Enhancing Friction Stir Welding in Fishing Boat Construction through Deep Learning-Based Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, the authors have attempted to present a novel approach for the prediction, analysis, and optimization of the Friction Stir Welding (FSW) process based on the Deep Neural Network (DNN) model. To obtain the DNN structure with high accuracy, the most focus has been on the number of hidden layers and the activation functions. The DNN was developed by a small database containing results of tensile and hardness tests of welded 7075-T6 aluminum alloy. This material and the production method were selected based on the application in the construction of fishing boat flooring, because on the one hand, it faces the corrosion caused by proximity to sea water and on the other hand, due to direct contact with human food, i.e., fish etc., antibacterial issues should be considered. All the major parameters of the FSW process, including axial force, rotational speed, and traverse speed as well as tool diameter and tool hardness, were considered to investigate their correspondence effects on the tensile strength and hardness of welded zone. The most important achievement of this research showed that by using SAE for pre-training of neural networks, higher accuracy can be obtained in predicting responses. Finally, the optimal values for various welding parameters were reported as rotational speed: 1600 rpm, traverse speed: 65 mm/min, axial force: 8 KN, shoulder and pin diameters: 15.5 and 5.75 mm, and tool hardness: 50 HRC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".