14 views

Uploaded by aamirmub

Metal deposition in heat transfer analysis

- Perpindahan Panas 1
- YEARLY LESSON PLAN SCIENCE FORM ONE 2011
- heat transfer lesson
- Solved Problems Heat Transfer
- trasient heat transfer
- Infra Implications
- CH EN 3453 - HW 02 - 2014
- MED Simplified Model
- Mechanical Intro 17.0 M07 Modal Thermal and Multistep Analysis
- Introduction
- Performance of Annular Fin with Different Profile Subjected to Heat Transfer Coefficient by using FEA
- Mice 0062
- 2007-A Lumped Parameter Heat Transfer Analysis for Composting Processes With Aeration
- An Effectiveness-NTU Model of a Packed Bed PCM Thermal Storage System
- GRUPO C - A Review of the Use and Design of Produce Simulators for Horticultural Forced-Air Cooling Studies (1)
- Calculation of the Heat Transfer Surface Area of Heat Exchangers for Waste Heat Recovery with the Kaline Cycle
- Climate Tourism
- Spherical Containers
- Mechanical Engineering Syllabus for NTS GAT
- 04.Conduction_Part2 (2)

You are on page 1of 10

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/finel

manufacturing processes

Panagiotis Michaleris

Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, Pan Computing LLC, United States

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Received 5 July 2013

Received in revised form

27 March 2014

Accepted 1 April 2014

Available online 28 April 2014

Additive Manufacturing (AM) processes for metallic parts using both laser and electron beam heat

sources are becoming increasingly popular due to their potential of producing near net shape structural

components. The thermal history generated by additive manufacturing is essential in determining the

resulting microstructure, material properties, residual stress, and distortion.

In this work nite element techniques for modeling metal deposition heat transfer analyses of

additive manufacturing are investigated in detail. In particular, both quiet and inactive element

activation are reviewed in detail and techniques for minimizing errors associated with element

activation errors are proposed. 1D and 3D numerical examples are used to demonstrate that both

methods can give equivalent results if implemented properly. It is also shown that neglecting surface

convection and radiation on the continuously evolving interface between active and inactive elements

can lead to errors. A new hybrid quiet inactive metal deposition method is also proposed to accelerate

computer run times.

& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:

Additive manufacturing

Metal deposition

Element activation

Heat transfer

1. Introduction

Additive Manufacturing (AM) processes for metallic parts using

both laser and electron beam heat sources have the potential of

producing near net shape structural components over a range of

sizes (mm3 through m3). Applications range from customized

medical implants to aerospace components. Both laser and electron beam based deposition systems have been utilized to deposit

a range of materials. All Additive Manufacturing processes are

similar in that a three dimensional part represented by a CAD le

is sliced into layers (build plan) which in turn dene scan

trajectories of the heat source. A high power energy source (laser

or electron beam) is used to heat and melt metal powder or wire,

which solidies to form a fully dense layer. The powder may be fed

to the heat source through nozzles or may be raked into at layers

in powder bed systems. The addition of multiple layers can

produce a three dimensional fully dense part.

Signicant research has been devoted over the past ten years

into investigating the effects of processing parameters on the

resulting microstructure during additive manufacturing [17].

Another concern in additive manufacturing is distortion and

residual stress [813]. The thermal history generated by additive

manufacturing is essential in determining the resulting microstructure, material properties, residual stress, and distortion.

Modeling the thermal history of the additive manufacturing

process is similar to modeling multi-pass welding [4,1416].

Thermo-mechanical modeling of welding has been an active research

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nel.2014.04.003

0168-874X/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

area since the late 1970s [1719]. A detailed review of nite element

modeling for welding is available in references [2027]. Typically,

transient heat conduction analyses are performed in Lagrangian

reference frames as opposed to Eulerian transport analyses which

most often used to predict the temperature eld and physical shape

of the melt pool [2832], buoyancy, surface tension, and magnetohydro-dynamic effects [33], or powder melt pool interaction [34].

Building a complex part with additive manufacturing may require

depositing hundreds or thousands of layers of material which compared to multi-pass welding introduces signicant computational cost.

Therefore, computational efciency becomes paramount. Notable

work in the thermal and microstructural modeling in additive

manufacturing is available in Refs. [15,7]. Residual stress and deformation modeling is investigated in Refs. [1416,35,36].

The material deposition in additive manufacturing is modeled by

using inactive or quiet elements which are activated as the added

material (powder or wire) solidies. Two metal deposition methods

are reported for modeling material deposition: (1) the use of quiet

or (2) inactive elements [23,37,38]. In the quiet approach, the

elements are present in the analysis but are assigned properties

so they do not affect the analysis. In the inactive element approach,

elements are not included in the analysis until the corresponding

material has been added. A variety of general purpose commercial

codes have been reportedly used to model metal deposition: Zhu

et al. [39] use Ansys et al. [40,41] use Adina et al. [42] and Ye et al.

[43] use Abaqus et al. [44] use Comsol, and Lundback and Lindgren

[14] use Marc. However, the numerical approach implemented

52

numerical efciency are not investigated in these references. In

welding, the size ller metal is usually small compared to the base

metal, and errors introduced by element activation may be negligible. However, in additive manufacturing, the size of the deposited

material is signicantly larger and thus element activation errors

could be signicant.

The objective of this work is to investigate nite element

techniques for modeling metal deposition in heat transfer analyses

of additive manufacturing and demonstrate potential sources of

error. In particular, both quiet and inactive element activation are

reviewed in detail and techniques for minimizing errors associated

with element activation errors are proposed. 1D and 3D numerical

examples are used to demonstrate that both methods can give

equivalent results if implemented properly. Is also shown that

neglecting surface convection and radiation on the continuously

evolving interface between active and inactive elements can lead

to errors. A new hybrid quiet inactive metal deposition method is

also proposed to accelerate computer run times.

qp x; t h T T 1 sT 4 T 41

temperature. is the emissivity and s is the StefanBoltzmann

constant.

The energy ux q is expressed as a function of temperature T

using the nonlinear isotropic Fourier heat ux constitutive relation:

q kTT

dH dH dT

dT

C p

dt

dT dt

dt

formulation for transient conductive heat transfer. For more

details see Ref. [45]. Heat transfer through mass transport in the

melt pool is not directly simulated in this study. Its effects are

introduced into the simulation by a distributed heat input model

[46]. Enforcing energy balance in a Lagrangian reference frame x

for a domain of volume V (see Fig. 1) results into the following

partial differential equation:

dH

x; t qx; t 0

dt

1

is the heat ux vector, Q is the body heat source, and H is the

enthalpy.

The initial temperature eld is given by

Tx; 0 t 0 T x

Q x; t C p

dT

kTT 0

dt

8

t are approximated by the backward nite difference:

dn T n T n 1 T

Cn

dn t

t n 1t

Aq element

dR

dn T

on the surface AT

qs x; t qp x; t

on the surface Aq

and temperature-dependent surface ux, respectively. For surface

convection and radiation, qp x; t is dened as follows:

#

1

B TN N

N N N C p n

B kB B

dV

T

T

t n 1t

V element

"

#

Z

C p n T n 1 T

N

NT N

dV

T n t n 1 t

V element

Z

q

11

NT N dA

T

Aq element

boundary conditions are applied on the surface,

Tx; t T p x; t

respectively.

Using the Galerkin nite element discretization and the NewtonRaphson solution scheme, Eqs. (8) and (4) result into the

following element residual R and Jacobian dR=dn T:

(

)

Z

n

T n 1T

BT kBn T NT Q NT NC p n

R

dV

t n 1t

V element

Z

NT qp dA

10

Substitution of Eqs. (6) and (7) into Eq. (1) results into the

following:

also be rewritten as

manufacturing

Q x; t

"

T k n

T Q

the operators that compute the temperature and temperature

gradient as follows:

T NT

12

T BT

13

Aq

modeling material deposition: (1) the quiet and (2) the inactive

element method [14,23,37,38]. In this section the methods are

described in further detail.

3.1. Quiet element method

AT

Fig. 1. A body with volume V, prescribed temperature on surface AT, and prescribed

surface ux on surface Aq.

deposition regions are present from the start of the analysis.

However, they are assigned properties so they do not affect the

set to a lower value to minimize conduction into the quiet

elements, and the specic heat Cp is set to a lower value to adjust

energy transfer to the quiet elements:

kquiet sk k

14

C p quiet sC p C p

15

where, kquiet and C p quiet are the thermal conductivity and specic

heat used for quiet elements, and sk and sC p are the scaling factors

used for the thermal conductivity and specic heat, respectively.

The quiet element method has the following advantages:

53

T2

T1

T3

1D elements.

element codes via user subroutines.

equations is constant through the analysis and no additional

equation renumbering and solver initialization is needed.

The quiet element method has the following disadvantages:

p

If the scaling factors sk and sC p are too small, the Jacobian

resulting from Eq. (11) may be ill-conditioned.

Implementation of the quiet element method in modeling additive

manufacturing, where most of the analysis domain is composed of

quiet elements, may result into long computer runs.

In the inactive element method, the elements representing metal

deposition regions are removed from the analysis and only nodal

degrees of freedom corresponding to active elements are considered.

Numerical implementation involves computing the element residual

(Eq. (10)) and Jacobian (Eq. (11)) for the active elements only and

solving for the active nodal degrees of freedom only.

The inactive element method has the following advantages:

factors as is the case of the quiet element method.

active elements only.

time resulting into smaller algebraic systems by the Newton

Raphson linearization.

The inactive element method has the following disadvantages:

commercial codes using user subroutines.

the computational advantage of solving for a reduced active

number of degrees of freedom.

When elements are activated, nodes shared by active elements

may not be at the initial temperature which may result into

articial energy being introduced into the model. The effect is

illustrated in Fig. 2. Node 2 is shared by active element 1 and

inactive element 2. If the temperature at node 2 is not equal to

initial temperature 0 T , when element 2 is activated, the initial

temperature across the element as interpolated by Eq. (12) is

not equal to the initial temperature 0 T which results into

articial numerical thermal energy introduced during element

activation. A remedy to this problem is to set n 1 T 0 T in

Fig. 3. Illustration of interface between active and inactive (or quiet) elements.

Eqs. (10) and (11) for the inactive elements before their

activation. n 1 T is not reset for the active elements, otherwise,

energy would be lost.

4. Interface between active and inactive elements

Fig. 3 illustrates a nite element mesh for the simulation of

building a thin wall by powder fed metal deposition additive

manufacturing. The active element region is shown as contour shaded

with temperature results and the inactive (or quiet) region as translucent. The interface between active and inactive (or quiet) elements is

also illustrated in the gure. Surface convection and radiation conditions (Eq. (5)) need to be applied to this interface since it is an external

free surface. The interface continuously changes as the metal is

deposited during processing. Therefore, algorithms need to be developed to calculate the location of the evolving interface and apply

surface convection and radiation as needed.

As seen in Fig. 3, the interface is an internal surface in the mesh.

When using general purpose FEA codes, it is difcult to compute

the interface between active and inactive (or quiet) elements using

user subroutines. Thus, it is common practice to neglect the

surface convection and radiation on this interface. This simplication may be appropriate in weld modeling since the ller metal

and therefore the size of the interface is negligible compared to

the base metal. However, in additive manufacturing, the size of the

deposited material could be signicant compared to the substrate

and thus neglecting surface convection and radiation on the

interface between active and inactive elements can be a source

of error as demonstrated in the examples section.

5. Numerical examples

5.1. 1D Examples

The 1D bar problem of Fig. 4 is used to illustrate and quantify

potential errors of the implementation of the quiet and inactive

Table 1 lists the analyses cases performed using the quiet

element method. The analyses are performed by implementing

(Eqs. (10)15) into a Matlab code for 100 time increments of 0.1 s.

Results for the rst and last time increments are illustrated in

Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. Temperature results of the center node

are also listed in Table 1. Results at the rst time increment

evaluate the effectiveness of the method to compute the discontinuous temperature transition from active to quiet elements,

while, results at the last time increment indicate any articial

(numerical) heat loss/generation by the method.

In cases q1q4, the thermal conductivity scaling factor sk is

varied from 1 to .000001. As seen in Table 1 and Fig. 5, the error at

time t 0.1 s decreases from 50% to 11.5739% as sk is set to

lower values. However, the improvement from sk .0001 (case q3)

to sk .000001 (case q4) is minimal, and further reduction of sk

risks introducing ill-conditioning in the system Jacobian. The error

at time t 10 s for cases q1q4 is less than 10 10%.

In cases q5 and q8, the thermal conductivity scaling factor sk is

set to sk .0001 and the specic heat scaling factor sC p is varied

from .1 to .01 respectively. As seen in Table 1 and Fig. 5, the error at

time 0.1 s decreases to 1.3296% and 0.1653% as sC p is set to

lower values. However, the error at the last time increment

increases to 5.2786% and 7.2180%, indicating that there is articial

(numerical) heat generation.

In case q7, the number of elements is increased tenfold and

sk .0001 and sC p :01. As the element length is decreased, the

error at t .1 s decreases to 0.0984%, but at t 10 s is still at

6.4596%.

In case q8, sk .0001 and sC p :01 but the previous increment

temperature n 1 T during the activation of the quiet elements is

reset to the initial temperature 0 T , enforcing the discontinuity of

the solution at the previous time increment. The error now at

Q

generation is diminished.

5.1.2. Inactive element method results

Table 2 lists the analyses cases performed using the inactive

element method. Results for the rst (t .1 s) and last (t 10 s) time

increments are illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. Temperature

results of the center node are also listed in Table 2. In the rst time

increment, the inactive element method is 100% accurate over the

active element region. However, on the last time increment, there

is articial energy generation resulting to 10% error for 10 elements

(case i1) and 1% for 100 elements (case i2). When the previous

increment temperature n 1 T during the activation of the inactive

elements is reset to the initial temperature 0 T , the error at the last

time increment is diminished (cases i3 and i4).

100

q1:sk=1,scp=1

q2:sk=.01,scp=1

q3:sk=.0001,scp=1

q5:sk=.0001,scp=.1

q6:sk=.0001,scp=.01

q7:sk=.0001,scp=.01,100elmts

exact

80

60

Temperature (C)

cross section to 1 mm2. The thermal conductivity k is set to .05

W/mm/1C, the specic heat Cp to 1000 kJ/kg/1C, and the density

to 10 6 kg/mm3. The half left of the bar is set to be active at all

time, while the right half is set to be inactive or quiet for times

0.1 s, and then switched to active. A heat source Q of 1 W/mm3 is

applied to the left half of the bar for times 0.1 s.

40

20

0

20

40

10

10

Xcoordinate (mm)

54

53.5

53

Temperature (C)

54

52.5

q1:sk=1,scp=1

q2:sk=.01,scp=1

q3:sk=.0001,scp=1

q5:sk=.0001,scp=.1

q6:sk=.0001,scp=.01

q7:sk=.0001,scp=.01,100elmts

q8:sk=.0001,scp=.01,(n1)T reset

exact

52

51.5

51

50.5

50

49.5

Xcoordinate (mm)

Table 1

1D quiet element method test cases and results.

Case #

# of elements

sk

sC p

n1

Exact

q1

q2

q3

q4

q5

q6

q7

q8

10

10

10

10

10

10

100

10

1

.01

.0001

.000001

.0001

.0001

.0001

.0001

1

1

1

1

.1

.01

.01

.01

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

T reset

T center (% err)

100

50.0000 ( 50.0000)

85.7959 ( 14.2041)

88.3958 ( 11.6042)

88.4261 ( 11.5739)

98.6704 ( 1.3296)

99.8347 ( .1653)

99.9016 ( .0984)

99.8347 ( .1653)

100

T center (% err)

50

50.0000 (2.8422e 14)

50.0000 (2.8422e 14)

50.0000 (1.8943e 11)

50.0000 (1.8915e 11)

52.6393 (5.2786)

53.6090 (7.2180)

53.2298 (6.4596)

49.9635 ( .0729)

Table 2

1D inactive element method test cases and results.

Case # # of elements

n1

Exact

i1

i2

i3

i4

No

No

Yes

Yes

10

100

10

100

T reset

T center (% err)

100

100

100

100

100

100

T center (% err)

50

55.0000

50.5000

50.0000

50.0000

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(10.0000)

(1.0000)

( 4.2633e 14)

(3.4106e 13)

100

i1:10elmts

i2:100elmts

i3:10elmts,(n1)T reset

i4:100elmts,(n1)T reset

exact

90

80

Temperature (C)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

10

Xcoordinate (mm)

56

55

Temperature (C)

54

i1:10elmts

i2:100elmts

i3:10elmts,(n1)T reset

i4:100elmts,(n1)T reset

exact

53

52

51

50

49

Optomec LENS system. The process uses a laser beam as heat

source and metal powder is fed into the beam path. The powder

particles under the laser beam melt and fall onto the partially

build part and solidify upon cooling. A substrate is used to start the

metal deposition. The wall length is 38.1 mm and it is build by 62

layers of 0.2032 mm height each. Each layer is generated by a

single straight laser scan. The travel speed is 8.466 mm/s, and the

laser power is 425 W. The substrate is 6.35 mm thick, 38.1 mm

wide, and 76.2 mm long.

Heat input model: The double ellipsoid [46] volumetric source

heat input model is used to simulate the heat input onto the part.

The heat source distribution Q is given by

Q

70

10

Xcoordinate (mm)

In this section, the quiet and inactive element methods are

evaluated in 3D models of building a thin wall using the directed

powder process by the Optomec LENS system. The process conditions and material properties are set to correspond to typical

experimental settings. However, the intention of this study is model

verication rather model validation which involves a systematic

and detailed experimental effort as well. (Eqs. (10)15) are programmed into the CUBIC code by Pan Computing LLC. The code is

parallelized using the Open Multi Processing (OMP) interface.

Results are presented for 8 node hex (hex8) elements with full

numerical integration and consistent heat capacity matrix. The

maximum number of threads is set to the number of physical

processors (cores).

55

p

6 3P f 3x2 =a2 3y2 =b2 3z vw t2 =c2

p e

abc

16

local coordinates of the double ellipsoid model; a, b, and c are the

transverse, through the depth, and longitudinal ellipsoid axes.

Usually, a is set to the deposition half width, and b to the melt pool

depth. Typically, different values are used in front and behind the

melt pool for the longitudinal ellipsoid axis c. However, here the

same value is used here since the melt pool is nearly spherical in

the LENS process. f is a scaling factor; vw is the heating spot travel

speed; and t is time. The values used here are: P 425 W, .45,

a 1.5 mm, b .9 mm, c 1.5 mm, and f 1. Eq. (16) is applied on

the entire model and beyond the edges of the ellipsoid (dened at

the 5% value [46]) and thus no correction for cut-off is needed.

FEA mesh: Fig. 9 shows a symmetric model of the substrate only

and Fig. 10 shows a symmetric model of the substrate and wall. The

substrate model (Fig. 9) is composed of 8480 hex8 elements and

10,086 nodes. The substrate and wall model contains 14,432 hex8

elements and 19,200 nodes. The mesh density is targeted towards

obtaining temperature results for follow on mechanical analyses for

computing residual stress and distortion. Finer meshes would be

required for solidication studies.

Time incrementation: During heating, the time increment is set

to 0.0885827 s, which results into a 0.75 mm (quarter of deposition width) travel distance per time increment. When there is no

heating, the time increments are increased.

Element activation criterion: In the double ellipsoid model, the

heat source at the edges of the ellipsoid reduces to 5% of the peak

value at the center. Since the edges of the ellipsoid correspond to

the edge of the molten region, quiet or inactive elements are

activated when the following is valid at any Gauss point of an

element:

p

2

2

6 3f

2

2

2

2

p e 3x =a 3y =b 3z vw t =c Z :05

abc

17

h.00001 W/mm2/1C. The gas and powder ow near the heating

zone is simulated as a forced convection region moving along with

the heat source with a spherical shape with 5 mm radius and a

forced convection of H .000210 W/mm2/1C. The emissivity for

radiation is set to .5. The initial temperature 0 T and ambient

temperature T 1 are set to 30.5 1C.

Material properties. Material properties for TI64 are used. The

thermal conductivity k and specic heat Cp are listed in Table 3

[47]. Material properties are linearly interpolated between the

values listed on the table, and kept constant beyond the minimum

and maximum listed values. The density is 4.43 10 6 kg/mm3.

The latent heat of fusion 365 kj/kg and is spread over a temperature range from 1600 1C to 1670 1C.

56

Fig. 10. Substrate heating and quiet element wall model (1C, case sq1).

Table 3

Thermal properties of TI64.

Temperature (1C)

23

93

205

315

426

537

649

760

871

6.6E 3

7.3E 3

9.1E 3

10.6E 3

12.6E 3

14.6E 3

17.5E 3

565

574

603

649

699

770

858

959

2000

s1:substrate only, reference

sq1:sk=.000001,scp=.01

si1

1500

Temperature (C)

1000

500

500

1000

10

10

15

Zcoordinate (mm)

Fig. 11. Comparison of wall build temperature results.

Table 4

Substrate test cases and results.

Case #

Description

Method

sk

sC p

n1

s1

sq1

si1

Substrate only

Substrate and wall

Substrate and wall

Quiet

Inactive

.000001

.01

T reset

max % err

Reference

.0390

6.375e 5

57

magnitude.

Tables 5 and 6 list the analysis cases performed for the wall build

test and the respective wall CPU run times on a 16 3.1 GHz core

computer using either all or a single core. Cases wq1 and wq2 use

the quiet element method with thermal conductivity and specic

heat scaling factors at the quiet elements set as sk .000001 and

sC p :01. Initially, all elements on the wall are set to quiet, then,

when Eq. (17) is true at any Gauss point of an element, it is switched

to active. The scheme results into a continuous element activation

emulating the metal deposition of the process. The quiet element

cases use the same number of equations throughout the analysis

and require no additional equation renumbering and solver initialization. Run times are about 1009 s wall CPU using 16 cores

(7587 s using 1 core).

Cases wi1 and wi2 use the inactive element method. Initially,

the all elements on the wall are set to inactive, and then switched

to active based on the heat input similarly to the quiet element

method. Since elements are activated continuously, equation

numbering and solver initialization is repeated at nearly all time

increments resulting into slower computer run times of about

1875 s wall (8179 s using 1 core).

Cases wiq1wiq3 use a hybrid inactive/quiet element method

in which wall elements are initially set as inactive. Then, layer by

layer elements are switched to quiet, and then switched individually to active based on the heat input similarly to the quiet element

method implemented in cases wq1 and wq2. In this approach,

equation numbering and solver initialization is repeated only

when each layer is activated resulting into slightly faster computer

run times of about 976 s wall (6284 s using 1 core) per case.

In cases wq2, wi2, wiq2, and wiq3, the temperature of quiet or

inactive elements before activation n 1 T is set to the initial

temperature 0 T , while in cases wq1, wi1, wiq1, it is not. The

temperature result during the deposition of the 61st layer for case

wq2 is illustrated in Fig. 12. Fig. 13 illustrates the temperature

result for case wq2 at the same time instance with all quiet

element removed. The temperature result during the deposition of

the 61st layer for case wi2 is illustrated in Fig. 14. Temperature

results along line AA are extracted and plotted in Fig. 15. Results

from cases wq2 and wi3 are also plotted in the same gure. Using

Table 5

Wall build test cases and results.

In this test, heating of the substrate only with no metal deposition

is modeled. A model of the substrate only (Fig. 9, case s1) is used as

reference to evaluate the accuracy of models with active elements on

the substrate and quiet or inactive elements on the wall (cases sq1

and si1). For the quiet element model (shown in Fig. 10), the

conductivity and specic heat scaling factors at the quiet elements

are set as sk .000001 and sC p :01. Temperature results along line

AA as illustrated in Figs. 9 and 10 are extracted and plotted in Fig. 11.

Convection and radiation are also applied on the interface between

active and inactive (or quiet) elements. The maximum error for the

quiet element and inactive methods is .0390% and 6.375e 5%,

respectively (Table 4). It is noted that no elements are switched from

quiet to active in this test.

Fig. 10 shows the symmetric model of the substrate and wall

used for this test. A time period of 1000 s is simulated. The metal

deposition lasts 286.95 s and requires 3223 time increments.

Further cool down for the remaining of the simulation requires

9 additional time increments. An average of 6 iterations per time

increment is required to achieve convergence, which is dened as

Case #

Interface

conv & rad

Method

sk

sC p

n1

wq1

wq2

wi1

wi2

wiq1

wiq2

wiq3

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Quiet

Quiet

Inactive

Inactive

Inactive/quiet

Inactive/quiet

Inactive/quiet

.000001

.000001

.01

.01

.000001

.000001

.000001

.01

.01

.01

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

T reset

max % err

4.1234

.3734

5.3056

Reference

3.5323

.5242

7.5832

Table 6

Wall build run times (s).

Case #

wq1

wq2

wi1

wi2

wiq1

wiq2

wiq3

1029

1009

2383

1875

1062

976

1014

7864

7587

8102

8179

6313

6284

6296

58

Fig. 12. Wall build using quiet elements (1C, case wq2).

Fig. 13. Wall build not showing quiet elements (1C, case wq2).

59

Fig. 14. Wall build using inactive element layers, quiet elements within layer (1C, case wiq2).

the interface is small compared to the total surface of the part.

However, the error may be higher when the size of the interface is

larger such as in multi-layer cladding and manufacturing of

complex 3D parts.

2500

Temperature (C)

2000

wq2: quiet,sk=.000001,scp=.01

wi2: inactive, reference

wi3:inactive, no interface bcs

1500

6. Conclusions

1000

500

500

10

10

15

Zcoordinate (mm)

Fig. 15. Comparison of wall build temperature results.

listed in Table 5. As seen in Table 5, neglecting to reset n 1 T upon

element activation leads to errors (3.53235.3056%). The error is

higher in the inactive element method. When n 1 T is reset, all

methods result into nearly equivalent results (maximum

error .5%).

In all cases, except case wi3, surface and convection and

radiation are applied on the interface between active and inactive

(or quiet) elements. Neglecting the application of convection and

radiation on the interface between active and inactive (or quiet)

elements results into higher computed temperatures. In this

heat transfer analyses of additive manufacturing are investigated

in detail. A popular method used in general purpose commercial

codes through user subroutines is the quiet element method,

where elements are present in the analysis but quiet elements

are assigned properties rendering them irrelevant until their

activation. Another approach is the inactive element method,

where elements are removed from the analysis until their

activation.

1D and 3D numerical examples are used to demonstrate that

when the thermal conductivity and specic heat are scaled by

.000001 and .01 respectively, both active and inactive element

method results are practically identical (less than .5% difference).

However, both methods result in articial heating generation

(more than 5% error) unless, the temperature of the active (or

quiet) elements is reset to the initial temperature during activation

to enforce the discontinuity of the temperature eld in the

transition from active to inactive (or quiet) elements.

Although the inactive element method results into a reduced

number of degrees of freedom at the initial stages of the analysis,

it requires longer computer run times than the quiet element

method due to the continuous equation renumbering and solver

initialization.

A new hybrid inactive/quiet element method is proposed for

modeling additive manufacturing. In this approach, elements

60

are switched to quiet on a layer-by-layer basis. The approach

results into equivalent results within faster run times.

Numerical examples also demonstrate that neglecting the surface convection and radiation on the continuously evolving interface between active and inactive (or quiet) elements can lead into

over predicting the resulting temperature.

References

[1] S.M. Kelly, S.L. Kampe, Metall. Mater. Trans. Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci. 35A

(2004).

[2] S.M. Kelly, Thermal and microstructure modeling of metal deposition processes with application to Ti-6Al-4V (Ph.D. thesis), Virginia Tech, 2004.

[3] P. Peyre, P. Aubry, R. Fabbro, R. Neveu, A. Longuet, Analytical and numerical

modelling of the direct metal deposition laser process, J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 41

(025403) (2008) 10.

[4] X. Xiong, W.H. Hofmeister, Z. Cheng, J.E. Smugeresky, E.J. Lavernia,

J.M. Schoenung, in situ thermal imaging and three-dimensional nite element

modeling of tungsten carbidecobalt during laser deposition, Acta Mater. 57

(2009) 54195429.

[5] I.A. Roberts, C.J. Wang, R. Esterlein, M. Stanford, D.J. Mynors, A threedimensional nite element analysis of the temperature eld during laser

melting of metal powders in additive layer manufacturing, Int. J. Mach. Tools

Manuf. 49 (2009) 916923.

[6] G.P. Dinda, A.K. Dasgupta, J. Mazumder, Laser aided direct metal deposition of

inconel 625 superalloy: microstructural evolution and thermal stability, Mater.

Sci. Eng. A 509 (1) (2009) 98104.

[7] B. Baufeld, O. Van der Biest, R. Gault, Additive manufacturing of ti-6al-4v

components by shaped metal deposition: microstructure and mechanical

properties, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) S106S111.

[8] Alireza Fathi, Amir Khajepour, Ehsan Toyserkani, Mohammad Durali, Clad

height control in laser solid freeform fabrication using a feedforward PID

controller, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 35 (3) (2007) 280292.

[9] Almir Herali, Anna-Karin Christiansson, Bengt Lennartson, Height control of

laser metal-wire deposition based on iterative learning control and 3d

scanning, Opt. Lasers Eng. (2012).

[10] Lijun Song, Vijayavel Bagavath-Singh, Bhaskar Dutta, Jyoti Mazumder, Control

of melt pool temperature and deposition height during direct metal deposition process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 58 (1) (2012) 247256.

[11] N.W. Klingbeil, J.L. Beuth, R.K. Chin, C.H. Amon, Residual stress-induced

warping in direct metal solid freeform fabrication, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 44 (1)

(2002) 5777.

[12] K. Dai, L. Shaw, Distortion minimization of laser-processed components

through control of laser scanning patterns, Rapid Prototyp. J. 8 (5) (2002)

270276.

[13] Aditad Vasinonta, Jack L. Beuth, Michelle Grifth, Process maps for predicting

residual stress and melt pool size in the laser-based fabrication of thin-walled

structures, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 129 (1) (2007) 101109.

[14] A. Lundback, L.-E. Lindgren, Modelling of metal deposition, Finite Elem. Anal.

Des. 47 (2011) 11691177.

[15] A. Anca, V.D. Fachinotti, G. Escobar-Palafox, A. Cardona, Computational

modelling of shaped metal deposition, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 85 (2011)

84106.

[16] M. Chiumenti, M. Cervera, A. Salmi, C.A. de Sraacibar, N. Dialami, K. Matsui,

Finite element modeling of multi-pass welding and shaped metal deposition

processes, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 199 (2010) 23432359.

[17] H. Hibbitt, P.V. Marcal, A numerical, thermo-mechanical model for the welding

and subsequent loading of a fabricated structure, Comput. Struct. 3 (1973)

11451174.

[18] J.H. Argyris, J. Szimmat, K.J. Willam, Computational aspects of welding stress

analysis, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 33 (1982) 635666.

[19] V.J. Papazoglou, K. Masubuchi, Numerical analysis of thermal stresses during

welding including phase transformation effects, J. Press. Vessel Technol. 104

(1982) 198203.

[20] L.-E. Lindgren, Finite element modelling and simulation of welding, part 1

increased complexity, J. Therm. Stresses 24 (2001) 141192.

[21] L.-E. Lindgren, Finite element modelling and simulation of welding, part 2

improved material modelling, J. Therm. Stresses 24 (2001) 195231.

[22] L.-E. Lindgren, Finite element modelling and simulation of welding, part 3

efciency and integration, J. Therm. Stresses 24 (2001) 305334.

[23] L.E. Lindgren, P. Michaleris, Modeling of welding for residual stresses, in:

Jian Lu (Ed.), Handbook on Residual Stress, vol. 2, SEM, USA, 2005, pp. 4767.

[24] L.-E. Lindgren, Numerical simulation of welding, Comput. Methods Appl.

Mech. Eng. 195 (2006) 67106736.

[25] L.-E. Lindgren, Computational Welding Mechanics. Thermomechanical and

Microstructural Simulations, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, England,

2007.

[26] J.A. Goldak, M. Akhlaghi, Computational Welding Mechanics, Springer, New

York, NY, USA, 2005.

[27] P. Michaleris (Ed.), Minimization of Welding Distortion and Buckling. Modeling and Implementation, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, England, 2011.

[28] S. Mishra, T. DebRoy, A heat-transfer and uid-ow model to obtain a specic

weld geometry using various combinations of welding variables, J. Appl. Phys.

98 (044902) (2005).

[29] Z. Yang, N. Chen, H.W. Ludewig, Z. Cao, Virtual welded-joint design by

coupling thermal-metallurgical-mechanical modeling, in: 6th International

Trends in Welding Research Conference Proceedings, ASM International, Pine

Mountain, GA, 2003, pp. 861866.

[30] G. Taylor, M. Hughes, N. Strusevich, K. Pericleous, Finite volume methods

applied to the computational modelling of welding phenomena, in: 2nd

International Conference on CFD in the Minerals and Process Industries,

CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, 1999, pp. 405410.

[31] T. Zacharia, S.A. David, J.M. Vitek, T. DebRoy, Weld pool development during

GTA and laser beam welding of type 304 stainless steel, part 1-theoretical

analysis, Weld. Res. Suppl. S (1989) 499509.

[32] C. Kim, W. Zhang, T. Debroy, Modeling of temperature eld and solidied

surface prole during gas-metal arc llet welding, J. Appl. Phys. 94 (4) (2003)

26672679.

[33] T. Zacharia, A. Eraslan, D. Aldun, S.A. David, Three-dimensional transient

model for arc-welding process, Metall. Trans. B 20 (1989) 645659.

[34] Lijun Han, Kaushik M. Phatak, F.W. Liou, Modeling of laser deposition and

repair process, J. Laser Appl. 17 (2005) 89.

[35] S. Ghosh, J. Choi, Three-dimensional transient nite element analysis for

residual stresses in the laser aided direct metal/material deposition process,

J. Laser Appl. 17 (2005) 144.

[36] H. Tersing, J. Lorentzon, A. Francois, A. Lundback, B. Babu, J. Barboza, V. Backer,

L.-E. Lindgren, Simulation of manufacturing chain of a titanium aerospace

component with experimental validation, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 51 (2012)

1021.

[37] L.-E. Lindgren, H. Runnemalm, M.O. Nasstrom, Simulation of multipass

welding of a thick plate, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 44 (9) (1999) 13011316.

[38] L.-E. Lindgren, E. Hedblom, Modelling of addition of ller material in large

deformation analysis of multipass welding, Commun. Numer. Methods Eng. 17

(9) (2001) 647657.

[39] Gangxian Zhu, Anfeng Zhang, Dichen Li, Yiping Tang, Zhiqiang Tong,

Qiaopan Lu, Numerical simulation of thermal behavior during laser direct

metal deposition, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 55 (912) (2011) 945954.

[40] R. Jendrzejewski, G. liwiski, M. Krawczuk, W. Ostachowicz, Temperature and

stress elds induced during laser cladding, Comput. Struct. 82 (7) (2004)

653658.

[41] Rafa Jendrzejewski, Gerard liwiski, Investigation of temperature and stress

elds in laser cladded coatings, Appl. Surf. Sci. 254 (4) (2007) 921925.

[42] S. Ghosh, J. Choi, Modeling and experimental verication of transient/residual

stresses and microstructure formation in multi-layer laser aided DMD process,

J. Heat Transf. 128 (7) (2006) 662679.

[43] Riqing Ye, John E. Smugeresky, Baolong Zheng, Yizhang Zhou, Enrique

s

J. Lavernia, Numerical modeling of the thermal behavior during the lens

process, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 428 (1) (2006) 4753.

[44] P. Peyre, P. Aubry, R. Fabbro, R. Neveu, Arnaud Longuet, Analytical and

numerical modelling of the direct metal deposition laser process, J. Phys. D

Appl. Phys. 41 (2) (2008) 025403.

[45] J. Song, J. Shanghvi, P. Michaleris, Optimization of thermo-elasto-plastic

manufacturing processes, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 193 (2004)

45414566.

[46] J. Goldak, A. Chakravarti, M. Bibby, A new nite element model for welding

heat sources, Metall. Trans. B 15B (1984) 299305.

[47] Rodney F. Boyer, E.W. Collings, Materials Properties Handbook: Titanium

Alloys, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, USA (1994) 514.

- Perpindahan Panas 1Uploaded byTita Indrawati
- YEARLY LESSON PLAN SCIENCE FORM ONE 2011Uploaded byAngeliana Kayan
- heat transfer lessonUploaded byapi-312950824
- Solved Problems Heat TransferUploaded byFaisal Sadaat
- trasient heat transferUploaded byJulio Contreras
- Infra ImplicationsUploaded byphanick
- CH EN 3453 - HW 02 - 2014Uploaded byDennis Ling
- MED Simplified ModelUploaded byfqadir
- Mechanical Intro 17.0 M07 Modal Thermal and Multistep AnalysisUploaded bySamedŠkulj
- IntroductionUploaded byAna Allyzon Mejia
- Performance of Annular Fin with Different Profile Subjected to Heat Transfer Coefficient by using FEAUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- Mice 0062Uploaded bySuyog Patwardhan
- 2007-A Lumped Parameter Heat Transfer Analysis for Composting Processes With AerationUploaded byPrashant Ram
- An Effectiveness-NTU Model of a Packed Bed PCM Thermal Storage SystemUploaded bybabak
- GRUPO C - A Review of the Use and Design of Produce Simulators for Horticultural Forced-Air Cooling Studies (1)Uploaded byGeraldine Llatas Ortiz
- Calculation of the Heat Transfer Surface Area of Heat Exchangers for Waste Heat Recovery with the Kaline CycleUploaded byIJAERS JOURNAL
- Climate TourismUploaded bysahawae
- Spherical ContainersUploaded bybabak
- Mechanical Engineering Syllabus for NTS GATUploaded byaunbhutta
- 04.Conduction_Part2 (2)Uploaded bydharshanaab
- 4-Thermal-Student-Worksheet-1.docxUploaded byjustine alina
- HTUploaded bySundar Sk
- CalculationsUploaded byPadmavathi Shenoy
- Final+Exam+and+Solutions+2012Uploaded bycaleb
- HMTUploaded byMayank soni
- Naučni Rad Trends and Future of E-business EngleskiUploaded byOgnjen Raketic
- Daftar PustakaUploaded byPrasekky Hanung Permadi
- Simulation Buyers GuideUploaded bycamcad
- Steam Guide - GestraUploaded bycsharpplus
- Effect of Design Parameters on the Performance of a Closed Loop PulsatingUploaded byIAEME Publication

- D406 MaterialUploaded byaamirmub
- 1-s2.0-S1361920915001340-mainUploaded byaamirmub
- A Novel 3D Evaluation Method for Assessing Bone to Bone Relationships in ClubfootUploaded byaamirmub
- Laminate DesignUploaded byaamirmub
- Metal DepositionUploaded byaamirmub
- Scania Chassis FramesUploaded byaamirmub
- Additive ManufacturingUploaded byaamirmub
- Additive ManufacturingUploaded byaamirmub
- ABS PartsUploaded byaamirmub
- Modelling and Simulation of Brittle ArmourUploaded byaamirmub
- Mil Std 709dUploaded byaamirmub
- Coupled Model for Selective Laser SinteringUploaded byaamirmub
- DesignUploaded byaamirmub
- Paper_77_CEAS2015_v2Uploaded byaamirmub
- simulia-scn-1609Uploaded byaamirmub
- Aamir 2009 Industrial and Engineering Chemistry ResearchUploaded byaamirmub
- GB_17107_part4Uploaded byImran Ishak
- Metal DepositionUploaded byaamirmub
- D5 2 Final VersionUploaded byaamirmub
- Hydrazine HandlingUploaded byjonster2
- NASA Report Ssd Tdr 62 172Uploaded byaamirmub
- NASA Report Ssd Tdr 62 172Uploaded byaamirmub
- Coupled Model for Selective Laser SinteringUploaded byaamirmub
- SSTO Mass Budgets From Propellant Density and IspUploaded byaamirmub
- Tn-d7151 Csm RcsUploaded byaamirmub
- Stress Analysis of a Truck Chassis With Riveted JointsUploaded bywaqasjeral
- EManual Samsung F7000 F8000 SeriesUploaded byaamirmub
- Optistruct Nonlinear Response optimizationUploaded byTanut Ungwattanapanit
- Abaqus Fortran LinkingUploaded byaamirmub

- Journal of Applied Polymer Science Volume 103 Issue 5 2007 [Doi 10.1002%2Fapp.25468] Sergul Acikalin Gulmus; Ulku Yilmazer -- Effect of the Surface Roughness and Construction Material on Wall Slip inUploaded byMohamed Mostafa
- Problem Set 9 SolutionsUploaded bysagarnitishpirthee
- Conductivity_ Lesson.docxUploaded byJesseDoVi
- Lecture 6Uploaded bysenmithul
- API 2H Grade 50 Plates - Arrow Pipes & Plate IndustriesUploaded byYash Mehta
- Synthesis of Visible-Light Responsive Graphene Oxide-TiO2 Composites With P-n HeterojunctionUploaded byFamiloni Layo
- notebook 13Uploaded byapi-334252501
- Clive Lewis for Dj Up Ning Ar BeteUploaded byKrishnat Patil
- Report on Factors Affecting Shrinkage and Creep of Hardened ConcreteUploaded byTiago Valente
- GFPUploaded byNuria Melchor
- Lecture 7Uploaded byNagwa Mansy
- libya medUploaded bytata_77
- Studio AcousticsUploaded byTony Thabet
- Truss WindUploaded byYan Naung Ko
- 1 AG Revision 15s 2 Slides Per PageUploaded byRivo Janala
- Design and Fabrication of Solar Powered Ice BoxUploaded byesatjournals
- Series or Parallel Pump OperationUploaded bykarthikraja21
- Thermo 020H DecanterUploaded byAshrafMostafa
- Solar Cell TechnologyUploaded byXafran Khan
- Viskositas NaOH akhirnyaaUploaded byLisa Ayu Wulandari
- Effect of Setback on RC Framed Buildings in Fundamantal PeriodUploaded bytaosye
- messenger-no123Uploaded byEuropean Southern Observatory
- Observation of Anthracene Excimer Fluorescence at Very Low Concentrations Utilizing Dendritic StructuresUploaded bySreedevi Krishnakumar
- Term Paper on CPTUploaded byAntoine Letendre
- Pages From Centrifugal Pumps HandbookUploaded bySHI
- Daftar pustakaUploaded byAnsmunandar
- Franklin County News - 27 Nov 2012Uploaded byPatumahoeVillageInc
- mscThesis.pdfUploaded byLUIS ISAAC LEON PARO
- ISB Onsite AgendaUploaded byfoxinboxfox
- Complete EDM Handbook_2Uploaded byfamilyuma