MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309918491 · doi:10.1088/1361-665x/aca5d6

Computational design and fabrication of active 3D-printed multi-state structures for shape morphing

2022· article· en· W4309918491 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas S. Lumpe, Michael Tao, Kristina Shea, David I. W. Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueSmart Materials and Structures · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTopology Optimization in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphingComputer scienceAerospaceFabricationTopology optimizationMechanical engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceFinite element methodStructural engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Active structures can 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. In this work, a computational design and fabrication framework is proposed to generate structures with multiple target states for one input actuation that do not 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 different target states in the structure while ensuring the fabricability of the structures. 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.234
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmart Materials and StructuresSame topicTopology Optimization in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207