Login
Registrieren
Passwort zurücksetzen
Veröffentlichen & Verteilen
Verlagslösungen
Vertriebslösungen
Themen
Allgemein
Altertumswissenschaften
Architektur und Design
Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft, Buchwissenschaft
Biologie
Chemie
Geowissenschaften
Geschichte
Industrielle Chemie
Informatik
Jüdische Studien
Kulturwissenschaften
Kunst
Linguistik und Semiotik
Literaturwissenschaft
Materialwissenschaft
Mathematik
Medizin
Musik
Pharmazie
Philosophie
Physik
Rechtswissenschaften
Sozialwissenschaften
Sport und Freizeit
Technik
Theologie und Religion
Wirtschaftswissenschaften
Veröffentlichungen
Zeitschriften
Bücher
Konferenzberichte
Verlage
Blog
Kontakt
Suche
EUR
USD
GBP
Deutsch
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Warenkorb
Home
Zeitschriften
Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences
Band 2 (2017): Heft 2 (July 2017)
Uneingeschränkter Zugang
Structural optimization under overhang constraints imposed by additive manufacturing processes: an overview of some recent results
Grégoire Allaire
Grégoire Allaire
,
Charles Dapogny
Charles Dapogny
,
Rafael Estevez
Rafael Estevez
,
Alexis Faure
Alexis Faure
und
Georgios Michailidis
Georgios Michailidis
| 19. Sept. 2017
Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences
Band 2 (2017): Heft 2 (July 2017)
Über diesen Artikel
Vorheriger Artikel
Nächster Artikel
Zusammenfassung
Artikel
Figuren und Tabellen
Referenzen
Autoren
Artikel in dieser Ausgabe
Vorschau
PDF
Zitieren
Teilen
Online veröffentlicht:
19. Sept. 2017
Seitenbereich:
385 - 402
Eingereicht:
06. Apr. 2017
Akzeptiert:
19. Sept. 2017
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21042/AMNS.2017.2.00031
Schlüsselwörter
Shape optimization
,
additive manufacturing
,
level set method
,
shape derivative
© 2017 Grégoire Allaire, Charles Dapogny, Rafael Estevez, Alexis Faure and Georgios Michailidis, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Fig. 1
Sketch of the slicing procedure, at the beginning of all additive manufacturing processes.
Fig. 2
Setting of the two-dimensional MBB beam example.
Fig. 3
(Top) initial and (bottom) optimized shapes for Problem (8) in the two-dimensional MBB Beam test-case of Section 3.2.
Fig. 4
Optimized shapes resulting from Problem (9) in the two-dimensional MBB Beam example, using (top) φ ≡ φa and the threshold angle ν = 45°, and (bottom) φ ≡ φp and the pattern functions ψi defined in (10).
Fig. 5
Intermediate shape Ωh at the height h during the construction of the final structure Ω: the red zone is the lower boundary Γ0and the blue zone is the upper boundaryΓhu. $\Gamma^u_h.$
Fig. 6
Relative errors of the 0th- and 1st-order approximations of (top) Psw(Ω0) and (bottom) its derivative 𝒟Ω0.
Fig. 7
Optimized shapes for the two-dimensional MBB Beam example of Section 5.3: (a) optimized shape Ω*for Problem (8) (i.e. without additive manufacturing constraints), and optimized shapes for Problem (29) using parameters (b)αc = 0:50, (c) αc = 0:30, and (d) αc = 0:10.
Fig. 8
Optimized shapes for the two-dimensional MBB Beam example of Section 5.4, solving Problem (29) with the upper-weight manufacturing compliancePsw(Ω) and parameters (a)αc = 0:30, (b) αc = 0:10, (c) αc = 0:05, and (d) αc = 0:03.
Fig. 9
Setting of the three-dimensional bridge test-case.
Fig. 10
Optimized designs for the three-dimensional bridge example of Section 5.5, (left) without manufacturing constraints, (right) solving Problem (30) withαc = 0:7.
Fig. 11
(Left) Different views of the optimized shape for the three-dimensional bridge example of Section 5.5, solving Problem (30) withαc = 0:1; (right) another view on the three-dimensional bridges for Problem (30) with (top) no manufacturing constraint, (middle)αc = 0:7 and (bottom) ac = 0:1.