MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895957531 · doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2018.10.025

On thermal expansion behavior of invar alloy fabricated by modulated laser powder bed fusion

2018· article· en· W2895957531 on OpenAlexaff
Hamed Asgari, Mehrnaz Salarian, Henry Ma, Adeola Deborah Olubamiji, Mihaela Vlasea

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials & Design · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAgencia de Desarrollo Económico
KeywordsMaterials scienceInvarThermal expansionLaserTexture (cosmology)Laser power scalingAlloyDiffractionComposite materialPhase (matter)FusionOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present research, structural analyses are conducted on Invar (64% Fe-36% Ni) samples manufactured by modulated laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) under different laser power regimes. Within the selected process window, the results obtained from X-ray computed tomography analysis indicate that the relative density of as-built samples increases with an increase in laser power. In addition, it is observed that irregular-shaped pores with the longest axis normal to the building direction are significantly reduced with increasing the laser power. Microstructural investigation suggests that with increasing the laser power, a transformation from conduction to transition and keyhole modes occurs. In X-ray diffraction patterns of the as-built samples, only fcc γ-phase is detected and no reflection of bcc α-phase is found. Texture measurements show that the intensity of 〈110〉 crystallographic orientation along the building direction of the as-built samples increases with increasing laser power. Coefficient of thermal expansion of the as-built samples is very low and comparable to that of conventionally manufactured Invar alloy. Furthermore, as-built samples fabricated at lowest (250 W) and highest (400 W) laser powers exhibit the lowest and highest thermal expansion displacement, respectively. Finally, the thermal expansion behavior and its correlation with structural integrity and texture are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations114
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials & DesignSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207