4.6 Article

Effect of support structures and surface angles on near-surface porosity in laser powder bed fusion

期刊

JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 328-337

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmapro.2023.03.065

关键词

Porosity; Laser powder bed fusion; Supports; Build angle; Surface porosity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Additive manufacturing (AM) provides design freedom but also introduces defects. This study examines porosity in 316 SS samples manufactured with LPBF at different depths from the surface. Results show that surface porosity is often higher than bulk porosity, especially at larger build angles and close support spacing values. These findings highlight the importance of considering near surface porosity in selecting build conditions and finishing requirements for PBF parts.
Additive manufacturing (AM) provides tremendous design freedom, but also introduces many sources of defects. Use of AM in safety-critical parts requires an excellent understanding of these defects and their potential impacts. The most common defects studied in laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) are pores. However, most work examines average porosity in the sample bulk while failures commonly originate near the surface where stresses are often highest. This study measures the porosity in 316 SS samples manufactured by LPBF as a function of distance from the down facing surface using various scan parameters, support spacing values, and build angles. These results show that the surface porosity is often much higher than bulk porosity. While parts with small build angles (5 degrees) reach low porosity (<1 %) very quickly (<50-100 mu m), at larger build angles porosity commonly remain >1 % at depths >400 mu m. The effects of build angle are exacerbated by close support spacing values. These results show the importance of considering near surface porosity rather than just bulk values. These results provide valuable guidance in selecting build conditions and finishing requirements for PBF parts.

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

4.6
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