Data-driven characterization of thermal models for powder-bed-fusion additive manufacturing
Wentao Yan1,2, Yan Lu3, Kevontrez Jones2
1Currently at Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, 117575, Singapore.
This study quantifies uncertainty in computational models for additive manufacturing (AM). Comparing different models, it highlights the significant impact of fluid flow on predictions and guides users in selecting appropriate AM simulation tools.
Area of Science:
- Computational modeling
- Additive Manufacturing (AM)
- Materials Science
- Mechanical Engineering
Background:
- Computational modeling is crucial for understanding additive manufacturing (AM) processes, predicting quality, and optimizing designs.
- A wide range of AM models exist with varying assumptions, making selection challenging for end-users due to a lack of standardized comparisons.
- Quantifying model uncertainty and evaluating the impact of incorporated physical factors are essential for reliable AM simulations.
Purpose of the Study:
- To quantify model uncertainty arising from different assumptions in additive manufacturing (AM) simulations.
- To evaluate the impact of including specific physical factors on simulation outcomes.
- To provide guidance for selecting appropriate AM models based on accuracy and computational cost.
Main Methods:
- Developed and compared multiple computational models: high-fidelity thermal-fluid flow, low-fidelity continuum heat transfer, and semi-analytical point heat source models.
- Ran simulations across various manufacturing process parameters.
- Validated model predictions using experimental data from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Additive Manufacturing Metrology Testbed (AMMT) and employed data analytics for error characterization.
Main Results:
- Cross-comparison of simulation results demonstrated a significant influence of fluid flow on additive manufacturing (AM) process predictions.
- The importance of the powder layer's physical representation varied depending on the model's fidelity and assumptions.
- Data analytics revealed distinct error distributions for each model, reflecting their underlying assumptions.
Conclusions:
- The study provides a quantitative basis for understanding and comparing different computational models used in additive manufacturing (AM).
- Findings emphasize the critical role of fluid flow modeling and offer insights into the varying significance of powder bed representation.
- This work facilitates informed model selection for AM applications, improving simulation accuracy and guiding future model development.
More Related Videos
09:39Characterizing Dissipative Elastic Metamaterials Produced by Additive Manufacturing
Published on: June 28, 2024
08:29Multi-material Ceramic-Based Components – Additive Manufacturing of Black-and-white Zirconia Components by Thermoplastic 3D-Printing (CerAM - T3DP)
Published on: January 7, 2019
