MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140095132 · doi:10.1115/esda2014-20381

Integration of Topological and Functional Optimization in Design for Additive Manufacturing

2014· article· en· W2140095132 on OpenAlexaff
Yunlong Tang, Jean-Yves Hascoët, Yaoyao Fiona Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTopology optimizationProcess (computing)Functional designTopology (electrical circuits)Design methodsSystems engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringSoftware engineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies has brought unprecedented freedom to the fabrication of functional parts with high complex, multi-material and gradient density structure. However, currently only traditional design methods are available for AM design process, which do not take full advantage of AM capabilities. Therefore, a new design method with the consideration of all aspects of AM advantages is urgently in need. A detailed literature review on traditional design methods is presented with focused attention on the potential of using these methods to design functional parts for additive manufacturing processes. Based on thorough understanding and comparison of current structure design methods, a new design approach that integrates topological and functional optimizations for AM products is presented. With this method, an essential link is established between topological optimization result and various functional parameters of complex structure. Parts can be designed in multi levels for multi functions simultaneously. This design method provides an important foundation for future research on designing AM products with improved multiple functions and optimized topology.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207