MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410881233 · doi:10.1016/j.jajp.2025.100319

Data-driven parameter optimization for bead geometry in wire arc additive manufacturing of 17-4 PH stainless steel

2025· article· en· W4410881233 on OpenAlexafffund
Muhammad Irfan, Yun-Fei Fu, Shalini Singh, Sajid Ullah Butt, Abul Fazal M. Arif, Osezua Ibhadode, Ahmed Jawad Qureshi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Joining Processes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBeadArc (geometry)Materials scienceGeometryMechanical engineeringComposite materialEngineering drawingMetallurgyEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to its high strength, corrosion resistance, and toughness, 17-4 Precipitation Hardening (PH) stainless steel is widely used in aerospace, petrochemical, and marine industries. Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies enable the fabrication of complex and/or customized components while offering superior material efficiency and shorter lead times. Because of its high deposition rate, Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) can produce large metal structures. However, consistent bead profiles remain challenging because the process is highly sensitive to variations in thermal input and deposition conditions. Achieving uniform bead geometry during additive manufacturing is essential to avoid defects such as humming, spattering, and distortion, which can compromise the structural integrity of 3D components. To achieve a uniform bead profile in WAAM, in this study, a full-factorial design of experiments is implemented to optimize the process parameters such as Wire Feed Rate (WFR), Torch Travel Speed (TTS), and Gas Flow Rate (GFR) for 17-4PH stainless steel. A backpropagation neural network (BPNN) is trained to model a non-linear relationship between these process parameters and bead geometry. Moreover, a genetic algorithm (GA) optimizes for bead uniformity and deposition efficiency. With a Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) of 0.85, the optimized parameters exhibited significantly improved uniformity and higher deposition efficiency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced Joining ProcessesSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207