A Data-Driven Framework to Select a Cost-Efficient Subset of Parameters to Qualify Sourced Materials
Source abstract
Abstract
The quality of powder processed for manufacturing can be certified by hundreds of different variables. Assessing the impact of all these different metrics on the performance of additively manufactured engineered products is an invaluable, but time intensive specification process. In this work, a comprehensive, generalizable, data-driven framework was implemented to select the optimal powder processing and microstructure variables that are required to predict the target property variables. The framework was demonstrated on a high-dimensional dataset collected from selective laser melted, additively manufactured, Inconel 718. One hundred and twenty-nine powder quality variables including particle morphology, rheology, chemical composition, and build composition were assessed for their impact on eight microstructural features and sixteen mechanical properties. The importance of each powder and microstructure variable was determined by using statistical analysis and machine learning models. The trained models predicted target mechanical properties with an R2 value of 0.9 or higher. The results indicate that the desired mechanical properties can be achieved by controlling only a few critical powder properties and without the need for collecting microstructure data. This framework significantly reduces the time and cost of qualifying source materials for production by determining an optimal subset of experiments needed to predict that a given source material will lead to a desired outcome. This general framework can be easily applied to other material systems.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Injection Molding Process and Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (62)
Show source-provided references
1. Balachandran PV, Xue D, Theiler J, Hogden J, Gubernatis JE, Lookman T (2018) Importance of feature selection in machine learning and adaptive design for materials. In: Materials discovery and design, Springer, Cham, pp 59–7910.1007/978-3-319-99465-9_3 ↗
2. de Pablo JJ, Jones B, Kovacs CL, Ozolins V, Ramirez AP (2014) The materials genome initiative, the interplay of experiment, theory and computation. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 18(2):99–11710.1016/j.cossms.2014.02.003 ↗
3. Senanayake NM, Carter JL (2020) Computer vision approaches for segmentation of nanoscale precipitates in nickel-based superalloy IN718. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 9(4):446–45810.1007/s40192-020-00195-z ↗
4. Kohn W, Sham LJ (1965) Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects. Phys Rev 140(4A):A113310.1103/PhysRev.140.A1133 ↗
5. Kattner UR (2016) The Calphad method and its role in material and process development. Tecnologia em metalurgia, materiais e mineracao 13(1):310.4322/2176-1523.1059 ↗
6. Lookman T, Balachandran PV, Xue D, Hogden J, Theiler J (2017) Statistical inference and adaptive design for materials discovery. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 21(3):121–12810.1016/j.cossms.2016.10.002 ↗
7. Sargent P (1992) Data quality in materials information systems. Comput Aided Des 24(9):477–49010.1016/0010-4485(92)90028-9 ↗
8. Carter JL, Verma AK, Senanayake NM (2020) Harnessing legacy data to educate data-enabled structural materials engineers. MRS Adv 5(7):319–32710.1557/adv.2020.132 ↗
9. Carter JL, Verma AK (2021) Informatics-enabled design of structural materials. JOM 73(11):3323–332510.1007/s11837-021-04896-4 ↗
10. Chen SH, Hsu CH (2021) Using uniform design and regression methodology of turning parameters study of nickel alloy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 116(11):3795–380810.1007/s00170-021-07584-4 ↗
11. Yang C, Ren C, Jia Y, Wang G, Li M, Lu W (2022) A machine learning-based alloy design system to facilitate the rational design of high entropy alloys with enhanced hardness. Acta Mater 222:11743110.1016/j.actamat.2021.117431 ↗
12. Khosravani A, Cecen A, Kalidindi SR (2017) Development of high throughput assays for establishing process-structure-property linkages in multiphase polycrystalline metals: application to dual-phase steels. Acta Mater 123:55–6910.1016/j.actamat.2016.10.033 ↗
13. Rajan K, Suh C, Mendez PF (2009) Principal component analysis and dimensional analysis as materials informatics tools to reduce dimensionality in materials science and engineering. Stat Anal Data Min ASA Data Sci J 1(6):361–37110.1002/sam.10031 ↗
14. Ramesh M, Panneerselvam K (2021) Mechanical investigation and optimization of parameter selection for Nylon material processed by FDM. Mater Today Proc 46:9303–930710.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.697 ↗
15. Ruan F, Qi J, Yan C, Tang H, Zhang T, Li H (2017) Quantitative detection of harmful elements in alloy steel by LIBS technique and sequential backward selection-random forest (SBS-RF). J Anal At Spectrom 32(11):2194–219910.1039/C7JA00231A ↗
16. Munir N, Mulrennan K, McAfee M (2021) Comparison of data summarization and feature selection techniques for in-process spectral data. In: 2021 32nd Irish signals and systems conference (ISSC), IEEE, pp 1–710.1109/ISSC52156.2021.9467864 ↗
17. Suh C, Rajan K (2005) Virtual screening and QSAR formulations for crystal chemistry. QSAR Comb Sci 24(1):114–11910.1002/qsar.200420057 ↗
18. Agrawal A, Deshpande PD, Cecen A, Basavarsu GP, Choudhary AN, Kalidindi SR (2014) Exploration of data science techniques to predict fatigue strength of steel from composition and processing parameters. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 3(1):90–10810.1186/2193-9772-3-8 ↗
19. Smith TM, Senanayake NM, Sudbrack CK, Bonacuse P, Rogers RB, Chao P, Carter J (2019) Characterization of nanoscale precipitates in superalloy 718 using high resolution SEM imaging. Mater Charact 148:178–18710.1016/j.matchar.2018.12.018 ↗
20. Nguyen QB, Nai MLS, Zhu Z, Sun CN, Wei J, Zhou W (2017) Characteristics of inconel powders for powder-bed additive manufacturing. Engineering 3(5):695–70010.1016/J.ENG.2017.05.012 ↗
21. Jiménez A, Bidare P, Hassanin H, Tarlochan F, Dimov S, Essa K (2021) Powder-based laser hybrid additive manufacturing of metals: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 114:63–9610.1007/s00170-021-06855-4 ↗
22. Sudbrack CK, Lerch BA, Smith TM, Locci IE, Ellis DL, Thompson AC, Richards B (2018) Impact of powder variability on the microstructure and mechanical behavior of selective laser melted alloy 718. In: Proceedings of the 9th international symposium on superalloy 718 & derivatives: energy, aerospace, and industrial applications, Springer, Cham, pp 89–11310.1007/978-3-319-89480-5_5 ↗
23. Jiang R, Mostafaei A, Wu Z, Choi A, Guan PW, Chmielus M, Rollett AD (2020) Effect of heat treatment on microstructural evolution and hardness homogeneity in laser powder bed fusion of alloy 718. Addit Manuf 35:101282
24. Poorganji B, Ott E, Kelkar R, Wessman A, Jamshidinia M (2020) Materials ecosystem for additive manufacturing powder bed fusion processes. JOM 72(1):561–57610.1007/s11837-019-03892-z ↗
25. Minet K, Saharan A, Loesser A, Raitanen N (2019) Superalloys, powders, process monitoring in additive manufacturing. In: Additive manufacturing for the aerospace industry, Elsevier, pp 163–18510.1016/B978-0-12-814062-8.00009-1 ↗
26. Chandrashekar G, Sahin F (2014) A survey on feature selection methods. Comput Electr Eng 40(1):16–2810.1016/j.compeleceng.2013.11.024 ↗
27. Stańczyk U (2015) Feature evaluation by filter, wrapper, and embedded approaches. In: Feature selection for data and pattern recognition, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 29–4410.1007/978-3-662-45620-0_3 ↗
28. Sánchez-Maroño N, Alonso-Betanzos A, Tombilla-Sanromán M (2007) Filter methods for feature selection–a comparative study. In: International conference on intelligent data engineering and automated learning, Springer, Berlin, pp 178–18710.1007/978-3-540-77226-2_19 ↗
29. Benesty J, Chen J, Huang Y, Cohen I (2009) Pearson correlation coefficient. In: Noise reduction in speech processing, Springer, Berlin, pp 1–410.1007/978-3-642-00296-0_5 ↗
30. Shardlow M (2016) An analysis of feature selection techniques. Univ Manchester 1(2016):1–7
31. Lal TN, Chapelle O, Weston J, Elisseeff A (2006) Embedded methods. In: Feature extraction, Springer, Berlin, pp 137–16510.1007/978-3-540-35488-8_6 ↗
32. Osborne JW, Waters E (2002) Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Pract Assess Res Eval 8(1):2
33. Snedecor GW (1934) Calculation and interpretation of analysis of variance and covariance10.1037/13308-000 ↗
34. Pudil P, Novovičová J, Kittler J (1994) Floating search methods in feature selection. Pattern Recogn Lett 15(11):1119–112510.1016/0167-8655(94)90127-9 ↗
35. Reunanen J (2003) Overfitting in making comparisons between variable selection methods. J Mach Learn Res, 3(Mar), 1371–1382.
36. Hoerl AE, Kennard RW (1970) Ridge regression: biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics 12(1):55–6710.1080/00401706.1970.10488634 ↗
37. Wang Z, Bovik AC (2009) Mean squared error: love it or leave it? A new look at signal fidelity measures. IEEE Signal Process Mag 26(1):98–11710.1109/MSP.2008.930649 ↗
38. Refaeilzadeh P, Tang L, Liu H (2009) Cross-validation. Encyclopedia Database Syst 5:532–53810.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_565 ↗
39. Somol P, Pudil P, Novovičová J, Paclık P (1999) Adaptive floating search methods in feature selection. Pattern Recogn Lett 20(11–13):1157–116310.1016/S0167-8655(99)00083-5 ↗
40. Verducci JS (2007) Prediction and discovery: AMS-IMS-SIAM joint summer research conference, machine and statistical learning: prediction and discovery, June 25–29, 2006, Snowbird, Utah (Vol. 443). American Mathematical Soc. Accessed: Oct. 11, 2021.
41. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Duchesnay E (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830
42. Cook RD, Weisberg S (1983) Diagnostics for heteroscedasticity in regression. Biometrika 70(1):1–1010.1093/biomet/70.1.1 ↗
43. Savin NE, White KJ (1977) The durbin-watson test for serial correlation with extreme sample sizes or many regressors. Econometrica J Econ Soc 1989–199610.2307/1914122 ↗
44. Nelson LS (1998) The Anderson-Darling test for normality. J Qual Technol 30(3):29810.1080/00224065.1998.11979858 ↗
45. Biau G, Scornet E (2016) A random forest guided tour. TEST 25(2):197–22710.1007/s11749-016-0481-7 ↗
46. Vasant P, Zelinka I, Weber GW (eds) (2018) Intelligent computing & optimization, vol 866. Springer, Berlin
47. Paper D, Paper D (2020) Scikit-learn classifier tuning from simple training sets. In: Hands-on Scikit-learn for machine learning applications: data science fundamentals with python, 137–16310.1007/978-1-4842-5373-1_5 ↗
48. Cameron AC, Windmeijer FA (1997) An R-squared measure of goodness of fit for some common nonlinear regression models. J Econom 77(2):329–34210.1016/S0304-4076(96)01818-0 ↗
49. Chen XC, Shi CB, Guo HJ, Wang F, Ren H, Feng D (2012) Investigation of oxide inclusions and primary carbonitrides in Inconel 718 superalloy refined through electroslag remelting process. Metall Mater Trans B 43(6):1596–160710.1007/s11663-012-9723-6 ↗
50. Pauzon C, Raza A, Hryha E, Forêt P (2021) Oxygen balance during laser powder bed fusion of Alloy 718. Mater Des 201:10951110.1016/j.matdes.2021.109511 ↗
51. Paulonis DF, Schirra JJ (2001) Alloy 718 at Pratt & Whitney-Historical perspective and future challenges. Superalloys 718(706):13–23
52. Verma AK, Hawk JA, Bruckman LS, French RH, Romanov V, Carter JL (2019) Mapping multivariate influence of alloying elements on creep behavior for design of new martensitic steels. Metall Mater Trans A 50(7):3106–312010.1007/s11661-019-05234-9 ↗
53. Verma AK, Huang WH, Hawk JA, Bruckman LS, French RH, Romanov V, Carter JL (2019) Screening of heritage data for improving toughness of creep-resistant martensitic steels. Mater Sci Eng, A 763:13814210.1016/j.msea.2019.138142 ↗
54. Farzadfar SA, Murtagh MJ, Venugopal N (2020) Impact of IN718 bimodal powder size distribution on the performance and productivity of laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process. Powder Technol 375:60–8010.1016/j.powtec.2020.07.092 ↗
55. Rausch AM, Markl M, Körner C (2019) Predictive simulation of process windows for powder bed fusion additive manufacturing: Influence of the powder size distribution. Comput Math Appl 78(7):2351–235910.1016/j.camwa.2018.06.029 ↗
56. Wimler D, Kardos S, Lindemann J, Clemens H, Mayer S (2018) Aspects of powder characterization for additive manufacturing. Pract Metallogr 55(9):620–63610.3139/147.110547 ↗
57. Bisong E (2019) More supervised machine learning techniques with scikit-learn. In: Building machine learning and deep learning models on google cloud platform, Apress, Berkeley, CA, pp 287–30810.1007/978-1-4842-4470-8_24 ↗
58. Dong X, Zhang X, Du K, Zhou Y, Jin T, Ye H (2012) Microstructure of carbides at grain boundaries in nickel based superalloys. J Mater Sci Technol 28(11):1031–103810.1016/S1005-0302(12)60169-8 ↗
59. Antonov S, Chen W, Huo J, Feng Q, Isheim D, Seidman DN, Tin S (2018) MC carbide characterization in high refractory content powder-processed Ni-based superalloys. Metall Mater Trans A 49(6):2340–235110.1007/s11661-018-4587-2 ↗
60. Mangen W, Nembach E (1989) The effect of grain size on the yield strength of the γ′-hardened superalloy NIMONIC PE16. Acta Metall 37(5):1451–146310.1016/0001-6160(89)90177-6 ↗
61. MacDonald JE, Khan RHU, Aristizabal M, Essa KEA, Lunt MJ, Attallah MM (2019) Influence of powder characteristics on the microstructure and mechanical properties of HIPped CM247LC Ni superalloy. Mater Des 174:10779610.1016/j.matdes.2019.107796 ↗
62. Roth HA, Davis CL, Thomson RC (1997) Modeling solid solution strengthening in nickel alloys. Metall Mater Trans A 28(6):1329–133510.1007/s11661-997-0268-2 ↗