MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197556849 · doi:10.2218/iclass.2021.5919

Simulations of gas flow in gas atomisation of liquid metals and validation experiments

2021· article· en· W3197556849 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Hulme-Smith, Arun Kamalasekaran, S. Sundin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems (ICLASS) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)Materials scienceEnvironmental sciencePetroleum engineeringMechanicsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of metal powder by gas atomisation generates feedstock for many manufacturing techniques, including hot isostatic pressing, laser cladding and, of current interest, powder bed additive manufacturing. While many thousands of alloys are commercially available in bulk form, fewer than fifty are widely available as powders suitable for additive manufacturing. This is due to difficulties in controlling droplet size distribution and avoiding particle defects. Indeed, a typical gas atomisation process that attempts to make powder for powder bed additive manufacturing achieves a yield of suitable powder below 50%. Several studies have simulated the gas atomisation process or part of it, but few validate the models directly. The current work aims to take a first step towards making a holistic and fully validated model for gas atomisation. The gas flow from de Laval nozzles under conditions similar to those used in gas atomisation has been simulated using computational fluid dynamics and experiments to validate these simulations have been performed using shadowgraphy. A validated model can be used as part of a larger model to predict the phenomena that occur in gas atomisation and thereby refine the process to improve the production yield of powders, especially for additive manufacturing.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems (ICLASS)Same topicFluid Dynamics and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207