Optimizing casting process using a combination of small data machine learning and phase-field simulations
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract It has been a challenge to employ machine learning (ML) to optimize casting processes due to the scarcity of data and difficulty in feature expansion. Here, we introduce a nearest neighbor search method to optimize the stratified random sampling in Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) and propose a new revised LHS coupled with Bayesian optimization (RLHS-BO). Using this method, we optimized the squeeze-casting process for mine fuel tank partition castings for the first time with an ultra-small dataset of 25 samples. Compared to traditional methods such as random sampling, interval sampling, orthogonal design (OD), and central composite design (CCD), our approach covers the process parameter space more, reduces the data volume by approximately 50%, and achieves process optimization beyond five factors-five levels with fewer data. Through RLHS and 6 iterations of experiments, the optimal process was identified, and the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of partition casting under the optimal process reached 239.7 MPa, with an elongation (EL) of 12.2%, showing increases of 17.6% and 18.4% over the optimal values in the initial dataset. Finally, a combination of Shapley additive interpretation (SHAP) and phase-field method (PFM) of solidification dendrite growth was used to address the issue of weak physical interpretability in ML models.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Aluminum Alloy Microstructure Properties · Metallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics · Solidification and crystal growth phenomena
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (75)
Show source-provided references
1. Chen, L. et al. Comprehensive assessment and multiple-response optimization of serpentine channel pouring process for achieving high-quality semi-solid slurry. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 24, 3839–3852 (2023).10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.04.083 ↗
2. Jafari, H., Idris, M. H. & Shayganpour, A. Evaluation of significant manufacturing parameters in lost foam casting of thin-wall Al-Si-Cu alloy using full factorial design of experiment. T. Nonferr. Metal. Soc. 23, 2843–2851 (2013).10.1016/S1003-6326(13)62805-8 ↗
3. Jiang, J. et al. Numerical simulation and experimental validation of squeeze casting of AlSi9Mg aluminum alloy component with a large size. Materials 15, 4334 (2022).10.3390/ma15124334 ↗
4. Chen, L. et al. Reinforced AZ91D magnesium alloy with thixomolding process facilitated dispersion of graphene nanoplatelets and enhanced interfacial interactions. Mat. Sci. Eng. A. 804, 140793 (2021).10.1016/j.msea.2021.140793 ↗
5. Jing, J. et al. Indirect squeeze casting of ZM5 baffle with linear segregation and its formation mechanism. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 27, 7024–7036 (2023).10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.11.075 ↗
6. Kielbus, A. & Jarosz, R. Gating system optimization for EV31A magnesium alloy engine body sand casting. Materials 15, 4620 (2022).10.3390/ma15134620 ↗
7. Rajkumar, I. et al. Experimental and simulation analysis on multi -gate variants in sand casting process. J. Manuf. Process. 62, 119–131 (2021).10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.12.006 ↗
8. Hou, H., Zhao, Y. & Zhao, Y. Prediction method of shrinkage cavity and shrinkage porosity in solidification process under low-pressure casting. J. Comput. Theor. Nanos. 9, 1447–1452 (2012).10.1166/jctn.2012.2221 ↗
9. Jolly, M., Katgerman, L. Modelling of defects in aluminium cast products. Prog. Mater. Sci. 123 (2022).10.1016/j.pmatsci.2021.100824 ↗
10. Chen, L.-Q. & Zhao, Y. From classical thermodynamics to phase-field method. Prog. Mater. Sci. 124, 100868 (2022).10.1016/j.pmatsci.2021.100868 ↗
11. Zhao, Y. Integrated unified phase‐field modeling (UPFM). Mater. Genome Eng. Adv. 2, e44 (2024).10.1002/mgea.44 ↗
12. Pei, X. et al. Robustness of machine learning to color, size change, normalization, and image enhancement on micrograph datasets with large sample differences. Mater. Design. 232, 112086 (2023).10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112086 ↗
13. Guo, Q., Pan, Y., Hou, H. & Zhao, Y. Predicting the hardness of high-entropy alloys based on compositions. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard. Mater. 112, 106116 (2023).10.1016/j.ijrmhm.2023.106116 ↗
14. Zhang, H. et al. Machine learning assisted composition effective design for precipitation strengthened copper alloys. Acta Mater. 215, 117118 (2021).10.1016/j.actamat.2021.117118 ↗
15. Kopper, A., Karkare, R., Paffenroth, R. C. & Apelian, D. Model selection and evaluation for machine learning: deep learning in materials processing. Integr. Mater. Manuf. I. 9, 287–300 (2020).10.1007/s40192-020-00185-1 ↗
16. Sata, A. & Ravi, B. Comparison of some neural network and multivariate regression for predicting mechanical properties of investment casting. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 23, 2953–2964 (2014).10.1007/s11665-014-1029-1 ↗
17. Kopper, A. E. & Apelian, D. Predicting quality of castings via supervised learning method. Int. J. Metalcast. 16, 93–105 (2022).10.1007/s40962-021-00606-7 ↗
18. Dong, A. & Nastac, L. Prediction of secondary dendrite arm spacing in al alloys using machine learning. Metall. Mater. Trans. B. 52, 2395–2403 (2021).10.1007/s11663-021-02183-w ↗
19. Hore, S., Das, S. K., Humane, M. M. & Peethala, A. K. Neural network modelling to characterize steel continuous casting process parameters and prediction of casting defects. T. Indian. I. Metals. 72, 3015–3025 (2019).10.1007/s12666-019-01767-0 ↗
20. Kumruoglu, L. C. Prediction of shrinkage ratio of ZA-27 die casting alloy using artificial neural network, computer aided simulation, and comparison with experimental studies. Sci. Iran. 28, 2684–2700 (2021).
21. Yu, J. et al. Engineering computing and data-driven for gating system design in investment casting. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 111, 829–837 (2020).10.1007/s00170-020-06143-7 ↗
22. Wang, D. et al. Data-Driven design of cast nickel-based superalloy and precision forming of complex castings. Acta Metall. Sin. 58, 89–102 (2022).
23. Zhou, D. et al. A novel approach to model and optimize qualities of castings produced by differential pressure casting process. Int. J. Metalcast. 16, 259–277 (2022).10.1007/s40962-021-00596-6 ↗
24. Ktari, A. & El Mansori, M. Intelligent approach based on FEM simulations and soft computing techniques for filling system design optimisation in sand casting processes. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 114, 981–995 (2021).10.1007/s00170-021-06876-z ↗
25. Patel, G. C. M., Shettigar, A. K. & Parappagoudar, M. B. A systematic approach to model and optimize wear behaviour of castings produced by squeeze casting process. J. Manuf. Process. 32, 199–212 (2018).10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.02.004 ↗
26. Pei, Z. et al. Machine-learning microstructure for inverse material design. Adv. Sci. 8, 2101207 (2021).10.1002/advs.202101207 ↗
27. Yin, J. et al. Interpretable predicting creep rupture life of superalloys: enhanced by domain-specific knowledge. Adv. Sci. 11, 2307982 (2024).10.1002/advs.202307982 ↗
28. Sun, N. et al. Machine learning pathway for harnessing knowledge and data in material processing. Int. J. Metalcast. 15, 398–410 (2020).10.1007/s40962-020-00506-2 ↗
29. Xu, P., Ji, X., Li, M. & Lu, W. Small data machine learning in materials science. npj Comput. Mater. 9, 42 (2023).10.1038/s41524-023-01000-z ↗
30. Wang, Y., Sha, A., Li, X. & Hao, W. Prediction of the mechanical properties of titanium alloy castings based on a back-propagation neural network. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 30, 8040–8047 (2021).10.1007/s11665-021-06035-1 ↗
31. Nouri, M. et al. Shrinkage porosity prediction empowered by physics-based and data-driven hybrid models. Int. J. Mater. Form. 15, 25 (2022).10.1007/s12289-022-01677-5 ↗
32. Zhao, Y. Understanding and design of metallic alloys guided by phase-field simulations. npj Comput. Mater. 9, 94 (2023).10.1038/s41524-023-01038-z ↗
33. Xue, D. et al. Accelerated search for materials with targeted properties by adaptive design. Nat. Commun. 7, 11241 (2016).10.1038/ncomms11241 ↗
34. Jiang, L. et al. Synchronously enhancing the strength, toughness, and stress corrosion resistance of high-end aluminum alloys via interpretable machine learning. Acta Mater. 270, 119873 (2024).10.1016/j.actamat.2024.119873 ↗
35. Roy, A. et al. Rapid discovery of high hardness multi-principal-element alloys using a generative adversarial network model. Acta Mater. 257, 119177 (2023).10.1016/j.actamat.2023.119177 ↗
36. Lee, J. A. et al. Unveiling yield strength of metallic materials using physics-enhanced machine learning under diverse experimental conditions. Acta Mater. 275, 120046 (2024).10.1016/j.actamat.2024.120046 ↗
37. Meng, H. et al. Formation ability descriptors for high-entropy diborides established through high-throughput experiments and machine learning. Acta Mater. 256, 119132 (2023).10.1016/j.actamat.2023.119132 ↗
38. Hakimian, S., Pourrahimi, S., Bouzid, A.-H. & Hof, L. A. Application of machine learning for the classification of corrosion behavior in different environments for material selection of stainless steels. Comp. Mater. Sci. 228, 112352 (2023).10.1016/j.commatsci.2023.112352 ↗
39. Ilanlou, M. et al. Prediction of the geometric characteristics of the laser cladding of Inconel 718 on the Inconel 738 substrate via genetic algorithm and linear regression. Opt. Laser Technol. 156, 108507 (2022).10.1016/j.optlastec.2022.108507 ↗
40. Guo, Q. et al. Predict the phase formation of high-entropy alloys by compositions. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 22, 3331–3339 (2023).10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.12.143 ↗
41. Hakkoum, H., Idri, A. & Abnane, I. Global and local interpretability techniques of supervised machine learning black box models for numerical medical data. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intel. 131, 107829 (2024).10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107829 ↗
42. Zhou, D. et al. A Systematic approach to model and optimize qualities of castings produced by squeeze casting process. Int. J. Metalcast. 17, 1715–1735 (2022).10.1007/s40962-022-00887-6 ↗
43. Edosa, O. O., Tekweme, F. K. & Gupta, K. Squeeze casting for metal alloys and composites: An overview of influence of process parameters on mechanical properties and microstructure. China Foundry. 20, 148–158 (2023).10.1007/s41230-022-2030-1 ↗
44. Zhou, D., Kang, Z., Su, X. Study on squeeze casting process of the integrated aluminum alloy subframe. Int. J. Metalcast. (2023).10.1007/s40962-023-01087-6 ↗
45. Gramacy, R. B. & Lee, H. K. H. Cases for the nugget in modeling computer experiments. Stat. Comput. 22, 713–722 (2012).10.1007/s11222-010-9224-x ↗
46. Minasny, B. & Mcbratney, A. B. A conditioned Latin hypercube method for sampling in the presence of ancillary information. Comput. Geosci. 32, 1378–1388 (2006).10.1016/j.cageo.2005.12.009 ↗
47. Chalela, M. et al. GriSPy: a Python package for fixed-radius nearest neighbors search. Astron. Comput. 34, 100443 (2021).10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100443 ↗
48. Malkov, Y. A. & Yashunin, D. A. Efficient and robust approximate nearest neighbor search using hierarchical navigable small world graphs. IEEE T. Pattern. Anal. 42, 824–836 (2020).10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2889473 ↗
49. Narasimhulu, Y., Suthar, A., Pasunuri, R., Venkaiah, C. V. CKD-Tree: an improved KD-Tree construction algorithm. Proc. Int. Semantic Intell. Conf. 211–218 (2021).
50. Liang, Q. et al. Benchmarking the performance of Bayesian optimization across multiple experimental materials science domains. npj Comput. Mater. 7, 188 (2021).10.1038/s41524-021-00656-9 ↗
51. Lei, B. et al. Bayesian optimization with adaptive surrogate models for automated experimental design. npj Comput. Mater. 7, 194 (2021).10.1038/s41524-021-00662-x ↗
52. Xin, T. et al. Ultrahigh specific strength in a magnesium alloy strengthened by spinodal decomposition. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf3039 (2021).10.1126/sciadv.abf3039 ↗
53. Xin, T. et al. Phase transformations in an ultralight BCC Mg alloy during anisothermal ageing. Acta Mater. 239, 118248 (2022).10.1016/j.actamat.2022.118248 ↗
54. Zhao, Y., Liu, K., Hou, H. & Chen, L.-Q. Role of interfacial energy anisotropy in dendrite orientation in Al-Zn alloys: A phase field study. Mater. Design. 216, 110555 (2022).10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110555 ↗
55. Tian, X. et al. Cooperative effect of strength and ductility processed by thermomechanical treatment for Cu–Al–Ni alloy. Mat. Sci. Eng. A-Struct. 849, 143485 (2022).10.1016/j.msea.2022.143485 ↗
56. Zhao, Y. Editorial: Phase field method and integrated computing materials engineering. Front. Mater. 10 (2023).10.3389/fmats.2023.1145833 ↗
57. Zhang, J. et al. Rapid solidification of non-stoichiometric intermetallic compounds: modeling and experimental verification. Acta Mater. 148, 86–99 (2018).10.1016/j.actamat.2018.01.040 ↗
58. Kuang, W. et al. Application of the thermodynamic extremal principle to diffusion-controlled phase transformations in Fe-C-X alloys: Modeling and applications. Acta Mater. 159, 16–30 (2018).10.1016/j.actamat.2018.08.008 ↗
59. Zhao, Y. et al. Development of phase-field modeling in materials science in China: A review. Acta Metall. Sin. -Engl. 36, 1749–1775 (2023).10.1007/s40195-023-01593-w ↗
60. Zhao, Y. et al. Applications of unified phase-field methods to designing microstructures and mechanical properties of alloys. MRS Bull. 49, 613–625 (2024).10.1557/s43577-024-00720-x ↗
61. Li, K. et al. Exploiting redundancy in large materials datasets for efficient machine learning with less data. Nat. Commun. 14, 7283 (2023).10.1038/s41467-023-42992-y ↗
62. Wen, C. et al. Machine learning assisted design of high entropy alloys with desired property. Acta Mater. 170, 109–117 (2019).10.1016/j.actamat.2019.03.010 ↗
63. Luo, J., Zhao, W., Peng, J. Causal softmax for out-of-distribution generalization. Digit. Signal. Process. 104861 (2024).10.2139/ssrn.4937412 ↗
64. Duan, Z. et al. Multi-modal hybrid input simulation process for the design of a new Al-Si-Mg system alloy. Acta Phys. Sin. Ch Ed. 72, 313–323 (2023).
65. Chen, S. & Kaufmann, T. Development of data-driven machine learning models for the prediction of casting surface defects. Metals 12, 1 (2021).10.3390/met12010001 ↗
66. Kittur, J. K., Manjunath Patel, G. C. & Parappagoudar, M. B. Modeling of pressure die casting process: An artificial intelligence approach. Int. J. Metalcast. 10, 70–87 (2015).10.1007/s40962-015-0001-7 ↗
67. Patel, G. C. M., Shettigar, A. K., Krishna, P. & Parappagoudar, M. B. Back propagation genetic and recurrent neural network applications in modelling and analysis of squeeze casting process. Appl. Soft. Comput. 59, 418–437 (2017).10.1016/j.asoc.2017.06.018 ↗
68. Soundararajan, R., Ramesh, A., Sivasankaran, S. & Sathishkumar, A. Modeling and analysis of mechanical properties of aluminium alloy (A413) processed through squeeze casting route using artificial neural network model and statistical Technique. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng 2015, 1–16 (2015).10.1155/2015/714762 ↗
69. Deng, J. et al. Process parameters design of squeeze casting through SMR ensemble model and ACO. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 130, 2687–2704 (2024).10.1007/s00170-023-12805-z ↗
70. Zhang, L., Li, L., Wang, S. & Zhu, B. Optimization of LPDC process parameters using the combination of artificial neural network and genetic algorithm method. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 21, 492–499 (2011).10.1007/s11665-011-9933-0 ↗
71. Zhan, D. & Xing, H. Expected improvement for expensive optimization: a review. J. Global Optim. 78, 507–544 (2020).10.1007/s10898-020-00923-x ↗
72. Lundberg, S. M. & Lee, S.-I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Adv. Neural Infor. Process. Syst. 30, 4768–4777 (2017).
73. Wang, C. et al. Influence of pressure and temperature on microstructure and mechanical behavior of squeeze cast Mg-10Gd-3Y-0.5Zr alloy. Metall. Mater. Trans. A. 47, 4104–4115 (2016).10.1007/s11661-016-3546-z ↗
74. Amin Haider, K. M. & Mufti, N. A. Mechanical and microstructural evaluation of squeeze cast Al-4%Cu alloy using a full-factorial experimental design. JOM 66, 1446–1453 (2014).10.1007/s11837-014-0973-4 ↗
75. Yan, X. et al. Effects of different holding pressures on the microstructure and mechanical properties of Al-5.9Zn-2.2Mg-1.8Cu alloy. J Alloys Compd. 894, 162367 (2022).10.1016/j.jallcom.2021.162367 ↗