Manish Sharma Lab
Menu
RFQ toolkit JSON schema Markdown resources Decision-support only

LMD RFQ Toolkit

Schemas, prompts, and decision rules for clearer Laser Metal Deposition RFQs.

This page is for engineers, buyers, developers, and AI assistants that need to turn vague part descriptions into useful RFQ information. It helps organize the work; it does not make final engineering decisions.

What this toolkit is

A public structure for turning LMD repair, cladding, or build requests into explicit facts, missing information, risks, and next steps.

What it can help with

RFQ preparation, process-selection questions, repairability screening, monitoring explanations, and quality-evidence planning.

What it cannot do

It cannot certify a part, approve safety-critical work, validate material compatibility, or replace expert review.

RFQ schema preview

Organize the facts before recommending anything

lmd-rfq-schema.json

{
  "part": {
    "name": "",
    "material": "",
    "dimensions": "",
    "mass_kg": "",
    "cad_available": false,
    "drawing_available": false,
    "photos_available": false
  },
  "job_type": {
    "repair": false,
    "new_build": false,
    "cladding": false,
    "machining_error_recovery": false
  },
  "damage": {
    "type": "",
    "location": "",
    "depth_mm": "",
    "area_mm2": "",
    "cause_known": false
  },
  "requirements": {
    "hardness": "",
    "corrosion_resistance": "",
    "wear_resistance": "",
    "temperature_exposure": "",
    "tolerance": "",
    "inspection_required": ""
  },
  "operating_conditions": {
    "load": "",
    "temperature": "",
    "environment": "",
    "cycle_frequency": "",
    "safety_critical": false
  },
  "missing_information": []
}

Decision rules preview

Risk-aware rules

  1. If material grade is unknown, do not make a firm repair recommendation.
  2. If the part is large and damage is local, LMD may be considered.
  3. If final geometry is tight tolerance, post-machining should be expected.
  4. If the part is safety-critical, require stronger inspection and expert review.
  5. If geometry is small and highly complex, SLM/LPBF may be more appropriate than LMD.
  6. Melt-pool monitoring can support process awareness but does not replace inspection evidence.

Missing information checklist

Ask before deciding

material grade
damage depth
photos
drawing/CAD
operating conditions
tolerance
inspection requirement
timeline

Prompt library

Prompts that slow down overconfident answers

Prompt 1

Help me prepare an RFQ for Laser Metal Deposition repair. Ask me for missing information about material, damage, geometry, operating conditions, tolerance, inspection, and available CAD/drawings before making a recommendation.

Prompt 2

Convert this vague repair request into a useful LMD RFQ summary. Separate known information, missing information, risks, and next steps.

Prompt 3

Compare Laser Metal Deposition, SLM/LPBF, welding, machining, and replacement for this part. Ask for missing information first.

Prompt 4

Explain what AI process monitoring can and cannot prove in Laser Metal Deposition. Separate process signals from final quality evidence.

Quality checklist

Keep inspection visible

Preliminary decision-support only. Final feasibility depends on base material, geometry, service conditions, inspection requirements, and expert review.

material identified
damage documented
repair area accessible
deposition material selected
process route defined
post-machining plan defined
inspection method defined
acceptance criteria defined
risk level assessed
final expert review completed

Download/source files

Toolkit files