A review of critical repeatability and reproducibility issues in powder bed fusion

Dowling, Luke; Kennedy, John; O’Shaughnessy, S.M.; Trimble, Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108346

Cited by 161 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Periodic porous samples with cellular designs proposed in Section 2 were fabricated in six AM technologies [6,7,9,11,42,43], which are listed in Table 1 along with the brand names of 15 different 3D printing devices used in this study, the corresponding materials as well as additional information such as sample manufacturers and labels used further for marking measurement results.…”

Section: D Printersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of sound-absorbing periodic porous materials using additive manufacturing technologies: Round robin study

Zieliński

Opiela

Pawłowski

et al. 2020

Additive Manufacturing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this work is to check if additive manufacturing technologies are suitable for reproducing porous samples designed for sound absorption. The work is an inter-laboratory test, in which the production of samples and their acoustic measurements are carried out independently by different laboratories, sharing only the same geometry codes describing agreed periodic cellular designs. Different additive manufacturing technologies and equipment are used to make samples. Although most of the results obtained from measurements performed on samples with the same cellular design are very close, it is shown that some discrepancies are due to shape and surface imperfections, or microporosity, induced by the manufacturing process. The proposed periodic cellular designs can be easily reproduced and are suitable for further benchmarking of additive manufacturing techniques for rapid prototyping of acoustic materials and metamaterials.

show abstract

Section: D Printersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of sound-absorbing periodic porous materials using additive manufacturing technologies: Round robin study

Zieliński

Opiela

Pawłowski

et al. 2020

Additive Manufacturing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The number and interrelation of factors affecting 3D printing and post-treatment processes lead to complexity and sometimes difficulty in improving the repeatability / reproducibility of AM. [161] Nevertheless, in some cases, using industrial grade equipment, optimization of both printing setup and post-processing procedure can achieve reproducibility and repeatability values approaching to those of standard manufacturing methods. [26,162] The mean absolute deviation of 3D printed object sizes for modern 3D printers (ME, VAT-P, PBF) typically lies between several and several hundred micrometers, [163,164] but may be less or more depending on the technique, equipment and model.…”

Section: Reproducibility and Mass Production In 3d Printed Eesdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of 3D Printing Methods and Materials for Electrochemical Energy Storage

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additive manufacturing has revolutionized the building of materials, and 3D‐printing has become a useful tool for complex electrode assembly for batteries and supercapacitors. The field initially grew from extrusion‐based methods and quickly evolved to photopolymerization printing, while supercapacitor technologies less sensitive to solvents more often involved material jetting processes. The need to develop higher‐resolution multimaterial printers is borne out in the performance data of recent 3D printed electrochemical energy storage devices. Underpinning every part of a 3D‐printable battery are the printing method and the feed material. These influence material purity, printing fidelity, accuracy, complexity, and the ability to form conductive, ceramic, or solvent‐stable materials. The future of 3D‐printable batteries and electrochemical energy storage devices is reliant on materials and printing methods that are co‐operatively informed by device design. Herein, the material and method requirements in 3D‐printable batteries and supercapacitors are addressed and requirements for the future of the field are outlined by linking existing performance limitations to requirements for printable energy‐storage materials, casings, and direct printing of electrodes and electrolytes. A guide to materials and printing method choice best suited for alternative‐form‐factor energy‐storage devices to be designed and integrated into the devices they power is thus provided.

show abstract

“…DAM with shorter lead times and decreased total production costs may be considered as an alternative to the traditional manufacturing technologies, it has some limitations which challenge the use of DAM as a manufacturing method even for short series productions [10,26,30]. Some of these challenges are: (1) Limits on the part size [31], (2) Anisotropic mechanical properties [32,33], (3) Slow process speed and limited scalability [34], (4) Poor dimensional accuracy [35], (5) Unpredictability and unrepeatability [36], (6) Restricted choice of materials [37], (7) Insufficient material properties [37], (8) High process costs [38], (9) High energy intensity [38]. The main benefits and limitations of DAM are summarized in Table 1.…”

Section: Printed Soft Tooling (Pst)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Suitability of Freeform Injection Molding for Low Volume Injection Molded Parts: A Design Science Approach

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low-volume manufacturing remains a challenge, especially for parts that need to be injection-molded. Freeform injection molding (FIM) is a novel method that combines elements from direct additive manufacturing (DAM) and injection molding (IM) to resolve some of the challenges seen in low-volume injection molding. In this study, we use a design science approach to explore the suitability of FIM for the manufacturing of low volume injection-molded parts. We provide an overview of the benefits and limitations of traditional IM and discuss how DAM and indirect additive manufacturing (IAM) methods, such as soft tooling and FIM, can address some of the existing drawbacks of IM for short series production. A set of different parts was identified and assessed using a design science-based approach to demonstrate how to incubate FIM as a solution to address the challenges faced in short series production with IM. This initial process innovation was followed by solution refinement, involving the optimization of the FIM processes. Finally, a “cross-case” analysis was conducted using the framework of context, intervention, mechanism and outcomes to generate insights about the generalizability of the results. It is concluded that FIM combines the short lead-times, low start-up costs and design freedom of DAM with the versatility and scalability of IM to allow manufacturers to bring low volume products to the market faster, more cheaply and with lower risk, and to maintain the relevance of these products through easy customization and adaptations once they have been launched.

show abstract

A review of critical repeatability and reproducibility issues in powder bed fusion

Cited by 161 publications

References 63 publications

Reproducibility of sound-absorbing periodic porous materials using additive manufacturing technologies: Round robin study

Reproducibility of sound-absorbing periodic porous materials using additive manufacturing technologies: Round robin study

Evolution of 3D Printing Methods and Materials for Electrochemical Energy Storage

Assessing the Suitability of Freeform Injection Molding for Low Volume Injection Molded Parts: A Design Science Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About