Accelerating Laser Powder Bed Fusion: The Influence of Roller-Spreading Speed on Powder Spreading Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The powder spreading process is a fundamental element within the laser powder bed fusion (PBF-LP) framework given its pivotal role in configuring the powder bed. This configuration significantly influences subsequent processing steps and ultimately determines the quality of the final manufactured part. This research paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of varying spreading speeds, which are enabled by different roller configurations, on powder distribution in PBF-LP. By utilizing extensive Discrete Element Method (DEM) modelling, we systematically examine how spreading speed affects vital parameters within the spreading process, including packing density, mass fraction, and actual layer thickness. Our exploration of various roller configurations has revealed that increasing spreading speed generally decreases packing density and layer thickness for non-rotating, counter-rotating, and forward-rotating rollers with low clockwise rotational speeds (sub-rolling) due to powder dragging. However, a forward-rotating roller with a high clockwise rotational speed (super-rolling) balances momentum transfer, enhancing packing density and layer thickness while increasing surface roughness. This configuration significantly improves the uniformity and density of the powder bed, providing a technique to accelerate the spreading process while maintaining and not reducing packing density. Furthermore, this configuration offers crucial insights into optimizing additive manufacturing processes by considering the complex relationships between spreading speed, roller configuration, and powder spreading 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
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".