Virtual and Physical Prototyping

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nvpp20

A data-driven machine learning approach for the

3D printing process optimisation

Phuong Dong Nguyen, Thanh Q. Nguyen, Q. B. Tao, Frank Vogel & H. Nguyen-
Xuan

To cite this article: Phuong Dong Nguyen, Thanh Q. Nguyen, Q. B. Tao, Frank Vogel
& H. Nguyen-Xuan (2022) A data-driven machine learning approach for the 3D
printing process optimisation, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 17:4, 768-786, DOI:
10.1080/17452759.2022.2068446

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2022.2068446

Published online: 03 May 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 906

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nvpp20
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING
2022, VOL. 17, NO. 4, 768–786
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2022.2068446

A data-driven machine learning approach for the 3D printing process

optimisation
Phuong Dong Nguyena,b, Thanh Q. Nguyenc, Q. B. Taod, Frank Vogelb and H. Nguyen-Xuan a

a
CIRTech Institute, HUTECH University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; bInuTech Gmbh, Nuernberg, Germany; cFaculty of Engineering and
Technology, Thu Dau Mot University, Binh Duong Province, Vietnam; dFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Danang -
University of Science and Technology, Danang, Vietnam

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

3D printing has become highly applicable in modern life recently. The industry has brought a Received 29 March 2022
facelift to most others. However, this technology still exists some shortcomings, and it therefore Accepted 18 April 2022
has not been generalised to bring the best benefits to users. In this paper, based on multilayer
KEYWORDS
perceptron and convolution neural network models, we propose a new data-driven machine Additive manufacturing; 3D
learning platform for predicting optimised parameters of the 3D printing process from a model printing; multilayer
design to a complete product. This finding can open up great advances in the current 3D perceptron; machine
printing technology. Accordingly, the results obtained allow us to predict quickly and accurately learning; convolutional
some decisive parameters of the traditional 3D printing process such as time, weight and neural networks
length while the input was fuzzy with a part of the initial information missing. The proposed
approach does not need to account for the shape, size and material of the printed object, but it
can perform the process automatically without other extra factors. After completing the model,
a configurator is proposed to set the parameters for the respective printer types, which makes
the 3D printing process simple and fast.

1. Introduction
Nowadays, design and fabrication are no longer based on
traditional manufacturing methods such as casting,
forming, turning and milling. Parts are often produced by
modern methods, and the most prominent one is additive
manufacturing, also known as 3D printing technology
(Zhou et al. 2022; Gong et al. 2022; Sing et al. 2021).
Herein, we argue that creating a design depends heavily
on the method of production. 3D printing offers much
greater flexibility in design, fabrication and manufacturing.
In the processes mentioned above, artificial intelligence
(AI) is applied in most of the processes with the purpose:
the process is faster, the process is more accurate and it
is suitable for industrial development. However, an open
question is how such design tools and methods can take
a more advantage for the use with high flexibility. Many
studies showed that design performance was derived
from the nature of the work, including the manufacturabil-
ity and associated constraints of the part or the 3D printer
itself. Normally, the process of designing and manufactur-
ing a product using 3D printing technology is described in
Figure 1. In particular, the 3D printing process is classified
into three main groups, namely designing the printed
model, the 3D printing process and the finished product.
With the flexibility of 3D printing, much research work
has been optimised on many of the issues surrounding
the 3D printing process. In the first phase, the 3D printing
model optimisation has been achieved in many different
studies (Nguyen-Van et al. 2022; Peng et al. 2021) by chan-
ging the structure of objects with many different types of
materials. The results from the above studies show that this
process enables the production with higher efficiency. In
addition, recent studies (Vantyghem et al. 2020; Menon
et al. 2019; Santander et al. 2020; Li, Wu, and Lin 2020;
Deswal, Narang, and Chhabra 2019; Xu et al. 2020)
changed the 3D model by optimising materials (plastic,
concrete and regenerated materials), mesh modelling
and machining methods. The results obtained from these
studies offer a great potential of 3D printing technology.
In the second phase, many optimisation methods have
been proposed for the 3D printing process. The studies
(Deswal, Narang, and Chhabra 2019; Yadav et al. 2020)
optimised the 3D printing process using the fused depo-
sition modelling (FDM) in the printing method. The
approaches (Abeykoon, Sri-Amphorn, and Fernando
2020; Chen et al. 2019; Carlier et al. 2019; Maróti et al.
2020) used the polylactic acid (PLA) method. A combined
model using the FDM and PLA was studied in Kamaal

CONTACT Thanh Q. Nguyen nguyenquangthanh@tdmu.edu.vn; H. Nguyen-Xuan ngx.hung@hutech.edu.vn

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 1. Current 3D printing process.
et al. (2021). In recent studies (Guerra et al. 2019; Ahn et al.
2020; Bertana et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2020; Alghamdi et al.
2021), researchers exploited an optical method using
resin, polymer materials (Alghamdi et al. 2021; Tamburrino
et al. 2021) and others considered some additional printing
methods (Luis et al. 2019; Saed et al. 2020; Elkaseer, Schnei-
der, and Scholz 2020; Singh et al. 2021). The network-
matched printing method offers many advantages in the
optimisation process. However, these studies are optimal
only for discrete types of problems, which makes it
difficult to connect different stages in the same printing
process. The 3D printing optimisation process does not
only include the structure, part geometry or material
form but also provides the interconnection between
stages that plays a major role. The presence of AI has
brought simplicity, speed, material, process and design
optimisation (Goh et al. 2021; Kumar et al. 2022; Choi,
An, and Kang 2022) and convenience to the implemen-
tation process. Researchers have summarised the appli-
cations that AI algorithms such as machine learning (ML)
and deep learning can be employed for 3D printing in
the most general way (Goh, Sing, and Yeong 2021). It
has been shown that ML is becoming a powerful tool in
almost every step of the 3D printing process, i.e. from
data-driven numerical modelling and design features sug-
gestions to real-time anomaly detection and cybersecurity.
Zhu et al. (2021), after proving that AI participation in 3D
printing has brought great efficiency, have come to the
general prediction that the promising future of smart man-
ufacturing will be the integration of AI, 3D printing, multi-
functional materials and personalised biomedical devices.
Verma et al. (2021) provide the necessity of using ML
and deep learning to promote the efficiency and facili-
tation of additive manufacturing techniques for biocompo-
site materials fabrication. AI algorithms helped to optimise
the simulation process in 3D printing or handle errors
(Shen et al. 2019; Zhaohui et al. 2020) in 3D printing,
improving the old process without adding hardware
details in fields such as drugs or systems physics. As
demonstrated in Menon et al. (2019), Yadav et al. (2020)
and Kamaal et al. (2021), AI gave good results for each
specific problem, different materials from plastic to metal
can improve the process in 3D printing whereas the pre-
vious process in the standard 3D printing had trouble. It
sounds good in the trend of using AI in 3D printing and
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 769
there will be a strong combination of algorithms in AI in
all steps in 3D printing, from the analysis process to the
materials, ink and industry 4.0.
However, as aforementioned, the researches have not
covered the issue of connecting stages because what con-
stitutes a custom model with many unknowns has not
been clearly defined. Current research directions related
to 3D printing technology can be divided into two main
directions as shown in Figure 2: detailed assessment and
general assessment of the problem. To solve this
problem in the detailed assessment, the gradient boosting
method was proposed (Breiman 1997), which used a mul-
tivariable function to find out an optimal function suitable
for different objectives of the problem by iteratively
choosing a weak hypothetical function in the direction
of negative gradients. This model has been developed
and improved by other authors (Friedman 2001; Friedman
2002), in which the improvement functions of the gradient
boosting method (Touzani, Granderson, and Fernandes
2018; Zhou et al. 2021; Climent, Momparler, and
Carmona 2019) have the function of increasing the slope
of the optimal function to get the fastest and most suit-
able results. This is consistent with the original optimis-
ation goal. Target enhancement algorithms have been
developed using the gradient model with the sensitivity
enhancement function. As a result, they can be applied
in ML (Sheridan et al. 2016; Rao et al. 2019), statistics
(Punmiya and Choe 2019), regression (Ding, Cao, and
Næss 2018), classification (Cheng, Li, and Chen 2019),
identification (Zhang and Haghani 2015), decision
making (Castro et al. 2021; Mahmood et al. 2020) and fore-
casting the future evolution of the model (Mahmood et al.
2020; Günther et al. 2014) data-driven numerical simu-
lation (Li, Jin, and Yu 2018), design features recommen-
dation (Yao, Moon, and Bi 2017) real-time anomaly
detection (Goh, Hamzah, and Yeong 2022) and cyberse-
curity (Wu, Song, and Moon 2019). Although it can opti-
mise and achieve high efficiency in multivariable
models, this gradient boosting method cannot be used
for models where the input conditions are fuzzy and the
relationships between the variables overlap. Therefore, it
is difficult to optimise the 3D printing process and link
the discrete stages together. This limits the flexibility
and usability of 3D printing technology because it
depends on the experience of the users performing the
printing and the differences between the groups of prin-
ters and printing materials. Contrary to the first research
direction, the second research direction generally evalu-
ates the problems of the 3D printing process. For this
research direction, the studies are still very new and
have not attracted much research at the present time
(Goh, Sing, and Yeong 2021; Rao et al. 2019; Punmiya
and Choe 2019). The disadvantage of this research
770 P. D. NGUYEN ET AL.
Figure 2. Research direction related to current 3D printing technology.
direction is that it cannot completely solve the problems
related to the 3D printing process. However, the advan-
tage of this research flavour when it can be applied to
all different printing processes, different printer models,
different printing materials, different printer users, etc. In
the future, this research direction can open up many 3D
printing applications in the industry. This contributes to
the development and dissemination of 3D printing tech-
nology to many different countries and regions.
As shown in Figure 3, the current 3D printing models
for manufacturing processes still have many shortcom-
ings because most of the studies only discretely evaluate
the different stages, lacking the connections between the
stages in the entire process. This is a complicated problem
because the model is multivariable, with many methods
of linking different variables. Therefore, in this study, we
adopt the trend of increasing the slope of the optimal
model to meet the problem of the multivariable function.
However, our novel contribution is based on AI models
which integrate a multilayer perceptron (MLP) into convo-
lution neural network (CNN) instead of using the gradient
Figure 3. A proposed model for improving the 3D printing
process.
boosting method. It was found that the effect is better
than the previously published methods. Moreover, pre-
dictive modelling from the present results could make
the 3D printing process simple, easy to use and fully auto-
mated from 3D printed model to completed product.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Multilayer perceptron
An MLP is an artificial neural network where neurons are
connected to each other, as shown in Figures 4–6, by
weights as in Equation (1). Then, the values of each
neuron and their weights are fed into the activation
function to turn them into the nonlinear function
shown in Equation (2).


m
z= w i xi + b (1)
i=1
Figure 4. A perceptron in MLP.
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 771

mandatory parts of the MLP network structure. The

tasks of the first layer, and the receiving of the data
vector for the MLP network. The output layer, which con-
tains the final result of the entire MLP network, is used to
get the output vectors after the network has performed
calculations from the input data vectors. The hidden
layers of the MLP carrier consist of many layers.
Assumed that we have N weight matrices for an MLP
with N layers. These matrices are denoted by W (l) repre-
senting the connections from the (l − 1)th layer to the lth
layer, as in Equation (3):
(l−1)
∗d(l)
W (l) [ Rd , l = 1, 2, . . . , N (3)

where d(l) is the number of nodes in the lth layer.

More specifically, w(l)j represents all connections from
the (l − 1)th layer to the jth node of the lth layer, and the
element wij(l) represents the connection from the ith node
of the (l − 1)th layer to the jth node of the lth layer. As
shown in Equation (1), b is bias unit, so the biases of
(l)
the lth layer are denoted by b(l) [ Rd , where d(l) is the
number of nodes in the lth layer. As shown in Equation
Figure 5. Multilayer in MLP. (1), zj(l) is z at jth node in lth layer, representing as in
Equation (4)
where xi is the input values, wi is the weight coefficients,
b is the bias unit and m is the number of input values. zj(l) = [w(l)
j ] a
T (l−1)
+ b(l) th th
j , j node in l layer (4)

a = w(z) (2) and vector form is described by Equation (5):

z(l) = [W (l) ]T a(l−1) + b(l) (5)

The structure of the MLP contains the input layer, the
hidden layer and the output layer. Although they do not Then, the vector representing the output of the lth
(l)
participate in the computation process, they are layer is denoted as a(l) [ Rd , a in Equation (2)

Figure 6. Fully connected network with three hidden layers.

772 P. D. NGUYEN ET AL.

Figure 7. Activation functions commonly used.

representing in Equation (6), a(l) as shown in Equation

The output vector of the MLP network is influenced
(7):
by the input vector and the activation function. Specifi-
T cally, the output value of the MLP is the sum of the
j = w([w j ] a
a(l) + b(l)
(l) (l−1)
j ) (6)
values of the input and the value of each neuron is mul-
T tiplied by their weight. This value is then fed into the
a(l) = w([W (l) ] a(l−1) + b(l) ) (7)
activation function to make them nonlinear, which is
where w is a nonlinear function known as the activation considered the output value of one layer and the input
function which is illustrated in Figure 7. value of the next layer. Thus, in the structure of the

Figure 8. Training process of the MLP network.
MLP network, the information is sent to a fixed direction
from the input through the hidden layers and to the
output, and the total mean square error (MSE) of the
output node is calculated by
1
−1
nsamples
MSE = (ŷi − yi )2
nsamples
i=0
where y is the set of observed values of the sample set
and predicted by the corresponding ŷi values. From
the above formula, the smaller the MSE is the more
effective the model and its best expectation is 0. In
addition, the study also uses the mean absolute error
(MAE) function. The absolute error function can evaluate
Figure 9. Computational model of kernel/filter.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 773
the risk of a data set corresponding to the desired initial
magnitude. This error function is expressed by
1
−1
nsamples
MAE(y, ŷ) = |yi − ŷi | (9)
nsamples i=0
(8)
From Equation (9), the smaller the MAE is the more
effective the model. It is best when the value is 0.
Activation functions play a key role in determining
the output value of the network. They are used to
prevent the output of the network from becoming
linear. If a network uses an activation function that is
linear, it will only be able to produce linear results.
However, the requirements from the present research
774 P. D. NGUYEN ET AL.
Figure 10. Combined model of MLP and CNN.
have to be converted from linear to nonlinear results.
Several activation functions are used, such as Sigmoid,
ReLU, Tanh and Maxout, because of their simplicity
and efficiency in turning linear results into nonlinearities.
The functions used are shown in Figure 7. The training
process of the MLP network is a supervised learning
process, as shown in Figure 6, and explained in three fol-
lowing steps:
. Step 1: Put the input vector into the network. The pro-
posed method can produce an output vector.
. Step 2: Compare the output of the network with the
desired result, then adjust the set of weights in the
network. The above process is also known as
forward propagation. During the training process,
Figure 11. Current 3D printing process.
the input vectors are fed into the network one by
one, and the weights are adjusted until the output
is close to the expected result. In other words, the
training process of the network continues until the
output has the desired input–output pair from the
result of the network.
. Step 3: Complete the training – supervision process as
shown in Figure 8.
2.2 Convolution neural networks
CNNs are MLP networks whose hidden layers are convolu-
tional layers. Convolution is a linear operation between
two matrices or functions, and the result is a new matrix
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING
Figure 12. Parameters in the process of converting the 3D model into G-code.

775
776 P. D. NGUYEN ET AL.
Figure 13. Parameters to be adjusted during printing from a 3D printer.
or function. Convolution is often used in works related to
image processing and image signals. In convolution, one
matrix is called the input, and the other is called the
kernel or filter. Normally, the filters do not change but
have a fixed value. When performing convolution, we
slide the kernel matrix over the input matrix. In the
sliding process, we multiply the value of the kernel by
the value of the input matrix at the corresponding pos-
ition, and then add them all. After the sliding process,
the new matrix contains the values we calculate during
the sliding process. The model is shown in Figure 9.
A convolution layer is a fully connected layer to perform
a convolution with the input value and then pass it
through the activation function before passing it to the
next layer. A model presented in this paper is a combi-
nation of MLP and CNN to maximise the information con-
tained in any OBJ file. Where the CNN model exploits
information contained in vertices (vertices as coordinates
in the 3D space of objects), and the MLP model exploits
information contained in the physical parameters of the
printing process such as the stroke thickness, speed of
print head and surface area, as aforementioned, the train-
ing model is shown in Figure 10.
3. Research methodology
As shown in Figure 11, with the current 3D printing
process from the 3D printed model to the actual
product, the existing models are made in three
different stages: (1) the preparation stage is carried out
when 3D printed samples are chosen, and it consists of
converting 3D printed files into G-code format with
adjustable parameters to ensure that the conversion
process is as efficient as possible. This stage is done
entirely by a computer, and the quality of the conversion
depends on the experience of the person doing the
printing. The parameters are selected so that they are
optimal for each print type and file. The printing par-
ameters in Figure 12 are set by a program that converts
the 3D model print file into G-code format. (2) In the 3D
printing stage, the print files in the form of G-code from
phase 1 are transferred to the 3D printer by using sup-
porting tools such as cables, Wi-Fi, USB and then those
files can be printed. Printing requirements such as
time, quality, style and volume of products after printing,
are shown in Figure 13. All of the above parameters sig-
nificantly affect the quality of the product in a complete
print file. However, this stage also depends greatly on
the experience of the person conducting the printing.
With many parameters selected, the printing process is
shown below. The product is then completed and
ready to use.
From the current 3D printing process, the problem
solves the complete 3D printing process from the step
of receiving the model to finally giving the printer par-
ameter sets with the accompanying predictions, such
as printing time, plastic weight and plastic roll length,
through an artificial intelligence model combining the
MLP and CNN models.
To implement the AI model as shown in Figure 14, we
optimise the printing parameters of the samples follow-
ing the steps as shown in Figure 15:
. Step 1: Initialise input data for MLP and CNN models.
Input data are collected from virtual simulation soft-
ware by 3D printed models. This step uses specialised
software to simulate the printing process which can
record the settings in the G-code file construction
process, set the printer’s parameters, and obtains the
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 777

Figure 14. A 3D printing process improvement model from research.

Figure 15. Flow chart for processing data.

Table 1. Unprocessed raw data.

Input Output
Extrusion width (mm) Layer height (mm) Speed standard (mm/s) Infill (%) Time (min) Length (mm) Weight (g)
0.40 0.15 3300 0 157 5599.4 16.84
0.42 0.20 3300 0 121 6097.2 18.33
0.44 0.25 3300 0 100 6634.9 19.95
0.46 0.30 3300 0 85 7189.3 21.62
0.40 0.15 3300 20 263 13,761.9 41.38
0.42 0.20 3300 20 196 14,166.3 42.59
0.44 0.25 3300 40 206 21,559.4 64.82
0.46 0.30 3300 40 169 21,895.2 65.83
778 P. D. NGUYEN ET AL.
Figure 16. Building the input model of the data set.
results after printing. This process collects the data of
the printing parameters in different cases, and
through the simulation software calculates the
output data of the model. The results are presented
in Table 1.
Inputs are the parameters initialised for the G-code
making process, and they are installed for the printer,
as shown in Figure 16. The values of this input data
are usually consulted by experts in printer data proces-
sing and are suitable for conventional printers. The
Figure 17. Building the output model of the data set.
amount of input data obtained in this step depends
on the part to be printed and its special requirements
consulted by the printing consultant. The input par-
ameters are divided into two groups. The first one
includes parameters that directly affect the printing
process, or in other words, affect the output results,
such as extrusion width, layer height, speed standard
and infill. The experts of the research team consult
these parameters because of their influence on the
quality of printed products. The remaining group

Table 2. Data enrichment.
Example of input
Input from CNN network
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5
Output 1 Output 2 Output 3 Output 4 Output 5
CNN model CNN model CNN model CNN model CNN model
0.72 0.9 0.1 0.48 0.68
consists of parameters that do not affect the print result
such as top layer, outline, bottom layer, raft and support.
These parameters are not used in the calculation from
this work, and they will be hidden in the data sheets
of the current paper. Therefore, in order to meet the
requirements of the problem, the model used in the
research must be able to customise the number of par-
ameters selected in each group and the value of each
parameter so that they are suitable for each group and
each printer. The proposed model used the input data
of 75 printed samples with different initialisations. We
obtained N inputs, M settings and O parameters as
shown in Figure 16.
Output data obtained from Table 1 are the par-
ameters measured for assessing the printer’s ability
and the economics of the 3D printing problem, includ-
ing ‘Time’ which is the minimum time required to com-
pletely print the object. This is a key parameter that
determines the print quality as well as the cost of the
product. Usually, the print time is determined based
on the correlation between the customer’s requirements
and the responsiveness of the printer. ‘Length’ refers to
the length of the plastic roll used in the printing process,
determining the colour, quality and quantity of a printer.
‘Weight’ refers to the total weight of the object after
Figure 18. Network architecture model.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 779
Input from calculating
Layer Speed
Extrusion height standard Infill Area Volume
width (mm) (mm) (mm/s) (%) (mm2) (mm3) …
Printer parameters
0.4 0.15 3300 0 4200 7500
printing. This parameter determines the form (hollow
or solid, void/solid ratio and printed structure). The
values obtained for these parameters through the simu-
lation process are shown in Figure 17.
. Step 2: Data pre-processing. In this stage, we divide
the data into two parts: normalising the 3D format
and enriching the input data of the object. The data
are shown in Table 2.
(a) Standardising 3D format for the CNN model:
reduce the number of vertices and faces, and
the number of the surface vertices of the object.
This is to evenly distribute the number of vertices
and faces over the entire object through the CNN
model.
(b) Enriching data for MLP model: the research team
has added seven more columns to the input data
that have a direct effect on the output value, two
of which are calculated directly and five are gen-
erated, produced by the deep learning process.
Directly calculated columns include area, which
is the closed surface area of the object, and
volume, which is the actual volume of the
object. The columns calculated by the deep learn-
ing process are handled by the CNN network.
These columns are designed to freely customise
the appropriate model for different domains.
. Step 3: Creating an architecture for a deep learning
network. This network architecture needs to have
two combined network models, namely the CNN
and MLP networks. These two networks share the
same loss function. The CNN network is responsible
for receiving the values of the vertices of the object
as input and returning five values to participate in
the input columns as the output of the network. Ver-
tices are the vertices of the OBJ object that carry
780 P. D. NGUYEN ET AL.

Table 3. Input and output parameters of some models.

Input Output
ID Extrusion width Layer height Speed Infill Volume Area Time Length Weight

Model 1
0 0.40 0.15 3300 0 166,389.779 30,453.25 204 7282.2 21.89
1 0.42 0.20 3300 0 166,389.779 30,453.25 159 8030.4 24.14
2 0.44 0.25 3300 0 166,389.779 30,453.25 132 8856.6 26.63
3 0.46 0.30 3300 0 166,389.779 30,453.25 113 9733.9 29.27
4 0.40 0.15 3300 20 166,389.779 30,453.25 366 19,451.4 58.48
5 0.42 0.20 3300 20 166,389.779 30,453.25 273 20,082.8 60.38
…
31 0.46 0.30 3600 80 166,389.779 30,453.25 386 62380 187.55

Model 2
0 0.40 0.15 3300 0 25,880.19 10,606.55 153 2409.3 7.24
1 0.42 0.20 3300 0 25,880.19 10,606.55 116 2670.7 8.03
2 0.44 0.25 3300 0 25,880.19 10,606.55 94 2940.6 8.84
3 0.46 0.30 3300 0 25,880.19 10,606.55 79 3212.6 9.66
4 0.40 0.15 3300 20 25,880.19 10,606.55 157 4111.1 12.36
5 0.42 0.20 3300 20 25,880.19 10,606.55 119 4306 12.95
…
31 0.46 0.30 3600 80 25,880.19 10,606.55 86 9720.6 29.23

Model 3
1 0.42 0.20 3300 0 17,396.07 8816.32 75 2060.3 6.19
2 0.44 0.25 3300 0 17,396.07 8816.32 60 2206.1 6.63
3 0.46 0.30 3300 0 17,396.07 8816.32 51 2350.7 7.07
4 0.40 0.15 3300 20 17,396.07 8816.32 103 3040.2 9.14
5 0.42 0.20 3300 20 17,396.07 8816.32 77 3133.9 9.42
…
31 0.46 0.30 3600 80 17,396.07 8816.32 59 6446.8 19.38

specific information about the 3D format of the
object, randomly selecting 5000 vertices, and this
number can be customised to suit each specific
domain of the printer. The MLP network is responsible
for taking all the input columns, including the directly
computed columns and the generated columns of
the CNN network, as input and returning the output
column values as the result. This network is designed
in series right after the CNN network to use the same
loss function so that the output value of the CNN

Figure 19. Overview of the network architecture model designed in this study.
network is also involved in the calculation process.
The network diagram is designed as shown in
Figure 18.
. Step 4: Study and test. This process experiments and
adjusts the parameters in the network to achieve
the desired results, then evaluate the results obtained
by the error evaluation functions of the regression
problem. This method can be proposed as a frame-
work for problems sharing the same domain
because of the following properties:
(a) It is suitable for input that has different shapes
such as animals, surface materials, statues or
machine parts. If the input preparation is more
generalised, the learning model will be simpler
and more accurate.
(b) The number of input columns consulted by
experts is customisable and can expand to tens
or hundreds of parameters. This model can
support both newbies to printers and seasoned
professionals to understand the effects of each
input parameter of the printer installation
process.
(c) The amount of input from the CNN network is
completely customisable so that users of this fra-
mework model can balance training time and
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 781
performance. On the other hand, depending on
each domain of the problem, sometimes the
current CNN network needs to be customised
such as removing layers or adding or removing
nodes.
(d) The output quantity of the MLP network can also
be customised to optimise the calculation
process. We only need to consider the calculation
time and calculate all three outputs at the same
time.
4. Results and discussion
The calculated training data were obtained according to
the model 70 × 32 × 4 = 8960, where 70 was the number
of 3D models made during the 3D printing process, 32
was the number of different parameter sets set during
the export process from the 3D file to G-code file and
installed in the printer, and 4 was the number of the
main recommended parameter values that directly
affect the output. Then, the initialisation step of the
input data for the MLP and CNN models was obtained
as follows: 70 × 32 × 11 = 24,640 data, where 70 and 32
were the number of 3D printed models and the
782 P. D. NGUYEN ET AL.
Figure 20. Comparison of results between training and assessment shows that the results converge as expected.
number of parameter sets, respectively, and 11 were the
number of parameter values that can affect the output.
The input and output parameters are shown in Table 3.
The network design obtained from the models with
801,158 data points formed the hyperparameter model
for the training process. Thus, if the necessary number
of results obtained is quite large, the training process
is much easier to converge on. The network architecture
overview model below was of great value in the training
process thanks to its being fully customisable, as shown
in Figure 19, which can be suitable for different domains.
Figure 20 shows the convergence of the results
derived from the model using common error evaluation
functions in regression problems such as SE and MAE.
Table 4 exhibits comparison data between error rates
with two different types of output models.
The results of the output parameter set showed the
relationship between the simulated model by simulation
and the calculation of the real model, as in Table 5, in
which, corresponding to each 3D model, the set of
output parameters was obtained.
To complete the process of installing and testing a set
of parameters on the simulation software which can
Table 4. Comparison table of 1 output and 3 outputs error rate
measures.
1 Output 3 Outputs
Error function
Time–length–
Time Length Weight weight
MSE 0.0048805 0.007486 0.0091750 0.005905971
MAE 0.0259668 0.039164 0.0608978 0.035399065
calculate the output parameters for an expert, it also
takes a unit of minutes, and in addition, it must be
tested with many different parameters, and different
numbers to achieve the desired output exactly as
required by the customer. With the model proposed in
this paper, running 443 sets of parameters in the test
set to calculate the output only took approximately 0.5
s, and the results are described as shown in Figure 21.
In addition, this process was completely automated
and handled many tasks at the same time, which has a
remarkable advantage compared to the traditional
way. The model linked discrete stages together through-
out the entire printing process. At the same time, the
obtained results also brought great economic benefits
regarding the time, volume and quality of printed
products.
5. Conclusions
We have presented a data-driven ML approach for real-
time estimation in 3D printing. The results showed
clearer rules and better stability than previous research
thanks to deep learning by MLP and CNNs. The
findings presented in this work include:
. The proposed approach provided an ML tool to
quickly calculate and optimise some decisive par-
ameters for the current 3D printing process such as
time, weight and length with fuzzy input. This
means that the proposed model does not need to
consider the shape of the object but can
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 783

Table 5. The training results for the simulation model and

reality.
Time (min) Length (mm) Weight (g)
True Predict True Predict True Predict
value value value value value value

Figure 21. Time to predict outcomes from the current study.

approximately one second. As a result, it can solve

the problems of manpower, printing efficiency and
Model 1
940 938 62,494.5 62,026 187.9 183 economics for different types of 3D printers. Calcu-
677 682 62,448.6 62,589 187.76 181 lation results from the model and simulation
522 596 62,417.2 62,126 187.66 185
419 412 62,380 62,136 187.55 182 differed, but this difference can be acceptable and
193 197 7282.2 7247 21.89 21 improved so far.
150 141 8030.4 8013 24.14 21
. Although the current study was only restricted to
statue objects, its straightforward extension to other
areas such as construction, medical, architecture
and so on is completely feasible. In addition,
the present approach can be applied to different
types of 3D printing materials well-known as
plastics, composites, concrete materials and metal
materials.
. Finally, the present study can be integrated into an
Model 2 app called HorizonTek 3D printing (HT3D) which has
103 108.75 8408.7 8465 25.28 24 been developed by our group and has been released
86 82.06 8493.2 8430 25.54 24
185 186.25 9710.7 9750 29.2 29 at https://ht3dprint.com/. This app connects clients
137 132.18 9696.4 9753 29.15 28 and suppliers of 3D printing. It allows us to unify
108 107.12 9688.9 9766 29.13 30
89 91.79 9720.6 9745 29.23 30
data and to a make real-time evaluation of 3D
printed products based on ML.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
Research is supported by Vingroup Innovation Foundation
(VINIF) in project code VINIF.2019.DA04, and the Alexander
Model 3 von Humboldt Foundation for a Digital Cooperation Fellow-
110 108.75 4791.6 4878 14.41 14 ship. The first author would like to thank European Commis-
82 82.06 4829.1 4858 14.52 14
68 66.25 5677.8 5727 17.07 16 sion H2020-MSCA-RISE BESTOFRAC project for research
56 52.18 5689.9 5693 17.11 15 funding.
126 127.12 6504.9 6496 19.56 18
92 91.79 6479.3 6487 19.48 17
Note on contributors
Phuong Dong Nguyen was born in 1987
in Nha Trang, Khanh Hoa, Vietnam. Gradu-
perform the process automatically without external ated Master of Computer Science in 2016
from Ho Chi Minh City University of Tech-
factors.
nology, Vietnam. The main research direc-
. The estimated time from receiving the 3D printed file tion is machine learning, deep learning,
as a 3D model to proposing the configurator to install optimization algorithms, processing
printer parameters was very fast and was special data types.
784 P. D. NGUYEN ET AL.
Thanh Q. Nguyen was born in 1988. He
received a master degree in Engineering
Mechanics in 2011 from the Ho Chi Minh
University of Technology, Ho Chi Minh
City, Vietnam. The main research direction
is defect recognition through the identifi-
cation and processing of random measure-
ment signals to serve the assessment of
bridge condition, dynamics and control.
Dr. Q. B. Tao has been working as a lec-
turer at the Faculty of Mechanical Engin-
eering, University of Science and
Technology, The University of Danang,
Vietnam since 2006. He received his Ph.D
in Automation from Paris-Saclay University
(France) in 2016. He has published more
than 20 articles indexed in WoS-ISI. His
research interests focus on computational
methods, mechanics of materials, fracture mechanics, advanced
materials, computational fracture & damage mechanics.
Frank Vogel is founder and General Manager of inuTech
GmbH. Mr Vogel received his Diploma in Mathematics from
University of Bayreuth (Germany) in 1993 followed by a R&D
position at ANSYS, Inc. in USA before forming his self-employ-
ment in 1995 and inuTech GmbH (together with CADFEM
International AG and Prof. Klaus Schittkowski) in 2000.
During the years of his self-employment and at inuTech he
has initiated, led, and executed R&D and software develop-
ment projects for major enterprises (i.e. ANSYS, SIEMENS,
Tadano, Fischerwerke, Voith Hydro, DANA, AIRBUS, AREVA
NP, LMS, Daimler, Bosch, Volkswagen, CADFEM, Meyer Werft,
BMW, ThyssenKrupp Stahl, Schaeffler, etc.) in areas such as
Finite Element Analysis, mathematical modelling and numeri-
cal solution of PDEs, nonlinear optimization and control and
professional software development project. inuTech currently
has 25 innovative and highly qualified employees, possessing
many years of research and development experience in the
area of mathematical and numerical modelling with partial
differential equations (PDEs), optimization, optimal control,
etc. …, serving more than 300 customers worldwide.
Prof. H. Nguyen-Xuan is the Director of
CIRTech Institute, HUTECH University,
Vietnam. He is currently an adjunct pro-
fessor at China Medical University
(Taiwan), and a visiting professor at
Sejong University (South Korea). Dr.
Nguyen-Xuan received his Ph.D. in Com-
putational Mechanics from the University
of Liège (Belgium) in 2008. His researches
focus on computational mathematics and engineering (CSE)
for advanced development of robust computational methods
with high performance computing in combination with
machine learning, material and structural modeling and 3D
printing. He has published more than 300 peer-reviewed
papers (more than 250 articles indexed in WoS-ISI). These
papers remarkable made him well-known as a Highly Cited
Researcher (rank in the top 1% by citations) in seven continu-
ous years from 2014 to 2021 in Computer Science. Dr. Nguyen-
Xuan was the winner of Georg Forster Research – Alexander
von Humboldt award (2016), Outstanding Humboldtian
Award (2019), Alexander von Humboldt Renewed Research
Stay Award (2019), the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
Digital Cooperation Fellowship (2021), excellent Vietnam
National University HCMC researchers award in six continuous
years from 2008 to 2013, and Nguyen Van Dao’s award from
association of Mechanics of Vietnam in 2011.
ORCID
H. Nguyen-Xuan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1746-8297
References
Abeykoon, Chamil, Pimpisut Sri-Amphorn, and Anura
Fernando. 2020. “Optimization of Fused Deposition
Modeling Parameters for Improved PLA and ABS 3D
Printed Structures.” International Journal of Lightweight
Materials and Manufacture 3 (3): 284–297.
Ahn, Dowon, Lynn M. Stevens, Kevin Zhou, and Zachariah A.
Page. 2020. “Rapid High-Resolution Visible Light 3D
Printing.” ACS Central Science 6 (9): 1555–1563.
Alghamdi, Saleh, S. John, N. Roy Choudhury, and N. K. Dutta.
2021. “Additive Manufacturing of Polymer Materials:
Progress, Promise and Challenges.” Polymers 13 (5): 753.
Bertana, Valentina, Giorgio De Pasquale, Sergio Ferrero,
Luciano Scaltrito, Felice Catania, Carmelo Nicosia, Simone
L. Marasso, Matteo Cocuzza, and Francesco Perrucci. 2019.
“3D Printing with the Commercial UV-Curable Standard
Blend Resin: Optimized Process Parameters Towards the
Fabrication of Tiny Functional Parts.” Polymers 11 (2): 292.
Breiman, L. 1997. “Arcing The Edge – Technical Report 486.”
Statistics Department, University of California, Berkeley.
Carlier, E., S. Marquette, C. Peerboom, L. Denis, S. Benali, J.-M.
Raquez, K. Amighi, and J. Goole. 2019. “Investigation of
the Parameters Used in Fused Deposition Modeling of
Poly(Lactic Acid) to Optimize 3D Printing Sessions.”
International Journal of Pharmaceutics 565: 367–377.
Castro, Brais Muñiz, Moe Elbadawi, Jun Jie Ong, Thomas
Pollard, Zhe Song, Simon Gaisford, Gilberto Pérez, Abdul
W. Basitb, Pedro Cabalar, and Alvaro Goyanes. 2021.
“Machine Learning Predicts 3D Printing Performance of
Over 900 Drug Delivery Systems.” Journal of Controlled
Release 337: 530–545.
Chen, Joshua V., Alexis B. C. Dang, Carlin S. Lee, and Alan B. C.
Dang. 2019. “3D Printed PLA Army-Navy Retractors When
Used as Linear Retractors Yield Clinically Acceptable
Tolerances.” 3D Printing in Medicine 5 (16): 1–9.
Cheng, J., G. Li, and X. Chen. 2019. “Research on Travel Time
Prediction Model of Freeway Based on Gradient Boosting
Decision Tree.” IEEE Access 7: 7466–7480.
Choi, Eunsik, Kunsik An, and Kyung-Tae Kang. 2022. “Deep-
Learning-Based Microfluidic Droplet Classification for
Multijet Monitoring.” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 14
(13): 15576–15586.
Climent, Francisco, Alexandre Momparler, and Pedro Carmona.
2019. “Anticipating Bank Distress in the Eurozone: An
Extreme Gradient Boosting Approach.” Journal of Business
Research 101: 885–896.
Deswal, Sandeep, Rajan Narang, and Deepak Chhabra. 2019.
“Modeling and Parametric Optimization of FDM 3D
Printing Process Using Hybrid Techniques for Enhancing
Dimensional Preciseness.” International Journal on

Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) 13: 1197–
1214.
Ding, Chuan, Xinyu (Jason) Cao, and Petter Næss. 2018.
“Applying Gradient Boosting Decision Trees to Examine
Non-Linear Effects of the Built Environment on Driving
Distance in Oslo.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice 110: 107–117.
Elkaseer, Ahmed, Stella Schneider, and Steffen G. Scholz. 2020.
“Experiment-Based Process Modeling and Optimization for
High-Quality and Resource-Efficient FFF 3D Printing.”
Applied Sciences 10 (8): 2899.
Friedman, Jerome H. 2001. “Greedy Function Approximation: A
Gradient Boosting Machine.” The Annals of Statistics 29 (5):
1189–1232.
Friedman, Jerome H. 2002. “Stochastic Gradient Boosting.”
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 38 (4): 367–378.
Goh, Guo Dong, Nur Muizzu Bin Hamzah, and Wai Yee Yeong.
2022. “Anomaly Detection in Fused Filament Fabrication
Using Machine Learning.” 3D Printing and Additive
Manufacturing. doi:10.1089/3dp.2021.0231.
Goh, Guo Dong, Swee Leong Sing, Yuan Fang Lim, Jia Li Janess
Thong, Zhen Kai Peh, Sreenivasulu Reddy Mogali, and Wai
YeeYeong. 2021. “Machine Learning for 3D Printed Multi-
Materials Tissue-Mimicking Anatomical Models.” Materials
& Design 211: 110125.
Goh, G. D., S. L. Sing, and W. Y. Yeong. 2021. “A Review on
Machine Learning in 3D Printing: Applications, Potential,
and Challenges.” Artificial Intelligence Review 54: 63–94.
Gong, Xi, Dongrui Zeng, Willem Groeneveld-Meijer, and Guha
P. Manogharan. 2022. “Additive Manufacturing: A Machine
Learning Model of Process-Structure-Property Linkages for
Machining Behavior of Ti-6Al-4V.” Materials Science in
Additive Manufacturing 1 (1): 6.
Guerra, Antonio J., Jan Lammel-Lindemann, Alex Katko, Alex
Kleinfehn, Ciro A. Rodriguez, Luiz H. Catalani, Matthew L.
Becker, Joaquim Ciurana, and David Dean. 2019.
“Optimization of Photocrosslinkable Resin Components
and 3D Printing Process Parameters.” Acta Biomaterialia
97: 154–161.
Günther, Daniel, Bastian Heymel, Johannes Franz Günther, and
Ingo Ederer. 2014. “Continuous 3D-Printing for Additive
Manufacturing.” Rapid Prototyping Journal 20 (4): 320–327.
Kamaal, M., M. Anas, H. Rastogi, N. Bhardwaj, and A. Rahaman.
2021. “Effect of FDM Process Parameters on Mechanical
Properties of 3D-Printed Carbon Fibre–PLA Composite.”
Progress in Additive Manufacturing 6: 63–69.
Kumar, Raman, Jasgurpreet Singh Chohan, Sandeep Singh,
Shubham Sharma, Yadvinder Singh, and S. Rajkumar. 2022.
“Implementation of Taguchi and Genetic Algorithm
Techniques for Prediction of Optimal Part Dimensions for
Polymeric Biocomposites in Fused Deposition Modeling.”
International Journal of Biomaterials 2022: 4541450.
Li, Jingran, Ran Jin, and Hang Z. Yu. 2018. “Integration of
Physically-Based and Data-Driven Approaches for Thermal
Field Prediction in Additive Manufacturing.” Materials &
Design 139: 473–485.
Li, Chia-Hsuan, Cheng-Hsien Wu, and Chun-Li Lin. 2020.
“Design of a Patient-Specific Mandible Reconstruction
Implant with Dental Prosthesis for Metal 3D Printing Using
Integrated Weighted Topology Optimization and Finite
Element Analysis.” Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of
Biomedical Materials 105: 103700.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 785
Liu, Weiwei, Maoshan Li, Jianbin Nie, Chuanyang Wang, Wenli
Li, and Zhanwen Xing. 2020. “Synergy of Solid Loading
and Printability of Ceramic Paste for Optimized Properties
of Alumina via Stereolithography-Based 3D Printing.”
Journal of Materials Research and Technology 9 (5): 11476–
11483.
Luis, Eric, Houwen Matthew Pan, Swee Leong Sing, Anil Kumar
Bastola, Guo Dong Goh, Guo Liang Goh, Heang Kuan Joel
Tan, Ram Bajpai, Juha Song, and Wai Yee Yeong. 2019.
“Silicone 3D Printing: Process Optimization, Product
Biocompatibility, and Reliability of Silicone Meniscus
Implants.” 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing 6 (6):
319–332.
Mahmood, Muhammad Arif, Anita Ioana Visan, Carmen
Ristoscu, and Ion N. Mihailescu. 2020. “Artificial Neural
Network Algorithms for 3D Printing.” Materials 14 (1): 163.
Maróti, P., B. Kocsis, A. Ferencz, M. Nyitrai, and D. Lőrinczy. 2020.
“Differential Thermal Analysis of the Antibacterial Effect of
PLA-Based Materials Planned for 3D Printing.” Journal of
Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry Volume 139: 367–374.
Menon, Aditya, Barnabás Póczos, Adam W. Feinberg, and
Newell R. Washburn. 2019. “Optimization of Silicone 3D
Printing with Hierarchical Machine Learning.” 3D Printing
and Additive Manufacturing 6 (4): 181–189.
Nguyen-Van, Vuong, N. K. Choudhry, B. Panda, H. Nguyen-
Xuan, and Phuong Tran. 2022. “Performance of Concrete
Beam Reinforced with 3D Printed Bioinspired Primitive
Scaffold Subjected to Three-Point Bending.” Automation in
Construction 134: 104060.
Peng, C., K. Fox, M. Qian, H. Nguyen-Xuan, and P. Tran. 2021.
“3D Printed Sandwich Beams with Bioinspired Cores:
Mechanical Performance and Modelling.” Thin-Walled
Structures 161: 107471.
Punmiya, R., and S. Choe. 2019. “Energy Theft Detection Using
Gradient Boosting Theft Detector with Feature Engineering-
Based Preprocessing.” EEE Transactions on Smart Grid 10 (2):
2326–2329.
Rao, Haidi, Xianzhang Shi, Ahoussou Kouassi Rodrigue,
Juanjuan Feng, Yingchun Xia, Mohamed Elhoseny, Xiaohui
Yuan, and Lichuan Gu. 2019. “Feature Selection Based on
Artificial Bee Colony and Gradient Boosting Decision Tree.”
Applied Soft Computing 79: 634–642.
Saed, Arvin Bagheri, Amir Hossein Behravesh, Sadegh
Hasannia, Seyyed Alireza Alavinasab Ardebili, Behnam
Akhoundi, and Majid Pourghayoumi. 2020. “Functionalized
Poly l-Lactic Acid Synthesis and Optimization of Process
Parameters for 3D Printing of Porous Scaffolds via Digital
Light Processing (DLP) Method.” Journal of Manufacturing
Processes 56 (A): 550–561.
Santander, Pavlo, Fabio A. Cruz Sanchez, Hakim Boudaoud, and
Mauricio Camargo. 2020. “Closed Loop Supply Chain
Network for Local and Distributed Plastic Recycling for 3D
Printing: A MILP-Based Optimization Approach.” Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 154: 104531.
Shen, Zhen, Xiuqin Shang, Meihua Zhao, Xisong Dong, Gang
Xiong, and Fei-Yue Wang. 2019. “A Learning-Based
Framework for Error Compensation in 3D Printing.” IEEE
Transactions on Cybernetics 49 (11): 4042–4050.
Sheridan, Robert P., Wei Min Wang, Andy Liaw, Junshui Ma, and
Eric M. Gifford. 2016. “Extreme Gradient Boosting as a Method
for Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships.” Journal of
Chemical Information and Modeling 56 (12): 2353–2360.
786 P. D. NGUYEN ET AL.
Sing, S. L., C. N. Kuo, C. T. Shih, C. C. Ho, and C. K. Chua. 2021.
“Perspectives of Using Machine Learning in Laser Powder
Bed Fusion for Metal Additive Manufacturing.” Virtual and
Physical Prototyping 16 (3): 372–386.
Singh, Gurminder, Jean-Michel Missiaen, Didier Bouvard, and
Jean-Marc Chaix. 2021. “Copper Extrusion 3D Printing
Using Metal Injection Moulding Feedstock: Analysis of
Process Parameters for Green Density and Surface
Roughness Optimization.” Additive Manufacturing 38:
101778.
Tamburrino, F., S. Barone, A. Paoli, and A. V. Razionale. 2021.
“Post-Processing Treatments to Enhance Additively
Manufactured Polymeric Parts: A Review.” Virtual and
Physical Prototyping 16 (2): 221–254.
Touzani, Samir, Jessica Granderson, and Samuel Fernandes.
2018. “Gradient Boosting Machine for Modeling the
Energy Consumption of Commercial Buildings.” Energy and
Buildings 158 (1): 1533–1543.
Vantyghem, Gieljan, Wouter De Corte, Emad Shakour, and
Oded Amir. 2020. “3D Printing of a Post-Tensioned
Concrete Girder Designed by Topology Optimization.”
Automation in Construction 112: 103084.
Verma, Deepak, Yu Dong, Mohit Sharma, and Arun Kumar
Chaudhary. 2021. “Advanced Processing of 3D Printed
Biocomposite Materials Using Artificial Intelligence.”
Materials and Manufacturing Processes 37 (5): 518–538.
Wu, M., Z. Song, and Y. B. Moon. 2019. “Detecting Cyber-
Physical Attacks in CyberManufacturing Systems with
Machine Learning Methods.” Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing 30 (3): 1111–1123.
Xu, Jinghua, Kang Wang, Hongsheng Sheng, Mingyu Gao,
Shuyou Zhang, and Jianrong Tan. 2020. “Energy Efficiency
Optimization for Ecological 3D Printing Based on Adaptive
Multi-Layer Customization.” Journal of Cleaner Production
245: 118826.
Yadav, Dinesh, Deepak Chhabra, Ramesh Kumar Garg, Akash
Ahlawat, and Ashish Phogat. 2020. “Optimization of FDM
3D Printing Process Parameters for Multi-Material Using
Artificial Neural Network.” Materials Today: Proceedings 21
(3): 1583–1591.
Yao, X., S. K. Moon, and G. Bi. 2017. “A Hybrid Machine Learning
Approach for Additive Manufacturing Design Feature
Recommendation.” Rapid Prototyping Journal 23 (6): 983–997.
Zhang, Yanru, and Ali Haghani. 2015. “A Gradient Boosting
Method to Improve Travel Time Prediction.” Transportation
Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 58 (Part B): 308–324.
Zhaohui, Xia, He Zhihao, Wang Qifu, and Wang Yingjun. 2020.
“A New Finite Element Model with Manufactured Error for
Additive Manufacturing.” CMES-Computer Modeling in in
Engineering and Sciences 124 (2): 703–720.
Zhou, Jian, Yingui Qiu, Manoj Khandelwal, Shuangli Zhu, and
Xiliang Zhang. 2021. “Developing a Hybrid Model of Jaya
Algorithm-Based Extreme Gradient Boosting Machine to
Estimate Blast-Induced Ground Vibrations.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 145: 104856.
Zhou, Zeyu, Hongyao Shen, Bing Liu, Wangzhe Du, Jiaao Jin,
and Jiahao Lin. 2022. “Residual Thermal Stress Prediction
for Continuous Tool-Paths in Wire-Arc Additive
Manufacturing: A Three-Level Data-Driven Method.” Virtual
and Physical Prototyping 17 (1): 105–124.
Zhu, Zhijie,, Daniel Wai Hou Ng, Hyun Soo Park, and Michael C.
McAlpine. 2021. “3D-printed Multifunctional Materials
Enabled by Artificial-Intelligence-Assisted Fabrication
Technologies.” Nature Reviews Materials 6: 27–47.