MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996251002 · doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.937013

Energy consumption model of Binder-jetting additive manufacturing processes

2014· article· en· W1996251002 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Xu, Simon Meteyer, Nicolás Perry, Yaoyao Fiona Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Production Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy consumptionAerospaceAutomotive industryProcess engineeringMechanical engineeringProcess (computing)CeramicManufacturing engineeringEngineeringProduct (mathematics)Energy (signal processing)Automotive engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceComposite materialMathematicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considering the potential for new product design possibilities and the reduction of environmental impacts, Additive Manufacturing (AM) processes are considered to possess significant advantages for automotive, aerospace and medical equipment industries. One of the commercial AM techniques is Binder-jetting (BJ). This technique can be used to process a variety of materials including stainless steel, ceramic, polymer and glass. However, there is very limited research about this AM technology on energy consumption aspect. This paper presents a method to build an energy consumption model for printing stage of BJ process. Mathematical analyses are performed to find out the correlation between the energy consumption and geometry of the manufactured part. Based on the analyses, total energy consumption is calculated as a function of part geometry and printing parameters. Finally, test printing is performed to check the accuracy of the model. This process model provides a tool to optimise part geometry design with respect to energy consumption.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations147
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Production ResearchSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207