2019
DOI: 10.5755/j01.ms.25.3.19137
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Simulation on the Two-phase Separation of Powder Injection Molding 316L Stainless Steel

Abstract: By utilizing the FLUENT software, finite element simulation analysis was performed on the two-phase separation of powder injection molding, and the simulation results were verified through experiment. As indicated in the simulation results, the optimal process parameters for the injection molding of 316L stainless steel sample were to inject at 70 MPa and 140 °C, at an injection speed of 3.49 cm3/s. Under these conditions, the maximum average solid volume fraction in observation area of the sample was 57.68 %.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
(4 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This shortens the sintering stage of the process to 600 min even when using the slowest speed of 5 • C/min (504 min for 10 • C/min, 474 min for 15 • C/min). In the case of polyolefin binders, the overall sintering times for 316L reported are 900 min for (PW, PEG-600, SA and low density polyethylene (LDPE)) binder [33], 1000 min for (PW, LDPE, SA) binder [34], or 630 min for commercially available feedstock polyMIM ® 316L D 222 E. Table 2 summarizes mechanical properties of the AW based sintered parts obtained for various sintering speeds in the range of temperatures (450-1360) • C. The speed of 5 • C/min provided the highest tensile strength of ≥520 MPa in comparison to ≥450 MPa for the mass production feedstock polyMIM ® 316L D 222 E. The yield stresses achieved are also substantially higher than that of the commercial feedstock (≥140 MPa). Vickers microhardness generally correlates with yield strength, but it should be mentioned that the microhardness of the sintered PIM parts was measured on relatively porous testing samples, which influences the results.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This shortens the sintering stage of the process to 600 min even when using the slowest speed of 5 • C/min (504 min for 10 • C/min, 474 min for 15 • C/min). In the case of polyolefin binders, the overall sintering times for 316L reported are 900 min for (PW, PEG-600, SA and low density polyethylene (LDPE)) binder [33], 1000 min for (PW, LDPE, SA) binder [34], or 630 min for commercially available feedstock polyMIM ® 316L D 222 E. Table 2 summarizes mechanical properties of the AW based sintered parts obtained for various sintering speeds in the range of temperatures (450-1360) • C. The speed of 5 • C/min provided the highest tensile strength of ≥520 MPa in comparison to ≥450 MPa for the mass production feedstock polyMIM ® 316L D 222 E. The yield stresses achieved are also substantially higher than that of the commercial feedstock (≥140 MPa). Vickers microhardness generally correlates with yield strength, but it should be mentioned that the microhardness of the sintered PIM parts was measured on relatively porous testing samples, which influences the results.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This shortens the sintering stage of the process to 600 min even when using the slowest speed of 5 °C/min (504 min for 10 °C/min, 474 min for 15 °C/min). In the case of polyolefin binders, the overall sintering times for 316L reported are 900 min for (PW, PEG-600, SA and low density polyethylene (LDPE)) binder [ 33 ], 1000 min for (PW, LDPE, SA) binder [ 34 ], or 630 min for commercially available feedstock polyMIM ® 316L D 222 E.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The color code defined the estimated quality for the green part, such that 88.9%, 11.1%, and 0.00% were the mean values for acceptable, less acceptable, and unacceptable part quality, respectively [29]. A green part with a decreased value of quality prediction will have a higher chance to develop phase separation [30]. Figure 4c shows the pressure drop especially at the outer edges (as shown in a red color) of the cylinder in both parts A and C, which is likely due to an insufficient injection pressure (pressure limit was set to 3.6 MPa).…”
Section: Moldflow Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[12][13][14] It is reported that multiphase numerical modeling has an advantage over single-phase modeling to detect phase segregation. 15 Researchers 14,[16][17][18] already have adopted the multiphase simulation approach and they have also reported that high shear strain rate and temperature influence the change in drag force between the phases that leads to powder-binder separation. Dissipative particle dynamics (DPD) based on a multiphase simulation approach can handle the moldfilling process as well as the phase interactions at the mesoscale level.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%