Abstract
Due to the great technological growth, 3D printing is becoming of great relevance within the automotive, aerospace and even medicine sectors. With this manufacturing method, parts with a complex geometry can be manufacture with considerable time and material savings compared to traditional processes such as machining. However, additive manufacturing processes still have a series of unresolved problems. Present work makes a comparison between AISI 316-L samples obtained by Selective Laser Melting technique and Dry Machining. The comparison is focus in properties mainly relevant in the industrial sectors highlighted. Macro and microgeometrical deviations, such as roughness, roundness and straightness are obtained in each case study and compared. Results show that, although for the printed samples the material deposition direction plays a fundamental role, being the horizontal samples the ones with better results due to the direction of the layers, the machining process is the one with significant better results compared to the 3D printing process. After the macro and microgeometrical deviations measurements, all samples were subjected to a rotational bending fatigue test for a mechanical behaviour study. As expected, the mechanized specimens have a better fatigue behaviour due to the better surface finish, among other aspects. Between the additive manufactured specimens, the vertical is the one that presents a better behaviour due to the transverse orientation of the deposited layers.
Highlights
Additive manufacturing has suffered a great boom, reaching high precision and detail in the parts generated and being implemented in different industrial sectors [1]
An important fact when assessing fatigue behavior is the analysis of the crack growth
The best performance obtained in the mechanized specimens is mainly due to the fact that the crack growth is hindered by the orientation of the material grains, while in the 3D printed specimens, growth is favored due to the material deposition by layers
Summary
Additive manufacturing has suffered a great boom, reaching high precision and detail in the parts generated and being implemented in different industrial sectors [1]. The incorporation of materials of different nature is feasible thanks to the enormous development of the technique, like composite and metallic materials [2]. Even though 3D printing offers the possibility to manufacture complex geometry parts or even parts impossible to elaborate by any other manufacturing process, it presents clear disadvantages compared to those obtained through the traditional manufacturing processes mentioned. The main objective is to compare the dimensional accuracy at a micro‐geometric level (surface roughness), as well as comparing the mechanical behaviour (fatigue by rotating bending) obtained in metal parts manufactured by machining and additive manufacturing processes
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
