Development of predictive models for effective process parameter selection for single and overlapping laser clad bead geometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this work is to explore predictive model approaches for selecting laser cladding process settings for a desired bead geometry/overlap strategy. Complementing the modelling challenges is the development of a framework and methodologies to minimize data collection while maximizing the goodness of fit for the predictive models. This is essential for developing a foundation for metallic additive manufacturing process planning solutions. Design/methodology/approach Using the coaxial powder flow laser cladding method, 420 steel cladding powder is deposited on low carbon structural steel plates. A design of experiments (DOE) approach is taken using the response surface methodology (RSM) to establish the experimental configuration. The five process parameters such as laser power, travel speed, etc. are varied to explore their impact on the bead geometry. A total of three replicate experiments are performed and the collected data are assessed using a variety of methods to determine the process trends and the best modelling approaches. Findings There exist unpredictable, non-linear relationships between the process parameters and the bead geometry. The best fit for a predictive model is achieved with the artificial neural network (ANN) approach. Using the RSM, the experimental set is reduced by an order of magnitude; however, a model with R2 = 0.96 is generated with ANN. The predictive model goodness of fit for a single bead is similar to that for the overlapping bead geometry using ANN. Originality/value Developing a bead shape to process parameters model is challenging due to the non-linear coupling between the process parameters and the bead geometry and the number of parameters to be considered. The experimental design and modelling approaches presented in this work illustrate how designed experiments can minimize the data collection and produce a robust predictive model. The output of this work will provide a solid foundation for process planning operations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".