MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399124743 · doi:10.3390/jmmp8030114

Monitoring Variability in Melt Pool Spatiotemporal Dynamics (VIMPS): Towards Proactive Humping Detection in Additive Manufacturing

2024· article· en· W4399124743 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Abubakr Hassan, Chi-Guhn Lee, A. Sadek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamics (music)Computer scienceEnvironmental sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humping is a common defect in direct energy deposition processes that reduces the geometric integrity of printed products. The available literature on humping detection is deemed reactive, as they focus on detecting late-stage melt pool spatial abnormalities. Therefore, this work introduces a novel, proactive indicator designed to detect early-stage spatiotemporal abnormalities. Specifically, the proposed indicator monitors the variability of instantaneous melt pool solidification-front speed (VIMPS). The solidification front dynamics quantify the intensity of cyclic melt pool elongation induced by early-stage humping. VIMPS tracks the solidification front dynamics based on the variance in the melt pool infrared radiations. Qualitative and quantitive analysis of the collected infrared data confirms VIMPS’s utility in reflecting the intricate humping-induced dynamics and defects. Experimental results proved VIMPS’ proactivity. By capturing early spatiotemporal abnormalities, VIMPS predicted humping by up to 10 s before any significant geometric defects. In contrast, current spatial abnormality-based methods failed to detect humping until 20 s after significant geometric defects had occurred. VIMPS’ proactive detection capabilities enable effective direct energy deposition control, boosting the process’s productivity and quality.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designBench or experimental · Other design
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials ProcessingSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207