Uncertainty Quantification in Material Properties of Additively Manufactured Materials for Application in Topology Optimization
Abstract
This research presents an approach to measuring the inherent randomness in properties of materials fabricated by the fused filament fabrication (FFF) method. Defects associated with the layer-by-layer process introduce significant variability in the elastic modulus field of materials printed. To describe the random distribution in Young’s modulus fields, statistical properties of mean, variance, and correlation length must be estimated for bulk regions (the printed filaments) and fusion regions (the thin regions connecting printed filaments). The goal is to estimate the random properties from the surface strain fields calculated by digital image correlation (DIC) analysis. A machine learning algorithm is developed that can estimate the spatial variations in the elastic modulus. The model is trained on a dataset of simulated two-dimensional strain fields with known random distributions in the corresponding elastic modulus fields generated by finite element (FE) simulations. On the test data, we achieved the R2 score of 0.93 and 0.95 for the mean in the bulk and fusion Young’s modulus fields, respectively. Also, for the variance in bulk and fusion areas, the R2 score of 0.74 and 0.83 are achieved, respectively. The results demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed approach in measuring the randomness in material properties of FFF-based printed materials.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Machine learning models can also be trained to quantify spatial variations within material properties and measure local mechanical properties of printed materials based on digital image correlation (DIC) strain fields as input.
“Machine learning models can also be trained to quantify spatial variations within material properties and measure local mechanical properties of printed materials based on digital image correlation (DIC) strain fields as input [450,451].”
From A comprehensive review of lunar-based manufacturing and construction (2024) · cites this paper as [450]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Azami, M., Siahsarani, A., Hadian, A., Kazemi, Z., Rahmatabadi, D., Kashani-Bozorg, S. F., & Abrinia, K. (2023) · Journal of Materials Research and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.03.181 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Self-citationA comprehensive review of lunar-based manufacturing and construction
Azami, M., Kazemi, Z., Moazen, S., Dubé, M., Potvin, M.-J., & Skonieczny, K. (2024) · Progress in Aerospace Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2024.101045 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Kazemi, Z., & Steeves, C. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Venue
- Volume 3: Advanced Materials: Design, Processing, Characterization and Applications; Advances in Aerospace Technology
- Published
- 2022-10-30
- OpenAlex
- W4319589234
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 1.80
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Probabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Topology Optimization in Engineering
- Keywords
- uncertainty quantification, additive manufacturing, fused deposition modeling, Young's modulus, topology optimization, digital image correlation, surface strain field, machine learning, correlation length, layer defects
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review