4.6 Article

Fused deposition modelling (FDM) process parameter prediction and optimization using group method for data handling (GMDH) and differential evolution (DE)

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00170-014-5835-2

Keywords

Fused deposition modelling (FDM); Strength; Inductive modelling; Design of experiment (DOE); Optimization; Group method of data handling (GMDH); Differential evolution (DE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents the research done to determine the functional relationship between process parameters and tensile strength for the fused deposition modelling (FDM) process using the group method for data modelling for prediction purposes. An initial test was carried out to determine whether part orientation and raster angle variations affect the tensile strength. It was found that both process parameters affect tensile strength response. Further experimentations were carried out in which the process parameters considered were part orientation, raster angle, raster width and air gap. The process parameters and the experimental results were submitted to the group method of data handling (GMDH), resulting in predicted output, in which the predicted output values were found to correlate very closely with the measured values. Using differential evolution (DE), optimal process parameters have been found to achieve good strength simultaneously for the response. The mathematical model of the response of the tensile strength with respect to the process parameters comprising part orientation, raster angle, raster width and air gap has been developed based on GMDH, and it has been found that the functionality of the additive manufacturing part produced is improved by optimizing the process parameters. The results obtained are very promising, and hence, the approach presented in this paper has practical application for the design and manufacture of parts using additive manufacturing technologies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available