Materials Today Communications 30 (2022) 103193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today Communications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mtcomm

Machine learning-enabled prediction of density and defects in additively

manufactured Inconel 718 alloy
Aman Kumar Sah a, M. Agilan b, S. Dineshraj b, M.R. Rahul a, *, B. Govind b
a
Department of Fuel, Minerals and Metallurgical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM), Dhanbad 826004, Jharkhand, India
b
Materials and Mechanical Entity, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Indian Space Research Organisation, Thiruvananthapuram 695022, Kerala, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Additive manufacturing of engineering materials is getting wider attention, and the properties of AM samples are
Inconel 718 widely different from conventional alloys. The prediction of properties or defect formation in AM samples will
Additive manufacturing accelerate the AM component development. The current study uses trained machine learning algorithms to
Machine learning
predict the density and defect formation in the AM sample. Experiments are carried out to generate the dataset
Density
Defects
for ML algorithm training and testing, and the analyzed data shows a strong correlation of energy density with
the density of the sample. Multiple ML algorithms are trained, the Naïve Bayes and Artificial Neural Network
show more than 85% accuracy in porosity prediction for the test dataset. RF algorithm shows the best fit for the
trained data set for density prediction. The experimental comparison shows the trained algorithms can predict
reasonably well the density and defect formation in AM sample

1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing of materials is getting wider attention due to
the reduced material wastage and the manufacturing of complex ge­
ometry. Many researchers reported AM studies on superalloys[1–3].
Different parameters influence the quality and density of the AM
component [4,5]. The successful AM component development depends
on many factors, including identifying an optimum processing domain.
Series of experimental trials, simulation methods, and integrated ap­
proaches are reported in the literature [1,5,6]. Recently machine
learning-enabled frameworks are getting wider attention in many
research domains, including AM [7–10]. The available data in the
literature or laboratory experiments can be used to train ML algorithms
and identify the optimum domain or properties of AM components.
Christian et al. [11] use the Support Vector Machine (SVM) technique to
identify the defects by monitoring in-situ images during AM process and
reported an accuracy of >80%. Kenta et al. [12] use SVM to generate a
processing map and establish the optimum processing domain for
additively manufactured CoCr alloy. Ren et al. [13] use a physics-based
machine learning model to establish the thermal field for various
scanning strategies. Erik et al. [14] use a CNN-based approach to classify
the defective AM component, and the VGG based network shown an
accuracy of more than 95%. Rui et al. [15] uses a synthetic dataset,
trained multiple algorithms for AM defect prediction, and found that
Bagging and Random Forest (RF) have high predictive capability.
Different ML framework to control the AM process was proposed by
many researchers [16,17]. Machine learning-enabled material devel­
opment for AM was also reported [10].
Apart from process optimization and defect monitoring, machine
learning algorithms are also used to predict mechanical properties [18].
Zhixin et al. [19] use ANN, RF, and SVM for the prediction of fatigue life
in additively manufactured 316 L stainless steel. They were using a
database developed by continuum damage mechanic technique. Meng
et al. [20] use a machine learning approach based on a neural network to
predict the high cycle fatigue life of SS 316 L alloy. Zhixiong et al. [21]
use an ensemble learning-based algorithm to predict the surface
roughness of AM samples. Luo et al. [22] use a machine learning
framework to establish the correlation between the pore location and
the fatigue life based on the data developed from Inconel 718 AM
samples. The density prediction of material using machine learning re­
ported in the literature [23], Mariana et al. [23] reported the bulk
density of flash sintered material using KNN, SVM, ANN, and RF. Ad­
ditive manufacturing of Inconel 718 is reported by many researchers,
and the influence of processing parameters on mechanical properties,
density etc. are studied [24–27]. The properties of AM component will
depend on the density of the part, which will be affected by the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rahulmr@iitism.ac.in (M.R. Rahul).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.103193
Received 15 September 2021; Received in revised form 20 January 2022; Accepted 23 January 2022
Available online 29 January 2022
2352-4928/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.K. Sah et al.
processing parameters that need to be established for the successful AM
process development. One could note that establishing a trained ML
model based on processing parameters, the density of the build, and the
defects generated will accelerate the AM component development.
In the current study, a dataset was generated by varying the pro­
cessing parameters, the density value was evaluated, and the defects like
porosity, Lack of fusion were analyzed. The seven machine learning
algorithms, namely Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Decision Tree
(DT), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Regression (SVR), XG Boost
(XGB), Multi-Variable Linear Regression (MVLR), Gradient Boosting
(GB) are trained and used for density prediction of AM sample. The
defects such as porosity and Lack of fusion were predicted by nine
different algorithms such as ANN, RF, DT, SVM, GB, Naive Bayes (NB),
K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Kernel SVM, Logistic Regression (LR). The
trained algorithms are validated against unknown experimental data.
2. Experimental details
Inconel 718 alloy was 3D printed using laser powder bed fusion
(LBPF) technique with EOS M290–400 W equipment. 125 numbers of
cube samples (10 mm × 10 mm x 10 mm) were fabricated with different
parameters (Fig. 1a). LPBF parameters such as laser power, scan speed,
and hatch spacing were varied at five levels each to generate a 5 x 5 x 5
matrix. Laser power was varied between 250 and 350 Watts at 25 watts
Fig. 1. Data collection and correlation a) Image shows the 125 samples prepared using AM for the current study, b) Heatmap shows the Pearson correlation values
(ED- Energy Density), c) Hexbin plot shows the distribution of data with respect to energy density (J/mm3) and density (g/cm3).
2
Materials Today Communications 30 (2022) 103193
intervals, scan speed was changed from 750 to 1150 mm/s at 100 mm/s
intervals, and hatch spacing varied between 90 µm and 130 µm at 10 µm
interval. The layer thickness was constant (40 µm) for all the samples.
The effect of these process parameters on density and defects (porosity
and Lack of fusion) formation was studied. Density was measured using
Archimedes’ principle in Mettler Toledo make balance. Defects were
analyzed on the build direction using an optical microscope at 100x
magnification. Specimens were polished using different grades of emery
paper and chemically etched using Kaling’s No.2 reagent.
3. Results and discussion
The current data set is initially trained to predict density, and the
dataset with density is trained for the prediction of defect formation in
AM sample. One could note that the porosity and Lack of fusion only
considered for the current study.
3.1. Prediction of density
The current dataset used for ML studies consists of 123 points ob­
tained from the experimental AM studies. Fig. 1a shows the additive
manufactured samples generated from the experiments. The interrela­
tion between various process parameters, energy density, and density of
the sample is shown in Fig. 1b & c. The volumetric energy density (J/
A.K. Sah et al.
mm3) [28] is calculated as follows
p order. In the Gradient Boosting algorithm, the maximum depth which
The energydensity(Ed ) =
v x h x d
The laser power in watts is denoted by P, the laser scan speed is v,
hatch distance is h, and d is the powder bed layer thickness. Fig. 1b
shows the heatmap where the Pearson correlation values can vary be­
tween − 1 to + 1, showing a strong negative and positive correlation,
respectively. In the current dataset, the maximum correlation value of
0.52 was obtained between energy density and density of the AM sam­
ple, which implies that while increasing energy density, the density will
show an increasing trend. Fig. 1c confirms the positive correlation; the
hexbin plot shows the increase in density with an increase in energy
density. One could note that the dataset is distributed in a wide range of
energy density and density. The maximum negative correlation value of
− 0.65 obtained between the scan speed and energy density implies that
the energy density will decrease while increasing scan speed. One could
note that the parameters considered have reasonable positive or nega­
tive correlation values with density.
3.1.1. Training and testing of ML algorithms
The current dataset with 123 values was divided such that 80% data
was taken for training and 20% for testing. Seven algorithms [14,29–36]
[37–40] are trained, and the optimum parameters are identified using
gridsearchcv method. The ANN algorithm behaves like the human brain,
where the artificial neuron will receive the information and send it to the
next neuron after analyzing. The ANN will have layers of neurons, and
one can see that the information will move from input to output layers.
In the case of ANN, the number of hidden layers varied between 2 and 5
with an interval of one, and neurons in each layer varied between 100
and 250 with an interval of 50. Drop-out [41] values varied from 0.1 to
0.3 for regularization. Tanh (Tangent Hyperbolic function) and Relu
(Rectified linear unit) activation functions were varied in the hidden
layer. For the current dataset, the optimum parameters are the number
of hidden layers value of 2 and Relu activation in the hidden layer. The
mean squared error (MSE) value of 0.0023 was obtained for the testing
dataset. In the DT algorithm, the maximum tree depth was varied from 1
to 12, and the minimum sample leaf varied from 1 to 10. The optimum
minimum sample leaf of 1 and the MSE of 0.00055 were obtained for the
current dataset. In case of gradient boosting algorithm the error will be
Fig. 2. Prediction of data during testing and comparison with the actual data point using various algorithms a) Gradient Boosting, b) Multi-Variable Regression, c)
ANN, d) RF, e) XG Boost, f) DT (density is in g/cm3).
Materials Today Communications 30 (2022) 103193
reduced in an iterative method and algorithm is built-in sequential
(1) implies the maximum depth of the individual regression estimators is
varied from 1 to 10 and the learning rate which will affect the contri­
bution of each tree varied from 0.01 to 0.1 with an interval of 0.01; the n
estimators varied from 10 to 120 with an interval of 10. The optimum
parameters for the current dataset are a maximum depth of 1, the
learning rate of 0.08, and the n estimator value of 70. The MSE value of
0.000323 was obtained for testing data. The RF is based on large number
of independent decision trees and the final prediction based on decision
tree pool. In the RF algorithm, the n estimators (number of trees in the
forest) varied from 10 to 100 with an interval of 5. The optimum n
estimator value used for the current dataset is 75, with an MSE of
0.0000629. The SVR creates a hyperplane or a series of hyperplanes in
higher dimensional space and the nearest data points on either side of
the hyperplane are termed as support vectors which are used to plot the
boundary line which separates data points. In the case of SVR, the reg­
ularization parameter (C) value varies from 1 to 100 with an interval of
10, and the optimum parameter is 1. The MSE of 0.000895 was obtained
for the testing data. In the XG Boost algorithm which is a gradient
boosting-based ensemble Machine Learning technique, the n estimator
(the number of runs that algorithm will attempt to learn) value varied
from 10 to 150, and the optimum is 90. MSE of 0.000399 was obtained.
Fig. 2 shows the testing data comparison for the algorithms; one
could note that the density distribution in the test data covers a
reasonable range of density of the total dataset. Linear curves connect
the predicted data points and actual data points separately for visuali­
zation. One could see that the Random forest algorithm predicting
reasonably well (lowest mean squared error value) in the testing data
and ANN prediction have variation with the actual data. XG boost and
Gradient boosting also shown reasonable matching with the actual data.
SVR prediction value is constant (8.14), which is not reasonably
matching with the actual data.
3.2. Prediction of defects in AM sample
In the current study, we have considered the porosity and Lack of
fusion of additive manufactured samples. These defects will affect the
quality and performance of AM components, and it is vital to monitor
3
A.K. Sah et al. Materials Today Communications 30 (2022) 103193

and avoid processing parameters that cause these defects. Fig. 3a shows
the optical micrograph of AM sample without any defect, and the inset
shows the plane considered for characterization, which is parallel to the
build direction. Fig. 3b,c& d shows the different types of defects
considered for the current study. Based on the morphology, the presence
of porosity is confirmed in Fig. 3b and the Lack of fusion in Fig. 3c.
Fig. 3d shows the sample with both porosity and Lack of fusion. Samples
with these defects in the current dataset have been evaluated separately
also. Fig. 3e shows the heatmap with porosity, density, and other pro­
cessing parameters; it can be noted that the samples having porosity
have been assigned with a value of 1 and without porosity with a value
of zero. The Pearson correlation value varies from − 0.65 to 0.52. The
porosity shows a negative correlation with scan speed and hatch dis­
tance and a positive correlation with energy density and laser power.
Fig. 3f shows the heatmap with a lack of fusion and other parameters.
The map shows the positive correlation between the Lack of fusion
defected sample with scan speed and hatch distance and the negative
correlation with energy density. Fig. 3g shows the heatmap by consid­
ering samples with or without defects. Here, the result label will take a
value of 1 for the sample with either Lack of fusion or porosity or both. In
this condition, the correlation value with the defect formation near zero
may be attributed to the opposite tendency of correlation values of
porosity and Lack of fusion. Fig. 3h shows the pair plot for the distri­
bution of data points with respect to different processing parameters and
energy density. The plot shows the reasonable distribution of points in
the domain considered; the trend of different defected samples is
readable from Fig. 3h. One could note that the overlapping tendency of
the diagonal plot for samples with porosity, Lack of fusion, and both and
without defect confirms that all parameters should be considered for the
ML training for defect classification.
3.2.1. Training and testing of ML algorithms
The algorithms are trained separately for each condition, such as
samples with porosity, Lack of fusion, and either of these defects. All the
conditions the optimum parameters are identified by using grid­
searchcv. The DT algorithm uses an optimum parameter for porosity
prediction, such as a maximum tree depth of 7 with a minimum sample
split of 0.1. The DT algorithm has internal nodes which represent an
attribute test, each branch indicates the test’s conclusion, and the ter­
minal node contains a class label. For Gradient boosting maximum depth
of 2 with a learning rate of 1 and n estimator value of 70. The KNN al­
gorithm classification is based on the information from the new data
point neighbors. KNN for the current porosity prediction uses the
number of neighbor values of 3. RF algorithm uses a maximum depth of
8 and an n estimator value of 90. SVM operates radial basis function
kernel function with regularization value of 1. The optimum parameter
for the current data set for ANN includes the number of hidden layers of
3 with the ReLu activation function in the hidden layer. For Lack of
fusion prediction, the DT algorithm uses a maximum tree depth of 7 with
a minimum sample split of 0.1. For Gradient boosting, the maximum
tree depth of 7 with a learning rate of 0.01. For KNN, we used 10 number
of neighbors, and for the RF algorithm, we use an n estimator value of 20

Fig. 3. (a to d): Microstructures of additively manufactured samples a) without defects (inset shows the defect analysis plane) b) with porosities c) with Lack of
fusion d) with porosities and Lack of fusion, Data correlation e) Heatmap by considering porosity, f) Heatmap by considering lack of fusion, g) Heatmap of the sample
by considering the defects together, h) Pair plot shows the data distribution along with density (g/cm3) (ED is energy density (J/mm3), P denotes samples with
porosity, 0 denotes samples without defects, L denotes samples with Lack of fusion, P+LP + L denotes samples with both porosity and Lack of fusion).

4
A.K. Sah et al. Materials Today Communications 30 (2022) 103193

Fig. 3. (continued).

with entropy criteria. In the case of ANN, we use 3 number of hidden
layers with the Relu activation function. Similar parameter optimization
was carried out for predicting samples with either porosity or Lack of
fusion or both.
Fig. 4 shows the confusion matrices and algorithm testing accuracies
for each condition. Fig. 4a shows the confusion matrix corresponding to
the ANN algorithm for porosity prediction; one could note that in
Fig. 4d, the comparison plot shows the high accuracy of more than 85%
for ANN for porosity prediction. Fig. 4b shows the confusion matrix for
KNN for Lack of fusion prediction, and the comparative plot shows more
than 65% accuracy. Fig. 4c shows the confusion matrix for the Naïve
Bayes algorithm for porosity prediction, and from the comparative bar

5
A.K. Sah et al. Materials Today Communications 30 (2022) 103193

Fig. 4. Normalized confusion matrix for testing data a) for porosity using ANN, b) for Lack of fusion using KNN, c) for porosity using Naïve Bayes and d) comparison
of testing accuracies (LOF- Lack of fusion).

chart, it is clear that the algorithm reached a maximum efficiency of comparison with the actual value. The Fig. 5a shows the comparison for
more than 90% for porosity prediction. From Fig. 4d, it is clear that KNN point 1; one could note that RF and XG Boost is predicting close value
will have high accuracy of more than 75% for prediction of either similar to the training dataset. The predicted values of density for the
porosity or Lack of fusion or both. For the current study, algorithms such algorithm are less than the actual one. Fig. 5b shows the prediction for
as SVM, Naïve Bayes, ANN show more than 80% testing accuracy for point 2. In this case, ANN and RF predict close value. The defect for­
porosity prediction. The algorithms such as SVM, KNN, RF, and ANN mation prediction for these two data points is compared in Table 2. Point
show testing accuracy of more than 60% for lack of fusion defect pre­ 1 has porosity, and point 2 has Lack of fusion. ANN exhibited high
diction, and the limited accuracy may be due to the less number of data testing accuracy in porosity prediction, but the same is not evident in the
points. The optimum algorithm for the current study is different from the new dataset for the prediction of porosities, although it performs
previous reports [15] for classification studies is mainly due to the na­ reasonably well for prediction of Lack of fusion. One could note that all
ture of data and its distribution. algorithms can predict whether the AM component is defective or not,
but few are failing in specific prediction may be attributed to the less
4. Comparison with experimental data number of data points trained. From the comparison data, one can
conclude that the trained algorithms will predict the density and defects
The trained and tested algorithms predict the density and defect in AM sample with reasonable accuracy. This can be improved by adding
formation in two new data sets. The parameters and density of the new more training datasets.
dataset are shown in Table 1. Fig. 5 shows the density prediction and its
5. Conclusion
Table 1
Additive manufacturing of 125 samples was carried out to generate
Parameters and density of experimental data point for comparison.
the dataset for ML algorithm development. The analyzed data shows a
Data 1 (point 1) Data 2 (point 2)
strong positive correlation between the energy density and density of the
Scan Speed (mm/s) 750 950 AM sample. Seven ML algorithms are trained for density prediction, and
Hatch Distance (mm) 0.13 0.1 the RF algorithm shows a reasonably good fit with the tested data. The
Laser Power (Watts) 275 325
correlation between the parameters and defect formation, such as
Energy Density (J/mm3) 70.51282 85.52632
Density (g/cm3) 8.186 8.161 porosity and Lack of fusion, is established. Nine algorithms are trained

6
A.K. Sah et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison of density (g/cm3) prediction with experimental data points a) point 1, b) point 2.
Table 2
Algorithm prediction for unknown data points from experiments (red indicate wrong prediction and green indicate correct prediction).
for defect prediction in the AM sample. ANN and Naïve Bayes show the
highest testing accuracy (>85%) for porosity, whereas KNN shows the
highest testing accuracy for Lack of fusion. The experimental compari­
son shows that the trained algorithms can predict the defect formation in
the AM sample with reasonable accuracy.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Aman Kumar Sah: Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Visu­
alization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.,
Muthumanickam Agilan: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investiga­
tion, Resources, Writing – review & editing., Subburaj Dineshraj: Data
curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing – review &
editing., Rahul M R: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology,
Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Govind Bajargan: Formal
analysis, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review
& editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] E. Hosseini, V.A. Popovich, A review of mechanical properties of additively
manufactured Inconel 718, Addit. Manuf. 30 (2019), 100877.
[2] S. Ghorbanpour, et al., Effect of microstructure induced anisotropy on fatigue
behaviour of functionally graded Inconel 718 fabricated by additive
manufacturing, Mater. Charact. 179 (2021), 111350.
[3] H.Y. Wan, W.K. Yang, L.Y. Wang, Z.J. Zhou, C.P. Li, G.F. Chen, L.M. Lei, G.
P. Zhang, Toward qualification of additively manufactured metal parts: tensile and
7
Materials Today Communications 30 (2022) 103193
fatigue properties of selective laser melted Inconel 718 evaluated using miniature
specimens, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 97 (2022) 239–253.
[4] G. Liu, X. Zhang, X. Chen, Y. He, L. Cheng, M. Huo, J. Yin, F. Hao, S. Chen,
P. Wang, S. Yi, L. Wan, Z. Mao, Z. Chen, X. Wang, Z. Cao, J. Lu, Additive
manufacturing of structural materials, Mater. Sci. Eng. R. 145 (2021), 100596.
[5] S. Cooke, K. Ahmadi, S. Willerth, R. Herring, Metal additive manufacturing:
technology, metallurgy and modelling, J. Manuf. Process. 57 (2020) 978–1003.
[6] Z. Snow, A.R. Nassar, E.W. Reutzel, Invited review article: review of the formation
and impact of fl aws in powder bed fusion additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf.
36 (2020) 1–15, 101457.
[7] C. Liu, L. Le Roux, Z. Ji, P. Kerfriden, F. Lacan, S. Bigot, Machine Learning-enabled
feedback loops for metal powder bed fusion additive manufacturing, Procedia
Comput. Sci. 176 (2020) 2586–2595, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procs.2020.09.314.
[8] D.J. Huang, H. Li, A machine learning guided investigation of quality repeatability
in metal laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing, Mater. Des. 203 (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109606.
[9] S. Liu, A.P. Stebner, B.B. Kappes, X. Zhang, Machine learning for knowledge
transfer across multiple metals additive manufacturing printers, Addit. Manuf. 39
(2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.101877.
[10] N.S. Johnson, P.S. Vulimiri, A.C. To, X. Zhang, C.A. Brice, B.B. Kappes, P. Stebner,
Invited review: machine learning for materials developments in metals additive
manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 36 (2020), 101641.
[11] C. Gobert, E.W. Reutzel, J. Petrich, A.R. Nassar, S. Phoha, Application of
supervised machine learning for defect detection during metallic powder bed
fusion additive manufacturing using high resolution imaging, Addit. Manuf. 21
(2018) 517–528, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.04.005.
[12] K. Aoyagi, H. Wang, H. Sudo, A. Chiba, Simple method to construct process maps
for additive manufacturing using a support vector machine, Addit. Manuf. 27
(2019) 353–362, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.03.013.
[13] K. Ren, Y. Chew, Y.F. Zhang, J.Y.H. Fuh, G.J. Bi, Thermal field prediction for laser
scanning paths in laser aided additive manufacturing by physics-based machine
learning, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 362 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cma.2019.112734.
[14] E. Westphal, H. Seitz, A machine learning method for defect detection and
visualization in selective laser sintering based on convolutional neural networks,
Addit. Manuf. 41 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.101965.
[15] R. Li, M. Jin, V.C. Paquit, Geometrical defect detection for additive manufacturing
with machine learning models, Mater. Des. 206 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2021.109726.
A.K. Sah et al.
[16] C. Wang, X.P. Tan, S.B. Tor, C.S. Lim, Machine learning in additive manufacturing:
state-of-the-art and perspectives, Addit. Manuf. 36 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.addma.2020.101538.
[17] I. Baturynska, O. Semeniuta, K. Martinsen, Optimization of process parameters for
powder bed fusion additive manufacturing by combination of machine learning
and finite element method: a conceptual framework, Procedia CIRP 67 (2018)
227–232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.12.204.
[18] S. Nasiri, M.R. Khosravani, Machine learning in predicting mechanical behavior of
additively manufactured parts, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 14 (2021) 1137–1153,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.07.004.
[19] Z. Zhan, H. Li, Machine learning based fatigue life prediction with effects of
additive manufacturing process parameters for printed SS 316L, Int. J. Fatigue 142
(2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105941.
[20] M. Zhang, C.N. Sun, X. Zhang, P.C. Goh, J. Wei, D. Hardacre, H. Li, High cycle
fatigue life prediction of laser additive manufactured stainless steel: a machine
learning approach, Int. J. Fatigue 128 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2019.105194.
[21] Z. Li, Z. Zhang, J. Shi, D. Wu, Prediction of surface roughness in extrusion-based
additive manufacturing with machine learning, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 57
(2019) 488–495, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2019.01.004.
[22] Y.W. Luo, B. Zhang, X. Feng, Z.M. Song, X.B. Qi, C.P. Li, G.F. Chen, G.P. Zhang,
Pore-affected fatigue life scattering and prediction of additively manufactured
Inconel 718: an investigation based on miniature specimen testing and machine
learning approach, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 802 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
msea.2020.140693.
[23] M.G. d Abreu, E.M.J.A. Pallone, J.A. Ferreira, J.V. Campos, R.V. d Sousa,
Evaluation of machine learning based models to predict the bulk density in the
flash sintering process, Mater. Today Commun. 27 (2021), 102220, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.102220.
[24] J. Strößner, M. Terock, U. Glatzel, Mechanical and microstructural investigation of
nickel-based superalloy IN718 manufactured by selective laser melting (SLM), Adv.
Eng. Mater. 17 (2015) 1099–1105, https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.201500158.
[25] D. Deng, R.L. Peng, H. Brodin, J. Moverare, Microstructure and mechanical
properties of Inconel 718 produced by selective laser melting: sample orientation
dependence and effects of post heat treatments, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 713 (2018)
294–306, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2017.12.043.
[26] P. Kumar, J. Farah, J. Akram, C. Teng, J. Ginn, M. Misra, Influence of laser
processing parameters on porosity in Inconel 718 during additive manufacturing,
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 103 (2019) 1497–1507, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00170-019-03655-9.
Materials Today Communications 30 (2022) 103193
[27] X. Wang, X. Gong, K. Chou, Review on powder-bed laser additive manufacturing of
Inconel 718 parts, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 231 (2016)
1890–1903, https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405415619883.
[28] S. Bai, N. Perevoshchikova, Y. Sha, X. Wu, The effects of selective laser melting
process parameters on relative density of the AlSi10Mg parts and suitable
procedures of the archimedes method, Appl. Sci. 9 (2019), https://doi.org/
10.3390/app9030583.
[29] P. Fabian, Scikit-learn: machine learning in python fabian, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12
(2011) 2825–2830.
[30] T. Wang, C. Zhang, H. Snoussi, G. Zhang, Machine learning approaches for
thermoelectric materials research, Adv. Funct. Mater. 30 (2020) 1–14, https://doi.
org/10.1002/adfm.201906041.
[31] C. Chen, Y. Zuo, W. Ye, X. Li, Z. Deng, S.P. Ong, A critical review of machine
learning of energy materials, Adv. Energy Mater. 10 (2020) 1–36, https://doi.org/
10.1002/aenm.201903242.
[32] W. Huang, P. Martin, H.L. Zhuang, Machine-learning phase prediction of high-
entropy alloys, Acta Mater. 169 (2019) 225–236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
actamat.2019.03.012.
[33] Y. Liu, C. Niu, Z. Wang, Y. Gan, Y. Zhu, S. Sun, T. Shen, Machine learning in
materials genome initiative: a review, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 57 (2020) 113–122.
[34] A.F.M. Agarap, Deep Learning using Rectified Linear Units ( ReLU), 2–8 arXiv:
1803.08375.
[35] L. Qiao, Y. Liu, J. Zhu, A focused review on machine learning aided high-
throughput methods in high entropy alloy, J. Alloy. Compd. 877 (2021), 160295,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2021.160295.
[36] A. Shrestha, A. Mahmood, Review of deep learning algorithms and architectures,
IEEE Access 7 (2019) 53040–53065, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2019.2912200.
[37] C. Corinna, V. Vladimir, Support vector networks, Mach. Learn. 20 (1995)
273–297, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0285.2009.00840.x.
[38] U.M.R. Paturi, S. Cheruku, Application and performance of machine learning
techniques in manufacturing sector from the past two decades: a review, Mater.
Today Proc. 38 (2020) 2392–2401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.209.
[39] J. Schmidhuber, Deep learning in neural networks: an overview, Neural Netw. 61
(2015) 85–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003.
[40] T. Kanungo, D.M. Mount, N.S. Netanyahu, C.D. Piatko, R. Silverman, A.Y. Wu, An
efficient k -means clustering algorithm: analysis and implementation, IEEE Trans.
Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 24 (2002) 881–892.
[41] S. Nitish, H. Geoffrey, K. Alex, S. Ilya, S. Ruslan, Dropout: a simple way to prevent
neural networks from overfitting, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15 (2014) 1929–1958.