Tailoring Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process Parameters for Standard and Off-Size Ti6Al4V Metal Powders: A Machine Learning Approach Enhanced by Photodiode-Based Melt Pool Monitoring
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An integral part of laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) quality control is identifying optimal process parameters tailored to each application, often achieved through time-consuming and costly experiments. Melt pool dynamics further complicate LPBF quality control due to their influence on product quality. Using machine learning and melt pool monitoring data collected with photodiode sensors, the goal of this research was to efficiently customize LPBF process parameters. A novel aspect of this study is the application of standard and off-size powder feedstocks. Ti6Al4V (Ti64) powder was used in three size ranges of 15–53 µm, 15–106 µm, and 45–106 µm to print the samples. This facilitated the development of a process parameters tailoring system capable of handling variations in powder size ranges. Ultimately, per each part, the associated set of light intensity statistical signatures along with the powder size range and the parts’ density, surface roughness, and hardness were used as inputs for three regressors of Feed-Forward Neural Network (FFN), Random Forest (RF), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost). The laser power, laser velocity, hatch distance, and energy density of the parts were predicted by the regressors. According to the results obtained on unseen samples, RF demonstrated the best performance in the prediction of process parameters.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it