Molecular Dynamics-Based Two-Dimensional Simulation of Powder Bed Additive Manufacturing Process for Unimodal and Bimodal Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trend of adapting powder bed fusion (PBF) for product manufacturing continues to grow as this process is highly capable of producing functional 3D components with micro-scale precision. The powder bed’s properties (e.g., powder packing, material properties, flowability, etc.) and thermal energy deposition heavily influence the build quality in the PBF process. The packing density in the powder bed dictates the bulk powder behavior and in-process performance and, therefore, significantly impacts the mechanical and physical properties of the printed components. Numerical modeling of the powder bed process helps to understand the powder spreading process and predict experimental outcomes. A two-dimensional powder bed was developed in this work using the LAMMPS (Large-scale Atomic/Molecular Massively Parallel Simulator) package to better understand the effect of bimodal and unimodal particle size distribution on powder bed packing. A cloud-based pouring of powders with varying volume fractions and different initialization velocities was adopted, where a blade-type recoater was used to spread the powders. The packing fraction was investigated for both bimodal and unimodal systems. The simulation results showed that the average packing fraction for bimodal and unimodal systems was 76.53% and 71.56%, respectively. A particle-size distribution-based spatially varying powder agglomeration was observed in the simulated powder bed. Powder segregation was also studied in this work, and it appeared less likely in the unimodal system compared to the bimodal system with a higher percentage of bigger particles.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".