Combining additive manufacturing (AM) with carbon fiber reinforced polymer patched composites unlocks potentials in the design of individualized, lightweight biomedical structures. Arising design opportunities are geometrical individualization of structures using the design freedom of AM and the patient-individual design of the load-bearing components employing carbon fiber patch placement. To date, however, full exploitation of these opportunities is a complex recurring task, which requires a high amount of knowledge and engineering effort for design, optimization, and manufacturing. The goal of this study is to make this complexity manageable by introducing a suitable manufacturing strategy for individualized lightweight structures and by developing a digitized end-to-end design process chain, which provides a high degree of task automation. The approach to achieve full individualization uses a parametric model of the structure which is adapted to patients’ 3D scans. Moreover, patient data is used to define individual load cases and perform structural optimization. The potentials of the approach are demonstrated on an exoskeleton hip structure. A significant reduction of weight compared to a standard design suggests that the design and manufacturing chain is promising for the realization of individualized high-performance structures.

We provide a new framework for valuing multidimensional real options where opportunities to exercise the option are generated by an exogenous Poisson process, which can be viewed as a liquidity constraint on decision times. This approach, which we call the Poisson optional stopping times (POST) method, finds the value function as a monotone sequence of lower bounds. In a case study, we demonstrate that the frequently used quasi-analytic method yields a suboptimal policy and an inaccurate value function. The proposed method is demonstrably correct, straightforward to implement, reliable in computation, and broadly applicable in analyzing multidimensional option-valuation problems.

Based on seven measured sections from Svalbard, the marine strata of the Permian Kapp Starostin Formation are arranged into seven transgressive–regressive sequences (TR1–TR7) of c. 4–5 Ma average duration, each bound by a maximum regressive surface. Facies, including heterozoan-dominated limestones, spiculitic cherts, sandstones, siltstones and shales, record deposition within inner, middle and outer shelf areas. The lowermost sequence, TR1, comprises most of the basal Vøringen Member, which records a transgression across the Gipshuken Formation following a hiatus of unknown duration. Temperate to cold, storm-dominated facies established in inner to middle shelf areas between the latest Artinskian and Kungurian. Prolonged deepening during sequences TR2 and TR3 was succeeded by a long-term shallowing-upward trend that lasted until the latest Permian (TR4–TR7). A major depocentre existed in central and western Spitsbergen while to the north, Dickson Land remained a shallow platform, leading to a shallow homoclinal ramp in NE Spitsbergen and Nordaustlandet. The Middle Permian extinction (late Capitanian) is recorded near the base of TR6 in deeper parts of the basin only; elsewhere this sequence is not recorded. Likewise the youngest sequence, TR7, extending to the upper formational contact of latest Permian age, is found only in the basin depocentre. Comparison with age-equivalent strata in the Sverdrup Basin of Canada reveals a remarkably similar depositional history, with, for example, two (third-order) sea-level cycles recorded in the Late Permian of both regions, in keeping with the global record. Sequence stratigraphy may therefore be a powerful correlative tool for onshore and offshore Permian deposits across NW Pangaea.

The study of African technological history cannot bt pursued without first considering two fundamental problems. The most fundamental of all is the relationship between technology and the broader social process. It is quite obvious that the two are linked but it is not at all clear, even in a study focused on technology, where to begin the explanation of this relationship. Second, there is the more specific question of African “backwardness”: why are certain kinds of technology which spread throughout Europe and Asia not found south of the Sahara before the colonial era? How can we relate this apparent lag to changes which did take place in African technology? What are the consequences of such a technological differential for the eventual integration of Africa into economic and political systems which include these external societies.

In dealing with the first problem, Africanists can draw upon the practice and debate within the well-established sub-discipline of European and American technological history. Within this work (as well as some of the more general writings on African technological history) three approaches to the relationship between technology and society have been developed: an internalist approach which studies technology in isolation from society; a technological determinist approach which uses certain inventions or innovations to explain major social changes; and a dialectical approach which explains technological and social changes as mutually interacting.