Parametric Thermal FE Analysis on the Laser Power Input and Powder Effective Thermal Conductivity during Selective Laser Melting of SS304L
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A low-cost parametric finite element thermal model is proposed to study the impact of the initial powder condition, such as diameter and packing density, on effective thermal conductivity as well as the impact of the laser power input on the final temperature distributions during selective laser melting (SLM). Stainless steel 304L is the material used, since it is not yet commercially available in SLM equipment and our main goal was to show the capabilities of the finite element method in the evaluation of power input in the process. The results from our sensitivity analysis showed that packing density has a greater impact on the final temperature distributions compared with powder diameter variance. However, overall the thermal conductivity of the powder only showed significant effects below the melting point, otherwise the thermal conductivity no longer affected the temperature distributions. Among the three different power inputs analyzed, the temperature profile demonstrated that power inputs of 100 and 200 W are recommended when printing SS-304L rather than 400 W, which generates too high temperature in the powder bed, a non-favorable behavior that can induce high residual stresses and material evaporation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".