Intra- and Inter-Repeatability of Profile Deviations of an AlSi10Mg Tooling Component Manufactured by Laser Powder Bed Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) is one of the most potent additive manufacturing (AM) processes. Metallic LPBF is gaining popularity, but one of the obstacles facing its larger industrial use is the limited knowledge of its dimensional and geometrical performances. This paper presents a metrological investigation of the geometrical and dimensional deviations of a selected LPBF-manufactured component, according to the ASME Y14.5-2009 standard. This approach allows for an estimation of both the process capability, as per ISO 22514-4 standard, and the correlations between the part location in the manufacturing chamber and the profile deviations. Forty-nine parts, which are representative of a typical aerospace tooling component (30 mm in diameter and 27.2 mm in height) were manufactured from AlSi10Mg powder using an EOSINT M280 printer and subjected to a stress relief annealing at 300 °C for two hours. This manufacturing procedure was repeated three times. A complete statistical analysis was carried out and the results of the investigation show that LPBF performances for all geometrical variations of 147 identical parts fall within a range of 230 µm at a 99.73% level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".