MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409964098 · doi:10.3390/applmech6020033

Simulation and Experimental Validation of Splat Profiles for Cold-Sprayed CP-Ti with Varied Powder Morphology

2025· article· en· W4409964098 on OpenAlexaff
Wesley Kean Wah Tai, Martin Eberle, Samuel Pinches, Shareen S. L. Chan, R. Chakrabarty, Max Osborne, Daren Peng, R. Jones, Andrew Siao Ming Ang

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh-Temperature Coating Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsMorphology (biology)Materials scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cold spray (CS) process has gained momentum as an additive manufacturing technology, due to its low processing temperatures. Computational modelling can accompany CS experiments to optimise deposition parameters, as well as predict coating properties and their final performance. A commonly used plasticity model is the Johnson–Cook (JC) model; however, its accuracy is limited at the high strain rates typical of cold spray. This study aims to assess the robustness of predictions using a modified JC model, particularly for two material systems of commercially pure titanium (CP-Ti) and Al6061-T6, and feedstock powders of two sizes and three morphologies. CP-Ti powders of spherical and irregular morphologies were sprayed onto CP-Ti substrates using a Titomic TKF1000 cold spray system. The cross-sectional splat profiles and flattening ratios were compared against smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations. The deposition process of particles was simulated using a modified JC model, implemented as an ABAQUS (2020) VUHARD user subroutine programme. The results showed that SPH simulations predicted the depth of impact, the splat profiles and the flattening ratios. Additionally, the simulations indicated that the impacting particle temperature remained below the melting point of CP-Ti throughout the process. Lastly, it was demonstrated that the irregular CP-Ti feedstock showed greater tendency of restitution than spherical feedstock.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.253
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied MechanicsSame topicHigh-Temperature Coating BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207