Unsupervised learning of part similarity for goal-guided accelerated experiment design in metal additive manufacturing
1 Cognitive Robotics and AI Lab, College of Aeronautics and Engineering, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44240, USA
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70503, USA
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401, USA
4 Alliance for the Development of Additive Processing Technologies, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401, USA
Abstract

Metal additive manufacturing (AM) is gaining broad interest and increasing use in the industrial and academic fields. However, the quantification and commercialization of standard parts usually require extensive experiments and expensive post-characterization, which impedes the rapid development and adaptation of metal AM technologies. In this work, a similarity-based acceleration (S-acceleration) method for design of experiments is developed using K-means clustering and Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) unsupervised learning algorithms to reduce the time and costs associated with unveiling process-property (porosity defects) relationships during manufacturing. With S-acceleration, part semantic features from machine-setting parameters and physics-effects informed characteristics are explored for measuring mutual part similarities. A user-defined simplification rate of experiments is proposed to purposely remove redundant parts before conducting experiments printing without sacrificing information gain as original full factorial experiment design. This S-acceleration design of experiments is demonstrated on a Concept Laser M2 Dual-laser Cusing machine for the experimental plan of modeling relationships between process parameters and part porosity defects. The printed part has 2 mm diameter × 4 mm tall pin geometry considering variations in build location and orientation, laser settings and powder feedstock are held constant. In total, 242 parts are measured to create a “ground truth” data set of porosity levels by using X-ray tomography microscopy. The S-acceleration method is assessed for performance considering 40%, 50%, and 60% of user-defined experiment simplification rates. The repeated experiments are removed without ignoring the minority experiments outlier, assuring a similar process-property relation in the original experiment plan. The experiment number is significantly reduced based on part similarity with minimal compromise of model accuracy and obtained knowledge.

Keywords

Metal additive manufacturing, laser powder bed fusion, machine learning, simplification

Preview
References
  • [1]Stephen M, Liang H, David Z. Additive manufacturing: A framework for implementation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 149:194-20
  • [2]Campbell I, Diegel O, Kowen J, Wohlers T. Wohlers report 2018: 3D printing and additive manufacturing state of the industry: annual worldwide progress report. Wohlers Associates 2018.
  • [3]Kerwien S, Collings S, Liou F, Bytnar M. Measurement science roadmap for metal-based additive manufacturing. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, Report 2013. https://www. nist. gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/isd/NISTAdd_Mfg_Report_FINAL-2. pdf.
  • [4]Shao S, Khonsari MM, Guo S, Meng WJ, Li N. Overview: additive manufacturing enabled accelerated design of Ni-based alloys for improved fatigue life. AM 2019, 29:100779.
  • [5]Liu R, Liu S, Zhang X. A physics-informed machine learning model for porosity analysis in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 2021, 113(7):1943-1958.
  • [6]Thijs L, Verhaeghe F, Craeghs T, Van Humbeeck J, Kruth JP. A study of the microstructural evolution during selective laser melting of Ti–6Al–4V. Acta Mater. 2010, 58(9): 3303-3312.
  • [7]Gong H, Rafi K, Gu H, Ram GJ, Starr T, Stucker B. Influence of defects on mechanical properties of Ti–6Al–4 V components produced by selective laser melting and electron beam melting. Mater. Des. 2015, 86:545-554.
  • [8]Tolochko NK, Mozzharov SE, Yadroitsev IA, Laoui T, Froyen L, et al. Balling processes during selective laser treatment of powders. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2004.
  • [9]Frazier WE. Metal additive manufacturing: a review. JMEP 2014, 23(6):1917-1928.
  • [10]Bi G, Sun CN, Gasser A. Study on influential factors for process monitoring and control in laser aided additive manufacturing. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2013, 213(3):463-468.
  • [11]Scime L, Beuth J. Using machine learning to identify in-situ melt pool signatures indicative of flaw formation in a laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process. AM 2019, 25:151-165.
  • [12]Liu S, Stebner AP, Kappes BB, Zhang X. Machine learning for knowledge transfer across multiple metals additive manufacturing printers. AM 2021, 39:101877.
  • [13]Chlebus E, Kuźnicka B, Kurzynowski T, Dybała B. Microstructure and mechanical behaviour of Ti―6Al―7Nb alloy produced by selective laser melting. Mater. Charact. 2011, 62(5):488-495.
  • [14]Baufeld B, Van der Biest O, Gault R. Additive manufacturing of Ti–6Al–4V components by shaped metal deposition: microstructure and mechanical properties. Mater. Des.2010, 31:S106-S111.
  • [15]Harun WSW, Kamariah MSIN, Muhamad N, Ghani SAC, Ahmad F, et al. A review of powder additive manufacturing processes for metallic biomaterials. Powder Technol. 2018, 327:128-151.
  • [16]Sun Y, Hao M. Statistical analysis and optimization of process parameters in Ti6Al4V laser cladding using Nd: YAG laser. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2012, 50(7):985-995.
  • [17]Criales LE, Arısoy YM, Lane B, Moylan S, Donmez A, et al. Predictive modeling and optimization of multi-track processing for laser powder bed fusion of nickel alloy 625. AM 2017, 13:14-36.
  • [18]Bartolomeu F, Faria S, Carvalho O, Pinto E, Alves N, et al. Predictive models for physical and mechanical properties of Ti6Al4V produced by Selective Laser Melting. Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 2016, 663:181-192.
  • [19]DebRoy T, Mukherjee T, Wei HL, Elmer JW, Milewski JO. Metallurgy, mechanistic models and machine learning in metal printing. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2020, 1-21.
  • [20]Wang C, Tan XP, Tor SB, Lim CS. Machine learning in additive manufacturing: State-of-the-art and perspectives. AM 2020, 101538.
  • [21]Johnson NS, Vulimiri PS, To AC, Zhang X, Brice CA, et al. Invited review: Machine learning for materials developments in metals additive manufacturing. AM 2020, 101641.
  • [22]Aoyagi K, Wang H, Sudo H, Chiba A. Simple method to construct process maps for additive manufacturing using a support vector machine. AM 2019, 27:353-362.
  • [23]Qi X, Chen G, Li Y, Cheng X, Li C. Applying neural-network-based machine learning to additive manufacturing: current applications, challenges, and future perspectives. Engr. 2019, 5(4):721-729.
  • [24]Tapia G, Khairallah S, Matthews M, King WE, Elwany A. Gaussian process-based surrogate modeling framework for process planning in laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing of 316L stainless steel. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 2018, 94(9):3591-3603.
  • [25]Tapia G, Elwany AH, Sang H. Prediction of porosity in metal-based additive manufacturing using spatial Gaussian process models. AM 2016, 12:282-290.
  • [26]Aboutaleb AM, Bian L, Elwany A, Shamsaei N, Thompson SM, et al. Accelerated process optimization for laser-based additive manufacturing by leveraging similar prior studies. IISE Trans 2017, 49(1):31-44.
  • [27]Ituarte IF, Coatanea E, Salmi M, Tuomi J, Partanen J. Additive manufacturing in production: a study case applying technical requirements. Phys. Procedia 2015, 78:357-366.
  • [28]Lanzotti A, Martorelli M, Staiano G. Understanding process parameter effects of reprap open-source three-dimensional printers through a design of experiments approach. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2015, 137(1).
  • [29]Griffiths CA, Howarth J, De Almeida-Rowbotham G, Rees A, Kerton R. A design of experiments approach for the optimisation of energy and waste during the production of parts manufactured by 3D printing. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139:74-85.
  • [30]Braconnier DJ, Jensen RE, Peterson AM. Processing parameter correlations in material extrusion additive manufacturing. AM 2020, 31:100924.
  • [31]Manjunath A, Anandakrishnan V, Ramachandra S, Parthiban K. Experimental investigations on the effect of pre-positioned wire electron beam additive manufacturing process parameters on the layer geometry of titanium 6Al4V. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 21:766-772.
  • [32]Hanley KJ, O'Sullivan C, Oliveira JC, Cronin K, Byrne EP. Application of Taguchi methods to DEM calibration of bonded agglomerates. Powder Technol. 2011, 210(3):230-240.
  • [33]Woolf PJ. CHEG. Openmichigan 2009.
  • [34]Davis R, John P. Application of Taguchi-based design of experiments for industrial chemical processes. Statistical Approaches with Emphasis on Design of Experiments Applied to Chemical Processes 2018, 137:137-155.
  • [35]Chakrabarti D, Funiak S, Chang J, Macskassy S. Joint inference of multiple label types in large networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR 2014, pp. 874-882.
  • [36]Araque O, Zhu G, Iglesias CA. A semantic similarity-based perspective of affect lexicons for sentiment analysis. KBS 2019, 165:346-359.
  • [37]Bishop CM. Pattern recognition and machine learning. 3rd ed. Microsoft Research Ltd, Cambridge: Springer, 2006, pp. 179-224.
  • [38]Murphy KP. Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective. 4rd ed. California: MIT press 2012, pp. 159-210.
  • [39]Facchini L, Magalini E, Robotti P, Molinari A, Höges S, et al. Ductility of a Ti‐6Al‐4V alloy produced by selective laser melting of prealloyed powders. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2010.
  • [40]Song B, Dong S, Zhang B, Liao H, Coddet C. Effects of processing parameters on microstructure and mechanical property of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V. Mater. Des. 2012, 35:120-125.
  • [41]Gong H, Rafi K, Gu H, Starr T, Stucker B. Analysis of defect generation in Ti–6Al–4V parts made using powder bed fusion additive manufacturing processes. AM 2014, 1:87-98.
  • [42]Hayes BJ, Martin BW, Welk B, Kuhr SJ, Ales TK, et al. Predicting tensile properties of Ti-6Al-4V produced via directed energy deposition. Acta Mater. 2017, 133:120-133.
  • [43]Xu W, Lui EW, Pateras A, Qian M, Brandt MJAM. In situ tailoring microstructure in additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V for superior mechanical performance. Acta Mater. 2017, 125:390-400.
  • [44]Tapas K, David MM, Nathan SN, Christine DP, Ruth S, et al. An efficient k-means clustering algorithm: Analysis and implementation. IEEE TPAMI 2002, 24(7):881-892.
  • [45]Guang SW, Khe CS. An investigation of tied-mixture GMM based triphone state clustering. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE 2012, pp. 4717-4720.
  • [46]Khairallah SA, Anderson AT, Rubenchik A, King WE. Laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing: Physics of complex melt flow and formation mechanisms of pores, spatter, and denudation zones. Acta Mater. 2016, 108:36-45.
  • [47]Teng C, Pal D, Gong H, Zeng K, Briggs K, et al. A review of defect modeling in laser material processing. AM 2017, 14:137-147.
  • [48]Bandyopadhyay A, Espana F, Balla VK, Bose S, Ohgami Y, et al. Influence of porosity on mechanical properties and in vivo response of Ti6Al4V implants. Acta Mater. 2010, 6(4):1640-1648.
  • [49]Liu C, Kong Z, Babu S, Joslin C, Ferguson J. An integrated manifold learning approach for high-dimensional data feature extractions and its applications to online process monitoring of additive manufacturing. IISE Trans 2021, 53(11):1215-1230.
  • [50]Montazeri M, Nassar AR, Dunbar AJ, Rao P. In-process monitoring of porosity in additive manufacturing using optical emission spectroscopy. IISE Trans 2020, 52(5):500-515.
  • [51]Khanzadeh M, Chowdhury S, Tschopp MA, Doude HR, Marufuzzaman M, et al. In-situ monitoring of melt pool images for porosity prediction in directed energy deposition processes. IISE Trans 2019, 51(5):437-455.
  • [52]Liu J, Liu C, Bai Y, Rao P, Williams CB, et al. Layer-wise spatial modeling of porosity in additive manufacturing. IISE Trans 2019, 51(2):109-123.
  • [53]Yan H, Grasso M, Paynabar K, Colosimo BM. Real-time detection of clustered events in video-imaging data with applications to additive manufacturing. IISE Trans 2021, 1-28.
  • [54]Gorgannejad S, Martin AA, Nicolino JW, Strantza M, Guss GM, et al. Localized keyhole pore prediction during laser powder bed fusion via multimodal process monitoring and X-ray radiography. AM 2023, 78:103810.
  • [55]Liu S, Brice C and Zhang X. Hierarchical bead materials multi-property design for wire-feed laser additive manufacturing. J. Manuf. Process. 2022, 80: 546-557.
  • [56]Jamnikar ND, Liu S, Brice C. and Zhang X. In situ microstructure property prediction by modeling molten pool-quality relations for wire-feed laser additive manufacturing. J. Manuf. Process. 2022, 79:803-814.
  • [57]Liu S, Brice C and Zhang X. Interrelated process-geometry-microstructure relationships for wire-feed laser additive manufacturing. Mater. Today Commun. 2022, 31:103794.
  • [58]Jamnikar ND, Liu S, Brice C and Zhang X. In-process comprehensive prediction of bead geometry for laser wire-feed DED system using molten pool sensing data and multi-modality CNN. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 2022, 121(1): 903-917.