MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205227171 · doi:10.1080/09506608.2021.1971427

Large-scale metal additive manufacturing: a holistic review of the state of the art and challenges

2021· review· en· W3205227171 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Lehmann, Dylan Rose, Ehsan Ranjbar, Morteza Ghasri-Khouzani, Mahdi Tavakoli, H. Henein, Tonya Wolfe, Ahmed Jawad Qureshi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Materials Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Deposition (geology)ScalabilityScale (ratio)Mechanical engineeringComputer scienceProcess engineering3D printingManufacturing engineeringNanotechnologyMaterials scienceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additive Manufacturing (AM) has the potential to completely reshape the manufacturing space by removing the geometrical constraints of commercial manufacturing and reducing component lead time, especially for large-scale parts. Coupling robotic systems with direct energy deposition (DED) additive manufacturing techniques allow for support-free printing of parts where part sizes are scalable from sub-metre to multi-metre sizes. This paper offers a holistic review of large-scale robotic additive manufacturing, beginning with an introduction to AM, followed by different DED techniques, the compatible materials and their typical as-built microstructures. Next, the multitude of robotic build platforms that extend the deposition from the standard 2.5 degrees of freedom (DOF) to 6 and 8 DOF is discussed. With this context, the decomposition and slicing of the computerized model will be described, and the challenges of planning the deposition trajectory will be discussed. The different modalities to monitor and control the deposition in an attempt to meet the geometrical and performance specifications are outlined and discussed. A wide range of metals and alloys have been reported and evaluated for large-scale AM parts. These include steels, Ti, Al, Mg, Cu, Ni, Co–Cr and W alloys. Different post-processing steps, including heat treatments, are discussed, along with their microstructures. This paper finally addresses the authors' perspective on the future of the field and the largest knowledge gaps that need to be filled before the commercial implementation of robotic AM.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.306
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations109
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Materials ReviewsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207