MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388970514 · doi:10.53063/synsint.2023.34179

Numerical optimization of sample and die geometric parameters to increase the attainable temperature during spark plasma sintering of TiC ceramics

2023· article· en· W4388970514 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saeed Mohammad Bagheri, Mohsen Naderi, Mohammad Vajdi, Farhad Sadegh Moghanlou, Ali Tarlani Beris

Bibliographic record

VenueSynthesis and Sintering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced materials and composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpark plasma sinteringMaterials scienceDie (integrated circuit)MultiphysicsSinteringSample (material)CeramicTaguchi methodsGraphiteCarbideMechanical engineeringComposite materialFinite element methodThermodynamicsEngineeringStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study offers a comprehensive thermal modeling of spark plasma sintering (SPS) for a titanium carbide (TiC) sample. Utilizing COMSOL Multiphysics Software, the research investigates the temperature distribution within the TiC sample, situated within a graphite die. The study employs governing equations for heat diffusion, augmented by terms accounting for Joule heating, to calculate temperature variations. Boundary conditions, particularly at the upper and lower limits of the system, are explicitly accounted for, with cooling mechanisms modeled as convection. Through the application of the Taguchi method and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), the study identifies the diameter of the sintering sample as the most significant parameter affecting the maximum temperature at the center of the TiC sample, with a significance of about 87%. The outer diameter of the graphite die followed with a significance of slightly more than 10%, and the thickness of the TiC sample had a significance of around 2%. The findings contribute to a nuanced understanding of the SPS process, offering valuable insights for optimizing the sintering parameters. Numerical results further underscore the importance of specific geometric parameters in the SPS process. This study serves as a robust foundation for future research aimed at refining the SPS process for TiC samples and other materials.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSynthesis and SinteringSame topicAdvanced materials and compositesFrench-language works237,207