Table 5 Comparison of design results among AdapBi-ROM, Adap-ROM and Bi-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 | – |
Adap-ROM | 4 | \(0\rightarrow 0.05\) \(\rightarrow 0.5 \) | 116/200 | 1652.98 | 291.68 | 0.07 |
Bi-ROM | 4 | 0.5 | 167/200 | 1294.97 | 299.09 | 2.61 |
6 | 0.1 | 153/200 | 1294.97 | 299.09 | 2.61 | |
AdapBi-ROM | 4 | \(0\rightarrow 0.05\) \(\rightarrow 0.5 \) | 112/200 | 1352.96 | 291.52 | 0.01 |
6 | \(0\rightarrow 0.01\) \(\rightarrow 0.1\) | 96/200 | 1352.96 | 291.52 | 0.01 |