Page 100 - MSAM-2-3
P. 100

Materials Science in Additive Manufacturing                        Validation of a novel ML model for AM-PSP



            with the associated residual stresses . According to the   The near-surface  residual  stress from eight materials
                                         [85]
            previous study, the presence of shear stresses is indicated   is shown in Table 4. Along the build direction, the DED
            by splitting in the d-spacing-sin Ψ plot . Therefore, a   sample shows larger compressive and shear stresses in the
                                       2
                                             [86]
            regression analysis was used to calculate the principal   Z direction. L-PBF-AM sample shows large compressive
            stresses of each specimen.                         stress in the Y direction. On the top layers, both the
                                                               EB-PBF and DED samples show large compressive stress
            2.2.3. EBSD data extraction                        in the Y direction but minimal stress in the Z direction.
            For  constructing  the  valid  PSP  linkages  among  AM   L-PBF heat-treated sample shows massive tensile stress on
            Ti-6Al-4V, the Schmid and Taylor models were utilized   top layers in the Y direction and compressive stress in the
            in this study. For feature extraction from EBSD data,   Z direction, while the as-AM L-PBF sample shows a small
            the Schmid Factors (SFs) were calculated from different   stress value on the top region.
            specimens based on three main slip systems, and Taylor   The ratio of critical resolved shear stress (CRSS) applied
            Factors (TFs) were calculated based on three different   to the Schmid model on basal, prismatic, and first-order
            strain rate conditions.                            pyramidal slip systems is 1:0.7:3 [88,89] . In the Taylor model,
                                                               considering the milling process, the deformation strain
            2.3. Machining experiment and specific cutting energy  (DS) was expressed as a pure shear strain component and a
            The machining experiment was performed on a Haas   rotation component in Equation I:
            VF2SS vertical CNC center. The cutting tools selected
            for the experiments were 6.35  mm (1/4 inch) nominal      0  0  ε     0  0  ε     
            diameter six flute carbide end mills with KC635M TiAlN        2          2  
            coating (Model HPFT250S6075).                      DS =  0  0  0   +  0  0  0              (I)
                                                                    ε         ε       
              Three levels of machining parameters selected for the     0  0   −  0  0  
            machining experiments are shown in Table 3. As described    2    2        
            above, two feed directions, XY and XZ, which are vertical   For milling machining conditions, a generalized
            and parallel to the build orientation, were utilized in the   deformation strain form was applied to the Taylor model.
            experiment for EB-PBF, as-AM L-PBF, heat-treated L-PBF,   For each surface, three replicate EBSD samples were
            and DED specimens.                                 collected as the representative data, as shown in Table 5,
              Specific cutting energy for each path was calculated   which presents the average values of the SFs and TFs on
            based on our cutting force model.                  each surface under different strain rates.
            3. Results                                         3.2. Ti-6Al-4V machining behavior

            3.1. Material microstructure representation        The results from the Taguchi experiment, the specific
                                                               cutting energy analyses, are shown in  Figures  7  and  8.
            In this study, 200 microstructure statistical volume elements   The  ANOVA results  in  Table  6  indicate  the  P-values
            (SVEs) are used to represent each AM Ti-6Al-4V sample   for material, feed, and speed are <0.05, which shows a
            level (L-PBF XY HT, L-PBF XZ HT, L-PBF XY NHT, L-PBF   significant  impact  on  specific  cutting  energy.  The  depth
            XZ NHT, EB-PBF XY, EB-PBF, DED XY, and DED XZ),    of cut and material interaction shows a significant effect
            as shown in  Figure  6. In SVEs, the influence coefficient   on specific cutting energy. As previous research shows, the
            decayed to around zero within a ~210 μm region . After   specific cutting energy has a significant difference among
                                                   [87]
            SEM feature extraction and PCA, the number of dimensions   L-PBF Ti-6Al-4V, and the DED Ti-6Al-4V also proved that
            was reduced from over 3000 initially to 238 as the PCA   the AM processes significantly affect machining behavior.
            cumulative variance approaches >99%. This is critical for   From the interaction plot, the DED-specific cutting
            developing an SP linkage model that is both computationally   energy decreases as the depth of cut increases, which show
            feasible and accurate in predicting material response.
                                                               that the thermal softening phenomenon dominates the
                                                               machining response in DED parts, which has been observed
            Table 3. Machining parameters                      in the machining of titanium with coarser grains [93-95] .

            Levels                1          2         3       3.3. Process-structure-property linkages testing and
            Depth of cut (mm)   0.6350     1.270      1.905    validation
            Feed (mm per tooth)  0.0127    0.0254     0.0381   For each data sample, features include 238 principal
            Speed (m per min)   24.384     36.576     48.768   components, three residual stress, 9 SFs, 9  TFs, and  three


            Volume 2 Issue 3 (2023)                         8                       https://doi.org/10.36922/msam.0999
   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105