MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411547619 · doi:10.4271/05-19-02-0012

Study of Processing Parameters and Aging Treatments on Relative Density and Microhardness of Additively Manufactured Maraging Steel

2025· article· en· W4411547619 on OpenAlexaff
Ola Jaballah, Narges Omidi, Asim Iltaf, Noureddine Barka, Abderrazak El Ouafi

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaraging steelIndentation hardnessMaterials scienceMetallurgyRelative densityComposite materialMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div>This research examined maraging steel (C300), which is widely used in the automotive industry. The study investigated how various 3D printing parameters—laser power (P), scanning speed (V), and layer spacing (H)—as well as post-processing heat treatment factors such as time (t) and temperature (T) affect the properties of C300 steel produced via selective laser melting (SLM). The primary properties assessed included relative density, porosity, hardness, and microstructure. The first part of the analysis focused on how processing parameters, time, and temperature influenced porosity types and manufacturing defects. Subsequently, ANOVA was employed to explore the sensitivity of relative density and microhardness to these parameters. The results revealed an optimal combination of parameters that improved both microstructural and mechanical properties. Additionally, the post-processing heat treatment was found to impact microhardness by modifying the microstructure and martensite lath size, with both the processing parameters and treatments affecting the material’s porosity and relative density.</div>

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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of Materials and ManufacturingSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207