MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738397520 · doi:10.1115/1.4037305

A Survey of Modeling of Lattice Structures Fabricated by Additive Manufacturing

2017· article· en· W2738397520 on OpenAlexafffund
Guoying Dong, Yunlong Tang, Yaoyao Fiona Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanical Design · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFabricationLattice (music)Computer scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lattice structure is a type of cellular material with trusslike frames which can be optimized for specific loading conditions. The fabrication of its intricate architecture is restricted by traditional manufacturing technologies. However, additive manufacturing (AM) enables the fabrication of complex structures by aggregation of materials in a layer-by-layer fashion, which has unlocked the potential of lattice structures. In the last decade, lattice structures have received considerable research attention focusing on the design, simulation, and fabrication for AM techniques. And different modeling approaches have been proposed to predict the mechanical performance of lattice structures. This review introduces the aspects of modeling of lattice structures and the correlation between them, summarizes the existing modeling approaches for simulation, and discusses the strength and weakness in different simulation methods. This review also summarizes the characteristics of AM in manufacturing cellular materials and discusses their influence on the modeling of lattice structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations327
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanical DesignSame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207