MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401401541 · doi:10.47836/pjst.32.5.04

Mesh Optimisation for General 3D Printed Objects with Cusp-Height Triangulation Approach

2024· article· en· W4401401541 on OpenAlexaff
Qais Ahmed Habash, Noor Ali Sadek, Ahmed Faeq Hussein, Abbas K. AlZubaidi

Bibliographic record

VenuePertanika journal of science & technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriangulationCusp (singularity)3d printedMathematicsGeometryComputer graphics (images)Computer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3D printing (3DP) is increasingly utilized to achieve quick turnaround on various geometric designs and prototypes, being the growing part of additive manufacturing technology (AMT). The 3DP technique effectively improves the production of complex models in terms of low-cost, time-consuming production, and with less material volume. The key to results optimisation with 3DP is the preparation of the geometry. The following techniques can effectively reduce the required time of the 3D printing process for complex and non-linear CAD files. The fused deposition modelling/fabrication (FDM/FFF) techniques become the first choice in many applications, including biomedical ones. Still, some obstacles exist in the geometry roughness and quality zones. This paper proposes an optimisation method for 3D printed shapes used in biomedical devices and instrumentation by minimising the support structure attached to the model using the FDM technique. In this research, we proposed a method for dynamic compensation against gravity-affected parts extended from the main object’s geometry using a forward planar learning (FPL) algorithm to minimise cusp height in 3D printed objects. After the slicing stage, the outcomes proved to be of good quality, optimised the object’s surfaces, and minimised the printing time by 32%–38%. The proposed method is promising in defining a better setting for slicing and toolpath for FDM 3D printing. However, this method was not tested on other 3DP methods (Stereolithography (SLA), Selective laser sintering (SLS), and Digital Light Processing (DLP)), as more verification efforts need to be done on these 3D printing processes.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePertanika journal of science & technologySame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207