A Novel Apparatus for the Simulation of Powder Spreading Procedures in Powder-Bed-Based Additive Manufacturing Processes: Design, Calibration, and Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Powder-bed-based additive manufacturing processes (PBAM) are sensitive to variations in powder feedstock characteristics, and yet the link between the powder properties and process performance is still not well established, which complicates the powder selection, quality control, and process improvement processes. An accurate assessment of the powder characteristics and behavior during recoating is important and must include the flow and packing properties of the powders, which are dependent on the application conditions. To fulfill the need for suitable powder testing techniques, a novel apparatus is developed to reproduce the generic PBAM powder spreading procedure and allow the measurements of the powder bed density, surface uniformity, and spreading forces as functions of the powder characteristics and spreading conditions, including the spreading speed and the type of spreading mechanism. This equipment could be used for research and development purposes as well as for the quality control of the PBAM powder feedstock, as showcased in this paper using a gas-atomized Ti-6Al-4V powder (D10 = 25.3 µm, D50 = 35.8 µm and D90 = 46.4 µm) spread using a rigid blade by varying the recoating speed from 100 to 500 mm/s and the layer thickness from 30 to 100 µm.
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) | 0.000 | 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".