Table 2 Comparison of design results between SF-ROM and MF-ROM (after 200 iterations)
Method | \(\varvec{N_{b}}\) | \(\varvec{\hat{e}_{rb}}\) | Calls to ROM | CPU running time \(\varvec{(/s)}\) | Optimal compliance \(\varvec{(c^{*})}\) | Relative error of \(\varvec{c^{*}(\%)}\) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reference | – | – | 0/200 | 1884.26 | 291.48 | – |
SF-ROM | 4 | 0.1 | 135/200 | 1624.22 | 292.3 | 0.28 |
0.5 | 164/200 | 1355.04 | 301.5 | 3.44 | ||
MF-ROM | 4 | 0.1 | 129/200 | 1541.80 | 294.19 | 0.93 |
0.5 | 164/200 | 1296.32 | 300.11 | 2.96 |