Startseite Technik Multi-objective optimization of build orientation considering support structure volume and build time in laser powder bed fusion
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Multi-objective optimization of build orientation considering support structure volume and build time in laser powder bed fusion

  • Ahmet Can Günaydın

    Ahmet Can Günaydın received both B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in mechanical engineering from Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey, in 2014 and 2017, respectively. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering with Bursa Uludağ University, Bursa, Turkey. He is also a design engineer at TAI Uludağ University R&D Center. His current research interests include additive manufacturing and multi-objective optimization techniques.

     ORCID logo EMAIL logo     , Ali Rıza Yıldız ORCID logo und Necmettin Kaya ORCID logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 16. März 2022
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill
Manuskript einreichen Informationen für Autor*innen
Materials Testing
Aus der Zeitschrift Materials Testing Band 64 Heft 3

Abstract

Additive manufacturing is a production technology based on creating three-dimensional parts directly from computer-aided design data layer-by-layer. In recent years, it has been used in many industries with the production of functional, high-quality metallic parts with the powder bed fusion process by laser. The build orientation of the three-dimensional part has a major impact on many factors such as part quality, waste amount, production time, and cost. In this study, a multi-objective optimization is carried out using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II to simultaneously optimize different objectives that may conflict with each other, such as the amount of support structure and build time. Estimation methods are developed for computing the amount of support structure and the build time, which reflect the current state of the technology. With the developed method, build orientation is optimized for a complex part, and the wide range of alternative results are visualized and evaluated. The design for additive manufacturing knowledge required to correctly perform the build orientation process is eliminated by automating the pre-processing stage. Therefore, the contribution is made to the accessibility and sustainability of the PBF-L, which has high process costs by minimizing support structure volume and build time.

Keywords: build orientation; build time; laser powder bed fusion; multi-objective optimization; support structure
Corresponding author: Ahmet Can Günaydın, Turkish Aerospace Industries Inc, 16285, Bursa, Turkey, E-mail:

Funding source: Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştirma Kurumu

Award Identifier / Grant number: 118C100

About the author

Ahmet Can Günaydın

Ahmet Can Günaydın received both B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in mechanical engineering from Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey, in 2014 and 2017, respectively. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering with Bursa Uludağ University, Bursa, Turkey. He is also a design engineer at TAI Uludağ University R&D Center. His current research interests include additive manufacturing and multi-objective optimization techniques.

Acknowledgment

The corresponding author thanks the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) for their support under 2244 – Industrial PhD Fellowship Program, Grant No: 118C100.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: This work was funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) (118C100).

  3. Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this article.

References

[1] B. S. Yıldız, V. Patel, N. Pholdee, S. M. Sait, S. Bureerat, and A. R. Yıldız, “Conceptual comparison of the ecogeography-based algorithm, equilibrium algorithm, marine predators algorithm and slime mold algorithm for optimal product design,” Mater. Test., vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 336–340, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2020-0049.Suche in Google Scholar

[2] N. Panagant, M. Yıldız, N. Pholdee, A. R. Yıldız, S. Bureerat, and S. M. Sait, “A novel hybrid marine predators-Nelder-Mead optimization algorithm for the optimal design of engineering problems,” Mater. Test., vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 453–457, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2020-0077.Suche in Google Scholar

[3] M. Yıldız, N. Panagant, N. Pholdee, S. Bureerat, S. M. Sait, and A. Rıza Yıldız, “Hybrid Taguchi-Lévy flight distribution optimization algorithm for solving real-world design optimization problems,” Mater. Test., vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 547–551, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2020-0091.Suche in Google Scholar

[4] G. Karadere, Y. Düzcan, and A. Rıza Yıldız, “Light-weight design of automobile suspension components using topology and shape optimization techniques,” Mater. Test., vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 454–464, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111503.Suche in Google Scholar

[5] B. S. Yıldız, A. R. Yıldız, N. Pholdee, S. Bureerat, S. M. Sait, and V. Patel, “The Henry gas solubility optimization algorithm for optimum structural design of automobile brake components,” Mater. Test., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 261–264, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111479.Suche in Google Scholar

[6] E. Todorov, R. Spencer, S. Gleeson, M. Jamshidinia, and S. M. Kelly, “America makes: National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII) project 1: nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of complex metallic additive manufactured (AM) structures, EWI,” Interim, Columbus, Ohio, USA, Report No. AFRL-RX-WP-TR-2014-0162, Jun. 2014.10.21236/ADA612775Suche in Google Scholar

[7] B. Aslan and A. R. Yıldız, “Optimum design of automobile components using lattice structures for additive manufacturing,” Mater. Test., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 633–639, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111527.Suche in Google Scholar

[8] J. Jiang, X. Xu, and J. Stringer, “Support structures for additive manufacturing: a review,” J. Manuf. Mater. Process., vol. 2, no. 4, p. 64, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp2040064.Suche in Google Scholar

[9] E. Malekipour, A. Tovar, and H. El-Mounayri, “Heat conduction and geometry topology optimization of support structure in laser-based additive manufacturing,” in Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series, vol. 9, Cham, Springer, 2018, pp. 17–27.10.1007/978-3-319-62834-9_4Suche in Google Scholar

[10] W. Oropallo and L. A. Piegl, “Ten challenges in 3D printing,” Eng. Comput., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 135–148, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-015-0407-0.Suche in Google Scholar

[11] D. Ahn, H. Kim, and S. Lee, “Fabrication direction optimization to minimize post-machining in layered manufacturing,” Int. J. Mach. Tool Manufact., vol. 47, nos. 3–4, pp. 593–606, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2006.05.004.Suche in Google Scholar

[12] M. Cloots, A. Spierings, and B. K. Wegener, “Assessing new support minimizing strategies for the additive manufacturing technology SLM,” in Proc. of the 24th International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium – An Additive Manufacturing Conf., Austin, TX, USA, The University of Texas at Austin, 24, 2013, pp. 631–643.Suche in Google Scholar

[13] D. Gürses, S. Bureerat, S. M. Sait, and A. R. Yıldız, “Comparison of the arithmetic optimization algorithm, the slime mold optimization algorithm, the marine predators algorithm, the salp swarm algorithm for real-world engineering applications,” Mater. Test., vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 448–452, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2020-0076.Suche in Google Scholar

[14] M. Taufik and P. K. Jain, “Role of build orientation in layered manufacturing: a review,” Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag., vol. 27, nos. 1–3, pp. 47–73, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMTM.2013.058637.Suche in Google Scholar

[15] Y. Zhang and S. K. Moon, “Data-driven design strategy in fused filament fabrication: status and opportunities,” J. Comput. Des. Eng., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 489–509, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcde/qwaa094.Suche in Google Scholar

[16] R. Stolt and F. Elgh, “Introducing design for selective laser melting in aerospace industry,” J. Comput. Des. Eng., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 489–497, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcde/qwaa042.Suche in Google Scholar

[17] D. R. Eyers and A. T. Potter, “Industrial additive manufacturing: a manufacturing systems perspective,” Comput. Ind., vols 92–93, pp. 208–218, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2017.08.002.Suche in Google Scholar

[18] P. M. Pandey, N. Venkata Reddy, and S. G. Dhande, “Part deposition orientation studies in layered manufacturing,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., vol. 185, nos. 1–3, pp. 125–131, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.03.120.Suche in Google Scholar

[19] Y. Qin, Q. Qi, P. Shi, P. J. Scott, and X. Jiang, “Automatic determination of part build orientation for laser powder bed fusion,” Virtual Phys. Prototyp., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 29–49, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2020.1832793.Suche in Google Scholar

[20] J. R. Wodziak, G. M. Fadel, and C. Kirschman, “A genetic algorithm for optimizing multiple part placement to reduce build time,” in Proc. of the Fifth International Conf. on Rapid Prototyping, Dayton, OH, USA, University of Dayton, 1994, pp. 201–210.Suche in Google Scholar

[21] P. Alexander, S. Allen, and D. Dutta, “Part orientation and build cost determination in layered manufacturing,” CAD Comput. Aided Des., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 343–356, 1998, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(97)00083-3.Suche in Google Scholar

[22] H. S. Byun and K. H. Lee, “Determination of optimal build direction in rapid prototyping with variable slicing,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 28, nos. 3–4, pp. 307–313, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-004-2355-5.Suche in Google Scholar

[23] P. K. Gurrala and S. P. Regalla, “Multi-objective optimisation of strength and volumetric shrinkage of FDM parts,” Virtual Phys. Prototyp., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 127–138, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2014.898851.Suche in Google Scholar

[24] E. Ulu, E. Korkmaz, K. Yay, O. B. Ozdoganlar, and L. B. Kara, “Enhancing the structural performance of additively manufactured objects through build orientation optimization,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 137, no. 11, pp. 111410–111418, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4030998.Suche in Google Scholar

[25] W. M. Wang, C. Zanni, and L. Kobbelt, “Improved surface quality in 3D printing by optimizing the printing direction,” Comput. Graph. Forum, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 59–70, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12811.Suche in Google Scholar

[26] P. Jaiswal, J. Patel, and R. Rai, “Build orientation optimization for additive manufacturing of functionally graded material objects,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 96, nos. 1–4, pp. 223–235, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1586-9.Suche in Google Scholar

[27] L. Di Angelo, P. Di Stefano, A. Dolatnezhadsomarin, E. Guardiani, and E. Khorram, “A reliable build orientation optimization method in additive manufacturing: the application to FDM technology,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 108, nos. 1–2, pp. 263–276, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05359-x.Suche in Google Scholar

[28] M. Mele and G. Campana, “Sustainability-driven multi-objective evolutionary orienting in additive manufacturing,” Sustain. Prod. Consum., vol. 23, pp. 138–147, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.05.004.Suche in Google Scholar

[29] A. M. Phatak and S. S. Pande, “Optimum part orientation in rapid prototyping using genetic algorithm,” J. Manuf. Syst., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 395–402, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2012.07.001.Suche in Google Scholar

[30] S. Pereira, A. I. F. Vaz, and L. N. Vicente, “On the optimal object orientation in additive manufacturing,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 98, nos. 5–8, pp. 1685–1694, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2218-0.Suche in Google Scholar

[31] A. M. A. C. Rocha, A. I. Pereira, and A. I. F. Vaz, “Build orientation optimization problem in additive manufacturing,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Cham, Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 669–682.10.1007/978-3-319-95165-2_47Suche in Google Scholar

[32] M. A. Matos, A. M. A. C. Rocha, and A. I. Pereira, “Improving additive manufacturing performance by build orientation optimization,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 107, nos. 5–6, pp. 1993–2005, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-04942-6.Suche in Google Scholar

[33] M. A. Matos, A. M. A. C. Rocha, and L. A. Costa, “Many-objective optimization of build part orientation in additive manufacturing,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 112, nos. 3–4, pp. 747–762, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06369-5.Suche in Google Scholar

[34] A. Li, Z. Zhang, D. Wang, and J. Yang, “Optimization method to fabrication orientation of parts in fused deposition modeling rapid prototyping,” in 2010 International Conf. on Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering, MACE2010, Wuhan, China, IEEE, 2010, pp. 416–419.10.1109/MACE.2010.5535335Suche in Google Scholar

[35] B. Ga, N. Gardan, and G. Wahu, “Methodology for part building orientation in additive manufacturing,” Comput. Aided Des. Appl., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 113–128, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14733/cadaps.2019.113-128.Suche in Google Scholar

[36] A. H. Golmohammadi and S. Khodaygan, “A framework for multi-objective optimisation of 3D part-build orientation with a desired angular resolution in additive manufacturing processes,” Virtual Phys. Prototyp., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 19–36, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2018.1526622.Suche in Google Scholar

[37] Y. Zhang and A. Bernard, “Using AM feature and multi-attribute decision making to orientate part in additive manufacturing,” in High Value Manufacturing: Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping, Leiria, Portugal, CRC Press, 2013, pp. 411–416.10.1201/b15961-76Suche in Google Scholar

[38] K. Thrimurthulu, P. M. Pandey, and N. V. Reddy, “Optimum part deposition orientation in fused deposition modeling,” Int. J. Mach. Tool Manufact., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 585–594, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2003.12.004.Suche in Google Scholar

[39] V. Canellidis, J. Giannatsis, and V. Dedoussis, “Genetic-algorithm-based multi-objective optimization of the build orientation in stereolithography,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 45, nos. 7–8, pp. 714–730, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-009-2006-y.Suche in Google Scholar

[40] R. Huang, N. Dai, D. Li, X. Cheng, H. Liu, and D. Sun, “Parallel non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II for optimal part deposition orientation in additive manufacturing based on functional features,” Proc. IME C J. Mech. Eng. Sci., vol. 232, no. 19, pp. 3384–3395, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406217737105.Suche in Google Scholar

[41] Y. Zhang, A. Bernard, R. K. Gupta, and R. Harik, “Feature based building orientation optimization for additive manufacturing,” Rapid Prototyp. J., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 358–376, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-03-2014-0037.Suche in Google Scholar

[42] Y. Zhang, W. De Backer, R. Harik, and A. Bernard, “Build orientation determination for multi-material deposition additive manufacturing with continuous fibers,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 50, pp. 414–419, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.119.Suche in Google Scholar

[43] H. Abderazek, A. Riza Yildiz, and S. M. Sait, “Optimization of constrained mechanical design problems using the equilibrium optimization algorithm,” Mater. Test., vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 552–559, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2020-0092.Suche in Google Scholar

[44] H. Abderazek, F. Hamza, A. R. Yildiz, and S. M. Sait, “Comparative investigation of the moth-flame algorithm and whale optimization algorithm for optimal spur gear design,” Mater. Test., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 266–271, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2020-0039.Suche in Google Scholar

[45] A. R. Yıldız and M. U. Erdaş, “A new hybrid Taguchi-salp swarm optimization algorithm for the robust design of real-world engineering problems,” Mater. Test., vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 157–162, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2020-0022.Suche in Google Scholar

[46] B. S. Yıldız, N. Pholdee, S. Bureerat, A. R. Yıldız, and S. M. Sait, “Sine-cosine optimization algorithm for the conceptual design of automobile components,” Mater. Test., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 744–748, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111541.Suche in Google Scholar

[47] B. S. Yıldız, A. R. Yıldız, E. İ. Albak, H. Abderazek, S. M. Sait, and S. Bureerat, “Butterfly optimization algorithm for optimum shape design of automobile suspension components,” Mater. Test., vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 365–370, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111492.Suche in Google Scholar

[48] E. Kurtuluş, A. R. Yıldız, S. M. Sait, and S. Bureerat, “A novel hybrid Harris hawks-simulated annealing algorithm and RBF-based metamodel for design optimization of highway guardrails,” Mater. Test., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 251–260, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111478.Suche in Google Scholar

[49] A. R. Yıldız, B. S. Yıldız, S. M. Sait, and X. Li, “The Harris hawks, grasshopper and multi-verse optimization algorithms for the selection of optimal machining parameters in manufacturing operations,” Mater. Test., vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 725–733, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111377.Suche in Google Scholar

[50] D. Gürses, N. Pholdee, S. Bureerat, S. M. Sait, and A. R. Yıldız, “A novel hybrid water wave optimization algorithm for solving complex constrained engineering problems,” Mater. Test., vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 560–564, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2020-0093.Suche in Google Scholar

[51] A. R. Yıldız, H. Özkaya, M. Yıldız, S. Bureerat, B. S. Yıldız, and S. M. Sait, “The equilibrium optimization algorithm and the response surface-based metamodel for optimal structural design of vehicle components,” Mater. Test., vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 492–496, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111509.Suche in Google Scholar

[52] A. Balkan, A. R. Yıldız, S. M. Sait, and S. Bureerat, “Optimum design of an air suspension seat using recent structural optimization techniques,” Mater. Test., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 242–250, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111477.Suche in Google Scholar

[53] E. Demirci and A. R. Yıldız, “An investigation of the crash performance of magnesium, aluminum and advanced high strength steels and different cross-sections for vehicle thin-walled energy absorbers,” Mater. Test., vol. 60, nos. 7–8, pp. 661–668, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111201.Suche in Google Scholar

[54] P. Das, R. Chandran, R. Samant, and S. Anand, “Optimum part build orientation in additive manufacturing for minimizing part errors and support structures,” Procedia Manuf., vol. 1, pp. 343–354, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.09.041.Suche in Google Scholar

[55] H. D. Morgan, J. A. Cherry, S. Jonnalagadda, D. Ewing, and J. Sienz, “Part orientation optimisation for the additive layer manufacture of metal components,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 86, nos. 5–8, pp. 1679–1687, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-8151-6.Suche in Google Scholar

[56] S. Brika, Y. F. Zhao, M. Brochu, and J. Mezzetta, “Multi-objective build orientation optimization for powder bed fusion by laser,” Ind. Eng. Manag., vol. 6, no. 4, 2017, Art no. 1000236, https://doi.org/10.4172/2169-0316.1000236.Suche in Google Scholar

[57] L. Cheng and A. To, “Part-scale build orientation optimization for minimizing residual stress and support volume for metal additive manufacturing: theory and experimental validation,” CAD Comput. Aided Des., vol. 113, pp. 1–23, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2019.03.004.Suche in Google Scholar

[58] V. Griffiths, J. P. Scanlan, M. H. Eres, A. Martinez-Sykora, and P. Chinchapatnam, “Cost-driven build orientation and bin packing of parts in selective laser melting (SLM),” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 273, no. 1, pp. 334–352, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.07.053.Suche in Google Scholar

[59] Z. Nie, S. Jung, L. B. Kara, and K. S. Whitefoot, “Optimization of part consolidation for minimum production costs and time using additive manufacturing,” Trans. ASME J. Mech. Des., vol. 142, no. 7, pp. 1–16, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4045106.Suche in Google Scholar

[60] N. K. Sahu and A. B. Andhare, “Multiobjective optimization for improving machinability of Ti-6Al-4V using RSM and advanced algorithms,” J. Comput. Des. Eng., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcde.2018.04.004.Suche in Google Scholar

[61] G. Allaire, M. Bihr, and B. Bogosel, “Support optimization in additive manufacturing for geometric and thermo-mechanical constraints,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 2377–2399, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-020-02551-1.Suche in Google Scholar

[62] M. Szilvási-Nagy and G. Mátyási, “Analysis of STL files,” Math. Comput. Model., vol. 38, nos. 7–9, pp. 945–960, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-7177(03)90079-3.Suche in Google Scholar

[63] T. Möller and B. Trumbore, “Fast, minimum storage ray/triangle intersection,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Courses on – SIGGRAPH ’05, Los Angeles, California, Association for Computing Machinery, 2005, p. 7.10.1145/1198555.1198746Suche in Google Scholar

[64] J. Jiang and Y. Ma, “Path planning strategies to optimize accuracy, quality, build time and material use in additive manufacturing: a review,” Micromachines, vol. 11, no. 7, p. 633, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/mi11070633.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[65] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182–197, 2002, https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017.Suche in Google Scholar

[66] Optimize Manufacturability with Altair Inspire Print3D. Altair, 2021 [Online]. Available at: https://www.altair.com/resource/optimize-manufacturability-with-altair-inspire-print3d [accessed: Sep. 01, 2021].Suche in Google Scholar
Published Online: 2022-03-16
Published in Print: 2022-03-28

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Effect of water absorption and hydroxyapatite addition on mechanical and microstructural properties of dental luting cements
  3. Mechanical properties and corrosion behavior of a friction stir processed magnesium alloy composite AZ31B–SiC
  4. Multi-objective optimization of build orientation considering support structure volume and build time in laser powder bed fusion
  5. Fatigue properties and crack growth behavior of 7N01 and 6N01 aluminum alloys
  6. Surface roughness prediction of wire electric discharge machining (WEDM)-machined AZ91D magnesium alloy using multilayer perceptron, ensemble neural network, and evolving product-unit neural network
  7. Effect of FeTi-FeB inoculation on the shape of carbide reinforcements in hypoeutectic high chromium white cast iron
  8. Development of an eutectic-based self-healing in Al–Si cast alloy
  9. Effect of process parameters on mechanical properties of additive manufactured SMP structures based on FDM
  10. Effect of calcination and sintering temperature on porosity and microstructure of porcelain tiles
  11. Effect of particles on tensile and bending properties of jute epoxy composites
  12. Effect of cutting parameters on the machinability of X37CrMoV5-1 hot work tool steel
  13. Cutting forces during drilling of a SiCp reinforced Al-7075 matrix composite
  14. Modeling and simulation of tensile properties of r-LDPE/GSF composite using the response surface methododology
  15. Machinability of alloy ductile iron and forged 16MnCr5 steel
https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2021-2075
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
build orientation; build time; laser powder bed fusion; multi-objective optimization; support structure

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Effect of water absorption and hydroxyapatite addition on mechanical and microstructural properties of dental luting cements
  3. Mechanical properties and corrosion behavior of a friction stir processed magnesium alloy composite AZ31B–SiC
  4. Multi-objective optimization of build orientation considering support structure volume and build time in laser powder bed fusion
  5. Fatigue properties and crack growth behavior of 7N01 and 6N01 aluminum alloys
  6. Surface roughness prediction of wire electric discharge machining (WEDM)-machined AZ91D magnesium alloy using multilayer perceptron, ensemble neural network, and evolving product-unit neural network
  7. Effect of FeTi-FeB inoculation on the shape of carbide reinforcements in hypoeutectic high chromium white cast iron
  8. Development of an eutectic-based self-healing in Al–Si cast alloy
  9. Effect of process parameters on mechanical properties of additive manufactured SMP structures based on FDM
  10. Effect of calcination and sintering temperature on porosity and microstructure of porcelain tiles
  11. Effect of particles on tensile and bending properties of jute epoxy composites
  12. Effect of cutting parameters on the machinability of X37CrMoV5-1 hot work tool steel
  13. Cutting forces during drilling of a SiCp reinforced Al-7075 matrix composite
  14. Modeling and simulation of tensile properties of r-LDPE/GSF composite using the response surface methododology
  15. Machinability of alloy ductile iron and forged 16MnCr5 steel
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2026 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 4.1.2026 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/mt-2021-2075/pdf?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen