ARIMA-GMDH: a low-order integrated approach for predicting and optimizing the additive manufacturing process parameters

  • Osama Aljarrah
  • Jun LiEmail author
  • Wenzhen Huang
  • Alfa Heryudono
  • Jing Bi


This paper proposes a novel data-driven approach for predicting and optimizing the additive manufacturing process parameters. The integrated scheme consists of three popular algorithms: (1) group method for data handling (GMDH) as the engine of neural networks, (2) autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) for characterizing spatial collinearity of the multiple response, and (3) indirect optimization on the basis of self-organization (IOSO) to adopt the emerged correlated multi-response optimization problem. As a numerical case study, a computer-generated fused deposition modeling data tested the introduced algorithms. The finite element (FE) simulation model consists the multi-layer residual stresses as targets, in respect of printing speeds as process parameters. The residual stresses predicted by the low-order integrated ARIMA-GMDH variants correlate well with the FE simulations. This approach provides a viable data-driven alternative for computationally based rapid prototyping and additive manufacturing processes.


Additive manufacturing (AM) Group method of data handling (GMDH) Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) Indirect optimization by self-organization (IOSO) Residual stress Printing speed Correlated multi-response optimization 



The authors thank Asia Haque and Megan Scribner for their contributions at the early stage of this research.

Funding information

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the start-up funds and multidisciplinary seed funds at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.


  1. 1.
    ISO/ASTM 52900:2015 (ASTM F2792), Additive manufacturing, General principles, Terminology, ISO/ASTM (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan SL, Lu Y, Wang Y (2017) Data-driven cost estimation for additive manufacturing in cybermanufacturing. J Manuf Syst 46:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singha S, Ramakrishna S, Singh R (2017) Material issues in additive manufacturing: a review. J Manuf Process 25:185– 200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Masood SH (2014) Advances in fused deposition modeling. Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engineering 10:69–91Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bártolo, Jorge P (2011) Stereolithography, materials, processes and applications. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deckard CR (1986) Method and apparatus for producing parts by selective sintering. USA Patent US4863538A, 17 10Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gu DD, Meiners W, Wissenbach K, Poprawe R (2012) Laser additive manufacturing of metallic components: materials, processes and mechanisms. Int Mater Rev 57(3):133–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marwah O, Sharif S, Ibrahim M, Mohamad E, Idris MH (2016) Direct rapid prototyping evaluation on multijet and fused deposition modeling patterns for investment casting. J Mater Des Appl 230:5Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    statista, Most used 3D printing technologies in 2017 and 2018,, 2017-2018. [Online]. Available: [Accessed 24 12 2018]
  10. 10.
    Heyes AL, Smith DA (2004) Rapid technique for wind-tunnel model manufacture. J Aircr 41(2):413–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giunta AA, Eldred MS, Wojtkiewicz SF (2003) Overview of modern design of experiments methods for computational. In: AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibitGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiedemann HJB (1999) Strategies and applications for rapid product and process development in Daimler-Benz AG computers in industries. Comput Ind 39(1):11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ventola CL (2014) Medical applications for 3D printing: current and projected uses. Pharm Therapeut 39 (11):704–711Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Daniel YW, Panda B, Paul SC, Mohamed NAN, Tan M, Leong KF (2017) 3D printing trends in building and construction industry: a review. Virt Phys Prototyp 12(3):261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jian-Yuan L, An J, Chua KC (2017) Fundamentals and applications of 3D printing for novel materials. Appl Mater Today 7:120–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomas D (2016) Costs, benefits, and adoption of additive manufacturing: a supply chain perspective. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 85(5-8):1857–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mukherjee T, Zhang W, DebRoy T (2017) An improved prediction of residual stresses and distortion in additive manufacturing. Comput Mater Sci 126:360–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu H, Chen TT (2018) Quality control issues in 3D-printing manufacturing: a review. Rapid Prototyp J 24:3Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bellini A, Geri S (2003) Mechanical characterization of parts fabricated using fused deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyp J 9(4):252–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mohamed OA, Masood SH, Bhowmik J, Nikzad M, Azadmanjiri J (2016) Effect of process parameters on dynamic mechanical performance of FDM PC/ABS printed parts through design of experiment. J Mater Eng Perform 25(7):2922–2935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang X, Jiang M, Zhou Z, Gou J, Hui D (2017) 3D printing of polymer matrix composites: a review and prospective. Compos Part B Eng 110(1):442–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thomas-Seale L, Kirkman-Brown J, Attallah M, Espino MD, Shepherd DE (2017) The barriers to the progression of additive manufacture: perspectives from UK industry. Int J Prod Econ 198:104–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guessasma S, Zhang W, Zhu J, Belhabib S, Nouri H (2015) Challenges of additive manufacturing technologies from an optimisation perspective. Int J Simul Multidiscip Des Optim 6:A9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bayraktar O, Uzun G, akrolu R, Guldas A (2016) Experimental study on the 3D-printed plastic parts and predicting the mechanical properties using artificial neural networks: mechanical properties of 3D-printed plastic parts. Polym Adv Technol 28(8):1044– 1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rayegani F, Onwubolu G (2014) Fused deposition modelling (FDM) process parameter prediction and optimization using group method for data handling (GMDH) and differential evolution (DE). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(1–4):509–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sood AK, Ohdar RK, Mahapatra SS (2010) A hybrid ANN-BFOA approach for optimization of FDM process parameters. In: A hybrid ANN-BFOA approach for optimization of FDM process parameters, SEMCCO Chennai, IndiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Panda KS, Padhee S, Sood KA, Mahapatra SS (2009) Optimization of fused deposition modelling (FDM) process parameters using bacterial foraging technique. Intell Inf Manag 2(1):89–97Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang W, Wu AS, Sun J, Quan J, Gu B, Sun B, Cotton C, Heider D, Chou TW (2017) Characterization of residual stress and deformation in additively manufactured ABS polymer and composite specimens. Compos Sci Technol 150:102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Egorov I (1998) Indirect optimization on the basis of self-organization. Air Force Eng Acad 2:683–691Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    (2017). Abaqus analysis user’s guide, Abaqus 2017 Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Courter B, Savane V, Bi J, Dev S, Hansen CJ (2017) Finite element simulation of the fused deposition modelling process. Nafems World Congress. StockholmGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Onwubolu G (2016) GMDH-methodology and implementation in MatLab. Imperial College Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mohammed MAA (2016) Chapter 3: GMDH multilayered algorithm in MATLAB. In: GMDH-methodology and implementation in MATLAB. Imperial College Press, London, pp 75–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kondo T, Pandya A (2000) GMDH-type neural networks: with radial basis functions and their application to medical image recognition of the brain. In: SICE annual conference. International Session Papers (IEEE Cat. No.00TH8545). IizukaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Srivastava M, Badal D, Jain RK (2010) Regression and ARIMA hybrid model for new bug prediction. Int J Comput Sci Eng 2(8):2622–2628Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shabri A, Samsudin R (2014) A hybrid GMDH and box-Jenkins models in time series forecasting. Appl Math Sci, 3051–3062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shabri A, Samsudin R (2014) Fishery landing forecasting using wavelet-based autoregressive integrated moving average models. Math Probl Eng, 2015Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mosavi A (2010) Multiobjective optimization using indirect optimization on the basis of self-organization. In: Wseas conferencesGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Asadollahi-Yazdi E, Lafon P, Gardan J (2018) Multi-objective optimization of additive manufacturing process. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51(11):152–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, ChichesterzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yan Z (2010) Traj-ARIMA: a spatial-time series model for network-constrained trajectory. In: Third international workshop on computational transportation science, San JoseGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Matsumoto M, Abe J, Yoshimura M (1993) A multiobjective optimization strategy with priority ranking of the design objectives. J Mech Des 115(4):784–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Farlow JS (1981) The GMDH algorithm of Ivakhnenko. Am Stat 35(4):210–215Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pisuchpen R (2012) Integration of JIT flexible manufacturing, assembly and disassembly using a simulation approach. Assem Autom 32(1):51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Steeda CA, Halsey W, Dehof R, Yoder SL, Paquit V, Powers S (2017) Falcon: visual analysis of large, irregularly sampled, and multivariate. Comput Graph 63:50–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wold S, Sjstrm M, Carlson R, Lundstedt T, Hellberg S, Skagerberg B, Wikstrm C, hman J (1986) Mltivariate design. Analytica Chimica Acta 191:17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Beleites C, Neugebauer U, Bocklitz T, Popp J (2013) Sample size planning for classification models. Anal Chim Acta 720:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Courter B, Savane V, Bi J, Dev S, Hansen CJ (2017) Finite element simulation of the fused deposition modelling process, conference: NAFEMS World Congress. StockholmGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cattenone A, Morganti S, Alaimo G, Auricchio F (2018) Finite element analysis of additive manufacturing based on fused deposition modeling: distortions prediction and comparison with experimental data. J Manuf Sci Eng 141:1Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Favaloro A, Brenken B, Barocio E, Pipes B (2017) Simulation of polymeric composites additive manufacturing using Abaqus, conference: dassault systemes’ science in the age of experience. ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Massachusetts DartmouthDartmouthUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Massachusetts DartmouthDartmouthUSA
  3. 3.Dassault SystémesJohnstonUSA

Personalised recommendations