Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fast and accurate reduced-order modeling of a MOOSE-based additive manufacturing model with operator learning

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One predominant challenge in additive manufacturing (AM) is to achieve specific material properties by manipulating manufacturing process parameters during the runtime. Such manipulation tends to increase the computational load imposed on existing simulation tools employed in AM. The goal of the present work is to construct a fast and accurate reduced-order model (ROM) for an AM model developed within the Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) framework, ultimately reducing the time/cost of AM control and optimization processes. Our adoption of the operator learning (OL) approach enabled us to learn a family of differential equations produced by altering process variables in the laser’s Gaussian point heat source. More specifically, we used the Fourier neural operator (FNO) and deep operator network (DeepONet) to develop ROMs for time-dependent responses. Furthermore, we benchmarked the performance of these OL methods against a conventional deep neural network (DNN)-based ROM. Ultimately, we found that OL methods offer comparable performance and, in terms of accuracy and generalizability, even outperform DNN at predicting scalar model responses. The DNN-based ROM afforded the fastest training time. Furthermore, all the ROMs were faster than the original MOOSE model yet still provided accurate predictions. FNO had a smaller mean prediction error than DeepONet, with a larger variance for time-dependent responses. Unlike DNN, both FNO and DeepONet were able to simulate time series data without the need for dimensionality reduction techniques. The present work can help facilitate the AM optimization process by enabling faster execution of simulation tools while still preserving evaluation accuracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tack P, Victor J, Gemmel P, Annemans L (2016) 3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: a systematic literature review. Biomed Eng Online 15:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Free Z, Hernandez M, Mashal M, Mondal K (2021) A review on advanced manufacturing for hydrogen storage applications. Energies 14(24):8513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kestilä A, Nordling K, Miikkulainen V, Kaipio M, Tikka T, Salmi M, Auer A, Leskelä M, Ritala M (2018) Towards space-grade 3D-printed, ALD-coated small satellite propulsion components for fluidics. Additive Manuf 22:31–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Era IZ, Grandhi M, Liu Z (2022) Prediction of mechanical behaviors of L-DED fabricated SS 316L parts via machine learning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 121(3–4):2445–2459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yaseen M, Wu X (2023) Quantification of deep neural network prediction uncertainties for VVUQ of machine learning models. Nucl Sci Eng 197(5):947–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Xiao D, Heaney C, Mottet L, Fang F, Lin W, Navon I, Guo Y, Matar O, Robins A, Pain C (2019) A reduced order model for turbulent flows in the urban environment using machine learning. Build Environ 148:323–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhao T, Zheng Y, Gong J, Wu Z (2022) Machine learning-based reduced-order modeling and predictive control of nonlinear processes. Chem Eng Res Des 179:435–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lou X, Gandy D (2019) Advanced manufacturing for nuclear energy. Jom 71(8):2834–2836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rodriguez SB, Kustas A, Monroe G (2020) Metal alloy and rhea additive manufacturing for nuclear energy and aerospace applications. Tech. rep., Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)

  10. Raftery AM, Seibert RL, Brown DR, Trammell MP, Nelson AT, Terrani KA (2021) Fabrication of UN-Mo CERMET nuclear fuel using advanced manufacturing techniques. Nucl Technol 207(6):815–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yushu D, McMurtrey MD, Jiang W, Kong F (2022) Directed energy deposition process modeling: a geometry-free thermo-mechanical model with adaptive subdomain construction. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 122(2):849–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lindsay AD, Gaston DR, Permann CJ, Miller JM, Andrš D, Slaughter AE, Kong F, Hansel J, Carlsen RW, Icenhour C, et al (2022) 2.0-MOOSE: enabling massively parallel multiphysics simulation. SoftwareX 20:101202

  13. Karniadakis GE, Kevrekidis IG, Lu L, Perdikaris P, Wang S, Yang L (2021) Physics-informed machine learning. Nat Rev Phys 3(6):422–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Raissi M, Perdikaris P, Karniadakis GE (2019) Physics-informed neural networks: a deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. J Comput Phys 378:686–707

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Patel S, Mekavibul J, Park J, Kolla A, French R, Kersey Z, Lewin GC (2019) Using machine learning to analyze image data from advanced manufacturing processes. In: 2019 systems and information engineering design symposium (SIEDS). IEEE, pp 1–5

  16. Khanzadeh M, Chowdhury S, Marufuzzaman M, Tschopp MA, Bian L (2018) Porosity prediction: supervised-learning of thermal history for direct laser deposition. J Manuf Syst 47:69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schoinochoritis B, Chantzis D, Salonitis K (2017) Simulation of metallic powder bed additive manufacturing processes with the finite element method: a critical review. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manufact 231(1):96–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Barrionuevo GO, Sequeira-Almeida PM, Ríos S, Ramos-Grez JA, Williams SW (2022) A machine learning approach for the prediction of melting efficiency in wire arc additive manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 120(5–6):3123–3133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhu Q, Liu Z, Yan J (2021) Machine learning for metal additive manufacturing: predicting temperature and melt pool fluid dynamics using physics-informed neural networks. Comput Mech 67:619–635

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Yaseen M, Yushu D, German P, Wu X (2023) Reduced order modeling of a MOOSE-based advanced manufacturing model with operator learning. Proceedings of M &C 2023

  21. Irwin J, Michaleris P (2016) A line heat input model for additive manufacturing. J Manuf Sci Eng 138(11):111004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ayachit U (2015) The paraview guide: a parallel visualization application. Kitware, Inc

  23. Hernández-Becerro P, Spescha D, Wegener K (2021) Model order reduction of thermo-mechanical models with parametric convective boundary conditions: focus on machine tools. Comput Mech 67(1):167–184

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Kovachki N, Li Z, Liu B, Azizzadenesheli K, Bhattacharya K, Stuart A, Anandkumar A (2021) Neural operator: learning maps between function spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.08481

  25. Li Z, Kovachki N, Azizzadenesheli K, Liu B, Bhattacharya K, Stuart A, Anandkumar A (2020) Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895

  26. Lu L, Meng X, Cai S, Mao Z, Goswami S, Zhang Z, Karniadakis GE (2022) A comprehensive and fair comparison of two neural operators (with practical extensions) based on fair data. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 393:114778

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Lu L, Jin P, Pang G, Zhang Z, Karniadakis GE (2021) Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nat Mach Intell 3(3):218–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M, Duchesnay E (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Sobol IM (2001) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simul 55(1):271–280

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Saltelli A, Annoni P, Azzini I, Campolongo F, Ratto M, Tarantola S (2010) Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Comput Phys Commun 181(2):259–270

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Iwanaga T, Usher W, Herman J (2022) Toward SALib 2.0: advancing the accessibility and interpretability of global sensitivity analyses. Socio-Environ Syst Modell 4:18155. https://doi.org/10.18174/sesmo.18155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Herman J, Usher W (2017) SALib: An open-source python library for sensitivity analysis. J Open Source Softw 2(9). https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00097

Download references

Funding

This work was supported through the INL Laboratory Directed Research & Development (LDRD) Program under DOE Idaho Operations Office contract no. DE-AC07-05ID14517. This research made use of Idaho National Laboratory computing resources that are supported by the Office of Nuclear Energy of the U.S. Department of Energy and the Nuclear Science User Facilities under contract no. DE-AC07-05ID14517.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Engineering, North Carolina State University, Burlington Engineering Laboratories, 2500 Stinson Drive, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Mahmoud Yaseen & Xu Wu

  2. Computational Mechanics & Materials Department, Idaho National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID, 83415, USA

    Dewen Yushu

  3. Computational Frameworks Department, Idaho National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID, 83415, USA

    Peter German

Authors
  1. Mahmoud Yaseen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dewen Yushu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter German
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xu Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xu Wu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yaseen, M., Yushu, D., German, P. et al. Fast and accurate reduced-order modeling of a MOOSE-based additive manufacturing model with operator learning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 129, 3123–3139 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-12471-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-12471-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation