Topology and Build Orientation Optimization for Additive Manufacturing: Influence of Printing on Raft and Build Plate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As additive manufacturing technology advances, it is becoming a more feasible option for fabricating highly complex, lightweight structures in the automotive industry. To take advantage of the improved design freedom and to reduce support structures for the selected printing orientation, components must be designed specifically for additive manufacturing. A new approach for accomplishing this process combines topology and build orientation optimization, which aims to simultaneously determine the ideal build direction and component design to maximize stiffness and reduce additive manufacturing costs. Current techniques in literature are formulated for specific categories of additive manufacturing: either methods that print on a support structure raft or print directly on the build plate. However, these two categories have very different relationships between part orientation and support structure, resulting in distinct optimal orientations for each additive manufacturing category. This work proposes a flexible overhang area calculation methodology that can be applied to either additive manufacturing category, by deriving an element-level indictor that determines whether a given element is located on the build plate. The approach is integrated into a combined topology and build orientation framework that minimizes compliance and overhang area with a volume fraction constraint. An automotive control arm test case is used to validate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, comparing a baseline optimized design to overhang-minimized designs. The optimized orientations and topologies varied significantly when designing for additive manufacturing methods that print on a raft compared to the build plate, demonstrating the importance of considering this distinction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".