MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784005736 · doi:10.1115/imece2017-72224

Thermal Modeling of 304L Stainless Steel for Selective Laser Melting: Laser Power Input Evaluation

2017· article· en· W2784005736 on OpenAlexafffund
Diego Augusto de Moraes, Aleksander Czekanski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSelective laser meltingMaterials scienceLaser power scalingLaserAerospaceProcess (computing)Mechanical engineeringFinite element methodLaser scanningDie (integrated circuit)Residual stressThermalFusionPower (physics)Automotive industryComputer scienceComposite materialStructural engineeringOpticsEngineeringMicrostructureAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selective Laser Melting (SLM) process is a Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) technique, which has shown significantly growth in the recent years. The demand for this process is justified by the versatility and ease in manufacturing the parts from 3D models as well for the increased complexity of engineered parts generated from topology or shape optimization. Automotive, aerospace, medical and aviation industries are taking great advantage of this process due the unique geometry characteristics found in the components. To enhance the benefits of SLM, a vital task is to analyze the laser power input impact on the temperature distribution through the powder bed, important for posterior residual stresses analysis. The Finite Element Method proposed in this study is a transient thermal model, able to predict temperature distribution through different sections of the powder bed when performing a single track of the laser scanning. Furthermore, the impact of the laser power input is carried out utilizing SS 304L, a low cost Stainless Steel alloy that can be employed in the SLM process, in order to determine the influence on the temperature distribution along the different cross sections.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207