Tri-Planar Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing Characteristics of SS 316L Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process Test Artifacts and Effect of Base Plate Removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The precision of LPBF manufactured parts is quantified by characterizing the geometric tolerances based on the ISO 1101 standard. However, there are research gaps in the characterization of geometric tolerance of LPBF parts. A literature survey reveals three significant research gaps: (1) systematic design of benchmarks for geometric tolerance characterization with minimum experimentation; (2) holistic geometric tolerance characterization in different orientations and with varying feature sizes; and (3) a comparison of results, with and without the base plate. This research article focuses on addressing these issues by systematically designing a benchmark that can characterize geometric tolerances in three principal planar directions. The designed benchmark was simulated using the finite element method, manufactured using a commercial LPBF process using stainless steel (SS 316L) powder, and the geometric tolerances were characterized. The effect of base plate removal on the geometric tolerances was quantified. Simulation and experimental results were compared to understand tolerance variations using process variations such as base plate removal, orientation, and size. The tolerance zone variations not only validate the need for systematically designed benchmarks, but also for tri-planar characterization. Simulation and experimental result comparisons provide quantitative information about the applicability of numerical simulation for geometric tolerance prediction for 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".