MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A 3D simulation of grain structure evolution during laser rescanning process of powder bed fusion additive manufacturing

2023· article· en· W4377019181 on OpenAlexaff
K. Kang, Lang Yuan, A.B. Phillion

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceNucleationFusionLaserGrain sizeMicrostructureProcess (computing)Grain growthAlloyMetallurgyComputer scienceOpticsThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) is an extensively used additive manufacturing process that can build metal parts with complicated geometric designs. However, because of the rapid solidification conditions and the layer-by-layer building, its application is challenged by products having poor surface quality and reduced mechanical properties. The laser rescanning process is often used as a refinement method during LPBF to improve the quality of products. In this study, grain structure formation during the LPBF laser rescanning process is modelled by a 3D cellular automaton based microstructure model coupled with finite element analysis. The coupled model considers different nucleation mechanisms, including epitaxial growth, which are applicable to rapid solidification in melt pool. The model is adapted to reproduce the grain structure and evolution of an Al-Si alloy manufactured by LPBF utilizing a laser rescanning strategy. The effects of laser remelting on the characteristics of the grain structure (i.e., the grain size, aspect ratio and orientation) are evaluated. The mechanisms that enable unique grain structure (i.e., grain refinement) are discussed.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207