Diffraction Line Profile Analysis of 3D Wedge Samples of Ti-6Al-4V Fabricated Using Four Different Additive Manufacturing Processes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wedge-shaped samples were manufactured by four different Additive Manufacturing (AM) processes, namely selective laser melting (SLM), electron beam melting (EBM), direct metal deposition (DMD), and wire and arc additive manufacturing (WAAM), using Ti-6Al-4V as the feed material. A high-resolution powder diffractometer was used to measure the diffraction patterns of the samples whilst rotated about two axes to collect detected neutrons from all possible lattice planes. The diffraction pattern of a LaB6 standard powder sample was also measured to characterize the instrumental broadening and peak shapes necessary for the Diffraction Line Profile Analysis. The line profile analysis was conducted using the extended Convolution Multiple Whole Profile (eCMWP) procedure. Once analyzed, it was found that there was significant variation in the dislocation densities between the SLMed and the EBMed samples, although having a similar manufacturing technique. While the samples fabricated via WAAM and the DMD processes showed almost similar dislocation densities, they were, however, different in comparison to the other two AM processes, as expected. The hexagonal (HCP) crystal structure of the predominant α-Ti phase allowed a breakdown of the percentage of the Burgers’ vectors possible for this crystal structure. All four techniques exhibited different combinations of the three possible Burgers’ vectors, and these differences were attributed to the variation in the cooling rates experienced by the parts fabricated using these AM processes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it