UCARE Summer Symposium Presentation
Preston S. Noll
Author
08/04/2020
Added
21
Plays
Description
Video presentation of UCARE research on a study of energy consumed during milling of interlayer-peened additively manufactured 316 stainless steel.
Searchable Transcript
Toggle between list and paragraph view.
- [00:00:00.634]Hi my name is Preston Noll
- [00:00:03.540]I'm a senior in mechanical engineering and I'm here to talk to you today about our UCARE research project,
- [00:00:09.260]Which was the study of energy consumption during milling of interlayer ultrasonic peened stainless steel.
- [00:00:16.361]We're going to start with a little bit of the motivation for this project
- [00:00:19.262]then breeze through the literature review
- [00:00:21.412]and talk about our objectives and plans for this experiment
- [00:00:24.996]and then some results which will then be summarized.
- [00:00:28.730]The overall goal of additive manufacturing and hybrid additive manufacturing
- [00:00:34.915]is to print the mechanical properties desired into the parts that we are creating.
- [00:00:39.348]So we combine printing with a secondary processing method
- [00:00:42.382]whether it be milling or peening, which are addressed in this experiment
- [00:00:45.983]to determine what properties the material that we construct will have
- [00:00:50.634]by first printing it and then introducing a surface treatment
- [00:00:56.902]to control the properties as we go along.
- [00:00:59.251]The problem with this is we need a non-destructive method of measuring these changes
- [00:01:03.052]as what we have now is milling through the part
- [00:01:06.872]to understand the surface energy of each layer of the part,
- [00:01:11.570]which completely destroys what we are working with
- [00:01:15.103]and renders that part invalid for further use.
- [00:01:18.186]In this project we are using an Optomec LENS 500 hybrid machine tool
- [00:01:26.006]which combines milling and printing processes
- [00:01:29.090]in order to conduct hybrid additive manufacturing
- [00:01:32.389]all within one system
- [00:01:34.141]and measuring the power used by the milling head
- [00:01:38.792]while milling through a part.
- [00:01:42.675]Through further analysis done by Dr. Sealy,
- [00:01:46.908]the primary investigator of this lab,
- [00:01:51.276]it has been determined that the process level spindle power
- [00:01:54.544]as seen in inset (c)
- [00:01:57.390]is a good indicator of the mechanical properties of the part
- [00:02:01.825]because the energy required to mill through the part
- [00:02:06.509]can be separated, using a power analyzer,
- [00:02:09.258]from the overall power required to operate
- [00:02:11.738]the Optomec machinery.
- [00:02:13.574]We plan to use the curve seen here as a process signature
- [00:02:17.853]in order to determine the energy of the part
- [00:02:20.554]that we're milling through and to measure
- [00:02:22.704]the impacts of the secondary process that we are using.
- [00:02:27.105]This is further breakdown into that can be determined
- [00:02:29.756]but as you can see here
- [00:02:31.022]the net specific cutting energy is the important parameter
- [00:02:35.043]that we use to measure the material properties
- [00:02:40.002]of the section of the part that we mill through
- [00:02:42.432]and hope to view changes in the part as
- [00:02:46.449]we get closer to and further from a hybrid layer.
- [00:02:49.218]Our hypothesis for this experiment was that
- [00:02:53.318]there is variation in the energy consumed
- [00:02:55.185]by the milling head during milling of
- [00:02:58.802]interlayer peened samples as compared to
- [00:03:00.751]wrought control samples and as-printed
- [00:03:02.869]control samples because of the secondary process conducted,
- [00:03:06.970]which was a peening or compression conducted
- [00:03:11.054]on the part at certain intervals.
- [00:03:13.234]We also tested the hypothesis that the energy
- [00:03:16.127]consumed milling through any type of part will
- [00:03:18.445]vary as a result of its location within the
- [00:03:20.930]part that we're working with.
- [00:03:22.571]As you can see here, not all of our samples
- [00:03:25.802]were prepared using the Optomec system,
- [00:03:27.970]we did have to fall back onto the
- [00:03:30.104]Lumex AVANCE-25 powder bed fusion printers
- [00:03:32.888]as there was some overlap with the scheduling
- [00:03:35.254]in the lab, but these parts were additively manufactured
- [00:03:38.189]out of 316 stainless steel using the print
- [00:03:40.739]parameters seen here, and what's most important in the hybrid samples
- [00:03:45.527]is that every 10 powder bed fusion layers, the print
- [00:03:49.558]process was stopped, and the peening process
- [00:03:54.583]as you can see on the bottom of the screen
- [00:03:56.276]was conducted on the surface of each part
- [00:03:58.444]and this was conducted to compress the surface
- [00:04:00.761]and hopefully to give us distinct material properties
- [00:04:05.461]that we can witness when milling.
- [00:04:09.328]Again, this further describes the process of measuring
- [00:04:13.912]the energy required to mill through these parts
- [00:04:16.763]As you can see these are our milling process parameters
- [00:04:19.747]and some parameters associated with the
- [00:04:22.597]power analyzer used for data collection.
- [00:04:24.648]There was some adjustment of our experimental plan
- [00:04:29.031]throughout. As you can see in the top left,
- [00:04:33.599]there was significant amount of tool wear occurring
- [00:04:35.916]which we concluded was because we only
- [00:04:38.601]milled half of the part from top to bottom,
- [00:04:42.167]so as we moved towards the bottom and deeper into the part,
- [00:04:47.267]significant tool wear occurred as the tool insert rubbed against
- [00:04:52.169]the remaining area of the build, as you can see on the right side.
- [00:04:57.252]To correct this, we adopted the so-called stairstep method,
- [00:05:00.587]where we eliminated one of our milling passes
- [00:05:02.589]as we moved down through the part
- [00:05:04.404]in order to minimize the amount of time spent
- [00:05:07.422]rubbing the vertical surface of the cutting insert
- [00:05:10.206]against the remaining material.
- [00:05:13.105]Again, this describes what you can see in the milling chamber.
- [00:05:17.256]This is one of our finished workpieces on the left,
- [00:05:21.239]and as you can see we moved from left to right
- [00:05:24.876]of the workpiece and from top to bottom
- [00:05:27.558]as we milled through it,
- [00:05:29.541]and every milling pass removed approximately
- [00:05:33.608]ten layers of print, which comes out to half a millimeter
- [00:05:39.043]or 500 microns of material.
- [00:05:41.777]So these are our results, we will move from
- [00:05:44.995]tool wear to microhardness testing to finally
- [00:05:47.827]the maps of energy consumption during
- [00:05:50.462]these processes.
- [00:05:52.095]As you can see here,
- [00:05:55.195]as we moved through an as-printed sample we measured
- [00:05:58.679]tool wear at layers 5, 10, 15, and 19, which was the end of the milling process.
- [00:06:03.295]Layer 5, 10, and 15 were minimal;
- [00:06:06.580]you can begin to see some edge wear that
- [00:06:09.664]may be significant at layer 19,
- [00:06:11.916]but these tool inserts remained fairly pristine
- [00:06:16.465]as opposed to some other examples.
- [00:06:19.849]This shows the end-of-process tool wear
- [00:06:22.951]witnessed at the end of all of our milling tests
- [00:06:27.084]and as you can see the hybrid displayed the most wear
- [00:06:30.218]but even then it was an insignificant amount
- [00:06:33.586]and can be eliminated from further consideration
- [00:06:39.819]as a parameter for increasing energy consumed during milling.
- [00:06:43.819]Here we can see the microhardness as we move
- [00:06:48.054]down from the surface of the part during milling
- [00:06:51.022]We measured every 500 microns or 1 milled layer
- [00:06:55.695]as far as the equipment allowed.
- [00:07:00.475]The conclusions as you can see here
- [00:07:04.220]are that the hybrid sample is clearly harder than
- [00:07:07.899]the as-printed sample, which makes sense given that
- [00:07:10.934]we compressed the sample at regular intervals.
- [00:07:13.117]But, the as-printed sample also oscillates more than
- [00:07:16.102]the hybrid sample, which is inherent to
- [00:07:19.850]additive manufacturing, that there is some variation
- [00:07:22.916]in mechanical properties of the part,
- [00:07:25.002]which also validates our desire to conduct this research
- [00:07:28.670]as there is evidence that the internal microstructure
- [00:07:32.620]of additively manufactured parts is not super consistent.
- [00:07:37.120]And here is our party piece of the presentation.
- [00:07:41.003]This is our net specific cutting energy map
- [00:07:43.655]of a wrought sample,
- [00:07:44.938]and as you can see it increases from left to right
- [00:07:47.340]which is the course of the milling path across the screen,
- [00:07:50.306]and from top to bottom of the sample.
- [00:07:53.540]We can see that, if you can imagine this is
- [00:07:58.207]the left half of the sample,
- [00:08:00.158]there will be a normal-distribution type curve in
- [00:08:04.337]energy consumed that peaks towards
- [00:08:06.752]the middle of the sample and there
- [00:08:08.903]is a general increase from top to bottom
- [00:08:10.987]in the energy consumed per layer.
- [00:08:13.002]This is the same map, but of an as-printed sample,
- [00:08:17.488]which caused some interesting conflicts in what
- [00:08:22.688]we were observing. There is a consistent chunk of layers
- [00:08:28.107]until around halfway through the part
- [00:08:31.140]or about 5 millimeters down from the surface
- [00:08:33.523]when suddenly we had a substantial spike in energy consumed per layer.
- [00:08:37.473]It does still observe the trend of increase from left to right
- [00:08:42.924]which we hypothesized would continue to decrease
- [00:08:46.524]as it moved from the middle toward the other edge
- [00:08:49.726]of the part.
- [00:08:51.726]And then again we have the same map
- [00:08:54.110]but of a hybrid sample.
- [00:08:56.994]This does confirm our conclusions from the wrought sample,
- [00:09:01.328]which was comforting after the irregular data of the
- [00:09:04.696]as-printed sample, and again you can see the trend
- [00:09:07.612]from left to right and from top to bottom of the sample
- [00:09:10.646]that the energy increases towards the central bottom of the part.
- [00:09:14.681]Here is that data compared side by side and
- [00:09:18.940]normalized for color; you can see that the hybrid and wrought
- [00:09:24.419]samples displayed that trend while the as-printed
- [00:09:27.667]had a top to bottom increase in energy consumed.
- [00:09:31.454]But, all of them showed a general trend to increase
- [00:09:38.405]in net specific cutting energy per layer
- [00:09:41.889]as the distance from the surface increased,
- [00:09:44.104]which was an encouraging conclusion for us.
- [00:09:46.573]Again, this is the trends in microhardness
- [00:09:50.489]compared to the trends in NCSE;
- [00:09:53.490]There were less obvious conclusions from this one,
- [00:09:59.707]but again the hybrid does consume more energy
- [00:10:03.090]than the as-printed, other than in a couple spots,
- [00:10:06.409]but this 5.5 and 6 mm distance from the surface
- [00:10:11.160]on the as-printed part on the bottom graph
- [00:10:13.393]corresponds to where we can see the spike
- [00:10:17.094]in the as-printed energy consumed color chart here,
- [00:10:21.344]in the center of that red column,
- [00:10:24.612]which is an encouraging data point
- [00:10:27.396]because it reinforces our conclusion that microhardness
- [00:10:31.693]and energy consumed during when milling a part
- [00:10:35.128]are connected.
- [00:10:37.093]Here are our conclusions;
- [00:10:38.476]the hybrid sample consumed more energy overall;
- [00:10:41.970]the energy consumption tended to increase per layer
- [00:10:44.405]from top to bottom in hybrid and wrought samples
- [00:10:46.723]but peaked in the middle of the build, or 5 to 5.5 millimeters
- [00:10:52.157]from the surface in the as-printed sample,
- [00:10:55.173]and the microhardness, as I mentioned,
- [00:10:57.081]does show a loose correlation to the NCSE.
- [00:10:58.908]And here are our resources.
- [00:11:02.575]Thank you!
The screen size you are trying to search captions on is too small!
You can always jump over to MediaHub and check it out there.
Log in to post comments
Embed
Copy the following code into your page
HTML
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%; overflow: hidden; position:relative; -webkit-box-flex: 1; flex-grow: 1;"> <iframe style="bottom: 0; left: 0; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; border: 0; height: 100%; width: 100%;" src="https://mediahub.unl.edu/media/13999?format=iframe&autoplay=0" title="Video Player: UCARE Summer Symposium Presentation" allowfullscreen ></iframe> </div>
Comments
0 Comments