Materials & Design. Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.

159-166, 1996
0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. Al l rights reserved
0261-3069/96 $15.00 + 0.00
PII: SO261-3066(96100060-7
Experimental design and analysis of in-plane
processing accuracy for SSM process
Wanlong Wang,, Wei Feng,b Yongnian Yan,b and Jerry Y.H. Fuh,
aDepattment of Mechanical and Production Engineering, National University
of Singapore, IO Kent Ridge Crescent, 119260 Singapore
bDepattment of Mechanical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084,
P.R. China
Received 20 August 1996; accepted 24 August 1996
Processing accuracy is an important area studied in rapid prototyping (RP) research. It is mainly
dependent on the processing parameters, material characteristics and many other factors.
Studies on processing accuracy can be divided into two categories: in-plane processing accuracy
and vertical processing accuracy (that determines the staircase on the surfaces of prototypes).
This work focuses on the in-plane processing accuracy. Similar to laminated object
manufacturing (LOM) process, slicing solid manufacturing (SSM) uses paper and CO2 laser as
material and energy source, respectively. This paper introduces an integrated method that
combines orthogonal experimental design and analysis, and neural network analysis to
determine the optimal processing conditions. The key processing parameters and their degree
of influences on the processing accuracy, and the quantitative relations between input
parameters and output accuracy will be investigated. This method of experimental design and
analysis is not only effective for the SSM process, but also applicable to other RP processes that
use the principle of 3D layered manufacture. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Keywords: rapid prototyping; slicing solid manufacturing (SSM); processing accuracy;
orthogonal experimental design; back propagation network
Introduction
As more and more global competition arises, manufactur-
ing industries are facing new challenges of bringing
concept design to manufacture very quickly. This puts
demands on enterprises not only to produce high quality
products with low cost, but also to be content with a short
lead time into market. Rapid prototyping techniques are
new born manufacturing technologies, that will bring
revolutionary changes in new products development. But
the present status of part accuracy cannot meet the industry
requirements. Many approaches have been taken to
improve the techniques, such as looking for new processes,
enhancing the existing processes and studying the relations
between processing accuracy and processing parameters.
Owing to the nature of layer-by-layer fabrication, the
studies on processing accuracy can be divided into two
categories: in-plane processing accuracy and vertical
processing accuracy (that determines the staircase on the
surface of prototypes). Rapid prototyping (RP) processes
produce the parts layer-by-layer on a certain plane, e.g. on
the X-Y plane. The in-plane accuracy, that contributes to
the overall accuracy is, thereby, an important area studied.
Whether in-plane or vertical accuracy, a good experimental
design and analysis can save time and cost, and also
produce valuable information on improving the process. In
the RP processes, there are many factors affecting their
*Correspondence to W. Wang.
accuracy. For example, in the SLA process, laser spot size
(diameter), laser power, scanning speed, slicing pitch, resin,
recoating, etc. will all affect the final part accuracy.
The sliding solid manufacturing (SSM) process (as
shown in Figure I) is developed by the Centre for the Laser
Rapid Prototyping in the Tsinghua University, China. The
process uses paper and COZ laser as materials and energy
source, respectively. In this process, there are many factors
affecting the processing accuracy. In such a case, the design
of the experiments for studying accuracy will be very
important.
Generally speaking, a good design scheme should
possess the following characteristics:
1. requires a lower cost, shorter time and higher reliability;
2. can produce more relevant information;
3. the results of experiment are easily to be interpreted.
In this paper, the method of orthogonal experimental
design will be used to study the relations between the
processing parameters and the resulting part accuracy.
Overview of present status on accuracy research
Although many researches are devoted to the experimental
design and analysis for studying the RP accuracy, Jacobs is
the first one to systematically investigate the processing
accuracy in terms of distortion and warpage in the SLA
process. Bugeda et ~2. have studied distortion in the SLA
Materials & Design Volume 17 Number 3 1996 159
Processing accuracy for SSM process: Wanlong Wang et
(a) Cross-sectionalProfile
elevator
/:/li: 3#,
n
(b) Layered manufacturing
Figure 1 The SSM process
curing process by means of the finite element method.
Wiedemann et CZL.~ studied the factors causing processing
inaccuracy due to part distortion in the SLA process. Lee et
a1.4 investigated the layer position accuracy in powder-
based rapid prototyping, analyzed the main parameters
affecting position accuracy and suggested appropriate
selection of materials and techniques to achieve higher
packing density for accuracy improvement. Lu et al.
examined the depth and width of the laser curing lines for
the stereolithography (SL) process, and relationships
between the result and process parameters: the laser power,
scan pitch and scanning pattern. Chen et aL6 studied the
parameters affecting the Z-height inaccuracy of the SL
process. All the above-mentioned researches are mainly
devoted to the resulting accuracy or experimental studies,
the relations between the processing parameters and
processing accuracy being not much investigated. In our
work, the emphasis is placed on studying the factors that
determine part accuracy through a systematic approach.
Experimental design
Experimental objectives
The objective7 of the processing accuracy experiments is to
systematically study the main factors affecting processing
accuracy in the SSM process, so as to realise the following
three aspects through a good experimental design and
analysis:
1. to identify the relationships between in-plane processing
accuracy and processing parameters;
2.
3.
al.
to study the overall processing accuracy of pro-
totypes;
to study the mechanical properties, glue quality and
carbonisation rate.
According to experimental observation and analysis, the
factors affecting processing accuracy are: laser spot
diameter, laser power and focus distance, laser cutting
speed, paper and its thickness, adhesive material, tempera-
ture, pressure, and rolling speed. For a certain situation, this
can be further simplified. For example, when the equipment
decided upon, the laser spot size and focus distance are also
decided. If the paper and adhesive material are known, the
other five will be the only influencing factors. Those factors
are the laser power, laser cutting speed, temperature,
pressure and rolling speed. Assuming processing accuracy
has a correlation with the above-mentioned five parameters,
the following function exists:
d = f(W, v, T, f, u)
where
(1)
d is the laser cutting width,
W is the laser power,
Y is the laser cutting speed,
T is the temperature,
P is the pressure, and
u is the rolling speed.
Measurement of the laser cutting width
A rectangular profile (Figure 2) is used to measure the laser
cutting width. After cutting, the distances between the inner
and the outer borders will be determined using the
following relation:
d = (u - b)/2
(2)
where a is the outer distance and b is the inner distance.
Orthogonal experimental design
Orthogonal experimental designsV9 method, also known as
the Latin square method, is widely used in the engineering
fields. It is mainly applied in determining the key
influencing factors. It has many standard tables that can
be used to decide experimental conditions and arrange
experimental schemes.
The advantages of the orthogonal tables are that they can
be used to decide the optimal experimental conditions, and
thus reduce the number of iterations required in extensive
experiments. Besides, this method also enables further
Figure 2 Measurement of the laser cutting width
160 Materials & Design Volume 17 Number 3 1996
analysis on each factor and obtaining more useful
information from the experimental results.
Orthogonal table and orthogonal experiment
Orthogonal table is a kind of table which is constructed
according to certain laws based on the combinatorial
theory. It has found wide applications in experimental
design. An experiment that employs orthogonal tables to
arrange experimental schemes and conducts result analysis
is called an orthogonal experiment. It is more appropriate to
apply this to experiments involving multi-factor, multi-
target (i.e. results examined in an experiment), interactions
between multi-factors (i.e. correlation among factors), and
experiments with random errors. Through orthogonal
experiment, the influences of the factors and their
interactions on the experimental results can be analyzed,
the sequence of the key factors can be ranked, and the
optimal process conditions can be determined. In an
orthogonal experiment, each factor considered must be
controllable. The value of each factor is called the level of
that factor.
The symbol of the orthogonal table is L,(b): where L is
orthogonal table; the subscript a is the row number
representing the number of experiments; c is the column
number representing the maximum number of factors
arranged in the experiment; b is the number of the different
values, meaning the number of values for each factor. For
example, in table L&27) (shown in Table I), 8 means that
there are 8 rows, i.e. the number of experiments is 8; 7
means that there are 7 columns, and the maximum number
of experimental factors (including the interactional col-
umns) is 7; 2 means that each factor has only two levels.
This type of orthogonal table is also called a two-level
orthogonal table.
According to the former analysis on the main factors
affecting processing accuracy, there are five key parameters
used in the orthogonal experiment design. Considering the
experimental quantities and conditions, four levels are used
in the orthogonal table. In such a case, table L16(45) (shown
in Table 2) is obtained. This table does not take into
account the interactions among the factors. The head
designs of the orthogonal table, L16(45), are shown in
Table 3.
Interactional columns in orthogonal tables
If factors are not independent in the experiments, the
interactional effect must be considered. Once any two
columns are determined, the interaction between the two
columns can be represented by other columns. This column
is called the interactional column. There is one interactional
column in a two-level orthogonal table, but two in a three-
level one. For example, in the interactional table of table
Table 1 The orthogonal table of Ls(2)
Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
4 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
5 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
6 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
7 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
8 2 2 1 2 1 1 2
able 2 The orthogonal table of &(4)
Factors
l(A) 2(B) 3(C) 4(D) 503
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2 2 2
3 1 3 3 3 3
4 1 4 4 4 4
5 2 1 2 3 4
6 2 2 1 4 3
I 2 3 3 1 2
8 2 4 4 2 1
9 3 1 3 4 2
10 3 2 4 3 1
11 3 3 1 2 4
12 3 4 2 1 3
13 4 1 4 2 3
14 4 2 3 1 4
15 4 3 2 4 1
16 4 4 1 3 2
Table 3 The header design for 5 factors, 4 levels not considering
interactions 46(45)
Column number 1 2 3 4 5
Factors A B C D E
Note: A denotes the laser power, B is the cutting speed, C is the
temperahue, D is the pressure, and E is the rolling speed.
Table 4 The interactional table for Z&2)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Column number
(1) 3 2 5 4 7 6
(2) 1 6 7 4 5 :
(3) 7 6 5 4 3
(4) 1 2 3 4
(5) 3 2 5
(6) 1 6
(7) 7
&(27) (shown in Table 4), the interactional column of
column 1 and column 2 is column 3, the interactional
column of column 3 and column 5 is column 6, etc.
In this paper, for comparison, another orthogonal table,
L16(215), (shown in Table 5), considering interactions
between two factors, is adopted. Its interactional table
can be obtained (shown in Table 6). The head design of the
orthogonal table, Li6(215), is shown in Table 7. Thus, two
types of orthogonal tables - one considering and the other
not considering the interactions - are used in this work.
The orthogonality of the orthogonal tables
The orthogonal tables possess the following orthogo-
nality:
l In any column, all iterative numbers for each level are
equal. For example, in table Ls(27), each level of any
column repeats itself four times.
l In any two of the columns, the number of pairs
composed at one level embody all possible number
pairs (under that level), and the iterative numbers for
each number matched are equal. For example, in table
Z&34), the number of pairs composed of any two of
the columns embody all possible number pairs under
three levels: (1, 11, (1,2), (1,3), (2, 0, C&2), C&3), (3,
l), (3, 2), (3, 3), and all iterative numbers equal 1.
Processing accuracy for SSM process: Wanlong Wang et al.
Materials & Design Volume 17 Number 3 1996 161
Processing accuracy for SSM process: Wanlong Wang et al.
Table 5 The orthogonal table of L16(215)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
5 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
6 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
I 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
8 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
9 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
10 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
11 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
12 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
13 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
14 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2
15 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2
16 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
Table 6 The interactional table for L1~(2~)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 (1)
:2,
2 5 4 7 6 9 8 11 10 13 12 15 14
2 :3) 6 I 4 5 10 11 8 9 14 15 12 13
3 7 6 5 4 11 10 9 8 15 14 13 12
4 (4) :5) 2 3 12 13 14 15 8 9 10 11
5 :6) 2 13 12 15 14 9 8 11 10
6
f7)
14 15 12 13 10 11 8 9
I ta: 14 13 12 11 10 9 8
8 :9, 2 3 4 5 6 I
9 :w 2 5 4 I 6
10 fw 6 I 4 5
11
12
712) 6 5 4
:13) 2 3
13
:14)
2
14 1
Table 7 The header design for 5 factors, 2 levels while considering interactions &(215)
Column Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A B AB c AC BC DE D AD BD CE CD BE Al? E
Note: A denotes the laser power, B is the cutting speed, C is the temperature, D is the pressure, and E is the rolling speed. AxC is simplified as AC.
Because of this orthogonality, the orthogonal experiment
can be arranged in equilibrium and uniformity.
Steps and methods of experimental scheme
The steps of arranging an orthogonal experiment are as
follows:
Determine the number of varying factors and levels of
each factor.
Preliminarily analyze the interactions of the factors,
and determine the one that must be considered by
experience.
Determine the approximate number of experiments
according to the experimental conditions, such as
manpower, equipment, time and cost.
Choose appropriate orthogonal tables and arrange
experimental schemes.
The methods of arranging an orthogonal experiment are as
follows:
162 Materials & Design Volume 17 Number 3 1996
In the case of non-consideration of the interactions,
arrange each factor into any column of the orthogonal
table. Then the experimental conditions (level adopted
for each factor) of each experiment (corresponding to
the row of the orthogonal table) are determined by the
levels of each of the factors arranged. For example, in
the in-plane processing accuracy experiment, five
factors and four levels are adopted to arrange the
experiment. The experimental target is the cutting
width of the laser. Table 8 gives this arrangement.
In the case of consideration of the interactions, the
factors cannot be randomly arranged. They must be
arranged using the corresponding table title design.
Note that different factors (including interactions)
cannot be placed in the same column. This is because,
it is difficult to analyze the actions of different factors
in the same column. If this requirement is not met,
then a large table should be adopted. For example, in
the m-plane processing accuracy experiment, five factors
and two levels are adopted to arrange the experiment. The
Processing accuracy for SSM process: Wanlong Wang et al.
Table 8 Factors and four levels while not considering interaction
Laser power Cutting speed Temperature Pressure Rolling speed
25 W 40 mm/s 120C -0.2 40 mm/s
27 w 48 mm/s 130C -0.1 49 mm/s
30 w 60 mm/s 140C 0.1 63 mm/s
32.5 W 80 mm/s 150C 0.2 88 mm/s
Table 9 Factors and two levels while considering interaction
Laser power Cutting speed Temperature Pressure Rolling speed
1 25 w 48 mm/s 120C -0.1 49 mm/s
2 30 w 80 mm/s 140C 0.1 88 mm/s
experimental target, here also, is the cutting width of
the laser. Table 9 gives this arrangement.
Analysis of the orthogonal tables
Calculation of the lever! sum and mean of the level i
For example, using table L16(45), the analysis is shown in
Table 10. In Table 10, the variables are calculated as
follows:MV = the sum of y values of level i in column j;
mu = r Mu (the average value of i levels in j column :
n
n is the experimental number, r is the level number);
(3)
(the divergence square sum of each column);
(4)
(the maximum difference of each column); (5)
Table 10 The calculation of orthogonal table
1 (4 2 @I 3 (C) 4 (D) 5 (E)
Result (y)
1 Al Bl Cl Dl El
Yl
2 Al B2 c2 D2 E2
Y2
3 Al B3 c3 D3 E3
Y3
4 Al B4 c4 D4 E4
Y4
5 A2 Bl c2 D3 E4
Y5
6 A2 B2 Cl D4 E3
Y6
I A2 B3 c4 Dl E2
Y7
8 A2 B4 c3 D2 El
YS
9 A3 Bl c3 D4 E2
Y9
10 A3 B2 c4 D3 El
YlO
11 A3 B3 Cl D2 E4
Yl l
12 A3 B4 c2 Dl E3
Yl2
13 A4 Bl c4 D2 E3
Y13
14 A4 B2 c3 Dl E4
Y14
15 A4 B3 c2 D4 El Yl5
16 A4 B4 Cl D3 E2
Y1b
Mlj MII M12 Ml3 M14 M15
4
M21 M22 M23 M24 M25
M3j M31 M32 M33 M34 M35
M4j M41 M42 M43 M44 M45
mlj ml1 ml2 ml3 ml4 ml5
mzj m21 m22 m23 m24 m25
m3j m31 m32 m33 m34 m35
m4j m41 m42 m43 m44 m45
Ri Rl R2 R1 R4 R5
si s4 s5
cq = mu - 7 = i [rMg - T]
(the effect of leveliin column j);
(6)
Ranking of key factors
According to the maximum difference of each column, the
important ranking of the key factors can be determined.
The bigger the difference is, the more important the factor
will be.
The optimal process conditions
In the case of non-consideration of the interactions, find the
best point for each factor on the experimental target,
combine all corresponding experimental conditions and
form the optimal process conditions. This can also be
achieved by choosing a highest or lowest point on the curve
figured out from the analysis results.
In the case of consideration of the interactions, if the
analysis results show that the interaction of two of the
factors has a big influence on the experimental target,
compare all the experimental results of all possible
combinations of the two factors (if there are several
experimental results, the mean value should be used), and
choose the best one. Finally, consider the other factors
synthetically and determine the optimal process conditions.
Experimental results and analysis
The following are the experimental results and analysis for
a certain kind of paper with one adhesive material.
Five factors, two levels experimental results and analysis
considering interactions
The values of laser cutting width measured in the
experiments are as follows:
y1 = 0.244, y2 = 0.205, y3 = 0.205, y4 = 0.192,
y5 = 0.123, y6 = 0.093, yl = 0.096, y8 = 0.127,
y9 = 0.170, ylo = 0.019, yll = 0.202, y12 = 0.203,
~13 = 0.087, ~14 = 0.085, ~15 = 0.113, y16 = 0.098.
Hence,
7 = eyi/ 16 = 0.152
i=l
where yi is the value measured, and y is the mean value.
Following the orthogonal analysis method, Table 11 can
be obtained. Obviously, the divergence square sum of each
Materials & Design Volume 17 Number 3 1996 163
Table 11 Calculation results of five factors and two levels while
considering interaction
Factors MI
M2
ml m2 Ri
s,
A 1.283 1.153 0.160 0.144 0.130 0.0011
B 1.614 0.822 0.202 0.103 0.792 0.0392
AB 1.227 1.209 0.153 0.151 0.018 0.0000
C 1.175 1.236 0.147 0.155 0.061 0.0002
AC 1.279 1.157 0.160 0.145 0.122 0.0009
BC 1.246 1.190 0.156 0.149 0.056 00002
DE 1.241 1.189 0.156 0.149 0.058 0.0002
D 1.238 1.198 0.155 0.150 0.040 0.0001
AD 1.247 1.189 0.156 0.149 0.058 0.0002
BD 1.222 1.214 0.153 0.152 0.008 0.0000
CE 1.265 1.171 0.158 0.146 0.094 0.0006
CD 1.242 1.194 0.155 0.149 0.048 0.0001
BE 1.279 1.157 0.160 0.145 0.122 0.0009
AE 1.194 1.242 0.149 0.155 0.018 0.0001
E 1.205 1.231 0.151 0.154 0.026 o.oooo
factor is ranked as:
SB > SA > SAxC = SBxE > SCxE
That means that B, A, AxC, BxE, CxE are the key
factors. In other words, the laser cutting speed, laser power,
interactions between laser power and temperature, cutting
speed and rolling speed, temperature, and rolling speed are
the key factors affecting cutting width. Especially, the
divergence square sum of laser cutting speed is 36 times
larger than that of the laser power (see Table 11). Hence,
the cutting speed is the most significant factor.
The optimal experimental conditions can be determined
from Table 11. For B, A, AxC, BxE and CxE, the cutting
widths are narrower in the high level than that in the low
level. But for C and D, the cases are reverse. Taking into
account that the interactions of AxC, B xE and C xE are
larger than that of C and D, the following conditions are the
optimal experimental conditions:
Bz A2 (A x C>, (B x E)2 (C x El,
It could be simplified as:
B2 A2 C2 E2
Because of the little influence of the factor D, a lower
conditions is chosen; the final optimal experimental
conditions are:
A2 B2 C2 Dl E2
The mean value under the optimal experimental conditions
is:
p=y+&p- y + a2 + bz + cz + ez = 0.098
kcj
This means that if the optimal experimental conditions
are used, the laser cutting width will be 0.098 mm. It is
great to get such an accuracy. In such a case, the optimal
experimental conditions are: the laser power 30 W, the
cutting speed 80 mm/s, the temperature 14OC, the thermal
pressure -0.1 mm (compression distance in the z direc-
tion), and the rolling speed 88 mm/s.
Five factors, four levels experimental results and analysis
not considering interactions
The values of laser cutting width measured in the
experiments are as follows:
164 Materials & Design Volume 17 Number 3 1996
Processing accuracy for SSM process: Wanlong Wang et al.
yl = 0.230, y2 = 0.163, y3 = 0.138, y4 = 0.087,
y5 = 0.273, y6 = 0.223, y7 = 0.142, ys = 0.108,
Yg = 0.293, ylo = 0.222, yll = 0.190, y12 = 0.098,
~13 = 0.232, y14 = 0.263, yls = 0.130, y16 = 0.152.
Thus,
3 = gyi / 16 = 0.184
i=l
where yi is the value measured, and F is the mean value.The
values of Mii, mu, R and S are shown in Table 12.
Obviously, the ranking of S can be obtained from the
above table is
s2 > Sl > s3 > s5 > s4
that is, the sequence of the important factors is B, A, C, E,
D. This result is consistent with the case considering the
interaction effect.
From Table 12, the values of cutting width of Ai, Bq. C2,
Dz and El are the smallest under four levels. So, the
optimal processing conditions are A1B4CZDZE1, i.e. the
laser power 25 W, the cutting speed 80 mm/s, the
temperature 13oC, the thermal pressure 0.1 mm (compres-
sion distance in the z direction), and the rolling speed 40
mm/S.
By comparing the two kinds of analysis results, it is
found that the sequences of important factors are the same.
This means that the interaction effects should be taken into
account. The results of considering interaction effects are to
be used in the following calculation. The results of the
orthogonal experimental analysis show that the possibility
of process improvements is quite high.
Principle and analysis of the back-propagation
neural network
Artificial neural network (ANN) is a kind of non-linear
system that is composed of a large number of processing
neurons. It possesses abilities of learning, memory,
calculation and other intelligent processing functions, and
can also simulate the information processing, storing and
indexing abilities of a human brain at different degrees and
levels. It is widely used in information processing, pattern
recognition and function approximation.
At present, there are three kinds of methods in the ANN
studies. The fust is a network composed using physical
models, which includes Hopfield network based on non-
possibility neurons and Boltzmann machine (BM) model
based on possibility neurons. The second is developed from
Table 12 Calculation results of five factors and four levels without
considering interaction
Factors
Ml
M2
M3
M4
ml
A B C D E
m2
m3
0.618 1.208 0.795 0.733 0.690
0.746 0.871 0.664 0.693 0.750
0.803 0.600 0.802 0.785 0.691
0.777 0.445 0.683 0.733 0.813
0.1545 0.2570 0.1988 0.1833 0.1725
0.1865 0.2178 0.1660 0.1733 0.1875
0.2008 0.1508 0.2005 0.1963 0.1728
0.1943 0.1113 0.1708 0.1833 0.2033
0.185 0.588 0.138 0.092 0.123
0.00505 0.05167 0.00396 0.00107 0.00257
Processing accuracy for SSM process: Wanlong Wang et al.
the theory of auto-adaptive signal processing, and is best
known as forward multi-layer neural network and back
propagation algorithm (abbreviated as BP). The third is
composed using self-organisation methods, which includes
auto-adaptive resonance theory (ART) and self-organisa-
tion feature mirror network. From the system integrity point
of view, the first and second are better than the third, but for
simulating human recognition procedure and intelligent
processing, the third one is better than the remaining two.
From the maturity and application point of view, the second
one is better than the remaining two. In this work, the
second method, which is the BP network, is adopted.
Basic algorithm of BP network
The learning algorithm of a BP network is divided into
two stages. In the first stage (forward propagation), the data
is inputted, then the hidden layers process these data and
calculate the actual values of the outputs. If the outputs of
the final layer are not the expected ones, the second stage
(back propagation) calculates the differences (errors)
between the actual outputs and expected outputs for each
layer, then adjust the weight coefficients until the outputs
are satisfactory.
For a general case, assume that the network has L layers,
an N-dimension input vector, and an M-dimension output
vector, given P learning samples (+, yp),p = 1, 2, . . . , P.
The S function is adopted to demonstrate the characteris-
tics of the neurons. While the pth sample is the input, there
is:
ne& =
c
w! of-
I P
Ojp = f(ietjp)
Ep = i C(Yip - jjp)
I
(7)
(8)
(9)
where ~jp denotes the actual output of neuronj, and the total
error is:
E=&kEp
p=l
(10)
Define Sip = 3, then
IP
aEP _
aEp anetjp _ aEp
%----
-.
&etjp d W,:
o!- = 6 d-1
&etjp lp
ip @
(11)
(1) If the neuron j is the output unit, then
Of = jp
(y! _ aEP *P
.-
Jp &. &zetjp
(12)
=
-(rp - jpP) fYne$pL (: 1: 1 M-l (13)
> > . . . 7
(2) If the neuron j is the hidden layer neuron, then
where qp is theapput for the next layer (1+1). If it is
desirable to get &-, it is calculated back from the (1+1)
layer. Generally sp&king,
i
=
(16)
In the above equations, k is used to substitute for j so as to
avoid confusion.
In short, the BP network algorithm is summarised as
follows:
(1) Choose the initial values of weights. These could be
generated by random or by given.
(2) Repeat the following procedures until the results are
convergent.
a. From p = 1 to P
l For every neuron of each layer, calculate ($-and
ne$p,jp,l = 2,3, . . . ,L.
(the forward propagation procedure);
l For every neuron of each layer, calculate 6jp,
1 = L- 1, . . . ,2
(the back propagation procedure).
b. adjust weights by
wji = Wji - Pq
Input Data
Input Layer
Hidden Layer
One or Multi-layer
output Layer
Output Data
Figure 3 Figure 3
Materials & Design Volume 17 Number 3 1996 Materials & Design Volume 17 Number 3 1996 166 165
Processing accuracy for SSM process: Wanlong Wang et al.
Table 13 The weight coefficients of the BP network, Wi,
-0.362 -0.109
-0.589 -0.561
0.261 -0.343
0.166 0.207
0.016 -0.569
-0.203 -0.386
-0.361 0.511
-0.472 -0.286
-0.261 0.110
-0.115 0.556
0.265 -0.354
0.418 -0.452
-0.050 -0.645
0.026 -0.819
0.908 0.685
0.179 -0.643
0.320 0.349
0.449 -0.182
-0.582 0.122
-1.692 -0.670
-0.474 0.473 0.018
0.409 -0.454 -0.073
0.437 0.428 -0.054
-0.242 0.065 -0.423
0.266 0.176 0.079
-0.417 0.295 -0.115
0.115 -0.220 0.860
0.414 -0.438 -0.400
-0.137 0.091 0.651
0.468 -0.273 0.567
-0.039 -0.291 -0.761
0.375 -0.298 -1.260
-0.157 -0.123 -0.359
0.610 -0.126 -0.817
-0.292 -0.045 -0.211
0.135 0.648 0.549
0.090 -0.644 -0.129
0.252 0.398 -0.647
0.582 0.508 0.225
-0.727 -0.911 0.136
0.056
0.062
-0.039
-0.224
-0.429
-0.242
-0.176
0.013
0.316
-0.486
-0.342
0.259
0.073
0.810
-0.05 1
-0.008
-0.043
0.099
-0.069
dE 1
c
paEp
l?Wji = iF p=l aWji
l Synthesis of two analytical methods to determine the
sequence of key parameters affecting the accuracy and
build qualitative and quantitative relationships be-
tween the accuracy and process parameters.
The orthogonal experimental design is an effective
experimental design method, which could provide more
experimental information with limited number of experi-
ments. The analysis gives the ranking of the key factors, the
optimal processing conditions and the mean value. But it
cannot build quantitative relationships between the proces-
sing accuracy and processing parameters.
The advantage of the BP neural network is that it can
build the quantitative relationships within a complex
system. In the SSM process, it can build the quantitative
relationships between the processing accuracy and proces-
sing parameters. The two methods can be complementary
to each other. The integration of these two is, thereby, used
for this study.
This method has been proved useful in the design and
analysis of the in-plane processing accuracy for the SSM
process. It is also applicable to other RP processes for
experimental design and analysis.
where p is the adjusting coefficient in the above equation.
References
The BP network model for analysis of in-plane processing
accuracy
For the in-plane processing accuracy experiment, the input
vector has five elements: laser power, laser cutting speed,
temperature, thermal pressure and rolling speed. The output
vector has just one element, that is the cutting width.
Following the former equations, a program has been written
to solve this problem. As shown in Figure 3, the control
variables and results are: 5 input variables; 1 output
variable; 16 learning samples; the learning step n = 0.3; the
weight adjusting coefficient CY = 0.2; the total error is
0.0001; the maximum individual error is 0.00005; the
maximum repeating number is 3000; three hidden layers;
and the number of each layer are 5, 8 and 4.
The result shows that when the cycle number reaches
223 1, the algorithm is convergent. The weight coefficients
of the BP networks are shown in Table 13. There are a total
of 119 weight coefficients. It is noted that in each hidden
layer, one constant input is added so as to increase the
convergent speed.
Conclusions
A new integrated method for studying processing accuracy
has been presented. This method has the combined
advantages of the orthogonal experiment design and
artificial neural network, and possesses the following
characteristics:
l Minimum number of experiments (i.e. the lowest cost
and shortest time spent) to obtain the necessary
information for the experimental analysis.
l Limited experimental data to determine the optimal
process conditions and provide the theoretical and
experimental bases for process improvement.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Jacobs, P. E, Rapid Prototyping and Manufactaring: Fundamentals of
Stereolithography. 1st ed., Society of Manufacturing Engineers,
Dearborn, MI, 1992.
Bugeda, G., Cervera, M. et al., Numerical analysis of stereolitho-
graphy processes using the finite element method. Rapid Pmtptyping
Journal, 1995, Vol. 1, Iss. 2, pp 13-23, MCB University Press,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Wiedemamr, B., Dusel, K.-H. and Es&l, .I., Investigation into the
influence of material and process on part distortion. Rapid Pmtptyp-
ing Journal, 1995, Vol. 1, Iss. 3, pp 17-22, MCB University Press,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Lee, S. J. J., Sachs, E. and Cima, M., Layer position accuracy in
powder-based rapid prototyping. Rapid Pmtptyping Journal, 1995,
Vol. 1, Iss. 4, pp 24-37, MCB University Press, University of
Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Lu, J., Fuh, J. Y. H., Choo, Y. S., Nee, A. Y. C. and Lee, K. C.,
Material characterization of photo-fabrication process. Materials and
Manufacturing Processes, 1995, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp 653-666.
Chen, C. C. and Sullivan, P. A., Solving the mystery - the problem of
Z-height inaccuracy of the stereolithography parts. Proc. of the 6th
International Conference on Rapid Pmtotyping, eds Chartoff, R. P.
and Lightman, A. J., Dayton, OH, 1995, pp 153-170 .
Wang, W. L., Studies on unified manufacturing theory and slicing
solid manufacturing technology (in Chinese). PhD dissertation,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing,
P. R. China, 1995.
Ma, F. S. and He, L. C., Applied mathematics statistics (in Chinese).
Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics Press, Beijing, P.
R. China, 1986.
Edited by Compilation Team of Mathmatical Handbook. Mathmatical
/u&boo&in Chinese). High Education Press, Beijing, P. R. China,
1979.
Yang, X. J. and Zheng, J. L., Artjcial neural network (in Chinese).
1st ed., High Education Press, Beijing, P. R. China, 1992.
Yan, P. H. and Huang, D. X., Artificial neural network - models,
analysis and application (in Chinese). Anhui Education Press, Anlmi,
P. R. China, 1993.
166 Materials & Design Volume 17 Number 3 1996