Performance evaluation of warping characteristic of fused deposition modelling process
- 405 Downloads
In recent years, fused deposition modelling (FDM) is gaining more popularity due to its distinct advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness, lower build times, and flexibility. Compared to other 3-D printing processes such as SLS, this process does not use any kind of high-intensity laser power to build functional parts out of CAD models and, hence, makes the process much simpler, cheaper, and adaptable. Past studies reveal that productivity of the FDM process can be further increased by effectively controlling its process parameters such as layer thickness, part orientation, extrusion temperature, and so on. In this regard, many authors have investigated the optimal parameter settings for improving part strength, surface finish, wear, and fatigue properties of FDM made prototypes. However, warping performance behavior has got very recent attention due to complex heat transfer mechanism involved during this process. Experimental investigations are necessary to understand the deformation behavior of prototypes. In addition, the quantification and optimization of warp deformation along with dimensional error poses a challenging multi-objective optimization problem. Therefore, this work proposes an evolutionary system identification (SI) approach to explicitly quantify the warp deformation and dimensional error based on the four inputs such as line width compensation, extrusion velocity, filling velocity, and layer thickness of FDM prototypes. The two models’ performance analysis comprising of error metrics evaluation, cross-validation, and hypothesis tests is performed to validate its robustness. The analysis concluded that the layer thickness and extrusion velocity influence the warp deformation and, while filling velocity and line width compensation, influences the dimensional error the most.
Keywords3-D printing Fused deposition modelling Warp deformation Dimensional error Modelling
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Ford, S. and Despeisse, M., (2015) Additive manufacturing and sustainability: an exploratory study of the advantages and challengesGoogle Scholar
- 10.Winkler SM (2008) Evolutionary system identification: modern concepts and practical applications., TraunerGoogle Scholar
- 11.Winkler, S. M., Affenzeller, M., & Stekel, H. (2013). Evolutionary identification of cancer predictors using clustered data: a case study for breast cancer, melanoma, and cancer in the respiratory system. In Proceedings of the 15th annual conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation (pp. 1463–1470). ACM.Google Scholar
- 12.Garg, A., & Tai, K. (2013). Genetic programming for modeling vibratory finishing process: role of experimental designs and fitness functions. In Swarm, evolutionary, and memetic computing (pp. 23–31). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
- 16.Garg, A., Sriram, S., & Tai, K. (2013). Empirical analysis of model selection criteria for genetic programming in modeling of time series system. In Computational Intelligence for Financial Engineering & Economics (CIFEr), 2013 I.E. Conference on (pp. 90–94). IEEE.Google Scholar
- 17.Garg, A., Panda, B. and Shankhwar, K., (2016) Investigation of the joint length of weldment of environmental-friendly magnetic pulse welding process. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, pp.1-12.Google Scholar
- 21.Zhao J, Cheng G, Ruan S, Li Z (2015) Multi-objective optimization design of injection molding process parameters based on the improved efficient global optimization algorithm and non-dominated sorting-based genetic algorithm. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 78(9–12):1813–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Jin, L., Zhang, C., Shao, X., Yang, X., & Tian, G. (2015). A multi-objective memetic algorithm for integrated process planning and scheduling. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1–16.Google Scholar