predicted.' The void constitutive interpolation in Eq. (36) is an assumption whose 'negligible errors' claim (Remark 3) is not actually tested by Appendix F, which compares mesh and element variants rather than the void constitutive model; however, this is a validation gap bearing on correctness risk, not circularity, because the reported performance gains are not equal to the assumption by construction. Self-citations to Jia et al. (2025) and FEniTop (Jia et al., 2024d) are used as a blueprint and software base, but the finite-strain extension, isochoric-flow correction, and adjoint derivation are presented and verified in this paper rather than imported unexamined. No circular step can be exhibited with a specific equation-to-equation reduction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard hyperelastic/elastoplastic constitutive theory plus several hand-chosen numerical parameters (filter radii, penalties, Heaviside continuation, void interpolation). No new physical entities are postulated. The central numerical claim is supported by analytical and finite-difference verifications.

free parameters (4)
  • Filter radii Rζ = 10 mm (dampers), 1/3 mm (beams), 40 mm (bumpers), 20 mm (profiled sheets)
    Hand-chosen per example to control feature size; no systematic convergence study reported.
  • Heaviside sharpness βζ and projection threshold θζ = βζ ramped from 1 to 512 or 256; θζ from Eq. (34)
    Continuation parameters chosen by hand; affect discreteness of designs.
  • Density/material penalty exponents pκ, pμ, ph, pk, pξ = pκ=pμ=ph=3, pk=2.5 or 3, pξ ramped from 1 to 3-5
    SIMP-style penalties chosen empirically; they shape the interpolation in Eq. (35) and influence convergence to 0/1 designs.
  • Void interpolation parameters βϕ and θϕ = βϕ=500, θϕ=0.1
    Chosen to make Eq. (36) transition sharply; load-bearing for numerical stability of void elements.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Multiplicative decomposition F = F^e F^p with J^p = 1 (isochoric plastic flow)
    Adopted in Remark 1 and used throughout Section 2 and Appendix A; valid for metals but questionable for polymers and other compressible plastic materials.
  • domain assumption Simo's hyperelastic free energy and flow rules (Eqs. 4-8)
    The constitutive model is taken from Simo (1988a,b), assumed to describe the considered materials under finite strain.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear elastic behavior for void material (Eq. 36)
    Introduced in Section 3.2 to stabilize FEA; verified only for one beam case in Appendix F.
  • ad hoc to paper SIMP-like interpolation of material constants (Eq. 35) and modified HSP projection (Eq. 34)
    Standard in topology optimization; chosen to map design variables to material properties.
  • standard math Differentiability of all FEA operations for adjoint sensitivity
    Required by the reversed adjoint method; implemented via automatic differentiation, verified against finite differences in Appendix E.
  • standard math The design space parameterization with density and material variables (Section 3.1)
    Standard density-based topology optimization parameterization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multimaterial topology optimization for finite strain elastoplasticity: theory, methods, and applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E6X4R54T

@misc{pith2026250202052,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multimaterial topology optimization for finite strain elastoplasticity: theory, methods, and applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E6X4R54T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02052}
}
read the original abstract

Plasticity is inherent to many engineering materials such as metals. While it can degrade the load-carrying capacity of structures via material yielding, it can also protect structures through plastic energy dissipation. To fully harness plasticity, here we present the theory, method, and application of a topology optimization framework that simultaneously optimizes structural geometries and material phases to customize the stiffness, strength, and structural toughness of designs experiencing finite strain elastoplasticity. The framework accurately predicts structural responses by employing a rigorous, mechanics-based elastoplasticity theory that ensures isochoric plastic flow. It also effectively identifies optimal material phase distributions using a gradient-based optimizer, where gradient information is obtained via a reversed adjoint method to address history dependence, along with automatic differentiation to compute the complex partial derivatives. We demonstrate the framework by optimizing a range of 2D and 3D elastoplastic structures, including energy-dissipating dampers, load-carrying beams, impact-resisting bumpers, and cold working profiled sheets. These optimized multimaterial structures reveal important mechanisms for improving design performance under large deformation, such as the transition from kinematic to isotropic hardening with increasing displacement amplitudes and the formation of twisted regions that concentrate stress, enhancing plastic energy dissipation. Through the superior performance of these optimized designs, we demonstrate the framework's effectiveness in tailoring elastoplastic responses across various spatial configurations, material types, hardening behaviors, and combinations of candidate materials. This work offers a systematic approach for optimizing next-generation multimaterial structures with elastoplastic behaviors under large deformations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02052 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multimaterial and multiobjective topology optimization for finite strain elastoplasticity. (a) Optimization setups. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relationships among the deformation tensors used in the finite strain elastoplasticity theory. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relationships between the primary state variables at load steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Design and optimization of metallic yielding dampers. (a) Design setups: the design domain, boundary conditions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optimized dampers under increasing applied displacements. (a) Optimized dampers. The total energy (Π) is in kN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dampers under multiple cycles of loadings. (a) Damper designs. The total energy (Π) is in kN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Design and optimization of double-clamped beams. (a) Design setups: the design domain, boundary conditions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Design and optimization of 3D bumpers. (a) Design setups: the design domain, boundary conditions, and candidate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Design and optimization of tri-material bumpers. (a) Various views of the intuitive and optimized designs. (b)–(c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Design and optimization of four-material bumpers. (a) Various views of the intuitive and optimized designs. (b)–(c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Design and optimization of profiled sheets. (a) Design setups: the design domain and candidate materials (titanium, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Multi-stage topology optimization of profiled sheets with practical constraints. (a) Optimized profiled sheets with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Design of a specimen to train path-dependent deep learning material models from a single uniaxial test: eliciting strain diversity via automatically differentiable elastoplastic topology optimization

    physics.comp-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A topology-optimized specimen under uniaxial cyclic loading generates enough local strain-path diversity in simulation to train a 2M-parameter GRU material model with ~9–13% NRMSE on unseen random paths.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [4]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 64, 189–217

    Elastoplastic topology optimization of cyclically loaded structures via direct methods for shakedown. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 64, 189–217. doi: 10.1007/s00158-021-02875-6 . 53 Bourdin, B.,

    work page doi:10.1007/s00158-021-02875-6

  2. [7]

    International Journal of Plasticity 24, 646–687

    A finite element formulation based on non-associated plasticity for sheet metal forming. International Journal of Plasticity 24, 646–687. doi: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2007.07

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijplas.2007.07 2007

  3. [8]

    International Journal of Plasticity 17, 237–271

    A plasticity model for interface friction: Application to sheet metal forming. International Journal of Plasticity 17, 237–271. doi: 10.1016/S0749-6419(00)00034-6. Han, J., Furuta, K., Kondoh, T., Nishiwaki, S., Terada, K.,

    work page doi:10.1016/s0749-6419(00)00034-6

  4. [10]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 114, 1351–1367

    Topology optimization of finite strain viscoplastic systems under transient loads. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 114, 1351–1367. doi:10.1002/nme.5789. Ivarsson, N., Wallin, M., Tortorelli, D.A.,

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.5789

  5. [17]

    International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics 21, 2150098

    A double shape memory alloy damper for structural vibration control. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics 21, 2150098. doi:10.1142/S021945542150098X. Kim, S., Yun, G.J.,

    work page doi:10.1142/s021945542150098x

  6. [20]

    Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 107, 102550

    The phase-field approach to self-healable fracture of elastomers: A model accounting for fracture nucleation at large, with application to a class of conspicuous experiments. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 107, 102550. doi: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2020.102550. Kundu, R.D., Zhang, X.S.,

    arXiv

  7. [21]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 56, 1447–1475

    Design of fracture resistant energy absorbing structures using elastoplas- tic topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 56, 1447–1475. doi: 10.1007/ s00158-017-1735-z . Li, L., Zhang, G., Khandelwal, K., 2017a. Design of energy dissipating elastoplastic structures under cyclic loads using topology optimization. Structural and M...

    work page doi:10.1007/s00158-017-1671-y

  8. [22]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 64, 1141–1160

    Topology optimization of multi-material structures with elastoplastic strain hardening model. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 64, 1141–1160. doi:10.1007/s00158-021-02905-3 . Li, W., Jia, Y., Wang, F., Sigmund, O., Zhang, X.S.,

    work page doi:10.1007/s00158-021-02905-3

Show all 45 references
  1. [23]

    International Journal of Engineering Science 191, 103881

    Programming and physical realization of extreme three-dimensional responses of metastructures under large deformations. International Journal of Engineering Science 191, 103881. doi: 10.1016/j.ijengsci.2023.103881. Li, X., Zhang, X., Zhang, Y.,

    2023

  2. [24]

    Computational Mechanics 73, 533–548

    Three-dimensional plasticity-based topology optimization with smoothed finite element analysis. Computational Mechanics 73, 533–548. doi: 10.1007/s00466-023-02378-9 . Maute, K., Schwarz, S., Ramm, E.,

    doi

  3. [28]

    Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 234, 3239–3255

    An effective topology optimization method for crashworthiness of thin-walled structures using the equivalent linear static loads. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 234, 3239–3255. doi: 10.1177/0954407020940138. Si...

    doi

  4. [30]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 98, 41–104

    Associative coupled thermoplasticity at finite strains: Formulation, numerical analysis and implementation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 98, 41–104. doi:10.1016/0045-7825(92)90170-O. Sloan, S.W., Randolph, M.F.,

    doi

  5. [31]

    Engineering Structures 169, 201–215

    Crashworthiness optimization of automotive parts with tailor rolled blank. Engineering Structures 169, 201–215. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.050. Svanberg, K.,

    2018 doi

  6. [34]

    Composites Part B: Engineering 153, 78–96

    Structure design and multi-objective opti- mization of a novel NPR bumper system. Composites Part B: Engineering 153, 78–96. doi: 10.1016/j. compositesb.2018.07.024. Wang, C., Zhao, Z., Zhou, M., Sigmund, O., Zhang, X.S.,

    2018 doi

  7. [35]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 64, 2827–2880

    A comprehensive review of educational articles on structural and multidisciplinary optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 64, 2827–2880. doi: 10.1007/s00158-021-03050-7 . Wang, F., Lazarov, B.S., Sigmund, O., Jensen, J.S.,

    doi

  8. [37]

    Journal of Applied Mechanics 84, 111009

    How to realize volume conservation during finite plastic deformation. Journal of Applied Mechanics 84, 111009. doi: 10.1115/1.4037882. 56 Wang, H., Xie, H.,

    doi

  9. [38]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 61, 2111–2123

    Multi-objective optimization of crashworthiness of vehicle front longitudinal beam. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 61, 2111–2123. doi: 10.1007/s00158-019-02459-5 . Weber, G., Anand, L.,

    doi

  10. [40]

    Additive Manufacturing 51, 102588

    Cu10Sn to Ti6Al4V bonding mechanisms in laser-based powder bed fusion multiple material additive manufacturing with different build strategies. Additive Manufacturing 51, 102588. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2021.102588. Wei, C., Zhang, Z., Cheng, D., Sun, Z., Zhu, M., Li, L.,

    2021

  11. [41]

    International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing 3, 012003

    An overview of laser-based multiple metal- lic material additive manufacturing: From macro- to micro-scales. International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing 3, 012003. doi: 10.1088/2631-7990/abce04. Wells, G.N., Sluys, L.J., de Borst, R.,

    doi

  12. [42]

    Journal of Constructional Steel Research 7, 279–295

    The use of profiled steel sheeting in floor construction. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 7, 279–295. doi: 10.1016/0143-974X(87)90003-4. Zhang, G., Li, L., Khandelwal, K.,

    doi

  13. [43]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 55, 1965–1988

    Topology optimization of structures with anisotropic plastic materials using enhanced assumed strain elements. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 55, 1965–1988. doi: 10.1007/s00158-016-1612-1 . Zhang, R., Wang, C., Pan, C., Shen, H., Ge, Q., Zhang, L.,

    1965 doi

  14. [44]

    Engineering Structures 176, 734–745

    Simplified design of elastoplastic structures with metallic yielding dampers based on the concept of uniform damping ratio. Engineering Structures 176, 734–745. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.009. Zhang, X., Li, X., Zhang, Y.,

    2018 doi

  15. [45]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 342, 438–457

    Multi-component topology and material orientation design of composite structures (MTO-C). Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 342, 438–457. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2018.07.039. 57

    2018 doi

  16. [140]

    Jia, Y.Q., Wang, C., Li, L.Z., Zhang, R.F., Lu, Z.D.,

    doi: 10.1007/s00158-024-03818-7 . Jia, Y.Q., Wang, C., Li, L.Z., Zhang, R.F., Lu, Z.D.,

    doi

  17. [1977]

    Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 99, 510–515

    Accuracies of Numerical Solution Methods for the Elastic-Perfectly Plastic Model. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 99, 510–515. doi: 10.1115/1.3454568. Kumar, A., Lopez-Pamies, O.,

    doi

  18. [1987]

    Inter- national Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 24, 359–373

    The method of moving asymptotes—a new method for structural optimization. Inter- national Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 24, 359–373. doi: 10.1002/nme.1620240207. Wallin, M., J¨ onsson, V., Wingren, E.,

    doi

  19. [1990]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 79, 173–202

    Finite deformation constitutive equations and a time integration procedure for isotropic, hyperelastic-viscoplastic solids. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 79, 173–202. doi: 10.1016/0045-7825(90)90131-5. Wei, C., Liu, L., Cao, H., Zhong, X., Xu, X., Gu, Y...

    doi

  20. [1992]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engi- neering 99, 61–112

    Algorithms for static and dynamic multiplicative plasticity that preserve the classical return mapping schemes of the infinitesimal theory. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engi- neering 99, 61–112. doi: 10.1016/0045-7825(92)90123-2. Simo, J.C., Hughes, T.J.,

    doi

  21. [1998]

    Structural optimization 15, 81–91

    Adaptive topology optimization of elastoplastic structures. Structural optimization 15, 81–91. doi: 10.1007/BF01278493. Miehe, C.,

    doi

  22. [2001]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 50, 2143–2158

    Filters in topology optimization. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 50, 2143–2158. doi: 10.1002/nme.116. Chaboche, J.L.,

    doi

  23. [2008]

    International Journal of Plasticity 24, 1642–1693

    A review of some plasticity and viscoplasticity constitutive theories. International Journal of Plasticity 24, 1642–1693. doi: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2008.03.009. Cvitani´ c, V., Vlak, F., Lozina,ˇZ.,

    2008 doi

  24. [2009]

    Journal of Mechanical Design 131, 061013

    Crashworthiness Design Using Topology Optimiza- tion. Journal of Mechanical Design 131, 061013. doi: 10.1115/1.3116256. Ren, C., Min, H., Ma, T., Wang, F.,

    doi

  25. [2014]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 276, 453–472

    Interpolation scheme for fictitious domain techniques and topology optimization of finite strain elastic problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 276, 453–472. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2014.03.021. Wang, H., Jiang, D.J., Zhang, L.Y., Liu, B.,

    2014 doi

  26. [2015]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 295, 305–326

    Topology optimization for effective energy propagation in rate- independent elastoplastic material systems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 295, 305–326. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2015.05.004. Patel, N.M., Kang, B.S., Renaud, J.E., Tovar, A.,

    2015 doi

  27. [2016]

    Struc- tural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 54, 783–793

    Topology optimization based on finite strain plasticity. Struc- tural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 54, 783–793. doi: 10.1007/s00158-016-1435-0 . Wang, C., Wang, W., Zhao, W., Wang, Y., Zhou, G.,

    doi

  28. [2017]

    Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 133, 42–61

    Topology optimization of pressure dependent elastoplastic energy ab- sorbing structures with material damage constraints. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 133, 42–61. doi:10.1016/j.finel.2017.05.004. Alberdi, R., Khandelwal, K., 2019a. Bi-material topology optimization f...

    2017 doi

  29. [2018]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 115, 1–56

    A unified framework for nonlinear path-dependent sensitivity analysis in topology optimization. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 115, 1–56. doi: 10.1002/nme.5794. Amir, O.,

    doi

  30. [2019]

    Smart Materials and Structures 28, 115002

    A novel shape memory alloy damping inerter for vibration mitigation. Smart Materials and Structures 28, 115002. doi: 10.1088/1361-665X/ab3dc8. Jia, Y., Li, W., Zhang, X.S.,

    doi

  31. [2020]

    International Journal of Plasticity 128, 102684

    Microstructure topology optimization by targeting prescribed nonlinear stress- strain relationships. International Journal of Plasticity 128, 102684. doi:10.1016/j.ijplas.2020.102684. Krieg, R.D., Krieg, D.B.,

    2020

  32. [2021]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 122, 1889–1910

    Topology optimization for three- dimensional elastoplastic architected materials using a path-dependent adjoint method. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 122, 1889–1910. doi: 10.1002/nme.6604. Alberdi, R., Khandelwal, K.,

    1910 doi

  33. [2022]

    Journal of Structural Engineering 148, 04022003

    Residual seismic performance of fire-damaged reinforced concrete frame structure with metallic yielding dampers. Journal of Structural Engineering 148, 04022003. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003284. Jia, Y.Q., Wang, C., Zhang, R.F., Li, L.Z., Lu, Z.D.,

    1943 doi

  34. [2023]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 173, 105227

    Controlling the fracture response of structures via topology optimization: From delaying fracture nucleation to maximizing toughness. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 173, 105227. doi: 10.1016/j.jmps.2023.105227. 54 Jia, Y., Wang, C., Zhang, X.S., 2024d. FEniTop:...

    2023

  35. [2024]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 429, 117181

    Topology optimization of finite strain elastoplastic materials using continuous adjoint method: Formulation, implementation, and applica- tions. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 429, 117181. doi: 10.1016/j.cma. 2024.117181. Ivarsson, N., Wallin, M., Amir, ...

  36. [2025]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 196, 106018

    Multimaterial topology optimization of elastoplastic composite structures. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 196, 106018. doi: 10.1016/j.jmps.2024.106018. Jia, Y., Liu, K., Zhang, X.S., 2024a. Modulate stress distribution with bio-inspired irregular archi- tected ...

    2024

  37. [4072]

    Jia, Y., Liu, K., Zhang, X.S., 2024b

    doi: 10.1038/ s41467-024-47831-2 . Jia, Y., Liu, K., Zhang, X.S., 2024b. Topology optimization of irregular multiscale structures with tunable responses using a virtual growth rule. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 425, 116864. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2024.1168...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.