Optimizing additive manufacturing parameters for graphene-reinforced PETG impeller production: A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additive manufacturing, particularly 3D printing, has transformed production by enabling precise, layer-by-layer construction with minimal material waste. This study aims to optimize the mechanical properties and production efficiency of impellers manufactured using Graphene-Reinforced Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol (G-PETG) filament. By employing the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), we identified optimal 3D printing parameters. The results showed that a 65 % infill density, 0.20 mm layer height, 50 mm/s printing speed, 90 °C platform temperature, 240 °C extruder temperature, and 90 mm/s traverse speed led to a 15 % improvement in tensile strength and a 12 % reduction in production time compared to baseline settings. Additionally, the impellers produced demonstrated superior surface finish and structural integrity, making them suitable for high-performance applications. These findings underscore the importance of parameter optimization in enhancing the performance of 3D-printed components, particularly for applications requiring high mechanical strength and precision. • Revolutionizing Production with 3D Printing : Additive manufacturing, particularly 3D printing, minimizes waste with layer-by-layer construction. • Optimal Parameter Selection : The study identifies ideal process parameters for G-PETG impeller production, enhancing mechanical properties. • Methodology : Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS are used to systematically determine optimal parameters in 3D printing extrusion processes. • Optimized Parameters : Key settings include 65% infill, 0.20 mm layer height, 50 mm/s print speed, 240°C extruder, and 90°C platform. • Impact on Performance: Optimized settings improve the strength and precision of 3D printed components, crucial for additive manufacturing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".