Thesis Masters

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Additive Manufacturing
Additive Manufacturing (AM) refers to a process by which digital 3D design data is

used to build up a component in layers by depositing material. In Additive
Manufacturing process digital 3D design data is used to build up a component in
layers by depositing material. The term "3D printing" is increasingly used as a
synonym for Additive Manufacturing. However, the latter is more accurate in that it
describes a professional production technique which is clearly distinguished from
conventional methods of material removal. Instead of milling a workpiece from solid
block, for example, Additive Manufacturing builds up components layer by
layer using materials which are available in fine powder form. A range of different
metals, plastics and composite materials may be used.
The technology has especially been applied in conjunction with Rapid Prototyping -
the construction of illustrative and functional prototypes. Additive Manufacturing is
now being used increasingly in Series Production. It gives Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs) in the most varied sectors of industry the opportunity to
create a distinctive profile for themselves based on new customer benefits, cost-
saving potential and the ability to meet sustainability goals.
3-D printing has monopolized the news for its massive potential in almost every
market, including automotive, aerospace, medical/dental, robotics and even toys and
action figures. 3-D printing fits under the umbrella of additive manufacturing, the
industry term for all applications of technology that join materials together to make
objects from 3-D model data layer by layer. Additive manufacturing is characterized
by assembling parts using only the materials you need, as opposed to subtractive
manufacturing, which involves cutting away what is not needed from larger pieces of
the material.
1
Fig 1.1: Difference between conventional subtractive manufacturing and additive
manufacturing. (source: www.google.com/images)
1.2. Advantages of AM Processes:

The strengths of Additive Manufacturing lie in those areas where conventional
manufacturing reaches its limitations. The technology is of interest where a new
approach to design and manufacturing is required so as to come up with solutions. It
enables a design-driven manufacturing process - where design determines production
and not the other way around. What is more, Additive Manufacturing allows for
highly complex structures which can still be extremely light and stable. It provides a
high degree of design freedom, the optimisation and integration of functional
features, the manufacture of small batch sizes at reasonable unit costs and a high
degree of product customisation even in serial production.
1.3. Functional Principle:

The system starts by applying a thin layer of the powder material to the building
platform. A powerful laser beam then fuses the powder at exactly the points defined
by the computer-generated component design data. The platform is then lowered and
another layer of powder is applied. Once again, the material is fused so as to bond
with the layer below at the predefined points. Depending on the material used,
components can be manufactured using stereolithography, laser sintering or 3D
printing. EOS Additive Manufacturing Technology based on laser sintering has been
in existence for over 20 years.
2
1.4. Classification of rapid prototyping systems:
While there are many ways in which one can classify the numerous RP systems in
the market, one of the better ways is to classify RP systems broadly by the initial
form of its material, i.e. the material that the prototype or part is built with. In this
manner, all RP systems can be easily categorized into (1) liquid-based (2) solid-
based and (3) powderbased.
1.5. Metal AM Definition (Standard):

Metal 3D Printing is a laser-based technology that uses powdered metals. Similar to
Laser Sintering, a high-powered laser selectively binds together particles on the
powder bed while the machine distributes even layers of metallic powder. Support
structures are automatically generated and built simultaneously in the same material,
and are later manually removed. Once complete, the part undergoes heat treatment.
Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, is a process of joining

materials to make objects from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed
to subtractive manufacturing methodologies. This tool less manufacturing approach
can give industry new design flexibility, reduce energy use and shorten time to
market. Main applications of additive manufacturing include rapid prototyping, rapid
tooling, direct part production and part repairing of plastic, metal, ceramic and
composite materials. The two main parameters of any metal AM process are type of
input raw material and energy source used to form the part. Input raw material can be
used in the form of metal powder or wire whereas laser/electron beam or arc can be
used as energy source.
1.6. Selective laser melting (SLM):

1.6.1. Origin of SLM:
Selective laser melting, one of the several 3D printing technologies, started in 1995
at the Fraunhofer Institute ILT in Aachen, Germany, with a German research project,
resulting in the so-called basic ILT SLM patent DE 19649865. Already during its
pioneering phase Dr. Dieter Schwarze and Dr. Matthias Fockele from F&S
3
Stereolithographietechnik GmbH located in Paderborn collaborated with the ILT
researchers Dr. Wilhelm Meiners and Dr. Konrad Wissenbach. In the early 2000s
F&S entered into a commercial partnership with MCP HEK GmbH (later on named
MTT Technology GmbH and then SLM Solutions GmbH) located in Lübeck in
northern Germany. Today Dr. Dieter Schwarze is with SLM Solutions GmbH and
Dr. Matthias Fockele founded Realizer GmbH.
The ASTM International F42 standards committee has grouped selective laser
melting into the category of "laser sintering", although this is an acknowledged
misnomer because the process fully melts the metal into a solid homogeneous mass,
unlike selective laser sintering (SLS) which is a true sintering process. Another name
for selective laser melting is direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), a name deposited
by the EOS brand, however misleading on the real process because the part is being
melted during the production, not sintered, which means the part is fully dense. This
process is in all points very similar to other SLM processes, and is often considered
as a SLM process.
A similar process is electron beam melting (EBM), which uses an electron beam as
energy source.
1.6.2. Process of SLM:
DMLS uses a variety of alloys, allowing prototypes to be functional hardware made

out of the same material as production components. Since the components are built
layer by layer, it is possible to design organic geometries, internal features and
challenging passages that could not be cast or otherwise machined. DMLS produces
strong, durable metal parts that work well as both functional prototypes or end-use
production parts.
The process starts by slicing the 3D CAD file data into layers, usually from 20 to 100
micrometers thick, creating a 2D image of each layer; this file format is the industry
standard .stl file used on most layer-based 3D printing
or stereolithography technologies. This file is then loaded into a file preparation
software package that assigns parameters, values and physical supports that allow the
file to be interpreted and built by different types of additive manufacturing machines.
4
With selective laser melting, thin layers of atomized fine metal powder are evenly
distributed using a coating mechanism onto a substrate plate, usually metal, that is
fastened to an indexing table that moves in the vertical (Z) axis. This takes place
inside a chamber containing a tightly controlled atmosphere of inert gas, either argon
or nitrogen at oxygen levels below 500 parts per million. Once each layer has been
distributed, each 2D slice of the part geometry is fused by selectively melting the
powder. This is accomplished with a high-power laser beam, usually
an ytterbium fiber laser with hundreds of watts. The laser beam is directed in the X
and Y directions with two high frequency scanning mirrors. The laser energy is
intense enough to permit full melting (welding) of the particles to form solid metal.
The process is repeated layer after layer until the part is complete.
The DMLS machine uses a high-powered 200 watt Yb-fiber optic laser. Inside the
build chamber area, there is a material dispensing platform and a build platform
along with a recoater blade used to move new powder over the build platform. The
technology fuses metal powder into a solid part by melting it locally using the
focused laser beam. Parts are built up additively layer by layer, typically using layers
20 micrometers thick.
1.6.3. Materials:
Selective laser melting (SLM) machines can operate with a work space up to 1 m
(39.37 in) in X & Y and can go up to 1 m (39.37 in) Z. Some of the materials being
used in this process can include Ni based super alloys, copper, aluminium, stainless
steel, tool steel, cobalt chrome, titanium and tungsten. SLM is especially useful for
producing tungsten parts because of the high melting point and high ductile-brittle
transition temperature of this metal. In order for the material to be used in the process
it must exist in atomized form (powder form). These powders are generally gas
atomized prealloys, being this the most economical process to obtain spherical
powders on an industrial scale. Sphericity is desired because it guarantees a high
flowability and packing density, which translates into fast and reproducible spreading
of the powder layers. To further optimize flowability, narrow grain size distributions
with a low percentage of fine particles like 15 - 45 µm or 20 - 63 µm are typically
employed. Currently available alloys used in the process include 17-4 and 15-
5 stainless steel, maraging steel, cobalt chromium, inconel 625 and
5
718, aluminum AlSi10Mg, and titanium Ti6Al4V. The mechanical properties of
samples produced using direct metal laser sintering differ from those manufactured
using casting. AlSiMg samples produced using direct metal laser sintering exhibit a
higher yield(engineering) than those constructed of commercial as-cast A360.0 alloy
by 43% when constructed along the xy-plane and 36% along the z-plane. While the
yield strength of AlSiMg has been shown to increase in both the xy-plane and z-
plane, the elongation at break decreases along the build direction. These
improvement of the mechanical properties of the direct metal laser sintering samples
has been attributed to a very fine microstructure.
The next generation of additive comes through the direct metal laser melting
(DMLM) process. The beds have been developed to allow for the melting of the
powder to occur just before building the surface. Additionally, industry pressure has
added more superalloy powders to the available processing including AM108. It is
not only the Print operation and orientation that provides a change in material
properties, it is also the required post processing via Hot Isostatic Pressure (HIP)
Heat Treat and shot peen that change mechanical properties to a level of noticeable
difference in comparison to equiaxed cast or wrought materials. Based on research
done at the Tokyo Metropolitan University, it is shown that creep rupture and
ductility are typically lower for additive printed Ni based superalloys compared to
wrought or cast material. The directionality of print is a major influencing factor
along with grain size. Additionally, wear properties are typically better as seen with
the studies done on additive Inconel 718 due to surface condition; the study also
demonstrated the laser power's influence on density and microstructure. Material
Density that is generated during the laser processing parameters can further influence
crack behaviour such that crack reopening post HIP process is reduced when density
is increased. It is critical to have a full overview of the material along with its
processing from print to required post-print to be able to finalize the mechanical
properties for design use.
6
1.6.4. Principle:
Fig 1.2: Line diagram of SLM

SLM is very similar to SLS, and both processes are covered under the powder bed
fusion umbrella. The major difference is the type of feedstock or powder it uses.
While SLS uses mainly nylon (PA) polymer materials, SLM is specifically for
metals. Nevertheless, the basic process is the same. As demonstrated in the image
above, the laser sinters the powder together, layer-by-layer, until the model is
complete. However, there is one big difference between SLM and SLS. Due to the
constraints of the SLM process and the weight of the material, SLM requires support
structures to be added to any overhanging features. This differs from SLS, where the
surrounding powder material can provide enough support, allowing freeform shapes
and features to be realized.
1.6.5. Advantages and disadvantages:

a) Advantages
• Large range of metals available
• Ability to realize complex shapes or internal features (which would be

incredibly difficult or expensive to achieve via traditional manufacturing)
• Reduced lead times, due to no need for tooling
• Part consolidation, allowing the production of multiple parts at the same time
7
b) Disadvantages
• Expensive, especially if parts aren’t optimized or designed for the process
• Specialized design and manufacturing skills and knowledge needed
• Limited currently to relatively small parts
• Rough surface finish
• Lots of post-processing required
1.6.6. Applications:
a) Aerospace – Air ducts, fixtures or mountings holding specific aeronautic

instruments, laser-sintering fits both the needs of commercial and military aerospace
b) Manufacturing – Laser-sintering can serve niche markets with low volumes at

competitive costs. Laser-sintering is independent of economies of scale, this liberates
you from focusing on batch size optimization.
c) Medical – Medical devices are complex, high value products. They have to meet
customer requirements exactly. These requirements do not only stem from the
operator's personal preferences: legal requirements or norms that differ widely
between regions also have to be complied with. This leads to a multitude of varieties
and thus small volumes of the variants offered.
d) Prototyping – Laser-sintering can help by making design and functional

prototypes available. As a result, functional testing can be initiated quickly and
flexibly. At the same time, these prototypes can be used to gauge potential customer
acceptance.
e) Tooling – The direct process eliminates tool-path generation and multiple

machining processes such as EDM. Tool inserts are built overnight or even in just a
few hours. Also the freedom of design can be used to optimize tool performance, for
example by integrating conformal cooling channels into the tool.[35]
8
1.8. Process Parameters:
1. Build mesh size

2. Base body mesh size
3. Build material
4. XY direction
5. Z direction
6. Preheat temperature
7. Deposition thickness
8. Gas temperature
9. Powder temperature
10. Room temperature
1.9 Topology optimization:
Topology optimization is a mathematical tool to make optimized material

distribution in a part to be designed. By doing so, it gives us a part topology that is
more natural and more complex. There are different topology optimization
approaches developed during the last three decades. For instance, set level approach,
homogenization method, SIMP method and density approach are among the main
topology optimization techniques. The initial topology optimization developments
considered the conventional manufacturing techniques that are either subtractive or
formative. These conventional manufacturing systems have limitations in producing
complex shape geometries as they have different manufacturing constraints. The
birth of additive manufacturing gave another bright future opportunity for topology
optimization as with additive manufacturing (AM) technologies; producing complex
shape geometry is achievable. This is because, in AM, the systems do not require any
tooling for producing a part. For this and other similar capabilities of the
technologies, topology optimization and additive manufacturing are considered ideal
couples. To implement AM technology in production of functional parts, advances in
materials technology and design optimization are considered as the key areas of
current research. Regarding the last-mentioned research challenge, a design approach
that can directly transfer the design concept of the engineer to a produced part
9
without any due consideration for manufacturing constraint and enable optimum
utilization of the part under loading is sought. If proper and efficient algorithms are
developed, topology optimization techniques can play a key role in the future
development of AM technology.
Topology optimization in particular has the following benefits in the design process
1. Creating lightweight structures
2. Creating ready to manufacture design
3. Reducing time-to-market
4.Saving huge amount of material
5.Reducing physical test
6.Saving large amount of processing energy
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Dongdong Gu and Yifu Shen (2008) [1], the Direct metal laser sintering (DMLS)
due to its flexibility in materials and shapes, would be especially interesting to
produce complex shaped porous metallic components. In the present work,
processing conditions and microstructural characteristics of direct laser sintered
porous 316L stainless steel components were studied. It was found that a partial
melting mechanism of powders gave a high feasibility in obtaining porous sintered
structures possessing porosities of ∼21–∼55%. Linear energy density (LED), which
was defined by the ratio of laser power to scan speed, was used to tailor the laser
sintering mechanism. A moderate LED of ∼3400–∼6000 J/m and a lower scan speed
less than 0.06 m/s proved to be feasible. With a suitable sintering mechanism
determined, a reasonable decrease in laser power or an increase in scan speed, scan
line spacing, and powder layer thickness generally led to a higher sintered porosity.
Hamed Asgari and Mohsen Mohammadi (2018) [2], in the present paper, the
microstructural evolution and tensile properties of additively manufactured stainless
steel CX were investigated. Using scanning electron microscope (SEM), several
powder particle morphologies were identified in the stainless s steel CX feedstock
powder where the spherical morphology was found to be the dominant one. In
addition, X-ray diffraction (XRD) technique detected austenite and marten site
phases in both stainless steel CX powder and as-built sample, whereas no carbide
peak appeared on the XRD patterns. Moreover, lath or needle-like marten site phase
was observed in the microstructure of the as-built sample. A high ultimate tensile
strength together with a good elongation to fracture was obtained for the
horizontally-built stainless steel CX sample. Finally, examination of the fracture
surfaces after tensile tests confirmed the ductile failure mode of the samples, in
which the pull-out of the scan tracks and coalescence of the voids resulted in the tear
and final rupture. Austenite and marten site phases were detected in the
microstructure of both stainless steel CX powder and as-built sample. However, no
peak(s) related to carbide phases was detected on the XRD patterns of the powder
and DMLS-built sample. A distinctive combination of ultimate tensile strength and
elongation to failure was obtained for the stainless steel CX after tensile test, which
11
is comparable with other additively manufactured stainless steels such as SS 316L
and SS 17-4 PH and conventional stainless steels. The ductile fracture mode was
determined to be the main failure mode of the stainless steel CX after examining the
tensile fracture surfaces. This study demonstrates the successful additive
manufacturing of stainless steel CX with outstanding tensile properties.
Bhaskaran E et al. (2013) [3], this study was conducted to comparatively evaluate
the marginal gap and internal gap of cobalt–chromium (Co–Cr) copings fabricated by
conventional casting procedures and with direct metal laser sintering (DMLS)
technique. Among the total of 30 test samples 10 cast copings were made from inlay
casting wax and 10 from 3D printed resin pattern. 10 copings were obtained from
DMLS technique. All the 30 test samples were then cemented sequentially on
stainless steel model using pressure indicating paste and evaluated for vertical
marginal gap in 8 predetermined reference areas. All copings were then removed and
partially sectioned and cemented sequentially on same master model for evaluation
of internal gap at 4 predetermined reference areas. Both marginal gap and internal
gap were measured in microns using video measuring system (VMS2010F). The
results obtained for both marginal and internal gap were statistically analyzed and the
values fall within the clinically acceptable range. The DMLS technique had an edge
over the other two techniques used, as it exhibited minimal gap in the marginal
region which is an area of chief concern.
Zhu Y et al. (2016) [4], in this study the friction and wear behaviors of SLM 316L
stainless steel parts were investigated using a ring-on-disc rig under lubricated
conditions. To comparison, this work also tested the same sample produced through
a traditional process with the same surface finishes. Friction and wear results were
discussed based on the surface topography observations and microstructure analysis.
The sample was not fully densified by the SLM process as some pores were
observed. Nano-hardness measured in difference laser scanning tracks (different
molten pools) in the SLM sample was close. There was no obvious difference in the
metallic phase and Young’s modulus between the SLM parts and the TP parts. The
SLM sample had very fine austenite grains, the size of which was much smaller than
in the TP sample. Regardless of surface finishes, the friction and wear of the SLM
sample was a little lower than the TP sample when in contact with brass. This is
because the refined grains in the SLM sample increase the wear resistance and the
12
sample was subjected to slight plastic deformation. However, the difference in
friction and wear between the SLM and the TP sample was large when in contact
with a hard material. In this case, the 316L stainless steel was subjected to significant
plastic deformation and pores between molten pools may cause material shell off.
Therefore, it is important to increase material densification during the SLM process.
If the pores can be greatly reduced, the tribological performance of the SLM sample
will be better than the TP sample due to the refined grains in the microstructure.
Jordi Delgado, et al. (2012) [5], this work is focused on iron-based materials similar
or equivalent to stainless steel, DS H20 powder for DMLS and CL 20 powder
(equivalent to 1.4404 or AISI 316L) for SLM. The state-of the- art for these
materials in regards to the following part features: (a) dimensional error, (b) surface
roughness, and (c) mechanical properties. There are few studies available about part
quality and mechanical properties, using DS H20 powder with the DMLS
technology. In that work, mechanical properties (density and hardness) and surface
roughness after shot peening are reported. Sustarsic et al.Twenty parts for each
additive manufacturing technology were obtained in four separate building
platforms. Every building platform was manufactured with different process
parameters following the full factional experiment proposed in Section.
Ghani SA et al. (2017) [6], this paper aims at comparing the dimensional accuracy
of SLM and DMLS in machining internally cooled cutting tool with a special focus
on geometrical dimensions such as hole diameter. The surface roughness produced
by the two processes is measured with contact perthometer. To achieve the
objectives, geometrical dimensions of identical tool holders for internally cooled
cutting tools fabricated by SLM and DMLS have been determined by using digital
vernier caliper and various magnification of a portable microscope. In the current
study, comparing internally cooled cutting tools made of SLM and DMLS showed
that
generally the higher degree of accuracy could be obtained with DMLS process. The
observed differences in surface roughness between SLM and DMLS in this study
were not significant. The most obvious finding to emerge from this study is that the
additive manufacturing processes selected for fabricating the tool holders for
internally cooled cutting tool in this research are capable of producing the desired
internal channel shape of internally cooled cutting tool. Finally dimensional accuracy
13
of internally cooled cutting tools manufactured by SLM and DMLS process SLM
process provided higher precision than DMLS process. DMLS process performed
better in dimensional accuracy than SLM process. The surface roughness of SLM
process is better than DMLS process.
Mower TM and Long MJ (2016) [7], in this paper Mechanical behavior of four
metallic alloys Fabricated with layered, laser-heated methods of additive
manufacturing (AM) was compared to that of similar alloys produced with
conventional methods (wrought and machined). AM materials were produced by a
leading commercial service provider, as opposed to incorporating material specimens
produced by unique or specially-adapted equipment. The elastic module was
measured in flexure, stress–strain characteristics were measured in tensile de-
formation, and fatigue strengths were measured in fully reversed bending. The
effects of fabrication orientation, surface polishing, and hot isostatic pressing up on
mechanical behavior were studied. The fatigue strengths exhibited by SLM
AlSi10Mg and DMLS Ti6Al4V in the as-fabricated condition proved to be
significantly inferior to that of conventional material. These lower fatigue strengths
are a consequence of multiple fatigue cracks initiating at surface defects, internal
voids and microcracks, and growing simultaneously during cyclic loading. Measured
fatigue strengths of DMLS 316L and 17-4PH approached those of corresponding
wrought materials when subjected to principal stresses aligned with the build planes.
When cyclic stresses were applied across the build planes of the DMLS stainless
steels, fatigue fractures often developed prematurely by separation of material. Post-
processing the DMLS Ti6Al4V and SS 316L with hot isostatic pressure elevated the
fatigue strength significantly. Measurements of surface roughness with an optical
profilometer,examinations of the material microstructures, and fractography
contribute to an understanding of the mechanical behavior of the additive materials.
Sander J et al. (2017) [7], this study was kindly supported by additional support
through the German Science Foundation (DFG) under the Leibniz Program (grant
EC 111/26-1) is gratefully acknowledged. The mechanical properties of SLM
processed FeCrMoVC steel benefit from the refinement of the microstructure
resulting from the high cooling rates achieved in the SLM process. In fact, the
compression strength, hardness, and wear resistance is significantly increased
14
compared to the cast state and 1.2379 reference steel. The reason for this property
enhancement is the enhanced hardness and the prevention of carbide breakouts which
appear in the cast state. The findings reveal that SLM is advantageous for the
processing of high-strength FeCrMoVC tool steel.
Bartolomeu F et al. (2017) [8], in this work a comparative study on the effect of
three different production technologies (casting, HP, and SLM) on microstructural,
mechanical and wear behavior of a biomedical alloy was assessed. From this study,
the conclusions can be pointed as a correlation between the production route,
microstructure and mechanical properties was attained. The highest properties
regarding tensile strength, yield strength and hardness were achieved by SLM
specimens. The 316L SS specimens produced by SLM technology showed the
greater wear resistance among all the tested specimens. The high wear and
mechanical performance of 316L SS produced by SLM are mainly due to the finer
microstructure, induced by the process. As a final conclusion, SLM technology
seems to be a good choice to produce complex 316L SS parts and to fabricate
customized implants with improved mechanical and wear performance.
Simchi A (2006) [9], present work, the densification and microstructural evolution
during direct laser sintering of metal powders were studied. Various ferrous powders
including Fe, Fe–C, Fe–Cu, Fe–C–Cu–P, 316L stainless steel, and M2 high-speed
steel were used. The equation calculates the densification of metal powders during
direct laser sintering process as a function of operating parameters including laser
power, scan rate, layer thickness and scan line spacing. The laser sintering can be
considered as “high power density short interaction time” process. The delivered
energy heats up the exposed powder particles rapidly beyond the melting
temperature. The particle bonding is then performed and the kinetics of densification
depends on the working temperature. It was found that as the laser energy input
increases (higher laser power; lower scan rate; lower scan line spacing; lower layer
thickness) better densification is achieved. The chemistry and the shape of the
particles also affect the densification in DMLS process. It was shown that this
coefficient is related to the powder characteristics (chemical composition, particle
size, particle size distribution, oxygen content, etc.) and the sintering rate increases
as the K value decreases. The results reveal that the sintered density depends on both
15
powder characteristics and the fabrication parameters. In general, asthe energy input
increases (higher laser power, P, or lower scan rate, v) higher density is obtained.
M. N. Islam,et. al , [10] The three-dimensional (3D) printing is nothing but additive

manufacturing where material is added layer by layer to get final object. It is an
extremely flexible process and is capable of creating parts of complex geometry with
materials such as ceramics, metals, or polymers. A preliminary study is attempted by
M. N. Islam,et. al to determine the dimensional accuracy of the parts produced by 3D
printing process. For the experimental analysis a U-shaped specimen with an internal
hole is used. The test parts are produced in Z450 3D printer. From the analysis, it is
observed that the dimensions in x-y plane are always undersized whereas the
dimension in the z direction is oversized. It is also observed that holes form a bell-
mouth shape and are undersized. The precision level of 3D printing is similar to
WEDM. In summary, authors have presented a preliminary study on the inherent size
errors associated with the 3D printing process. A hypothesis was presented
explaining this phenomenon. This hypothesis may be further tested by having each
building layer assigned a separate colour, allowing individual layer measurements to
be obtained.
Hirpa G. Lemu et. al.,[11] A study was conducted by Hirpa G. Lemu et. al on the
dimensional accuracies and geometric accuracies of 3D printing manufacturing. Test
specimens are produced on Z510 printer using ZP 131, ZP 14 and ZCast 501
composite powders. Three parameters are considered, namely- influence of file
transfer formats on part accuracy, achievable accuracies such as flatness and surface
finish, and minimum wall thickness. From the analysis it is observed that STL
formats are not as good as VRML formats and Surface finish depends on layer
thickness and geometry form. It is also observed that flatness is as good as machining
process and wall thickness is important factor in downscaling.
Ana Pilipovic, et.al., [12] demonstrates the experimental analysis of properties of

materials for rapid prototyping. Work is based on standards of 3D printing machines
(ZPrinter 310 plus) and the hybrid polyjet technique (Objet Edne 330). Specimens
were made using Locite Hysol 9483, Vero Black, Vero Blue and Fullcure 720.
Specimen are tested for the tensile properties and flexural properties. It shows that
the specimen made using polyjet technique is superior to standard 3D print
16
technique. Of all the materials Fullcure 720 has greater strength in both tensile and
flexure. While the dimensional attributes are superior in the Z 310 plus.
Jack Zhou, et. al, [13] five parameters are considered to improve the accuracy of
rapid prototyped stereolithography parts. The parameters are layer thickness,
resultant overcure, hatch space, blade gap and part location. A complex specimen
with twenty dimensional, geometric and surface roughness is produced using RP. In
terms of Taguchi experimental design techniques an orthogonal array os developed.
Two analysis tools namely- Response surface methodology and Analysis of Varience
(ANOVA) are used for the process to perform product optimisation. It is observed
that for the overall hush dimensional, geometry and surface finish a low layer
thickness, low resultant overcure, medium blade gap, medium-low hatch space and
medium-low part location are to be used.
Michael W. Barclift, et. al., [14] in their research paper examined the variability in
the mechanical properties of parts manufactured via polyjet direct 3D printing.
Specimen parts are created using VeroWhite resin. Three parameters XY orientation,
z- direction and part spacing are used. Using the experimental data, a factorial
analysis and ANOVA was performed to determine the effects of the parameter and
its interactions on tensile strength and modulus. It is observed that z- direction can
affect accuracy of part thickness and width, it also has a better resolution. In part
spacing the parts printed closer together in XY were stronger than that which are
printed apart.
J.Kechagias, et. al. [15] An investigation on the effects of the layer thickness, build
style and scale on to the dimensional accuracy of the parts is performed by Four
experiments have been conducted utilising the Taguchi L4 (23) orthogonal array.
Effect of each parameters are examined in terms of ANOM diagrams. ANOVA is
used in the importance identification of each parameter variance onto the
performance measure. In the linear external dimensions X and Z directions all factors
are important, while in Y direction layer thickness is the dominant factor. In
diametric internal dimensions layer thickness and scale are the important factors with
equal weightage.
R. Hague,et al.[16] Initial investigations into the properties of Accura SI40 and
SL7560 resins which represent stereolithography resins that are aimed at end-use part
17
manufacture is carried out by In this paper the isotropy/ anisotropy of SL7560 and
Accura SI40 is investigated. The effects of different methods of post- curing on the
mechanical properties of the resins and impact strengths are studied. The equipment
used to build the test samples was SLA7000 by3DSystems. The test samples are
studied using differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) to relate properties with level
of polymerisation. Investigations into the isotropy/anisotropy behaviour of SL7560
and Accura SI40 concluded that the parts produced are broadly isotropic and that the
build orientation does not affect their mechanical properties. DSC analysis indicates
that the mechanical properties can be adjusted according to the post-curing
methodology used which may be desirable in the design of the endues part. Creating
the notch within the 3D CAD file and producing this directly on the SL machine
significantly improves the impact resistance with respect to mechanically notched
samples.
Rahmati, S., et. al.[17] A model is proposed to find and optimize important
parameters to achieve higher accuracy and also predict dimensional accuracy using
various parameters values by It is found that in stereolithography process these
factors in order of importance with respect to dimensional accuracy are: layer
thickness, hatch style, hatch spacing, hatch fill cure depth and hatch overcure. In this
paper, distortion values measured by previous researchers, is modeled by Artificial
Neural Network (ANN) in order to achieve correct prediction of dimensional
accuracy and investigate the impact of these parameters on dimensional error. This
model can predict dimensional accuracy with about 6% error probability which is
considered a good prediction. It is observed that layer thickness is the most important
parameter in dimensional accuracy, and then, respectively, hatch style, hatch spacing,
hatch fill cure depth and hatch overcure.
Nicholas A. Meisel, et. al. [18] Compliant mechanisms are the mechanisms that
transfer motion, force, and energy using a single monolithic structure without
discrete hinge elements. The geometric design freedoms and multi-material
capability offered by the PolyJet 3D printing process enables the fabrication of
compliant mechanisms with optimized topology. This is investigated by Guest in
their research. In this paper, the authors propose a design and fabrication process for
the realization of 3-phase, multiple-material compliant mechanisms. The whole
18
process is tested on a 2D compliant force inverter. Experimental and theoretical
performance of the resulting 3-phase inverter is compared against a standard 2-phase
design. A more robust multivariate SIMP approach was thus proposed to provide
better results to the multi-material topology optimization problem. Experimental
results of the compliant force inverter problem show that the addition of a second
non-zero candidate material increases the deflection of the compliant inverter from
2.20 mm to 9.98 mm.
S H Lee1,et al. [19] research paper, an attempt has been made to understand the
process causality - cause and effect and to model the relationship. Since an analytical
approach to solving this is a very difficult task due to the complexity of the process, a
multilayer perceptron has been utilized to investigate the effect of the operating input
parameters on part dimensional inaccuracy. This study is carried by Based upon this
modelling work, the following conclusions can be made - The test results on
performance of the trained network show that it can predict the dimensional errors
with reasonable accuracy. As the input variables such as layer thickness and positive
hatch overcure increase within a certain range, dimensional errors are found to
increase. These variables are termed positive factors. In contrast, the increases in
hatch spacing and negative hatch overcure cause the dimensional error to decrease.
These variables are termed negative factors. Thus, two observations can be explained
well by the layer exposure theory suggested by Jacobs. To build operating range,
small layer thicknesses, negative hatch overcure and medium to large hatch spacing
are desirable.[10]
T. Brajlih, et. al. [20] investigation on the implementation of genetic programming

methods into optimization process of the scale factor values is used in PolyJet rapid
prototyping procedures. This work is carried out In this paper, genetic programming
was used in optimization of scale factor values regarding to the part’s properties.
Finally, the optimized values were tested on another test series of parts. The author
has calculated compensation factor value for each test object for each individual axis
separately according to the mathematical model. The results of the optimized series
show additional improvement in accuracy of the PolyJet rapid prototyping procedure
over previous series. The average absolute deviation was reduced from 0,44% of the
series 0 to 0,13% of the optimized series. Especially large improvement has been
19
achieved with the optimized values of compensation factors in the X-axis of the
machine. (0,41% of series 0 to 0,08% of the optimized series).
D. Karalekas and D. Rapti.[21] Investigation is conducted on the processing

dependence of SL solidification residual stresses by This paper presents an
experimental study undertaken to determine the polymerisation-induced residual
stresses generated in stereolithography (SL) built test specimens, by using the hole-
drilling strain gage method of stress relaxation. Experimentally measured strains,
using special three-element strain gage rosettes, were input into the blind-hole
analysis to calculate the induced residual stresses. The effect of the pre-selected
fabrication parameters (hatching space and curing depth) and subsequent by the post-
curing procedure (UV, thermal curing) on the magnitude of the recorded strains is
also presented. It is observed that the thermally post-cured specimens yield higher
measured values of elastic modulus, ultimate tensile strength, and elongation to
fracture when compared to the ones in green-state and UV post-cured, respectively.
It is also seen that the measured mechanical properties of the postcured specimens
depend on the hatching space and the laser intensity exposure density (curing depth)
used in generating their greenstate counterparts. It was found that the residual
stresses in this type of resin photopolymer were considerably low, approximately 6.5
per cent of the ultimate tensile strength of the material, and did not vary significantly
as a result of the considered build and post-processing parameters.
Rolando Quintana, et. al. [22] A statistical design of experiments (DOE) approach
was used to determine if specific build orientation parameters impacted mechanical
strength of stereolithography (SL) fabricated parts by The DOE tested three factors:
axis, layout, and position. Three samples were manufactured for each layout and axis
combination, and the samples were labeled as positions 1, 2, or 3 depending on the
distance from the center of the platform with position 1 being the closest to the
center. A single platform (25.4 × 25.4-cm cross-section) on the 3D Systems Viper si2
SL machine was designed to hold 18 ASTM D-638 type I samples manufactured in
different orientations. The results from the statistical analyses showed that axis and
position had no significant effect on UTS or E. Layout (or whether a sample was
built flat or on an edge) was shown to have a statistically significant effect on UTS
and E (at a 95% level of confidence). A key finding was therefore that building a part
20
flat or on an edge (with different layer-to-layer interfaces with respect to the part)
produced parts with statistically different mechanical properties, and thus, these parts
cannot be considered broadly isotropic. Based on these results, it appears that the
orientation of the individually fabricated layers (layer interfaces) with respect to the
part produces samples with statistically different mechanical properties (UTS and E
in this case). This study did not include a test of samples built vertically (where the
major axis of the part is built vertically or in the z direction of the machine), although
based on the present work, vertically built samples would be expected to have UTS
and E properties that are statistically different from samples built flat and on an edge.
J. Giannatsis, et. al [23] The selection of fabrication (build) parameters is the most
important task performed by the operator of a layer manufacturing (LM) system. In a
paper published by build orientation and layer thickness are proposed as the primary
parameters for the definition of candidate solutions, which are evaluated according to
a weighted multi-criteria objective function. In the present paper, a software support
tool that may serve as an aiding tool for the stereolithography operator in the build
parameter selection phase is presented. The decision support tool evaluates a set of
candidate parameter configurations, defined by the build orientation and the value of
the layer thickness, and classifies them according to their overall performance rating.
The build time and surface roughness estimation are based on experimentally derived
analytical equations, while the process error is computed based on the STL
representation of the part. Alternatively, the operator may evaluate the surface
roughness and stairstepping distribution on the part surfaces for a given parameter
configuration via examination of the corresponding VRML models. The information
and models extracted by the support tool can also be useful in other pre-fabrication
tasks, such as pricing, quote offering, job scheduling and finishing time estimation. It
should be emphasised that the overall methodology presented in this work is
applicable, subject to appropriateminor modifications and adaptations, to other layer
manufacturing (LM) technologies.
J. Hector Sandoval, et. al. [25] research work published by Wicker investigates
tailoring the physical properties of stereolithography (SL) epoxy-based resins by
dispersing controlled small amounts of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs)
directly in SL resins prior to layered manufacturing. The research approach required
21
developing a method for dispersing the MWCNTs in SL resin, determining new SL
build parameters for the modified resin and SL machine, and building and testing
tensile specimens. These modifications resulted in an increase of the energy exposure
required to cure equivalent cure depths due to increased UV absorption by the CNTs.
It is well known that nanomaterials tend to aggregate in an effort to reduce their total
surface energy. MWCNT agglomerates resulted in stress concentration sites which
most likely induced early failure of the material upon deformation. the modified
resins performed similar to traditional resins in the SL process. Small dispersions of
MWCNTs resulted in improvements in the tensile strength and fracture stress of
tensile specimens as 0.025 percent (w/v) MWCNTs in DSM Somos WaterShede
11120 resin resulted in increases in TS and FS of 5.7 percent and 26 percent,
respectively, when compared to unfilled resin. Increasing the concentration of
MWCNTs to 0.10 percent (w/v) resulted in increases in TS and FS of 7.5 percent and
33 percent, respectively, over the unfilled resin. Transmission and scanning electron
microscopy showed strong affinity between the epoxy resin and the MWCNTs.
K. Chockalingam, et. al [26] publishes the work of that investigates the effect of
layer thickness – one of the influential process parameters in stereolithography (SL)
process, on mechanical properties of SL components. Test specimens are constructed
as per the ASTM standards for different layer thicknesses in SL 5000 machine, using
epoxy resin CIBA tool SL5530, a high temperature resistant SL material that is
suitable for rapid tooling applications. Tensile, yield and impact tests are carried out
with suitable equipments. Residual stress is analysed using hole drill method. The
analysis reveals that when the layer thickness is smaller, the strength of the part is
higher. It is observed that increase in layer thickness reduces both YS and UTS. This
study also reveals that better (higher) strengths of SL part could be obtained with
lower layer thickness. it is noted that impact strength (IS) decreases with the increase
in layer thickness. Low values of layer thickness could result in high IS. It is noted
that low residual stresses and high strain relief rate are experienced with 0.125mm
layer thickness. The residual stresses and strain relief rate decrease with an increase
in layer thickness above 0.125mm.
Hong S. Byun, et. al [27] aims to determine the optimal build-up direction when a
part is built with the variable layer thickness for different RP systems. The average
22
weighted surface roughness (AWSR) that is generated from the stair stepping effect,
the build time, and the part cost using the variable layer thickness are all considered
in the process. Using the multi-attribute decision-making method, the best orientation
is determined among the orientation candidates chosen from the convex hull of a
model. Part orientation is one of the most important factors considered in
manufacturing a part using the RP process. This paper presents a method for
determining the optimal orientation for building a complex part. Three criteria - the
surface roughness, the build time, and the part cost - are considered in identifying the
optimal part orientation using the variable slicing thickness. In order to choose the
best orientation, the multi attribute decision-making method using user-specified
weights is used. This is illustrated using the test model and the automotive knob
model for FDM, SLS, and SLA. Test results indicate that the system can help the
user in determining the optimal orientation when fabricating a part using different RP
processes.
D. Dimitrov, et. al [28] characterised the three-dimensional printing (3DP) process

in term of the achievable dimensional and geometric accuracy. The paper provides
general IT grades of the 3DP process for parts printed using different materials
(powders). A program was written to measure the features on a numerically
controlled coordinate measurement machine. Finally, a statistical analysis was done.
The results are reported in terms of statistical parameters and international tolerance
(IT) grades. The results are influenced by three factors: a) the material (powder) used
to produce the item, b) the 3D printer axis responsible for the particular dimension
and c) the magnitude of the ND (nominal dimension). It is observed that Geometric
accuracy depends on the type of material that is used. In general plaster-based
powder produced significantly better results than starch-based. The starch-based
powder’s distribution of deviations has a much greater dispersion than that of the
plaster-based material, but both powders resulted in parts that were bigger in size
than the CAD model (positive bias). For smaller parts (with dimensions that fit
within the work envelope of the printer), the geometric accuracy of the printer is
more than adequate for the typical applications mentioned in the introductory part of
this paper. This is especially true for the plaster-based powder and it applies to all of
the yardsticks for geometric accuracy that were mentioned in this paper. For larger
parts (typically those that need to be assembled from several small parts), the
23
summation of errors may result in deviations that are too large for a section of critical
applications.
R.I. Campbell, et. al [29] visualises the surface roughness for the rapid prototyping
models. For this study a ‘truncheon’ specimen is used. The part was designed such
that the surface roughness measurements could be taken easily over from 2o to 180o
at intervals of 2o. It has been demonstrated that for the majority of the systems (SLA,
FDM, Actua and LOM) there is at least a range of angles in which the surface
roughness can be predicted. The stair stepping effect doesn’t appear to be the main
factor in determining the surface roughness. This employs the system developers to
look at other ways of improving the surface roughness apart from reducing the layer
thickness. The visualisation algorithm has been developed and implemented with the
available CAD package. The user has been given the ability to predict the surface
roughness even before the specimen or the object is built. Comparisons are made
with different RP processes with different capabilities. When optimum orientation
has been determined, it can be used to build the RP specimen. This reduces the time
and cost effectively.
S.L. Campanelli, et. al [30] presented a statistical analysis of the stereolithographic

process, in order to find out the combination of parameters leading to the best
accuracy of the manufactured parts. The machine used for the investigation was a
Viper Si2 by 3D systems; both the modalities allowed from the machine were
studied: normal (NR) and high resolution (HR). A particular benchmark was
designed and built for this purpose. The optimization procedure was performed by
means of the Taguchi methodology. From this analysis it emerged that it is possible
to increase the accuracy of parts setting the part process parameters to specific
values. In HR (LT = 0.05 mm) the best accuracy can be obtained setting HO = 0.25
mm and BO = 0.225 mm, respectively the maximum and the minimum value of the
considered range; in NR (LT = 0.1 mm) the best accuracy can be obtained setting
HO = 0.05 mm and BO = 0.3 mm, respectively the medium and the maximum value
of the considered range.[20]
24
2.1. Gaps in literature
a) Less work is done in Additive Manufacturing process simulation.

b) Less work is done in SLM component additive simulation in the industrial
applications.
c) Thermal distortion as a function of different parameters is less explored.
d) There is less study on customising the support structure of a component.
e) Less work is done in topology optimisation of aerospace components in
metallic materials.
2.2. Objectives of work:

a) Calculation of canter of gravity (CG) of the component selected.
b) Design for additive manufacturing of shuttle valve using SLM- Additive
process simulation by ANSYS Software.
c) Additive layer by layer simulation for thermal distortion and plastic
deformation.
d) Loading conditions are determined on the component.
e) Topology optimization is to be done using minimize mass and maximize
stiffness as the criteria.
f) Again, verified successfully, the loading conditions with minimize mass and
maximize stiffness conditions.
g) Customise support structure is obtained and analysis is done on the support
structure.
2.3. Problem Formulation

Dimensional geometric deviation of components produced by SLM process by using
layer by layer simulation in ANSYS (AM) software module. Then processing the
component using topology optimization to maximise stiffness and minimize the mass
using Altair Inspire software.
2.4. Aim of our work

Prototypes are essential in the life cycle of product development as they provide
effective means for design verification, manufacturability, determination, and
marketing evaluation. 3D printing is widely used in recent manufacturing techniques.
25
Various papers that are published as journals and conference papers on the rapid
prototyping processes are selected as literature survey. From the literature review it
can be concluded that the topology is widely used and most effective technique for
the optimization of machining parameters. Review also reveals that the components
that are produced in 3D printing processes are affected by various parameters. These
parameters are generally assessed on the variables like XY – orientation, Z –
direction, Surface finish, File format, Wall thickness, Layer thickness, Resultant
overcure, Hatch space, Hatch style, Hatch fill and Hatch overcure. From the
literature it was also found that, most of the authors have studied the effect of process
parameters on different response variables on materials like SS 316, Aluminium
alloys, Titanium alloys etc. Dimensional accuracy plays a vital role in the
applications of the components that are produced by SLM process. Dimensional
accuracy is of critical importance in the fields of medicine, aerospace and automotive
industries. So, we have chosen dimensional accuracy as the point of interest. This is
studies with additive process simulation and then the product is optimize to
maximise stiffness and minimize mass.
2.5. Experimental Process Parameters:
Parameter Magnitude
Build mesh size 0.5 mm
Base mesh size 2 mm
Build material SS 316
XY- direction 775 mm/s
Z direction 835 mm/s
Preheat temperature 70 C
Deposition thickness 0.5 mm
Gas temperature 50 C
Powder temperature 22 C
Room temperature 22 C
Table 2.1 : Experimental Process Parameters
26
CHAPTER 3
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING BASED DESIGN FOR SLM
PROCESS SIMULATIONS OF SS316 SHUTTLE HYDRAULIC
COMPONENT AND ITS TOPOLOGICALLY OPTIMIZED
ANALYSIS
3.1. Design for Additive Manufacturing by SLM process of SS316 shuttle valve:
3.1.1 Part Drawing with dimensions:
Fig 3.1: Part drawing of reciprocating shuttle valve
3.1.2. Calculation of location of centre of gravity for support structure:
Calculation of centre of gravity(xg,yg) for support structure density:
For yg :
Symmetry along x axis so y coordinate is zero
For xg :
𝐴1 𝑥1 + 𝐴2 𝑥2 + ⋯ + 𝐴𝑛 𝑥𝑛
𝑥𝑔 =
𝐴1 + 𝐴2 + ⋯ + 𝐴𝑛
27
A1x1 = Circular element volume = 673478.93 mm3
A2x2 = Extruded element on circular section = 315000 mm3
A3 x3= Horizontal bar section = 250000 mm3
A4x4= Extruded element on bar section = 172500 mm3
A5x5 = Two rectangular slots = -7000 mm3
A6x6 = Two circular slots = -42411.5 mm3
Total volume = 𝐴1 + 𝐴2 + ⋯ + 𝐴𝑛 = 32976.77 mm3
Total weight of the specimen = 0.2635 kg
By substituting these values in above equation, we get
Xg = 41.29 mm
Fig 3.2: Calculation of CG for support structure
28
4.2. CAD Model and SLM process simulation by AM in software:
Fig 3.3: A Shuttle valve hydraulic component
Fig 3.4: Workpiece and baseplate with clearance while simulating support structure
After preparing the CAD model with required dimensions, the part needs to be given
the mechanical properties to sustain the simulation. The simulation also requires the
geometric properties to have proper meshing of the object.
29
Fig 3.4: Meshing of build-up material and support structure for additive
manufacturing.
When the meshing is completed, the contact area should be determined for the part
structure and the workbench table. With the contact are, it provides as the base for
the support structure. The support structure that is filled in between the part and the
workbench table should be given as per the center of gravity requirements. The
center of gravity calculations are already done manually to get a glimpse of the
density of support structure that can be filled in the space between the part and the
workbench table.
Fig 3.5: Connecting the workpiece with the baseplate in SLM Process AM
30
Fig 3.6: SLM process AM layer by layer heat simulation at the initial stage
Fig 3.7: SLM process AM layer by layer heat simulation at intermediate stage
31
Fig 3.8: SLM process AM Heating and cooling of layers at final stage of building the
part
3.3. SLM process AM part distortion:
Fig 3.11: SLM process AM after build-up process deformation and distortion
Fig 3.12: SLM process AM Equivalent plastic strain of enlarged Fig 3.13
32
Fig 3.13: Equivalent plastic strain
3.4. Analysis of custom support structure for Shuttle valve component:
The support structure is also analysed separately with the body weight distribution as
a determining parameter. The body weight acts at the centre of gravity at 41.29 mm
from circular end. From the analysis the weight is more pretentious at the thinner
sections of the support structure.
Fig 3.14: Analysis of custom support structure in horizontal view
33
Fig 3.14: Analysis of support structure in vertical view
3.5. Topological optimization of Shuttle value for maximum stiffness and

minimum mass:
After analysing both the support structure and the components using layer by layer
thermal simulation, we tried to optimise the part according to its functionality. So,
the part is loaded as per the functional scenario and the part is optimised.
The final part after optimisation and smoothening the errors we get the following
component.
Load type Value

Pressure 17 MPa
Fixed Right end
roller hole
Fig 3.15: Loading diagram of the component for topology

optimization
34
Fig 3.16: Optimised component of shuttle valve hydraulic component
To get a proper idea, the optimised part is further analysed using different parameters
to find out any mismatches present in the optimised part.
Fig 3.17: Displacement comparison of the component due to forces applied

before(left) and after(right) optimisation
Fig 3.18: Factor of safety comparison of the component before(left) and after(right)
optimisation
35
Fig 3.19: Percentage of yield comparison of the components before(left) and
after(right) optimisation
Fig 3.20: Tension and compression comparison of the components due to forces
applied before(left) and after(right) optimisation
Fig 3.21: Max Shear of the components due to forces applied before(left) and
after(right) optimisation
Fig 3.22: Von Mises Stresses of the components due to forces applied before(left)
and after(right) optimisation
36
Fig 3.23: Principal stress comparison of the components due to forces applied
Fig 3.24: Principal strain comparison of the components due to forces applied
3.5.1. Design and analysis of support structure of the optimised parts:
The diagrams below show support structures that are used while printing this part.
The yellow portions of the diagrams are the supporting materials and are of same
material as the base material.
Fig 3.25: Optimised part with support structure
37
3.6. SLM process 3D printing of optimised shuttle valve component:
The part is printed in the software itself to analyse any complications that are could
be arise while producing the real component.
Fig 3.26: At 1% and 20% completion of build material
38
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1.Design for AM criteria:
4.1.1. Simulation for AM by SLM process:
The density dependence on temperature provides the basic idea of heat profile of the
material.
Fig 4.1: Density and temperature graph
39
Fig 4.2: Variation of density with the temperature
For the software to asses all the proper simulations, the properties must be given as
input for both the build and the base materials. Below table comprises of all the
parameters that are required for the layer-by-layer simulation and temperature
analysis.
Build material input properties

Stiffness behavior Flexible
Coordinate system Default coordinate system
Reference temperature By body
Assignment SS 316
Non linear effects Yes
Thermal strain effects Yes
Part tolerance 0.00000001
Table 4.1. Build material and base material properties input for simulation
Base material input properties

Stiffness behavior Flexible
Coordinate system Default coordinate system
Reference temperature By environment
Assignment SS 316
Non-linear effects Yes
Thermal strain effects Yes
Part tolerance 0.00000001
Table 4.2. Body build selection for the geometric structure
Structural and meshing inputs

Build material SS 316
Base material SS 316
Support material adjustment Overall multiplier
Overall multiplier 0.5
Support geometry By creation
Support generation angle 45 degrees
Base geometry By selection
Base selection Given body
Build mesh size 0.5 mm
Base body mesh size 2 mm
Projection factor 0
Generate mesh Yes
Automatic contact generation Yes
40
Table 4.3: Meshing input for build and base materials and material assignment for
base and build materials
Build settings for material

Melting temperature 1250 C
Preheat temperature 70 C
Deposition thickness 0.05 mm
Hatch spacing 0.07 mm
Laser speed 800 mm/sec
Time between layers 10 sec
Dwell time multiplier 0
Number of heat sources 1
Table 4.4. Build settings for the material with temperature and deposition thickness
Conditioning for build material

Gas convection coefficient 1e-05 W/mm/mm
Powder convection coefficient 2e-06 W/mm/mm
Powder property factor 0.01
Radiation emissivity 0
Table 4.5. Conditioning for the build materials
Cooldown conditioning w.r.t environment

Gas convection coefficient 1e-05 W/mm/mm
Powder convection coefficient 2e-06 W/mm/mm
Powder property factor 0.01
Radiation emissivity 0
Room temperature 22 C
Table 4.6. Cooldown conditions with respect to surrounding environment
Structural and temperature profile settings

Reference temperature 1370 C
Base removal On
Support removal On
Removal steps Program controlled
Heating and cooling steps Program controlled
41
Cooldown timesteps Program controlled
Table 4.7. Structural settings and temperature profile settings
Detect number of nodes

Scoping method Geometric selection
Geometry All build bodies
Hang angle 45 degrees
Detect above Z location 0 mm
Automatic 2016 element faces
Multiplier entity All
Material multiplier 0.5
Nodes 13092
Elements 11554
Table 4.8: Detection of number of nodes
Thermal and structural boundary

conditions
Scoping method (thermal) Geometry selection
Geometry (thermal) Geometry
Build condition Temperature
Build boundary temperature 70 C
Cooldown condition Temperature
Cooldown boundary temperature 22 C
Scoping method (structural) Geometry selection
Geometry (structural) 1 Face
Table 4.9: Conditions for both thermal and structural analysis
Mesh elements for analysis

Scoping method Worksheet
Geometry 1950 element faces
Send to solver as Nodes
Visible Yes
Program controlled inflation Exclude
Total selection 1950 element faces
Suppressed 0
Tolerance type Program controlled
Zero tolerance 1e-008
Relative tolerance 1e-003
Angular tolerance 1 degree
42
Table 4.10: Assessing mesh elements for analysis
4.2. Thermal analysis results:
Fig 4.3: Temperature distribution with time relapse
Fig 4.4: Tabular data of maximum and minimum temperatures with progression of
time
Fig 4.5: Thermal image of the simulated part while printing
43
Fig 4.6: Total deformation and the equivalent plastic strain of the whole part
Fig 4.7: Deformation of the model with time variation while printing process
Fig 4.8: Tabular data of maximum and minimum deformation
44
Fig 4.9: Equivalent plastic deformation as a function of time
Fig 4.10: Tabular distribution of maximum and minimum plastic deformation
Fig 4.11: Temperature profiles of the layers selected ad different time durations
45
The Circular section, horizontal bar section, and end section for start case are shown
in the figure below. From the graph it can be observed that magnitude vary through
path.
Fig 4.12: Temperature-time snaps for the circular, bar and end sections at starting
stage
At Start time MIN MAX AVG

Circular section 70 1250 575.18
Horizontal bar 70 1138 554.65
End section 70 1208 566.73
Table no. 4.11. Section information of temperatures at start stage at different stages
path
46
Fig 4.13: Temperature-time snaps for the circular, bar and end sections at 2.67mm
depth

End section 70 1208 566.73
Table no. 4.12. Section information of temperatures at 2.67 mm depth at different

stages
path
47
Fig 4.14: Temperature-time snaps for the circular, bar and end sections at 4.78 mm
depth

End section 70 1208 566.73
Table no. 4.13. Snapshot information of temperatures at 4.78 mm depth
In this work is presented a finite element model that considers the three primary
modes of heat transfer to simulate the transient of an active thermography testing
inspection method for part produced by Additive Manufacturing technology. The
numerical model presented relative deviations below 8.6% for different experimental
inspection procedures conducted here, being thereby validated. Furthermore, the
presented model includes the radiation phenomenon, being the great importance of
the proposed model examined with the simulation of the inspection of complex
geometries that are common to obtain with Additive Manufacturing technology.
Comparison between simulation results of the proposed model and a simplified
model using a uniform heat flux emphasize the importance of including the radiation
to obtain more realistic thermal responses from the testing samples. The proposed
48
numerical model is the backbone of the methodology to simulate the transient heat
transfer of parts with complex geometry in order to be applied in the development of
improved inspection tools.
Fig 4.15: Errors in circular, bar and end sections in layered steps of additive
manufacturing simulation
From the above graph we can confirm that, the errors can be reduced when the steps
are selected around 300. More than that, the error gets magnified in drastic and
random manner.
4.3. Comparing the results before and after optimization:
Fig 4.16: Displacement analysis result before and after optimization

From the displacement data the percentage change of displacement before and after
the optimisation of the component is calculated. The displacement of the optimized
component has been reduced to 49.13% when compared to the original component.
49
Fig 4.17: Factor of safety analysis result before and after optimization
From the factor of safety data tabulated, the percentage change of factor of safety
before and after the optimisation of the component is calculated. The percentage
factor of safety of the optimized component has been reduced to 52.79% when
compared to the original component.
Fig 4.18: Percentage of yield analysis result before and after optimization
From the percentage of yield data tabulated, the percentage change of yield before
and after the optimisation of the component is calculated. The percentage factor of
safety of the optimized component has been reduced to 12.79% when compared to
the original component.
50
Fig 4.19: Tension and compression analysis result before and after optimization
From the tension/compression data tabulated, the percentage change of factor
tension/compression before and after the optimisation of the component is calculated.
The tensile forces are increased by 22.54% while the compressive forces are
decreased in a greater magnitude of 77.61%.
Fig 4.20: Maximum shear stress analysis result before and after optimization
From the Maximum shear stress data tabulated, the percentage change of Maximum
shear stress before and after the optimisation of the component is calculated. The
percentage Maximum shear stress of the optimized component has been reduced to
52.76% when compared to the original component.
51
Fig 4.21: Von mises stress analysis result before and after optimization
From the Von mises stress data tabulated, the percentage change of Von mises stress
before and after the optimisation of the component is calculated. The percentage Von
mises stress of the optimized component has been reduced to 51.39% when
Fig 4.22: Principal stress analysis result before and after optimization
From the Principal stress data tabulated, the percentage change of Principal stress
Principal stress of the optimized component has been reduced to 41.28% when
52
Fig 4.23: Principal strain analysis result before and after optimization
From the Principal strain data tabulated, the percentage change of Principal strain
Principal strain of the optimized component has been reduced to 49.54% when
The total mass before optimisation of the component was 12.86 kgs while the
optimised part has 6.37 kgs. So, the percentage change in the reduction of mass is
49.6%.
Parameter Percentage change Maximum Minimum
Displacement 49.13 2.349 mm 1.179 mm
Factor of safety 52.79 9.92 5.118
Percentage of yield 12.79 0.00% 0.1279%
Tension 22.54 1.053 Pa 2.045 Pa
Compression 77.61 9.074 Pa 1.999 Pa
Max. shear stress 52.76 1.053 Pa 2.045 Pa
Von mises stress 51.39 1.053 Pa 2.045 Pa
Principal stress 41.28 1.652 Pa 2.334 Pa
Principal strain 49.54 4.319 2.140
Total mass 49.60 12.86 kg 6.37 kg
Table no. 4.14: Results after optimisation
53
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK
5.1. Conclusions:
Workpiece is to be manufactured using Laser Sintering process and tested with the
results obtained by the simulations that have been performed in ANSYS Software –
Additive Manufacturing module. The theoretical deviation and the experimental
deviation are compared. Using this comparison, the target of the simulation obtained
is used to give the compensation for the actual material. Then the actual results are
drawn from the asserted studies.
The following results have been discussed below:
The compensation of the dimensional deviation can be reduced by increasing the

support material temperature and below 300 steps. The compensation would be in the
order of either in 1 mm or (1/10) of an mm. Layer thickness, scan speed and surface
finish to be the major dominating parameters in the dimensional geometry deviation
of parts produced by plastics. The displacement of the optimized component has
been reduced to 49.13% when compared to the original component.
The forces acting on the optimized component are divided into tensile and
compressive. The tensile forces are increased by 22.54% while the compressive
forces are decreased in a greater magnitude of 77.61%. The maximum shear forces
and the von mises shear distribution on the optimized component are reduced to
52.76% and 51.39% respectively. The order of decrement in the principal stresses
and the principal strains are in the magnitude of 41.28% and 49.54% respectively.
The results of corresponding static kinetic analyses showed that the weight can be
reduced 49.6 % and lower order nature if loadings were decreased. To print the
complete optimised component, the time taken is 16 hrs 37min. The Topology
optimized designs are very intricate in its geometry and would not be possible to
fabricate with the conventional process of manufacturing. Additive manufacturing
proved to be useful in this aspect with its advantage of fabricating any intricate
shapes possible.
54
5.2. Future scope of work
The research can provide the insights into the parameters of layer thickness and the
temperature heating and cooling times. The deformation as a function of other
parameters can be studied. The comparative studies can also be studied using the real
time part warpage. The thermal deformation as well as static deformation can be
compared for the better accuracy in the future projects. The topology optimization
can also be extended to the non – symmetrical parts as well. The combined effect of
heat simulation and optimizations can be further used to study thermal warpage of
the component which inhibits the dimensional deviation of the components. The
experimental data can be verified by producing the component using SLM process.
These processes can also be varied with the same component to study the effect of
process parameters on the actual components in the real time scenario.
55
REFERENCES
(https://scholar.google.com/)
[1] Dongdong Gu,Yifu Shen. Processing conditions and microstructural features of
porous 316L stainless steel components by DMLS. Applied Surface Science.2008;
255(5):1880-1887.
[2] Hamed Asgari,Mohsen Mohammadi. Microstructure and mechanical properties

of stainless steel CX manufactured by Direct Metal Laser Sintering. Materials
Science and Engineering A.2018; 709.82-89.
[3] Bhaskaran E, Azhagarasan NS, Miglani S, Ilango T, Krishna GP, Gajapathi B.

Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal gap of Co–Cr copings fabricated
from conventional wax pattern, 3D printed resin pattern and DMLS tech: an in vitro
study. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society. 2013;13(3):189-95.
[4] Zhu Y, Zou J, Chen X, Yang H. Tribology of selective laser melting processed
parts: Stainless steel 316 L under lubricated conditions. Wear. 2016; 350:46-55.
[5] Jordi Delgado,Joaquim Ciurana,Ciro A,Rodríguez.Influence of process

parameters on part quality and mechanical properties for DMLS and SLM with iron-
based materials.The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology.2012;60(5-8):601-10.
[6] Ghani SA, Zakaria MH, Harun WS, Zaulkafilai Z. Dimensional accuracy of
internal cooling channel made by selective laser melting (SLM) And direct metal
laser sintering (DMLS) processes in fabrication of internally cooled cutting tools.
InMATEC Web of Conferences.2017; 90:01058.
[7] Mower TM, Long MJ. Mechanical behavior of additive manufactured, powder-
bed laser-fused materials. Materials Science and Engineering: A. 2016; 651:198-213.
[8] Sander J, Hufenbach J, Giebeler L, Bleckmann M, Eckert J, Kühn U.
Microstructure, mechanical behavior, and wear properties of FeCrMoVC steel
prepared by selective laser melting and casting. Scr Mater. 2017;126(1):41-4.
[9] Bartolomeu F, Buciumeanu M, Pinto E, Alves N, Carvalho O, Silva FS, Miranda
G. 316L stainless steel mechanical and tribological behavior—A comparison
between selective laser melting, hot pressing and conventional casting. Additive
Manufacturing. 2017;16:81-9.
56
[10] Simchi A.Direct laser sintering of metal powders Mechanism, kinetics and
microstructural features. Materials Science and Engineering.206; 428(1-2):148-158.
[11].M. N. Islam, Brian Boswell And A. Pramanik, : “An Investigation Of
Dimensional Accuracy Of Parts Produced By Three-Dimensional Printing” In Proc.
Of The World Congress Of Engineering, 2013,Vol (1), July,3-5,2013, London, Uk
[12]. Hirpa G. Lemu And Safet Kurtovic.: “3d Printing For Rapid Manufacturing:
Study Of Dimensional And Geometrical Accuracy”, Conf. In IFIP Advanced In
Information And Communication And Technology, Pp.470-479, 2012.
[13]. Ana Pilipovic, Pero Raos And Mladen Sercer,: “Experimental Analysis Of
Properties Of Materials For Rapid Prototyping”, Int Jl. Adv Manuf Technol, 2009,
Pp 40: 105- 115
[14]. Jack Zhou, Dan Herscovici And Calvin Chen,: “Parametric Process
Optimisation To Improve The Accuracy Of Rapid Prototyped Stereolithography
Parts”, Int Jl Of Machine Tools And Manufacture, 1999, Pp 40: 1-17.
[15]. Michael W. Barclift And Christopher B. Williams.: “Examining Variability In

The Mechanical Properties Of Parts Manufactured Via Polyjet Direct 3d Printing”,
Art., January 2012.
[16]. J.Kechagias, P. Stavropoulos, A. Koutsomichalis, I. Ntintakis And N.

Vaxevanidis,: “Dimensional Accuracy Optimisation Of Prototypes Produced By
Polyjet Direct 3d Printing Technology”, Conf., July, 2014.
[17]. R. Hague, S. Mansour, N. Saleh And R. Harris,: “Materials Analysis Of

Stereolithography Resins For Use In Rapid Manufacturing”, Jl Of Materials Science,
2004, Pp 2457- 2464.
[18]. Rahmati, S., Ghadami, F., “Process Parameters Optimization To Improve
Dimensional Accuracy Of Stereolithography Parts”, Int Jl Of Advanced Design And
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 7/ No. 1, 2014, Pp. 59-65.
[19]. Nicholas A. Meisel, Andrew Gaynor, Christopher B. Williams, James K,:
“Multiple-Material Topology Optimization Of Compliant Mechanisms Created Via
Polyjet 3d Printing”, Article In Journal Of Manufacturing Science And Engineering,
2014.
57
[20]. S H Lee1, W S Park, H S Cho, W Zhang And M C Leu.: “A Neural Network
Approach To The Modelling And Analysis Of Stereolithography Processes”, Proc.
Of The Institution Of Mechanical Engineers, Part B, Journal Of Engineering
Manufacture, Pp No :1719-1733, 2001.
[21]. T. Brajlih, I. Drstvensek, M. Kovacic, J. Balic.: “Optimizing Scale Factors Of
The Polyjet Rapid Prototyping Procedure By Genetic Programming” Jl Of
Achievements In Materials And Manufacture And Engineering, Vol- 16, Issue 1-2,
2006. Pp No 101- 106.
[22]. D. Karalekas And D. Rapti.: “Investigation Of The Processing Dependence Of
Sl Solidification Residual Stresses”, Jl, In Rapid Prototyping Journal, October, 2002.
[23]. Rolando Quintana, Jae-Won Choi, Karina Puebla And Ryan Wicker,: “Effects
Of Build Orientation On Tensile Strength For Stereolithography-Manufactured Astm
D-638 Type I Specimens” Int Jl Adv Manuf Technol, 2010, Pp No: 46:201–215.
[24]. J. Giannatsis And V. Dedoussis,: “Decision Support Tool For Selecting
Fabrication Parameters In Stereolithography”, Int Jl Adv Manuf Technol, 2007, Pp.
No: 706- 718.
[25]. J. Hector Sandoval And Ryan B. Wicker,: “Functionalizing Stereolithography
Resins: Effects Of Dispersed Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes On Physical
Properties”, Jl., In Rapid Prototyping Journal, 2006. Pp No:292-303.
[26]. K. Chockalingam N. Jawahar U. Chandrasekhar, “Influence Of Layer
Thickness On Mechanical Properties In Stereolithography", Rapid Prototyping Jl,
Vol. 12 Iss 2, 2006, Pp. 106 – 113.
[27]. Hong S. Byun And Kwan H. Lee: “Determination Of Optimal Build Direction
In Rapid Prototyping With Variable Slicing”, Int Jl Adv Manuf Technol (2006) 28:
307–313
[28]. D. Dimitrov W. Van Wijck K. Schreve N. De Beer,:"Investigating The
Achievable Accuracy Of Three-Dimensional Printing", Rapid Prototyping Jl, 2006
Vol. 12 Iss 1 Pp. 42 – 52.
[29]. R.I. Campbell, M. Martorelli And H.S. Lee,: “Surface Roughness Visualisation
For Rapid Prototyping Models”, Journal In Elsevier, Computer-Aided Design, 2002,
Pp No: 717-725.
58
[30]. S.L. Campanelli, G. Cardano, R. Giannoccaro, A.D. Ludovico, E.L.J. Bohez,:
“Statistical Analysis Of The Stereolithographic Process To Improve The Accuracy”,
Jl In Elsevier, Computer-Aided Design 39, 2007, Pp No: 80- 86.
[31]. Asberg, B., Blanco, G., Bose, P., Garcia-Lopez, J., Overmars, M., Toussaint,
G.,
Wilfong, G. And Zhu, B., Feasibility Of Design In Stereolithography, Proc. 13th
Conf. Foundations Of Software Technology And Theoretical Computer Science,
Bombay, Dec. 15-17 1993.
[32]. Brown, A. S., Rapid Prototyping: Parts Without Tools, Aerospace America
Vol. 29, No.8, Pp. 18-23, Aug. 1991.
[33] Brown, R., Lightman, A., And Wohlers, T., “Need For Expanding The
Development And Refinement Of Rapid Prototyping Technologies,” Newsletter, Rpa
Of Sme, Dec., 1994.
[34] Jacobs, P., Rapid Prototyping & Manufacturing: Fundamentals Of
Stereolithography, Published By Sme, 1992
[35] Jacobs, P., Stereolithography And Other Rp&M Technologies, Published By
Sme, 1996
[36] Chen, C. C., And Sullivan, P., "Solving The Mystery-The Problem Of Z-Height
Inaccuracy Of The Sla Parts", Proceedings Of The Sixth International Conference On
Rapid Prototyping, Dayton, Ohio, 1995, Pp.153-174.
[37] Gargiulo, E., “Stereolithography Accuracy: A User Study”, Proceedings Of
Stereolithography Users Group Meeting, San Francisco, 1992.
[38]. Jacobs, P.F. (1992), Rp & M Technologies: Fundamentals Of
Stereolithography, 1992, Sme Press, Dearborn, Mi.
[39]. Jacobs, P.F. (1996), Stereolithography And Other Rp & M Technologies: From
Rapid Prototyping To Rapid Tooling,1996, Asme Press, New York, Ny.
[40]. Lourie, O., Cox, D.M. And Wagner, D.H. (1998), “Buckling And Collapse Of
Embedded Carbon Nanotubes”, Physical Review Letters,1998, Vol. 81 No. 8, Pp.
1638-41.
[41]. Benerjee, A., Sinha, K.P., Sheker, R. And Benerjee, M.K. (2002), “A Study Of
Sla Process Parameter Over Strength Of Built Model”, Paper Presented At National
Level Symposium On Rapid Prototyping And Tooling, 2002, Vol. 1, Pp. 79-84.
59
[42] I. Pahole, M. Ficko, I. Drstvensek, J. Balic, Rapid Prototyping Processes Give
New Possibilities To Numerical Copying Techniques, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
164/165 (2005) 1416-1422
[43] M. Brezocnik, J. Balic, Z. Kampus, Modeling Of Forming Efficiency Using
Genetic Programming, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 109 (2001) 20-29
[44] M. Brezocnik, J. Balic, K.Kuzman, Genetic Programming Approach To
Determining Of Metal Material Properties, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 13 (2002) 5-
17
[45] J.R. Koza, , Genetic Programming : On The Programming Of Computers By
Means Of Natural Selection, The Mit Press, Cambridge, London, 1996
[46] I. Drstvensek,. M. Ficko, I. Pahole, J. Balic, A Model Of Simulation
Environment For Prediction And Optimization Of Production Processes, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 155/156 (2004) 1641-1646,
[47]. Harris, R., Hopkinson, N., Newlyn, H. And Hague, R. (2002), “Layer
Thickness And Draft Angle Selection For Stereolithography Injection Mould
Tooling”, International Journal Of Production Research,2002, Vol. 40 No. 3, Pp.
719-29.
[48]. Horton, L., Gargiulo, E.P. And Keefe, M. (1994), “An Experimental Study Of
Process Parameters Affecting Curl In Parts Created Using Stereolithography”,
Proceedings Of The Solid Free Form Fabrication Symposium, Pp. 250-8.
[49]. Hull, C., Feygin, M., Baron, Y., Sanders, R., Sachs, E., Lightman, A. And
Wholers, T., “Rapid Prototyping Current Technology And Future Potential”, Rapid
Prototyping Journal,1995, Vol. 1 No. 1, Pp. 11-19.
[50]. Jacobs, P.F., Rapid Prototyping And Manufacturing – Fundamentals Of
Stereolithography,1992, Mcgraw-Hill, New York, Ny.
[51].G.Hussain, Wasim A.Khan, H.Anasashraf, H.Ahmad, Hamzaahmed, Aliimran,

I.Ahmad, K.Rehman And G.Abbas,: “Design And Development Of A Lightweight
Sls 3d Printer With A Controlled Heating Mechanism”, International Journal Of
Lightweight Materials And Manufacture Volume 2, Issue 4, December 2019, Pages
373-37.
[52]. Flaviana Calignano, Manuela Galati, Luca Iuliano, And Paolo Minetola, :
“Biomedical Applications: A Review Of The Additive Manufacturing Processes
60
Applied To The Biomedical Sector”, Journal Of Healthcare Engineering, Volume,
2019, Article Id 9748212, 6 Pages
[53]. Qian Wei, Run-Nan Wang, Qing-Yan Xu And Bai-Cheng Liu,: “Effects Of
Process Parameters On Dimensional Precision And Tensile Strength Of Wax
Patterns For Investment Casting By Selective Laser Sintering”, Research &
Development Vol.15 No.4 July 2018.
[54]. X.P. Tan ⁎,1, Y.J. Tan1, C.S.L. Chow, S.B. Tor,W.Y. Yeong, :“ Metallic
Powder-Bed Based 3d Printing Of Cellular Scaffolds For Orthopaedic Implants: A
State-Of-The-Art Review On Manufacturing, Topological Design, Mechanical
Properties And Biocompatibility”, Materials Science And Engineering C 76 (2017)
1328–1343.
[55]. Bo Cheng, Subin Shrestha, Kevin Chou,: “Stress and deformation evaluations
of scanning strategy effect in selective laser melting”, ADDMA 90 (2016).
[56]. Yali Li Dongdong Gu: “Thermal behavior during selective laser melting of
commercially pure titanium powder: Numerical simulation and experimental study”,
ADDMA 10 (2014)
[57]. Y.S. Lee and W. Zhang: “Mesoscopic Simulation of Heat Transfer and Fluid
Flow in Laser Powder Bed Additive Manufacturing” Research gate, 2015.
[58]. I.A.Roberts, C.J.Wang, R.Esterlein, M.Stanford, D.J.Mynors: “A three-
dimensional finite element analysis of the temperature field during laser melting of
metal powders in additive layer manufacturing” International Journal of Machine
Tools & Manufacture 49 (2009) 916–923.
[59]. Zhechao, F., Hongwei, F., “Study on selective laser melting and heat treatment
of Ti-6Al-4V alloy”, Results in Physics (2018)
61

Thesis Masters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Masters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 1

1.1. Additive Manufacturing

Additive Manufacturing (AM) refers to a process by which digital 3D design data is

1.2. Advantages of AM Processes:

1.3. Functional Principle:

1.5. Metal AM Definition (Standard):

Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, is a process of joining

1.6. Selective laser melting (SLM):

1.6.2. Process of SLM:

DMLS uses a variety of alloys, allowing prototypes to be functional hardware made

Fig 1.2: Line diagram of SLM

1.6.5. Advantages and disadvantages:

• Large range of metals available

• Ability to realize complex shapes or internal features (which would be

• Reduced lead times, due to no need for tooling

• Expensive, especially if parts aren’t optimized or designed for the process

• Specialized design and manufacturing skills and knowledge needed

• Limited currently to relatively small parts

• Rough surface finish

• Lots of post-processing required

a) Aerospace – Air ducts, fixtures or mountings holding specific aeronautic

b) Manufacturing – Laser-sintering can serve niche markets with low volumes at

d) Prototyping – Laser-sintering can help by making design and functional

e) Tooling – The direct process eliminates tool-path generation and multiple

1. Build mesh size

1.9 Topology optimization:

Topology optimization is a mathematical tool to make optimized material

1. Creating lightweight structures

2. Creating ready to manufacture design

4.Saving huge amount of material

5.Reducing physical test

6.Saving large amount of processing energy

M. N. Islam,et. al , [10] The three-dimensional (3D) printing is nothing but additive

Ana Pilipovic, et.al., [12] demonstrates the experimental analysis of properties of

T. Brajlih, et. al. [20] investigation on the implementation of genetic programming

D. Karalekas and D. Rapti.[21] Investigation is conducted on the processing

D. Dimitrov, et. al [28] characterised the three-dimensional printing (3DP) process

S.L. Campanelli, et. al [30] presented a statistical analysis of the stereolithographic

a) Less work is done in Additive Manufacturing process simulation.

2.2. Objectives of work:

2.3. Problem Formulation

2.4. Aim of our work

2.5. Experimental Process Parameters:

Table 2.1 : Experimental Process Parameters

3.1.1 Part Drawing with dimensions:

Fig 3.1: Part drawing of reciprocating shuttle valve

3.1.2. Calculation of location of centre of gravity for support structure:

Calculation of centre of gravity(xg,yg) for support structure density:

Symmetry along x axis so y coordinate is zero

A2x2 = Extruded element on circular section = 315000 mm3

A3 x3= Horizontal bar section = 250000 mm3

A4x4= Extruded element on bar section = 172500 mm3

A5x5 = Two rectangular slots = -7000 mm3

A6x6 = Two circular slots = -42411.5 mm3

Total volume = 𝐴1 + 𝐴2 + ⋯ + 𝐴𝑛 = 32976.77 mm3

Total weight of the specimen = 0.2635 kg

By substituting these values in above equation, we get

Fig 3.2: Calculation of CG for support structure

Fig 3.3: A Shuttle valve hydraulic component

3.3. SLM process AM part distortion:

3.4. Analysis of custom support structure for Shuttle valve component:

Fig 3.14: Analysis of custom support structure in horizontal view