4.8 Article

Thermo-mechanical modelling of stress relief heat treatments after laser-based powder bed fusion

期刊

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
卷 38, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2020.101818

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [721383]
  2. 3D Systems Leuven [HBC.2016.0614]
  3. Flanders Innovation & Entrepreneurship [HBC.2016.0614]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the effect of stress relief heat treatment in laser-based powder bed fusion post-processing, modeling the impact of post-processing parameters on residual stress. The results show that heat treatment can alleviate residual stress in parts, allowing for the selection of optimal heat treatment conditions based on simulation results and reducing the need for extensive experimentation.
Laser-based powder bed fusion, due to its layer-by-layer nature, results in a unique stress profile in a part after the primary production process. The residual stresses are typically tensile near the top, while they are compressive near the bottom of the part. When it is removed without proper precautions, the part will bend excessively. In order to alleviate this deformation, a stress relief heat treatment can be applied. In this paper, such a stress relaxation heat treatment is modelled to investigate the effect of the post-processing parameters. The model uses an Arrhenius-type creep equation to simulate the influence of the heat treatment temperature and dwell time on the stress field in a relatively simple cantilever beam produced in Ti-6Al-4V. Via validation of the simulations, the effect of the heat treatment is shown to be represented accurately. The validated model is used to predict the deformation that results from the residual stresses after heat treating the part under various conditions. The results from the simulations ultimately allow choosing the optimal heat treatment conditions to obtain a given reduction in the residual stress level, while reducing the need for extensive experimental investigations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据