MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413185697 · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2025.08.058

Temperature and printing axis effects on anisotropic sintering in binder jetting additive manufactured 17-4 PH stainless steel: Experimental and numerical study

2025· article· en· W4413185697 on OpenAlexafffund
Khadijeh Esmati, Alexander Abanobi, Waris Nawaz Khan, Reza Tangestani, Srinivas Pendurti, Arunkumar Natarajan, Étienne Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Research and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPolytechnique Montréal
KeywordsMaterials scienceSinteringAnisotropyComposite material3D printingMetallurgyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of sintering temperature and printing orientation on anisotropic shrinkage in binder-jetted 17-4 PH stainless steel is investigated through a combined experimental and finite element modeling approach. Quasi-isotropic shrinkage is observed in the X–Y plane, while the Z-direction shows an anisotropic shrinkage ratio (ASR) up to 1.4, mainly due to primitive line collapse above 1250 °C when Grain boundary diffusion (Q = 100–125 kJ/mol) shifted to volume diffusion (Q = 250–320 kJ/mol). A similar activation energy was observed along the X, Y, and Z axes, but the transition temperature (1250 °C) is slightly higher than what is normally reported for conventional powder metallurgy (1000–1150 °C) due to carbon residue from the binder. Finite element simulations show higher shear (G = 12000 MPa s) and bulk (K = 26400 MPa s) modulus along the Z axis compared to the powder bed plane due to the directional pore distribution. As the temperature increases, pores become more homogenously distributed, leading to more isotropic shrinkage mechanisms and similar K and G values across the powder bed.

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)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Research and TechnologySame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207