Anisotropic sintering behavior of stainless steel 316L printed by binder jetting additive manufacturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of sintering temperature and printing orientation on the anisotropic sintering shrinkage of binder jetted (BJ) stainless steel 316L (SS316L) was investigated. Near quasi-isotropic shrinkage behavior with very little anisotropy (≤4 %) in the powder bed plane was observed. The out-of-plane anisotropic shrinkage of up to 16 % was attributed to the primitive lines formed perpendicular to the build direction. This follows the power law, and the activation energy is not affected by the anisotropy. For all printing orientations, grain boundary diffusion (25–162 kJ/mol) was the dominant sintering mechanism between 1100 °C and 1300 °C. Above 1300 °C, volume diffusion (490–623 kJ/mol) takes over as the dominating sintering mechanism, leading to significantly higher shrinkage up to 15 %. The anisotropic shrinkage behavior does not affect the microstructure, as similar evolution of grain sizes, ferrite fractions, and bulk densities (up to 96 %) is observed upon sintering. • Near quasi-isotropic sintering shrinkage is observed in the powder bed. • Sintering anisotropy is due to primitive lines perpendicular to the build direction. • Activation energy for sintering is not affected by printing orientation. • Grain size, phase fraction, bulk density are not affected by printing orientation. • Two thermally-driven shrinkage regimes govern sintering in binder jet 316L.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".