Two-dimensional temperature field prediction with in-situ data in metal additive manufacturing using physics-informed neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurately predicting the temperature field in metal additive manufacturing (AM) processes is critical for preventing overheating, adjusting process parameters, and ensuring process stability. While physics-based computational models offer precision, they are often time-consuming and unsuitable for real-time predictions. Machine learning models, on the other hand, rely heavily on high-quality datasets, which can be costly and difficult to obtain in the metal AM domain. Existing studies on physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have made progress in integrating physics with machine learning but often lack in-situ data integration, which is essential for capturing real-time thermal dynamics. Additionally, their methodologies are typically heavily dependent on specific process characteristics, limiting their flexibility. Our work addresses these gaps by introducing a PINN-based framework specifically designed for temperature field prediction in metal AM. The framework incorporates in-situ temperature data gathered during the manufacturing process, combining it with physics-informed inputs and a custom loss function. The approach is demonstrated through two case studies. In the first case, using a small set of experimental data, the model achieves an error below 3 % with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 11 °C. In the second case, using simulation data, the model achieves an error below 1 % with an MAE of 7 °C. In addition, the framework shows promising adaptability for different metal AM scenarios with different geometries, deposition patterns, and 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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".