MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023790553 · doi:10.1108/13552540910979767

Powder particle temperature distribution in laser deposition technologies

2009· article· en· W2023790553 on OpenAlexaff
Valerio Giuliani, Ronald J. Hugo, Peihua Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueRapid Prototyping Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaserMaterials scienceNozzleParticle (ecology)Laser power scalingDeposition (geology)Collimated lightLaser beam qualityParticle-size distributionRapid prototypingOpticsParticle sizeMechanical engineeringOptoelectronicsComposite materialPhysicsEngineeringLaser beams

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a flexible tool to predict the particle temperature distribution for traditional laser applications and for the most recent diode laser processes. In the past few years, surface processing and rapid prototyping applications have frequently implemented the use of powder delivery nozzles and high power fibre‐coupled diode lasers with highly convergent laser beams. Owing to the complexity and variety of the process parameters involved in this technology, mathematical models are necessary to understand and predict the deposition behaviour. Modeling the dynamics of the melting pool and the particle temperature distribution is critical for achieving a good deposition quality. Design/methodology/approach This study focuses on the development of mathematical models to predict the particle temperature distribution over the melting pool. An analytical and a numerical solution are proposed for two cases of laser intensity distribution: top hat and Gaussian. Findings The results show that a more vertical position of powder delivery nozzle will lead to a higher and more uniform particle temperature distribution, in particular for the top‐hat intensity distribution case. Originality/value Previous work has dealt only with Gaussian laser spatial distributions and collimated laser beams. Therefore, they were limited to a specific class of laser processes. This work provides a flexible tool to predict the particle temperature distribution for traditional laser applications (powder delivery nozzle and Gaussian laser profile) and for the most recent diode laser processes (powder delivery nozzle and top‐hat laser distribution with highly convergent laser beam). In addition, the results demonstrate that the particle temperature does not monotonically increase while increasing the nozzle inclination as in the case of a collimated laser beam, but some particles show a minimum temperature for intermediate values of the nozzle inclination angle.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRapid Prototyping JournalSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207