Minimum length scale constraints in multi-scale topology optimisation for additive manufacturing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper performs a combined numerical and experimental study to explore the role of minimum length scale constraints in multi-scale topology optimisation. Multi-scale topology optimisation is generally performed without considering the actual unit cell size, while an arbitrary value considerably smaller than the part is selected afterwards. However, this procedure would be problematic if including geometric constraints, e.g. minimum length scale constraints, since geometric constraints cannot be applied without knowing the unit cell dimensions. To address this issue, unit cell size should be defined beforehand, and guidelines will be provided in this work through a thorough numerical exploration, i.e. compliance minimisation multi-scale topology optimisation with different unit cell sizes and a consistent minimum length scale limit will be performed. The numerical results indicate that selecting the unit cell size considerably smaller than the part and larger than the length scale limit would be recommended. Then, experiments are conducted to explore the effect of minimum length scale limit on the stiffness and strength of the multi-scale design. It is observed that increasing the minimum length scale limit would reduce the structural mechanical performance in both aspects.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it