Densification Behavior of 316L Stainless Steel Parts Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting by Variation in Laser Energy Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selective laser melting (SLM) is an attractive manufacturing technique for the production of metal parts with complex geometries and high performance. This manufacturing process is characterized by highly localized laser energy inputs during short interaction times which significantly affect the densification process. In this present work, experimental investigation of fabricating 316L stainless steel parts by SLM process was conducted to determine the effect of different laser energy densities on the densification behavior and resultant microstructural development. It was found that using a low laser energy density below 50 J/mm3 produced an instable melt pool that resulted in the formation of unmelted particles, pores, cracks, and balling in the as-built parts with low densification. In contrast, the as-built parts at a high energy density above 200 J/mm3 showed irregular scan tracks with a number of pores and metal balls that decreased part density. The optimal laser energy density range was accordingly determined to be 58–200 J/mm3 by eliminating obvious SLM defects, which led to near full densification. The SLM samples fabricated using optimal parameters allowed observation of a microhardness of 280 Hv, ultimate strength of 570 MPa, and yield strength of 530 MPa that were higher than those of the as-cast and wrought 316L stainless steel.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".