MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203309613 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-131006/v1

Enhancing 3D Printing Producibility in Polylactic Acid Using Fused Filament Fabrication Fused Deposition Modelling and Machine Learning

2020· preprint· en· W3203309613 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmoud Moradi, Mohammad Saleh Meiabadi, Mojtaba Karami Moghadam, Sina Ardabili, Shahab S. Band, Amir Mosavi

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolylactic acidFused deposition modelingUltimate tensile strengthMaterials scienceFused filament fabricationComposite materialUniversal testing machineFabricationDeposition (geology)Plastics extrusionToughnessResponse surface methodologyArtificial neural network3D printingStructural engineeringComputer sciencePolymerEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Polylactic Polylactic acid (PLA) is one of the high applicable material which is used in the 3D printers due to some significant features like its deformation property and affordable costacid (PLA) is brittle in nature with extensive deformation property. For improvement of the end-use quality, it is of significant importance to enhance the quality of Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF)fused deposition modeling (FDM)-printed objects in PLA. The purpose of this investigation is to boost toughness and to reduce the production cost of the FDMFFF-printed tensile test samples with the desired part thickness. Due to prevent from many numerous and idle printing samples the response Surface Method (RSM) is used.To attain the research purpose number of experiments are designed and analyzed by the Response Surface Method (RSM). The statistical analysis is performed to deal with this concern considering extruder temperature (ET), infill percentage (IP), and layer thickness (LT) as controlled factors. The tensile test specimens are printed based on the designed experiments, and the tensile strength tests are conducted by SANTAM 150 universal testing machine based on ASTM D638. The pattern for filling is designed based on honeycomb which is applied to produce lightweight and high-strength specimens. The area under Force- Extension curve up to fracture is acquired as the toughness of the printed specimens. This study also developed a modeling process using artificial neural network (ANN) and artificial neural network- genetic algorithm (ANN-GA) techniques to develop an accurate estimation for toughness, part thickness, and production cost dependent variables. Results were evaluated by correlation coefficient and RMSE values. According to the modeling results, ANN-GA as a hybrid machine learning (ML) technique could could successfully improveenhances the accuracy of modeling about 7.5, 11.5 and 4.5 % for toughness, part thickness, and production cost, respectively, in comparison with those for the single ANN method. On the other side, the optimization results confirm that the optimized specimen is cost-effective and able to comparatively undergo deformation, which enables the usability of printed PLA objects. The research is accomplished under the constraints of PLA compatibility with existing Fused Filament Fabrication fused deposition modeling installation, in the absence of the functional assistant of the machine in the absence of the functional assistant of the machine. Although the mechanical properties and dimensional accuracy of PLA have already been studied, there is little literature on the toughness of the printed PLA with honeycomb internal fill pattern.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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