PSI - Issue 34

J. Gil et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 34 (2021) 6–12

11

6

J. Gil et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

Approach #1 Approach #2 Experimental

Approach #1 Approach #2 Experimental

200

200

0

0

− 200

− 200

σ xx (MPa)

σ yy (MPa)

− 400

− 400

0

20

40

0

20

40

60

60

x (mm)

x (mm)

Fig. 6. Longitudinal stress in the bridge’s top face.

Fig. 7. Transverse stress in the bridge’s top face.

Approach #1 Approach #2 Experimental

1 . 5

1

u zz (mm)

0 . 5

0

0

20

40

60

Fig. 9. Vertical displacement field simulated by approach #1 (top) and approach #2 (bottom) after leg removal.

x (mm)

Fig. 8. Vertical deflection values measured in the ledges of the bench mark bridge.

field that developed during the printing process. As aforementioned, physically, this procedure was done through WEDM, by removing material alongside the baseplate (with a 0 . 1 mm gap) until the component was solely fixed in one extremity. Both experimental and simulated results are found in Figure 8, and the displacement field shown in Figure 9.

5. Conclusion

It was found that the possibility of simulating the scanning strategy is crucial, specially in complex components; the simulation of the prism’s residual stresses showed that approach #1 resulted in an average error of 213 . 98%, while approach #2 displayed an average error of 62 . 12% in simulating the longitudinal stresses σ xx at the top of the prism. In the benchmark bridge, approach #2 predicted the residual stress σ xx with an error of 11 . 59% within the 25 ≤ x ≤ 50 mm interval. Lastly, the deflection analysis was shown to be satisfactory for approach #2, albeit with a 46% di ff erence in the initial measurement. The average error across measurements was of 26 . 69%.

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the funding of his PhD scholarship with the reference UI / BD / 150684 / 2021 funded by FCT, and the project with reference LAETA – UIDB / 50022 / 2020 and UIDP / 50022 / 2020 by FCT as well. The