Next Article in Journal
Field Experiments of Distributed Acoustic Sensing Measurements
Previous Article in Journal
Modeling of Graded-Index Raman Fiber Amplifiers with Pump Depletion
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Computer Science Integrations with Laser Processing for Advanced Solutions

by
Serguei P. Murzin
1,2
1
TU Wien, Karlsplatz 13, 1040 Vienna, Austria
2
Samara National Research University, Moskovskoe Shosse 34, Samara 443086, Russia
Photonics 2024, 11(11), 1082; https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics11111082
Submission received: 22 October 2024 / Revised: 11 November 2024 / Accepted: 15 November 2024 / Published: 18 November 2024

Abstract

:
This article examines the role of computer science in enhancing laser processing techniques, emphasizing the transformative potential of their integration into manufacturing. It discusses key areas where computational methods enhance the precision, adaptability, and performance of laser operations. Through advanced modeling and simulation techniques, a deeper understanding of material behavior under laser irradiation was achieved, enabling the optimization of processing parameters and a reduction in defects. The role of intelligent control systems, driven by machine learning and artificial intelligence, was examined, showcasing how a real-time data analysis and adjustments lead to improved process reliability and quality. The utilization of computer-generated diffractive optical elements (DOEs) was emphasized as a means to precisely control laser beam characteristics, thus broadening the application opportunities across various industries. Additionally, the significance of predictive modeling and data analyses in enhancing manufacturing effectiveness and sustainability is discussed. While challenges such as the need for specialized expertise and investment in new technologies persist, this article underscores the considerable advantages of integrating computer science with laser processing. Future research should aim to address these challenges, further improving the quality, adaptability, and sustainability of manufacturing processes.

1. Introduction

The evolution of manufacturing technologies increasingly necessitates the integration of diverse disciplines to achieve a high precision, adaptability, and speed in material processing. One of the most promising interdisciplinary areas is the combination of computer science and laser technologies. Laser processing is recognized as an effective method for precise material treatment, making it indispensable in industries such as aerospace, automotive, medicine, and electronics [1,2,3]. Advancements in digital technologies have opened new avenues for optimizing and automating these processes, with computer science playing a pivotal role in managing complex laser processing workflows, fine-tuning parameters, and implementing intelligent systems.
Laser processing requires stringent control over parameters such as the laser power, beam shape, energy distribution, and beam trajectory. In this context, computational methods are essential for developing accurate models and control algorithms. By utilizing computer models to simulate the laser–material interaction, it becomes possible to predict material behavior and adjust processing parameters in real-time for optimal results [4,5]. These models employ algorithms that simulate the physical interaction between a laser beam and materials, providing precise control over the processing conditions. This approach significantly improves both the accuracy and efficiency of manufacturing processes, integrating real-time feedback and control systems.
A critical focus area is the design of computer-generated freeform optics, which facilitate control over the shape of the laser beam for diverse tasks in laser material processing. The development of these elements relies on complex mathematical models, necessitating numerical modeling and optimization methods that often incorporate machine learning principles [6,7]. For instance, digital micromirror devices (DMDs) can be employed in various optical applications for high-speed complex wavefront shaping [8]. Additionally, spatial light modulators (SLMs) are being increasingly used in laser systems to manipulate laser beam shapes. This functionality helps optimize the energy distribution and improve the efficiency of laser material processing, contributing to better outcomes in applications that require precision, such as additive manufacturing and microprocessing [9].
Similarly, diffractive optical elements (DOEs) are particularly important due to their ability to provide high precision and flexibility in controlling laser beams [10]. The development of DOEs depends on advanced computational models that simulate optical behavior and optimize energy distribution for precise material irradiation. This approach integrates laser processing with computational science, ensuring a higher degree of precision in complex manufacturing operations [11]. The design process for DOEs relies on algorithms and computational models that predict and optimize the performance of optical systems for laser beams. Numerical modeling and simulation methods are crucial for creating ideal laser beam profiles and controlling the energy distribution [12,13]. Computer science provides the tools needed for a thorough analysis and optimization, enabling a high level of precision in producing complex structures.
Moreover, the effective use of DOEs is enhanced by their integration with intelligent control and automation systems, which allow for real-time adjustments to processing parameters. Intelligent systems based on algorithms can dynamically regulate laser processing parameters, adapting them to specific manufacturing needs [14]. The incorporation of machine learning methods and optimization algorithms in DOE designs enhances their adaptability to specific tasks, thereby minimizing errors and improving the manufacturing efficiency [15].
An integral component of this process is the collection and analysis of data generated during laser processing [16]. The application of big data analytics and artificial intelligence facilitates the identification of patterns and the prediction of processing outcomes, which can prevent defects and enhance product quality [17,18]. These predictive capabilities, enabled by advanced algorithms and real-time monitoring, allow for dynamic adjustments of system parameters, significantly improving process reliability and precision [19]. Furthermore, the integration of machine learning techniques into laser manufacturing processes enables enhanced defect detection and adaptive control strategies, paving the way for more efficient production methods [20]. The application of such technologies streamlines the manufacturing workflow and contributes to the development of smart manufacturing systems that respond to changes in operational conditions [21]. Real-time monitoring and feedback mechanisms in laser processing are essential for maintaining high standards of quality and efficiency [22].
Thus, the integration of computer science with laser technologies reveals new opportunities for creating highly precise, efficient, and automated production systems. This article explores how computational technologies—such as modeling, optimization, machine learning, and data analysis—can enhance laser processing. It emphasizes the application of these technologies in developing intelligent control systems and designing optical elements, significantly improving the precision and quality of material processing.

2. Modeling and Simulation in Laser Processing

One of the key aspects of integrating computer science into laser processing is the application of computational methods for modeling and simulating these intricate processes. Laser material processing, particularly at the micro and nano levels, involves a variety of complex physical phenomena, including heat transfer, melting, evaporation, and structural changes in materials. To achieve precise control over these phenomena, it is essential to utilize advanced analytical and predictive tools that can accurately model the laser–material interaction. This capability allows for the effective management of processes across various scales, facilitating innovations in manufacturing and materials science.
The most commonly used methods for modeling laser processing include the finite element method (FEM) and molecular dynamics (MD). These approaches enable engineers and scientists to build accurate models, predict material behavior, and adjust laser parameters to achieve optimal results. The FEM is widely used to model thermal and mechanical phenomena that occur during laser processing [23,24]. It divides the model into discrete elements, allowing for the calculation of the temperature distribution, deformation, and mechanical stress in the material under laser exposure. This is especially important for preventing overheating or material damage, which is critical in industries such as aerospace and medicine, where even the smallest deviations can affect the safety and functionality of the final product [25,26,27]. MD allows for the simulation of material behavior at the atomic level. This approach is essential when processing is carried out at the nanoscale level, where it is crucial to account for interactions between atoms and molecules in the material. MD simulations help better understand physical phenomena such as phase transitions or structural changes in the material caused by laser exposure [28,29].
In [30], the creation of a digital twin (DT) using MD modeling techniques and decision-making algorithms is described. To ensure the accuracy of the simulation, it is important to consider all possible process states and to define the core functionalities during the early stages of design. The integration of hidden Markov models (HMM) and the Internet of Things (IoT) enables the digital twin to predict the probabilities of different process states and update models in real time based on data from manufacturing equipment. The modeling preparation process, consisting of four stages, is presented in Figure 1.
One of the primary goals of modeling and simulation in laser processing is to optimize the laser parameters. Models enable the precise adjustment of parameters such as the laser power, pulse duration, scanning speed, and beam shape to achieve the desired processing characteristics. For instance, heat transfer simulations can help determine the optimal laser power to avoid material overheating and unwanted deformations [31,32]. By using simulations, various processing scenarios can be pre-tested, significantly reducing the need for costly and time-consuming physical experiments. This is especially valuable during the design and prototyping stages, where frequent adjustments and parameter modifications are often required [33,34].
The advancement of laser beam machining technologies, particularly in modeling and simulations, has significantly contributed to the optimization of manufacturing processes. The mathematical modeling of laser material processing is crucial for understanding thermal effects, material interactions, and process dynamics [35]. Furthermore, as digital twins become increasingly integrated into manufacturing, they offer enhanced predictive capabilities for laser machining applications [36,37].
One of the main advantages of simulations is the ability to test different processing scenarios and adjust the parameters according to even the slightest changes in conditions. In high-precision industries, even minor processing errors can result in defects or diminish the performance of the final product. Modeling helps to consider all factors and eliminate potential defects early in the design phase [38]. Moreover, simulations allow for an evaluation of the efficiency of different processing strategies and their adaption to specific materials and conditions [39,40]. For example, in the processing of composite or multilayer materials, simulations can calculate the optimal parameters in advance, minimizing the risk of layer damage or undesirable structural changes.
Numerical modeling plays a crucial role in additive manufacturing, particularly in the development of computational models for processes utilizing particle-based methods [41]. These methods effectively address challenges associated with fluid flows and complex deformations, making them ideal for simulating processes such as powder bed fusion and directed energy deposition. Figure 2 illustrates the classification of numerical methods, highlighting particle-based methods in a red dotted box, which do not require a mesh and provide a more accurate representation of process dynamics, and the discrete element method in a blue dotted box. Their application is critical for understanding the relationships between materials, processes, and structures, which is essential for the effective control and optimization of processes in real time.
Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have also augmented these processes, particularly in optimizing laser cutting and welding. Studies such as those in [42] have focused on the geometric, metallurgical, and mechanical aspects of the laser beam cutting process, illustrating the role that AI plays in process optimization. Additionally, Ref. [43] demonstrated how neural networks could be leveraged to optimize laser cutting parameters, further improving the efficiency and precision. The use of machine learning techniques for predictive modeling has been particularly transformative. For example, Ref. [44] explored the role of AI in laser cladding processes, which involve complex temperature distributions and material behaviors. This approach is complemented in [45], which reviewed AI applications in laser beam machining, emphasizing how machine learning algorithms can optimize process variables in real time.
Despite these advancements, there are still challenges in applying AI to real-time control and monitoring in laser manufacturing. While AI significantly improves the precision and efficiency of laser processes, the current challenges include ensuring reliable real-time feedback loops, adapting AI models to highly dynamic manufacturing environments, and overcoming the limitations of data collection and sensor technology [46]. For instance, laser systems often encounter unexpected fluctuations in material properties or environmental factors, which may not always be accurately captured by AI models, hindering the adaptability of real-time adjustments. AI is being increasingly recognized for its ability to foster more resilient and adaptable production lines compared to other traditional computing methods. By leveraging machine learning algorithms, AI systems can optimize manufacturing parameters in real time, adjusting dynamically to changing conditions or unexpected disruptions. This level of adaptability enhances the robustness of the production process, enabling systems to self-correct, forecast potential issues, and reduce downtime, thus improving their overall efficiency [47]. Additionally, AI can integrate real-time data from sensors and digital twins to continuously monitor and adjust processes, ensuring a higher precision and adaptability to complex tasks that would be challenging for conventional methods [48]. However, issues such as the algorithmic complexity, computational speed, and hardware limitations in integrating AI systems with real-time sensor data remain key obstacles [49].
Figure 3 illustrates various types of machine learning: supervised learning (SL), unsupervised learning (USL), and reinforcement learning (RL) [50]. These approaches play an important role in modeling laser processing, enabling the optimization of parameters and the discovery of effective solutions in complex multidimensional design spaces. SL utilizes labeled data for model training, USL helps to identify hidden structures in the data without prior labels, and RL provides the opportunity for learning through interactions with the environment, which is particularly useful in situations with a high uncertainty and variability. These methods contribute to enhancing the adaptability and accuracy of laser processing processes, which, in turn, improves the quality of the final product.
The integration of digital twins and AI for real-time control and monitoring in laser additive manufacturing has been a major area of research. Ref. [51] examined the use of digital twins to monitor and control laser processes, highlighting the role of AI in enhancing the adaptability and accuracy of manufacturing systems. This integration is also underscored in [52], where deep learning methods have been applied to monitor laser machining in real time, enabling dynamic adjustments based on live data.
Despite these promising developments, further research is needed to refine AI’s real-time capabilities, especially to enhance the resilience and predictability in complex manufacturing environments. The continued evolution of AI algorithms and the integration of advanced sensors will play a crucial role in overcoming these challenges and fully realizing the potential of AI in laser-based manufacturing.
In summary, the combination of traditional thermal modeling approaches with cutting-edge AI techniques represents a significant evolution in laser beam machining. These technologies not only enhance the precision and efficiency of laser-based manufacturing, but they also pave the way for more intelligent, adaptive systems that can meet the increasingly complex demands of modern industry. Thus, simulations play a crucial role in advancing the technological level of laser processing and accelerating the implementation of new materials and technologies in production.

3. Intelligent Control Systems in Laser Material Processing

The development of technologies in the field of laser material processing increasingly relies on advancements in computer science, particularly the application of intelligent control systems (ICSs). These systems are becoming an integral part of modern manufacturing processes due to their ability to analyze and manage complex tasks in real time. ICSs utilize data obtained from various sensors to monitor the state of the process and make prompt adjustments to parameters [53]. The main advantage of such systems lies in their capability to analyze vast amounts of data using machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms. This allows the system to make autonomous decisions regarding the modification of processing parameters based on the current state of the material, which is impossible to achieve manually with the same precision and speed [54].
For example, during laser processing, an intelligent system can analyze data about the temperature of the working area or the material’s melting speed. If the system detects a deviation from normal processing conditions, it can automatically adjust the laser power, its trajectory, or the flow of protective gas. This not only enhances the precision and stability of the process, but also significantly reduces the amount of waste and defects [55]. The role of ICSs is especially crucial in areas where a high accuracy is required or where the cost of errors is too high. For instance, in the production of microstructures for microelectronics, even a slight deviation in the parameters can lead to significant losses [56]. Processing composite materials also demands an exceptional precision, as even minor defects can impact the safety and durability of the final product [57]. The implementation of ICSs not only ensures a high product quality, but it also increases productivity by optimizing the manufacturing cycle. Utilizing intelligent systems for adjusting and controlling parameters minimizes the need for operator intervention, thereby accelerating the process and reducing the impact of human factors [55,58].
Modern laser processing systems also integrate machine learning algorithms to predict and adapt parameters in real time, which helps minimize defects, such as a lack of continuity, and improves quality control during additive manufacturing [59,60]. Research shows that the application of neural networks and other AI technologies can significantly enhance processing characteristics and provide more accurate modeling of the laser impact results [61,62,63]. Ref. [64] discusses how machine learning, particularly neural networks, enhances laser machining by optimizing parameters, identifying relationships, and predicting outcomes. This data-driven approach accounts for experimental factors and involves three stages: collecting input (e.g., laser fluence) and output (e.g., feature depth) data, training the network through backpropagation, and predicting outcomes for new inputs. The trained network can also forecast the results for inputs not in the original dataset, as shown in Figure 4.
Optimizing laser processing parameters requires the consideration of various factors, such as the material, type of laser, and environmental conditions. Utilizing AI for process optimization can lead to an improved performance and cost-effectiveness, as well as higher quality characteristics of the finished products [65,66,67]. Moreover, laser technologies are employed in creating biomimetic surfaces and improving the tribological properties of materials. In this context, research has highlighted the importance of selecting appropriate laser and processing parameters to achieve the desired properties [68,69,70,71].
Thus, the implementation of modern technologies, such as digital twins and machine learning methods, opens new horizons for laser material processing. ICSs are becoming crucial tools, ensuring a high product quality and increasing productivity by optimizing the manufacturing cycle. They allow for a significant enhancement of the efficiency and quality of processing operations, making them indispensable in high-precision industries such as aerospace, medicine, and microelectronics.

4. Computer-Generated DOEs and SLMs

4.1. SLMs in Laser Processing

In laser systems for material processing, SLMs are used, which are important for achieving the desired results [72,73]. In such systems, SLMs enable the creation and dynamic modification of laser beam shapes—whether ring-shaped, linear, or custom geometries—which significantly enhances the processing efficiency. Particularly in additive manufacturing and microprocessing, the use of SLMs allows for the optimization of the beam energy distribution, ensuring the uniform heating of processed areas and reducing the risk of defects. This leads to an improved processing quality, increasing the stability and accuracy, which is especially valuable for high-precision tasks, such as microprocessing, biomedical applications, and the production of high-tech components [74].
The integration of SLMs with computer modeling algorithms to create arbitrary wavefront shapes also enhances adaptive laser process control systems [75]. These systems can adjust beam parameters in real time in response to changes in the properties or state of the processed material, resulting in more accurate and predictable outcomes. Laser systems with SLMs utilize methods for the dynamic modulation of the intensity, phase, and polarization, expanding their potential for micro- and nanoscale processing [76].
Furthermore, combining SLMs with diffractive optical elements (DOEs) and other computer-generated optical elements opens up new possibilities for creating highly efficient and precise laser systems [77]. This approach enables functions such as spatial and temporal modulation, allowing beam parameters to be finely tuned to specific production conditions and requirements. These capabilities are especially important in industries requiring a high flexibility in laser beam control to achieve optimal results with minimal time and resource costs.
Nevertheless, the laser-irradiation resistance of SLMs, especially liquid crystal ones (liquid crystal on silicon—LCoS—or liquid crystal display—LCD), is limited due to thermal and photochemical damage caused by high-intensity laser beams, which reduce their longevity and modulation quality [78,79]. Such applications often require additional cooling and protection. Alternatives include solid-state SLMs [80] and DMDs [81,82], which are more resistant to laser beams. Solid-state SLMs have a better resistance due to their lower susceptibility to thermal and photochemical damage; however, their effectiveness depends on the material and operating conditions, and they may require protection such as protective coatings and beam-focusing optimization. DMDs, despite their high resolution and fast switching, have a low diffraction efficiency, which limits their use in applications requiring high-precision energy transfer. Their mechanical construction with micro-mirrors is also susceptible to overheating and wear under prolonged exposure to high-intensity laser beams, which can lead to deformation [83]. When working with such beams, additional protective measures such as cooling or specialized coatings are necessary.

4.2. Computer-Generated DOEs

Computer-generated DOEs exemplify how advancements in computer science are driving the evolution of laser technologies. DOEs are utilized to precisely control the profile of a laser beam, enabling the optimization of energy distribution, including for various material processing tasks. Through computational optics methods, it is possible to manage both the illumination distribution and the wavefront, facilitating the flexible shaping of laser beams with unique characteristics [84,85]. Figure 5 presents a spectral diffractive lens created through direct laser writing [86]. These lenses feature microstructures that manipulate the phase and amplitude of light, allowing for precise focusing, which is ideal for high-resolution imaging and laser material processing.
The design process for DOEs involves constructing complex mathematical models that simulate light behavior during diffraction. These models are optimized using computational algorithms to achieve the optimal energy efficiency and accuracy [87]. By leveraging modern computational techniques, DOEs can be tailored to meet specific requirements, thereby enhancing the quality and efficiency of laser processing tasks. Furthermore, machine learning algorithms can augment this process by identifying optimal shapes and configurations for the elements, ensuring a high precision and performance in material processing [88].
It is known that, when a laser beam interacts with a material, heat and mass transfer processes occur, which depend on the energy spatial and temporal characteristics of the beam. Consequently, forming a laser beam necessitates the simultaneous control of both the illumination and the spatial distribution of the wavefront [89,90]. In classical optics, creating the desired wavefronts typically involves using compensating lenses; however, these are inadequate for forming complex aspheric wavefronts or wavefronts lacking circular symmetry [91]. In such scenarios, digital holographic methods are employed, allowing for the precise generation of complex wavefronts [92].
DOEs are optical elements derived from computer algorithms that can transmit or reflect radiation. They are characterized by an amplitude-phase function that defines their reflection or transmission properties, determined by the conditions of wave field transformation [93,94]. For simpler optical elements, this function can often be calculated analytically, as with spherical or cylindrical lenses. However, for more complex tasks, computational methods are essential, enabling the development of optical elements with significantly more sophisticated functionalities. For example, wavefront correctors designed using computational optics can substantially enhance the wavefront parameters of laser beams [95,96].
The application of DOEs is particularly effective for laser beam focusing tasks. Complex wavefronts and illumination distributions can be derived from numerical solutions of inverse diffraction problems [97,98]. Diffractive axicons can be employed to control the energy distribution in the processing zone, allowing for the formation of axially symmetric wavefronts [99,100]. Concurrently, DOEs synthesized via computational optics facilitate precise control over spatial phase modulation and beam power redistribution [101]. Additionally, DOE technology enables the resolution of complex tasks related to focusing a laser beam into predefined focal lines or areas, significantly improving the accuracy and efficiency of material processing [102,103].
Thanks to their flexible parameter adjustment capabilities, DOEs can focus laser beams into simple focal curves, such as rings, lines, or segments. In most cases, a focal line of an arbitrary shape can be approximated by a combination of such simple curves [104]. Furthermore, DOEs are being increasingly employed to develop specialized optical systems with minimal spherical aberrations, making them essential for complex scientific and industrial applications [105]. An example is the design of optical systems for controlling and managing wavefronts in laser processing tasks, which require a high precision in energy transmission to surfaces, including those with complex geometries. DOEs with freeform shapes facilitate a more uniform distribution of laser beam intensity, enhancing the processing accuracy and efficiency [106].
Computer optics presents new opportunities for designing optical elements that provide flexible control over the amplitude and phase of light fields [107]. Computer-generated DOEs allow for the transformation of wavefronts into arbitrary shapes, ensuring a more precise laser–material interaction [108,109,110]. This technology significantly expands the capabilities for shaping and controlling laser beams, especially in laser material processing applications, as well as in fields such as medicine and microfabrication [111].
AI is having an increasingly significant impact on the development of diffractive optics [112]. Machine learning algorithms and generative models enable the optimization and customization of DOEs for specific applications, significantly enhancing their efficiency and performance. AI facilitates the automatic design of complex optical elements by learning from large datasets and generating optimized solutions for various laser beam shaping tasks. Furthermore, AI techniques can be used to refine the design process by simulating the optical behavior of DOE models under real-world conditions, which reduces the need for time-consuming trial-and-error methods. Generative models, such as deep neural networks, can predict the optimal DOE configurations based on the desired outcomes, improving the accuracy and speed of DOE designs. Additionally, machine learning allows for real-time adjustments to the DOE parameters, enhancing the adaptability and precision of laser processing in dynamic environments, such as manufacturing or medical applications [112].
AI also aids in the creation of intricate optical patterns, resulting in the development of more precise components capable of effectively manipulating light. Furthermore, AI models simulate the behavior of optical elements under real-world conditions, expediting design and testing processes. Figure 6 illustrates the specific AI algorithms employed in these advancements.
In conclusion, computer-generated DOEs are becoming crucial tools for optimizing laser systems, not only for improving material processing parameters, but also for pushing the boundaries of what is achievable in contemporary laser processing technologies. Future developments in DOEs are expected to focus on their integration with other advanced technologies, such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence, thereby unlocking new applications and possibilities. Additionally, as the demand for precision and customization in laser applications continues to rise across various industries, including aerospace, telecommunications, and healthcare, DOEs will likely play a vital role in developing next-generation optical systems that can adapt to diverse operational conditions and material requirements. The ongoing research in optimizing the design and fabrication of DOEs, along with advances in fabrication techniques such as 3D printing and nanofabrication, will further enhance their functionality and accessibility.

5. Prediction and Data Analysis

Predictive modeling represents an emerging field that combines existing and novel methodologies from computer science to rapidly understand physical mechanisms and concurrently develop new materials, processes, and structures. In laser-based manufacturing, predictive modeling aims to automate and forecast the effects of laser processing on material structures. Research shows that predictive models can effectively learn the mapping between laser input variables and observed material structures, which is further enhanced by integrating simulation data from computer-based models. This approach not only augments experimental data, but it also substantially improves the predictive performance by increasing the number of sampling points available for analysis [113].
In laser machining, a vast amount of data is generated by sensors and feedback systems. The analysis of these data is critical for predicting processing outcomes and preventing defects. Data science methods, including machine learning and statistical analyses, which are rooted in computer science, help identify hidden patterns, allowing for accurate predictions on how different processing parameters will impact the final product quality [114].
Data analyses can reveal correlations between variations in laser parameters and the development of microcracks or surface defects in processes such as selective laser melting and laser cladding [115,116,117]. This capability not only facilitates the real-time optimization of the process, but it also enables the early anticipation of potential issues, preventing them from escalating into significant problems [117]. In laser welding, process monitoring and quality control are crucial areas of research that are essential for achieving high-quality welds [118]. Numerical simulations play a vital role in predicting weld formation and quality, thereby contributing to the ongoing advancement of laser welding technologies. Techniques such as optical coherence measurements and long short-term memory networks have shown substantial promise in improving the real-time monitoring of critical parameters such as the penetration depth in laser welding [119]. This precise monitoring ensures that deviations in key quality metrics, such as the welding depth, are identified and corrected without delay. Furthermore, machine learning-based in-process monitoring has made significant strides in detecting welding defects and improving the overall stability of deep-penetration laser welding processes [120], further enhancing the production outcomes.
Figure 7 presents a schematic of a machine learning-based prediction method used in the selective laser-melting process [121]. In this method, machine learning models are trained using input data extracted from experimental results. These trained models are then employed to predict new data, such as the quality of a single laser track and the presence of defects, guiding the selective laser-melting process. The model’s accuracy is tested before the prediction phase to ensure reliability. By combining quantitative and qualitative analyses, this approach predicts the manufacturability of a given parameter set, enhancing process efficiency and defect detection.
Modern machine learning algorithms, which are a subset of computer science, are particularly effective for predicting process behavior, allowing for real-time adjustments to production parameters and ensuring consistently high-quality results in laser ablation and other laser-based manufacturing processes [122,123]. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI)-supported online monitoring systems has led to significant improvements in the quality control of laser beam welding and laser hybrid welding processes [124]. These systems are essential for maintaining the stability of welding outcomes, as evidenced in various industrial applications. A data analysis enhances the development of control algorithms for laser manufacturing processes [125]. By leveraging data on process parameters and outcomes, optimal settings can be determined to maximize both the quality and efficiency [126,127]. This is particularly advantageous in high-volume production, where even minor improvements in processing parameters can lead to significant resource and time savings.
In [128], the importance of real-time monitoring in laser manufacturing for achieving the desired results is emphasized. The concept of a cyber–physical system is presented, integrating automated technologies into laser processing, allowing for the optimization of machines and parameters for personalized orders using databases and deep neural networks (DNNs). A fully automated system called the Meister Data Generator (MDG), illustrated in Figure 8, has been developed, utilizing AI agents to optimize the processing parameters through trial and error with various algorithmic strategies. MDG enhances the performance of local laser machines without expensive equipment, providing access to valuable data and real-time feedback, which contributes to the creation of more reliable cyber–physical systems.
Data-driven monitoring systems are also crucial for effective predictive maintenance. These systems continuously analyze machine condition data to detect potential failures at an early stage, allowing for timely maintenance, significantly reducing downtime, and increasing the system uptime. As demonstrated in [129], Industry 5.0 is driving the evolution of predictive maintenance by integrating human intelligence with advanced technologies such as machine learning, digital twins, and the Internet of Things (Figure 9). A presented framework that incorporates these elements aims to enhance the sustainability, resilience, and human-centricity in industrial systems. This framework has shown its potential to significantly reduce downtime, extend the lifespan of equipment, and improve the operational efficiency. In metal additive manufacturing processes, such as laser powder bed fusion, predictive maintenance plays a particularly critical role due to the high demand for precision and defect-free production. Machine learning techniques are increasingly being employed to optimize production and improve the quality of the final part by providing process control during laser powder bed fusion. However, despite the growing use of machine learning in this area, further research and development are required to fully achieve real-time process control, improve the accuracy, and reduce both the production time and material waste [130].
In summary, the integration of computer science methods with data analyses in laser processing opens up new possibilities for improving the efficiency and quality of processes. Data-driven systems enhance the understanding of the complex relationships between the processing parameters and the results, while fostering more resilient and adaptable production lines that can swiftly respond to changing demands and challenges. Advancements in machine learning and artificial intelligence further enhance the predictive capabilities in laser machining, enabling the development of sophisticated models that account for the complexities of material interactions. By utilizing big data and computational techniques, processes become more proactive, continuously improving and driving innovation in laser processing. This approach not only elevates product quality, but it also significantly contributes to sustainability by optimizing resource use, in line with Industry 5.0 principles.

6. Discussion

The integration of computer science with laser processing is a critical advancement that opens up numerous opportunities for innovation and optimization in modern manufacturing. By combining the power of computational algorithms, machine learning, and real-time data analyses, laser processing systems are becoming more intelligent, adaptive, and precise. This synergy allows for the development of advanced control systems that can autonomously optimize processing parameters, enhancing the accuracy and quality of laser-based operations.
One of the key advantages of this integration is the ability to leverage computer-based technologies to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of laser processing. Predictive modeling, data analyses, and simulation methods enable the anticipation of material behavior under laser exposure, minimizing defects and improving the quality of the final outcome. Through techniques such as a finite element analysis and molecular dynamics, deeper insights into complex material interactions can be gained, allowing for the more effective optimization of laser processing parameters. This approach not only reduces trial-and-error efforts, but it also maximizes the efficiency, although it may demand substantial computational resources and specialized knowledge.
Another transformative impact is seen in the role of intelligent systems that harness machine learning to adapt in real time to changing conditions during laser processing. These systems monitor critical parameters such as the beam intensity, temperature, and material response, automatically adjusting the laser outputs for optimal performance. This real-time adaptability not only improves the precision of processes such as laser welding and additive manufacturing, but it also ensures consistent product quality across large production volumes.
Computer-generated DOEs represent a significant advancement in laser technologies, offering precise control over the shape and characteristics of the laser beam, which is essential for various applications. These optical elements enable the fine-tuning of laser beam profiles, allowing for a greater flexibility and efficiency in processes that require a high precision. The ability to tailor beam shapes and energy distributions enhances the effectiveness of laser systems across a wide range of industries, from material processing to medical applications, making DOEs a critical tool in advancing laser technology.
Moreover, the integration of data analyses and artificial intelligence has transformed process optimization in laser manufacturing. By collecting and analyzing vast amounts of process data, systems can be continuously refined, improving their efficiency and enhancing product quality. Advanced AI models enable laser systems to predict process outcomes based on prior data patterns, allowing for proactive adjustments that enhance both the speed and quality.
In fields such as additive manufacturing and laser cladding, data-driven systems make it possible to monitor each stage of the process, ensuring precision and repeatability. This level of control opens doors to creating highly complex geometries and functional materials that would be difficult or impossible to achieve through traditional methods.
In conclusion, the integration of computer science with laser processing is propelling rapid advancements in automation, precision engineering, and smart manufacturing. As technologies such as artificial intelligence, digital twins, and machine learning evolve, they continue to expand the possibilities for laser processing, opening up new applications across diverse sectors—from healthcare and telecommunications to the automotive industry and consumer electronics. This convergence of computational and laser technologies is not only enhancing present manufacturing capabilities, but also shaping the future of industry with more intelligent, sustainable, and adaptive production methods.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, the combination of computer science and laser processing technologies is driving a transformative shift in modern manufacturing. This significantly enhances the precision, efficiency, and adaptability of laser operations. The use of advanced computational models and simulations provides a deeper understanding of material behavior under laser exposure, facilitating the optimization of processing parameters and improving product quality.
The emergence of intelligent control systems powered by machine learning and artificial intelligence represents a key advancement in adaptive manufacturing. These systems enable real-time monitoring and automatic adjustments, ensuring a consistent quality and efficiency. By utilizing predictive analytics, these technologies can foresee potential issues and implement corrective actions before they impact production, thus minimizing downtime and maximizing productivity. Additionally, computer-generated DOEs offer unprecedented control over laser beam characteristics, increasing the versatility and effectiveness of laser applications across various sectors.
Data analyses and predictive modeling further maximize the impact of these innovations. By leveraging data-driven insights, processes become more efficient, adaptable, and sustainable, contributing to continuous improvement and resource optimization.
Looking ahead, future developments will likely concentrate on enhancing the integration of computer science in laser technologies through the advancement of sophisticated algorithms and the application of digital twins and advanced simulation tools. These innovations can provide real-time feedback and improve decision-making processes, leading to more agile and responsive manufacturing systems. Additionally, fostering collaboration across disciplines will be essential for driving innovation and creating comprehensive solutions that address the multifaceted challenges of modern manufacturing.
As these technologies continue to evolve, the intersection of computer science and laser processing will play a crucial role in shaping the future of smart, efficient, and sustainable production systems across various industries. This ongoing integration promises to unlock new applications and refine existing processes, ultimately creating a manufacturing environment that is more efficient and better equipped to respond to changing market demands.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lawrence, J.R. (Ed.) Advances in Laser Materials Processing: Technology, Research and Applications, 2nd ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2017; 802p. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ossi, P.M. Advances in the Application of Lasers in Materials Science, 1st ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; 395p. [Google Scholar]
  3. Nof, S.Y.; Weiner, A.M.; Cheng, G.J. (Eds.) Laser and Photonic Systems: Design and Integration, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; 427p. [Google Scholar]
  4. Parandoush, P.; Hossain, A. A review of modeling and simulation of laser beam machining. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2014, 85, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dutta, J.; Kundu, B.; Soni, H.; Mashinini, P.M. Analytical modelling for laser heating for materials processing and surface engineering. In Surface Engineering of Modern Materials: Engineering Materials; Gupta, K., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 103–123. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wojtanowski, J.; Drozd, T. Simplified geometric approach to freeform beam shaper design. Int. J. Opt. 2020, 2020, 2896593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kumar, S.; Tong, Z.; Jiang, X. Advances in the design and manufacturing of novel freeform optics. Int. J. Extreme Manuf. 2022, 4, 32004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ayoub, A.B.; Psaltis, D. High speed, complex wavefront shaping using the digital micro-mirror device. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 18837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schmidt, M.; Cvecek, K.; Duflou, J.; Vollertsen, F.; Arnold, C.B.; Matthews, M.J. Dynamic beam shaping—Improving laser materials processing via feature synchronous energy coupling. CIRP Ann. 2024, 73, 533–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Soifer, V.A. (Ed.) Computer Design of Diffractive Optics, 1st ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2012; 896p. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hsu, K.H.; Lin, H.Y. Tradeoff between diffraction efficiency and uniformity for design of binary diffractive laser beam shaper. Opt. Rev. 2013, 20, 296–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liu, X.; Xue, C. Design of diffractive optical elements based on axicon and its light analysis. Laser Optoelectron. Prog. 2018, 55, 40501. [Google Scholar]
  13. Doskolovich, L.L.; Mingazov, A.A.; Byzov, E.V.; Skidanov, R.; Ganchevskaya, S.; Bykov, D.A.; Bezus, E.A.; Podlipnov, V.V.; Porfirev, A.P.; Kazanskiy, N.L. Hybrid design of diffractive optical elements for optical beam shaping. Opt. Express 2021, 29, 31875–31890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kazanskiy, N.L.; Skidanov, R.V. Binary beam splitter. Appl. Opt. 2012, 51, 2672–2677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Doskolovich, L.L.; Bykov, D.A.; Andreev, E.S.; Bezus, E.A.; Oliker, V. Designing double freeform surfaces for collimated beam shaping with optimal mass transportation and linear assignment problems. Opt. Express 2018, 26, 24602–24613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Freire, P.; Manuylovich, E.; Prilepsky, J.E.; Turitsyn, S.K. Artificial neural networks for photonic applications—from algorithms to implementation: Tutorial. Adv. Opt. Photonics 2023, 15, 739–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. McCann, R.; Obeidi, M.A.; Hughes, C.; McCarthy, É.; Egan, D.S.; Vijayaraghavan, R.K.; Joshi, A.M.; Acinas Garzon, V.; Dowling, D.P.; McNally, P.J.; et al. In-situ sensing, process monitoring and machine control in laser powder bed fusion: A review. Addit. Manuf. 2021, 45, 102058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Herzog, T.; Brandt, M.; Trinchi, A.; Sola, A.; Molotnikov, A. Process monitoring and machine learning for defect detection in laser-based metal additive manufacturing. J. Intell. Manuf. 2024, 35, 1407–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, L.; Yao, X.; Chew, Y.; Weng, F.; Moon, S.K.; Bi, G. Data-driven adaptive control for laser-based additive manufacturing with automatic controller tuning. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ukwaththa, J.; Herath, S.; Meddage, D.P.P. A review of machine learning (ML) and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods in additive manufacturing (3D printing). Mater. Today Commun. 2024, 41, 110294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jyeniskhan, N.; Shomenov, K.; Ali, M.H.; Shehab, E. Exploring the integration of digital twin and additive manufacturing technologies. Int. J. Lightweight Mater. Manuf. 2024, 7, 860–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Genty, G.; Salmela, L.; Dudley, J.M.; Brunner, D.; Kokhanovskiy, A.; Kobtsev, S.; Turitsyn, S.K. Machine learning and applications in ultrafast photonics. Nat. Photonics 2021, 15, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sarkar, D.; Kapil, A.; Sharma, A. Advances in computational modeling for laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing: A comprehensive review of finite element techniques and strategies. Addit. Manuf. 2024, 85, 104157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Karamimoghadam, M.; Rezayat, M.; Moradi, M.; Mateo, A.; Casalino, G. Laser surface transformation hardening for automotive metals: Recent progress. Metals 2024, 14, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Orazi, L.; Rota, A.; Reggiani, B. Experimental investigation on a novel approach for laser surface hardening modelling. Int. J. Mech. Mater. Eng. 2021, 16, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Łach, Ł. Recent advances in laser surface hardening: Techniques, modeling approaches, and industrial applications. Crystals 2024, 14, 726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sun, S.-Y.; Zhang, Y.-L.; Liu, G.-S.; Yang, R. Multiphysics modelling and verification of pulse laser surface treatment of an Al alloy. Lasers Eng. 2023, 55, 371–388. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mosavi, A.; Salehi, F.; Nadai, L.; Karoly, S.; Gorji, N.E. Modeling the temperature distribution during laser hardening process. Results Phys. 2020, 16, 102883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Farshidianfar, A.; Nabavi, S.F.; Farshidianfar, M.H. The Laser Manufacturing Process: Fundamentals of Process and Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024; 218p. [Google Scholar]
  30. Stavropoulos, P.; Papacharalampopoulos, A.; Athanasopoulou, L. A molecular dynamics based digital twin for ultrafast laser material removal processes. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2020, 108, 413–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nabavi, S.F.; Farshidianfar, A.; Dalir, H. A comprehensive review on recent laser beam welding process: Geometrical, metallurgical, and mechanical characteristic modeling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2023, 129, 4781–4828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, Z.; Gao, M. Numerical simulations of oscillating laser welding: A review. J. Manuf. Process. 2024, 119, 744–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liang, Z.; Shi, Y.; Xu, T.; Wang, Z.; Zhan, J. A complementary approach to experimental modeling and analysis of welding processes: Dimensional analysis. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2023, 127, 3077–3095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liedl, G.; Vázquez, R.G.; Murzin, S.P. Joining of aluminium alloy and steel by laser assisted reactive wetting. Lasers Manuf. Mater. Process. 2018, 5, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dowden, J.M. The Mathematics of Thermal Modeling: An Introduction to the Theory of Laser Material Processing, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024; 274p. [Google Scholar]
  36. Liu, X.; Jiang, D.; Tao, B.; Xiang, F.; Jiang, G.; Sun, Y.; Kong, J.; Li, G. A systematic review of digital twin about physical entities, virtual models, twin data, and applications. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2023, 55, 101876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bevans, B.D.; Carrington, A.; Riensche, A.; Tenequer, A.; Barrett, C.; Halliday, H.S.; Srinivasan, R.; Cole, K.D.; Rao, P. Digital twins for rapid in-situ qualification of part quality in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2024, 93, 104415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Teng, C.; Pal, D.; Gong, H.; Zeng, K.; Briggs, K.; Patil, N.; Stucker, B. A Review of Defect Modeling in Laser Material Processing. Additive Manuf. 2017, 14, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Su, Y.; Xu, G.; Xu, X.; Zhang, H.; Luo, K.; Lu, J. Melt pool control-assisted additive manufacturing of thin-walled parts. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2024, 280, 109519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sudmanns, M.; El-Awady, J.A. Connecting processing conditions to microstructure evolution in laser powder bed fusion via defect modeling. Scripta Mater. 2024, 245, 116035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Afrasiabi, M.; Bambach, M. Modelling and simulation of metal additive manufacturing processes with particle methods: A review. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2023, 18, e2274494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nabavi, S.F.; Farshidianfar, A.; Dalir, H. An applicable review on recent laser beam cutting process characteristics modeling: Geometrical, metallurgical, mechanical, and defect. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2024, 130, 2159–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ren, X.; Fan, J.; Pan, R.; Sun, K. Modeling and process parameter optimization of laser cutting based on artificial neural network and intelligent optimization algorithm. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2023, 127, 1177–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gong, J.; Shu, L.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Qin, J. Research status and development trend of laser cladding process optimization method. Laser Optoelectron. Prog. 2023, 60, 1900003. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bakhtiyari, A.N.; Wang, Z.; Wang, L.; Zheng, H. A Review on applications of artificial intelligence in modeling and optimization of laser beam machining. Optics Laser Technol. 2021, 135, 106721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, K.; Ma, R.; Qin, Y.; Gong, N.; Wu, J.; Wen, P.; Tan, S.; Zhang, D.Z.; Murr, L.E.; Luo, J. A review of the multi-dimensional application of machine learning to improve the integrated intelligence of laser powder bed fusion. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2023, 318, 118032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Murzin, S.P. Digital engineering in photonics: Optimizing laser processing. Photonics 2024, 11, 935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jin, L.; Zhai, X.; Wang, K.; Zhang, K.; Wu, D.; Nazir, A.; Jiang, J.; Liao, W.-H. Big data, machine learning, and digital twin assisted additive manufacturing: A review. Mater. Des. 2024, 244, 113086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. El Khediri, S.; Benfradj, A.; Thaljaoui, A.; Moulahi, T.; Khan, R.U.; Alabdulatif, A.; Lorenz, P. Integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with sensor networks: Trends, challenges, and future directions. J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci. 2024, 36, 101892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kazanskiy, N.L.; Khonina, S.N.; Oseledets, I.V.; Nikonorov, A.V.; Butt, M.A. Revolutionary integration of artificial intelligence with meta-optics-focus on metalenses for imaging. Technologies 2024, 12, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tariq, U.; Joy, R.; Wu, S.-H.; Mahmood, M.A.; Malik, A.W.; Liou, F. A state-of-the-art digital factory integrating digital twin for laser additive and subtractive manufacturing processes. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2023, 29, 2061–2097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Grant-Jacob, J.A.; Mills, B.; Zervas, M.N. Live imaging of laser machining via plasma deep learning. Opt. Express 2023, 31, 42581–42594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Almakayeel, N.; Desai, S.; Alghamdi, S.; Qureshi, M.R.N.M. Smart agent system for cyber nano-manufacturing in Industry 4.0. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Grant-Jacob, J.A.; Mills, B.; Zervas, M.N. Real-time control of laser materials processing using deep learning. Manuf. Lett. 2023, 38, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Di Meglio, A.; Massarotti, N.; Nithiarasu, P. A physics-driven and machine learning-based digital twinning approach to transient thermal systems. Int. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow 2024, 34, 2229–2256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yu, Y.; Bai, S.; Wang, S.; Hu, A. Ultra-short pulsed laser manufacturing and surface processing of microdevices. Engineering 2018, 4, 779–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ritto, T.G.; Rochinha, F.A. Digital twin, physics-based model, and machine learning applied to damage detection in structures. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2021, 155, 107614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mills, B.; Heath, D.J.; Grant-Jacob, J.A.; Xie, Y.; Eason, R.W. Image-based monitoring of femtosecond laser machining via a neural network. J. Phys. Photonics 2018, 1, 15008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Afazov, S.; Roberts, A.; Wright, L.; Jadhav, P.; Holloway, A.; Basoalto, H.; Milne, K.; Brierley, N. Metal powder bed fusion process chains: An overview of modelling techniques. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2022, 7, 289–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Malik, A.W.; Mahmood, M.A.; Liou, F. Digital twin—driven optimization of laser powder bed fusion processes: A focus on lack-of-fusion defects. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2024, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Barnowski, D.; Dahmen, M.; Farkas, T.; Petring, D.; Petschke, U.; Pootz, M.; Schal, R.; Stoyanov, S. Multifunctional laser processing with a digital twin. Procedia CIRP 2022, 111, 822–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Casalino, G. Computational intelligence for smart laser materials processing. Opt. Laser Technol. 2018, 100, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Karkaria, V.; Goeckner, A.; Zha, R.; Chen, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, Q.; Cao, J.; Gao, R.X.; Chen, W. Towards a digital twin framework in additive manufacturing: Machine learning and Bayesian optimization for time series process optimization. J. Manuf. Syst. 2024, 75, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mills, B.; Grant-Jacob, J.A. Lasers that learn: The interface of laser machining and machine learning. IET Optoelectron. 2021, 15, 207–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sefene, E.M. State-of-the-art of selective laser melting process: A comprehensive review. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 63, 250–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gautam, G.D.; Pandey, A.K. Pulsed Nd:YAG laser beam drilling: A review. Opt. Laser Technol. 2018, 100, 183–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bakhtiyari, A.N.; Wang, Z.; Zheng, H. Feasibility of artificial neural network on modeling laser-induced colors on stainless steel. J. Manuf. Process. 2021, 65, 471–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Stratakis, E.; Bonse, J.; Heitz, J.; Siegel, J.; Tsibidis, G.D.; Skoulas, E.; Papadopoulos, A.; Mimidis, A.; Joel, A.-C.; Comanns, P.; et al. Laser engineering of biomimetic surfaces. Mater. Sci. Eng. R Rep. 2020, 141, 100562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kannatey-Asibu, E., Jr. Principles of Laser Materials Processing: Developments and Applications, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Ho-boken, NJ, USA, 2023; 608p. [Google Scholar]
  70. He, Z.; Lei, L.; Lin, S.; Tian, S.; Tian, W.; Yu, Z.; Li, F. Metal material processing using femtosecond lasers: Theories, principles, and applications. Materials 2024, 17, 3386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Zhang, D.; Li, Y.; Du, X.; Fan, H.; Gao, F. Microstructure and tribological performance of boride layers on ductile cast iron under dry sliding conditions. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 134, 106080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tang, Y.; Li, Q.; Fang, Z.; Allegre, O.J.; Tang, Y.; Perrie, W.; Zhu, G.; Whitehead, D.; Schille, J.; Loeschner, U.; et al. Extending the operational limit of a cooled spatial light modulator exposed to 200 W average power for holographic picosecond laser materials processing. Opt. Laser Technol. 2025, 181, 111589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fang, Z.; Zhou, T.; Perrie, W.; Bilton, M.; Schille, J.; Löschner, U.; Edwardson, S.; Dearden, G. Pulse burst generation and diffraction with spatial light modulators for dynamic ultrafast laser materials processing. Materials 2022, 15, 9059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dupuy, J.; Von Horsten, H.; Lamblin, M.; Hernandez, Y. Beam Shaping and Power Handling of a Spatial Light Modulator System for Laser Induced Periodic Surface Structuring Texturation. J. Laser Micro Nanoeng. 2020, 15, 228–231. [Google Scholar]
  75. Hasegawa, S.; Nozaki, K.; Tanabe, A.; Hashimoto, N.; Hayasaki, Y. Holographic Femtosecond Laser Processing Using 6.3 kHz Pulse-to-Pulse Spatial Light Modulation with Binary Phase Masks. Opt. Laser Technol. 2024, 176, 111014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Harrison, J.; Naidoo, D.; Forbes, A.; Dudley, A. Progress in high-power and high-intensity structured light. Adv. Phys. X 2024, 9, 2327453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Shirshneva-Vashchenko, E.; Mohammadian, N.; Divliansky, I.; Glebov, L. Modeling of laser beam shaping by volume holographic phase masks. Proc. SPIE 2023, 12402, 124020A. [Google Scholar]
  78. Han, Z.; Fan, W.; Song, Y.; Huang, D.; Cheng, H.; Pan, H.; Lin, C. Analysis of continuous laser-irradiation resistance of liquid-crystal optical switch based on sapphire-substrate GaN. Appl. Opt. 2024, 63, 4396–4404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Du, T.; Huang, D.; Cheng, H.; Fan, W.; Xing, Z.; Zhu, J.; Liu, W. Research on high power laser damage resistant optically addressable spatial light modulator. Photonics 2022, 9, 811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Shields, J.; De Galarreta, C.R.; Penketh, H.; Au, Y.-Y.; Bertolotti, J.; Wright, C.D. A Route to ultra-fast amplitude-only spatial light modulation using phase-change materials. Adv. Opt. Mater. 2023, 11, 2300765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hu, X.-B.; Ma, S.-Y.; Rosales-Guzman, C. High-speed generation of singular beams through random spatial multiplexing. J. Opt. 2021, 23, 44002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Heath, D.J.; Mackay, B.S.; Grant-Jacob, J.A.; Xie, Y.; Oreffo, R.O.C.; Eason, R.W.; Mills, B. Closed-loop corrective beam shaping for laser processing of curved surfaces. J. Micromech. Microeng. 2018, 28, 127001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Popoff, S.M.; Gutierrez-Cuevas, R.; Bromberg, Y.; Matthes, M.W. A practical guide to digital micro-mirror devices (DMDs) for wavefront shaping. J. Phys. Photonics 2024, 6, 43001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Doskolovich, L.L.; Mingazov, A.A.; Bykov, D.A.; Bezus, E.A. Formulation of the inverse problem of calculating the optical surface for an illuminating beam with a plane wavefront as the Monge-Kantorovich problem. Comput. Opt. 2019, 43, 705–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Fang, F.Z.; Zhang, X.D.; Weckenmann, A.; Zhang, G.X.; Evans, C. Manufacturing and measurement of freeform optics. CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol. 2013, 62, 823–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Doskolovich, L.L.; Skidanov, R.V.; Bezus, E.A.; Ganchevskaya, S.V.; Bykov, D.A.; Kazanskiy, N.L. Design of diffractive lenses operating at several wavelengths. Opt. Express 2020, 28, 11705–11720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Khonina, S.N.; Kazanskiy, N.L.; Khorin, P.A.; Butt, M.A. Modern types of axicons: New functions and applications. Sensors 2021, 21, 6690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Nikonorov, A.V.; Petrov, M.V.; Bibikov, S.A.; Kutikova, V.V.; Morozov, A.A.; Kazanskiy, N.L. Image restoration in diffractive optical systems using deep learning and deconvolution. Comput. Opt. 2017, 41, 875–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Andreeva, K.V.; Moiseev, M.A.; Kravchenko, S.V.; Doskolovich, L.L. Design of optical elements with TIR freeform surface. Comput. Opt. 2016, 40, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Doskolovich, L.L.; Bykov, D.A.; Andreev, E.S.; Byzov, E.V.; Moiseev, M.A.; Bezus, E.A.; Kazanskiy, N.L. Design and fabrication of freeform mirrors generating prescribed far-field irradiance distributions. Appl. Opt. 2020, 59, 5006–5012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Dickey, F.M.; Lizotte, T.E. (Eds.) Laser Beam Shaping Applications, 2nd ed.; CRC Press Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; 442p. [Google Scholar]
  92. Gan, Z.; Peng, X.; Hong, H. An evaluation model for analyzing the overlay error of computer-generated holograms. Curr. Opt. Photonics 2020, 4, 277–285. [Google Scholar]
  93. Murzin, S.P.; Kazanskiy, N.L. Study of the beam intensity redistribution in the focal plane of diffractive optical element. Proc. SPIE 2019, 11146, 111460V. [Google Scholar]
  94. Murzin, S.P.; Kazanskiy, N.L. Use of diffractive optical elements for beam intensity redistribution. Proc. SPIE 2020, 11516, 115160H. [Google Scholar]
  95. Werdehausen, D. Achromatic diffractive optical elements (DOEs) for broadband applications. In Nanocomposites as Next-Generation Optical Materials: Fundamentals, Design and Advanced Applications (Springer Series in Materials Science, 316), 1st ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 65–105. [Google Scholar]
  96. Skidanov, R.V.; Ganchevskaya, S.V.; Vasil’ev, V.S.; Podlipnov, V.V. Experimental study of image-forming lens based on diffractive lenses, correcting aberrations. Opt. Spectrosc. 2021, 129, 581–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ivliev, N.; Evdokimova, V.; Podlipnov, V.; Petrov, M.; Ganchevskaya, S.; Tkachenko, I.; Abrameshin, D.; Yuzifovich, Y.; Nikonorov, A.; Skidanov, R.; et al. First earth-imaging CubeSat with harmonic diffractive lens. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Skidanov, R.V.; Ganchevskaya, S.V.; Vasiliev, V.S.; Blank, V.A. Systems of generalized harmonic lenses for image formation. J. Opt. Technol. 2022, 89, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Palmer, C. Diffraction Grating Handbook, 8th ed.; MKS Instruments, Inc.: Rochester, NY, USA, 2020; 251p. [Google Scholar]
  100. Savelyev, D.A. Peculiarities of focusing circularly and radially polarized super-Gaussian beams using ring gratings with varying relief height. Comput. Opt. 2022, 46, 537–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kharitonov, S.I.; Doskolovich, L.L.; Kazanskiy, N.L. Solving the inverse problem of focusing laser radiation in a plane region using geometrical optics. Comput. Opt. 2016, 40, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Murzin, S.P.; Kazanskiy, N.L.; Stiglbrunner, C. Analysis of the advantages of laser processing of aerospace materials using diffractive optics. Metals 2021, 11, 963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Murzin, S.P.; Stiglbrunner, C. Fabrication of smart materials using laser processing: Analysis and prospects. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Khonina, S.N.; Kazanskiy, N.L.; Skidanov, R.V.; Butt, M.A. Advancements and applications of diffractive optical elements in contemporary optics: A comprehensive overview. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2024, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Gao, J.; Guo, J.; Dai, A.; Situ, G. Optical system design: From iterative optimization to artificial intelligence. Zhongguo Jiguang/Chin. J. Lasers 2023, 50, 1101012. [Google Scholar]
  106. Murzin, S.P.; Bielak, R.; Liedl, G. Algorithm for calculating of the power density distribution of the laser beam to create a desired thermal effect on technological objects. Comput. Opt. 2016, 40, 679–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wu, R.; Liu, P.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Li, H.; Liu, X. A mathematical model of the single freeform surface design for collimated beam shaping. Opt. Express 2013, 21, 20974–20989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Porfirev, A.; Khonina, S.; Meshalkin, A.; Ivliev, N.; Achimova, E.; Abashkin, V.; Prisacar, A.; Podlipnov, V. Two-step maskless fabrication of compound fork-shaped gratings in nanomultilayer structures based on chalcogenide glasses. Opt. Lett. 2021, 46, 3037–3040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Kononenko, T.V.; Sovyk, D.N.; Pivovarov, P.A.; Pavelyev, V.S.; Mezhenin, A.V.; Cherepanov, K.V.; Komlenok, M.S.; Sorochenko, V.R.; Khomich, A.A.; Pashinin, V.P.; et al. Fabrication of diamond diffractive optics for powerful CO2 lasers via replication of laser microstructures on silicon template. Diam. Relat. Mater. 2020, 101, 107656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Volodkin, B.; Choporova, Y.; Knyazev, B.; Kulipanov, G.; Pavelyev, V.; Soifer, V.; Vinokurov, N. Fabrication and characterization of diffractive phase plates for forming high-power terahertz vortex beams using free electron laser radiation. Opt. Quantum Electron. 2016, 48, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kazanskiy, N.L. Modeling diffractive optics elements and devices. Proc. SPIE 2018, 10774, 107740. [Google Scholar]
  112. Khonina, S.; Kazanskiy, N.; Efimov, A.; Nikonorov, A.; Oseledets, I.; Skidanov, R.; Butt, M. A perspective on the artificial intelligence’s transformative role in advancing diffractive optics. iScience 2024, 27, 110270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Velli, M.-C.; Tsibidis, G.D.; Mimidis, A.; Pantazis, Y.; Stratakis, E. Predictive modeling approaches in laser-based material processing. J. Appl. Phys. 2020, 128, 18235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wu, D.; Zhang, P.; Yu, Z.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Chen, H.; Chen, S.; Tian, Y. Progress and perspectives of in-situ optical monitoring in laser beam welding: Sensing, characterization, and modeling. J. Manuf. Process. 2023, 75, 767–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Fang, Z.-C.; Wu, Z.-L.; Huang, C.-G.; Wu, C.-W. Review on residual stress in selective laser melting additive manufacturing of alloy parts. Optics Laser Technol. 2020, 129, 106283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Wu, S.-H.; Tariq, U.; Joy, R.; Sparks, T.; Flood, A.; Liou, F. Experimental, computational, and machine learning methods for prediction of residual stresses in laser additive manufacturing: A critical review. Materials 2024, 17, 1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Li, Y.; Wang, K.; Fu, H.; Zhi, X.; Guo, X.; Lin, J. Prediction for dilution rate of AlCoCrFeNi coatings by laser cladding based on a BP Neural Network. Coatings 2021, 11, 1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ma, Z.-X.; Cheng, P.-X.; Ning, J.; Zhang, L.-J.; Na, S.-J. Innovations in monitoring, control and design of laser and laser-arc hybrid welding processes. Metals 2021, 11, 1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Shu, L.; Ma, D.; Cao, S.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, P.; Geng, S. Optical coherence measurement-based penetration depth monitoring of stainless steel sheets in laser lap welding using long short-term memory network. Opt. Laser Technol. 2025, 181, 111811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Lu, R.; Lou, M.; Xia, Y.; Huang, S.; Li, Z.; Lyu, T.; Wu, Y.; Li, Y. Machine learning-based in-process monitoring for laser deep penetration welding: A survey. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2024, 137, 109059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Chen, Y.; Wang, H.; Wu, Y.; Wang, H. Predicting the printability in selective laser melting with a supervised machine learning method. Materials 2020, 13, 5063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Regassa Hunde, B.; Debebe Woldeyohannes, A. Future prospects of computer-aided design (CAD)—A review from the perspective of artificial intelligence (AI), extended reality, and 3D printing. Results Eng. 2022, 14, 100478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Tsai, C.-C.; Yiu, T.-H. Investigation of laser ablation quality based on data science and machine learning XGBoost classifier. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Klimpel, A. Review and analysis of modern laser beam welding processes. Materials 2024, 17, 4657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Piccininni, A.; Palumbo, G. Numerical modelling of the annealing determined by short-term laser treatment using a physical simulation-based approach. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2023, 45, 210–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Castro Cerda, F.M.; Goulas, C.; Jones, D.; Méndez, P.; Wood, G. Modelling the laser surface hardening process in a steel with a spheroidized initial microstructure. J. Manuf. Process. 2024, 125, 364–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Wallerstein, D.; Salminen, A.; Lusquiños, F.; Badaoui, A.; Pou, J. Recent developments in laser welding of aluminum alloys to steel. Metals 2021, 11, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Kobayashi, Y.; Takahashi, T.; Nakazato, T.; Sakurai, H.; Tamaru, H.; Ishikawa, K.; Sakaue, K.; Tani, S. Fully automated data acquisition for laser production cyber-physical system. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 2021, 27, 9411653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Murtaza, A.A.; Saher, A.; Zafar, M.H.; Moosavi, S.K.R.; Aftab, M.F.; Sanfilippo, F. Paradigm shift for predictive maintenance and condition monitoring from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0: A systematic review, challenges and case study. Results Eng. 2024, 24, 102935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Sahar, T.; Rauf, M.; Murtaza, A.; Khan, L.A.; Ayub, H.; Jameel, S.M.; Ahad, I.U. Anomaly detection in laser powder bed fusion using machine learning: A review. Results Eng. 2023, 17, 100803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The four-stage molecular dynamics (MD) modeling preparation process, as outlined in [30].
Figure 1. The four-stage molecular dynamics (MD) modeling preparation process, as outlined in [30].
Photonics 11 01082 g001
Figure 2. General classification of numerical techniques, emphasizing particle-based methods for fluid flows and complex deformations [41].
Figure 2. General classification of numerical techniques, emphasizing particle-based methods for fluid flows and complex deformations [41].
Photonics 11 01082 g002
Figure 3. Types of machine learning: unsupervised learning (USL), supervised learning (SL), and reinforcement learning (RL) [50].
Figure 3. Types of machine learning: unsupervised learning (USL), supervised learning (SL), and reinforcement learning (RL) [50].
Photonics 11 01082 g003
Figure 4. Concept of machine learning application in laser machining [64].
Figure 4. Concept of machine learning application in laser machining [64].
Photonics 11 01082 g004
Figure 5. (a) Image of the diffractive spectral lens; (b) microrelief detail captured using a Zygo New View 7300 interferometer [86].
Figure 5. (a) Image of the diffractive spectral lens; (b) microrelief detail captured using a Zygo New View 7300 interferometer [86].
Photonics 11 01082 g005
Figure 6. Applications of AI algorithms in the field of diffractive optics [112].
Figure 6. Applications of AI algorithms in the field of diffractive optics [112].
Photonics 11 01082 g006
Figure 7. Schematic of the prediction method using machine learning to predict the process parameters [121].
Figure 7. Schematic of the prediction method using machine learning to predict the process parameters [121].
Photonics 11 01082 g007
Figure 8. (Upper) Conceptual design of the Meister Data Generator (MDG) and its integration with a smart laser machine. (Lower) Illustration of the MDG system [128].
Figure 8. (Upper) Conceptual design of the Meister Data Generator (MDG) and its integration with a smart laser machine. (Lower) Illustration of the MDG system [128].
Photonics 11 01082 g008
Figure 9. Key principles and outcomes of Industry 5.0, emphasizing the synergy between human intelligence and smart technologies for sustainable processes [129].
Figure 9. Key principles and outcomes of Industry 5.0, emphasizing the synergy between human intelligence and smart technologies for sustainable processes [129].
Photonics 11 01082 g009
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Murzin, S.P. Computer Science Integrations with Laser Processing for Advanced Solutions. Photonics 2024, 11, 1082. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics11111082

AMA Style

Murzin SP. Computer Science Integrations with Laser Processing for Advanced Solutions. Photonics. 2024; 11(11):1082. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics11111082

Chicago/Turabian Style

Murzin, Serguei P. 2024. "Computer Science Integrations with Laser Processing for Advanced Solutions" Photonics 11, no. 11: 1082. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics11111082

APA Style

Murzin, S. P. (2024). Computer Science Integrations with Laser Processing for Advanced Solutions. Photonics, 11(11), 1082. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics11111082

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop