MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045488245 · doi:10.3390/mi11080709

Topology Optimization for FDM Parts Considering the Hybrid Deposition Path Pattern

2020· article· en· W3045488245 on OpenAlexafffund
Shuzhi Xu, Jiaqi Huang, Jikai Liu, Yongsheng Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueMicromachines · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceUniversity of AlbertaGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceShandong University
KeywordsSmoothingOffset (computer science)Deposition (geology)Topology (electrical circuits)Fused deposition modelingSensitivity (control systems)Materials scienceAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsElectronic engineeringEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on a solid orthotropic material with penalization (SOMP) and a double smoothing and projection (DSP) approach, this work proposes a methodology to find an optimal structure design which takes the hybrid deposition path (HDP) pattern and the anisotropic material properties into consideration. The optimized structure consists of a boundary layer and a substrate. The substrate domain is assumed to be filled with unidirectional zig-zag deposition paths and customized infill patterns, while the boundary is made by the contour offset deposition paths. This HDP is the most commonly employed path pattern for the fused deposition modeling (FDM) process. A critical derivative of the sensitivity analysis is presented in this paper, which ensures the optimality of the final design solutions. The effectiveness of the proposed method is validated through several 2D numerical examples.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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