MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403935043 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2024.10.042

Assessing layer deviations and correction for robotic polymer 3D printing applications

2024· article· en· W4403935043 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia CIRP · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Keywords3D printingLayer (electronics)PolymerMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringEngineering drawingComputer scienceEngineeringNanotechnologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additive manufacturing (AM), often referred to as 3D printing, is a manufacturing technique that involves the creation of complex objects layer-by-layer while providing design flexibility. The broad spectrum of additive manufacturing applications in aerospace, medicine, automotive industries, etc., using high-value materials necessitates a precise final product with minimal wastage. However, the print's dependence on optimizing parameters such as nozzle diameter, printing speed, extrusion speed, nozzle temperature and other multifaceted factors can contribute to deviations from the intended design. This paper introduces a closed-loop in-situ assessment of layer height deviations using point cloud data to ensure real-time printed part modification. The printing is done using a direct-fed pellet screw extruder mounted on top of 6 degrees of freedom robotic arm. A structured light 3D scanner is used to obtain point cloud data. A Robot Operating System (ROS) based digital toolchain is employed to have seamless communication between all nodes of the AM system. The layer-by-layer printing is observed using an in-house CAM solution, which examines the point cloud data and compares it to the original CAD model. The deviations are analyzed, and the path of the next layer is re-planned to adjust for the digression in the previous layer. This control loop ensures that the final product meets the desired quality standards at minimum cost and efficient time and increases the opportunity for rapid prototyping and iterative design improvements.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.248 · 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