Explore the recorded optimization results one case at a time. Compare the final summary with its iteration history, or watch the optimization sequence.
72 cases14,720 iteration framesOriginal research outputs
Explore the recorded outputs
Part A · C001
33 cases · 200 frames in this case
Evidence boundary
What this view can support
Public source · recorded output
Evidence type
Recorded result summary
Artifact
C001 summary PNG
Index meaning
Published overview; no solver-time axis
Engineering fields
No mesh, nodal fields or load metadata
The result images and videos come from the public MIT-licensed output repository. The related geometry and calculation repository is public under a view-and-cite-only licence, so its code is deliberately not embedded or adapted here. The published assets do not include a solver version, boundary conditions, physical-time calibration, mesh or field data.
Use the original matrix to identify the design variables and constraints for each case.
Objectives
I/λ — geometric inertia per wavelength, associated with ECT.
A/λ — area per wavelength, associated with weight.
Ez — out-of-plane stiffness, associated with FCT.
Reading the matrix
Liner/flute thickness ranges, control points, curvature constraints and optimizer settings are defined in the matrix. Part B uses the separately published dimensionless study outputs.
This panel transcribes the published design domain, response definitions and evaluation budget. It is source evidence, not a replay: the recorded optimization images above are not a Gaussian-process acquisition trace.
Audit · not reproduced
Evaluations
1000
200 LHS + 800 active
Candidates / step
1000
Reported candidate pool
E_z,eff
Effective through-thickness modulus
Reported MSE: 5.24 kPa²
t_eff
Effective thickness
Reported MSE: 1 mm²
Published design domain
Variable
Symbol
Minimum
Maximum
Flute thickness
t
0.005 m
0.02 m
Flute amplitude
a
0.001 m
0.01 m
Flute wavelength
λ
0.0001 m
0.002 m
Material constants and replay requirements
Published orthotropic constants
E₁
1,709,000,000 Pa
E₂
918,000,000 Pa
E₃
8,995,000 Pa
G₁₂
485,000,000 Pa
ν₁₂
0.4 —
G₁₃
31,070,000 Pa
G₂₃
26,230,000 Pa
ν₁₃
0.001 —
ν₂₃
0.001 —
Still missing for an exact replay
The evaluated 1000-row design and response table
Gaussian-process kernel and fitted hyperparameters
Random seed and exact candidate archive
Per-iteration acquisition values and selected candidates
The 2023 review organizes corrugated-board optimization across history, manufacturing, structural design, objectives and algorithms. This map connects those review lenses to evidence already exposed in ProjectHub; it is not a solver, dataset or reproduced paper result.
Review · not a simulation
RQ1
Map the optimization methods used for corrugated board and their economic and environmental contribution.
RQ2
Trace how those methods evolved and identify the drivers behind the change.
RQ3
Identify state-of-the-art limitations that point to future optimization trends.
Loading Part A C001, published result summary