Improving Surface Roughness and Printability of LPBF Ti6246 Components Without Affecting Their Structure, Mechanical Properties and Building Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) is the best suited technology to manufacture temperature-resistant Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-6Mo parts with complex geometrical features for high-end applications. Improving printing accuracy by reducing the layer thickness (t) generally requires repeating a tedious and time-consuming process optimization routine. To simplify this endeavour, the present work proposes three process equivalence criteria allowing to transfer optimized process conditions from one printing parameter set to another. This approach recommends keeping the volumetric laser energy density (VED) and hatching space-to-layer thickness ratio (h/t) constant, while adjusting the scanning speed (v) and hatching space (h) accordingly. To validate this approach, Ti6246 parts were printed with 50 µm and 25 µm layer thicknesses, while keeping VED = 100 J/mm3 and h/t = 3 constant for both cases. The printed samples were analyzed in terms of their density, microstructure and mechanical properties, as well as the geometric compliance of wall-, gap- and channel-containing artefacts. Highly dense samples exhibiting comparable microstructures and mechanical properties were obtained with both parameters sets investigated. However, they induced markedly differing geometric characteristics. Notably, using 25 µm layers allowed printing walls as thin as 0.2 mm as compared to 1.0 mm for 50 µm layers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".