Experimental study of stainless steel angle sections 3D‐printed by wire‐laser additive manufacturing (WLAM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Additive manufacturing, often known as 3D‐printing, is being increasingly used in the construction industry. This paper presents an experimental study on the loadcarrying capacities of stainless steel equal‐leg angle section stub columns 3D‐printed by means of the emerging wire‐laser additive manufacturing (WLAM) technology. The testing programme included material coupon tests, measurements of geometric properties and 16 stub column tests. Following the testing programme, a design analysis was carried out based on the obtained test data, where the applicability of Eurocode 3 to WLAM stainless steel equal‐leg angle sections was assessed. The assessment results generally reveal that Eurocode 3 offers conservative design resistances for WLAM stainless steel angle section stub columns under compression. The Continuous Strength Method, which accounts for the effect of material strain hardening in the cross‐section resistance prediction, was also evaluated and found to offer improved overall design accuracy over Eurocode 3.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".