MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388873689 · doi:10.1115/detc2023-114997

Layer-to-Layer Thermal History Prediction for Thin Walls in Metal Additive Manufacturing

2023· article· en· W4388873689 on OpenAlexaff
Yifan Tang, Shahriar Bakrani Balani, Akshay Dhalpe, Mostafa Rahmani Dehaghani, Suraj Panicker, Éric Coatanéa, Di Wu, G. Gary Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLayer (electronics)ThermalComputer scienceDwell timeSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)ResidualMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringSimulationComposite materialEngineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Thermal history has a great effect on the part properties in metal additive manufacturing such as tensile strength and hardness. To study and control the thermal behavior of the AM processes, various data-driven thermal history modeling methods have been developed and tested on simulation data. However, their in-situ application scenarios are rarely explored and discussed. This paper aims to provide a layer-to-layer thermal history prediction model, which enables predicting the thermal history of a yet-to-print layer based on the data measured from the printed lower layers. First, the thermal behavior is analyzed to reveal the similarities in temperature curves of two successive layers. Then four input variables are identified, including the deposition rate, the relative height of the layer, the printing time, and the dwell time of one layer. Based on the selected input variables and the temperature output, a fully connected neural network with residual connection is designed to simplify the training process. Five numerical simulations are designed to collect temperature curves (curve segments of a temperature profile) on each layer, and one experimental study on wire arc additive manufacturing is completed to record the temperature curves. Based on the collected data, three cases are proposed to test the modeling framework, such as (a) dividing all simulation data into the training set and validation set, (b) training the model based on four simulation runs and its validation with the last simulation, and (c) training the model with all simulation data and testing on the experimental data. The former two cases show great prediction accuracies with a relative error of less than 5% in most cases, which indicates its potential in online prediction when trained with data from the same input conditions or same systems. While the applicability of the model trained only with simulation data should be explored further in real experiments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207