Struct Multidisc Optim (2010) 42:215–231
DOI 10.1007/s00158-010-0495-9
RESEARCH PAPER
Element exchange method for topology optimization
Mohammad Rouhi · Masoud Rais-Rohani ·
Thomas N. Williams
Received: 5 December 2008 / Revised: 22 January 2010 / Accepted: 27 January 2010 / Published online: 28 March 2010

c Springer-Verlag 2010
Abstract This paper presents a stochastic direct search
method for topology optimization of continuum structures.
In a systematic approach requiring repeated evaluations of
the objective function, the element exchange method (EEM)
eliminates the less influential solid elements by switching
them into void elements and converts the more influential
void elements into solid resulting in an optimal 0–1 topol-
ogy as the solution converges. For compliance minimization
problems, the element strain energy is used as the principal
criterion for element exchange operation. A wider explo-
ration of the design space is assured with the use of random
shuffle while a checkerboard control scheme is used for
detection and elimination of checkerboard regions. Through
the solution of multiple two- and three-dimensional topol-
ogy optimization problems, the general characteristics of
EEM are presented. Moreover, the solution accuracy and
efficiency of EEM are compared with those based on
existing topology optimization methods.
Keywords Topology optimization · Element exchange
method · EEM · Stochastic · Non-gradient · Binary
M. Rouhi · M. Rais-Rohani (B)
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mississippi State University,
Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA
e-mail: masoud@ae.msstate.edu
M. Rouhi
e-mail: rouhi@cavs.msstate.edu
M. Rouhi · M. Rais-Rohani · T. N. Williams
Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems, Mississippi State University,
Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA
1 Introduction
Topology optimization of continuum structures is aimed
at finding the optimum distribution of a specified vol-
ume of material over a selected design domain that would
push a desired objective function toward its extreme value.
Although optimum topology could be defined by such cri-
teria as displacement or stress, it is commonly based on
the minimization of structural compliance or strain energy
resulting in an optimal load path between the loading points
and the structural supports.
Since the general topology optimization problem with
binary density function (i.e., ρ = 0 or 1) is ill-posed, var-
ious methods have been developed to solve the modified
problem with a continuous density function (i.e., 0 <
ρ ≤ 1). For the most part, these methods have been
based on relaxation through homogenization (Bendsoe and
Kikuchi 1988; Diaz and Bendsoe 1992), where the geome-
try and orientation of anisotropic hole-in-cell microstructure
are applied as continuous design variables, or with a con-
tinuous density function, where the intermediate-density
elements are penalized (Bendsoe 1989; Zhou and Rozvany
1991; Rozvany et al. 1992) to yield the desired 0–1 (void–
solid) topology. Zhou and Rozvany (1991) showed that
the use of non-optimal microstructures homogenized into
an anisotropic continuum introduces a penalty for perfo-
rated (grey) regions into shape optimization. Their use of
an isotropic microstructure with a suitable penalty func-
tion coupled with a gradient-based optimization approach
resulted in the elimination of intermediate-density elements
in generalized shape optimization problems. As it came to
be known by its acronym SIMP (Rozvany et al. 1992), solid
isotropic microstructure with penalty has become a popular
approach partly because of its accuracy and computational
216 M. Rouhi et al.

efficiency, as well as ease of integration with general- exchange method (EEM) falls under the same category as
purpose finite element analysis (FEA) codes. Besides the BESO and GA due to the use of heuristic relationships, but
existence of multiple local minima, topology optimization it has certain features that are quite distinct from the other
problems can also suffer from mesh dependency and the two methods. In the remaining portion of the paper, we pro-
formation of checkerboard regions. Some approaches to vide details of the EEM and describe the element exchange
combat the latter two problems have included the use of strategy, checkerboard control procedure, convergence cri-
heuristic mesh-independent filtering (Sigmund and Peterson teria, and the algorithmic parameters used in conjunction
1988), higher-order finite elements (Jog and Haber 1996), with different operations in EEM. The convergence prop-
perimeter control (Haber et al. 1996), alternative density– erties of EEM are illustrated along with a comparison to
stiffness interpolation schemes (Guo and Gu 2004), hyper- a known Michell truss structure. Moreover, the results for
bolic sine functions for the intermediate densities (Bruns several two- and three-dimensional problems of varying
2005), and techniques for producing better topologies with complexity are presented while making comparisons with
sharper solid–void solutions having greater stiffness (Fuchs the solutions found using other methods as reported in the
et al. 2005) as well as less checkerboards (Zhou et al. 2001; literature.
Poulsen 2002; Pomezanski et al. 2005).
Research efforts in non-gradient based topology opti-
mization have led to the development and application
of such methods as simulated biological growth (SBG; 2 General principle of element exchange
Mattheck and Burkhardt 1990), particle swarm optimization
(PSO; Fourie and Groenwold 2001), evolutionary structural The general principle of element exchange for the case of
optimization (ESO; Xie and Steven 1993), bidirectional compliance minimization is explained using a simple struc-
ESO (BESO; Querin et al. 1998), and metamorphic devel- tural system that is idealized by a combination of four
opment (MD; Liu et al. 2000). Some of these methods, linearly elastic springs and associated boundary conditions
together with other algorithms mimicking biological sys- as shown in Fig. 1. The total strain energy, Et stored in
tems such as genetic algorithms (GA; Goldberg 1989) and
cellular automata (CA; Kita and Toyoda 1999), have also
been used in the solution of sizing and shape optimization
problems. The use of binary design variables enables these
methods to produce a black–white (solid–void) optimal
topology that excludes any gray (i.e., fuzzy or intermedi- (a)
ate density) regions without using penalization. Another
advantage of the stochastic direct search methods is their
non-local search algorithms that can lead to a better solution
than the local optimum in the vicinity of the initial design
point. However, due to the need for a large number of func-
tion evaluations for the multitude of candidate designs, the
direct search methods tend to be computationally inefficient
(Fourie and Groenwold 2001; Werne 2006; Jakiela et al.
2000; Mei et al. 2007). To remedy the checkerboard prob-
lem, non-gradient based methods also resort to using mostly
heuristic schemes. Zhou and Rozvany (2001) discussed (b)
some of the shortcomings of non-gradient based methods
such as ESO, and more recently, Rozvany (2009) offered
a detailed critical review of SIMP and ESO by examin-
ing their mathematical foundations and highlighting their
differences in terms of solution accuracy and computational
efficiency.
In this paper, we introduce a new non-gradient based
topology optimization method that has many of the same
advantages and some of the shortcomings of the other
stochastic direct search methods but with noticeably better
computational efficiency. Named after the principal oper-
ation in the topology optimization strategy, the element Fig. 1 Spring system a before and b after element exchange operation
Element exchange method for topology optimization
the system is simply the sum of energy stored in individual
springs found as
 min
1
4 4
Et = Ei = K i δi2 (1)
2 
i=1 i=1
where Ei is the energy in the ith spring defined in terms of
the corresponding stiffness, K i and elongation, δ i .
Assuming that only two springs can be used for min-
imizing the strain energy of the system in this example,
the problem becomes one of deciding which two springs
to keep and which ones to eliminate. The two springs that
are kept create an optimal load path between the loaded
and supported points of the system. For simplicity, a solid
spring is assumed to have a stiffness of K s while a void
spring has a stiffness of K v = 0.001 K s . Using the ini-
tial distribution of springs shown in Fig. 1a and recognizing
that springs 1 and 2 are under equal axial force, elonga-
tions of springs 1 through 4 can be shown to be: δ1 =
δ δ 1,000
1,001 ≈ 1,000 ; δ2 = 1,001 δ ≈ δ; δ 3 = δ 4 = δ. Thus,
the substitution of appropriate values into (1) gives
Ks −6 + 1 × 10−3 + 1 × 100 + 1 × 10−3 δ 2
 Et =
2 1 × 10 ≈
2 E j is linearly related to its non-dimensional density (i.e.,
2 Ksδ = 12 FK s . Since spring 1 is a solid spring with the
1 2
lowest strain energy between the two solid springs, it will
be converted into a void spring in the next iteration while
spring 4—representing a void spring with the highest strain
energy between the two void springs—will be converted
into a solid spring. Figure 1b shows the updated layout after
the element exchange operation is performed. Now, the total
strain
Ks 
energy stored in the system can be shown to be  Et =
−4 + 2.5 × 10−4 + 1 × 100 + 1 × 100 δ 2 ≈
2 2.5 × 10
2
K s δ 2 = 14 FK s . While the number of solid springs is kept
constant, the total strain energy of the system is reduced by
50%, signifying greater stiffness and smaller compliance.
Hence, by identifying and switching the less influential
solid spring into a void spring and the more influential void
spring into a solid spring, a better (more efficient) load path
is created.
By extending the problem to a continuum domain repre-
sented by a finite element mesh, it would be possible to use
the element exchange as part of a more general algorithm
and solution procedure for finding the optimal topology.
3 EEM algorithm
Here the EEM algorithm is discussed with focus on com-
pliance minimization problems. With a continuum structure
represented by a discretized domain of finite elements and
associated boundary conditions, the compliance minimiza-
217
tion problem is one of finding the optimal distribution of
solid and void elements that would

M 
M
f (ρ) = uT Ku = uTj K j u j = Ej
2E
j=1 j=1
M (2)
s.t. ρ j V j  V0
j=1
ρmin  ρ  1.0
where f (ρ) represents the total strain energy, ρ the vec-
tor of non-dimensional element densities treated as design
variables, u the vector of global generalized nodal displace-
ments, K the global stiffness matrix, M the total number
of finite elements, with u j , K j and E j as the displace-
ment vector, stiffness matrix and strain energy of the jth
element, respectively. With ρ j and V j representing the non-
dimensional density and volume of the jth element, the
constraint in (2) imposes an upper bound on the acceptable
volume fraction of solid elements in the design domain. To
avoid ill-conditioning of stiffness matrix, the void elements
are assumed to have a density equal to ρmin , with a very
small positive value.
In EEM, stiffness of the jth element represented by
E j = ρ j E, where E is the Young’s modulus of the solid
material), with ρ j treated as a discrete design variable ρ j ∈
{ρmin , 1.0}, where ρmin = 0.001. For a uniformly dis-
cretized domain of identical elements, the volume fraction
constraint in (2) becomes a strict equality that is satisfied
in every iteration. However, for non-uniform meshes, there
can be a small fluctuation of volume around the specified
limit, V0 .
The EEM algorithm, as depicted by the flowchart in
Fig. 2 applies to both single- and multiple-load case prob-
lems. Once the domain is discretized into a uniform finite-
element mesh, the number of solid elements found as
Ns = MV0 is randomly distributed throughout the design
domain. If the mesh is non-uniform, then Ns would need
to be adjusted accordingly to satisfy the specified volume
fraction. All void elements are given a non-dimensional
material density of 0.001. The EEM parameters and their
recommended values appear later in the paper.
Because of the stochastic operations that occur at
different stages of EEM together with the fact that the initial
distribution is selected in random, EEM procedure can take
different solution paths for the same topology optimization
problem. As will be shown later, if a problem has multi-
ple local optima with nearly equal objective function values
(Kutylowski 2002), then it is possible for the EEM solu-
tion to converge to any one of these locations, which may
have different solid–void material distributions. However,
the randomly selected initial design and the stochastic oper-
ations that occur at different stages of the solution process
218
Fig. 2 Flowchart of EEM
make it more likely for EEM to find a better solution for a
more general problem.
With the initial design domain and boundary conditions
specified, a static FEA is performed to find the strain energy
distribution among the elements as well as the total strain
energy of the structure as a whole. At the next step, a sub-
set of solid elements with the lowest strain energy density
amongst the solid elements are converted into void elements
while a volumetrically equivalent number of void elements
with the highest strain energy density amongst the void ele-
ments are converted into solid elements such that the volume
fraction remains fixed. In the case of a uniform mesh, all
elements are geometrically identical; hence, volume frac-
tion remains constant by simply setting the number of solid
elements converted into voids and vice versa equal to each
other. On the other hand, if the mesh is non-uniform, then
for the specified exchange volume the solid elements with
the lowest strain energy density are converted one by one
into void, and similarly the void elements with the high-
M. Rouhi et al.
est strain energy density are converted into solid until the
exchange volume is balanced. Due to the use of discrete
density and variation in element geometry, it is possible to
encounter a small difference in volume between the two sets
of exchanged elements, which requires the relaxation of the
volume fraction constraint. Since the type of mesh used does
not change the basic framework of EEM, henceforth, the
mesh is assumed to be uniform.
The new layout is analyzed for strain energy, and
the element exchange operation is repeated. This pro-
cedure is continued for a specified number of iterations
before the checkerboard control (detection and elimination)
operation is performed, with further details provided later in
the paper.
After completion of several iterations, a subset of the
solid elements are randomly scattered in the void regions.
This so-called random shuf f le is similar to the mutation
operation in GA and serves a similar purpose in that it
enhances the chance of finding a better solution to the topol-
ogy optimization problem by exploring other regions of
the design space. For a given design problem, the princi-
pal operations (i.e., FEA, element exchange, checkerboard
control, and random shuffle) are repeated at different inter-
vals until a convergence criterion is satisfied. As in the case
of the other stochastic methods, a limit is imposed on the
number of iterations in order to stop the program when the
selected convergence criterion is too tight.
Figure 3a illustrates the evolution in topology from the
initial to optimum (minimum compliance) design point for a
two-dimensional domain using the EEM. Here, convergence
is defined as a nearly stationary topology with changes in
the strain energy below the specified threshold. The strain
energy history plot in Fig. 3a shows the general convergence
pattern in EEM. The spikes that appear at different intervals
are mostly due to the random shuffle operation, although
it is also possible to see an abrupt change in strain energy
during a routine element exchange operation.
In EEM, unlike ESO (Xie and Steven 1993; Querin et al.
1998), void elements can be converted into solid and vice
versa. Note that in EEM, the void elements have small but
nonzero stiffness and density. Even if the initial random
distribution of solid elements gives an appearance of a dis-
continuous load path (infeasible topology), EEM gradually
connects all the solid elements in its search for an opti-
mum topology. Furthermore, in EEM the solid and void
elements participating in the conversion operation are not
limited to any specific region of the design domain as is
the case with BESO (Querin et al. 1998). These character-
istics together with the random shuffle and overall topology
optimization scheme help distinguish EEM from both ESO
and BESO. The EEM algorithm is readily applicable to any
two- or three-dimensional domain and boundary conditions,
irrespective of its geometric or loading complexity.
Element exchange method for topology optimization
EEM implementation is very straightforward for compli-
ance minimization problems since the total strain energy of
the system is a simple summation of energy stored in indi-
vidual elements distributed in the design domain. As such,
it is possible to use the element strain energy to measure the
relative influence of a solid or void element with respect to
other elements in the same group as well as on the objec-
tive function. If a different objective function is chosen or
a new design constraint is added to the topology optimiza-
tion problem, then it is necessary to use a different metric
to determine which solid elements need to be converted into
void and vice versa. In the remaining discussions the focus
is on compliance minimization problems.
Fig. 3 Results of EEM for a tip-loaded cantilevered beam with a hole
showing a the evolution in topology and the strain energy convergence
history, and b standard deviation of element strain energy distribution
219
3.1 Element exchange
Experience shows that if the number of exchange elements,
MEE is kept constant, EEM may have an oscillatory behav-
ior and have difficulty converging. This characteristic is
not unique to EEM, however, and has been reported for
other methods as well (Huang and Xie 2007). To overcome
this problem, MEE is gradually decreased from its maxi-
mum value, MEE−max at the first iteration (k = 0) to its
minimum value, MEE−min as the solution approaches con-
vergence (i.e., k = Nmax ). For a linear reduction scheme,
MEE is found as
  
MEE−max − MEE−min
MEE = int MEE−max − k
k
(3)
Nmax
where k and Nmax denote the iteration counter and the pre-
scribed maximum number of EEM iterations, respectively.
If the value of Nmax is set too low (<100), EEM may not
have sufficient opportunity to explore the design space in
search of the optimum topology. On the other hand if it set
too high (>1,000), the computational time will significantly
increase without commensurate improvement in the opti-
mal topology. For the multitude of benchmark problems
discussed later in this paper, we have found that Nmax =
500 is acceptable. Moreover, for the total number of finite
elements, M and volume fraction, V0 specified in the prob-
lem, EEM parameter values in the range of 5% MV0 ≤
MEE−max ≤ 10% MV0 and 0.2% MV0 ≤ MEE−min ≤
0.4% MV0 are found to be effective in producing con-
verged solutions. Generally speaking, these parameters have
a wide range of acceptable values. Although they can affect
the convergence property of EEM, there is practically no
significant influence on the optimum design.
Fig. 4 a Solid checkerboard. b Void checkerboard. c Topology before
checkerboard control. d After solid checkerboard elimination. e After
void checkerboard elimination
220
3.2 Checkerboard control
Checkerboard patterns are generally undesirable and
depending on the topology optimization methodology
used, different strategies are employed to eliminate them
(Sigmund and Peterson 1988; Zhou et al. 2001; Poulsen
2002; Pomezanski et al. 2005). In EEM, a solid checker-
board element is defined as a solid element whose edges are
shared with void elements as shown in Fig. 4a, whereas a
void checkerboard element is the exact opposite as illus-
trated in Fig. 4b. Whether the dashed elements shown
in Fig. 4a and b are solid or void will not change the
checkerboard condition.
Since in EEM the initial topology is a random distribu-
tion of solid elements per the specified volume fraction, it
is natural to immediately encounter multiple checkerboard
regions as shown in Fig. 3a. However, at the beginning, sev-
eral element exchange iterations (NCI = 5–10% Nmax ) are
allowed to proceed before actively searching for checker-
board patterns. To eliminate checkerboard regions, first
the solid checkerboard elements are identified and con-
verted into void elements as shown in Fig. 4c and d, and
then the void checkerboard elements are converted into
solid elements (Fig. 4d, e). The checkerboard search and
elimination step is repeated every NCC = 1–5% Nmax
iterations. To maintain the specified volume fraction, the
difference between the numbers (volumes) of the switched
solid and void elements is randomly redistributed in the
design domain. It is possible for this random redistribution
of the difference to result in the creation of small checker-
board region(s). However, as EEM procedure is continued,
these regions tend to gradually diminish before the final
topology emerges. The checkerboard elimination procedure
in EEM is heuristic and checkerboard elements are removed
regardless of their impact on the overall compliance of the
structure.
It is important to note the interaction between checker-
board and the mesh size. As shown in exact analytical solu-
tions for Michell truss structures (Lewinski and Rozvany
2008; Rozvany et al. 2006; Lewinski et al. 1994a), the opti-
mal layout is one with many narrow connecting members
or branches. However, if the mesh is relatively coarse, the
elements in some of these branches would have a pixilated
appearance and, hence, marked as checkerboard elements
to be eliminated. As will be shown in the example problems
later, there is a greater chance for EEM to produce a topol-
ogy that approaches the analytical solution through mesh
refinement.
Although the current checkerboard control algorithm is
fairly effective, it does have some limitations in that it may
not recognize checkerboard patterns that do not perfectly
match the models shown in Fig. 4a and b.
M. Rouhi et al.
3.3 Random shuffle
Although both element exchange and checkerboard con-
trol are effective tools in helping the EEM algorithm push
toward the optimum topology, they are not sufficient. There-
fore, an additional operation (i.e., random shuffle) is intro-
duced. A random shuffle involves the selection of a subset
of solid elements and their redistribution in void regions of
the domain. This action is analogous to the mutation oper-
ation in GA (Goldberg 1989) or craziness in PSO (Fourie
and Groenwold 2001), and is used for the same princi-
pal reason, i.e., it helps prevent premature convergence or
insufficient exploration of the design domain in search of
optimum design. While preserving the specified volume
fraction, random shuffle can also help with convergence by
alleviating the occasional back and forth oscillation (oscil-
latory exchange) in a subset of elements from solid to void
back to solid in successive element exchange operations.
Random shuffle will change the topology of the structure
by introducing a random replacement of a group of solid
elements thereby alleviating the oscillatory exchange. The
effect of random shuffle on the solution is shown later in
the paper. Two things can generally happen as a result of the
random shuffle operation: (1) an abrupt change in stiffness
(Rouhi and Rais-Rohani 2008) and total strain energy as
shown by the spikes in Fig. 3a, and (2) creation of checker-
board regions. However, neither one of these side effects is
detrimental as both are corrected by the element exchange
and checkerboard control operations of EEM.
Random shuffle is third in the sequence of operations in
EEM and occurs at NRS = 2–10% Nmax iterations until the
optimal topology is found. The number of elements partici-
pating in the random shuffle, MRS varies from its maximum
value, MRS−max at the beginning (k = 0) to its minimum
value, MRS−min as the solution approaches convergence.
The value of MRS is found using the expression
  
MRS−max − MRS−min
k
MRS = int MRS−max − k (4)
Nmax
where k and Nmax denote the iteration counter and the pre-
scribed maximum number of EEM iterations, respectively.
For the benchmark problems discussed later in this paper,
MRS−max = MEE−max , MRS−min = MEE−min have been
found to be effective in producing converged solutions.
3.4 Passive elements
Some continuum structures may contain solid and/or void
sub-regions whose geometry and locations cannot be altered
during topology optimization. As a matter of convenience
and meshing simplicity, the permanent voids (or solids) may
Element exchange method for topology optimization
be included in the finite element mesh but represented by a
series of passive elements with ρ pi = ρ min (or ρ pi = 1.0)
that will not be exchanged during the EEM solution pro-
cess. The hole region in the structure shown in Fig. 3 was
modeled using passive elements.
3.5 Convergence criteria
Increasing the number of iterations in EEM will usually lead
to a more refined optimal topology but at the expense of
more function calls (i.e., additional FE solutions). Besides
imposing a limit on the maximum number of iterations, two
additional criteria are also used to establish a two-part con-
vergence condition in EEM-based topology optimization.
The first convergence criterion considers the relative
difference in the element strain energy distributions in two
consecutive elite topologies. Here, elite topology refers to
the topology with the lowest strain energy obtained prior to
the current iteration in the EEM procedure. Since it is pos-
sible for two distinctly different topologies to have almost
equal total strain energies (as noted in the SIMP based
results in Fig. 5), it is necessary to compare the element
∼
strain energy distribution, as represented by the vector E ,
for two consecutive elite topologies as
∼ ∼
elite topology, no check is made whether any of the solid
E ce − E pe
elements that were previously redistributed as a result of
∼
≤ εE (5)
random shuffle operation still remain in the void regions. As
E pe
such, a few floating solid elements may appear as specks in
where subscripts “ce” and “pe” refer to the current and pre-
vious elite topologies within Nmax iterations, respectively.
The second convergence criterion examines the density
distribution in two consecutive elite topologies. The domain
∼
topology is defined by vector D whose individual terms
have binary values depending on the solid (1) or void
(0) property of the corresponding elements. Based on this
definition, the convergence criterion is defined as
∼ ∼
D ce − D pe
∼
≤ εt (6) Several benchmark problems are used to evaluate the per-
formance of EEM and to compare its solutions with those
D pe
Fig. 5 Two different topologies
with nearly identical strain
energy values
221
Figure 3a shows how the strain energy in EEM converges
to its minimum value for a cantilevered beam with a fixed
hole. Strain energy starts from an extremely large value
because of the randomly distributed elements in the initial
step. However, after a few iterations, it reduces to roughly
the same order of magnitude as its minimum value. The
continuation of the element exchange will refine the topol-
ogy toward its minimum strain energy as shown in Fig. 3a.
Although there are occasional jumps in total strain energy
(due to element exchange or random shuffle operation), the
overall trend shows a gradual convergence. It should be
noted that similar spikes in the strain energy convergence
plots have also been observed when using BESO (Querin
et al. 1998).
Figure 3b shows the plot of the standard deviation of
strain energy in individual solid elements at different stages
of the solution process. The trend indicates that the strain
energy density field is approaching a more uniform state,
resembling the fully stressed design in optimality criteria
(Bendsoe and Sigmund 2002; Tanskanen 2002), as it makes
the most efficient use of available material in the design
domain.
Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that,
in its current implementation, when EEM identifies an
the void regions of the final topology in different example
problems. Since the few floating elements have no sig-
nificant impact on the final topology, no attempt is made
to remove them in any of the presented solutions. Due to
the stochastic nature of EEM, another solution to the same
optimization problem may show different floating elements.
4 Results for two-dimensional problems
obtained using some other methods. Each two-dimensional
design domain is defined according to n x , n y , V0 represent-
ing the number of finite elements in the x and y directions
and the limit on volume fraction, respectively. Hereafter,
strain energy refers to the non-dimensional strain energy
since the nodal displacements and element stiffness are nor-
malized with respect to element size and material Young’s
modulus. The reported number of iterations (N ) for the
EEM results coincides with the number of FE analyses
performed in the solution process.
Since most of the computational time in each iteration,
regardless of the method used, is spent on the compliance
222 M. Rouhi et al.

Table 2 Comparison of EEM results with Level Set and BESO

calculation via FEA, the total number of function calls solutions for model A2
(FE solutions) gives a fairly accurate measure of compu- Design domain & Boundary conditions
tational efficiency. We purposefully avoided a time-based
X
comparison because we did not want to improperly attribute Y
inefficiencies in the implementation of FEA to that of the
different optimization algorithms considered. In EEM or
SIMP, the required computational time is proportional to F
the number of iterations whereas in population based meth-
ods such as GA or PSO it is proportional to the number of
iterations times the population size. EEM Level Set 38 BESO18

t = 27.3 , N = 127 t = - , N = 140 t = - , N = 47a

4.1 Simply-supported beams

Model A1: Single mid-span force applied on top

The simply-supported MBB (Olhoff et al. 1991; Lewinski

et al. 1994b) beam model with the loading shown in Table 1
is optimized for minimum compliance. Due to the overall a The reported steady state number is shown as the total number of FE
symmetry, the computational model represents only one half solutions was not specified
of the physical domain. For (n x , n y , V0 ) = (90, 30, 0.5), the
final topology along with the number of iterations (N ) and
the total strain energy (E t ) are given in Table 1. The EEM
results represent three converged solutions using the same

values for EEM algorithmic parameters. The difference is

caused by the existence of multiple local minima for this
problem. For comparison purposes, the SIMP based solu-
tions based on the algorithm provided by Sigmund (2001),
Table 1 Comparison of EEM and SIMP results for model A1 are also shown in Table 1 while considering the effect
Design domain & Boundary conditions of initial design and filter radius on the optimum topol-
F ogy. Generally, the closer the topology to the ideal Michell
X truss structure the lower the strain energy. This resemblance
Y
(Lewinski et al. 1994a) is more visible in the models with
the lowest strain energy than the rest in Table 1.

Model A2: Single mid-span force applied at the bottom

(nx, ny, V0) = (90, 30, 0.5)
with modified boundary conditions
EEM SIMP a SIMPb
The roller support at the left side of the beam in model A1 is
replaced by a pin support, preventing the beam from having
t = 187, N = 210 t = 190, N = 130 t = 204, N = 29, any horizontal displacement at the supports. The load is also
r=2 moved to the bottom of the beam. The change in the bound-
ary condition affects the optimum topology as shown in
Table 2. The EEM solution for (n x , n y , V0 ) = (61, 62, 0.31)
= 191, N = 227 t = 192, N = 200 t = 195, N = 45, is compared with those reported in the literature by Wang
t
r = 1.2
and Wang (2003) using the Level Set method for (n x , n y ,
V0 ) = (61, 62, 0.31) and by Querin et al. (1998) using
= 201, N = 192 = 193, N = 123 BESO for (n x , n y , V0 ) = (31, 32, 0.25). The value shown
t t t = 201, N = 33,
r=1 for the number of iterations in BESO is the value reported
a Based (Querin et al. 1998) for the steady state number, which
on different initial designs with equal volume fraction and
filtering radius can be considerably less than the total number of FE solu-
b Based on different filtering radii with equal volume fraction and initial tions. The optimal strain energy values cannot be compared
design due to the lack of data in the cited references. The optimal
Element exchange method for topology optimization 223

Table 3 Comparison of EEM and SIMP results for model B1

the more Michell like topology would have smaller strain
Design domain & Boundary conditions
energy for the same volume fraction.
X
Model B2: Single tip force applied at mid height

F The beam model and the corresponding topology optimiza-

Y
tion results are shown in Table 4. Two different mesh
(nx, ny, V0) = (32, 20, 0.4) densities are used for EEM solutions at the same volume
fraction. Both solutions show a fairly similar trend for mate-
EEM SIMP rial distribution, although the fine-mesh solution is more
t = 53.6 , N = 178 t = 57.4 , N = 71 accurate. The results reported by Wang et al. (2006) based
on the enhanced GA approach are also shown in Table 4 for
comparison. Although the final geometry and strain energy
values are nearly the same, the EEM solution converges 160
times faster. Jakiela et al. (2000) state that, in general, GA
based solutions may require 10 to 100 times more func-
(nx, ny, V0) = (64, 40, 0.4) tion evaluations than would be required by homogenization
EEM SIMP based solutions. It is notable that the number of function
t = 57 , N = 174 t = 55.7 , N = 57 calls is in the order of the number of iterations multiplied by
the population size in both GA and PSO as will be shown
later.
A qualitative and quantitative comparison of the per-
formance of EEM, enhanced GA and SIMP in finding
the optimum topology for this model is shown in Fig. 6.
Although EEM is not as computationally efficient as SIMP,

topologies are fairly similar with both EEM and BESO solu-
tions showing one extra member than that in the Level Set
solution.
Table 4 Comparison of EEM results with enhanced GA solution for
4.2 Cantilevered beams model B2
Design domain & Boundary conditions
Model B1: Single tip force applied at the bottom X

Table 3 shows the beam model and loading condition along

F
with the results of EEM and SIMP for two different mesh
sizes at the same volume fraction. In the case of the SIMP, Y
the results are based on the filtering radius of 1.2. While the
optimal strain energy values are comparable, the total itera- (nx, ny, V0) = (24, 12, 0.5)
tion numbers are different. As a result of mesh refinement,
EEM Enhanced GA39
the optimal topology changes with minimal change in the 4
t = 66.1 , N = 150 t = 64.4 , N = 4x10
final strain energy. By increasing the mesh size, both EEM
and SIMP solutions move toward Michell truss topology.
At first, it appears counterintuitive for the more Michell
like structure (Lewinski et al. 1994a) associated with the
fine-mesh solution of EEM to have a strain energy that is
(nx, ny, V0) = (48, 24, 0.5)
higher than that of the coarse mesh. This does not imply that
the fine-mesh solution is inferior. On the contrary, the appar- EEM
ent discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the FEA t = 63.5 , N = 250
solution (predicted strain energy) using the coarse mesh is
not as accurate as that for the fine mesh. If the optimal lay-
out (ground elements) in each case were discretized so as to
increase the accuracy of post-optimum FEA solution, then
224 M. Rouhi et al.

Model B3: Model B2 with modified dimensions

The dimensions of the cantilevered beam in model B2 are

modified such that the beam’s height is greater than its
Compliance

length. In Table 5, the results of EEM for two different mesh

sizes are compared with the PSO based solutions reported
by Fourie and Groenwold (2001). While the topologies for
the fine mesh are nearly identical, the EEM optimum topol-
ogy for the coarse mesh is better than that produced by PSO.
Although PSO is a population-based method requiring mul-
tiple FEA in every iteration, the results still show that the
EEM solution can converge 10 to 1000 times faster than
Number of iteration PSO with no loss of accuracy.
(a)
Model B4: Multiple load cases

The cantilevered beam model in Table 6 is optimized for

two separate load cases. In one load case, only force F1 is
Compliance

applied at the tip whereas in the other only F2 is applied.

Forces F1 and F2 have equal magnitudes and opposite
directions.
For EEM solution, the strain energy in each element is
the sum of that for each load case. As a result, the additive
form of the objective function is retained and the relation-
ship between element strain energy and element exchange
operation remains unchanged. Thus, the solid elements with
Number of iteration
the lowest strain energy sum (from the two load cases com-
(b) bined) are converted into void elements whereas the void
elements with the highest strain energy sum are converted
into solid elements.
The results for EEM and SIMP (with r = 1.2) are com-
pared in Table 6. Because both F1 and F2 have equal
Compliance

magnitudes, the structure tends to have a symmetric lay-

Number of iteration
(c)
Fig. 6 Compliance convergence history and final topology for a
enhanced GA (Wang et al. 2006), b SIMP and c EEM
out. The EEM and SIMP topologies have some distinct
differences. The two horizontal (top and bottom) members
in SIMP solution appear as slanted in the EEM layout and
the vertical member in SIMP layout is absent in the EEM
topology. The dark specks seen in the EEM topology are
the residue or the floating elements from the last random
shuffle operation as discussed earlier in the paper.
4.3 L-shaped domain
Model C1: Distributed force applied along one boundary

An L-shaped domain with clamped boundary conditions

it is considerably more efficient than GA. It is also worth
noting that for GA the number of iterations times the pop-
ulation size gives the total number of function calls (Wang
et al. 2006).
along the top edge and a distributed force along the middle
third section of the right edge as shown in Fig. 7a is opti-
mized for minimum compliance. For simplicity, the prob-
lem is modeled as a square domain with elements located in
the upper right quadrant treated as passive elements. Using
Element exchange method for topology optimization 225

Table 5 Comparison of EEM Design domain & Boundary conditions

results with PSO solutions for
model B3
X

F
Y
(nx, ny, V0) = (20, 47, 0.5) (nx, ny, V0) = (40, 94, 0.5)

EEM PSO16 EEM PSO16

5 3
t = 3.0 , N = 100 t = - , N = 10 t = 5.1 , N = 103 t = - , N = 10

Continuous Density Binary Density

(n x , n y , V0 ) = (90, 90, 0.35), EEM finds a minimum com- Fig. 7 a L-shaped domain
pliance solution after 167 iterations with the strain energy with distributed tip load and
of 85.1. The optimal EEM topology in Fig. 7c is compared optimal layouts based on b
Neighborhood Search method
with that of the Neighborhood Search method (Svanberg (Svanberg and Werme 2005)
and Werme 2005) in Fig. 7b. For the same mesh size, the and c EEM
solution based on Neighborhood Search method takes 378
iterations. In both cases, the larger members show the aver-
age orientation for the more finely distributed members over
the same domain (Lewinski and Rozvany 2008).
(a)

Table 6 Comparison of EEM results with SIMP solution for model

B4
Design domain & Boundary conditions
F1=F

(b)
F2=F
(F1 and F2 represent separate load cases)

(nx, ny, V0) = (50, 50, 0.4)

EEM SIMP
t = 60.9 , N = 104 t = 61.3 , N = 60

(c)
226 M. Rouhi et al.

Fig. 8 a L-shaped domain with the analytical case. However, the trend captured in the EEM
single tip load and optimal solutions appears to be in reasonable agreement with the
layouts based on b exact analytical solution. Since there is some randomness in the
analytical solution (Lewinski
and Rozvany 2008). c EEM EEM procedure, the number of lumped bars and their ori-
with coarse mesh. d EEM with entation may vary from one solution to another for the same
fine mesh problem.

5 Results for three-dimensional problems

(a)
Each three-dimensional design domain is defined according
to n x , n y , n z , V0 values representing the number of finite ele-
ments in the x, y, and z directions and the limit on volume
fraction, respectively. As in the previous section, the EEM
results are compared with those reported in the literature.

5.1 Cubic domain

(b) A cubic domain is simply supported at its four bottom cor-

ners and is loaded by four concentrated vertical forces acting
at the top surface as shown in Fig. 9a. Using the EEM proce-
dure with (n x , n y , n z , V0 ) = (20, 20, 20, 0.08), the optimum

Fig. 9 a Design domain and

boundary conditions with
optimum topology based on
(c) b Optimum Microstructures
(Olhoff et al. 1998) and c EEM

(a)

(d)

Model C2: Single tip force applied at the bottom

The problem is similar to that in model C1 except for the (b)

applied load as shown in Fig. 8a. Here the EEM solutions
in Fig. 8c and d for (n x , n y , V0 ) = (90, 90, 0.35) and (n x ,
n y , V0 ) = (250, 250, 0.35), respectively, are compared to
the exact analytical solution (Lewinski and Rozvany 2008;
Rozvany et al. 2006) in Fig. 8b. It should be noted that the
unlimited number of bars in the analytical solutions would
be very difficult to capture in an FE solution with a limited
discretization, especially in this case where the boundary
conditions along the top edge are not exactly the same as (c)
Element exchange method for topology optimization 227

Altair / HyperWorks / ostutorials / ostut . htm # os2010 . htm).

While the triangular region in the middle can be altered
through topology optimization, the three corner regions
(knuckles) are held fixed with the specified boundary
conditions shown in Fig. 11a. The EEM solution based
on (n x , n y , n z , V0 ) = (26, 40, 12, 0.1) is shown in
Fig. 11b with a final strain energy of 4.5764 × 104 .
(a) (b) Since the design domain is symmetric, only the upper
half of the final topology is considered and shown for
clarity. The optimization result in Fig. 11c is obtained
using a commercial software code (OptiStruct; reported in
http://www.kxcad.net /Altair /HyperWorks /ostutorials/ostut.
htm#os2010.htm). In Fig. 11c, the elements with density
(c) (d) less than 0.15 are removed and the resulting geometry is
post-processed to obtain a smoother shape.
Fig. 10 a Design domain and boundary conditions with optimum
topology based on b EEM, V0 = 0.3, c EEM, V0 = 0.08 and d Opti-
mum Microstructure (Olhoff et al. 1998), V0 = 0.3 (elements with
densities less than 0.5 filtered out)
YZ DOF fixed

Z DOF fixed

topology in Fig. 9b is obtained after 178 iterations with a

strain energy of 24.1. For comparison, the results obtained
Fx
XYZ DOF fixed
by Olhoff et al. (1998) using the Optimum Microstructure Z
(OM) method is shown in Fig. 9c. The gray regions in the
Fig. 9c imply intermediate density since the OM method X Y Fz

uses a continuous density function. Also, elements with

(a) Fy
density less than a threshold value are filtered out in the OM
method to arrive at the final topology. Therefore, the final
topology may not match the pre-specified volume fraction.

5.2 Clamped-clamped beam

A clamped-clamped beam is loaded in the middle by a con-

centrated bending moment as shown in Fig. 10a. The EEM
results for (n x , n y , n z , V0 ) = (50, 10, 10, 0.3) and (n x , n y ,
n z , V0 ) = (50, 10, 10, 0.08) are shown in Fig. 10b and c.
For the OM based solution shown in Fig. 10d, the elements
with density less than 0.5 are removed. For the same rea-
(b)
son stated earlier, the actual volume fraction is less than the
specified value of 0.3. Figure 10c shows that EEM result
is sensitive to the direction of the applied moment. It is not
clear if a similar sensitivity also exists in the OM based solu-
tions at a lower volume fraction values. For the solutions in
Fig. 10b and c, the number of iterations is found to be 197
and 206, respectively.

5.3 Automobile control arm (c)

Fig. 11 a Control arm model with optimum topology based on
The geometry shown in Fig. 11a is a generic model of an b EEM and c OptiStruct (http://www.kxcad.net/Altair/HyperWorks/
automobile control arm (discussed in http://www.kxcad.net/ ostutorials/ostut.htm#os2010.htm) software
228 M. Rouhi et al.

The possibility of sub-structuring the computational

domain to reduce the number of FE calculations was inves- X
tigated in Rouhi and Rais-Rohani (2008). The idea was to
limit the FE analysis to the parts of the domain that partic-
ipate in the element exchange operations. The participation
of a large number of elements in different regions of the
structure in the various EEM operations showed that such
a sub-structuring may not be possible. The requirement Y F
for a relatively large number of FE solutions is the main (a)
drawback in all stochastic approaches including EEM.

6 Effects of special operations in EEM on the solution

As noted previously, there are two special operations in

EEM in the form of checkerboard control and random
shuffle. The influence of each of these operations on the
optimal topology is examined here with the help of the
(b)
model shown in Fig. 12. A tip-loaded cantilevered beam as
shown in Fig. 12a is optimized based on the initial layout of
material in Fig. 12b.
To limit the list of variables involved, the solid elements
are distributed uniformly in one portion of the domain per
the specified volume fraction. With both the checkerboard
control and random shuffle operations preserved, the opti-
mum topology is that shown in Fig. 12c. Without using the
(c)
checkerboard control operation, the optimum solution is that
in Fig. 12d. The strain energy in the final topology is partly
due to the numerically induced (artificial) high stiffness of
the checkerboard regions. When the random shuffle opera-
tion is disabled, the final topology is that shown in Fig. 12e
with both the final layout and the strain energy value indi-
cating a local optimum design point that is not as good as
the one in Fig. 12c.
(d)
7 Effects of EEM parameters on the solution

As mentioned previously, the desired values for the EEM

input parameters must be specified before starting the solu-
tion process. These parameters are: V0 (the volume frac-
tion), M (the number of finite elements in the model),
Nmax (the maximum allowable number of iterations in EEM
solution), ε E (total strain energy convergence parameter), (e)
εt (element topology or density distribution convergence
Fig. 12 a The design domain and BCs. b Initial design topology. c
parameter), MEE−max (the maximum number of exchange
EEM result, Et = 54. d EEM result with no checkerboard control
elements), MEE−min (the minimum number of exchange ele- operation, Et = 55.5. e EEM result with no random shuffle operation,
ments), MRS−max (the maximum number of solid elements Et = 58.5
participating in the random shuffle), MRS−min (the mini-
mum number of solid elements participating in the random
shuffle), NCI (the number of completed iterations before and NRS (the number of iterations or interval between ran-
starting checkerboard control), NCC (the number of itera- dom shuffle operations). All other parameters not listed
tions or interval between checkerboard control operations), above are calculated from these input parameters.
Element exchange method for topology optimization
The convergence parameters (Nmax , εE and εt ) control
the solution accuracy. Generally speaking, the EEM search
for optimum topology becomes more rigorous by increas-
ing the value of Nmax and decreasing the values of εE and
εt at the expense of increased computational time. As with
the other stochastic methods, if Nmax is too small, EEM
may not be able to find an optimum solution. On the other
hand, if εE and εt are too small, convergence may be hard
to achieve. As shown in Fig. 3, EEM finds the basic lay-
out of the optimum topology in about 20 iterations with the
remaining iterations devoted to refinement of the topology.
However, when the design domain includes multiple local
optima, then it is possible for the topology to vary widely
during the solution sequence.
Since element exchange is the main operation in EEM,
the value selected for MEE is important. As noted
previously, MEE cannot be treated as a constant and must
be gradually reduced from its prescribed maximum value
(MEE−max ) at the very beginning to its imposed mini-
mum (MEE−min ) at the end. Based on the multitude of
problems examined, choosing MEE−max ∼ 5–10% and
MEE−min ∼ 0.2–0.4% of the solid elements (MV0 ) would be
appropriate. Generally speaking, selecting a relatively large
value for MEE−max will lead to the formation of the main
load path in the early stages of the optimization process.
However, it may also reduce the computational efficiency
due to participation of a large number of elements in
oscillatory exchange phenomenon discussed earlier. Like-
wise, choosing a relatively small value for MEE−min makes
the solution easier to converge with a more refined final
topology.
Similar to element exchange, the number of elements
(MRS ) and the interval (NRS ) selected for random shuffle
are crucial to the success of EEM. Equation (4) provides
an acceptable reduction scheme for MRS in the range
MRS−min ≤ MRS ≤ MRS−max . While starting with MRS =
MRS−max widens the domain of exploration for optimum
design (similar to a larger coefficient for the particle’s veloc-
ity in PSO (Fourie and Groenwold 2001), it may reduce
the computational efficiency by exchanging a large num-
ber of elements in a random fashion. On the other hand,
small MRS−min value helps with convergence while enhanc-
ing the final topology. For problems with a large number
of solid elements (i.e., large volume fraction) or large MV0 ,
EEM is less likely to get trapped in a loop (see Section IIIC)
and the step size for random distribution can be increased to
improve the computational efficiency. Choosing NRS ≈ 2–
5% Nmax is found to be sufficient to help EEM not to get
trapped in a local optimum while reducing the number of
elements involved in oscillatory exchange.
As shown in (3), a large value for Nmax decreases the
rate of reduction in MEE , which increases the number of
EEM iterations. Although it delays the finding of the final
229
topology, it makes entrapment in a local minimum less
likely.
The value selected for NCI should provide sufficient
opportunity for element exchange operation to improve
upon the initial topology (random distribution of solid ele-
ments), which may include many checkerboard regions.
Similarly, NCC should not coincide directly with NRS , as
random shuffle is likely to cause the creation of checker-
board elements. Choosing NCI ≈ 5–10% Nmax and NCC ≈
1% Nmax are found to be sufficient to allow both the ele-
ment exchange and random shuffle operations to improve
the design before the accumulated checkerboard elements
are identified and eliminated by the checkerboard control
procedure.
All of these parameters are flexible and reasonable devia-
tions from the suggested values may not dramatically affect
the final results. The values selected for the EEM parame-
ters in some of the example problems presented earlier are
shown in the Appendix.
8 Concluding remarks
A stochastic direct search topology optimization method
called element exchange method (EEM) was presented with
application to compliance minimization problems subject to
a volume fraction constraint. The non-dimensional density
of each finite element was treated as a binary design vari-
able (ρvoid = 0.001 and ρsolid = 1) with a linear element
density-stiffness relationship. The basic premise of the pro-
posed method is that by systematically converting the less
critical solid elements into void and the more critical void
elements into solid, an optimum topology will emerge. The
proper selection of EEM parameters assures convergence.
However, depending on the selected mesh density and the
desired level of clarity in the final topology, the number of
iterations required for convergence may vary.
Through the solution of several two- and three-
dimensional example problems for compliance minimiza-
tion, the accuracy and efficiency of EEM were examined
and compared with different gradient based (e.g., SIMP)
and non-gradient based (e.g., GA, EBSO) methods as
reported in the literature. The results show that EEM is
reasonably accurate in finding an optimum topology with
clear solid-void layout of material in the design domain.
As for computational efficiency, EEM is shown to be infe-
rior to gradient based methods (e.g., SIMP) but superior to
non-gradient based methods such as GA and PSO.
Acknowledgments This material is based upon work supported
by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FC26-
06NT42755. The authors are also grateful to Prof. Rozvany for
valuable discussions on topics related to topology optimization.
230 M. Rouhi et al.

Appendix

Table 7 Table of values selected for EEM parameters in the example problems studied in the paper

Case V0 Mx × My × Mz Nmax NRS NCC NCI MEE_max MEE_min εE εt

Table 1 0.5 90 × 30 250 7 3 15 60 5 1e-6 1e-3

Figure 6 0.5 60 × 20 260 7 3 10 30 3 1e-6 1e-3
Table 2 0.31 61 × 62 200 7 3 20 60 5 1e-6 1e-3
Table 3—coarse 0.4 32 × 20 200 7 3 10 20 3 1e-6 1e-3
Table 3—fine 0.4 64 × 40 200 7 3 20 100 5 1e-6 1e-3
Table 4—coarse 0.5 24 × 12 200 7 3 10 20 2 1e-6 1e-3
Table 4—fine 0.5 48 × 24 300 7 3 20 50 5 1e-6 1e-3
Table 5—coarse 0.5 20 × 47 150 5 3 10 25 3 1e-6 1e-3
Table 5—fine 0.5 40 × 94 150 7 3 20 100 5 1e-6 1e-3
Table 6 0.4 50 × 50 150 7 3 20 75 5 1e-6 1e-3
Figure 7 0.35 90 × 90 200 13 4 20 500 15 1e-9 1e-6
Figure 8c 0.35 90 × 90 250 13 4 20 250 10 1e-9 1e-6
Figure 8d 0.35 250 × 250 250 13 4 20 1000 15 1e-9 1e-6
Figure 9 0.08 20 × 20 × 20 200 9 5 15 100 5 1e-9 1e-6
Figure 10b 0.3 50 × 10 × 10 200 9 5 15 100 10 1e-9 1e-6
Figure 10c 0.08 50 × 10 × 10 200 9 5 15 100 10 1e-9 1e-6
Figure 11 0.1 40 × 6 × 26 300 11 5 15 75 5 1e-9 1e-6

MRS_max = MEE_max , MRS_min = MEE_min in all cases

References Huang X, Xie YM (2007) Convergent and mesh-independent solutions

Bendsoe MP (1989) Optimal shape design as a material distribution
problem. J Struct Multidisc Optim 1(4):193–202
Bendsoe MP, Kikuchi N (1988) Generating optimal topologies in struc-
tural design using a homogenization method. Comput Methods
Appl Mech Eng 71(2):197–224
Bendsoe MP, Sigmund O (2002) Topology optimization: theory, meth-
ods and applications. Springer, Berlin
Bruns TE (2005) A reevaluation of the SIMP method with filtering and
an alternative formulation for solid–void topology optimization.
Struct Multidisc Optim 30(6):428–436
Diaz A, Bendsoe MP (1992) Shape optimization of structures for mul-
tiple loading situations using a homogenization method. Struct
Optim 4(1):17–22
Fourie PC, Groenwold AA (2001) The particle swarm algorithm
in topology optimization. In: Proceedings of the fourth world
congress of structural and multidisciplinary optimization. Dalian,
China
Fuchs MB, Jiny S, Peleg N (2005) The SRV constraint for 0/1
topological design. Struct Multidisc Optim 30(4):320–326
Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and
machine learning. Addison-Wesley, New York
Guo X, Gu YX (2004) A new density-stiffness interpolation scheme
for topology optimization of continuum structures. Eng Comput
21(1):9–22
Haber RB, Jog CS, Bendsoe MP (1996) A new approach to variable-
topology design using a constraint on the perimeter. Struct Optim
11(1–2):11–12
for the bi-directional evolutionary structural optimization method.
Finite Elem Anal Des 43:1039–1049
Jakiela MJ, Chapman C, Duda J, Adewuya A, Saitou K (2000) Contin-
uum structural topology design with genetic algorithms. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 186(2–4):339–356
Jog CS, Haber RB (1996) Stability of finite element models for dis-
tributed parameter optimization and topology design. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 130(3):203–226
Kita E, Toyoda T (1999) Structural optimization using local rules. In:
Proceedings of third world congress of structural and multidisci-
plinary optimization, May 1999, Niagara Falls, NY, USA. Paper
no. 30-SMD-3
Kutylowski R (2002) On nonuniqueness solutions in topology opti-
mization. Struct Multidisc Optim 23(5):398–403
Lewinski T, Rozvany GIN (2008) Exact analytical solutions for some
popular benchmark problems in topology optimization III: L-
shaped domains. Struct Multidisc Optim 35(2):165–174
Lewinski T, Zhou M, Rozvany GIN (1994a) Extended exact solutions
for least-weight truss layouts-part I: cantilever with a horizontal
axis of symmetry. Int J Mech Sci 36(5):375–398
Lewinski T, Zhou M, Rozvany GIN (1994b) Extended exact solutions
for least-weight truss layouts—part II: unsymmetric cantilevers.
Int J Mech Sci 36(5):399–419
Liu JS, Parks GT, Clarkson PJ (2000) Metamorphic development:
a new topology optimization method for continuum structures.
Struct Multidisc Optim 20(4):288–300
Mattheck C, Burkhardt S (1990) A new method of structural shape
optimization based on biological growth. Int J Fatigue 12(3):185–
190
Element exchange method for topology optimization
Mei YL, Wang XM, Cheng GD (2007) Binary discrete method of
topology optimization. Appl Math Mech 28(6):707–719
Olhoff N, Bendsoe MP, Rasmussen J (1991) On CAD integrated struc-
tural topology and design optimization. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 89:259–279
Olhoff N, Ronholt E, Scheel J (1998) Topology optimization of three-
dimensional structures using optimum microstructures. Struct
Optim 16(1):1–18
Pomezanski V, Querin OM, Rozvany GIN (2005) CO-SIMP: extended
SIMP algorithm with direct corner contact control. Struct
Multidisc Optim 30:164–168
Poulsen TA (2002) A simple scheme to prevent checkerboard patterns
and one-node connected hinges in topology optimization. Struct
Multidisc Optim 24:396–399
Querin OM, Steven GP, Xie YM (1998) Evolutionary structural opti-
mization (ESO) using a bidirectional algorithm. Comput Struct
15(8):1031–1048
Rouhi M, Rais-Rohani M (2008) Topology optimization of con-
tinuum structures using element exchange method. In: 49th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics,
and materials, 7–10 April 2008, Schaumburg, IL
Rozvany GIN (2009) A critical review of established methods in struc-
tural topology optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 37:217–237
Rozvany GIN, Zhou M, Birker T (1992) Generalized shape optimiza-
tion without homogenization. Struct Optim 4:250–252
Rozvany GIN, Lewinski T, Querin OM, Logo J (2006) Quality con-
trol in topology optimization using analytically derived bench-
marks. In: 11th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and
optimization conference, 6–8 September 2006, Portsmouth, VA
Sigmund O (2001) A 99 line topology optimization code written in
Matlab. Struct Multidisc Optim 21(2):120–127
231
Sigmund O, Peterson J (1988) Numerical instabilities in topology opti-
mization: a survey on procedures dealing with checkerboards,
mesh-dependencies and local minima. Struct Optim 16(1):68–75
Svanberg K, Werme M (2005) A hierarchical neighborhood search
method for topology optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim
29:325–340
Tanskanen P (2002) The evolutionary structural optimization method:
theoretical aspects. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191:5485–
5498
Wang MY, Wang X (2003) Level set models for structural topology
optimization. In: Proceedings of DETC’03, ASME 2003 design
engineering technical conferences and ASME 2003 design engi-
neering technical conferences and computers and information in
engineering conference, 2–6 Sep. 2003, Chicago, IL
Wang SY, Tai K, Wang MY (2006) An enhanced genetic algorithm
for structural topology optimization. Int J Numer Methods Eng
65(1):18–44
Werne M (2006) Globally optimal benchmark solutions to some small-
scale discretized continuum topology optimization problems.
Struct Multidisc Optim 32(3):259–262
Xie YM, Steven GP (1993) A simple evolutionary procedure for
structural optimization. Eng Comput 49(5):885–896
Zhou M, Rozvany GIN (1991) The COC algorithm, part II: topo-
logical, geometry and generalized shape optimization. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 89(1–3):309–336
Zhou M, Rozvany GIN (2001) On the validity of ESO type
methods in topology optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 21:
80–83
Zhou M, Shyy YK, Thomas HL (2001) Checkerboard and minimum
member size control in topology optimization. Struct Multidisc
Optim 21:152–158