Automation of Property Acquisition of Single Track Depositions Manufactured through Direct Energy Deposition
<p>Schematic representation of DED-produced line bead properties.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Powder morphology obtained through SEM and its size distribution calculated through DLS.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Developed algorithm’s flowchart: user inputs limited to first step.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Stages associated with the binarisation of the line bead and the substrate (line bead displayed equates to Track 1). Step 1 is the original image; Step 2 is the result of applying a Sauvola threshold to the original image; Step 3 is the result of denoising the sauvola threshold with a white top-hat filter and a disk structuring element of radius 1 px; Step 4 is the binarised image, in which the background has value of 1 and the foreground has values of 0. The scale in the original image (Step 1) was added in post-processing and was not part of the image during the image processing.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Frequency response pertaining to the sum of pixel values, by column, of the image belonging to track 33.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Operations associated with detecting the coordinate of the substrate’s interface with the background, for line bead 1 (the first derivative’s global minimum is one potential indicator of the substrate’s starting location).</p> "> Figure 7
<p>The detection of the bead’s limits through the interception of the normalised sum of pixel values with an established threshold (shown track equates to track 1).</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Determination of the penetration limit through the global maxima of the normalised sum of pixel values’ first derivative.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Influence of the height <span class="html-italic">r</span> considered when computing wettability angles (example shown pertains to track 1).</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Stages associated with the segmentation of the diluted zone (example shown corresponds to track 1).</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Parametrisation window overlayed with cross-section images of the produced beads: Lower ratios between the scanning speed and feeding rate lead to low dilution proportions and large wettability angles, while increased ratios lead to decreased bead heights.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>Examples of processed images with the elaborated algorithm (scale in pixels): the areas above and below the substrate are green and red, respectively; lines indicative of the width, height, substrate line, wettability angles and penetration limit are shown in blue. The images (<b>a</b>), (<b>b</b>), (<b>c</b>), (<b>d</b>), (<b>e</b>) and (<b>f</b>) are Tracks 1, 12, 32, 35, 41 an 56, respectively. Scale in the original image was added in post-processing and was not part of the image during the execution of the code.</p> "> Figure 13
<p>Comparison between the specific energy <span class="html-italic">E</span> and ratio between scanning speed and feeding rate <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>v</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msub> <mo>/</mo> <msub> <mi>f</mi> <mi>r</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> between the present work and other research: Yao et al. [<a href="#B29-applsci-12-02755" class="html-bibr">29</a>], Félix-Marínez et al. [<a href="#B28-applsci-12-02755" class="html-bibr">28</a>] and Amirabdollahian et al. [<a href="#B39-applsci-12-02755" class="html-bibr">39</a>]. The parameters shown by [<a href="#B28-applsci-12-02755" class="html-bibr">28</a>] were optimised for dilution <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>≥</mo> <mn>10</mn> <mo>%</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and the work by Yao et al. [<a href="#B29-applsci-12-02755" class="html-bibr">29</a>] where the parameters resulted in a specimen with the largest tensile strength.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. DED Setup
2.2. Depositions
2.2.1. Powder and Substrate
2.2.2. Process Parameters’ Optimisation
- Ideal outputs established according to three characteristics: the ideal dilution values were set between 10% and 30% [12,37], as very low percentages lead to detached lines while larger values may result in worse claddings [38]; optimised wettability angles were established to be between 50 and 70º, as decreased wettability angles are associated with increased oxidation [3] and increased angles worsen overlapping beads while depositing three dimensional objects [38]; parameters that lead to the reduction of defects inherent to DED, such as pores, cracking and keyhole porosities.
- Literature review: reviewed articles [27,28,39] suggest depositing lines, planes and/or specimens while maintaining energy densities above 65 , motivating an initial iteration orthogonal experiment L9 ( Taguchi array) between the three most relevant parameters, namely the laser power P, scanning speed and feeding rate . This DOE varied the energy density between and the ratio between the scanning speed and feeding rate by .
- Three additional L9 orthogonal arrays were deposited, whose parameter amplitude is expanded in Table 3.
- The shielding gas flow, carrier gas flow and distance to substrate were varied following a L9 orthogonal array, for the same laser speed, feeding rate and scanning speed that had generated the best outputs, according to the established metrics of wettability, dilution proportion and defects.
2.2.3. Image Acquisition
2.3. Algorithm Workflow
2.3.1. Reading Inputs
2.3.2. Sauvola Threshold and Binarisation
2.3.3. Array Filtering
2.3.4. Substrate Identification
2.3.5. Left and Right Limits
2.3.6. Penetration Limit Identification
2.3.7. Wettability Angles
2.3.8. Areas
- The image is cropped to the diluted zone, which is delimited by the bead’s thickness, the substrate line and the penetration limit.
- The contrast of the image is adjusted via Gamma correction—adjust_gamma function—with a gamma value of 3.
- The image is equalised—equalize_hist function.
- The sum of all pixel values by column is computed;.
- The resulting numerical values are mapped to the image, removing the pixel values whose coordinates lie below the mapped function.
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- Track beads were successfully produced and analysed with a minimal presence of pores and defects: the optimised parameters consisted of a ratio between the laser power P and laser spot diameter of 750 , a ratio between the scanning speed and feeding rate of , a shielding gas flow of either 25 or 30 , depending on whether the application was cladding-based or component-based, carrier gas flow rate of 4 and a laser stand-off distance of 12 mm.
- A functioning tool capable of analysing single track depositions by identifying the substrate, areas above and below the substrate, the height, width, penetration and wettability angles were successfully built with an average analysis time per bead of . While this amount of time is considerable, it is worth mentioning that this is an improvement on the time it would take a human being to perform equal tasks, especially considering a large batch of images, such as presented in this work.
- Width and height properties were ascertained with errors of and , respectively.
- The area above the substrate and area below the substrate were computed, displaying errors of and , respectively. The increase in error of the area below the substrate when compared to remaining outputs lies in the less pronounced contrast between the diluted zone and the substrate when compared to the contrast between the foreground and the background of the image.
- Dilution proportion values were computed with an average error of , and with line beads whose dilution zone was smaller displayed worse accuracy.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
MAM | Metallic additive manufacturing |
DED | Direct energy deposition |
wDED | Wire direct energy deposition |
OM | Optical microscopy |
FGMs | Functionally graded materials |
DLS | Dynamic light scattering |
DOE | Design of experiment |
SEM | Scanning electron microscopy |
References
- Gibson, I.; Stucker, B.; Rosen, D. Additive Manufacturing Technologies, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 245–249. [Google Scholar]
- Thompon, S.; Bin, L.; Shamsaei, N.; Yaadollaahi, A. An Overview of Direct Laser Deposition for Additive Manufacturing; Part I: Transport Phenomena, Modeling and Diagnostics. Addit. Manuf. 2015, 8, 36–62. [Google Scholar]
- Toyserkani, E.; Khajepour, A.; Corbin, S. Laser Cladding, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; pp. 53–63. [Google Scholar]
- Barroqueiro, B.; Andrade-Campos, A.; Valente, R.A.F.; Neto, V. Metal Additive Manufacturing Cycle in Aerospace Industry: A Comprehensive Review. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2019, 3, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hedges, M.; Caler, N. Near net shape rapid manufacture & repair by LENS. In Cost Effective Manufacturing via Net-Shape Process; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Herbert, R.J. Viewpoint: Metallurgical aspects of powder bed metal additive manufacturing. J. Mater. Sci. 2016, 51, 1165–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khorasani, M.; Ghasemi, A.H.; Rolfe, B.; Gibson, I. Additive manufacturing, a powerful tool for the aerospace industry. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2022, 28, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aufa, A.N.; Hassan, M.Z.; Ismail, Z. Recent advances in Ti-6Al-4V additively manufactured by selective laser melting for biomedical implants: Prospect development. J. Alloys Compd. 2022, 896, 163072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, L.; Vilar, R. Laser powder deposition. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2009, 15, 264–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weisheit, A.; Gasser, A.; Backes, G.; Jambor, T.; Pirch, N.; Wissenbach, K. Direct laser cladding, current status and future scope of application. Laser Assist. Fabr. Mater. 2012, 161, 221–240. [Google Scholar]
- Kahlen, F.; Kar, A. Tensile Strengths for Laser-Fabricated Parts and Similarity Parameters for Rapid Manufacturing. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2000, 123, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, A.; Amaral, R.; Romio, P.; Cruz, J.; Reis, A.; Vieira, M. Deposition of nickel-based superalloy claddings on low alloy structural steel by direct energy deposition. Metals 2021, 11, 1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein Fiorentin, F.; Maciel, D.; Gil, J.; Figueiredo, M.; Berto, F.; de Jesus, A. Fatigue Assessment of Inconel 625 Produced by Directed Energy Deposition from Miniaturized Specimens. Metals 2022, 12, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jinoop, A.N.; Paul, C.P.; Mishra, S.K.; Bindra, K.S. Laser Additive Manufacturing using directed energy deposition of Inconel-718 wall structures ith tailored characteristics. Vacuum 2019, 166, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ascari, A.; Lutey, A.H.A.; Liverani, E.; Fortunato, A. Laser Directed Energy Deposition of Bulk 316L Stainless Steel. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2020, 7, 426–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imran, M.K.; Masood, S.H.; Brandt, M.; Bhattachrya, S.; Mazumder, J. Direct metal deposition (DMD) of H13 tool steel on copper alloy substrate: Evaluation of mechanical properties. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2010, 528, 3342–3349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, L.; Chen, Y.; Liou, F. Additive manufacturing of functionally graded metallic materials using laser metal deposition. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 31, 100901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linares, J.-M.; Chaves-Jacob, J.; Lopez, Q.; Sprauel, J.-M. Fatigue life optimization for 17-4Ph steel produced by selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nespoli, A.; Bennato, N.; Villa, E.; Passaretti, F. Study of anisotropy through microscopy, internal friction and electrical resistivity measurements of Ti-6Al-4V samples fabricated by selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, H.M.; Waqar, S.; Koç, E. Evolution of temperature and residual stress behavior in selective laser melting of 316L stainless steel across a cooling channel. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macoretta, G.; Monelli, B.D. SLM process parameters effects on the fatigue strength of AMed Inconel 718. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2022, 37, 632–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Abbara, E.M.; Jiang, D.; Azizi, A.; Poliks, M.D.; Ning, F. High-cycle fatigue properties of curved-surface AlSi10Mg parts fabricated by powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llewellyn, D.; Hudd, R. Steels: Metallurgy & Applications, 3rd ed.; Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1998; pp. 199–290. ISBN 978-0-7506-3757-2. [Google Scholar]
- Padial, A.G.F.; Monteiro, W.A.; Paes de Andrade, A.H.; Rigo, O.D. Microstructural analysis of 400 grade maraging steel after thermomechanical treatment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Processing and Manufacturing of Advanced Materials, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 4–8 December 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Bhadeshia, H.; Honeycombe, R. 9—Tempering of Martensite. In Steels: Microstructure and Properties; Kent, C., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 237–270. [Google Scholar]
- Mutua, J.; Nakata, S.; Onda, T.; Chen, Z.-C. Optimization of selective laser melting parameters and influence of post heat treatment on microstructure and mechanical properties of maraging steel. Mater. Des. 2018, 139, 486–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, B.; Huang, Y.; Gu, T.; Tan, C.; Feng, J. Investigation on the process and microstructure evolution during direct laser metal deposition of 18Ni300. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2018, 24, 964–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Félix-Martinez, C.; Ibarra-Meddina, J.; Fernández-Benavides, D.A.; Cáceres-Díaz, L.A.; Alvarado-Orozco, J.M. Effect of the parametric optimization and heat-treatment on the 18Ni-300 maraging steel microstructural properties manufactured by directed energy deposition. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2021, 115, 3999–4020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, Y.; Huang, Y.; Chen, B.; Tan, C.; Su, Y.; Feng, J. Influence of processing parameters and heat treatment on the mechanical properties of 18Ni300 manufactured by laser based directed energy deposition. Opt. Laser Technol. 2018, 105, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandey, S.; Srivastava, R.; Narain, R. Study on the effect of powder feed rate on direct metal deposition layer of precipitation hardened steel. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 26, 2272–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veiga, F.; Suarez, A.; Aldalur, E.; Artaza, T. Wire arc additive manufacturing of invar parts: Bead geometry and melt pool monitoring. Measurement 2021, 189, 110452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Shen, W.; Suresh, V.; Hamilton, J.; Yeh, L.; Jiang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Li, Q.; Li, B.; Rivero, I.V.; et al. In-Situ monitoring of Direct Energy Deposition via Structured Light System and its application in remanufacturing industry. Procedia Manuf. 2021, 53, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ertay, D.S.; Naiel, M.A.; Vlasea, M.; Fieguth, P. Process performance evaluration and classification via in-situ melt pool monitoring in directed energy deposition. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2021, 35, 298–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Walt, S.; Schönberger, J.L.; Nunez-Iglesias, J.; Boulogne, F.; Warner, J.D.; Yager, N.; Gouillart, E.; Yu, T. The Scikit-Image Contributors. Scikit-Image Image Processing Python. PeerJ 2014, 2, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Böhler AMPO: Additive Manufacturing Powder. Available online: https://www.bohler-edelstahl.com/app/uploads/sites/92/2021/06/productdb/api/st036en_additive-manufacturing-powder.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2022).
- Uddeholm Orvar 2M. Available online: https://www.ramada.pt/pt/produtos/acos/aa-os-para-ferramentas-de-trabalho-a-quente/orvar-2m-.html (accessed on 16 December 2021).
- Dass, A.; Moridi, A. State of the Art in Directed Energy Deposition: From additive manufacturing to materials design. Coatings 2019, 9, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Oliveira, U.; Ocelík, V.; De Hosson, J.T.M. Analysis of coaxial laser cladding processing conditions. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2005, 197, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amirabdollahian, S.; Deirmina, F.; Harris, L.; Siriki, R.; Pellizzari, M.; Bosetti, P.; Molinari, A. Towards controlling intrinsic heat treatment of maraging steel during laser directed energy deposition. Scr. Mater. 2021, 201, 113973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eo, D.R.; Park, S.H.; Cho, J.W. Controlling inclusion evolution behaviour by adjusting flow rate of shielding gas during direct energy deposition of AISI 316L. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 33, 101119. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, A.K.; Bal, K.S.; Dey, D.; Das, A.K.; Pal, A.R.; Pratihar, D.K.; Choudhury, A.R. Experimental investigation and parametric optimization for minimization of dilution during direct laser metal deposition of tungsten carbide and cobalt powder mixture on SS304 substrate. Powder Technol. 2021, 390, 339–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalaee, M.; Cerruti, E.; Dey, I.; Leinenbach, C.; Wegener, K. Parameters Development for Optimum Deposition Rate in Laser DMD of Stainless Steel EN X3CrNiMo13-4. Lasers Manuf. Mater. Process. 2021, 8, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chemical Composition [%] | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H13 | Cr | Mo | Mn | P | C | Si | V | Fe |
Nominal | 4.80–5.50 | 1.20–1.50 | 0.25–0.50 | ≤0.03 | 0.35–0.42 | 0.80–1.20 | 0.85–1.15 | Bal. |
Measured | 5.23 | 1.12 | 0.37 | 0.01 | 0.40 | 0.87 | 0.74 | Bal. |
Track | Input Parameters | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[W] | [mm s] | [g min] | [L min] | [L min] | [mm] | [mm] | |
1 | 1250 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 25 | 4 | 11.5 | 2.1 |
2 | 1250 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 25 | 4 | 11.5 | 2.1 |
6 | 1500 | 9.0 | 10.0 | 25 | 4 | 11.5 | 2.1 |
7 | 1500 | 3.0 | 15.0 | 25 | 4 | 11.5 | 2.1 |
10 | 1750 | 6.0 | 15.0 | 25 | 4 | 11.5 | 2.1 |
12 | 1250 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 25 | 4 | 11.5 | 2.1 |
16 | 1400 | 6.0 | 12.0 | 25 | 4 | 11.5 | 2.1 |
32 | 1550 | 3.5 | 12.0 | 25 | 4 | 11.5 | 2.1 |
33 | 1550 | 14.0 | 12.0 | 25 | 4 | 11.5 | 2.1 |
35 | 1400 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 30 | 4 | 11.5 | 2.1 |
38 | 1250 | 3.0 | 7.5 | 25 | 4 | 11.5 | 2.1 |
41 | 1250 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 25 | 4 | 11.5 | 2.1 |
50 | 1550 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 20 | 4 | 12.0 | 2.1 |
56 | 1550 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 30 | 4 | 13.0 | 2.1 |
Parameter | DOEs | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | |
Laser Power () | 1500 | 1400 | 1400 | 1400 | 1550 |
± | 250 | 150 | 150 | 150 | - |
Scanning Speed () | 6 | 6 | 9 | 3 | 12 |
± | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | - |
Feeding rate () | 10 | 10 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 12 |
± | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
Shielding gas () | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
± | - | - | - | - | 5 |
Carrier gas () | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
± | - | - | - | - | 1 |
Nozzle distance (mm) | 11.5 | 11.5 | 11.5 | 11.5 | 12 |
± | - | - | - | - | 1 |
Track | Output Parameters | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[mm] | [mm] | [mm] | [] | [] | [mm] | [mm] | [%] | |
1 | 3.35 | 1.06 | 1.43 | 60.55 | 63.65 | 2.52 | 3.47 | 57.96 |
2 | 2.80 | 0.60 | 0.66 | 51.38 | 44.16 | 1.16 | 1.28 | 52.34 |
6 | 2.74 | 0.96 | 0.91 | 110.86 | 84.12 | 2.12 | 1.56 | 42.41 |
7 | 2.53 | 2.46 | 0.63 | 109.38 | 116.26 | 5.63 | 0.86 | 13.23 |
10 | 2.77 | 2.64 | 1.00 | 95.84 | 99.01 | 5.85 | 1.57 | 21.14 |
12 | 3.75 | 0.88 | 1.29 | 41.28 | 50.71 | 3.22 | 3.14 | 49.42 |
16 | 2.06 | 1.58 | 0.97 | 95.35 | 96.24 | 2.69 | 1.37 | 33.68 |
32 | 2.64 | 2.38 | 0.34 | 111.54 | 102.57 | 5.25 | 0.48 | 8.30 |
33 | 2.77 | 1.03 | 0.81 | 63.28 | 65.48 | 2.15 | 1.38 | 39.07 |
35 | 3.02 | 1.23 | 0.52 | 74.93 | 53.47 | 2.67 | 0.81 | 23.32 |
38 | 3.20 | 0.97 | 1.85 | 71.12 | 39.36 | 2.48 | 4.52 | 64.55 |
41 | 2.21 | 1.27 | 1.25 | 80.65 | 73.67 | 2.54 | 2.18 | 46.19 |
50 | 3.26 | 1.32 | 0.77 | 64.47 | 63.91 | 2.73 | 1.24 | 31.27 |
56 | 2.89 | 1.26 | 0.76 | 71.44 | 47.68 | 2.51 | 1.19 | 32.24 |
Track | Output Parameters | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[mm] | [mm] | [mm] | [] | [] | [mm] | [mm] | [%] | |
1 | 3.38 | 1.06 | 1.43 | 56.86 | 56.17 | 2.64 | 3.57 | 57.51 |
2 | 2.72 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 49.28 | 38.01 | 1.16 | 1.28 | 52.56 |
6 | 2.84 | 1.03 | 0.89 | 74.44 | 62.88 | 2.10 | 1.70 | 44.79 |
7 | 2.62 | 2.43 | 0.69 | 100.28 | 102.6 | 5.61 | 1.32 | 19.03 |
10 | 2.81 | 2.54 | 1.04 | 98.36 | 104.22 | 5.67 | 2.06 | 26.65 |
12 | 3.57 | 0.94 | 1.20 | 49.44 | 61.68 | 2.54 | 2.90 | 53.35 |
16 | 2.13 | 1.57 | 0.98 | 84.74 | 83.13 | 2.78 | 1.58 | 36.24 |
32 | 2.63 | 2.51 | 0.17 | 114.43 | 167.87 | 5.73 | 0.29 | 4.74 |
33 | 2.78 | 0.98 | 0.80 | 66.90 | 56.99 | 2.14 | 1.53 | 41.68 |
35 | 3.05 | 1.28 | 0.32 | 74.25 | 52.98 | 2.77 | 0.71 | 20.32 |
38 | 3.27 | 0.96 | 1.86 | 64.20 | 37.01 | 2.16 | 4.98 | 69.69 |
41 | 2.29 | 1.33 | 1.32 | 103.45 | 71.24 | 2.46 | 2.40 | 49.43 |
50 | 3.04 | 1.23 | 0.78 | 56.83 | 44.59 | 2.62 | 1.72 | 39.60 |
56 | 2.96 | 1.29 | 0.70 | 66.00 | 47.66 | 2.65 | 1.30 | 32.87 |
Track | Output Parameters’ Errors | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[%] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [%] | |
1 | 1.04 | 0.34 | 0.06 | 6.08 | 11.76 | 4.78 | 2.87 | 0.78 |
2 | 3.02 | 8.81 | 3.05 | 4.08 | 13.93 | 0.70 | 0.16 | 0.41 |
6 | 3.76 | 6.53 | 2.00 | 32.85 | 25.25 | 1.24 | 8.81 | 5.62 |
7 | 3.40 | 1.31 | 10.00 | 8.31 | 11.75 | 0.49 | 53.34 | 43.81 |
10 | 1.40 | 3.84 | 4.59 | 2.63 | 5.27 | 3.08 | 31.29 | 26.01 |
12 | 4.61 | 5.99 | 6.95 | 19.78 | 21.64 | 21.20 | 7.79 | 7.94 |
16 | 3.58 | 0.60 | 1.32 | 11.14 | 13.62 | 3.14 | 15.46 | 7.61 |
32 | 0.41 | 5.60 | 49.49 | 2.60 | 63.65 | 9.08 | 39.94 | 42.81 |
33 | 0.48 | 4.39 | 1.27 | 5.71 | 12.97 | 0.26 | 11.16 | 6.68 |
35 | 1.05 | 4.28 | 37.54 | 0.91 | 0.91 | 3.88 | 12.89 | 12.86 |
38 | 2.19 | 0.86 | 0.48 | 9.72 | 5.96 | 12.84 | 10.04 | 7.96 |
41 | 3.62 | 4.94 | 5.88 | 28.26 | 3.30 | 3.43 | 9.97 | 7.02 |
50 | 6.78 | 6.38 | 1.25 | 11.84 | 30.23 | 3.92 | 38.46 | 26.65 |
56 | 2.56 | 2.24 | 7.03 | 7.61 | 0.04 | 5.71 | 8.81 | 1.97 |
Average | 2.71 | 4.01 | 9.35 | 10.82 | 15.73 | 5.27 | 17.93 | 14.15 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gil, J.; de Jesus, A.; Silva, M.B.; Vaz, M.F.; Reis, A.; Tavares, J.M.R.S. Automation of Property Acquisition of Single Track Depositions Manufactured through Direct Energy Deposition. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2755. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052755
Gil J, de Jesus A, Silva MB, Vaz MF, Reis A, Tavares JMRS. Automation of Property Acquisition of Single Track Depositions Manufactured through Direct Energy Deposition. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(5):2755. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052755
Chicago/Turabian StyleGil, Jorge, Abílio de Jesus, Maria Beatriz Silva, Maria F. Vaz, Ana Reis, and João Manuel R. S. Tavares. 2022. "Automation of Property Acquisition of Single Track Depositions Manufactured through Direct Energy Deposition" Applied Sciences 12, no. 5: 2755. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052755