MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6979274389

Accurate Inverse Process Optimization Framework in Laser Directed Energy Deposition

2024· article· en· W6979274389 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsProcess (computing)Process optimizationInverseOptimization problemDeposition (geology)Bayesian optimizationEnergy (signal processing)Inverse problemIdentification (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In additive manufacturing (AM), particularly for laser-based metal AM, process optimization is crucial to the quality of products and the efficiency of production. The identification of optimal process parameters out of a vast parameter space, however, is a daunting task. Despite advances in simulations, the process optimization for specific materials and geometries is developed through a time-consuming trial-and-error approach, which often lacks the versatility to address multiple optimization objectives. Machine learning (ML) provides a powerful tool to accelerate the optimization process, but most current studies focus on simple single-track prints, which hardly translate to manufacturing 3D components for engineering applications. In this study, we develop an Accurate Inverse process optimization framework in laser Directed Energy Deposition (AIDED), based on machine learning models and a genetic algorithm, to aid process optimization in laser DED processes. Using the AIDED, we demonstrate the following: (i) Accurately predict single-track (R2 score 0.995), multi-track (R2 score 0.969), and multi-layer (1.07% and 10.75% error in width and height, respectively) cross-sectional melt pool geometries directly from process parameters; (ii) Determine appropriate hatch spacing and layer thickness for fabricating fully dense (density > 99.9%) multi-track and multi-layer prints; (iii) Inversely identify optimal process parameters directly from customizable application objectives within 1-3 hours. We also validate the effectiveness of the AIDED experimentally by achieving two exemplary targets: fast print speed and fine print resolution. Furthermore, we show the high transferability of the framework from stainless steel to pure nickel. With AIDED, we pave a new way for ''aiding'' the process optimization in the laser-based AM processes that is applicable to a wide range of materials.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207