MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991583366 · doi:10.1115/detc2019-98452

Direct Solid Element Slicing in Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

2019· article· en· W2991583366 on OpenAlexaff
Dylan Bender, Ahmad Barari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlicingTopology optimizationPreprocessorComputer scienceProcess (computing)Tessellation (computer graphics)Solid modelingTopology (electrical circuits)Finite element methodEngineering drawingEngineeringArtificial intelligenceStructural engineeringProgramming languageComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The traditional input to almost all commercially available Additive Manufacturing (AM) systems is in STL (Standard Tessellation Language) format, which represents a solid model by its tessellated surfaces. This does not allow transferring the entire information of a solid model to the additive manufacturing preprocessing system. However, in some recent applications such as additive manufacturing preprocessing simulation, closed-loop of topology optimization and additive manufacturing process planning, and AM-based design optimization the full access to the solid model information is necessary. Slicing of the finite element model directly is introduced in this paper. The presented approach enables access to the entire solid model information during the AM preprocessing tasks with a focus on coupling the topology optimization in the design process with the actual manufacturing constraints.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207