This content will become publicly available on September 1, 2026
Effects of powder recycling, binder deposition, and HIP treatment on structure-property relationships in binder jetted 316 L stainless steel
- Award ID(s):
- 2339857
- PAR ID:
- 10625936
- Publisher / Repository:
- Elsevier
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Materials Today Communications
- Volume:
- 48
- Issue:
- C
- ISSN:
- 2352-4928
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 113432
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
{"Abstract":["Binder is a publicly accessible online service for executing interactive notebooks based on Git repositories. Binder dynamically builds and deploys containers following a recipe stored in the repository, then gives the user a browser-based notebook interface. The Binder group periodically releases a log of container launches from the public Binder service. Archives of launch records are available here. These records do not include identifiable information like IP addresses, but do give the source repo being launched along with some other metadata. The main content of this dataset is in themore » « less
binder.sqlite<\/code> file. This SQLite database includes launch records from 2018-11-03 to 2021-06-06 in theevents<\/code> table, which has the following schema.<\/p>\n\nCREATE TABLE events(\n version INTEGER,\n timestamp TEXT,\n provider TEXT,\n spec TEXT,\n origin TEXT,\n ref TEXT,\n guessed_ref TEXT\n);\nCREATE INDEX idx_timestamp ON events(timestamp);\n<\/code>\n\nversion<\/code> indicates the version of the record as assigned by Binder. Theorigin<\/code> field became available with version 3, and theref<\/code> field with version 4. Older records where this information was not recorded will have the corresponding fields set to null.<\/li>timestamp<\/code> is the ISO timestamp of the launch<\/li>provider<\/code> gives the type of source repo being launched ("GitHub" is by far the most common). The rest of the explanations assume GitHub, other providers may differ.<\/li>spec<\/code> gives the particular branch/release/commit being built. It consists of<github-id>/<repo>/<branch><\/code>.<\/li>origin<\/code> indicates which backend was used. Each has its own storage, compute, etc. so this info might be important for evaluating caching and performance. Note that only recent records include this field. May be null.<\/li>ref<\/code> specifies the git commit that was actually used, rather than the named branch referenced byspec<\/code>. Note that this was not recorded from the beginning, so only the more recent entries include it. May be null.<\/li>For records whereref<\/code> is not available, we attempted to clone the named reference given byspec<\/code> rather than the specific commit (see below). Theguessed_ref<\/code> field records the commit found at the time of cloning. If the branch was updated since the container was launched, this will not be the exact version that was used, and instead will refer to whatever was available at the time (early 2021). Depending on the application, this might still be useful information. Selecting only records with version 4 (or non-nullref<\/code>) will exclude these guessed commits. May be null.<\/li><\/ul>\n\nThe Binder launch dataset identifies the source repos that were used, but doesn't give any indication of their contents. We crawled GitHub to get the actual specification files in the repos which were fed into repo2docker when preparing the notebook environments, as well as filesystem metadata of the repos. Some repos were deleted/made private at some point, and were thus skipped. This is indicated by the absence of any row for the given commit (or absence of bothref<\/code> andguessed_ref<\/code> in theevents<\/code> table). The schema is as follows.<\/p>\n\nCREATE TABLE spec_files (\n ref TEXT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,\n ls TEXT,\n runtime BLOB,\n apt BLOB,\n conda BLOB,\n pip BLOB,\n pipfile BLOB,\n julia BLOB,\n r BLOB,\n nix BLOB,\n docker BLOB,\n setup BLOB,\n postbuild BLOB,\n start BLOB\n);<\/code>\n\nHereref<\/code> corresponds toref<\/code> and/orguessed_ref<\/code> from theevents<\/code> table. For each repo, we collected spec files into the following fields (see the repo2docker docs for details on what these are). The records in the database are simply the verbatim file contents, with no parsing or further processing performed.<\/p>\n\nruntime<\/code>:runtime.txt<\/code><\/li>apt<\/code>:apt.txt<\/code><\/li>conda<\/code>:environment.yml<\/code><\/li>pip<\/code>:requirements.txt<\/code><\/li>pipfile<\/code>:Pipfile.lock<\/code> orPipfile<\/code><\/li>julia<\/code>:Project.toml<\/code> orREQUIRE<\/code><\/li>r<\/code>:install.R<\/code><\/li>nix<\/code>:default.nix<\/code><\/li>docker<\/code>:Dockerfile<\/code><\/li>setup<\/code>:setup.py<\/code><\/li>postbuild<\/code>:postBuild<\/code><\/li>start<\/code>:start<\/code><\/li><\/ul>\n\nThels<\/code> field gives a metadata listing of the repo contents (excluding the.git<\/code> directory). This field is JSON encoded with the following structure based on JSON types:<\/p>\n\nObject: filesystem directory. Keys are file names within it. Values are the contents, which can be regular files, symlinks, or subdirectories.<\/li>String: symlink. The string value gives the link target.<\/li>Number: regular file. The number value gives the file size in bytes.<\/li><\/ul>\n\nCREATE TABLE clean_specs (\n ref TEXT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,\n conda_channels TEXT,\n conda_packages TEXT,\n pip_packages TEXT,\n apt_packages TEXT\n);<\/code>\n\nTheclean_specs<\/code> table provides parsed and validated specifications for some of the specification files (currently Pip, Conda, and APT packages). Each column gives either a JSON encoded list of package requirements, or null. APT packages have been validated using a regex adapted from the repo2docker source. Pip packages have been parsed and normalized using the Requirement class from the pkg_resources package of setuptools. Conda packages have been parsed and normalized using theconda.models.match_spec.MatchSpec<\/code> class included with the library form of Conda (distinct from the command line tool). Users might want to use these parsers when working with the package data, as the specifications can become fairly complex.<\/p>\n\nThemissing<\/code> table gives the repos that were not accessible, andevent_logs<\/code> records which log files have already been added. These tables are used for updating the dataset and should not be of interest to users.<\/p>"]} -
null (Ed.)Binder jet 3D printing combined with post-deposition sintering is a non-beam additive manufacturing (AM) method for the creation of complex metallic structures. Binder saturation and particle morphology are two important factors affecting the quality of printed parts. Here, we investigated the effects of binder saturation on dimension accuracy, porosity, microstructure and microhardness of nickel-based alloy 625 samples made of differently atomized powders. Argon gas atomized (GA) and water atomized (WA) nickel-based alloy 625 powders were used to binder jet samples for a detailed comparative study. The optimal binder saturation for WA system is 60% to 70%, whereas for GA system the optimal is about 80%. Generally, GA samples achieved better overall quality than WA samples in terms of packing density, dimensional accuracy, sintered density, and microhardness. This difference is attributed mainly to the particle morphology including sphericity and roundness. The critical threshold for visible binder bleeding phenomenon in WA and GA systems is determined to be 120% and 140% binder saturation, respectively. Mechanisms for binder bleeding phenomenon at different saturation levels for WA and GA systems are discussed in detail. A pore evolution model is proposed to better understand the printing and sintering processes.more » « less
An official website of the United States government
