We recently published a linkedin post asking metal Additive Manufacturing (AM) enthusiasts their opinion about three Part-Support configurations (A, B, or C) for a dental structure and which configuration would show the least post-manufacturing deformation/warping upon Building-plate and Support removal. The process was LPBF, the material: 316L, with some important machine parameters: 175W, 700mm/s, and without heat treatment.
Part-Support configurations variants A, B, and C (from left to right) for a dental structure.
It is important to note that a comprehensive assessment of the "best" AM configuration requires considering not only deformation and warping but also several other factors, which we address below in this article. However, to rate the configurations, we solely examined the maximum displacement after the removal of the Building-plate and Support structures.
We performed a metal AM process simulation via the Inherent Strain Method and concluded that the correct answer is configuration A, followed by C, and then B. The A configuration shows the least local deformations as well as the least overall global deformations.
Displacement results upon Building-plate and Support removal without heat treatment of the variants A, B, and C (from left to right).
We counted the answers from the poll of this post and concluded the following distribution in answers:
51% voted for A, 29% voted for B, and 20% voted for C, thus a majority guessed the correct answer and identified the Part-Support configuration A as the one showing the least deformation. (Note: the votes were counted on June/6/2024)
The figure below shows an animated clip of the exaggerated distortions (x5) of the simulated designs vs. their original, undeformed shapes:
Animated clip of the exaggerated distortions (x5) of the simulated designs vs. their original, undeformed shapes.
Addressing the noteworthy comments made during the poll:
AM Process Efficiency and Build Height: Several comments noted the benefits of configuration B regarding build height. Lower build heights can minimize manufacturing time and cost. Although B showed the largest displacements, its proximity to the Building-plate aids in managing thermal flow, potentially improving part strength and durability—critical for dental applications.
Utilization of Supports: A conservative Support generation strategy was used, resulting in robust Supports. However, refining this strategy could reduce Support volume without compromising structural integrity.
Process Parameters: Different machine process parameters can influence the final outcome. While variations in process parameters might induce localized and global displacement changes, the overall trends in deformation and warping are expected to remain consistent. Notably, dimensional accuracy is typically higher in-plane (xy plane) than in the build direction.
Experimental Validation: Our study was based solely on simulations. Experimental validation is necessary to confirm these results.
Alternative Orientation: Users suggested a rotation around the X-axis for configuration A to create a combination between A and C. While this variation showed larger deformations than the original A configuration, results could vary with different Support strategies.
Displacement results upon Building-plate and Support removal with a different orientation.
We thank all participants for their insightful comments and engagement. Configuration A was identified as the optimal choice based on our simulation results, demonstrating the least deformation upon removal of Supports and Building-plate.
We welcome further discussions and inquiries at info@additive-lab.com.
Kommentare