Tolerance-Based Layer Setup Optimization for Layered Manufacturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a new tolerance-based method to generate the optimum layer setup required to build layered manufacturing (LM) end-user parts for maximized efficiency. To achieve this, the deviation between the final polished LM part geometry and the original design model are formulated and controlled. Maximized layer thicknesses are then realized through optimization of each layer position with respect to the design and final geometry and maximization of the allowable deviation for each layer, which consequently leads to minimization of the build time. Current LM layer setup methods do not take into account of the final part during layer setup generation, rendering layer thickness selection to operator-deemed-best. Without the ability to predict the final geometry and to optimize the layer setup accordingly, layer thickness selection is often overly conservative, causing more layers than necessary to be used. Since the LM build time increases exponentially with an increase in the number of layers, efficiency is greatly reduced with conservative layer setup. To achieve maximum efficiency, this paper proposes a new method based on error compensation and minimization to solve for the optimum layer setup necessary to allow the resulting final physical part to reliably approximate the design model geometry according to a user specified tolerance limit. Case studies have been performed in order to validate that the proposed method is able to minimize the number of layers for constructing an LM part while controlling the maximum error for tolerance conformance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".