Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Schematic representation of the methodology used to evaluate the ML algorithms for predicting the relative density, surface roughness, and hardness of AlSi10Mg parts produced using SLM.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Chemical composition of AlSi10Mg [37].

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

(a) SEM image of EOS AlSi10Mg powder, and (b) Gaussian distribution of the powder particle size showing mean and standard deviation [37].

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Experimental conditions for relative density measurements.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Experimental conditions for the surface roughness measurements.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Experimental conditions for the hardness measurements.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 3.

AlSi10Mg cube samples with the dimensions and printing direction fabricated using the EOS M400-4 AM machine.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Mounted sample used for surface roughness and hardness measurements at five locations.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 5.

Details of the grinding and polishing steps used.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 5.

Schematic of the ANN model.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 7.

Optimal tuning parameters and accuracy of the relative density, surface roughness and hardness models.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 6.

Selected process parameters and measured relative density, surface roughness, hardness for the 3D printed samples.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 6.

(a) Optical microscope images showing porosities in sample 14 and 21, (b) mounted sample with location for hardness measurements and detailed measurements of sample 18, (c) SEM images of sample 14 and 25 showing the grain size distribution.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Surface Topology of X-Y plane of SLM-processed AlSi10Mg for six different samples with their corresponding printing parameters.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Predicted vs. actual relative density for

(a) ANN, (b) SVR, (c) KRR, (d) RF, and (e) Lasso based on LOOCV results.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Predicted vs. actual surface roughness for

(a) ANN, (b) SVR, (c) KRR, (d) RF, and (e) Lasso based on LOOCV results.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Predicted vs. actual hardness for

(a) ANN, (b) SVR, (c) KRR, (d) RF, and (e) Lasso based on LOOCV results.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Relative density as a function of laser power and scan speed for AlSi10Mg parts using SLM

(a) 3D contour map and (b) 2D contour map with the optimized processing window shown in grey for relative density > 99%.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Surface roughness as a function of laser power and scan speed for AlSi10Mg parts using SLM

(a) 3D contour map and (b) 2D contour map with the optimized processing window shown in grey for surface roughness < 10 µm.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Hardness as a function of laser power and scan speed for AlSi10Mg parts using SLM

(a) 3D contour map and (b) 2D contour map with the optimized processing window shown in grey for hardness > 120 HV.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Optimum Region for AlSi10Mg parts using SLM with the merged criteria of relative density > 99%, surface roughness < 10 µm, and hardness > 120 HV.

More »

Fig 14 Expand