Comprehensive review of fabrication process parameters influencing defect formation in laser powder bed fused (L-PBF) Al-Si alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) has garnered considerable interest for its ability to fabricate highly precise and intricate Al-Si alloy components. Its versatility in design makes it particularly appealing for industries such as aerospace and automotive, where lightweight structures are critical. However, the L-PBF process induces defects in the resulting components, such as solidification cracks, porosity, anisotropy, and uneven surfaces, which compromise structural integrity and dimensional accuracy. As a result, significant effort has been devoted to understanding how fabrication parameters influence defect formation in L-PBF Al-Si parts. Despite extensive research on laser material processing, a comprehensive understanding of how specific process parameters affect defect formation remains limited. This knowledge is crucial for optimizing the performance of L-PBF Al-Si components. This article aims to provide a systematic examination of the causes of defects in L-PBF Al-Si components and their relationship with fabrication factors and process parameters. Additionally, it offers insights into addressing these challenges and highlights future research directions to mitigate defects in L-PBF Al-Si components. Consequently, this work aims to further promote the development of L-PBF-manufactured Al-Si components and their widespread applications across diverse industries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".