Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

MeltpoolINR: Predicting temperature field, melt pool geometry, and their rate of change in laser powder bed fusion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A differentiable neural network learns the melt pool temperature field and its parametric derivatives in laser powder bed fusion.

desk verdict Solid, well-validated temperature-field surrogate with a clean level-set geometry trick; the headline parametric sensitivities are unvalidated and the v-sensitivity chain rule is never stated, so serious review but expect a major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18048 v1 pith:QPFPN4PA submitted 2024-11-27 physics.app-ph physics.comp-ph

Manav Manav , Nathanael Perraudin , Yunong Lin , Mohamadreza Afrasiabi , Fernando Perez-Cruz , Markus Bambach , Laura De Lorenzis This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords laserpowderbedfusionmeltpoolimplicitneuralrepresentationFourierfeaturesSobolevtraininglevelsetsolidificationratesurrogatemodeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes MeltpoolINR, a differentiable neural network that learns the top-view temperature field of a single-track laser powder bed fusion process as a continuous function of position, time, laser power, scan speed, and preheat temperature. The aim is not only to predict temperatures but also their spatial and temporal gradients and the shape of the melt pool, and—through automatic differentiation—the rate at which the melt pool changes when process parameters change. If it works, it would give fast surrogate predictions of quantities that currently require expensive thermo-fluid simulations, and would supply the parametric sensitivities needed for gradient-based process optimization and microstructure modeling. The paper validates the field predictions against a CNN baseline and uses the level-set representation to infer solidification rate and geometric rates of change.

What carries the argument

The central object is the differentiable Fourier-feature MLP combined with the level-set representation of the melt pool. Temperature is learned in the laser-attached frame using an exponential term patterned on Rosenthal's solution, which lets a small network represent the sharp front; the zero level set of $\phi = T/T_0 - 1$ defines the boundary; and the speed function $F$ and the perturbation equation $\partial\phi/\partial P_i + F_{P_i}|\nabla\phi| = 0$ convert learned parametric derivatives into rates of change of melt pool length, width, and aspect ratio via eqs. (10)-(12).

What would settle it

Take a trained MeltpoolINR, compute the melt pool length and aspect ratio at a reference parameter set, then at small finite-difference increments of power, speed, and preheat, and compare the resulting slopes with the model's reported rate curves; a mismatch would show the parametric derivatives are not physical. Alternatively, measure melt pool length from high-speed imaging at varied parameters and compare the rates of change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MeltpoolINR treats the temperature field as an implicit neural representation: four multilayer perceptrons with Fourier feature encoding map the laser-attached coordinates ($\xi = x - x_l$), the $y$-coordinate, laser position, and process parameters to the temperature, with an exponential output factor inspired by Rosenthal's moving point-source solution that helps capture the sharp front of the melt pool. The network is trained with a Sobolev loss that fits temperature and its $x$-, $y$-, and $t$-derivatives to SPH simulation data. The melt pool boundary is the zero level set of $\phi = T/T_0 - 1$, so the speed function $F = -(\partial\phi/\partial t)/|\nabla\phi|$ gives the solidification rate, and a level-set perturbation equation gives $\partial\phi/\partial P_i$, from which rates of change of melt pool length, width, and aspect ratio with respect to laser power, scan speed, and preheat temperature are computed. The paper reports that MeltpoolINR matches high-fidelity simulation data closely, outperforms the CNN on gradients, cooling rate, and boundary geometry, and generalizes to held-out parameter combinations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the network's derivative of the temperature field with respect to laser power, scan speed, and preheat temperature is accurate, since the level-set rate predictions (eqs. (9)-(12)) inherit that accuracy; the paper does not validate these rates against finite-difference or experimental ground truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fast inference of temperature field, gradient, and cooling rate for single-track LPBF without rerunning SPH simulations; held-out parameter errors are comparable to training-case errors.
  • Accurate melt pool boundary prediction via the implicit level set, with Chamfer distances better than the CNN baseline.
  • Solidification rate inferred directly from the level-set speed function, avoiding grid-interpolation noise that appears in the simulation-based reference.
  • Parametric rate predictions for melt pool length and aspect ratio as functions of power, speed, and preheat, enabling gradient-based process optimization.
  • The same architecture can be extended to 3D fields and multi-track printing, as the authors state.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The level-set perturbation rates could be validated by finite-difference slopes from the same trained model; if they match, MeltpoolINR could replace adjoint solvers in LPBF optimization loops.
  • The Sobolev-trained derivatives may serve as weak supervision for physics-informed thermal solvers in regions where simulation data are sparse.
  • Applying the model to alloys with very different thermal diffusivity would probably require retuning the Rosenthal-inspired exponent, a check that could reveal how much of the accuracy is physics prior versus learned fit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MeltpoolINR, a fully-connected neural network surrogate for the top-view temperature field in single-track laser powder bed fusion. The model is parameterized by laser power, scanning speed, and preheat temperature, and is trained with Sobolev losses on the temperature and its spatial and temporal derivatives against SPH simulation data. The melt pool boundary is defined through the level-set function phi = T/T0 - 1, and the manuscript claims to infer the solidification rate and the rates of change of melt pool length and aspect ratio with respect to process parameters by differentiating the model. The temperature field, gradients, and cooling-rate predictions are compared with a CNN baseline on held-out SPH cases, with MeltpoolINR showing higher R2 values and lower Chamfer distances.

Significance. If the parametric derivative predictions are correct, MeltpoolINR would be a useful fast surrogate for LPBF process analysis and gradient-based optimization. The paper's strengths are its careful data generation and evaluation of the temperature field and its spatial/temporal derivatives: the Sobolev training is sensible, the comparison against a CNN baseline is informative, and the generalization to held-out parameter combinations is demonstrated. However, the headline contributions - the rates of change of melt pool geometry with respect to process parameters - are not validated against any ground truth, and there is a plausible missing chain-rule term in the scanning-speed sensitivity. The manuscript is therefore not yet ready for publication in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figs. 9-11] The rates of change of melt pool length and aspect ratio with respect to laser power, scanning speed, and preheat temperature are plotted as 'MeltpoolINR (rate)' curves, but they are never compared to finite-difference ground truth from the SPH data or to finite differences of the model's own geometry predictions. Without such a comparison, the central claim of the paper - prediction of the rate of change of melt pool geometry - is unsubstantiated. The statement in Section 5 that the model predicts these changes 'in close agreement with the simulation results' is only supported for the length and aspect ratio values, not for their derivatives.
  2. [Section 3.1 / Appendix A] The derivative of temperature with respect to scanning speed is not defined. The network represents T_net(xi, y, x_l; P, v, T_pre) with xi = x - x_l and x_l = x0 + v t. At fixed lab coordinates (x, y, t), the physical total derivative is dT/dv = partial T_net/partial v + t (partial T_net/partial x_l - partial T_net/partial xi). The paper derives the analogous identity for the time derivative in Eq. (A4) but never states or applies the v-derivative chain rule. If autodifferentiation is performed only with respect to the input v while holding x_l fixed, the rates shown in Figure 10 are not the physical rates, even if the temperature field is perfectly learned. The authors must state the total-derivative relation and confirm that it is used in the computation.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eq. (4)] The Sobolev loss supervises the temperature and its x, y, and t derivatives, but not the derivatives with respect to the process parameters P, v, and T_pre. The parametric sensitivities used in Eqs. (9)-(12) are therefore not trained against any derivative targets. A neural network can fit the temperature field well while having inaccurate or noisy parameter derivatives, particularly in regions of sharp variation. The manuscript should either add derivative supervision (e.g., finite-difference targets from the SPH data) or provide a validation of the parametric derivatives against finite differences.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eq. (8)] The 'implicit neural representation of the melt pool boundary as a level set' is not a learned representation; phi is defined analytically as T/T0 - 1, and Eqs. (6)-(9) are used only as post-processing identities for the temperature isotherm. This framing should be clarified, and the claims in the Introduction and Conclusions about implicit neural representation should be tempered accordingly. The actual contribution is the differentiable temperature model that enables these isotherm computations, not a learned level-set function.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 10] The axis label 'Rate of length change [s]' appears to be incorrect: the quantity dL/dv has units of time (e.g., microseconds), not seconds; the label should read '[us]' or '[um/(m/s)]'.
  2. [Section 3.1 / Figure 3] The functional form of the temperature network, including the exponent MLP and the parameter epsilon, is not given as an equation. The value of epsilon and the Fourier feature scales are not reported, which hampers reproducibility.
  3. [Table 1] There are typographical issues such as 'T able 1' in the text before Table 1 and the author name 'Nathanä el' in the header line.
  4. [Section 3.1] The loss weights differ between MeltpoolINR (wx=5, wy=1, wt=5) and the CNN (wx=wy=wt=0.1); the choice of different weights for the two models is not justified and may affect the comparison of their derivative accuracy.
  5. [Section 2] The method for computing the temporal derivative (partial_t T)_data from the SPH data is not described; please clarify whether finite differences or another differentiation scheme was used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: melt pool geometry and parametric rates are explicit transformations of the learned temperature field, and the surrogate is validated on held-out SPH data; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central object is a supervised surrogate for the temperature field and its spatial/temporal derivatives, trained on SPH simulation data with a 90/10 train/test split and compared against a CNN baseline on the same held-out data. This is external benchmarking, not circularity. Melt pool geometry is introduced through the explicit definition phi = T/T0 - 1 (Eq. 8), so the boundary, the speed function F (Eq. 7), and the parametric rates (Eqs. 9-12) are mathematical consequences of the learned temperature field rather than independently fitted targets. This means those derived quantities inherit the accuracy of T, but the paper states the definition openly and does not fit any parameter to the geometry or to the rates; therefore the derivation does not reduce to its own inputs. The self-citations [23, 51] supply the SPH data-generation machinery and the ray-tracing heat-source model; they do not carry the argument for the ML architecture or for the level-set inference, so they are not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work: the exponential term is motivated by the classical Rosenthal solution [13], and the level-set formalism is standard [56]. The parametric sensitivities are autodiff outputs not present in the loss function, so they are genuine extrapolations of the fitted mapping; whether they are physically correct is a validation risk, not circularity. In particular, the v-sensitivity may require the additional chain-rule term t(dT_net/dx_l - dT_net/dxi), which the paper does not state, and Figs. 9-11 show no finite-difference ground truth for the rate curves. That is a correctness concern outside the circularity definition. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external simulation data, and no prediction is equivalent by construction to a fitted parameter; the modest score reflects only non-load-bearing self-citation, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the SPH simulation data, on the chosen level-set threshold and loss weights, and on the unvalidated assumption that autodiff derivatives with respect to process parameters are accurate enough for the perturbation formulas. No new physical entities are introduced; the level-set function is a mathematical construction from temperature.

free parameters (5)
  • Sobolev loss weights (wx, wy, wt) = wx=5, wy=1, wt=5 after epoch 50 (0 before)
    Hand-chosen in Section 3.1; no sensitivity analysis. These weights control the trade-off between matching temperature and matching its gradients, directly affecting the accuracy of the derivative-derived quantities (cooling rate, level-set speed).
  • Fourier feature encoding scales = not specified
    The Fourier feature mapping is central to learning sharp melt pool features, but the frequency scales are not given in the paper, making the architecture hard to reproduce exactly.
  • Exponential smoothing parameter epsilon = not specified
    The small parameter epsilon in the Rosenthal-inspired temperature expression smooths the corner at xi=y=0; its value is not reported, though the model's sharp-front accuracy may depend on it.
  • Level-set threshold T0 = 1905.5 K = (TS+TL)/2
    Eq. (8): the melt pool boundary is defined at this fixed temperature between solidus and liquidus; the paper chooses it for simplicity, and all geometry and solidification-rate outputs depend on it.
  • Network hyperparameters (layers, neurons, learning rate) = e.g., 4x64 spatial MLP, 2x64 joint, 2x5 exponent MLP; ADAM lr=5e-4
    Architecture choices are stated but not justified by sensitivity studies; a competent re-implementation would need to re-tune them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SPH thermo-fluid simulations with the ray-tracing heat source and material properties in Table 2 accurately represent the real LPBF process.
    The network is trained purely on SPH output; any error in the simulation model is inherited. No experimental validation is provided.
  • standard math The laser-frame transformation and steady-state relation in Appendix A hold: dT/dt = v(dT/dx_l - dT/dxi), used implicitly in the network input design.
    Section 3.1 references Appendix A to justify the coordinate change; it assumes constant scanning speed and steady state.
  • standard math The isotherm of learned temperature (Eq. 8) is a valid level-set representation of the melt pool boundary, and its evolution follows Eq. (6) with speed function (7).
    This is exact for a temperature-defined level set, so it is not a physical assumption, but it makes all geometry claims a restatement of temperature-field accuracy.
  • domain assumption The first-order perturbation formula (9) and the feature-rate formulas (10)-(12) remain valid for finite parameter changes and for the specific melt pool shapes encountered here.
    These linearized relations are used to predict rates of length and aspect ratio change without validation against finite-difference ground truth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MeltpoolINR: Predicting temperature field, melt pool geometry, and their rate of change in laser powder bed fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QPFPN4PA

@misc{pith2026241118048,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MeltpoolINR: Predicting temperature field, melt pool geometry, and their rate of change in laser powder bed fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QPFPN4PA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18048}
}
read the original abstract

We present a data-driven, differentiable neural network model designed to learn the temperature field, its gradient, and the cooling rate, while implicitly representing the melt pool boundary as a level set in laser powder bed fusion. The physics-guided model combines fully connected feed-forward neural networks with Fourier feature encoding of the spatial coordinates and laser position. Notably, our differentiable model allows for the computation of temperature derivatives with respect to position, time, and process parameters using autodifferentiation. Moreover, the implicit neural representation of the melt pool boundary as a level set enables the inference of the solidification rate and the rate of change in melt pool geometry relative to process parameters. The model is trained to learn the top view of the temperature field and its spatiotemporal derivatives during a single-track laser powder bed fusion process, as a function of three process parameters, using data from high-fidelity thermo-fluid simulations. The model accuracy is evaluated and compared to a state-of-the-art convolutional neural network model, demonstrating strong generalization ability and close agreement with high-fidelity data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Attaran, M.: The rise of 3-d printing: The advantages of additive manufacturing over traditional manufacturing. Business horizons 60(5), 677–688 (2017) 21 200 0 200 Ground truth 120 W v = 0.75 m/s v = 1.25 m/s v = 1.75 m/s v = 2.25 m/s 200 0 200 MeltpoolINR 120 W 200 0 200 Ground truth 160 W 200 0 200 MeltpoolINR 160 W 200 0 200 Ground truth 200 W 200 0 2...

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    (eds.): Fundamen- tals of Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Metals

    Yadroitsev, I., Yadroitsava, I., Du Plessis, A., MacDonald, E. (eds.): Fundamen- tals of Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Metals. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Virtual and Physical Prototyping 18(1), 2274494 (2023) 22

    Afrasiabi, M., Bambach, M.: Modelling and simulation of metal additive man- ufacturing processes with particle methods: A review. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 18(1), 2274494 (2023) 22

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Applied Physics Reviews 2(4) (2015)

    King, W.E., Anderson, A.T., Ferencz, R.M., Hodge, N.E., Kamath, C., Khairal- lah, S.A., Rubenchik, A.M.: Laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing of metals; physics, computational, and materials challenges. Applied Physics Reviews 2(4) (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Materials & Design 193, 108762 (2020)

    Oliveira, J.P., LaLonde, A., Ma, J.: Processing parameters in laser powder bed fusion metal additive manufacturing. Materials & Design 193, 108762 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Additive Manufacturing 36, 101457 (2020)

    Snow, Z., Nassar, A.R., Reutzel, E.W.: Invited review article: Review of the for- mation and impact of flaws in powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing 36, 101457 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science 26(2), 100974 (2022)

    Mostafaei, A., Zhao, C., He, Y., Ghiaasiaan, S.R., Shi, B., Shao, S., Shamsaei, N., Wu, Z., Kouraytem, N., Sun, T., et al.: Defects and anomalies in powder bed fusion metal additive manufacturing. Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science 26(2), 100974 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Additive Manufacturing 47, 102336 (2021)

    Soundararajan, B., Sofia, D., Barletta, D., Poletto, M.: Review on modeling tech- niques for powder bed fusion processes based on physical principles. Additive Manufacturing 47, 102336 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Optics & Laser Technology 163, 109426 (2023)

    Jardin, R.T., Tuninetti, V., Tchuindjang, J.T., Duchˆ ene, L., Hashemi, N., Tran, H.S., Carrus, R., Mertens, A., Habraken, A.M.: Optimizing laser power of directed energy deposition process for homogeneous aisi m4 steel microstructure. Optics & Laser Technology 163, 109426 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Journal of Manufacturing Processes 103, 53–63 (2023)

    Pham, T., Hoang, T., Tran, X., Fetni, S., Duchˆ ene, L., Tran, H.S., Habraken, A.: A framework for the robust optimization under uncertainty in additive manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Processes 103, 53–63 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Additive Manufacturing 45, 102058 (2021)

    McCann, R., Obeidi, M.A., Hughes, C., McCarthy, ´E., Egan, D.S., Vijayaragha- van, R.K., Joshi, A.M., Garzon, V.A., Dowling, D.P., McNally, P.J.,et al.: In-situ sensing, process monitoring and machine control in laser powder bed fusion: A review. Additive Manufacturing 45, 102...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Additive Manufacturing 31, 100985 (2020)

    Wang, Q., Michaleris, P.P., Nassar, A.R., Irwin, J.E., Ren, Y., Stutzman, C.B.: Model-based feedforward control of laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing 31, 100985 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 68(8), 849–865 (1946)

    Rosenthal, D.: The theory of moving sources of heat and its application to metal treatments. Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 68(8), 849–865 (1946)

    1946

  6. [14]

    Additive Manufacturing 21, 284–297 (2018) 23

    Yang, Y., Knol, M., Van Keulen, F., Ayas, C.: A semi-analytical thermal mod- elling approach for selective laser melting. Additive Manufacturing 21, 284–297 (2018) 23

    2018

  7. [15]

    Annual Review of Materials Research 46, 93–123 (2016)

    Markl, M., K¨ orner, C.: Multiscale modeling of powder bed–based additive manufacturing. Annual Review of Materials Research 46, 93–123 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Journal of manufacturing science and engineering 141(4), 040801 (2019)

    Moges, T., Ameta, G., Witherell, P.: A review of model inaccuracy and param- eter uncertainty in laser powder bed fusion models and simulations. Journal of manufacturing science and engineering 141(4), 040801 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Additive Manufacturing 21, 318–332 (2018)

    Luo, Z., Zhao, Y.: A survey of finite element analysis of temperature and thermal stress fields in powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing 21, 318–332 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Additive Manufacturing 12, 108–120 (2016)

    Dunbar, A.J., Denlinger, E.R., Gouge, M.F., Michaleris, P.: Experimental valida- tion of finite element modeling for laser powder bed fusion deformation. Additive Manufacturing 12, 108–120 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Acta Materialia 124, 360–371 (2017)

    Acharya, R., Sharon, J.A., Staroselsky, A.: Prediction of microstructure in laser powder bed fusion process. Acta Materialia 124, 360–371 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 49(13), 135501 (2016)

    Yu, G., Gu, D., Dai, D., Xia, M., Ma, C., Shi, Q.: On the role of processing parameters in thermal behavior, surface morphology and accuracy during laser 3d printing of aluminum alloy. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 49(13), 135501 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Applied Sciences 11(7), 2962 (2021)

    Afrasiabi, M., L¨ uthi, C., Bambach, M., Wegener, K.: Multi-resolution sph sim- ulation of a laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process. Applied Sciences 11(7), 2962 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Computational Particle Mechanics 7(4), 655–677 (2020)

    F¨ urstenau, J.-P., Wessels, H., Weißenfels, C., Wriggers, P.: Generating virtual process maps of slm using powder-scale sph simulations. Computational Particle Mechanics 7(4), 655–677 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Computers & Mathematics with Applications 139, 7–27 (2023)

    L¨ uthi, C., Afrasiabi, M., Bambach, M.: An adaptive smoothed particle hydrody- namics (sph) scheme for efficient melt pool simulations in additive manufacturing. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 139, 7–27 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Additive Manufacturing 35, 101236 (2020)

    Zakirov, A., Belousov, S., Bogdanova, M., Korneev, B., Stepanov, A., Perepelk- ina, A., Levchenko, V., Meshkov, A., Potapkin, B.: Predictive modeling of laser and electron beam powder bed fusion additive manufacturing of metals at the mesoscale. Additive Manufacturing 35, 1012...

    2020

  17. [25]

    Nature Reviews Physics3(6), 422–440 (2021)

    Karniadakis, G.E., Kevrekidis, I.G., Lu, L., Perdikaris, P., Wang, S., Yang, L.: Physics-informed machine learning. Nature Reviews Physics3(6), 422–440 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Journal of Manufacturing Processes 73, 961–984 (2022) 24

    Wang, P., Yang, Y., Moghaddam, N.S.: Process modeling in laser powder bed fusion towards defect detection and quality control via machine learning: The state-of-the-art and research challenges. Journal of Manufacturing Processes 73, 961–984 (2022) 24

    2022

  19. [27]

    Journal of Materials Processing Technology 302, 117485 (2022)

    Mozaffar, M., Liao, S., Xie, X., Saha, S., Park, C., Cao, J., Liu, W.K., Gan, Z.: Mechanistic artificial intelligence (mechanistic-ai) for modeling, design, and control of advanced manufacturing processes: Current state and perspectives. Journal of Materials Processing Technol...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Computational Mechanics 67, 619–635 (2021)

    Zhu, Q., Liu, Z., Yan, J.: Machine learning for metal additive manufacturing: pre- dicting temperature and melt pool fluid dynamics using physics-informed neural networks. Computational Mechanics 67, 619–635 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Computational Mechanics 72(3), 499–512 (2023)

    Liao, S., Xue, T., Jeong, J., Webster, S., Ehmann, K., Cao, J.: Hybrid thermal modeling of additive manufacturing processes using physics-informed neural net- works for temperature prediction and parameter identification. Computational Mechanics 72(3), 499–512 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 410, 116019 (2023)

    Hosseini, E., Ghanbari, P.G., M¨ uller, O., Molinaro, R., Mishra, S.: Single-track thermal analysis of laser powder bed fusion process: Parametric solution through physics-informed neural networks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 410, 116019 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 392, 114652 (2022)

    Chen, F., Yang, M., Yan, W.: Data-driven prognostic model for temperature field in additive manufacturing based on the high-fidelity thermal-fluid flow simulation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 392, 114652 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 362, 112734 (2020)

    Ren, K., Chew, Y., Zhang, Y., Fuh, J., Bi, G.: Thermal field prediction for laser scanning paths in laser aided additive manufacturing by physics-based machine learning. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 362, 112734 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 34(4), 1701–1719 (2023)

    Pham, T.Q.D., Hoang, T.V., Van Tran, X., Pham, Q.T., Fetni, S., Duchˆ ene, L., Tran, H.S., Habraken, A.-M.: Fast and accurate prediction of temperature evolu- tions in additive manufacturing process using deep learning. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 34(4), 1701–1719 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Additive Manufacturing Letters 5, 100123 (2023)

    Hemmasian, A., Ogoke, F., Akbari, P., Malen, J., Beuth, J., Farimani, A.B.: Surrogate modeling of melt pool temperature field using deep learning. Additive Manufacturing Letters 5, 100123 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 34(1), 243–259 (2023)

    Sideris, I., Crivelli, F., Bambach, M.: Gpyro: uncertainty-aware temperature pre- dictions for additive manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 34(1), 243–259 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Materials & Design 135, 385–396 (2017)

    Bertoli, U.S., Guss, G., Wu, S., Matthews, M.J., Schoenung, J.M.: In-situ char- acterization of laser-powder interaction and cooling rates through high-speed imaging of powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Materials & Design 135, 385–396 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    25 ASM handbook 6, 69–114 (2011)

    Lienert, T., Siewert, T., Babu, S., Acoff, V.: Fundamentals of weld solidification. 25 ASM handbook 6, 69–114 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Scientific reports 5(1), 16446 (2015)

    Wei, H., Mazumder, J., DebRoy, T.: Evolution of solidification texture during additive manufacturing. Scientific reports 5(1), 16446 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Progress in Materials Science 92, 112–224 (2018)

    DebRoy, T., Wei, H., Zuback, J., Mukherjee, T., Elmer, J., Milewski, J., Beese, A.M., Wilson-Heid, A.d., De, A., Zhang, W.: Additive manufacturing of metallic components–process, structure and properties. Progress in Materials Science 92, 112–224 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 226(6), 980–991 (2012)

    Kruth, J.-P., Deckers, J., Yasa, E., Wauthl´ e, R.: Assessing and comparing influ- encing factors of residual stresses in selective laser melting using a novel analysis method. Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 2...

    2012

  33. [41]

    Procedia Cirp 71, 348–353 (2018)

    Li, C., Liu, Z., Fang, X., Guo, Y.: Residual stress in metal additive manufacturing. Procedia Cirp 71, 348–353 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Optics & Laser Technology 129, 106283 (2020)

    Fang, Z.-C., Wu, Z.-L., Huang, C.-G., Wu, C.-W.: Review on residual stress in selective laser melting additive manufacturing of alloy parts. Optics & Laser Technology 129, 106283 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Additive Manufacturing 28, 475–484 (2019)

    Levkulich, N., Semiatin, S., Gockel, J., Middendorf, J., DeWald, A., Klingbeil, N.: The effect of process parameters on residual stress evolution and distortion in the laser powder bed fusion of ti-6al-4v. Additive Manufacturing 28, 475–484 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    New Jersey, USA 431(446), 223–225 (2003)

    Kou, S.: Welding metallurgy. New Jersey, USA 431(446), 223–225 (2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A 45, 2142–2151 (2014)

    Blecher, J., Palmer, T., DebRoy, T.: Solidification map of a nickel-base alloy. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A 45, 2142–2151 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Communications of the ACM 65(1), 99–106 (2021)

    Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P.P., Tancik, M., Barron, J.T., Ramamoorthi, R., Ng, R.: Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM 65(1), 99–106 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 7537–7547 (2020)

    Tancik, M., Srinivasan, P., Mildenhall, B., Fridovich-Keil, S., Raghavan, N., Sing- hal, U., Ramamoorthi, R., Barron, J., Ng, R.: Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains. Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 7537...

    2020

  40. [48]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    Czarnecki, W.M., Osindero, S., Jaderberg, M., Swirszcz, G., Pascanu, R.: Sobolev training for neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Monthly notices of the royal astronomical society 181(3), 375–389 (1977) 26

    Gingold, R.A., Monaghan, J.J.: Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: theory and application to non-spherical stars. Monthly notices of the royal astronomical society 181(3), 375–389 (1977) 26

    1977

  42. [50]

    The astronomical journal 82, 1013–1024 (1977)

    Lucy, L.B.: A numerical approach to the testing of the fission hypothesis. The astronomical journal 82, 1013–1024 (1977)

    1977

  43. [51]

    International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 214, 124378 (2023)

    Lin, Y., L¨ uthi, C., Afrasiabi, M., Bambach, M.: Enhanced heat source modeling in particle-based laser manufacturing simulations with ray tracing. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 214, 124378 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Metals 11(6) (2021)

    Cummins, S., Cleary, P.W., Delaney, G., Phua, A., Sinnott, M., Gunasegaram, D., Davies, C.: A coupled dem/sph computational model to simulate microstructure evolution in ti-6al-4v laser powder bed fusion processes. Metals 11(6) (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Advances in Computational Mathematics 4(1), 389–396 (1995)

    Wendland, H.: Piecewise polynomial, positive definite and compactly supported radial functions of minimal degree. Advances in Computational Mathematics 4(1), 389–396 (1995)

    1995

  46. [54]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Garbin, S.J., Kowalski, M., Johnson, M., Shotton, J., Valentin, J.: Fastnerf: High-fidelity neural rendering at 200fps. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 14346–14355 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1–16 (2023)

    Ogoke, F., Lee, W., Kao, N.-Y., Myers, A., Beuth, J., Malen, J., Barati Farimani, A.: Convolutional neural networks for melt depth prediction and visualization in laser powder bed fusion. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1–16 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Sethian, J.A., et al.: Level Set Methods and Fast Marching Methods vol. 98. Cambridge UP: Cambridge, Cambridge (1999) 27

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.