4.7 Article

A spiral laser scanning routine for powder bed fusion inspired by natural predator-prey behaviour

期刊

VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 239-255

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17452759.2022.2031232

关键词

Laser powder bed fusion; scan pattern; optimisation; nature-inspired design; predator-prey model

资金

  1. Ford-MIT alliance
  2. MIT-Portugal Program [MPP2030]
  3. Advanced Research Projects-Energy (ARPA-E) [DE-AR0001434]
  4. MIT Center for Additive and Digital Advanced Production Technologies (APT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) additive manufacturing, a new spiral pattern is proposed based on an analogy between natural predator-prey behavior and heat flow. The spiral pattern shows potential for reducing temperature variation and maintaining a larger heated area compared to traditional zig-zag and helix scan patterns. This pattern could be important for printing crack-prone materials and optimizing LPBF parameters.
Additive manufacturing by laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) requires process parameters that consider both local and global thermal gradients to address material and component quality issues caused by non-uniform heating and cooling. Here, we develop an analogy between natural predator-prey behaviour and heat flow in LPBF, and consequently derive a spiral pattern that is translated into a discrete vector pattern compatible with LPBF. A power optimisation routine is applied to the spiral pattern to maintain constant melt pool depth, and the simulated thermal histories are compared to well-established zig-zag and helix scan patterns. From these results, we propose that the spiral pattern reduces the spatial variation of temperature, while a larger area remains above a specified threshold temperature at the end of the scan. Consequently, the spiral pattern may be promising for printing crack-prone materials, and for parameter optimisation of LPBF overall, and should be experimentally validated in future work.

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

4.7
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