MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984176888 · doi:10.1145/3355089.3356509

Extrusion-based ceramics printing with strictly-continuous deposition

2019· article· en· W2984176888 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Hergel, Kevin Hinz, Sylvain Lefèbvre, Bernhard Thomaszewski

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFused deposition modelingPath (computing)SmoothnessComputer scienceLayer (electronics)ExtrusionSet (abstract data type)Ceramic3D printingDeposition (geology)FabricationStack (abstract data type)ThermoplasticTransfer (computing)AlgorithmEngineering drawingMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceNanotechnologyMathematicsEngineeringComposite materialGeologyParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a method for integrated tool path planning and support structure generation tailored to the specific constraints of extrusion-based ceramics printing. Existing path generation methods for thermoplastic materials rely on transfer moves to navigate between different print paths in a given layer. However, when printing with clay, these transfer moves can lead to severe artifacts and failure. Our method eliminates transfer moves altogether by generating deposition paths that are continuous within and across layers. Our algorithm is implemented as a sequential top-down pass through the layer stack. In each layer, we detect points that require support, connect support points and model paths, and optimize the shape of the resulting continuous path with respect to length, smoothness, and distance to the model. For each of these subproblems, we propose dedicated solutions that take into account the fabrication constraints imposed by printable clay. We evaluate our method on a set of examples with multiple disconnected components and challenging support requirements. Comparisons to existing path generation methods designed for thermoplastic materials show that our method substantially improves print quality and often makes the difference between success and failure.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations37
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207