Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 57 references

This paper establishes the first topology-optimization framework that couples steady-state heat transfer with transient nonlinear creep, and shows that creep-aware designs materially outperform stiffness-only designs.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 04:30 UTC pith:W3TUA5G7

load-bearing objection Promising creep-aware TO pipeline undermined by internal inconsistencies in the printed equations and parameters; worth refereeing but needs major fixes. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22833 v1 pith:W3TUA5G7 submitted 2026-07-24 cs.CE

Thermo-Structural Topology Optimization Considering Nonlinear Creep

Stefan Knapik , Aaditya Chandrasekhar , Deepak Sharma , Jian Cao , Changjie Sun , Wei Chen This is my paper
classification cs.CE
keywords topology optimizationcreepNorton power lawthermo-mechanical couplinghigh-temperature designgraded alloysturbine bladedifferentiable simulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to prove that topology optimization can design components for creep, the slow permanent deformation metals suffer under stress at high temperature. It couples a steady-state thermal solve with a transient Norton power-law creep model, and minimizes a creep-compliance objective — the work done by loads through the accumulated creep displacement — subject to a volume constraint. On 2D benchmarks, creep-aware designs end with significantly lower tip displacement than designs optimized for elastic stiffness alone. A thermal gradient changes the optimal topology, concentrating material on the hot side because the Arrhenius creep coefficient makes hot regions disproportionately creep-prone. In a 3D graded-alloy turbine blade, spatially graded compositions strictly Pareto-dominate uniform blends, saving about a third of the expensive superalloy for a given creep compliance.

Core claim

The central claim is that a differentiable, gradient-based topology-optimization framework can minimize long-term permanent deformation from secondary creep by directly embedding the Norton power-law flow rule with an Arrhenius temperature dependence into the objective. The framework solves a steady-state thermal problem first, then advances a transient structural solve with implicit backward Euler, and uses automatic differentiation with implicit differentiation to get exact sensitivities. The numerical results claim three findings: creep-aware designs reduce final tip displacement relative to elastic-compliance designs; a spatial temperature gradient qualitatively reshapes the optimized to

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the creep-compliance objective J = ∫ u_cr · t dΓ, tracking the work of applied tractions through the creep-induced displacement u_cr = u(t_N) − u(0). The physics is carried by the Norton flow rule ε̇_cr = A(T)·σ_eq^n·N with A(T) = A_0 exp(−Q/RT), combined with an inverted material penalization that assigns large creep coefficients to void elements so that removing material always increases the creep penalty; the exponent n corrects for reduced stress in intermediate elements, making the creep strain rate density-invariant at fixed elastic strain.

Load-bearing premise

All reported topologies rely on the inverted creep-coefficient penalization — the claim that voids creep faster than solids — yet the paper prints two conflicting forms of that penalization, so the sign implemented in the code is the load-bearing premise.

What would settle it

As a direct check, optimize the 2D cantilever twice: once with the creep-coefficient penalization as printed in Equation (16) (positive exponent) and once with the form in Algorithm 4 (negative exponent). If the two final topologies coincide, the discrepancy is cosmetic; if they differ, the reported creep benefits depend on a sign that the paper states inconsistently.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Creep-aware designs keep their stiffness longer: final tip displacement over a service life is substantially lower than for elastic-stiffness designs at the same volume.
  • Isothermal creep designs are inadequate when a thermal gradient is present: the Arrhenius factor actively moves material to hot regions.
  • The optimal topology depends on load magnitude, so high-load service requires a different structural strategy than low-load service, unlike elastic design.
  • Compositional grading can substitute for geometric material: roughly a third of the expensive alloy can be saved at a fixed creep-compliance target.
  • The pipeline is extendable to other creep laws (time-hardening, damage-based) without re-deriving adjoints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 'inverted penalization' — making voids creep fast — is a general mechanism that could prevent many history-dependent objectives from exploiting void regions; likely transferable to other inelastic design problems.
  • The creep-shielding design principle (reinforce hot, high-stress regions with creep-resistant resource, whether volume or alloy content) should extend to other rate-dependent phenomena like oxidation or thermal fatigue.
  • A practical test: compare creep-optimal topologies for the same component under different prescribed thermal boundary conditions to see whether the hot-side-reinforcement pattern is robust or an artifact of the chosen boundary conditions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a differentiable topology optimization framework that couples a steady-state thermal solve with a transient, nonlinear Norton power-law creep model and optimizes material distribution to minimize accumulated creep deformation under a volume constraint. Sensitivities are computed with JAX reverse-mode AD combined with implicit differentiation through Newton solves. The framework is demonstrated on 2D cantilever benchmarks (creep-aware vs elastic designs, Pareto volume-fraction trade-off, thermal-gradient and load-magnitude studies) and on a 3D graded-alloy turbine blade in which the local IN625/SS316 composition is optimized. The central claims are that creep-aware designs substantially reduce long-term deformation, that thermal gradients qualitatively reshape the optimized topology through the Arrhenius creep coefficient, and that graded alloy designs strictly Pareto-dominate homogeneous blends.

Significance. If the manuscript is correct, it provides a useful and genuinely new design capability: the first TO framework to combine steady-state thermal analysis with transient nonlinear creep and to optimize either topology or alloy composition for creep compliance. The use of JAX with implicit differentiation is a pragmatic strength, and the availability of code on GitHub is a further positive feature. The physical insights—hot-side reinforcement under thermal gradients, stress-shielding through cross-section consolidation, and the load-dependence of creep-optimal topologies—are plausible and potentially valuable for high-temperature component design. However, the current manuscript contains unresolved quantitative inconsistencies in the core formulation and in the reported thermal parameters, so the claims cannot be verified as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (16) vs. Algorithm 4, line 1] The density dependence of the creep prefactor is stated in two contradictory forms. Eq. (16) prints A0(ρ̃) = A0,1 [ρ̃/(1+q(1−ρ̃))]^n (positive exponent), while Algorithm 4 line 1 prints A0 ← A0,1·RAMP_q(ρ̃)^{−n} (negative exponent). The surrounding prose requires the negative-exponent form to assign a large creep coefficient to voids and to make the creep rate invariant to density at fixed elastic strain. Under the printed positive form, A0 vanishes in voids and the creep strain rate at fixed elastic strain scales as RAMP^{2n}, so the creep objective would not penalize void elements at all. Every reported topology in Figs. 3–6 depends on which form was actually implemented. Please correct Eq. (16) or Algorithm 4, state explicitly which form was used, and provide a reproducibility check from the released code (e.g., an intermediate-density sweep or one optimized design).
  2. [Algorithm 2, line 1 and Section 3.4, Eq. (18)] The objective J is defined through u_cr = u_{Nt} − u0, where u0 is the initial purely elastic displacement. Algorithm 2, however, initializes u0 ← 0 and never computes an elastic equilibrium state. If u0 remains zero, the reported objective is the total final displacement rather than the accumulated creep displacement, which changes all reported compliance values and the optimization target. Figure 2 and the text state an elastic solve at t=0, but the pseudocode does not. Please reconcile the algorithm with Eq. (18) and report how u0 is obtained in the implementation.
  3. [Section 4, default parameters; Section 4.3] The default activation energy for thermo-structural problems is stated as Q = 10000 kJ/mol. With R = 8.314 J/mol·K, this gives Q/RT ≈ 1090 at 1100 K and ≈ 4000 at 300 K, so exp(−Q/RT) underflows to zero at both temperatures. The claimed 'several orders of magnitude' variation of A(T) across the thermal gradient is therefore numerically impossible as printed. This is likely a units typo (Table 1 uses 275 kJ/mol for IN625), but as written the thermal-gradient experiment is not reproducible and the conclusion about Arrhenius-driven topology changes is unsupported. State the intended Q value and units and report the actual Arrhenius factor range used in the experiments.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Algorithm 3, line 13] The Newton update is printed as K_T Δu = R, whereas Eq. (17) and the standard Newton method require K_T Δu = −R. Please correct the pseudocode.
  2. [Section 4.5 and Figure 8] The claim that graded designs 'strictly Pareto-dominate' homogeneous blends is slightly overstated because the endpoints V* = 0 and V* = 1 coincide by construction. A more precise statement is weak dominance with strict gains in the interior. Also clarify that the homogeneous baseline is not an optimized design but a uniform blend at the same volume fraction.
  3. [General] The units of A0 in Table 1 are given as MPa^{-n}·s^{-1}, which is correct for the Norton model, but the main-text default A0 = 10^{-21} MPa^{-n}·s^{-1} is stated without the exponent dependence; please make units explicit. Also, the notation RAMP_q is imported into Algorithm 4 without definition; define it or refer to Eq. (15).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity; the only by-construction element is the graded-vs-homogeneous Pareto-dominance claim, while the self-cited alloy interpolation is explicitly labeled hypothetical.

specific steps
  1. other [Section 4.5, Fig. 8 and Discussion]
    "the graded designs strictly Pareto-dominate the homogeneous blends across the full sweep... Third, the endpoints of the two frontiers agree exactly, as they must: a pure-SS316 blade (V ∗ = 0) and a pure-IN625 blade (V ∗ = 1) are homogeneous by definition, so grading has no room to help."

    Homogeneous blends are the constant-composition subset of the graded design space, so the graded feasible set contains the homogeneous feasible set. Optimizing over the larger set therefore cannot produce a worse objective at any given volume fraction; weak Pareto dominance is entailed by construction rather than by the creep physics. The strictness of the dominance and the quantified savings are genuine numerical results, but the qualitative 'graded beats homogeneous' claim is a superset/subset identity, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained: the Norton creep model, backward-Euler transient solve, JAX/AD/IFT sensitivities, and RAMP interpolation are presented with explicit equations; material constants are stated as illustrative inputs rather than fitted to the reported outputs; and the 2D/3D comparisons are ordinary objective comparisons, not predictions extracted from fitted quantities. The only by-construction element is the Section 4.5 claim that graded alloys Pareto-dominate homogeneous blends, which follows from the homogeneous designs being a subset of the graded design space; the paper itself acknowledges the endpoints coincide 'as they must.' The self-citation to Knapik et al. (2025) for the RBF alloy interpolation is used only for the illustrative graded-blade model and is explicitly flagged as a hypothetical linear blend pending compositional creep data, so it is not an unverified external authority carrying the argument. The Eq. (16) vs Algorithm 4 sign inconsistency in the creep-coefficient penalization is a correctness/implementation risk, not a circularity: it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. Overall, no significant circularity in the central framework.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework's axioms are constitutive and numerical choices. The Norton law plus Arrhenius form is standard domain physics with parameters treated as inputs, and the paper concedes they are illustrative. The two ad-hoc-to-paper items are the RAMP-based creep penalization (whose printed formula disagrees with the algorithm on the sign of the exponent) and the linear RBF blend in §4.5, which the authors explicitly label hypothetical. No invented entities (no new particles, forces, or dimensions) are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Norton pre-exponential A0 (2D) = 1e-21 MPa^-3.5 s^-1
    Section 4 default material data: 'chosen as illustrative values to exercise the framework and are not calibrated to a specific alloy' — a hand-chosen input that sets all creep magnitudes in §4.1–4.4.
  • Norton exponent n (2D) = 3.5
    Hand-chosen; this nonlinearity drives every qualitative finding (Pareto knee, load-magnitude topology change) via the sigma^n flow rule.
  • Activation energy Q (2D thermo) = 10000 kJ/mol
    Section 4 defaults for thermo-structural problems. At 1100 K, Q/RT ≈ 1093 so A(T) ≈ 1e-475 — effectively zero creep; inconsistent with the reported thermal-gradient results. A physically plausible value would be ~100 kJ/mol.
  • Alloy creep parameters IN625 = A0=1e-34 MPa^-4.5 s^-1, n=4.5, Q=275 kJ/mol
    Table 1. These values imply ≤1e-11 creep strain over one year under 100 MPa service load, inconsistent with reported 3D compliance values of order 1-140 J.
  • Alloy creep parameters SS316 = A0=1e-23 MPa^-5.5 s^-1, n=5.5, Q=230 kJ/mol
    Table 1. Same inconsistency as IN625; a linear RBF blend of A0 across 11 orders of magnitude and across different n is dimensionally ill-posed.
  • RAMP penalty q = 8
    Section 3.3.3; chosen by hand for stiffness and conductivity and reused (with exponent n) for the creep coefficient.
  • Density filter radius rf = 1.5 × element size
    Eq. (1); standard but hand-chosen; shapes all topologies.
  • Time step count Nt = 10 uniform steps over 1 yr
    Section 4; no time-step convergence study is shown.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Small strains; additive strain decomposition ε = ε_el + ε_cr + ε_th
    Eqs. (5)-(6), Section 3.3.2; the authors list finite-strain extension as a limitation.
  • domain assumption Secondary (steady-state) creep only, Norton power law
    Sections 2 and 3.3.2; excludes primary and tertiary creep; stated as a limitation in §5.
  • domain assumption Arrhenius temperature dependence A(T)=A0 exp(-Q/RT)
    Eq. (4); standard metallurgical form; A0 and Q are inputs.
  • domain assumption Steady-state linear heat conduction; weakly coupled thermo-elasticity
    Eqs. (2)-(3), Section 3.3.1; static temperature field; α=0 in §4.3 isolates the Arrhenius effect.
  • ad hoc to paper Creep-coefficient penalization A0(ρ̃) = A0,1·RAMP(ρ̃)^(±n) achieves density-invariant creep rate and binary designs
    Eq. (16)/Algorithm 4; asserted without derivation or intermediate-density demonstration; the printed sign differs between the two statements of the same formula.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear RBF blend of IN625/SS316 properties at intermediate compositions
    Section 4.5; the paper itself calls this 'a hypothetical assumption' and 'not a physically faithful model'.
  • standard math IFT/AD gradients through implicit Newton solves equal true discrete adjoint gradients
    Section 3.4; implicit-function theorem through nested Newton loops; no finite-difference verification provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17 in / 33693 out tokens · 307832 ms · 2026-08-01T04:30:12.630678+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Creep is a primary life-limiting mechanism for metallic components operating at high temperature, producing permanent deformation under sustained loads even when stresses remain below yield. The design of structures to minimize this deformation is critical to extending the service life of components. Incorporating creep into topology optimization (TO) remains open because the response is nonlinear, history-dependent, and thermomechanically coupled, and prior work often relies on linear viscoelastic models, which do not capture the behavior of metals at high temperatures. To bridge this gap, we introduce a differentiable thermo-structural TO framework. The approach considers creep deformation using the Norton model and leverages JAX's automatic differentiation to perform adjoint sensitivity analysis, enabling efficient gradient-based optimization. The transient material response is solved via a backward Euler scheme over a prescribed service life. Our objective is to minimize creep deformation subject to a volume constraint. We first demonstrate the framework on canonical two-dimensional benchmarks, showing that the proposed formulation significantly reduces permanent deformation compared to designs optimized solely for elastic stiffness. We then pose, as a challenge problem, the compositional design of a three-dimensional graded material turbine blade in which the local mixture of two candidate alloys is optimized. This challenge problem exercises the full capability of the framework, including transient nonlinear creep, coupled thermal loading, three-dimensional geometry, and gradient-based multi-material design, highlighting the need for creep-aware design in high-temperature applications.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Efficient and modular implicit differentiation , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  2. [2]

    2007 , publisher=

    Modeling of creep for structural analysis , author=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  3. [3]

    International Journal of Aerospace Engineering , volume=

    Review on creep phenomenon and its model in aircraft engines , author=. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  4. [4]

    Additive Manufacturing , pages=

    Creep of direct-energy-deposited Inconel 625 with evolving microstructure , author=. Additive Manufacturing , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.08970 , year=

    Machine Learning-Driven Creep Law Discovery Across Alloy Compositional Space , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.08970 , year=

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    1929 , publisher=

    The creep of steel at high temperatures , author=. 1929 , publisher=

    1929

  7. [7]

    Structural optimization , volume=

    Checkerboard patterns in layout optimization , author=. Structural optimization , volume=. 1995 , publisher=

    1995

  8. [8]

    Structural and multidisciplinary optimization , volume=

    A 99 line topology optimization code written in Matlab , author=. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization , volume=. 2001 , publisher=

    2001

  9. [9]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , volume=

    Minimal repetition dynamic checkpointing algorithm for unsteady adjoint calculation , author=. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  10. [10]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , volume=

    Multimaterial topology optimization of elastoplastic composite structures , author=. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  11. [11]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , volume=

    Topology optimization of viscoelastic structures using a time-dependent adjoint method , author=. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  12. [12]

    Finite Elements in Analysis and Design , volume=

    Minimizing creep deformation via topology optimization , author=. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  13. [13]

    James Bradbury and Roy Frostig and Peter Hawkins and Matthew James Johnson and Chris Leary and Dougal Maclaurin and George Necula and Adam Paszke and Jake Vander

  14. [14]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , volume=

    Auto: a framework for automatic differentiation in topology optimization , author=. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  15. [15]

    Co-design of geometry and thermal-elastic gradient alloy distribution with temperature-dependent material properties , volume =

    Knapik, Stefan and Deng, Shiguang and Wang, Liwei and Chandrasekhar, Aaditya and Liu, Wing Kam and Cao, Jian and Chen, Wei , year =. Co-design of geometry and thermal-elastic gradient alloy distribution with temperature-dependent material properties , volume =. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , publisher =. doi:10.1007/s00158-025-04068-x , number =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00158-025-04068-x

  16. [16]

    International journal for numerical methods in engineering , volume=

    The method of moving asymptotes—a new method for structural optimization , author=. International journal for numerical methods in engineering , volume=. 1987 , publisher=

    1987

  17. [17]

    Advances in Engineering Software , volume=

    Topology optimization with manufacturing constraints: A unified projection-based approach , author=. Advances in Engineering Software , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  18. [18]

    Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , volume=

    Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a homogenization method , author=. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering , volume=. 1988 , publisher=

    1988

  19. [19]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , volume=

    Stress constrained topology optimization , author=. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  20. [20]

    Finite Elements in Analysis and Design , volume=

    Topology optimization of heat conduction problem involving design-dependent heat load effect , author=. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  21. [21]

    International journal for numerical methods in fluids , volume=

    Topology optimization of fluids in Stokes flow , author=. International journal for numerical methods in fluids , volume=. 2003 , publisher=

    2003

  22. [22]

    Engineering with Computers , volume=

    Fluto: Graded multi-scale topology optimization of large contact area fluid-flow devices using neural networks , author=. Engineering with Computers , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  23. [23]

    Engineering with Computers , pages=

    Photos: topology optimization of photonic components using a shape library , author=. Engineering with Computers , pages=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  24. [24]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids , volume=

    Topology optimisation for natural convection problems , author=. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  25. [25]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , volume=

    Three-dimensional topology optimization of thermal-fluid-structural problems for cooling system design , author=. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  26. [26]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , volume=

    Application of topological optimization techniques to structural crashworthiness , author=. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , volume=. 1996 , publisher=

    1996

  27. [27]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , volume=

    Voigt--Reuss topology optimization for structures with nonlinear material behaviors , author=. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , volume=. 1997 , publisher=

    1997

  28. [28]

    Structural optimization , volume=

    Adaptive topology optimization of elastoplastic structures , author=. Structural optimization , volume=. 1998 , publisher=

    1998

  29. [29]

    Comptes Rendus Mecanique , volume=

    Topology optimization in damage governed low cycle fatigue , author=. Comptes Rendus Mecanique , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  30. [30]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , volume=

    Reinforcement layout design for concrete structures based on continuum damage and truss topology optimization , author=. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  31. [31]

    Structural and multidisciplinary optimization , volume=

    Topology optimization based on finite strain plasticity , author=. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  32. [32]

    Finite Elements in Analysis and Design , volume=

    Topology optimization of pressure dependent elastoplastic energy absorbing structures with material damage constraints , author=. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  33. [33]

    International Journal of Plasticity , volume=

    Microstructure topology optimization by targeting prescribed nonlinear stress-strain relationships , author=. International Journal of Plasticity , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  34. [34]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , volume=

    Plastic work constrained elastoplastic topology optimization , author=. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  35. [35]

    Deformation-mechanism maps: the plasticity and creep of metals and ceramics , author=

  36. [36]

    1980 , publisher=

    Viscoelastic properties of polymers , author=. 1980 , publisher=

    1980

  37. [37]

    1993 , publisher=

    An introduction to the mechanical properties of solid polymers , author=. 1993 , publisher=

    1993

  38. [38]

    Journal of propulsion and power , volume=

    Nickel-based superalloys for advanced turbine engines: chemistry, microstructure and properties , author=. Journal of propulsion and power , volume=

  39. [39]

    2008 , publisher=

    Computational methods for plasticity: theory and applications , author=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  40. [40]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , volume=

    Automatic penalty continuation in structural topology optimization , author=. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  41. [41]

    2025 , month = may, version =

    Arjen Deetman , title =. 2025 , month = may, version =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.15459165 , url =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15459165 2025

  42. [42]

    IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics , volume=

    Infill optimization for additive manufacturing—approaching bone-like porous structures , author=. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  43. [43]

    Structural and multidisciplinary optimization , volume=

    A survey of structural and multidisciplinary continuum topology optimization: post 2000 , author=. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2000

  44. [44]

    Engineering , volume=

    Creep of steel under simple and compound stress , author=. Engineering , volume=

  45. [45]

    International journal of fracture , volume=

    Rupture time under creep conditions , author=. International journal of fracture , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

    1999

  46. [46]

    Journal of Applied Mechanics , author =

    Creep problems in structural members , volume =. Journal of Applied Mechanics , author =. 1970 , note =. doi:10.1115/1.3408479 , number =

    work page doi:10.1115/1.3408479 1970

  47. [47]

    1994 , publisher=

    Mechanics of solid materials , author=. 1994 , publisher=

    1994

  48. [48]

    Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics , volume=

    Topology Optimization Under Stress Relaxation Effect Using Internal Element Connectivity Parameterization , author=. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  49. [49]

    Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines , volume=

    Stress-Based topology optimization under the stress relaxation effect , author=. Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  50. [50]

    Engineering Failure Analysis , volume=

    Effect of thermal stress on creep lifetime for a gas turbine combustion liner , author=. Engineering Failure Analysis , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  51. [51]

    Overview of creep strength and oxidation of heat-resistant alloy sheets and foils for compact heat exchangers , author=

  52. [52]

    Astrophysics Source Code Library , pages=

    Jax: Autograd and xla , author=. Astrophysics Source Code Library , pages=

  53. [53]

    Computers & Structures , volume = 173, pages =

    Topology optimization of thermo-elastic structures with multiple materials under mass constraint , author =. Computers & Structures , volume = 173, pages =. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2016.06.002 , issn =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2016.06.002 2016

  54. [54]

    doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108802 , issn =

    Xue, Tianju and Liao, Shuheng and Gan, Zhengtao and Park, Chanwook and Xie, Xiaoyu and Liu, Wing Kam and Cao, Jian , year = 2023, month = oct, journal =. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108802 , issn =

    arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    arXiv:2402.09983 , year=

    Optimistix: modular optimisation in JAX and Equinox , author=. arXiv:2402.09983 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    International Materials Reviews , author =

    Advances in additive manufacturing of metal-based functionally graded materials , volume =. International Materials Reviews , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1080/09506608.2019.1709354 , language =

    arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , author =

    An alternative interpolation scheme for minimum compliance topology optimization , volume =. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , author =. 2001 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s001580100129 , abstract =

    doi:10.1007/s001580100129 2001