Layer-to-Layer Melt Pool Control in Laser Powder Bed Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM) processes are flexible and efficient technologies for producing complex geometries. However, ensuring reliability and repeatability is challenging due to the complex physics and various sources of uncertainty in the process. In this work, we investigate closed-loop control of the melt pool dimensions in a 2-D laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process. We propose a trajectory optimization-based layer-to-layer (L2L) controller based on a linear parameter-varying (LPV) model that adjusts the laser power input to the next layer to track a desired melt pool depth and validate our controller by placing it in closed-loop high-fidelity multilayer smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulator of the 2-D LPBF process. Detailed numerical case studies demonstrate successful regulation of the melt pool depth on brick and overhang geometries and provide first of its kind results on the effectiveness of L2L input optimization for the LPBF process as well as detailed insight into the physics of the controlled process. Computational complexity and process performance results illustrate the method’s effectiveness and provide an outlook for its implementation onto real systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".