Path Planning Strategies to Optimize Accuracy, Quality, Build Time and Material Use in Additive Manufacturing: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM) is the process of joining materials layer by layer to fabricate products based on 3D models. Due to the layer-by-layer nature of AM, parts with complex geometries, integrated assemblies, customized geometry or multifunctional designs can now be manufactured more easily than traditional subtractive manufacturing. Path planning in AM is an important step in the process of manufacturing products. The final fabricated qualities, properties, etc., will be different when using different path strategies, even using the same AM machine and process parameters. Currently, increasing research studies have been published on path planning strategies with different aims. Due to the rapid development of path planning in AM and various newly proposed strategies, there is a lack of comprehensive reviews on this topic. Therefore, this paper gives a comprehensive understanding of the current status and challenges of AM path planning. This paper reviews and discusses path planning strategies in three categories: improving printed qualities, saving materials/time and achieving objective printed properties. The main findings of this review include: new path planning strategies can be developed by combining some of the strategies in literature with better performance; a path planning platform can be developed to help select the most suitable path planning strategy with required properties; research on path planning considering energy consumption can be carried out in the future; a benchmark model for testing the performance of path planning strategies can be designed; the trade-off among different fabricated properties can be considered as a factor in future path planning design processes; and lastly, machine learning can be a powerful tool to further improve path planning strategies in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".