Materials and Manufacturing Processes· 2026Q1
A hybrid machine learning-GCO framework for multi-response optimization in AWJ machining of MWCNT infused Mg-FMLs
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A hybrid machine learning (ML) and Germinal Center Optimization (GCO) framework accurately predicts and optimizes abrasive waterjet (AWJ) machining of MWCNT-infused Mg-FMLs, achieving high prediction accuracy (R2 > 0.90) and identifying optimal conditions yielding low confirmation errors (< 4.6%).
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- A hybrid ML-GCO framework was developed for AWJ machining optimization of MWCNT-Mg-FMLs.
- Random Forest model achieved high prediction accuracy (R2 > 0.90) for MRR, KW, and Fd.
- Germinal Center Optimization (GCO) identified optimal machining parameters.
- Optimal conditions yielded low confirmation errors: 4.56% for MRR, 2.68% for KW, and 4.03% for Fd.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
A hybrid machine learning (ML)-assisted framework was developed to predict and optimize abrasive waterjet (AWJ) machining of multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT)-infused magnesium fibre metal laminates (Mg-FMLs). Thirty experiments were conducted using a four-factor Box–Behnken design, and bootstrap sampling-based augmentation generated 540 additional synthetic observations. Random Forest (RF), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), Decision Tree (DT), and AdaBoost Regressor (ABR) were evaluated for predicting material removal rate (MRR), kerf width (KW), and delamination factor (Fd). RF achieved R2 values of 0.9026, 0.9075, and 0.9140, respectively. Five metaheuristic algorithms were compared, and Germinal Center Optimization (GCO) achieved the highest overall objective value (0.5873). The optimal conditions were 0.6954 wt% MWCNT, 2764.75 MPa waterjet pressure, 784.17 mm/min traverse speed, and 454.83 g/min abrasive flow rate, yielding predicted MRR, KW, and Fd values of 113.22 g/min, 3.8781 mm, and 2.9148, respectively. Confirmation errors were found to be 4.56%, 2.68%, and 4.03%, respectively.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Ecological ModelingEnvironmental Science