Resistance is not futile: The use of projections for resistance joining of metal additively and conventionally manufactured parts

Enrique, Pablo D.; DiGiovanni, Christopher W.; Mao, Ningyue; Liang, Robert; Peterkin, Stephen; Zhou, Norman Y.

doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.04.035

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both feedstock are made of metal powders enclosed in a thermoplastic polymer that works as a binder for the metallic particles (Galantucci et al , 2019; Spencer et al , 2018). The ADAM material reported, according to Enrique et al (2021), is a proprietary blend of polypropylene (2%–4%), paraffin and hydrocarbon waxes (2%–6%) and 17- 4 PH powder.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study on the properties of 17-4 PH stainless steel parts made by metal fused filament fabrication process and atomic diffusion additive manufacturing

Lavecchia

Pellegrini

Galantucci

2022

RPJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to provide a comparison between the mechanical performance and microstructural aspects of stainless steel 17-4 PH processed using, respectively, two technologies: atomic diffusion additive manufacturing (ADAM) and metal fused filament fabrication (MFFF). Design/methodology/approach Different tensile specimens have been printed using an industrial system and a consumer three-dimensional (3D) printer, varying two main 3D printing parameters. Mechanical and microstructural tests are executed to make a comparison between these two technologies and two different feedstock material, to identify the main differences. Findings These 3D printing processes make parts with different surface quality, mechanical and microstructural properties. The parts, printed by the industrial system (ADAM), showed lower values of roughness, respect those produced using the 3D consumer printer (MFFF). The different sintering process parameters and the two debinding methods (catalytic or solvent based) affect the parts properties such as porosity, microstructure, grain size and amount of δ-ferrite. These proprieties are responsible for dissimilar tensile strength and hardness values. With the aim to compare the performances among traditional metal additive technology, MFFF and ADAM, a basic analysis of times and costs has been done. Originality/value The application of two metal extrusion techniques could be an alternative to other metal additive manufacturing technologies based on laser or electron beam. The low cost and printing simplicity are the main drivers of the replacements of these technologies in not extreme application fields.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study on the properties of 17-4 PH stainless steel parts made by metal fused filament fabrication process and atomic diffusion additive manufacturing

Lavecchia

Pellegrini

Galantucci

2022

RPJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Improving Dynamic Characteristics of Strain Gauge Load Cells Using Additive Manufacturing

Vanali,

Pavoni,

Lanthaler

et al. 2023

Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Influence of aging treatments on 17–4 PH stainless steel parts realized using material extrusion additive manufacturing technologies

Pellegrini

Lavecchia²,

Guerra³

et al. 2023

Int J Adv Manuf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The most relevant criticalities of parts produced by material extrusion additive manufacturing technologies are lower mechanical properties than standard material performances, the presence of pores caused by the manufacturing method, and issues related to the interface between layers and rods. In this context, heat treatments can be considered an effective solution for tailoring the material behavior to different application fields, especially when using precipitation hardening stainless steels. In this work, aging treatments were conducted on parts realized using three different extrusion-based processes: Atomic Diffusion Additive Manufacturing, bound metal deposition, and fused filament fabrication. Two conditions of direct aging (H900 and H1150) were considered with the aim of comparing the response of properties in the opposite conditions of peak-aged and overaged. The hardness tests revealed that H900 aging significantly influenced hardness (max increase of 52%), and porosity (− 34.3% with respect to the as-sintered condition). On the other hand, the H1150 aging decreased the hardness (− 18% max) and porosity (− 32.2% max). Substantial differences among the microstructures due to grain size and δ-ferrite were illustrated. A statistical test was included to better highlight the influence of the heat treatment on the investigated properties.

show abstract

Resistance is not futile: The use of projections for resistance joining of metal additively and conventionally manufactured parts

Cited by 6 publications

References 19 publications

Comparative study on the properties of 17-4 PH stainless steel parts made by metal fused filament fabrication process and atomic diffusion additive manufacturing

Comparative study on the properties of 17-4 PH stainless steel parts made by metal fused filament fabrication process and atomic diffusion additive manufacturing

Improving Dynamic Characteristics of Strain Gauge Load Cells Using Additive Manufacturing

Influence of aging treatments on 17–4 PH stainless steel parts realized using material extrusion additive manufacturing technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About