MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898571599 · doi:10.3390/ma11112086

Cold Bonding Method for Metallic Powder Coatings

2018· article· en· W2898571599 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Liu, Jing Fu, Haiping Zhang, Yuanyuan Shao, Jesse Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCoatingPowder coatingPolyvinyl alcoholCuring (chemistry)Composite materialMetalMetal powderPolyacrylic acidMetallic bondingGas dynamic cold sprayPolymerMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An efficient and simple method for preparing bonded metallic powder coating is in high demand in the paint manufacturing and application industries. The bonding purpose is to keep the mass percentage of metallic pigment consistent between the original and recycled coating powder, which aims at solving the problem of recyclability. One possible method capable of realizing this goal is using the binder to cohere metallic pigment with base particles through a cold bonding method. Through this approach, the pre-curing and high-reject-rate problems generally present in thermal bonding can be completely eliminated. In this paper, polyacrylic acid (PAA) and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) are applied as binders for the bonding process. At various dosages of liquid binder and D.I. water, bonded samples with different bonding effect were prepared. Finally, a good bonding quality with the lowest variance between the mass concentrations of Al flakes in the original powder (before spray) and deposited powder (after spray) 2.94% with PAA as a binder and 0.46% with PVA as a binder was achieved. These results manifest that the cold bonding method is a green and simple approach for preparing the metallic powder coating.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207