Adaptive 3D Printing for In Situ Adjustment of Mechanical Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is shown that naturally occurring under‐extrusion results in mechanically weak prints while over‐extrusion causes excess use of material with little strength gain. Herein, a deep‐learning‐based computer vision system to correct under‐ and over‐extrusion issues commonly found in 3D printing technology such as the fused deposition modeling (FDM) is developed. The adaptive correction system is created to acquire recurring images of print‐in‐progress, allowing pretrained convolutional neural network (CNN) models to classify the printing condition. Then the classification data allow the adaptive system to make subsequent changes of printing parameters in a simple feedback loop to correct printing extrusion in an average of four to eight printed layers. The result shows that the system can improve the strength consistency of the prints by reducing yield strength variance by a factor of six through in situ correction. This system strengthens weaker prints by up to 200% and can save up to 40% material amount in extreme over‐extruded cases. In the future, the deep‐learning approach demonstrated in this design can be expanded to correct different parameters and its corresponding defects in the other 3D printing technologies with the same methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".