Predictive models for 3D inkjet material printer using automated image analysis and machine learning algorithms
Manufacturing Letters, ISSN: 2213-8463, Vol: 41, Page: 810-821
2024
- 1Citations
- 10Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Additive manufacturing (AM) is a smart manufacturing process to fabricate components with high precision, minimal post-processing, and increased component complexity in a variety of materials. This research focuses on developing automated image analysis and predictive models for a widely used 3D material inkjet printing (IJP) process. The interplay of four input process parameters, which include frequency, voltage, temperature, and meniscus vacuum, on the output metrics of the inkjet printer was evaluated using statistical measures (ANOVA). Droplet types were classified as no drop, satellite drop, and normal drop using four machine learning classifiers, including random forest, support vector classifier, k-nearest neighbor, and decision trees. Hyperparameter tuning was performed for each model for over 486 data points. Regression predictive models were developed for both ink droplet velocity and volume with three linear models (linear, lasso, and ridge regression) and four non-linear models (random forest, decision tree, support vector regression, and k-nearest neighbor). Mean squared error and the coefficient of determination, r-squared value, were used to evaluate the performance of the predictive models. For the drop type classification models, k-fold of 5 yielded the highest accuracy for the RF, KNN, and DT models of around 98%. Similarly, for the regression based predictive models RF, DT and KNN accuracy results ranged from 97 to 99%. All the machine learning models were validated with experimental data with high prediction accuracies accuracy. This research serves as a foundation for developing design guidelines for 3D material inkjet printing with applications in biosensors, flexible electronics, and regenerative tissue engineering.
Bibliographic Details
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know