An Investigation For Optimal Tool Kinematics In Powder Compaction Cycle To Minimize Density Gradient In Green Powder Compacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The major disadvantage of powder metallurgy (PM) is the density variation throughout the powder compact. During the compaction process, due to the existence of friction at powdertool interfaces, the contact surfaces experience a non-uniform stress distribution having to do with a variable friction coefficient and tool kinematics, consequently resulting in density gradient throughout the green powder compact. This represents a serious problem in terms of reliability and performance as it may contribute to a crack-defect generation during the compaction and ejection cycle, and more importantly a non-uniform powder compact shrinkage during the sintering process. The geometrical distortion caused by non-uniform shrinkage may require secondary operations, thus, compromising the competiveness of PM technology. Simulation analyses, consisting of two parts, were conducted to study and suppress the causes of density variation. First, simulation analyses were conducted using a newly proposed friction-assisted compaction technique for compaction of cylindrical parts. Second study extended to a more complex geometry, consisting of a multi-stepped part, which indirectly used friction-assisted compaction by varying the tool kinematics of the press system. The overall focus of both studies was to establish optimal tool kinematics in powder compaction cycle to minimize density gradient in both cylindrical and multi-stepped green powder compacts. Consequently, optimal tool kinematics were determined producing the least variation in density throughout the corresponding powder compacts. </p>
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) | 0.001 | 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".