Acta Mechanica Sinica

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 778–791 | Cite as

Topology optimization of 3D shell structures with porous infill

Research Paper


This paper presents a 3D topology optimization approach for designing shell structures with a porous or void interior. It is shown that the resulting structures are significantly more robust towards load perturbations than completely solid structures optimized under the same conditions. The study indicates that the potential benefit of using porous structures is higher for lower total volume fractions. Compared to earlier work dealing with 2D topology optimization, we found several new effects in 3D problems. Most notably, the opportunity for designing closed shells significantly improves the performance of porous structures due to the sandwich effect. Furthermore, the paper introduces improved filter boundary conditions to ensure a completely uniform coating thickness at the design domain boundary.


Topology optimization Coating Shell structure Two-step filtering 



The authors acknowledge financial support from the Villum Foundation (the NextTop Project) and DTU Mechanical Engineering.


  1. 1.
    Clausen, A., Aage, N., Sigmund, O.: Topology optimization of coated structures and material interface problems. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 290, 524–541 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schaedler, T.A., Jacobsen, A.J., Torrents, A., et al.: Ultralight metallic microlattices. Science 334(6058), 962–965 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Møller, P., Nielsen, L.P: Advanced Surface Technology, vols. 1–2. Møller and Nielsen (2013). ISBN 9788792765239Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clausen, A., Aage, N., Sigmund, O.: Exploiting additive manufacturing infill in topology optimization for improved buckling load. Engineering 2(2), 250–257 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vermaak, N., Michailidis, G., Parry, G., et al.: Material interface effects on the topology optimization of multi-phase structures using a level set method. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 1–22 (2014) (online)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donoso, A., Sigmund, O.: Topology optimization of piezo modal transducers with null-polarity phases. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 53(2), 193–203 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aage, N., Andreassen, E., Lazarov, B.S.: Topology optimization using PETSc: an easy-to-use, fully parallel, open source topology optimization framework. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 51(3), 565–572 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hashin, Z., Shtrikman, S.: A variational approach to the theory of the elastic behaviour of multiphase materials. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 11(2), 127–140 (1963)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Torquato, S., Gibiansky, L.V., Silva, M.J., et al.: Effective mechanical and transport properties of cellular solids. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 40(1), 71–82 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andreassen, E., Lazarov, B.S., Sigmund, O.: Design of manufacturable 3D extremal elastic microstructure. Mech. Mater. 69(1), 1–10 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clausen, A., Andreassen, E.: On filter boundary conditions in topology optimization. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. (2017). doi: 10.1007/s00158-017-1709-1
  12. 12.
    Sigmund, O.: Morphology-based black and white filters for topology optimization. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 33(4–5), 401–424 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lazarov, B.S., Sigmund, O.: Filters in topology optimization based on Helmholtz-type differential equations. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 86(6), 765–781 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guest, J.K., Prevost, J.H., Belytschko, T.: Achieving minimum length scale in topology optimization using nodal design variables and projection functions. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 61(2), 238–254 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xu, S., Cai, Y., Cheng, G.: Volume preserving nonlinear density filter based on heaviside functions. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 41(4), 495–505 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, F., Lazarov, B.S., Sigmund, O.: On projection methods, convergence and robust formulations in topology optimization. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 43(6), 767–784 (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou, M., Lazarov, B.S., Wang, F., et al.: Minimum length scale in topology optimization by geometric constraints. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 293, 266–282 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Svanberg, K.: Method of moving asymptotes—a new method for structural optimization. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 24(2), 359–373 (1987)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sigmund, O., Aage, N., Andreassen, E.: On the (non-)optimality of Michell structures. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 54(2), 361–373 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Chinese Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics; Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Solid MechanicsTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations