Robust Spot Melting by 3D Spot Arrangements in Electron Beam Powder Bed Fusion
Source abstract
Abstract
In order to increase the productivity of the build process in electron beam powder bed fusion via spot melting, higher beam powers with larger melt spot sizes are commonly used. While these process modifications can improve productivity, they also lead to a coarser representation of the part's geometry. The current state‐of‐the‐art countermeasure is to split the melt area into an infill area and a contour area. However, the split‐up introduces challenges, such as an increased energy input, a transition area prone to defects, and the need for separate contour parameters. The proposed spot arrangements decouple boundary spots from the fixed lattice and combine this with stacking, i.e., lateral displacements between successively melted layers. While stacking reduces the risk of porosity in the infill, it also allows the contour to be processed simultaneously with the infill using the same beam parameters, thereby eliminating the defect‐prone transition area. The benefits of the proposed approach are demonstrated on parts of varying complexity, supported by electron optical images, micrographs, and tactile roughness measurements.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · High-Temperature Coating Behaviors
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Chair of Materials Science and Engineering for Metals Friedrich‐Alexander‐Universität Erlangen‐Nürnberg Erlangen Germany
Pro‐beam additive GmbH Gilching Germany
Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.3390/jmmp909030310.3390/jmmp9090303 ↗
2. 10.1179/1743284715Y.000000005310.1179/1743284715Y.0000000053 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.addma.2022.10310310.1016/j.addma.2022.103103 ↗
4. 10.1007/s00170-023-11944-710.1007/s00170-023-11944-7 ↗
5. 10.1108/RPJ-10-2013-010210.1108/RPJ-10-2013-0102 ↗
6. 10.1007/s00170-020-05358-y10.1007/s00170-020-05358-y ↗
7. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2024.10851610.1016/j.ijfatigue.2024.108516 ↗
8. 10.3390/ma1010112110.3390/ma10101121 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.12.00710.1016/j.jmapro.2020.12.007 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.addma.2019.10101410.1016/j.addma.2019.101014 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.msea.2017.03.08510.1016/j.msea.2017.03.085 ↗
12. 10.1007/s00170-017-0375-110.1007/s00170-017-0375-1 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.05.00210.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.05.002 ↗
14. 10.1007/s40964‐025‐01255‐610.1007/s40964‐025‐01255‐6 ↗
15. 10.1007/s40964‐025‐01312‐010.1007/s40964‐025‐01312‐0 ↗
16. 10.1007/s40964‐025‐01251‐w10.1007/s40964‐025‐01251‐w ↗
17. A.Amigo “Generative Design F1 Brake Caliper 2018.
18. 10.1016/S0924-0136(02)00060-210.1016/S0924-0136(02)00060-2 ↗
19. A Threshold Selection Method from Gray‐Level Histograms
20. 10.7717/peerj.45310.7717/peerj.453 ↗
21. 10.1108/RPJ-02-2018-003410.1108/RPJ-02-2018-0034 ↗
22. 10.1007/s40964-022-00382-810.1007/s40964-022-00382-8 ↗
23. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung eV · 2010
24. 10.1088/2051-672X/acf67c10.1088/2051-672X/acf67c ↗
25. 10.1002/sca.495001010310.1002/sca.4950010103 ↗