Digital Modeling Accuracy of Direct Metal Laser Sintering Process
Products obtained by metal additive manufacturing have exceptional strength properties that can be compared with forged parts, and in some cases, even surpass them. Also, the cost and time of parts manufacture are reduced by two or even three times. Because of this, today’s leading corporations in the field of aerospace industry introducing this technology to its production. To avoid loss of funds and time, the processes of additive manufacturing should be predictable. Simufact Additive is specialized software for additive manufacturing process simulation is dedicated to solving critical issues with metal 3D printing, including significantly reducing distortion; minimize residual stress to avoid failures; optimize the build-up orientation and the support structures. It also enables us to compare simulated parts with the printed sample or measure it as a reference. In other words, the simulated deformations can be estimated concerning the reference geometry. The current work aims to study the deformation of the sample during the Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) process made from Maraging Steel MS1. Simufact Additive software was used to simulate the printing process. The main idea is to compare the results of the simulation and the real model. EOS M290 metal 3D printer was used to make a test specimen.
(1). Y. Du, J. Chen, Q. Meng, Y. Dou, J. Xu, S.Z. Shen, Vacuum 178 (2020) 109384. Crossref
(2). Z. Mansurov, Eurasian Chem. Techn. J. 18 (2016) 251‒261. Crossref
(3). C.A. Chatham, T.E. Long, C.B. Williams, Prog. Polym. Sci. 93 (2019) 68‒95. Crossref
(4). Z. Mansurov, T. Dmitriyev, E. Aliyev, Ch. Daulbayev, Additive technologies (3D printing): monograph, Kazakh University, 2017, 192 p. ISBN: 978-601-04-3092-1. (In Russ.).
(5). N. Horvath, A. Honeycutt, M.A. Davies, CIRP Annals 69 (2020) 509‒512. Crossref
(6). B. Alliot-Licht, A. Jean, M. Gregoire, Arch. Oral Biol. 39 (1994) 481–489. Crossref
(7). V. Laghi, M. Palermo, G. Gasparini, V.A. Girelli, T. Trombetti, J. Constr. Steel Res. (2019) 105858 (in press). Crossref
(8). M. Mazur, T. Bhatelia, B. Kuan, J. Patel, P.A. Webley, M. Brandt, V. Pareek, R. Utikar, Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process Intensification 143 (2019) 107595. Crossref
(9). A. Li, X. Liu, X. Wan, Y. Yang, Int. Commun. Heat Mass 116 (2020) 104664. Crossref
(10). A. du Plessis, E. Macdonald, Additive Manufacturing 34 (2020) 101191. Crossref
(11). E. Mirkoohi, D.E. Sievers, H. Garmestani, S.Y. Liang, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 28 (2020) 52–67. Crossref
(12). D. Powell, A. Rennie, L. Geekie, N. Burns, Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 122077. Crossref
(13). M. Kaminski, E. Loth, D.T. Griffith, C. (Chris) Qin, Renew. Energ. 148 (2020) 639–650. Crossref
(14). Z. Domagała, J. Domański, A. Zimmer, A. Tarczynska, J. Sliwa, B. Gworys, Ann. Anat. 228 (2020) 151436. Crossref
(15). H. Huang, W. Liu, Z. Liu, CIRP Annals 69 (2020) 33-36. Crossref
(16). E. Cyr, A. Lloyd, M. Mohammadi, J. Manuf. Process. 35 (2018) 289–294. Crossref
(17). E.M. Sanfilippo, F. Belkadi, A. Bernard, Computers Ind. 109 (2019) 182–194. Crossref
(18). T. Grover, A. Pandey, S.T. Kumari, A. Awasthi, B. Singh, P. Dixit, P. Singhal, K.K. Saxena, Materials Today: Proceedings 26 (2020) 3071- 3080. Crossref
(19). D. Zindani, K. Kumar, International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 2 (2019) 267–278. Crossref
(20). L. Li, A. Haghighi, Y. Yang, J. Manuf. Process. 33 (2018) 150–160. Crossref
(21). National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1801, Lessons learned in establishing the NIST Metal Additive Manufacturing laboratory, (June 2013), 40 p.
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.