| Literature DB >> 35683145 |
Xiangwu Xiao1, Yufeng Jin1, Yuanqiang Tan2, Wei Gao3, Shengqiang Jiang1, Sisi Liu1, Meiliang Chen1.
Abstract
Powder spreading is one of crucial steps in selective laser sintering (SLS), which controls the quality of the powder bed and affects the quality of the printed parts. It is not advisable to use empirical methods or trial-and-error methods that consume lots of manpower and material resources to match the powder property parameters and powder laying process parameters. In this paper, powder spreading in realistic SLS settings was simulated using a discrete element method (DEM) to investigate the effects of the powder's physical properties and operating conditions on the bed quality, characterized by the density characteristics, density uniformity, and flatness of the powder layer. A regression model of the powdering quality was established based on the response surface methodology (RSM). The relationship between the proposed powdering quality index and the research variables was well expressed. An improved multi-objective optimization algorithm of the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) was used to optimize the powder laying quality of nylon powder in the SLS process. We provided different optimization schemes according to the different process requirements. The reliability of the multi-objective optimization results for powdering quality was verified via experiments.Entities:
Keywords: DEM; NSGA-II; RSM; parameter optimization; selective laser sintering; spread the powder quality
Year: 2022 PMID: 35683145 PMCID: PMC9181335 DOI: 10.3390/ma15113849
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1DEM simulation of roller spreading processes.
DEM model parameters of PA3200 powder spreading process.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Density (kg/m3) | 1000 |
| Shear modulus of powder (MPa) | 61 |
| Poisson ratio of power | 0.35 |
| Wall density (kg/m3) | 7800 |
| Wall shear modulus (Gpa) | 80 |
| Poisson ratio of wall | 0.30 |
| Coefficient of sliding friction between powder and wall | 0.51 |
| Coefficient of rolling friction between powder and wall | 0.15 |
| Hamaker constant between powder and wall | 9.72 × 10−20 |
| Resilience factor between powder and wall | 0.52 |
| Coefficient of sliding friction between powders | 0.48 |
| Rolling friction coefficient between powder and wall surface | 0.24 |
| Springback coefficient between powders | 0.11 |
| Hamaker constant between powders (J) | 7.21 × 10−20 |
| Powder charge generation factor | 0.03 |
| Power D50 (μm) | 50 |
| Number of powder particles | 215,000 |
Working parameters of numerical simulation of powder laying process.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Drum translational velocity | 60, 100, 140, 180, 220, 260, 280, 320 |
| Ratio of drum linear velocity to translational velocity | 0.16, 0.33, 0.50, 0.66, 1.0, 1.31, 2.0, 2.63 |
| Diameter of roller | 4, 12, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40 |
| Powder particle D50 diameter (μm) | 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 |
Figure 2Grid division diagram of apparent density statistics: (a) meshing of horizontal plane of powder layer in formation area; (b) grid division of vertical plane of powder layer in formation area.
Figure 3Influence of grid number on standard deviation of the density.
Figure 4Effect of grid number on surface roughness.
Design factor level of DEM simulation test for nylon powder laying process.
| Test Factor | −1.414 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 1.414 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drum translational velocity | 68.93 | 100.00 | 175.00 | 250.00 | 281.07 |
| particle diameter d (μm) | 39.46 | 50.00 | 75.00 | 100.00 | 110.36 |
DEM simulation test scheme and simulation results of powder laying process (Rg = 20 mm, Vr/Vs = 0.5).
| Test No. | Translational Velocity | Particle Size | Apparent Density | Standard Deviation of the Density (kg/m3) | Roughness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 175.00 | 75.00 | 535.00 | 79.60 | 42.04 |
| 2 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 542.10 | 113.70 | 40.60 |
| 3 | 175.00 | 75.00 | 535.00 | 79.60 | 42.04 |
| 4 | 175.00 | 39.64 | 572.20 | 75.60 | 43.02 |
| 5 | 250.00 | 100.00 | 549.40 | 124.90 | 44.21 |
| 6 | 250.00 | 50.00 | 558.40 | 82.50 | 43.12 |
| 7 | 175.00 | 75.00 | 535.00 | 79.60 | 42.04 |
| 8 | 175.00 | 110.36 | 557.70 | 133.90 | 42.14 |
| 9 | 281.07 | 75.00 | 535.80 | 95.10 | 45.25 |
| 10 | 68.93 | 75.00 | 553.30 | 90.80 | 44.36 |
| 11 | 100.00 | 50.00 | 563.50 | 67.30 | 44.37 |
| 12 | 175.00 | 75.00 | 535.00 | 79.60 | 42.04 |
| 13 | 175.00 | 75.00 | 535.00 | 79.60 | 42.04 |
Figure 5Normal residual diagram of powder quality from DEM simulation: (a) normal residual diagram of apparent density; (b) normal residuals of standard deviation of the density; (c) normal residual diagram of powder surface roughness.
Figure 6Response surface diagram of powdery mass from DEM simulation: (a) performance density; (b) standard deviation of the density; (c) roughness.
Partial Pareto optimal solution for multi-objective optimization of powdering quality via DEM simulation.
| Test No. | x(1) | x(2) | f(1) | f(2) | f(3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 100.000 | 50.000 | −566.332 | 71.509 | 44.637 |
| 2 | 145.201 | 52.547 | −555.438 | 69.179 | 43.021 |
| 3 | 124.124 | 100.000 | −545.108 | 113.938 | 41.099 |
| 4 | 153.701 | 55.058 | −551.242 | 69.371 | 42.750 |
| 5 | 122.961 | 50.120 | −562.044 | 69.813 | 43.759 |
| 6 | 105.078 | 50.003 | −565.348 | 71.035 | 44.424 |
| 7 | 126.765 | 97.187 | −542.746 | 108.696 | 41.219 |
| 8 | 151.930 | 68.351 | −539.267 | 74.025 | 42.255 |
| 9 | 109.506 | 50.645 | −563.553 | 70.626 | 44.202 |
| 10 | 129.048 | 88.767 | −538.274 | 95.260 | 41.578 |
| 11 | 120.959 | 99.525 | −544.970 | 113.299 | 41.123 |
| 12 | 118.713 | 98.379 | −544.272 | 111.400 | 41.182 |
| 13 | 146.365 | 91.364 | −538.048 | 98.421 | 41.471 |
| 14 | 139.111 | 50.677 | −558.840 | 69.282 | 43.257 |
| 15 | 114.194 | 87.017 | −539.307 | 93.891 | 41.798 |
| 16 | 124.878 | 95.907 | −542.035 | 106.622 | 41.277 |
| 17 | 104.755 | 100.000 | −546.880 | 115.748 | 41.181 |
| 18 | 133.703 | 50.750 | −559.483 | 69.377 | 43.396 |
| 19 | 139.166 | 90.231 | −538.007 | 96.921 | 41.494 |
| 20 | 152.929 | 66.994 | −540.043 | 73.241 | 42.296 |
SLS process parameters used in the experiment.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Laser power (W) | 21 |
| Scanning interval (mm) | 0.15 |
| Drum diameter (mm) | 40 |
| Ratio of drum linear velocity to translational velocity | 0.5 |
| Preheating temperature of formation cylinder (°C) | 171 |
| Preheating temperature of powder feeding cylinder (°C) | 132 |
Figure 7Sketch of the powder quality inspection design in the formation area.
Figure 8Statistical sintering experiment: (a) SLS molding process for the statistical box; (b) powder cleaning of sintered parts in the statistics box.
Figure 9The size and quality parameters of sintered parts in the selection box.
Figure 10Experimental results of the powder spreading quality in the formation area (V/V = 0.5, R = 20 mm, D50 = 50 μm): (a) effect of V on the apparent density of powder in the formation zone; (b) effect of V on the standard deviation of the formation zone density.