Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM) has been subjected to increased investment by industry and academia alike for its many advantages, including possible component complexity, vast array of processing materials and automation capabilities. However, AM too displays unavoidable hindrances, with residual stresses and dimensional distortions among them. Motivated by the need to minimise processing costs, many commercial software packages have been developed with the aim of providing predictions of component’s distortions and residual stresses. The aim of this paper is to evaluate two different commercially available codes to simulate the printing of two distinct components that differ in geometry, material and process parameters by compare the simulation’s output with experimental data.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
