4.7 Article

A hybrid M5′-genetic programming approach for ensuring greater trustworthiness of prediction ability in modelling of FDM process

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 1349-1365

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10845-013-0734-1

关键词

M5 '; Genetic programming; Artificial neural network; Trustworthiness; Support vector regression; Fused deposition modelling; Rapid prototyping

资金

  1. Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund [RG30/10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent years have seen various rapid prototyping (RP) processes such as fused deposition modelling (FDM) and three-dimensional printing being used for fabricating prototypes, leading to shorter product development times and less human intervention. The literature reveals that the properties of RP built parts such as surface roughness, strength, dimensional accuracy, build cost, etc are related to and can be improved by the appropriate settings of the input process parameters. Researchers have formulated physics-based models and applied empirical modelling techniques such as regression analysis and artificial neural network for the modelling of RP processes. Physics-based models require in-depth understanding of the processes which is a formidable task due to their complexity. The issue of improving trustworthiness of the prediction ability of empirical models on test (unseen) samples is paid little attention. In the present work, a hybrid M5'-genetic programming (M5'-GP) approach is proposed for empirical modelling of the FDM process with an attempt to resolve this issue of ensuring trustworthiness. This methodology is based on the error compensation achieved using a GP model in parallel with a M5'-model. The performance of the proposed hybrid model is compared to those of support vector regression (SVR) and adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) model and it is found that the M5'-GP model has the goodness of fit better than those of the SVR and ANFIS models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据