MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Chemical Etching Time on the Fatigue behaviour of Ti-6Al-4V produced by Laser Powder Bed Fusion

2023· preprint· en· W4386923753 on OpenAlexaff
David Mellé, Étienne Pessard, Franck Morel, Daniel Bellett, Frederick ADAMSKI, René Billardon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials sciencePolishingEtching (microfabrication)Isotropic etchingFatigue limitSurface roughnessSurface finishComposite materialFatigue testingSurface (topology)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focuses on the evolution of the fatigue strength of L-PBF produced Ti-6Al-4V as a function of the chemical etching finishing process. The aim is to identify the critical fatigue crack initiation mechanisms and the transitions between them in terms of the evolution of the surface micro-geometry caused by the finishing process. This has been done using three different geometries and six different surface states, including the machined reference surface state. The evolution of the crack initiation mechanisms, identified via SEM observations of the fatigue failure surfaces, is then used to explain the evolutions of the fatigue strength and the fatigue scatter, in both the finite and the high cycle fatigue-life domains. As expected, chemical etching effects the fatigue life via a polishing effect on the micro-geometry, which directly influences both the finite and the high cycle fatigue domains. It is shown that chemical etching makes it possible to obtain fatigue strengths that are almost similar to those of the machined surface, despite the fact that the roughness is higher, even after an optimal etching time. However, it is also observed that etching cannot fully counter the effects of large surface connected porosities (typically lack-of-fusion) that lead to large surface cavities. Some minor scale or size effects can also be noted between the different coupon geometries. This does not modify the conclusions concerning the initiation mechanisms and their effect on the fatigue life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207