A multiobjective topology optimization approach for cost and time minimization in additive manufacturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The ever‐present drive for increasingly high‐performance designs realized on shorter timelines has fostered the need for computational design generation tools such as topology optimization. However, topology optimization has always posed the challenge of generating difficult, if not impossible to manufacture designs. The recent proliferation of additive manufacturing technologies provides a solution to this challenge. The integration of these technologies undoubtedly has the potential for significant impact in the world of mechanical design and engineering. This work presents a new methodology which mathematically considers additive manufacturing cost and build time alongside the structural performance of a component during the topology optimization procedure. Two geometric factors, namely, the surface area and support volume required for the design, are found to correlate to cost and build time and are controlled through the topology optimization procedure. A novel methodology to consider each of these factors dynamically during the topology optimization procedure is presented. The methodology, based largely on the use of the spatial gradient of the density field, is developed in such a way that it does not leverage the finite element discretization scheme. This work investigates a problem that has not yet been explored in the literature: direct minimization of support material volume in density‐based topology optimization. The entire methodology is formulated in a smooth and differentiable manner, and the sensitivity expressions required by gradient based optimization solvers are presented. A series of example problems are provided to demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed methodology.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".