MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197738150 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.13526

Computational Design of Active 3D-Printed Multi-State Structures for Shape Morphing

2021· preprint· en· W3197738150 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas S. Lumpe, Michael Tao, Kristina Shea, David I. W. Levin

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTopology Optimization in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphingComputer scienceTopology optimizationCompliant mechanismCompatibility (geochemistry)DitherProcess (computing)Engineering drawingMechanical engineeringControl engineeringEngineeringFinite element methodStructural engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active structures have the ability to change their shape, properties, and functionality as a response to changing operational conditions, which makes them more versatile than their static counterparts. However, most active structures currently lack the capability to achieve multiple, different target states with a single input actuation or require a tedious material programming step. Furthermore, the systematic design and fabrication of active structures is still a challenge as many structures are designed by hand in a trial and error process and thus are limited by engineers' knowledge and experience. In this work, a computational design and fabrication framework is proposed to generate structures with multiple target states for one input actuation that don't require a separate training step. A material dithering scheme based on multi-material 3D printing is combined with locally applied copper coil heating elements and sequential heating patterns to control the thermo-mechanical properties of the structures and switch between the different deformation modes. A novel topology optimization approach based on power diagrams is used to encode the different target states in the structure while ensuring the fabricability of the structures and the compatibility with the drop-in heating elements. The versatility of the proposed framework is demonstrated for four different example structures from engineering and computer graphics. The numerical and experimental results show that the optimization framework can produce structures that show the desired motion, but experimental accuracy is limited by current fabrication methods. The generality of the proposed method makes it suitable for the development of structures for applications in many different fields from aerospace to robotics to animated fabrication in computer graphics.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.136 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicTopology Optimization in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207