MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198218751 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14655720.v1

Surface roughness estimation for FDM systems

2021· preprint· en· W3198218751 on OpenAlexaff
Behnam Nourghassemi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface roughnessSurface finishRobustness (evolution)Support vector machineComputer scienceFused deposition modelingRapid prototypingAlgorithmMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringMachine learningEngineeringComposite material3D printing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By selecting the optimal build angle, the surface roughness of rapid prototyped parts can be minimized. The objective of this study is to develop a model for estimation of surface roughness as a function of build angle and other build parameters for parts built by Fusion Deposition Modeling (FDM) machines. For that purpose, principles of the FDM technique, along with other rapid prototyping techniques, are reviewed and various standards for surface roughness measurements are introduced. Different analytical models for the estimation of surface roughness for FDM systems, which were proposed in the literature, are reviewed and reformulated in a standard format for comparison reasons. A new hybrid model is proposed for analytical estimation of the surface roughness based on experimental results and comparison of the models. In addition, Least Square Support Vector Machine (LS-SVM) is applied for an empirical estimation of the surface roughness. Robustness of the LS-SVM model is studied and its performance is compared to the hybrid model. The experimental results confirm better results for the LS-SVM model.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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