0
Special Issue paper

Power–Velocity Process Design Charts for Powder Bed Additive Manufacturing

[+] Author and Article Information
Daniel R. Clymer

Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Carnegie Mellon University,
5000 Forbes Avenue,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
e-mail: dclymer@andrew.cmu.edu

Jonathan Cagan

Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Carnegie Mellon University,
5000 Forbes Avenue,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
e-mail: cagan@cmu.edu

Jack Beuth

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Carnegie Mellon University,
5000 Forbes Avenue,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
e-mail: beuth@andrew.cmu.edu

Contributed by the Design for Manufacturing Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received December 19, 2016; final manuscript received May 31, 2017; published online August 30, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Paul Witherell.

J. Mech. Des 139(10), 100907 (Aug 30, 2017) (7 pages) Paper No: MD-16-1842; doi: 10.1115/1.4037302 History: Received December 19, 2016; Revised May 31, 2017

A current issue in metal-based additive manufacturing (AM) is achieving consistent, desired process outcomes in manufactured parts. When process outcomes such as strength, density, or precision need to meet certain specifications, changes in process variable selection can be made to meet these requirements. However, the changes required to achieve a better part performance may not be intuitive, particularly because process variable changes can simultaneously improve some outcomes while worsening others. There is great potential to design the additive manufacturing process, tailoring process variables based on user requirements for a given part. In this work, the tradeoffs between multiple process outcomes are formalized and the design problem is explored throughout the design space of process variables. Based on user input for each process outcome considered, P–V (power–velocity) process design charts are introduced, which map the process space and identify the best combination of process variables to achieve a user's desired outcome.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Contour plot of expected density relative to full part density throughout P–V space

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Contour plot of yield strength (MPa) relationship throughout P–V space

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Contour plot of surface finish (μm) relationship throughout P–V space

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Contour plot of precision (μm) relationship throughout P–V space

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Contour plot of deposition rate (mm3/s) relationship throughout P–V space

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Case study #1, a P–V process design chart showing objective contours of build rate overlaid on design constraint requirements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Case study #2, a P–V process design chart showing objective contours of precision overlaid on design constraint requirements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Case study #3, a P–V process design chart showing objective contours of build rate overlaid with design constraint requirements

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In