Table 3 Comparison of design results between MF-ROM and Adap-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 | – |
MF-ROM | 4 | 0.05 | 105/200 | 1677.06 | 291.10 | 0.13 |
4 | 0.5 | 164/200 | 1296.32 | 300.11 | 2.96 | |
Adap-ROM | 4 | \(0\rightarrow 0.05\) \(\rightarrow 0.5\) | 116/200 | 1652.98 | 291.68 | 0.07 |