2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.matlet.2022.132879
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Machine learning approach for predicting the peak temperature of dissimilar AA7050-AA2014A friction stir welding butt joint using various regression models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At present, the quality evaluation of RFSSW joints mainly adopts two technical paths based on welding process parameters or non-destructive testing. The evaluation of joint quality based on welding process parameters mainly employs the response surface method and machine learning technology to predict the joint quality through various welding process parameters [6][7][8]. RFSSW involves welding process parameters such as the insertion depth of the sleeve, stirring speed, stirring time, and refilling time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At present, the quality evaluation of RFSSW joints mainly adopts two technical paths based on welding process parameters or non-destructive testing. The evaluation of joint quality based on welding process parameters mainly employs the response surface method and machine learning technology to predict the joint quality through various welding process parameters [6][7][8]. RFSSW involves welding process parameters such as the insertion depth of the sleeve, stirring speed, stirring time, and refilling time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The XGBoost model showed the highest accuracy of 95.24% compared with DT and RF models, equal to 90.48%. In another study [181], ML algorithms (LR, PR, SVR, DTR, and RFR) were applied to predict the dissimilar butt-welded joint of AA7050-AA2014A from sets of input variables (RS: 1000-1600 rpm, TS: 30-70 mm/min, tilt angle: 0.5-2.5 • ). There were 108 datasets, with 90% training and 10% testing data.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%