Deep learning–based stress prediction for bottom-up SLA 3D printing process

  • Aditya Khadilkar
  • Jun Wang
  • Rahul RaiEmail author


Additive manufacturing (AM) allows fabrication of complex geometric parts that are difficult to fabricate using a traditional subtractive manufacturing process. Stereolithography (SLA) printing is an AM technique that prints the 3D part from liquid resin based on the principle of photopolymerization. Part deformation and failure during the separation process are the key bottlenecks in printing high-quality parts using bottom-up SLA printing. Cohesive zone models have been successfully used to model the separation process in the bottom-up SLA printing process. However, the finite element (FE) simulation of the separation process is prohibitively computationally expensive and thus cannot be used for online monitoring of the SLA printing process. This paper outlines a deep learning (DL)–based framework to predict the stress distribution on the cured layer of the bottom-up SLA process–based printed part in real time. The framework consists of (1) a new 3D model database that captures a variety of geometric features that can be found in real 3D parts and (2) FE simulation on the 3D models present in the database that is used to create inputs and corresponding labels (outputs) to train the DL network. Two different types of DL networks were trained to predict the stress on the test dataset. Results further show that this framework drastically reduces computational time in comparison with FE simulations.


Convolutional neural network (CNN) Bottom-up SLA printing Additive manufacturing Deep learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



  1. 1.
    Arndt O, Barth T, Freisleben B, Grauer M (2005) Approximating a finite element model by neural network prediction for facility optimization in groundwater engineering. Eur J Oper Res 166(3):769–781CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cao JG, Wang DH, Sui LL, Zhou YS, Lai JQ, Wangi WZ (2014) Prediction model of rolling force for electrical steel based on finite element method and neural network. Adv Sci Tech Lett 47:383–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen Y, Zhou C, Lao J (2011) A layerless additive manufacturing process based on cnc accumulation. Rapid Prototyp J 17(3):218–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gibson I, Rosen DW, Stucker B (2010) Additive manufacturing technologies. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hambli R (2010) Application of neural networks and finite element computation for multiscale simulation of bone remodeling. J Biomech Eng 132(11):114,502–114,502–5Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hu J, Sundararaman S, Menta VGK, Chandrashekhara K, Chernicoff W (2009) Failure pressure prediction of composite cylinders for hydrogen storage using thermo-mechanical analysis and neural network. Adv Compos Mater 18(3):233– 249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang YM, Jiang CP (2005) On-line force monitoring of platform ascending rapid prototyping system. J Mater Process Technol 159(2):257–264MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kazan R, Fırat M, Tiryaki AE (2009) Prediction of springback in wipe-bending process of sheet metal using neural network. Mater Des 30(2):418–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE (2012) Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on neural information processing systems, vol 1. Curran Associates Inc, pp 1097– 1105Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lecun Y, Bottou L, Bengio Y, Haffner P (1998) Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE, pp 2278–2324Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liang L, Liu M, Martin C, Sun W (2018) A deep learning approach to estimate stress distribution: a fast and accurate surrogate of finite-element analysis. J R Soc Interface 15 (138):20170844Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liravi F (2014) Dynamic force analysis for bottom-up projection-based Additive Manufacturing using finite element analysis. State University of New York at BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liravi F, Das S, Zhou C (2015) Separation force analysis and prediction based on cohesive element model for constrained-surface stereolithography processes. Comput Aided Des 69:134–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Melchels FPW, Feijen J, Grijpma DW (2010) A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering. Biomaterials 31:6121–6130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Qi CR, Su H, Mo K, Guibas LJ (2016) Pointnet: deep learning on point sets for 3D classification and segmentation. CoRR arXiv:1612.00593
  16. 16.
    Reddy DYA, Pratihar DK (2011) Neural network-based expert systems for predictions of temperature distributions in electron beam welding process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 55(5):535–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shahani A, Setayeshi S, Nodamaie S, Asadi M, Rezaie S (2009) Prediction of influence parameters on the hot rolling process using finite element method and neural network. J Mater Process Technol 209(4):1920–1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simonyan K, Zisserman A (2014) Two-stream convolutional networks for action recognition in videos. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on neural information processing systems, vol 1. NIPS’14. MIT Press, pp 568–576Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simonyan K, Zisserman A (2014) Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. CoRR arXiv:1409.1556
  20. 20.
    Szegedy C, Liu W, Jia Y, Sermanet P, Reed S, Anguelov D, Erhan D, Vanhoucke V, Rabinovich A (2015) Going deeper with convolutions. In: Computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). arXiv:1409.4842
  21. 21.
    Toshev A, Szegedy C (2013) Deeppose: human pose estimation via deep neural networks. CoRR arXiv:1312.4659
  22. 22.
    Umbrello D, Ambrogio G, Filice L, Shivpuri R (2008) A hybrid finite element method–artificial neural network approach for predicting residual stresses and the optimal cutting conditions during hard turning of AISI 52100 bearing steel. Mater Des 29(4):873–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang J, Das S, Rai R, Zhou C (2018) Data-driven simulation for fast prediction of pull-up process in bottom-up stereo-lithography. Comput-Aided Des 99:29–42MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ye H, Venketeswaran A, Das S, Zhou C (2017) Investigation of separation force for constrained-surface stereolithography process from mechanics perspective. Rapid Prototyp J 23(4):696– 710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhou C, Chen Y, Yang Z, Khoshnevis B (2013) Digital material fabrication using mask-image-projection-based stereolithography. Rapid Prototyp:153–165Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manufacturing and Design Lab (MADLab)University at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations