The effect of overlap percentage on surface quality in laser polishing of AISI H13 tool steel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polishing by laser beam radiation is a novel technique used to modify the initial surface geometry in order to achieve a desired level of surface finish. The performance of laser polishing (LP) is determined by its process parameters, whose optimum combination is essential for the achievement of the best possible surface quality. In this regard, the overlap percentage is one of the important LP settings, which indicates the level of the overlap between two consecutive polishing tracks. In the current study, the effects of overlap percentage were experimentally investigated in the context of AISI H13 tool steel LP operations. Four surface areas were polished using four different overlap percentages but the same applied energy density. The improvement of surface quality was measured by average spatial surface roughness and material ratio function. The surface quality improvement was also analyzed by means of statistical analysis using the autospectrum and the transfer functions. Finally, the polished area created by the optimum overlap from the aforementioned analyses was further processed by an additional level of LP improving a total average surface roughness from 1.59 μm to 0.18 μm (89% improvement).
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 | 0.001 | 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".