MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315700855 · doi:10.3390/ma16020753

Thermal Modeling of Polyamide 12 Powder in the Selective Laser Sintering Process Using the Discrete Element Method

2023· article· en· W4315700855 on OpenAlexaff
Reda Lakraimi, Hamid Abouchadi, Mourad Taha Janan, Abdellah Chehri, Rachid Saadane

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelective laser sinteringMaterials scienceDiscrete element methodMetal powderLaserMicrostructureThermalLaser power scalingPython (programming language)Composite materialParticle (ecology)Mechanical engineeringComputer scienceSinteringMechanicsOpticsMetalMetallurgyPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selective laser sintering (SLS) is one of the key additive manufacturing technologies that can build any complex three-dimensional structure without the use of any special tools. Thermal modeling of this process is required to anticipate the quality of the manufactured parts by assessing the microstructure, residual stresses, and structural deformations of the finished product. This paper proposes a framework for the thermal simulation of the SLS process based on the discrete element method (DEM) and numerically generated in Python. This framework simulates a polyamide 12 (PA12) particle domain to describe the temperature evolution in this domain using simple interaction laws between the DEM particles and considering the exchange of these particles with the boundary planes. The results obtained and the comparison with the literature show that the DEM frame accurately captures the temperature distribution in the domain scanned by the laser. The effect of laser power and projection time on the temperature of PA12 particles is investigated and validated with experimental settings to show the reliability of DEM in simulating powder-based additive manufacturing processes.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Methods

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207