Fiber reinforced additive manufacturing: structurally motivated print orientation and sequential topology optimization of anisotropic material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Fiber reinforced additive manufacturing (FRAM) is an emerging technology that combines additive manufacturing and composite materials. As a result, design freedom offered by the manufacturing process can be leveraged in design optimization. The purpose of the study is to propose a novel method that improves structural performance by optimizing 3D print orientation of FRAM components. Design/methodology/approach This work proposes a two-part design optimization method that optimizes 3D global print orientation and topology of a component to improve a structural objective function. The method considers two classes of design variables: (1) print orientation design variables and (2) density-based topology design variables. Print orientation design variables determine a unique 3D print orientation to influence anisotropic material properties. Topology optimization determines an optimal distribution of material within the optimized print orientation. Findings Two academic examples are used to demonstrate basic behavior of the method in tension and shear. Print orientation and sequential topology optimization improve structural compliance by 90% and 58%, respectively. An industry-level example, an aerospace component, is optimized. The proposed method is used to achieve an 11% and 15% reduction of structural compliance compared to alternative FRAM designs. In addition, compliance is reduced by 43% compared to an equal-mass aluminum design. Originality/value Current research surrounding FRAM focuses on the manufacturing process and neglects opportunities to leverage design freedom provided by FRAM. Previous FRAM optimization methods only optimize fiber orientation within a 2D plane and do not establish an optimized 3D print orientation, neglecting exploration of the entire orientation design space.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".