MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410879833 · doi:10.1016/j.finel.2025.104356

Optimization of point-melting strategies for the Electron Beam Melting process

2025· article· en· W4410879833 on OpenAlexaff
Geovane Augusto Haveroth, Carl‐Johan Thore, Roberto F. Ausas, Stefan Jakobsson, José Alberto Cuminato, Maicon R. Correa

Bibliographic record

VenueFinite Elements in Analysis and Design · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsEngineering Link (Canada)
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsFinite element methodMelting pointProcess (computing)Cathode rayPoint (geometry)Beam (structure)Materials scienceMechanical engineeringComputer scienceElectronStructural engineeringPhysicsEngineeringMathematicsComposite materialGeometryNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes an optimization methodology to find optimal heat source paths for point-melting in Electron Beam Melting (EBM) Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) processes, aiming to reduce the need for support structures and improve print quality. The building process is simulated using a time-dependent, one-way coupled, non-linear thermo-mechanical model, assuming negligible molten flow, with elastoplastic behavior and temperature-dependent material parameters. The goal of the optimization problem is to find heat source paths that minimize a global temperature measure with a penalty on excessive local temperatures. The numerical methodology is based on solving the non-linear partial differential equations via the Finite Element Method (FEM) and is applied in numerical examples for printing with titanium alloy Ti6Al4V. Metrics related to heat, residual displacement, and residual stresses are considered to assess the performance of different point-melting strategies and to compare optimized and conventional paths. The feasibility of the proposed optimization methodology for practical applications and alternatives towards future methodological advancements are discussed. The study provides a Python-based, MPI-parallelized implementation using open-source libraries and is made available for further research and applications.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 venueFinite Elements in Analysis and DesignSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207