ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Machine Learning-Enabled Layer-Wise Melting Quality Recognition for Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process via In Situ Monitoring.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) has emerged as a core metal additive manufacturing technology for high-end sectors, including aerospace and medical device manufacturing. However, melting anomalies that occur during fabrication accumulate layer by layer, leading to degraded surface quality and impaired mechanical performance of as-built components-a critical bottleneck limiting their large-scale industrial adoption. Accurate and robust layer-wise melting quality recognition remains a challenge due to the complex surface morphologies induced by such melting anomalies. This study presents a machine learning-enabled in situ monitoring approach for layer-wise melting quality identification in L-PBF. By systematically varying laser power and scanning speed, 24 parameter combinations were designed to fabricate specimens with three distinct melting states: over-melting (OM), lack of fusion (LOF), and normal melting. A high-resolution complementary meta-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) camera was used to capture layer-wise surface images of the specimens, and following abnormal layer filtering and manual validation, a high-quality dataset comprising 5110 layer-wise images was constructed. Two mainstream machine learning approaches were systematically evaluated and optimized for melting quality classification: a support vector machine (SVM) model leveraging handcrafted gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) texture features achieved a classification accuracy of 96.77%, while a convolutional neural network (CNN) model with end-to-end feature learning directly from raw images attained a superior accuracy of 98.14%. In terms of computational efficiency, the CNN model exhibited a faster inference speed with a per-layer inference time of just 0.036 s, nearly half that of the SVM model (0.068 s per layer). Most critically, the CNN model completely eliminated fatal cross-class misclassification between OM and LOF-an error mode common in the SVM model that would trigger erroneous process corrective actions in practical industrial applications. The findings demonstrate that image-based machine learning provides a reliable technical foundation for intelligent in situ monitoring of the L-PBF process. With its high accuracy, strong robustness, and superior computational efficiency, the CNN model can effectively support on-site operational decision-making, reduce material and time losses, and enhance process stability in industrial settings, thus exhibiting significant potential for practical engineering deployment.
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.