MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404316322 · doi:10.1115/detc2024-142944

Low-Cost Melt Pool Temperature Prediction Using Visible Light Camera and Machine Learning in Laser Hot-Wire Directed Energy Deposition

2024· article· en· W4404316322 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa Rahmani Dehaghani, Pouyan Sajadi, Yifan Tang, G. Gary Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeposition (geology)Materials scienceLaserTemperature measurementEnergy (signal processing)Computer scienceEnergy exchangeOptoelectronicsOpticsPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Laser wire directed energy deposition (DED-LB/w) offers notable efficiency in metal additive manufacturing (AM), allowing rapid component fabrication with high material utilization. Despite its advantages, challenges such as anisotropy and uneven mechanical properties arise from unregulated heat application, highlighting the need for precise temperature control during deposition. This study evaluates the use of visible light images to predict melt pool temperature, leveraging Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN). While CNN is trained directly on images, GPR and ANN utilize extracted features such as melt pool dimensions. The CNN model notably excels, achieving an R-squared value of 0.981, root mean square error of 44.46, and mean absolute percentage error of 2.74%, demonstrating the superior capability of visible light imaging in accurately predicting the melt pool temperature. This success illustrates the considerable potential of integrating predictive models with visible light imaging as a cost-effective alternative to traditional sensory systems. Such integration not only offers a pragmatic solution to the high costs and complexities associated with thermal imaging but also opens new avenues for combining other measurement techniques such as pyrometers to further enhance the prediction accuracy for AM process control. Future efforts will concentrate on implementing these models in real-time metal printing, aiming to enhance microstructure control and advance process automation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207