MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393114351 · doi:10.1007/s12540-024-01650-8

Selective Laser Melting of Stainless Steels: A review of Process, Microstructure and Properties

2024· review· en· W4393114351 on OpenAlexaff
Asma Mansoura, N. Omidi, Noureddine Barka, Sasan Sattarpanah Kangranroudi, Shayan Dehghan

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals and Materials International · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelective laser meltingMaterials scienceMicrostructureCorrosionMetallurgyUltimate tensile strengthProcess (computing)Composite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metal additive manufacturing is revolutionizing how we produce and use materials. Selective Laser Melting (SLM) is one of the most popular additive manufacturing techniques for creating high-performance metal components. Stainless Steel is preferred for additive manufacturing due to its powder form availability, low cost, mechanical properties, and corrosion resistance. However, the complex thermal history and rapid solidification in the SLM process led to an out-of-equilibrium microstructure of resulting components, which can affect their mechanical properties. To better understand the relationship between processing, microstructure, and properties, exploring and enhancing SLM-fabricated stainless-steel components is essential. This review comprehensively overviews the selective laser melting process, key processing parameters, and commonly encountered defects. Furthermore, the study presents a detailed discussion of microstructure, mechanical behavior (including hardness, tensile, and fatigue properties), and corrosion resistance of all SLM-manufactured stainless steel grades, along with the effects of various post-process treatments. This paper reveals that the SLM process can produce stainless steel with satisfactory performance that may exceed conventionally processed materials. However, the final section highlights the challenges and research gaps in this field that must be addressed. Graphical Abstract

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetals and Materials InternationalSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207