MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7090798754 · doi:10.1016/j.addma.2025.104996

Machining mechanics of additively manufactured metallic parts: Material characterization and constitutive modeling

2025· article· en· W7090798754 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueAdditive manufacturing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMachiningMachinabilityElectron backscatter diffractionInconelConstitutive equationCharacterization (materials science)MicrostructureFlow stressSurface roughness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additive manufacturing (AM) enables the production of complex, customized parts through its layer-by-layer process. However, high surface roughness and geometrical distortions often necessitate post-processing, with machining being the most widely used method. Therefore, understanding the machinability of AM parts is essential for selecting appropriate tooling and machining parameters. This requires insight into the material’s microstructure and mechanical behavior, which are significantly influenced by AM process conditions. Rapid solidification and steep thermal gradients inherent to AM processes result in distinct crystallographic textures and columnar grain growth, which affect the material’s response during machining. Due to inconsistent experimental findings in the literature, there is a need for microstructure-informed constitutive modeling. This study presents a comprehensive constitutive model to predict flow stress and cutting forces during orthogonal cutting, incorporating key strengthening mechanisms: thermal activation, solid solution, lattice resistance, grain boundary influence, and forest dislocation interactions. AM Inconel 718 which is widely used in critical industrial applications was fabricated using laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). Microstructural features and solute atom concentrations were characterized using electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), providing input for the constitutive model. Model validation was performed through orthogonal cutting experiments under various cutting conditions. Cutting forces were measured using a dynamometer, and chips were examined via scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The model predicts flow stress and cutting forces within 10% of experimental values. Moreover, it enables a quantitative evaluation of each strengthening mechanism’s contribution, providing insight into their individual effects on the machining behavior of AM-fabricated parts.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdditive manufacturingSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207