An effective statistical approach to determine the most contributing process parameters on the surface roughness quality of hastelloy X components made by laser powder-bed fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main challenges in laser powder-bed fusion (LPBF) of metal powders is to determine the correlation between the key process parameters and physical properties of the produced components. Additionally, unlike conventional manufacturing processes, LPBF, as one of the many additive manufacturing processes, involves a large number of process parameters hindering the use of conventional factorial design approaches for optimization. In this paper, a modified Plackett-Burman method supported by an experimental analysis is proposed to identify the most significant parameters on the surface roughness quality of the LPBF-made Hastelloy X coupons using an EOS 290 machine. Among more than 100 process parameters, 23 parameters are chosen for this study including laser power and speed for core, skin and contour scans as well as layer thickness, geometry, orientation, location, etc. The surface roughness values (Sq) are measured using a confocal microscope (VK-X250, Keyence, Japan). Then, the roughness measurements are statistically analyzed in Minitab® to determine the most significant process parameters affecting the roughness of the LPBF printed samples. Results of the statistical approach show that the skin thickness, geometry, and layer thickness are the most significant parameters affecting the surface roughness of Hastelloy X components made by the LPBF process.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".