A survey of the design methods for additive manufacturing to improve functional performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To provide a comprehensive review of the state of the art design methods for additive manufacturing technologies to improve functional performance. Methodology/approach In this survey, design methods for additive manufacturing to improve functional performance are divided into two main groups. They are design methods for a specific objective and general design methods. Design methods in the first group primarily focus on the improvement of functional performance, while the second group also takes other important factors such as manufacturability and cost into consideration with a more general framework. Design methods in each groups are carefully reviewed with discussion and comparison. Findings The advantages and disadvantages of different design methods for additive manufacturing are discussed in this paper. Some general issues of existing methods are summarized below: 1 Most existing design methods only focus on a single design scale with a single function. 2 Few product-level design methods are available for both products' functionality and assembly. 3 Some existing design methods are hardly to implement for the lack of suitable computer-aided design software. Practical implications A useful source for designers to select an appropriate design method to take full advantage of additive manufacturing. Originality/value In this survey, a novel classification method is used to categorize existing design methods for additive manufacturing. Based on this classification method, a comprehensive review is provided in this paper as an informative source for designers and researchers working in this field.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".