Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Sehhat, M. Hossein

Publications and source records attributed to Sehhat, M. Hossein.

Modeling powder spreadability in powder-based processes using the discrete element method

Powder-bed fusion (PBF) processes refer to a subset of Additive Manufacturing (AM) techniques where powder is spread on the build-plate before melting (by a laser or electron beam). While PBF processes are attractive due to their ability for realizing complex structures that are either difficult or impossible to create through conventional means, the parts fabricated with these techniques can exhibit defects such as pores, inclusions, and excessive surface roughness. To minimize these defects, much research has been dedicated towards process maturation by optimizing laser or electron beam parameters. However, these developmental efforts typically do not address the recoating process where achieving dense and uniform layers of powder is a necessity for ensuring process repeatability and part quality. While the recoating process can be studied through experimentation, the dynamics of particle movement are difficult to analyze experimentally. Therefore, here, in this study, powder spreading in PBF was simulated through the Discrete Element Method (DEM) to elucidate the mechanisms that control powder-bed quality. Utilizing the Buckingham Pi theorem, a dimensionless metric referred to as the spreading index is developed that combines powder-bed density, roughness, and particle size to assess the quality of powder layers. The formulated spreading index is then related to several dimensionless quantities that provide insight into the mechanisms dominating powder spreading in PBF. The DEM simulations conducted in this work focused on the scenario where powder is spread onto an existing powder bed and revealed that a reduction in the recoating velocity causes an increase in the spreading index while little to no impact on the spreading index was observed when varying layer thickness from 30 μm to 75 μm.Particle size effects on the powder-bed quality were also investigated.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

Experimental approach for development of a powder spreading metric in additive manufacturing

The powder spreading is a vital step of powder-based additive manufacturing (AM) processes. The quality of spread powder can considerably influence the properties of fabricated parts. Poorly packed powder beds with high surface roughness result in printed part layers with large porosity and low dimensional accuracy, leading to poor mechanical properties. Therefore, the powder spreadability and its dependence on process parameters and powder characteristics should be quantified to improve the efficiency of powder-based AM methods. This study proposes a novel dimensionless powder spreadability metric that can be commonly used in different powder-based AM processes. The quality of spread powder in terms of powder bed density and surface roughness was evaluated by adjusting the process parameters including recoating velocity and layer thickness, and powder characteristics including particle size distribution. In addition, the dynamic repose angle was proposed and examined as another powder spreadability metric. Furthermore, the results showed that these two proposed metrics were strongly correlated and lower recoating velocity and larger layer thickness led to higher spreadability and lower dynamic repose angle.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

Development and experimental study of an automated laser-foil-printing additive manufacturing system

Purpose This paper aims to present the development and experimental study of a fully automated system using a novel laser additive manufacturing technology called laser foil printing (LFP), to fabricate metal parts layer by layer. The mechanical properties of parts fabricated with this novel system are compared with those of comparable methodologies to emphasize the suitability of this process. Design/methodology/approach Test specimens and parts with different geometries were fabricated from 304L stainless steel foil using an automated LFP system. The dimensions of the fabricated parts were measured, and the mechanical properties of the test specimens were characterized in terms of mechanical strength and elongation. Findings The properties of parts fabricated with the automated LFP system were compared with those of parts fabricated with the powder bed fusion additive manufacturing methods. The mechanical strength is higher than those of parts fabricated by the laser powder bed fusion and directed energy deposition technologies. Originality/value To the best knowledge of authors, this is the first time a fully automated LFP system has been developed and the properties of its fabricated parts were compared with other additive manufacturing methods for evaluation.

Engineering↗

Investigation of Mechanical Properties of Parts Fabricated with Gas- and Water-Atomized 304L Stainless Steel Powder in the Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process

In this report the use of gas-atomized powder as the feedstock material for the Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) process is common in the Additive Manufacturing (AM) community. Although gas-atomization produces powder with high sphericity, its relatively expensive production cost is a downside for application in AM processes. Water atomization of powder may overcome this limitation due to its low cost relative to the gas-atomization process. In this work, gas- and water-atomized 304L stainless steel powders were morphologically characterized through Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). The water-atomized powder had a wider particle size distribution and exhibited less sphericity. Measuring powder flowability using the Revolution Powder Analyzer (RPA) indicated that the water-atomized powder had less flowablility than the gas-atomized powder. Through examining the mechanical properties of L-PBF fabricated parts using tensile tests, the gas-atomized powder had significantly higher yield tensile strength and elongation than the water-atomized powder, however, their ultimate tensile strengths were not significantly different.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗