# Optimized One-Click Development for Topology- Optimized Structures +
## 3 Results
### Experimental Testing  
The printed and experimentally tested specimens are shown in Figure 15.  
The force-displacement plots are illustrated in Figure 16. The measured data's qualitative mean curves are obtained by using a Gaussian process regression (gpr) model trained with the experimental data. Therefore, a radial basis function kernel with an added white kernel to handle the noise is used [49].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Configuration** & **Print Time** & **Plastic Volume** & **Support Volume** & **Support Volume Ratio** \\ \hline Reference & 100\% & 100\% & – & – \\ Redesigned & 103.2\% & 92.0\% & 100\% & 0.76\% \\ Smoothed & 104.3\% & 90.0\% & 131.6\% & 1.03\% \\ MaSmo & 95.3\% & 88.9\% & 52.6\% & 0.42\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Manufacturing data overview. The plastic volume is the actual volume used in production and is referenced on the reference plastic volume. The support volume of redesigned is used as a reference for the comparison of the needed support volume. The support volume ratio is defined by the ratio of the used support structures to the plastic volume.  
Figure 15: Printed and tested specimens: (**a**) reference; (**b**) redesigned; (**c**) smoothed; and (**d**) MaSmo.  
From the presented data, it is evident that the MaSmo configuration was the least noisy, leading to a good reproducibility of the \"one-click\" optimized part. The approximated curves of all configurations are compared in Figure 17.  
Figure 16: Force-displacement plots for all configurations. The grey shaded lines are the experimental data, the green lines are predicted with the trained Gaussian process regression (gpr) model.  
Figure 17: Comparison of the approximated force–displacement behavior of all configurations. The red dotted line indicates the level 75% of the reference’s maximum force.  
From this comparison, it can be evaluated that the maximum forces of redesigned and MaSmo are quite identical while smoothed performed significantly lower; this can be confirmed by evaluating the maximum forces in Figure 18.  
The displacements are evaluated in detail in Figures 19 and 20.  
Figure 19: Comparison of the displacement at failure. The mean values are plotted together with the standard deviation. The difference from the reference is written in brackets in percent.  
Figure 18: Comparison of the maximum forces. The mean values are plotted together with the standard deviation. The difference from the reference is written in brackets in percent.  
In general, it can be observed that the displacements at failure and maximum force are on the same level for redesigned and smoothed, whereas the values for MaSmo are the lowest for the TO-configurations. The high standard deviation of redesigned is also to be emphasized here.  
Since in particular cases TO maximizes the stiffness, the stiffness at maximum force is evaluated for all configurations in Figure 21.  
Figure 21: Comparison of the stiffness at maximum force. The mean values are plotted together with the standard deviation. The difference from the reference is written in brackets in percent.  
Figure 20: Comparison of the displacement at maximum force. The mean values are plotted together with the standard deviation. The difference from the reference is written in brackets in percent.  
In this context, MaSmo clearly outperforms smoothed and slightly outperforms redesigned. Additionally, the standard deviation for MaSmo is significantly lower than for reference and redesigned.