Comparison of deep learning and physics-aware surrogate models for melt pool temperature prediction in laser welding

Abstract During laser welding, temperature changes rapidly as the keyhole and melt pool develop. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) can simulate this behavior, but evaluating many laser power and welding speed combinations is computationally expensive. Using eight FLOW-3D simulations of AA1050 laser welding, resampled to 50 time steps, this study compares two surrogate models with different temperature-field representations. The direct deep learning surrogate predicts temperature at individual spatial locations using a temporal convolutional network-bidirectional long short-term memory (TCN-BiLSTM). Their predictions reconstruct the complete field, while a hot-zone-weighted loss emphasizes high-temperature regions. The physics-aware surrogate applies sliding-window dynamic mode decomposition (SW-DMD) to separate temperature evolution into slow and fast components. Separate proper orthogonal decomposition bases represent these components, and two MLPs predict their coefficients from laser power, welding speed, and time. For the training, validation, and test conditions, respectively, the physics-aware surrogate reduced mean RMSE from 155.4 to 39.4 K (74.6%), from 97.6 to 47.8 K (51.0%), and from 343.2 to 106.0 K (69.1%). Spatial agreement was assessed using mean intersection over union (IoU) at 900 K across three common time steps. For validation, IoU increased from 61.0 to 74.3%. However, it decreased from 79.1 to 74.1% for training and from 17.9 to 16.2% for testing. Thus, the physics-aware representation substantially reduced overall temperature error but did not consistently improve the shape and position of the hottest region. These findings distinguish improved field accuracy from reliable prediction of critical high-temperature spatial boundaries.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Welding in the World
Published
2026-09-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-026-02632-7
Primary Topic
Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Comparison of deep learning and physics-aware surrogate models for melt pool temperature prediction in laser welding

Akash Meena, Kent Salomonsson, Amena Darwish, Stefan Ericson
Welding in the World
Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses
article

Comparison of deep learning and physics-aware surrogate models for melt pool temperature prediction in laser welding

Akash Meena, Kent Salomonsson, Amena Darwish, Stefan Ericson
article en

Abstract

Abstract During laser welding, temperature changes rapidly as the keyhole and melt pool develop. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) can simulate this behavior, but evaluating many laser power and welding speed combinations is computationally expensive. Using eight FLOW-3D simulations of AA1050 laser welding, resampled to 50 time steps, this study compares two surrogate models with different temperature-field representations. The direct deep learning surrogate predicts temperature at individual spatial locations using a temporal convolutional network-bidirectional long short-term memory (TCN-BiLSTM). Their predictions reconstruct the complete field, while a hot-zone-weighted loss emphasizes high-temperature regions. The physics-aware surrogate applies sliding-window dynamic mode decomposition (SW-DMD) to separate temperature evolution into slow and fast components. Separate proper orthogonal decomposition bases represent these components, and two MLPs predict their coefficients from laser power, welding speed, and time. For the training, validation, and test conditions, respectively, the physics-aware surrogate reduced mean RMSE from 155.4 to 39.4 K (74.6%), from 97.6 to 47.8 K (51.0%), and from 343.2 to 106.0 K (69.1%). Spatial agreement was assessed using mean intersection over union (IoU) at 900 K across three common time steps. For validation, IoU increased from 61.0 to 74.3%. However, it decreased from 79.1 to 74.1% for training and from 17.9 to 16.2% for testing. Thus, the physics-aware representation substantially reduced overall temperature error but did not consistently improve the shape and position of the hottest region. These findings distinguish improved field accuracy from reliable prediction of critical high-temperature spatial boundaries.

Welding in the World
University of Skövde (SE), Technical University of Denmark (DK)
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.