ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Study on the Application of Machine Learning of Melt Pool Geometries in Silicon Steel Fabricated by Powder Bed Fusion.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editor's Choice Articles in the Manufacturing Processes and Systems Section: Emerging Directions in Advanced Manufacturing.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, regression-based machine learning models were developed to predict the melt pool width and depth formed during the Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) process for Fe-3.4Si and Fe-6Si alloys. Based on experimentally obtained melt pool width and depth data, a total of 11 regression models were trained and evaluated, and hyperparameters were optimized via Bayesian optimization. Key process parameters were identified through data preprocessing and feature engineering, and SHAP analysis confirmed that the input energy had the strongest influence on both melt pool width and depth. The comparison of prediction performance revealed that the support vector regressor with a linear kernel (SVR_lin) exhibited the best performance for predicting melt pool width, while the multilayer perceptron (MLP) model achieved the best results for predicting melt pool depth. Based on these trained models, a power-velocity (P-V) process map was constructed, incorporating boundary conditions such as the overlap ratio and the melt pool morphology. The optimal input energy range was derived as 0.45 to 0.60 J/mm, ensuring stable melt pool formation. Specimens manufactured under the derived conditions were analyzed using 3D X-ray CT, revealing porosity levels ranging from 0.29% to 2.89%. In particular, the lowest porosity was observed under conduction mode conditions when the melt pool depth was approximately 1.0 to 1.5 times the layer thickness. Conversely, porosity tended to increase in the transition mode and lack of fusion regions, consistent with the model predictions. Therefore, this study demonstrated that a machine learning-based regression model can reliably predict melt pool characteristics in the LPBF process of Fe-Si alloys, contributing to the development of process maps and optimization strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.