A Generalized Consolidated Topology Optimization and DfAM Design Approach and its Application for Assembly Design
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
As additive manufacturing (AM) is widely adopted, there is a growing need for design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) tools and design methodologies. The increased design freedom allotted by AM has facilitated the adoption of topology optimization (TO) for AM. This presents an opportunity to introduce TO into DfAM best practices to improve assembly designs. A consolidated topology optimization and DfAM design approach for general assembly design is proposed. Unlike current DfAM methodologies, all critical aspects of assembly design are incorporated to ensure a fully optimized design. The efficacy of the consolidated design approach is demonstrated by its implementation for the redesign of a Bombardier business aircraft cockpit pedestal assembly. The manufacturing cost was reduced by 18%, satisfying the primary design objective. The installation cost will be greatly lowered due to a reduced assembly complexity: A major and minor part count and fastener count reduction of 17%, 89% and 56% was achieved. The current paper contributes to the applicability and efficacy of DfAM by outlining a generalized design procedure sufficiently complex and complete for industry level assembly design problems.
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