| Literature DB >> 35160766 |
Van-Doi Truong1,2, Yong-Taek Hyun3, Jong Woo Won3, Wonjoo Lee1,2, Jonghun Yoon2,4,5.
Abstract
In the production of titanium alloy, the electron beam cold hearth melting (EBCHM) process is commonly used due to its effectiveness and the high quality of the end product. However, its main drawback is the significant loss of elements such as aluminum (Al) due to evaporation under the vacuum environment. Numerical coupled thermal-flow models were here developed to investigate the effects of scanning strategies on Al loss in a titanium alloy during EBCHM. The validation model was successful in comparison with previously published experimental data. The Al mass fraction results at the outlet of the water-cooled hearth were strongly influenced by changes in the applied scanning strategies. The results indicated that the Al mass fraction loss could be reduced by using the full-hearth scanning strategies.Entities:
Keywords: EBCHM process; aluminum evaporation; scanning strategies
Year: 2022 PMID: 35160766 PMCID: PMC8836968 DOI: 10.3390/ma15030820
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Schematic of the EBCHM process.
Figure 2The geometry and boundary conditions of the numerical domain.
Ti-6Al-4V properties.
| Parameter | Unit | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Density |
| 4110 |
| Thermal conductivity |
| 37 |
| Specific heat |
| 794.2 |
| Liquidus temperature |
| 1946.5 |
| Solidus temperature |
| 1926.5 |
| Emissivity | - | 0.23 |
| Viscosity |
| 0.00052 |
Figure 3The four scanning strategies.
Summary of electron beam scanning parameters.
| Parameter | Unit | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Power, |
| 800 |
| Absorption coefficient, | - | 0.7 |
| Electron beam radius, | mm | 20 |
| Ellipse profile, a, b | ||
| Width, a | mm | 7.5 |
| Height, b | mm | 17.5 |
| Number of points in each ellipse profile, N | - | 100 |
Figure 4Experimental setup and schematic of the locations of the thermocouples in the EBBM model [14].
Figure 5Summary of validation model boundary conditions.
Summary of main parameters in EEBM experiments [14].
| Parameter | Unit | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Electron beam power | kW | 13.4 |
| Temperature of the water-cooled furnace chamber, | °C | 15 |
| Temperature of the water-cooled mold at the bottom surface | °C | 50 |
| Temperature of the mold wall | °C | 200 |
| Surface tension coefficient of temperature | - | −4.5 |
| Surface tension coefficient of concentration | - | −0.16 |
Figure 6Temperature variation at three locations in the EBBM sample. TC = thermocouple.
Figure 7Comparison of predicted and measured Al concentration profiles in the EBBM sample. (a) Radius direction, (b) depth direction.
Figure 8(a) Temperature fields and (b) liquid fractions under the four scanning strategies in the water-cooled hearth.
Temperatures and Al mass fractions at the outlet lip after 550 s.
| Case | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outlet temperature (K) | 1966.94 | 1940.85 | 2175.33 | 2081.31 |
| Outlet Al mass fraction (%) | 5.95 | 3.69 | 4.03 | 5.86 |
Figure 9Al mass fraction fields with respect to the four scanning strategies after 550 s.
Figure 10(a) The temperatures and (b) Al mass fractions for the top centerline.