MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137060181 · doi:10.1115/1.4050651

Binder Jetting of Silicon Steel, Part I: Process Map of Green Density

2021· article· en· W3137060181 on OpenAlexafffund
Issa Rishmawi, Mihaela Vlasea

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFedDev Ontario
KeywordsRelative densityWorkflowFactorial experimentMaterials scienceProcess (computing)Biological systemRegression analysisSaturation (graph theory)RegressionBulk densitySiliconApproximation errorFunction (biology)Mechanical engineeringMathematicsComposite materialComputer scienceAlgorithmStatisticsEngineeringSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study focuses on developing and demonstrating a straightforward workflow for identifying pathways to increase green part density in binder jetting additive manufacturing (BJAM) using statistically driven process maps. The workflow was applied to investigate the effects of process parameters toward improving green part density, with a direct application in manufacturing of Fe-Si components. Specifically, a half-factorial experimental design was used to study the effects of four key parameters—layer thickness, powder spreading speed, roller rotational speed, and binder saturation—on Fe-Si spherical powder with D50 of 32.40 µm. Relative bulk density was estimated via three methods: geometrical and mass measurements, the Archimedes test, and CT imaging. The study discusses relative bulk density as well as localized density variation in the printed parts, which is attributed to both parameter selection and inherent process variability. A regression analysis was used to reveal the significance of main effects and second-order interactions. The regression model (R2 = 0.915) was used to derive an expression for green density as a function of the parameters and had a prediction error of 0.96%. Based on the regression model, an optimized set of parameters was obtained that would maximize green density up to 57.96% for the machine and material system.

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)0.001
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 score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing Science and EngineeringSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207