Challenges and Status on Design and Computation for Emerging Additive Manufacturing Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The revolution of additive manufacturing (AM) has led to many opportunities in fabricating complex and novel products. The increase of printable materials and the emergence of novel fabrication processes continuously expand the possibility of engineering systems in which product components are no longer limited to be single material, single scale, or single function. In fact, a paradigm shift is taking place in industry from geometry-centered usage to supporting functional demands. Consequently, engineers are expected to resolve a wide range of complex and difficult problems related to functional design. Although a higher degree of design freedom beyond geometry has been enabled by AM, there are only very few computational design approaches in this new AM-enabled domain to design objects with tailored properties and functions. The objectives of this review paper are to provide an overview of recent additive manufacturing developments and current computer-aided design methodologies that can be applied to multimaterial, multiscale, multiform, and multifunctional AM technologies. The difficulties encountered in the computational design approaches are summarized and the future development needs are emphasized. In the paper, some present applications and future trends related to additive manufacturing technologies are also discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".