micromachines
Article
Quality Prediction and Control in Wire Arc Additive
Manufacturing via Novel Machine Learning Framework
Xinyi Xiao 1 , Clarke Waddell 1 , Carter Hamilton 1, *






Citation: Xiao, X.; Waddell, C.;
Hamilton, C.; Xiao, H. Quality
Prediction and Control in Wire Arc
Additive Manufacturing via Novel
Machine Learning Framework.
Micromachines 2022, 13, 137. https://
doi.org/10.3390/mi13010137
Academic Editor: Duc Truong
Pham
Received: 17 December 2021
Accepted: 13 January 2022
Published: 15 January 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Micromachines 2022, 13, 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi13010137
and Hanbin Xiao 2, *
1 Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Department, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA;
xiaox8@miamioh.edu (X.X.); waddelc2@miamioh.edu (C.W.)
2 School of Transportation and Logistics Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430062, China
* Correspondence: hamiltbc@miamioh.edu (C.H.); xhb@whut.edu.cn (H.X.)
Abstract: Wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) is capable of rapidly depositing metal materials
thus facilitating the fabrication of large-shape metal components. However, due to the multi-process-
variability in the WAAM process, the deposited shape (bead width, height, depth of penetration)
is difficult to predict and control within the desired level. Ultimately, the overall build will not
achieve a near-net shape and will further hinder the part from performing its functionality without
post-processing. Previous research primarily utilizes data analytical models (e.g., regression model,
artificial neural network (ANN)) to forwardly predict the deposition width and height variation based
on single or cross-linked process variables. However, these methods cannot effectively determine
the optimal printable zone based on the desired deposition shape due to the inability to inversely
deduce from these data analytical models. Additionally, the process variables are intercorrelated,
and the bead width, height, and depth of penetration are highly codependent. Therefore, existing
analysis cannot grant a reliable prediction model that allows the deposition (bead width, height,
and penetration height) to remain within the desired level. This paper presents a novel machine
learning framework for quantitatively analyzing the correlated relationship between the process
parameters and deposition shape, thus providing an optimal process parameter selection to control
the final deposition geometry. The proposed machine learning framework can systematically and
quantitatively predict the deposition shape rather than just qualitatively as with other existing
machine learning methods. The prediction model can also present the complex process-quality
relations, and the determination of the deposition quality can guide the WAAM to be more prognostic
and reliable. The correctness and effectiveness of the proposed quantitative process-quality analysis
will be validated through experiments.
Keywords: wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM); quantitative process-quality analysis; novel
machine learning framework
1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM) is widely used in today’s manufacturing industry to
build geometries in a layer-by-layer material deposition manner instead of subtracting
materials from a monolithic volume. The advantages of such a process go beyond just the
geometric complexity and the wide range of material selection. The deposition manner ad-
ditionally improves the manufacturability rather than being hindered by the machining tool
accessibility. One such metal AM technique is wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM),
which can produce large metal components using various materials, such as titanium,
aluminum, and nickel-based alloys [1–3], for the automobile and aerospace industries.
However, these advantages are typically realized at a lower resolution and dimensional
accuracy. Specifically, for the layer-by-layer material accumulation, the inaccuracy of the
deposition bead can cause error accumulation while depositing additional layers. Thus,
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/micromachines
Micromachines 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 17

Micromachines 2022, 13, 137 2 of 16

layers. Thus, the accuracy of the single bead shape is critical to ensure the overall deposi-
tion geometry and to prevent any process anomalies, such as collisions and over/lack-of
build.
the accuracy of the single bead shape is critical to ensure the overall deposition geometry
and to Recently, someprocess
prevent any significant research
anomalies, suchin as
WAAM characterized
collisions the microstructure
and over/lack-of build. of
low carbon
Recently,steel
somewalls [4] and utilized
significant research multi-degree-of-freedom
in WAAM characterized in the
WAAM deposition of
microstructure to
explore
low freeform
carbon additive
steel walls capabilities
[4] and utilized[5,6]. Additionally, other researchers
multi-degree-of-freedom in WAAMhave analyzed
deposition to
the tensile
explore strength
freeform from capabilities
additive different material deposition systems
[5,6]. Additionally, [7]. However,
other researchers if a func-
have analyzed
the tensile strength from different material deposition systems [7]. However,
tional component is desired from the WAAM process, one of the critical aspects is to en- if a functional
component
sure that theisdeposition
desired from shapethefits
WAAM process,
the desired one
input of theFor
model. critical
example,aspects is to ensure
in Figure 1, dif-
that theprocessing
ferent depositionconditions
shape fits thecandesired
result ininput model.
different For example,
deposited beadin Figure
shape and1, different
depth of
processing
penetrationconditions can resultaffecting
(DOP), ultimately in different
thedeposited bead shape
final deposition qualityandindepth
termsofofpenetration
shape, mi-
(DOP), ultimately
crostructure, affecting theproperties.
and mechanical final deposition quality inbead
The deposited termsgeometry
of shape,varied
microstructure,
based on
and mechanical properties. The deposited bead geometry varied
the following process parameters: welding current, voltage, contact-to-workpiece dis- based on the following
process parameters:
tance, and travel speed welding
[8]. Thecurrent,
WAAM voltage,
processcontact-to-workpiece
variables of current and distance, andrate
wire feed travel
are
speed [8]. The WAAM process variables of current and wire feed rate
interrelated, so one cannot be independently adjusted. Thus, the prediction of the depos- are interrelated, so
one
itedcannot be independently
bead shape from selecting adjusted. Thus,
the process the prediction
parameters is anof the deposited
essential aspect bead shape
of ensuring
from selecting
the success the near-net-shape
of the process parameters is an essential
deposition. aspect
In addition, of ensuring
creating the success
a printable of the
zone, which
near-net-shape deposition. In addition, creating a printable zone,
determines the optimal selections and combinations of varied and interconnected processwhich determines the
optimal selections and combinations
parameters, can improve the deposition quality.of varied and interconnected process parameters, can
improve the deposition quality.

Figure 1. Varied
Figure 1. Varied deposited
depositedbead
beadshape
shapebased
basedon
onthe
thedifferent
differentprocess
processparameters.
parameters.

In
In Figure 1, the
Figure 1, thedeposited
depositedbead
beadgeometry
geometryvaried
varied based
based onon thethe following
following process
process pa-
parameters: welding current, voltage, contact-to-workpiece distance, and travel speed [8].
rameters: welding current, voltage, contact-to-workpiece distance, and travel speed [8].
Table 1 presents related research that discusses the process parameters’ effect on the
Table 1 presents related research that discusses the process parameters’ effect on the
ultimate build qualities [9–20]. The significant parameters that affect the as-desired build
ultimate build qualities [9–20]. The significant parameters that affect the as-desired build
qualities are widely discussed. However, the specific quantitative relationship between
qualities are widely discussed. However, the specific quantitative relationship between
these parameters and the desired qualities is not fully explored, preventing the full control
these parameters and the desired qualities is not fully explored, preventing the full control
of the WAAM build quality.
of the WAAM build quality.
Existing researchers have already discussed the primary effects of welding current
and welding voltage variables on the weld penetration profile [9]. However, the specific
Table 1. Existing research on process parameters effect on build qualities.
analytical relationship has not been fully discovered to create a desired weld bead geometry
Analytical Process Parameters
and properties for WAAM deposition. In general, Research Output
traditional response surface modeling
uses either one or the• mixture model of first- and second-order
The ratio between WFS and TS is the most models. The models
significant are
process
represented
Wire feed speed (WFS), travel speed (TS),below: parameter for controlling heat input
the ratio between WFS and TS [9] • Increased heat input will cause added material flow to distort
Y = C0 + C1 ∗ X1 + C2 ∗ X2 + . . . + Cn ∗ Xn
the width, height, and weld penetration area of the beads
• Increased heat input will result in coarse grain, homogeneous
Heat input [11]
microstructure but lower material hardness
Y = C0 + C1 ∗ X1 + C2 ∗ X2 + C12 ∗ X1 ∗ X2 + •C11 ∗ X 2 X22 current,
1 + C22 ∗
Pressure and n ∗ Xn tip
+ . . . + Cnozzle m ∗ Xm +
+ Cdistance Cmn
has the∗ most
Xn ∗ X m
signifi-
Deposition direction, +
nozzle
Cnn ∗ tip
Xn distance,
2 + Cmm ∗ and
Xmmgas cant effect on tensile strength
2
pressure [12]
where xn is the variable • thatCurrent has the
can control themost significant
response Y; Cn andeffect
Cn,monare
hardness
fitting coefficients.
Once the data are WFS,
collected,welding
the current,
least square cooling
method time,
is and
used tointerlay
estimatetemperature af-
the proper coeffi-
Path planning trajectory [13]
fects dimensional accuracy and surface finish
cients; however, the traditional response surface modeling method can only predict the
response based on the • selection
Increased
of thevibration acceleration
process variables (xn ).will decrease
This the average
model cannot reversely
Vibration [14] grain size
define the optimal selection as well
of the as homogenize
variables based on athe grainresponse
desired distribution
level.
• Vibration can reduce porosity and increase tensile strength
Micromachines 2022, 13, 137 3 of 16

Table 1. Existing research on process parameters effect on build qualities.

Micromachines 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17
Analytical Process Parameters Research Output

• The ratio between WFS and TS is the most significant process

Wire feed speed (WFS), travel speed (TS), • Air jet is notfor
parameter controlling
effective heat input an increase in the sub-
at preventing
the ratio between WFS and TS [9] • Increased heat input will cause added material flow to distort the
strate temperature
Air cooling, idle time [15,16] width, height, and weld penetration area of the beads
• Air jets can effectively reduce the overall increase in tempera-
ture
• Increased heat input will result in coarse grain, homogeneous
Heat input [11] microstructure but lower material hardness
Existing researchers have already discussed the primary effects of welding current
and welding voltage variables
•
on the weld penetration profile [9]. However, the specific
Pressure and current, nozzle tip distance has the most significant
Deposition direction, nozzleanalytical relationship
tip distance, and gas has not
effect onfully
been discovered
tensile strength to create a desired weld bead geom-
pressure [12]
etry and properties for WAAM
• deposition.
Current In general,
has the most traditional
significant response surface mod-
effect on hardness
eling uses either one or the mixture model of first- and second-order models. The models
are represented below: • WFS, welding current, cooling time, and interlay temperature
Path planning trajectory [13] affects dimensional accuracy and surface finish
𝑌=𝐶 𝐶 ∗𝑋 𝐶 ∗𝑋 ⋯ 𝐶 ∗𝑋

𝑌=𝐶 𝐶 ∗𝑋 𝐶 ∗𝑋 𝐶 ∗𝑋 ∗𝑋 𝐶• ∗ 𝑋
Increased vibration acceleration will decrease the average grain size
𝐶 ∗𝑋 ⋯ 𝐶 ∗𝑋 𝐶 ∗𝑋 𝐶 ∗𝑋 ∗𝑋
Vibration𝐶[14]∗ 𝑋 as well as homogenize the grain distribution
𝐶 ∗𝑋 • Vibration can reduce porosity and increase tensile strength
where 𝑥 is the variable that can control the response Y; 𝐶 and 𝐶 , are fitting coeffi-
cients. Once the data are• collected,
Air jet isthe
notleast square
effective method isanused
at preventing to estimate
increase the proper
in the substrate
coefficients;
Air cooling, idle time temperature
[15,16] however, the traditional response surface modeling method can only predict
the response based on the • selection
Air jets canof effectively
the process reduce the overall
variables (𝑥 ).increase in temperature
This model cannot re-
versely define the optimal selection of the variables based on a desired response level.
Figure 2 presents the current workflow from the selected input model to the physical
building process.
Figure This workflow
2 presents the current compiles
workflow thefrom
available statistical
the selected inputapproaches
model to the to analyze
physical
the relationship
building among
process. Thisvarious
workflowWAAM compilesprocessing conditions,
the available the weld
statistical bead, and
approaches to related
analyze
mechanical properties.
the relationship among Figure 2 shows
various WAAM that the buildconditions,
processing quality canthe be weld
determined
bead, and by select-
related
ing the variables
mechanical in the process
properties. Figure 2 planning
shows that stage that need
the build to can
quality be examined
be determinedby comparison
by selecting
with
the the desired
variables ininput geometries.
the process planningHowever,
stage thatdueneed
to the
tolimited understanding
be examined of the cor-
by comparison with
related process
the desired parameters
input andHowever,
geometries. their effects dueon to the
the deposited bead shape, of
limited understanding it is
thedifficult to
correlated
process parameters
evaluate and their
the incorporated effects oneffects
controlling the deposited
of the bead shape,process
influential it is difficult to evaluate
parameters in
the incorporated controlling effects of the influential process parameters in WAAM.
WAAM.

WAAMworkflow
Figure2.2.WAAM
Figure workflowand
andanalytical
analyticalapproaches.
approaches.

Giventhe
Given theinput
inputvariants
variants{𝑥{x}i }and
andresponse
responsey,y,the themulti-dimensional
multi-dimensionalresponse
responsemodel
model
can be formalized
can be formalized as:as:
y = f ( x1 , x2 , . . . , x i )
𝑦 = 𝑓(𝑥 , 𝑥 , … , 𝑥 )
However, the covariant relationships among {xi } remains anonymous. The mathemat-
ical However, therepresenting
function for covariant relationships among {𝑥model
the system response } remains anonymous.
is hard to outline.The mathe-a
Typically,
matical function
surrogate for representing
model/machine learning themethod
systemisresponse
adoptedmodel is hard
to describe thetorelationship
outline. Typically,
between
a surrogate model/machine learning method is adopted to describe the relationship be-
tween these correlated process parameters and the final response. However, the methods
have the following limitations that are not suitable for developing a printable zone based
on the desired deposition bead shape:
Micromachines 2022, 13, 137 4 of 16

these correlated process parameters and the final response. However, the methods have
the following limitations that are not suitable for developing a printable zone based on the
desired deposition bead shape:
1. A surrogate model contains one response but with multiple process variables. It is
difficult to reversely infer and indicate the domain of the process variable based on
single/multiple response data (e.g., xi = f −1 (y1 , y2 , x1 , x2 , . . .)) (xi : process variables,
y: process response).
2. A surrogate model primarily focuses on the possibility of the response deviation and
cannot provide a numerical level of such deviation.
3. Machine learning models, such as k-nearest neighbors (KNN), naïve Bayes mainly
focus on predicting the categorical response. Therefore, the quantitative analysis of
the desired bead shape is not achievable.
4. Other machine learning models, such as response surface methodology (RSM), domi-
nantly use a second-degree polynomial model to indicate the input-output relation-
ship. Still, the reverse indication of the input from the desired output cannot be
obtained.
With the abovementioned limitations of the existing methodologies, WAAM is difficult
to control and predict and can exhibit low process repeatability [21]. Therefore, a quanti-
tative process-quality model that describes the influence of individual process variables
and their correlated impacts is urgently needed to better control print quality. To this
end, a multi-dimensional neural network framework is developed in this paper to draw
such a relationship. The quantitative process-quality relationship between various process
parameters and deposition bead shape is obtained and evaluated to measure and control
geometry as near-net-shape.
The proposed machine learning framework is capable of quantitatively predicting the
response and reversely indicating the optimal printable zone via the deducible process-
quality network. In contrast, the traditional surface response model (RMS) for the process-
quality modeling cannot describe the response which integrates more than two variables.
The objectives of this research are stated as follows:
1. Develop a quantitative process-quality machine learning framework of influential
process parameters towards deposition quality for stainless steel on the WAAM
process.
2. Classify the correlated process parameters and construct a qualitative model towards
the deposition shape level from the correlated parameters.
3. Printable zone development is based on quantitative models in the network that
control the deposition shape at a certain level.
4. A predictive model for controlling the deposited bead shape (width, height, and
penetration depth) based on sets of input process parameters.

2. Methodology
In this paper, wire feed rate is not considered in building the quantitative process-
quality analysis since it is highly dependent and can be reflected by the change of weld
current [22]. This paper proposes a novel machine learning framework that involves three
process variables (current, voltage, and speed) to build a process-quality quantitative model
to control the deposited bead shape. A multi-dimensional variability neural network model,
driven by the machine learning framework (Figure 3) for recognizing the system multi-
process variability, is developed as a process-quality model for predicting and controlling
the bead shape in WAAM.
Micromachines 2022,13,
Micromachines2022, 13,137
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of 16
17

Figure 3. A machine learning framework for quantitatively analyzing deposition shape.

Figure 3. A machine learning framework for quantitatively analyzing deposition shape.
Figure 3 presents the proposed machine learning framework, including the forward
Figure 3 presents the proposed machine learning framework, including the forward
prediction of the deposition shape by selecting process inputs, that is capable of reversely
prediction of the deposition shape by selecting process inputs, that is capable of reversely
deducing optimal process inputs. The structure in the proposed neural network consists of
deducing optimal process inputs. The structure in the proposed neural network consists
(a) the number of hidden layers, (b) the number of neurons in each layer, (c) the activation
of (a) the number of hidden layers, (b) the number of neurons in each layer, (c) the activa-
function, and (d) the loss estimation function [23]. The activation transformation based on
tioninput
the function,
layersand (d)tothe
is vital theloss estimation
neural networkfunction [23].
model; the The activation
activation functionstransformation
in the hidden
based on
layers are: the input layers is vital to the neural network model; the activation functions in
the hidden layers are:
Uk = ∪ Pk : u(∑ Xi ) < Pk < v(∑ Xi )
𝑈 =k ∪ 𝑃 :l𝑢(∑ 𝑋 ) 𝑃 𝑣(∑ 𝑋 )
S(u, v) = ∑m=1 ∑n=1 Rm,n (u, v)Wk Uk
The root means square (RMS)𝑆(𝑢, 𝑣) = ∑ to represent
is adopted ∑ (𝑢,loss
𝑅 , the 𝑣) 𝑊function
𝑈 that determines
the difference between
The root means the predicted
square responsetovalue
(RMS) is adopted and the
represent the targeted value,that
loss function and the
deter-
mathematical expression is given as:
mines the difference between the predicted response value and the targeted value, and
the mathematical expression is given s as:
2
∑in=1 (responsei − responset )
RMS = ∑ (𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 (1)
n 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 )
𝑅𝑀𝑆 = (1)
𝑛
where i is the index, responsei is the predicted value in the network, and responset is the
target 𝑖 is the index, 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 is the predicted value in the network, and 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 is
wherevalue.
The experimental
the target value. data collected for this study was gathered with a metal inert gas
(MIG)Thewelding robot using
experimental dataAISI 420 stainless
collected for thissteel.
studyThe was WAAM
gathered deposition process
with a metal is per-
inert gas
formed with preheating.
(MIG) welding robot usingTheAISI
bead was
420 deposited
stainless steel.onThetheWAAM
160 mmdeposition
substrate. process
Subsequently,
is per-
the crosswith
formed section of the deposited
preheating. The bead bead
waswas measured.
deposited on theAs160proposed by otherSubsequently,
mm substrate. research [14],
the design of the experiment and the response surface methodology
the cross section of the deposited bead was measured. As proposed by other research were used to obtain
[14],
the
thestatistical
design of analysis to investigate
the experiment and thethe significant
response level
surface of the process
methodology parameter
were used to to the
obtain
deposited beadanalysis
the statistical shape. However, thesethe
to investigate methods cannot
significant reversely
level of theindicate
process the optimal to
parameter selec-
the
tion of the process
deposited parameters
bead shape. However, to achieve the desired
these methods cannotdeposition
reversely shape. Therefore,
indicate a novel
the optimal se-
process-quality neural network model is proposed in this section and
lection of the process parameters to achieve the desired deposition shape. Therefore, a used as a predictive
method to determine the
novel process-quality relationship
neural networkbetween
model is the input (current,
proposed in this voltage, andused
section and travelasspeed)
a pre-
and
dictive method to determine the relationship between the input (current, voltage,zone
the deposited bead shape (width, height, and DOP). In addition, a printable and
includes the optimal
travel speed) and theprocess
depositedparameters
bead shape for(width,
achieving the desired
height, and DOP). deposition beadashape
In addition, print-
can
ablebe constructed.
zone includes theSuch printable
optimal zoneparameters
process can navigate forthe printability
achieving and improve
the desired the
deposition
metal AM repeatability. Figure 4 visualizes the deposited bead, including
bead shape can be constructed. Such printable zone can navigate the printability and im- the parameters
that
provearethe
analyzed
metal AMin this study.
repeatability. Figure 4 visualizes the deposited bead, including the
parameters that are analyzed in this study.
Micromachines
Micromachines 2022,
Micromachines2022, 13,
13,xx137
2022,13, FORPEER
FOR PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 66 of
6ofof17
17
16

Figure
Figure 4.4.Deposited
Figure4. Deposited bead
Depositedbead shape
beadshape visualization.
shapevisualization.
visualization.

The overall
Theoverall
The workflow
overallworkflow for
workflowfor generating
forgenerating the
generatingthe quantitative
thequantitative process-quality
quantitativeprocess-quality neural
process-qualityneural network
neuralnetwork
network
model isispresented
modelis
model presented in
presentedin Figure
inFigure 5.
Figure5.5.

Figure 5. Process-quality machine learning framework overview.

Figure5.
Figure 5.Process-quality
Process-qualitymachine
machinelearning
learningframework
frameworkoverview.
overview.
The point-wise population in Figure 5 generates scattered paired input parameters
Thethe
The
within point-wise
point-wise
confidence population
population
interval. inin Figure
The Figure 55 generates
generated generates
data will scattered
scattered paired
also bepaired
grouped, input
inputthus parameters
parameters
ultimately
within
within the
the confidence
confidence interval.
interval. The
The generated
generated data
data will
will
combining with the response scoring algorithm to construct the deposition shape also
also be
be grouped,
grouped, thus
thus ultimately
ultimately
quan-
combining
combining with the
titatively. with the response
Therefore, response scoringanalysis
scoring
the significant algorithm
algorithm to
oftothe construct
construct the deposition
the
input process deposition
parameters shape
shape quanti-
quanti-
is required
tatively.
tatively. Therefore,
Therefore,
for proceeding with thethe
the significant
significant analysis
analysis
later steps. ofthe
of
Therefore, theainput
input process
process
stepwise parameters
parameters
regression model isrequired
is required for
for
was initially
proceeding
proceeding
conducted.with with the
Thisthemodel later steps.
later takes Therefore,
steps.aTherefore,
step-by-step a stepwise
a stepwise regression
iterativeregression
construction model
model was initially
was initially
of regression con-
con-
models
ducted.
ducted. This model
This
that involves model takes aa and
takes
all situations step-by-step
step-by-step iterative construction
possible iterative
variables construction
that can be used of regression
of regression
in the final models
models that
model.thatThe
involves
involves all
all situations
situations and
and possible
possible variables
variables that
that can
can be
be used
used in
in
simplified, reduced model for bead width contains the significant parameters: current (I), the
the final
final model.
model. The
The sim-
sim-
plified,
plified, reduced
voltagereduced model for
(U), and model
speed. for bead
Hence,bead width
anwidth
ANOVA contains
contains
and F-test the (at
the significant
significant parameters:
α = 0.05)parameters:
were conducted current
current (I),
(I),
to verify
voltage
voltage (U), and speed.
(U), andofspeed.
the importance Hence,
Hence, anand
these variables an ANOVA
ANOVA
justify the and F-test
andindividual (at α = 0.05)
F-test (at importance
α = 0.05) were were conducted
level.conducted
From Table to2,
to
verify
verify
current the
the(I),importance
importance
voltage (U), of these
of these
speed, variables
variables
and their and
and justify the
justify theterms
interacted individual
individual importance
importance
are significant level.
forlevel. From
bead From
width
Table
Table 2,
since2,the current
current
one-way (I), voltage
(I), voltagedisplay
factors (U), speed,
(U), speed, and their
and
p-values their interacted
smaller interacted
than 0.05. terms are
terms are significant
significant for for bead
bead
width since
width since thethe one-way
one-way factors factors display
display p-values
p-values smaller
smaller than
than 0.05.
0.05.
Table 2. ANOVA analysis of parameter’s effect on bead width.
Table2.
Table 2.ANOVA
ANOVAanalysis
analysisof
ofparameter’s
parameter’seffect
effecton
onbead
beadwidth.
width.
Term Coef SE Coef T-Value p-Value VIF
Term
Term
Constant Coef
4.050Coef SE Coef
0.488SE Coef T-Value 0.000p-Value
8.30 T-Value p-Value VIF
VIF
I (Amps) 0.00840 0.00274 3.06 0.003 1.28
U Constant
Constant
(Volts) 4.050
4.050
0.03083 0.488
0.00475 0.488 8.30
6.49 8.30 0.000
0.000 0.000 1.21
Speed
II (Amps)
(Amps) −0.0780
0.00840
0.00840 0.00274 −1.91 3.06
0.004090.00274 3.06 0.042 0.003
0.003 1.41
1.28
1.28
(mm/min)

Micromachines 2022, 13, 137
In addition, a stepwise regression for analyzing the bead height was also conducted
by adding or removing potential explanatory variables and testing for statistical signifi-
cance iteratively. After the stepwise regression, the three process parameters present sig-
nificantly varying bead height. The ANOVA test of these three variables is presented 7 ofin
16
Table 3.

Table In
3. ANOVA
addition,analysis of parameter’s
a stepwise regressioneffect on bead height.
for analyzing the bead height was also conducted by
adding or removing potential explanatory variables and testing for statistical significance
Term Coef SE Coef T-Value p-Value VIF
iteratively. After the stepwise regression, the three process parameters present significantly
varying bead height. 3.566
Constant The ANOVA test of these three
0.172 variables is 0.000
20.78 presented in Table 3.

I (A)
Table 3. −0.002465
ANOVA analysis 0.000965
of parameter’s effect on bead−2.55
height. 0.014 1.28

U (V)
Term 0.00506Coef 0.00167
SE Coef 3.03 T-Value 0.004 p-Value 1.21 VIF
Constant
Speed 3.566 0.172 20.78 0.000
I (A) −0.00654
−0.002465 0.00144
0.000965 −4.55 −2.55 0.000 0.014 1.41 1.28
(mm/min)
U (V) 0.00506 0.00167 3.03 0.004 1.21
Speed (mm/min) −0.00654 0.00144 −4.55 0.000 1.41
These significant variables were obtained for constructing the neural network frame-
work.These
The quantitative multi-variant
significant variables wereprocess-quality model willthe
obtained for constructing useneural
the obtained
networksignifi-
frame-
cant variables
work. to describe
The quantitative the intercorrelated
multi-variant effect onmodel
process-quality the bead
willshape.
use theThe decomposition
obtained significant
of the collected
variables data into
to describe three-dimensional
the intercorrelated effectspace
on the(formatted in The
bead shape. (I, U,decomposition
S, BW, BH, DOP))
of the
will be first introduced. The decomposition is as follows:
collected data into three-dimensional space (formatted in (I, U, S, BW, BH, DOP)) will be
[I, U,first introduced.
S, BW] →: {[I , yThe decomposition
, BW is ],
], [U , y , BW as[Sfollows:
, y , BW ]} = {P , P , P }
[I, U,
The algorithm →: {[Iishows
S, BW] below thei ],construction
, yIi , BW [Ui , yUi , BW ofi ],the
[Si ,machine ]} = {PI , P
ySi , BWilearning U , PS }
framework
from the decomposed point-wise input variables {𝑃 , 𝑃 , 𝑃 }.
The algorithm below shows the construction of the machine learning framework from
Algorithm: Machine learninginput
framework for{P
decomposed vectorized data.
the decomposed point-wise variables I , PU , PS }.
Algorithm: Machine Learning Framework Construction
Algorithm: Machine learning framework for decomposed vectorized data.
Input: Decomposed Variables {𝑋 , } from {𝑋 }: 𝑋 , → ℝ
Algorithm: Machine Learning Framework Construction
Output: Point-wise Populated (𝑈 ), and Scored Response {S}
Input: Decomposed Variables {Xi,j } from {Xi }: Xi,j → R3
1.Output:
Initialize
Point-wise ⃗
Poly =Populated
𝑋 , , ∀ 𝑋(U ∈{𝑋
, ), and} Scored Response {S}
i
→
PopulatePoly
2.1. Initialize 𝑃 , :i = 𝑃X ∈, ∀Poly
, i,j Xi,j ∈{X𝐵i } , Poly 𝐵
3. D , = dist(P
2. Populate P : P, Poly ) i
k,i , k,i ∈ [ Poly − Bi , Poly i + Bi ]
wk,i, =
4.3. D 1/D(P,k,i , Polyi )
∝ dist
4. wk,i ∝ 1/Dk,i
5.5. S𝑆(𝑘, ) ::==∑∑i w𝑤k,i P
(k, i𝑖) 𝑃,
, k,i
6.6. Weight function= =argmin
Weight function arg 𝑚𝑖𝑛
k Xi,j ,𝑋S(, k,, 𝑆(𝑘,
i )k2 𝑖)
7.7. Update
Update {w{𝑤
k,i } and {B }
, } andi {𝐵 }
8. Return Ui , S
8. Return 𝑈 , S
In this algorithm, Bi represents the bandwidth of the point-wised populations, and wk,i
standsIn this algorithm,
for the weight on 𝐵 these
represents the bandwidth
populations. of the presents
This algorithm point-wised populations,
a systematic and
approach
𝑤to, develop
stands forthe machine learning framework and create the quantitative response usingap-
the weight on these populations. This algorithm presents a systematic the
proach to develop
vectorized experimental the machinedata. Thelearning framework
prediction and create
of the shape (width, theheight,
quantitative
and DOP)response
can be
using the vectorized
described as follows:experimental data. The prediction of the shape (width, height, and
Micromachines 2022, 13, x FOR PEER
DOP)REVIEW
can be described as follows: 8 of 17
Objectives: min var (dist(( xi + ∆i , yi ), f ))
Randomized: {∆1 , ∆2 , . . . , ∆i }
Populate := ([ xi , yi ])
Objectives: 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡 (𝑥 𝛥 , 𝑦 ), 𝑓 )
Randomized: {𝛥 , 𝛥 ,…, 𝛥 }
𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 ∶= ( 𝑥 , 𝑦 )disti = abs|( xi + ∆i , yi ) − f ([ xi + ∆i , yi ])|
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡 = 𝑎𝑏𝑠|(𝑥 𝛥 , 𝑦 ) 𝑓( 𝑥 𝛥 , 𝑦 )|
Solution: Shape
Solution: Response == average
Shape Response ( f ([ xi𝑥+ ∆i𝛥, y, i𝑦]))))
𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒(𝑓(
{xi } represents the vectorized process parameter
{𝑥 } represents the vectorized process parameter inputs,
inputs, {yi } {𝑦
represents the {x
} represents i } {𝑥
the corre-
} corre-
sponding vectored axis value,
sponding vectored axis value, and and {∆ } represents the deviation on the process
i {𝛥 } represents the deviation on the process parameters parameters
inputs.
inputs.
The Theprintable zonezone
printable (collection of the
(collection of optimal
the optimal process parameters)
process parameters) is obtained fromfrom
is obtained a a
multi-objective optimization machine learning process using the developed
multi-objective optimization machine learning process using the developed process-qual- process-quality
response model with
ity response model a desired
with aresponse
desired level as thelevel
response input.as{Z i } represents
the input. {𝑍 }the corresponding
represents the corre-
sponding response from vectorized process parameter - {𝑥 }. {𝑓 } represents the response
function for 𝑘 item. The optimization process can be described as follows:
Objectives: 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓(𝑍 , 𝑍̅)), 𝑍̅: targeted response
Randomized: {𝑥 }
 Randomized: {𝛥 , 𝛥 ,…, 𝛥 }
𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 ∶= ( 𝑥 , 𝑦 )
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡 = 𝑎𝑏𝑠|(𝑥 𝛥 , 𝑦 ) 𝑓( 𝑥 𝛥 , 𝑦 )|
Solution: Shape Response = 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒(𝑓( 𝑥 𝛥 , 𝑦 ))
{𝑥 } represents the vectorized process parameter inputs, {𝑦 } represents the {𝑥 } corre-
Micromachines 2022, 13, 137 sponding vectored axis value, and {𝛥 } represents the deviation on the process parameters 8 of 16
inputs.
The printable zone (collection of the optimal process parameters) is obtained from a
multi-objective optimization machine learning process using the developed process-qual-
response from vectorized process parameter - {x i }. { f k } represents the response function for
ity
th response
k item. model with a desired response level as
The optimization process can be described as follows: the input. {𝑍 } represents the corre-
Micromachines 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
sponding response from vectorized

process parameter - {𝑥 }. {𝑓 } represents the response8 of 17
Objectives: min var di f f Zi , Z , Z: targeted response
function for 𝑘 item. The optimization process can be described as follows:
Randomized: {x }
Objectives: 𝑚𝑖𝑛 i𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓(𝑍 , 𝑍̅)), 𝑍̅: targeted response
Populate := ([ xi , yi ])
Objectives:
Randomized: {𝑥 }𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡 (𝑥 𝛥 , 𝑦 ), 𝑓 )
𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 ∶= ( 𝑥 , 𝑦 )
Randomized: {𝛥 , 𝛥 ,…, 𝛥 }
𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 ∶= ( 𝑥 , 𝑦 ) 𝑍Zi==𝑓 f(k ([
𝑥 x, i𝑦, y)i ])
Solution: Printable Zone {𝑥 } = 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒(𝑑𝑒𝑛
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡 = n 𝑥 |o 𝛥 0.8)
𝑎𝑏𝑠|(𝑥 , 𝑦 ) ∩ 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒(𝑑𝑒𝑛
𝑓( 𝑥 n𝛥 , 𝑦𝑥 |)|o
0.8) Solution:Printable
Solution: Zone {xi} ==range
Shape Response (den xi | f𝑥k >𝛥0.8
𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒(𝑓( , 𝑦) ∩))range(den xi | fk+1 > 0.8).
{𝑥 } represents the vectorized process parameter inputs, {𝑦 } represents the {𝑥 } corre-
3.
3. Result
Result and
andDiscussion
sponding Discussion
vectored axis value, and {𝛥 } represents the deviation on the process parameters
The
The proposed
inputs.proposed machine
machinelearning
learningframework
frameworkhas hasbeen
beenimplemented
implementedthrough
throughRhino
Rhino
Grasshopper.
Grasshopper. Figure
Figure66presents
The printable zone the
theworking
(collection
presents of theprocess
working optimalthrough
process processthe
through theimplemented
parameters) machine
is obtained
implemented from a
machine
learning framework.
multi-objective
learning framework. optimization machine learning process using the developed process-qual-
ity response model with a desired response level as the input. {𝑍 } represents the corre-
sponding response from vectorized process parameter - {𝑥 }. {𝑓 } represents the response
function for 𝑘 item. The optimization process can be described as follows:
Objectives: 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓(𝑍 , 𝑍̅)), 𝑍̅: targeted response
Randomized: {𝑥 }
𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 ∶= ( 𝑥 , 𝑦 )
𝑍 = 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ,𝑦 )
Solution: Printable Zone {𝑥 } = 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒(𝑑𝑒𝑛 𝑥 | 0.8) ∩ 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒(𝑑𝑒𝑛 𝑥 |
0.8)

3. Result and Discussion

Figure The proposed machine learning through
framework has been implemented through Rhino
Figure6.6.Deposition
Depositionshape response
shape construction
response implemented
construction through machine
implemented learning
machine framework.
learning frame-
Grasshopper. Figure 6 presents the working process through the implemented machine
work.
learning framework.
The deposition shape response model can be obtained through optimization iteration
on the bandwidth of the point-wised
The deposition shape populations
response model and the weight
can be obtained throughon these populations
optimization iteration
through the proposed algorithm.
on the bandwidth of the point-wised populations and the weight on these populations
According
through to the proposed
the proposed algorithm.architecture of the quantitative process-quality model, the
deposited
According to the proposedwith
bead response graph regards to
architecture of the
the three processprocess-quality
quantitative parameters is presented
model, the
in Figures bead
deposited 7–9. Since all three
response graphprocess parameters
with regards to theare highly
three correlated
process and is
parameters individually
presented in
significant
Figures 7–9. toSince
the response, a simpleparameters
all three process regression are
model cannot
highly describe
correlated such
and variable-re-
individually sig-
sponse
nificantrelation. Therefore,
to the response, a quantitative
a simple response
regression modelmodel
cannotisdescribe
constructed
suchbased on the pro-
variable-response
posed machine
relation. learning
Therefore, frameworkresponse
a quantitative to describe the complex
model model among
is constructed thethe
based on variables.
proposed
machine learning framework to describe the complex model among the variables.
Figures 7–9 show the proposed shape response model from the process variables based
on the novel machine learning framework. The statistical measure (R2 ) that represents the
proportion
Figure 6.ofDeposition
the variance forresponse
shape the developed response
construction models
through (Figures
implemented 7–9) are
machine presented
learning in
framework.
Table 4. In addition, the R2 from multi-variant linear regression models, and the traditional
ANN classification methods
The deposition shapeareresponse
presented for comparison.
model can be obtained through optimization iteration
on the bandwidth of the point-wised populations and the weight on these populations
4. Statistical
Tablethrough measures ofalgorithm.
the proposed the proposed model, regression, and ANN classification method.
According to the proposed architecture of the quantitative process-quality model, the
Depth of Penetration
Bead graph
deposited bead response Width with
Model Bead
regards to Height Model
the three process parameters
Model presented
is
in Figures 7–9. Since all three process parameters are highly correlated and individually
Proposed Model 0.997 0.993 0.9853
significant
Regressionto the response,0.9237
a simple regression model
0.7181 cannot describe0.8643
such variable-re-
sponse relation.
Tradition ANN Therefore, 0.464
a quantitative response0.857
model is constructed based
0.80 on the pro-
posed machine learning framework to describe the complex model among the variables.
 Micromachines2022,
Micromachines 2022,13,
13,137
x FOR PEER REVIEW 99 of
of1617

(a)

(b)
Figure 7. (a) Process-quality model
Figure 7. (bead width) using current,
(a) Process-quality voltage,
model (bead and speed
width) using(contour), (b) process-quality
current, voltage, and speed model
(contour),
(bead width) using current, voltage, and speed (3D).
(b) process-quality model (bead width) using current, voltage, and speed (3D).
Micromachines2022,
Micromachines 2022,13,
13,137
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
10 of 17

(a)

(b)
Figure 8. (a) Process-quality model8.(bead
Figure height) using current,
(a) Process-quality model voltage, and speed
(bead height) using(contour),
current, (b) process-quality
voltage, and speedmodel
(contour),
(bead height) using current, voltage, and speed (3D).
(b) process-quality model (bead height) using current, voltage, and speed (3D).
Micromachines 2022,13,
Micromachines2022, 13,137
x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16
11 17

(a)

(b)
Figure 9. (a) Process-quality model
Figure 9. (DOP) using current,
(a) Process-quality voltage,
model andusing
(DOP) speedcurrent,
(contour), (b) process-quality
voltage, model (b)
and speed (contour), (DOP)
process-
using current, voltage, and speed (3D).
quality model (DOP) using current, voltage, and speed (3D).

Figures
From 7–9 3,show
Table the proposed
the proposed model shape response
shows model
the most from representation
accurate the process variables
of the
based on the
deposition novel
bead machine
shape learning
compared withframework. The statistical
the multi-variant measure (𝑅
linear regression ) that
and the repre-
ANN
sents the proportion
classification models.ofThis
the can
variance for the
indicate thatdeveloped response
the proposed machine models (Figures
learning 7–9) are
framework
presentedbetter
performs in Table
than4. the
In addition,
traditionalthe 𝑅 from
machine multi-variant
learning methods. linear
Asregression
mentionedmodels,
in the
and the traditional ANN classification methods are presented for comparison.
previous section, the developed response model will be used to determine the printable
zone to control the shape within a satisfactory level and predict the deposition bead shape.
Figures 10–12 show the optimal selection of the process parameters based on the
desired level of bead shape from the developed multi-dimensional surface response using
 From Table 3, the proposed model shows the most accurate representation of the
deposition bead shape compared with the multi-variant linear regression and the ANN
classification models. This can indicate that the proposed machine learning framework
performs better than the traditional machine learning methods. As mentioned in the pre-
vious section, the developed response model will be used to determine the printable zone
Micromachines 2022, 13, 137 12 of 16
to control the shape within a satisfactory level and predict the deposition bead shape.
Figures 10–12 show the optimal selection of the process parameters based on the de-
sired level of bead shape from the developed multi-dimensional surface response using
the
themulti-objective
multi-objectiveoptimization
optimizationmethod
methodmentioned
mentionedininthe
theprevious
previoussection.
section.The
Thered
redlines
lines
represent
representthetheoptimal
optimalinput
inputdataset
datasetfor
forachieving
achievinga adesired
desiredgeometry.
geometry.

Figure
Figure 10. Optimal 10. Optimal
printable printable
parameters for parameters
controlling for
BWcontrolling
= 3.7 mm inBW = 3.7confidence
a 98% mm in a 98% confidence interval.
interval.

Figures 10–12 present all process parameter combinations that derive the deposited
shape to different desired condition: BW = 3.7 mm, BH = 2.6 mm, and DOP = 0.59 mm. The
ultimate determination of the optimal process parameters to achieve the desired deposition
shape when considering all conditions requires conducting a global search through three
developed response models. The printable zone plot for the obtained optimal parameter
dataset (current, voltage, and speed) is sketched in Figure 13. Based on the threshold of the
density plot on each process parameter, the optimal range of the process parameters can be
further refined.
The above figure presents an optimal printable zone for controlling the deposited
bead shape at a certain level with a 95% confidence interval. Note, the x-axis in Figure 13
represents the corrected parameter value. This optimal printable zone can also be verified
by including the parameter setting as indicated by Subramanian [24]. To further validate
the result, three weld bead profiles are measured using PlotDigitizer Software based on
the different experimental set up are obtained and compared with the prediction bead
shape. The shape prediction process and the measured bead width are illustrated through
Figure 14.
Figure 14 provides a shape prediction process using the developed model and the
defined process parameters. The targeted objective is minimized, and the ultimate result
would provide the predicted bead deposition shape. As shown in Figure 14, the measure-
ment data is also provided to validate the prediction. Table 5 below shows the prediction
and measurement variation through different process parameters.
Micromachines 2022,
Micromachines 2022, 13, 137
x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17
Micromachines 2022, 13,
13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 13
of of
1716

Figure
Figure 11. Optimal 11. Optimal
printable
printable printable
parameters
parameters for parameters
forcontrolling
controllingBHfor==controlling
BH 2.6 mmininaBH
2.6mm a98%=confidence
98% 2.6 mm in ainterval.
confidence 98% confidence interval.
interval.

Figure
Figure 12. Optimal 12. Optimal
printable printable
parameters parameters
for controlling for =controlling
DOP 2.5 mm in DOP
a 98%=confidence
2.5 mm in ainterval.
98% confidence interval.
Figure 12. Optimal printable parameters for controlling DOP = 2.5 mm in a 98% confidence interval.
Figures 10–12 present all process parameter combinations that derive the deposited
Figures 10–12 present all process parameter combinations that derive the deposited
shape to different desired condition: BW = 3.7 mm, BH = 2.6 mm, and DOP = 0.59 mm. The
shape to different desired condition: BW = 3.7 mm, BH = 2.6 mm, and DOP = 0.59 mm. The
ultimate determination of the optimal process parameters to achieve the desired deposi-
ultimate determination of the optimal process parameters to achieve the desired deposi-
tion shape when considering all conditions requires conducting a global search through
tion shape
three when response
developed considering all conditions
models. requires
The printable conducting
zone plot for athe
global searchoptimal
obtained through
three developed response models. The printable zone plot for the obtained optimal
Micromachines 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17

parameter dataset (current, voltage, and speed) is sketched in Figure 13. Based on the
Micromachines 2022, 13, 137 14 of 16
threshold of the density plot on each process parameter, the optimal range of the process
parameters can be further refined.

Figure 13. Optimal printable zone for controlling BW = 3.7 mm, BH = 2.6 mm, and DOP = 2.5 mm in a 95% confidence
interval.

The above figure presents an optimal printable zone for controlling the deposited
bead shape at a certain level with a 95% confidence interval. Note, the x-axis in Figure 13
represents the corrected parameter value. This optimal printable zone can also be verified
by including the parameter setting as indicated by Subramanian [24]. To further validate
the result, three weld bead profiles are measured using PlotDigitizer Software based on
the different experimental setfor
upcontrolling
are obtained =and compared 2.6with the
and prediction bead
Figure
Figure 13. Optimal printable for Optimal
zone 13. printable
controlling BW = zone
3.7 mm, BWand
BH = 2.6 mm, 3.7DOP
mm,=BH
2.5=mm mm,
in a 95% DOP = 2.5 mm
confidence in
interval. shape. The shape prediction
a 95% confidence interval. process and the measured bead width are illustrated through
Figure 14.
The above figure presents an optimal printable zone for controlling the deposited
bead shape at a certain level with a 95% confidence interval. Note, the x-axis in Figure 13
represents the corrected parameter value. This optimal printable zone can also be verified
by including the parameter setting as indicated by Subramanian [24]. To further validate
the result, three weld bead profiles are measured using PlotDigitizer Software based on
the different experimental set up are obtained and compared with the prediction bead
shape. The shape prediction process and the measured bead width are illustrated through
Figure 14.

Figure14.
Figure 14.Bead
Beadwidth
widthprediction
predictionprocess
processwith
withexperimental
experimentalvalidation.
validation.

Table 5. Shape variation between prediction and measurements.

DOP
Sample No. Current (A) Voltage (V) Speed (mm/min) BW (mm) BH (mm) (mm)
1 Measured 9.23 3.12 5.71
1 Predicted 215 25 450 9.217 3.108 5.721
2 Measured 9.3 3.41 2.54
2 Predicted 215 27 450 9.218 3.451 2.551
3 Measured
Figure 14. Bead width 8.56 3.3 2.45
3 Predicted 250prediction process
26 with experimental
600 validation.
8.528 3.158 2.51

From Table 5, the maximum variation between the prediction and the measurement
is less than 5% which can further validate the accuracy of the proposed process-quality
Micromachines 2022, 13, 137 15 of 16

model through the novel machine learning framework. Compared with the regression and
the ANN models, the proposed machine learning model achieves the highest accuracy on
the developed prediction models. The shape prediction model performance accuracy is
99.8%, 99.1%, and 99.6% for bead width, 99.6%, 98.8%, and 95.7% for bead height, 99.8%,
99.5%, and 97.5% for DoP based on the experimental data.

4. Conclusion and Future Recommendations

The developed machine learning framework would bring the following benefits
compared with other existing analytical methods:
• Prediction models are eased to be adapted based on the increasing amount of collected
data.
• Prediction provides a quantitative analysis of the process-quality relation.
• The reversely computed printable zone provides a numerical control to the WAAM
system.
The proposed quantitative shape model from the various process parameters can pro-
vide the numerical prediction on the bead shape and can lead to the following conclusions:
• An increase in the current would result in a wider bead width and height.
• An increase in the voltage would result in a wider bead width, and the bead height
would first increase then decrease.
• An increase in the speed would first result in a wider bead width and then reduce
the width, and it shows similar changes for the bead height. In contrast, the depth of
penetration would decrease with the increase in the speed.
• Wider bead width will lead to a smaller bead height and a larger depth of penetration.
The precise prediction of the deposited bead shape from the selection of the process
parameters can be achieved through the proposed quantitative process model using the
proposed machine learning framework. The multi-dimensional neural network model
can rapidly react to data changes and systematically demonstrate the multi-dimensional
connections among the process-quality network. In addition, the reverse computed optimal
printable zone from the desired process quality level can also be deduced. This quantitative
process method can comprehensively oversee such complex processes with multi-process
variabilities.
The proposed quantitative predictive model of the deposition geometry can pave
the path in full feedback controlling the multi-layering process. The lack-of-built volume
and the over-built volumes can be compensated by correctly adjusting the processing
parameters in the real-time printing process through the developed model. In addition,
the proposed machine learning framework is eased to adopt to other material processing
systems.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.X. and H.X.; methodology, X.X.; software, X.X.; valida-
tion, X.X. and H.X.; formal analysis, X.X.; investigation, X.X.; resources, X.X., C.H.; data curation,
X.X., C.W.; writing—original draft preparation, X.X.; writing—review and editing, X.X., C.W. and
C.H.; visualization, X.X.; supervision, X.X., H.X. and C.H.; project administration, H.X. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wang, D.; Chi, C.; Wang, W.; Li, Y.; Wang, M.; Chen, X.; Chen, Z.; Cheng, X.; Xie, Y. The effects of fabrication atmosphere condition
on the microstructural and mechanical properties of laser direct manufactured stainless steel 17–4 PH. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2019,
35, 1315–1322. [CrossRef]
2. Wu, B.; Pan, Z.; Ding, D.; Cuiuri, D.; Li, H.; Xu, J.; Norrish, J. A review of the wire arc additive manufacturing of metals: Properties,
defects and quality improvement. J. Manuf. Process. 2018, 35, 127–139. [CrossRef]
Micromachines 2022, 13, 137 16 of 16

3. Rafieazad, M.; Ghaffari, M.; Nemani, A.V.; Nasiri, A. Microstructural evolution and mechanical properties of a low-carbon
low-alloy steel produced by wire arc additive manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 105, 2121–2134. [CrossRef]
4. Haden, C.; Zeng, G.; Carter, F.; Ruhl, C.; Krick, B.; Harlow, D. Wire and arc additive manufactured steel: Tensile and wear
properties. Addit. Manuf. 2017, 16, 115–123. [CrossRef]
5. Xiao, X.; Joshi, S. Process planning for five-axis support free additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 36, 101569. [CrossRef]
6. Xiao, X.; Xiao, H. Autonomous robotic feature-based freeform fabrication approach. Materials 2022, 15, 247. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Li, M.; Lu, T.; Dai, J.; Jia, X.; Gu, X.; Dai, T. Microstructure and mechanical properties of 308L stainless steel fabricated by laminar
plasma additive manufacturing. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2020, 770, 138523. [CrossRef]
8. Tahaei, A.; Vazquez, F.G.; Merlin, M.; Arizmendi-Morquecho, A.; Valdes, F.A.R.; Garagnani, G.L. Metallurgical characterization of
a weld bead coating applied by the PTA process on the D2 tool steel. Soldag. Inspeção 2016, 21, 209–219. [CrossRef]
9. Yildiz, A.S.; Davut, K.; Koç, B.; Yilmaz, O. Wire arc additive manufacturing of high-strength low alloy steels: Study of process
parameters and their influence on the bead geometry and mechanical characteristics. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2020, 108,
3391–3404. [CrossRef]
10. Zhao, Y.; Jia, Y.; Chen, S.; Shi, J.; Li, F. Process Planning Strategy for Wire-Arc Additive Manufacturing: Thermal Behavior Considerations.
Additive Manufacturing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Available online: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S2214860419315842 (accessed on 1 January 2022).
11. Müller, J.; Grabowski, M.; Müller, C.; Hensel, J.; Unglaub, J.; Thiele, K.; Kloft, H.; Dilger, K. Design and parameter identification of
wire and arc additively manufactured (WAAM) Steel bars for use in construction. Metals 2019, 9, 725. [CrossRef]
12. Kodati, T.; Tokala, S.K.V.; Reddy, Y.P.; Narayana, K.L. Optimization of Mechanical Properties of Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing
Specimens Using Grey-Based Taguchi Method. Biblio Med, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation. Available online:
www.bibliomed.org/mnsfulltext/197/197-1591179563.pdf?1623687065 (accessed on 13 May 2020).
13. Jin, W.; Zhang, C.; Jin, S.; Tian, Y.; Wellmann, D.; Liu, W. Wire arc additive manufacturing of stainless steels: A review. Appl. Sci.
2020, 10, 1563. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, C.; Gao, M.; Zeng, X. Workpiece vibration augmented wire arc additive manufacturing of high strength aluminum alloy.
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2019, 271, 85–92. Available online: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924013619301141
(accessed on 1 January 2022). [CrossRef]
15. Hackenhaar, W.; Mazzaferro, J.A.; Montevecchi, F.; Campatelli, G. An experimental-numerical study of active cooling in wire arc
additive manufacturing. J. Manuf. Process. 2020, 52, 58–65. Available online: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S15266
12520300608 (accessed on 1 January 2022). [CrossRef]
16. Reisgen, U.; Sharma, R.; Mann, S.; Oster, L. Increasing the manufacturing efficiency of WAAM by advanced cooling strategies. In
Welding in the World; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Available online: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40194-0
20-00930-2 (accessed on 1 January 2022).
17. Karunakaran, K.P.; Suryakumar, S.; Pushpa, V.; Akula, S. Low cost integration of additive and subtractive processes for hybrid
layered manufacturing. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 2010, 26, 490–499. Available online: www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0736584510000189 (accessed on 1 January 2022). [CrossRef]
18. Xiao, X.; Roh, B.-M.; Zhu, F. Strength enhancement in fused filament fabrication via the isotropy toolpath. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11,
6100. [CrossRef]
19. Xiao, X.; Joshi, S. Automatic toolpath generation for heterogeneous objects manufactured by directed energy depo-sition additive
manufacturing process. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2018, 140, 071005. [CrossRef]
20. Arya, H.; Singh, K.; Saxena, R.K. Effect of Welding Parameters on Penetration and Bead Width for Variable Plate Thickness in
Submerged Arc Welding. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Robotics and Mechanical Engineering (ICRME),
Paris, France, 26 August 2015; pp. 27–28.
21. Roh, B.M.; Kumara, S.R.; Witherell, P.; Simpson, T.W. Ontology-based process map for metal additive manufacturing. J. Mater.
Eng. Perform. 2021, 30, 8784–8797. [CrossRef]
22. Jafari, D.; Vaneker, T.H.; Gibson, I. Wire and arc additive manufacturing: Opportunities and challenges to control the quality and
accuracy of manufactured parts. Mater. Des. 2021, 202, 109471. [CrossRef]
23. Mahmood, M.; Visan, A.; Ristoscu, C.; Mihailescu, I. Artificial neural network algorithms for 3D printing. Materials 2021, 14, 163.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Venkata Subramanian, V. WAAM Martensitic Stainless Steel: Process Optimization & Resulting Weld Geometrical Characterization;
Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 2017.