MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403602523 · doi:10.3390/ma17205127

Application of Linear Mixed-Effects Model, Principal Component Analysis, and Clustering to Direct Energy Deposition Fabricated Parts Using FEM Simulation Data

2024· article· en· W4403602523 on OpenAlexafffund
Syamak Pazireh, Seyedeh Elnaz Mirazimzadeh, Jill Urbanic

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersMitacs
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisCluster analysisFinite element methodDeposition (geology)Materials scienceComputer scienceBiological systemStructural engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of toolpath patterns, geometry types, and layering effects on the mechanical properties of parts manufactured by direct energy deposition (DED) additive manufacturing using data analysis and machine learning methods. A total of twelve case studies were conducted, involving four distinct geometries, each paired with three different toolpath patterns based on finite element method (FEM) simulations. These simulations focused on residual stresses, strains, and maximum principal stresses at various nodes. A comprehensive analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model, principal component analysis (PCA), and self-organizing map (SOM) clustering. The LME model quantified the contributions of geometry, toolpath, and layer number to mechanical properties, while PCA identified key variables with high variance. SOM clustering was used to classify the data, revealing patterns related to stress and strain distributions across different geometries and toolpaths. In conclusion, LME, PCA, and SOM offer valuable insights into the final mechanical properties of DED-fabricated parts.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.279
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207