MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001457560 · doi:10.1088/0022-3727/39/12/022

Prediction of melt pool depth and dilution in laser powder deposition

2006· article· en· W2001457560 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics D Applied Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilutionDeposition (geology)LaserMineralogyMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OpticsGeologyChemistryEnvironmental chemistryThermodynamicsGeomorphologyPhysicsSediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a mathematical model of laser powder deposition (LPD) to predict temperature field, melt pool depth and dilution. The model validated by experiments is developed using the moving heat source method. In this method, the temperature distribution inside the clad and the substrate is obtained using the superposition principle and the solution of the heat diffusion due to a point heat source. The model, which can be used in real-time applications, predicts the melt pool depth and dilution as a function of clad height and clad width, which in practice can be measured by a vision system. Numerical and experimental analyses show a non-linear behaviour of the melt pool depth as a function of process speed. This indicates that the melt pool depth has a maximum at a certain process speed. The comparisons between the numerical and experimental results show that this model is capable of predicting the characteristics of the LPD process accurately. Using the model, some general curves that show the behaviours of the melt pool depth and dilution as a function of clad height, scanning speed and laser power are illustrated.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.177 · 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