Modeling and optimization of height-related geometrical parameters for thin wall structures manufactured by metal additive manufacturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cold metal transfer wire arc additive manufacturing (CMT-WAAM) has attracted attention in recent years due to its ability to print walls with higher dimensional accuracy than regular WAAM. To print near net shape parts by CMT-WAAM, there is a need to define a set of height-related geometrical parameters (HGPs) that can capture, quantify, and compare the quality of the height of the produced parts. In the presenting study a set of HGPs, namely, the average height error (AHE), maximum height variation (MHV), and average absolute slope (AAS) are defined and assessed. Fifteen single-track multi-layer walls are printed to check the effect of process parameters on the defined HGPs. It is found that the stability and quality of the print cannot be guaranteed by checking the visual appearance of the single beads and at least five-to-ten-layer walls should be printed. It is also found that the travel speed (TS) and wire feed speed (WFS) have positive monotonic relationships with AAS and MHV, respectively. Correlations between process parameters and HGPs are modeled and optimized using multi-objective optimization and a validation test is performed to check the validity of the developed models. Moreover, HGPs of walls printed using unidirectional and bidirectional path strategies are calculated and compared. Defined HGPs are able to quantify, capture, and compare the quality of height of a wall with only three parameters. The HGPs can be used in further studies to report and compare the quality of height of thin wall structures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".