Machine learning evaluation demonstrates accurate dimensional error prediction in ceramic extrusion printing, highlighting thermal and extrusion controls for precision manufacturing.
Ceramic 3D printing direct ink writing/robocasting has the promise of transformative capability to produce complex geometries in future structural, biomedical and energy applications; nevertheless, dimensional precision is a key challenge to industry implementation. Process-induced dimensional errors are a result of the nonlinear interaction between thermal gradients, rheological behaviour and material-specific shrinkage interactions which conventional empirical models do not sufficiently capture. This paper presents CAFE-Net (Ceramic-Aware Feature-Enhanced Network), a deep learning-based architecture that combines multi-head self-attention, material-conditioned gating, residual dense blocks with squeeze-and-excitation attention, and multi-scale feature fusion to estimate dimensional error in ceramic extrusion-based additive manufacturing. Experimental 3D printing datasets from Clay, Stoneware and Porcelain materials were assembled, and ten main process parameters were transformed into nine physics-inspired interaction features. CAFE-Net was compared with fourteen models including Ridge Regression, Lasso, ElasticNet, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost, a standard four-layer MLP, and a tabular ResNet. Under a rigorous 10-fold cross-validation protocol, CAFE-Net achieved the highest and most consistent relative predictive performance among all sixteen models compared, despite the inherently high noise-to-signal ratio of the dataset limiting the absolute accuracy attainable by any model tested. Ablation studies validated the contribution of each architectural component, while 10-fold cross-validation demonstrated strong generalisation. SHapley Additive exPlanations analysis identified Thermal Gradient, Nozzle Temperature, and Extrusion Rate as the most influential features.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: