MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784267620 · doi:10.1115/imece2017-72232

Tolerance Control Using Subvoxel Gray-Scale DLP 3D Printing

2017· article· en· W2784267620 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled G. Mostafa, Ahmed Jawad Qureshi, Carlo Montemagno

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital Light ProcessingPixelVoxel3D printingComputer scienceDigital micromirror deviceGrayscaleMaterials scienceArtificial intelligenceOpticsComputer visionLight intensityWaferLithographyImage resolutionProjectorOptoelectronicsPhysicsNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3D printing manufacturing technology has been utilized in various applications due to its promising manufacturing advantages. Desktop Digital Light Processing (DLP) printers provide high-resolution products with a moderate price range. DLP uses an array of micromirrors to transmit UV light from the light projector in order to perform selective curing of a prepolymer resin and turn it in to the required geometry. The CAD file is transformed into several slices according to the layer thickness. Each slice is then converted to an image of black and white pixels, in which each white pixel actuates a corresponding micromirror to transmit the UV light to cure a corresponding voxel, while a black pixel corresponds to no actuation, which means no curing for the corresponding voxel. The micromirror’s size determines the resolution of the printer. Although a theoretical voxel size can be determined as a function of the micromirror’s dimensions and layer thickness, the actual voxel volume depends on several parameters such as the layer thickness, UV exposure time, and UV exposure intensity. Controlling these three parameters would result in more accurate 3D printed parts and more control over the dimensional tolerance. In this paper, the effect of variable light intensity in terms of grayscale pixels is studied along with the exposure time and layer thickness to manipulate the voxel horizontal dimensions. This enables printing with voxel dimensions below the size of the micromirrors in the DLP, which improve the geometric dimensioning and tolerance of the printed parts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207