Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:04:46.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

KNOWLEDGE-BASED EVALUATION OF PART ORIENTATION DESIRABILITY IN POWDER BED FUSION ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Mouhamadou Mansour Mbow ,
Philippe René Marin ,
Nicolas Perry ,
Frédéric Vignat  and
Christelle Grandvallet
Mouhamadou Mansour Mbow*
Affiliation:
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G-SCOP, 38000 Grenoble, France;
Philippe René Marin
Affiliation:
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G-SCOP, 38000 Grenoble, France;
Nicolas Perry
Affiliation:
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G-SCOP, 38000 Grenoble, France;
Frédéric Vignat
Affiliation:
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G-SCOP, 38000 Grenoble, France;
Christelle Grandvallet
Affiliation:
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G-SCOP, 38000 Grenoble, France;
*
Mbow, Mouhamadou Mansour, Grenoble Institute of Technology, GSCOP Laboratory, France, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing, the definition of part orientation is one of the most important steps as it affects the quality, the cost and the build time of products. Different works already attempted to propose methodologies for the assessment of optimal build orientation based on criteria such as the minimization of support volume. Elicitation works with industry experts have shown that they use much more varied rules to determine the orientation of parts. For instance, they do not treat the different surfaces of the part the same way (e.g., experts state that “priority surfaces of the part must be oriented close to vertical”). Today, the available tools do not allow integrating these kind of specifications. This paper discusses a knowledge-based methodology for the evaluation of part candidate orientations in PBF. Desirability function approach is used to translate companies’ expertise in the form action rules into mathematical functions that are tested on geometries to provide metrics for assisting the decision-making. A case study is presented to illustrate the use of this desirability function approach on complex part orientation problem.

Keywords

Additive ManufacturingDecision makingAction ruleDesirability functionKnowledge management
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1957 - 1966
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Cooke, N. J., (1994). “Varieties of Knowledge Elicitation Techniques”. International Journal Human – Computer Studies 41, 801–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, N. R., Lourenço, J., and Pereira, Z. L. (2011). “Desirability Function Approach: A Review and Performance Evaluation in Adverse Conditions”. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 107, 234–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, P., Chandran, R., Samant, R. and Anand, S. (2015). “Optimum part build orientation in additive manufacturing for minimizing part errors and support structures”. Procedia Manufacturing 1, 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delfs, P., Tows, M. and Schmid, H.-J. (2016). “Optimized build orientation of additive manufactured parts for improved surface quality and build time”. Additive Manufacturing 12, 314–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derringer, G. and Suich, R. (1980). “Simultaneous Optimization of Several Response Variables”. Journal of Quality Technology 12(4), 214–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, J., Zheng, D.T. and Gindy, N. (2004). “Extraction of machining features for CAD/CAM integration”. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 24, 573–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghaoui, S., Ledoux, Y., Vignat, F., Museau, M., Vo, T. H., Villeneuve, F. and Ballu, A. (2020). “Analysis of geometrical defects in overhang fabrications in electron beam melting based on thermomechanical simulations and experimental validations”. Additive Manufacturing 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandvallet, C., Mbow, M. M., Mainwaring, T., Vignat, F., Pourroy, F., and Marin, P. R. (2020). “Eight Action Rules for the Orientation of Additive Manufacturing Parts in Powder Bed Fusion: an Industry Practice”. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing 14, 1159–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körner, C. (2016). “Additive manufacturing of metallic components by selective electron beam melting — a review”, International Materials Reviews 61, 5, 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranz, J., Herzog, D. and Emmelmann, C. (2015). “Design Guidelines for Laser Additive Manufacturing of ightweight Structures in TiAl6V4”. Journal of Laser Applications 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, S., Singh, R., and Sekhon, G.S., “CCKBS: A component check knowledge-based system for assessing manufacturability of sheet metal parts”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 172, 64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussein, A., Hao, L., Yan, C., Everson, R. and Young, P. (2013). Advanced Lattice Support Structures for Metal Additive Manufacturing. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 213, 1019–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leutenecker-Twelsiek, B., Klahn, C. and Meboldt, M. (2016). “Considering Part Orientation in Design for Additive Manufacturing”, Procedia CIRP 50, 408–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mbow, M. M., Grandvallet, C., Vignat, F., Marin, P. R., Perry, N. and Pourroy, F. (2021). “Mathematization of Experts Knowledge: Example of part orientation in additive manufacturing”. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mugwagwa, L., Dimitrov, D., Matope, S., and Yadroitsev, I. (2018). “Influence of process parameters on residual stress related distortions in selective laser melting”. Procedia Manufacturing 21, 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanfilippo, E. M., Belkadi, F. and Bernard, A. (2019). “Ontology-based knowledge representation for additive manufacturing”. Computers in Industry 109, 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vayre, B. (2014). “Design for Additive Manufacturing, focus on EBM technology”, Phd thesis, Génie des procédés. Université de Grenoble. Français. ⟨NNT : 2014GRENI096⟩. ⟨tel-01304269⟩.Google Scholar
Vo, T. H., Museau, M., Vignat, F., Villeneuve, F., Ledoux, Y. and Ballu, A. (2018). “Typology of geometrical defects in Electron Beam Melting”. Procedia CIRP 75, 92–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Bernard, A., Harik, R. and Karunakaran, K.P. (2017). “Build orientation optimization for multi-part production in additive manufacturing”. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 28, 1393–1407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar