Process parameters optimization for improving surface quality and manufacturing accuracy of binder jetting additive manufacturing process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Binder jetting (BJ) process is an additive manufacturing (AM) process in which powder materials are selectively joined by binder materials. Products can be manufactured layer-by-layer directly from three-dimensional model data. The quality properties of the products fabricated by the BJ AM process are significantly affected by the process parameters. To improve the product quality, the optimal process parameters need to be identified and controlled. This research works with the 420 stainless steel powder material. Design/methodology/approach This study focuses on four key printing parameters and two end-product quality properties. Sixteen groups of orthogonal experiment designed by the Taguchi method are conducted, and then the results are converted to signal-to-noise ratios and analyzed by analysis of variance. Findings Five sets of optimal parameters are concluded and verified by four group confirmation tests. Finally, by taking the optimal parameters, the end-product quality properties are significantly improved. Originality/value These optimal parameters can be used as a guideline for selecting proper printing parameters in BJ to achieve the desired properties and help to improve the entire BJ process ability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".