PSI - Issue 42

Harry O. Psihoyos et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 42 (2022) 299–306 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

303

5

4. Results andDiscussion 4.1. Comparisonbetween themodels of thedifferent mesh strategies

Fig. 4 and 5 present the displacement fields of the models based on the threemeshing strategies and the comparison between thenumerical results of themodels and the experimentalmeasurements for thevaria tionof the residual strains a long the line a t z = 9.75 mm and z = 2.25 mm, respectively. The predicted results of a ll models present small discrepancies between them and followthe trendingof the experimentalmeasurements. The difference in magnitude between the experimental andnumerical results can bea ttributed to themain assumption of theuniformheat input of the thermomechanicalmodellingapproach.With the gradualmeltingof the super layer to the melting temperature of ma terial, the evolution of temperature fields in the build directioncanbe accountedbut thex - and y- components of the temperature gradients are not considered. Thus, it can significantly affect the accuracy of the presented methodology especially for the thick regions of a part, where temperature fields might not present homogeneity, as the effect of laser scan pattern is more profound.

Fig. 4. Deformation fields of IN625 cantilever beam for the models of (a) uniform cartesian, (b) cartesian with projection factor and (c) layered tetrahedral meshing strategy.