MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161961461 · doi:10.3390/polym13091528

Dual Graded Lattice Structures: Generation Framework and Mechanical Properties Characterization

2021· article· en· W3161961461 on OpenAlexafffund
Khaled G. Mostafa, Guilherme A. Momesso, Xiuhui Li, David S. Nobes, Ahmed Jawad Qureshi

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates
KeywordsLattice (music)Materials scienceCrystal structureMicrostructureGeometryComposite materialMathematicsCrystallographyPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additive manufacturing (AM) enables the production of complex structured parts with tailored properties. Instead of manufacturing parts as fully solid, they can be infilled with lattice structures to optimize mechanical, thermal, and other functional properties. A lattice structure is formed by the repetition of a particular unit cell based on a defined pattern. The unit cell's geometry, relative density, and size dictate the lattice structure's properties. Where certain domains of the part require denser infill compared to other domains, the functionally graded lattice structure allows for further part optimization. This manuscript consists of two main sections. In the first section, we discussed the dual graded lattice structure (DGLS) generation framework. This framework can grade both the size and the relative density or porosity of standard and custom unit cells simultaneously as a function of the structure spatial coordinates. Popular benchmark parts from different fields were used to test the framework's efficiency against different unit cell types and grading equations. In the second part, we investigated the effect of lattice structure dual grading on mechanical properties. It was found that combining both relative density and size grading fine-tunes the compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, absorbed energy, and fracture behavior of the lattice structure.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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