MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410435397 · doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2025.114107

Production of S7 tool steel powders by water atomization for laser powder bed fusion and directed energy deposition additive manufacturing

2025· article· en· W4410435397 on OpenAlexafffund
Denis Mutel, Simon Gélinas, Carl Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials & Design · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceFusionDeposition (geology)MetallurgyLaserOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vast majority of powders used in additive manufacturing (AM) are produced by gas atomization. This process generates metal powders typically made of spherical particles that are exempt from significant oxidation products. The objective of the work summarized in this article is to substitute gas atomization with water atomization to produce steel powders for additive manufacturing. Due to their irregular morphology, water-atomized metal particles are well known for having significantly lower apparent density and flowability than gas-atomized ones. The rationale of this study is to optimize the chemistry of the original alloys in combination with post-sintering treatments to maximize particle sphericity (morphology) while minimizing oxygen content. Results show that tool steel powders having rheological properties close to those of gas-atomized powders can be produced by water atomization, making them adequate for additive manufacturing in laser powder bed fusion and directed energy deposition These results suggest that water-atomized metal powders are a serious alternative to gas-atomized powders. It becomes clear that water-atomized steel powders can drive greater adoption of additive manufacturing for high-volume production of ferrous components

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials & DesignSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207