Table 1.
Micro lattice honeycomb and bcc structure design variations.
Fig 1.
Micro lattice structure design variations and final test coupons (a) honeycomb (b) bcc, (c) gyroid.
Table 2.
Properties of A286 steel.
Fig 2.
(a) LPBF process for printing of micro lattice structures: EOS M290 (b) Micro lattice structures (honeycomb & bcc) (c) w-EDM machine.
Table 3.
Response variables, surface roughness and micro-Vickers hardness for honeycomb micro-lattice structure.
Table 4.
Response variables, surface roughness and micro-Vickers hardness for bcc micro-lattice structure.
Table 5.
Response variables, surface roughness and micro-Vickers hardness for gyroid micro-lattice structure.
Table 6.
TOPSIS analysis for honeycomb micro-lattice structure for LPBF-generated coupons.
Table 7.
TOPSIS analysis for bcc micro-lattice structure for LPBF-generated coupons.
Fig 3.
Salt spray test setup and sample exposure.
Fig 4.
(a) CT scan analysis of gyroid lattice with nodal density distribution.
(b) CT scan analysis of honeycomb lattice with nodal density distribution. (c) CT Scan analysis of BCC lattice with nodal density distribution.
Table 8.
CT scan-based dimensional and density comparisons of lattice structures.
Table 9.
Corrosion rate analysis for conventional materials and micro-lattice structures.
Table 10.
Corrosion resistance (%) of micro-lattice structures vs. conventional materials.
Table 11.
Corrosion resistance comparison of micro-lattice structures.
Table 12.
Experimental dataset for corrosion rate analysis.
Table 13.
Performance metrics of machine learning models for corrosion rate prediction.
Table 14.
Cross validation results of machine learning models.
Fig 5.
Feature correlation heatmap.
Fig 6.
Actual vs. predicted corrosion rates.
Fig 7.
Model Performance Comparison (dual Y-axis).
Fig 8.
Residual analysis of machine learning models.