MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6968530020 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.15261380

Deconvoluting cracking mechanisms in fusion processing of steel-copper multi-materials

2025· article· en· W6968530020 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquationCrackingEmbrittlementPhase (matter)FusionMetallography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates various cracking mechanisms and their prevalence in fusion processing of steel-copper multi-materials using operando X-ray diffraction and imaging during laser powder-bed fusion (LPBF) of 316L-CuCrZr multi-material. Operando X-ray imaging helped identify three main types of cracking: (i) solidification cracking, (ii) metal-induced embrittlement (MIE), and (iii) liquation cracking. All cracking types are closely related to the phase formation during processing, leading to two underlying mechanisms. First, liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) and the monotectic reaction in the 316L-CuCrZr system lead to the formation of Cu-rich and Fe-rich liquids with vastly different solidification ranges, causing solidification cracking at the melt pool centers. Second, LLPS and the monotectic reaction distribute the Cu-rich liquid uniformly between the Fe-rich dendrites, leading to MIE and/or liquation cracking. X-ray computed tomography indicated that smaller but more frequent cracks form due to MIE/liquation cracking compared to solidification cracking. Further experiments showed that by avoiding phase separation via process adjustments, cracking can be drastically reduced. However, the complete elimination of cracking necessitates chemical alterations of the material feedstock, as observed in the crack-free examples in the literature. These findings serve as a guideline for understanding the underlying reasons of cracking in steel-copper multi-materials and optimizing processing to effectively mitigate cracking, while also quantifying the extent to which these adjustments can achieve this outcome.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

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 venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207