In Implementing a Metal 3D AM Machine

Abstract:

Additive Manufacturing (AM) does not yet have a standardized way to measure performance. Here a AM machines dimensional accuracy is measured trough acceptance test (AT) and AM machines capability is tested trough test parts. Test parts are created with specific geometrical features using a 3D AM machine. Performance of the machine is then evaluated trough accuracy of test parts geometry. AM machine here uses selective laser melting (SLM) process. This machine has done Factory acceptance test (FAT) to ascertain this machine ́s geometrical accuracy with material AISI 316L. Manufacturer promises accuracy of ±0.05 mm. These parts are used as comparison to AT parts made in this study. After installation two AT parts are manufactured with AM machine. One with AISI 316L and one AlSi10Mg. Dimensional accuracy of geometrical features on these parts are then compared to FAT part and to one another. Machines capability is measured trough two test parts done with material AlSi10Mg. Two of the test parts are done at the same time using same model as the FAT. Parts are printed without supports and with features facing same directions. Features of these parts were then evaluated. Another test to find out AM machines capability was to create part consisting of pipes doing 90˚ angle resulting in horizontal and vertical holes. Dimensional accuracy and circularity of holes was measured. Through these tests machines capability is benchmarked.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 786)
• Pages: 356-363
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.786.356
• Online since: October 2018
• Authors: Tero Jokelainen*, Kimmo Mäkelä, Aappo Mustakangas, Jari Mäkelä, Kari Mäntyjärvi
• Keywords: Accuracy, Additive Manufacturing (AM), Dimensions, Errors, Metal 3D AM, Reference Part

References

[1] S. Moylan, J. Slotwinski, A. Cooke, K. Jurrens, M. Alkan Donmez. Proposal for a standardized test artifact for additive manufacturing machines and processes. 23rd annual international solid freeform fabrication symposium, Austin, TX (2012, August), pp.902-920.

DOI: 10.6028/nist.ir.7858

[2] E.C. Santos, et al.Rapid manufacturing of metal components by laser forming. Int J Mach Tools Manuf, 46 (12) (2006), pp.1459-1468.

[3] W. Johnson, et al. Benchmarking evaluation of an open source fused deposition modeling additive manufacturing system. Proceeding of the 22nd annual international solid freeform fabrication symposium (2011).

[4] K. Guan, Z. Wang, M. Gao, X. Li, X. Zeng, Effects of processing parameters on tensile properties of selective laser melted 304 stainless steel. Materials and Design 50 (2013) 581–586.

DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2013.03.056

[5] W.Shifeng, L. Shuai, W. Qingsong, Ch. Yan, Z. Sheng, S. Yusheng, Effect of molted pool boundaries on the mechanical properties of selective laser melting parts, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (2014), p.2660–2667.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.06.002

[6] Prashanth K.G., Scudino S., Maity T., Das J., Eckert J. Is the energy density a reliable parameter for materials synthesis by selective laser melting? Mater. Res. Lett. 2017:1–5.

DOI: 10.1080/21663831.2017.1299808

[7] Kruth J-P, et al. Benchmarking of different SLS/SLM processes as rapid manufacturing techniques. In: Int. conf. polymers & moulds innovations. (2005).

[8] W. Gao, et al. The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Computer Aided Design. 69, April (2015).

[9] Pyka, G., Kerchhofs, G., Papntoniou, I., Speirs, M., Schrooten, J., Wevers, M. Surface roughness and morphology customization of additive manufactured open porous Ti6Al4V structures. Materials 2013, Iss. 6, pp.4737-4757. ISSN 1996-1944.

DOI: 10.3390/ma6104737