A Pneumatic Conveying Powder Delivery System For Continuously Heterogeneous Material Deposition In Solid Freeform Fabrication

by Shawn Fitzgerald

Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

APPROVED: _________________________________ Dr. Jan Helge Bhn, Chairman

______________________________ Dr. Arvid Myklebust

______________________________ Dr. Ronald Kander

July 1996 Blacksburg, Virginia

Keywords: Rapid Prototyping, Powder Deposition, Selective Laser Sintering, 3D Printing, Freeform Powder Molding

A Pneumatic Conveying Powder Delivery System For Continuously Heterogeneous Material Deposition In Solid Freeform Fabrication
by Shawn Fitzgerald Jan Helge Bhn, Chairman Department of Mechanical Engineering Great improvements are continuously being made in the solid freeform fabrication (SFF) industry in terms of processes and materials. Fully functional parts are being created directly with little, if any, finishing. Parts are being directly fabricated with engineering materials such as ceramics and metals. This thesis aims to facilitate a substantial advance in rapid prototyping capabilities, namely that of fabricating parts with continuously heterogeneous material compositions. Because SFF is an additive building process,

building parts layer-by-layer or even point-by-point, adjusting material composition throughout the entire part, in all three dimensions, is feasible. The use of fine powders as its build material provides the potential for the Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), ThreeDimensional Printing (3DP), and Freeform Powder Molding (FPM) processes to be altered to create continuously heterogeneous material composition. The current roller distribution system needs to be replaced with a new means of delivering the powder that facilitates selective heterogeneous material compositions. This thesis explores a densephase pneumatic conveying system that has the potential to deliver the powder in a controlled manner and allow for adjustment of material composition throughout the layer.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank: My family for all of their love, understanding, and monetary support. My friends for always being there when I wasnt doing work. Dr. Bhn for introducing me to rapid prototyping and all of his help. My committee members, Dr. Myklebust and Dr. Kander, for taking the and effort to provide assistance during the academic year and summer sessions. Scott Houser, for providing help whenever needed and being there to hear my complaints. The Virginia Tech CAD laboratory for providing the hardware and software needed in the design of the experimental apparatus. To everyone in the ME machine shops for helping me build the apparatus.

This research was supported in part by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division under contract N60921-89-D-A239, Order 0045. Any opinions, findings,

conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division.

iii

CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iii CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................vii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1 1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT..............................................................................6 1.2 SOLUTION OVERVIEW.................................................................................6 1.3 THESIS OVERVIEW........................................................................................8 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................10 2.1 SECONDARY SUPPORT MATERIALS.....................................................10 2.2 SECONDARY MICROSTRUCTURE MATERIALS..................................14 2.3 MATERIAL DEPOSITION..........................................................................17 2.4 PNEUMATIC CONVEYING........................................................................21 2.5 OBSERVATIONS .........................................................................................28 CHAPTER 3 METHODS.................................................................................................29 3.1 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS.................................................................29 3.1.1 POWDER PREPARATION & LOADING.....................................33 3.1.2 AIR HANDLING SYSTEM............................................................35

iv

3.1.3 MECHANIZED SLIDER COLLECTION SYSTEM......................41 3.2 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP.............................................................................45 3.2.1 ESTIMATING THE VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE.....................46 3.2.2 EVALUATING THE POWDER PATH CHARACTERISTICS....48 3.2.3 EXPLORING MULTIPLE POWDER DEPOSITION...................50 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................52 4.1 LINEAR VELOCITY EXPERIMENTS........................................................52 4.2 POWDER VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE....................................................57 4.3 POWDER PATH CHARACTERISTICS......................................................63 4.4 MULTIPLE POWDER MIXING..................................................................71 4.5 MULTIPLE MATERIAL TRANSITIONS..................................................75 4.6 OBSERVATIONS .........................................................................................76 CHAPTER 5 MULTIPLE POWDER DEPOSITION SYSTEM...................................78 5.1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................78 5.2: NOZZLE ARRAY AND POWDER DEPOSITION HEAD.......................80 5.3: MOTION SYSTEM......................................................................................83 5.4: POWDER PLUG CREATION & DELIVERY.............................................86 5.5: SOFTWARE & CONTROL..........................................................................89 5.6: POWDER PROPERTY EFFECTS...............................................................90 5.7: PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS.....................................................................92

5.8: DESIGN OVERVIEW....................................................................................93 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION........................................................................................96 6.1: CONCLUDING REMARKS........................................................................96 6.2: CONTRIBUTIONS.......................................................................................97 6.3: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK......................................98 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................101 APPENDIX A BILL OF MATERIALS FOR EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS .............................................................................106 APPENDIX B PARTS LIST FOR EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS .............................................................................107 APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWINGS OF EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS .............................................................................108 APPENDIX D SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWINGS OF PROPOSED SYSTEM ....................................................................................135 VITA ...............................................................................................................................140

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1: 1.2: 1.3: 1.4: 1.4: 2.1: 2.2: 2.3: 2.4: 2.5: 2.6: 2.7: 2.8: 3.1: 3.2: 3.3: 3.4: 3.5:

Typical Selective Laser Sintering system.................................................................3 Typical Three Dimensional Printing system...........................................................3 Freeform Powder Molding process..........................................................................4 Powder leveling system............................................................................................5 Schematic of experimental apparatus.......................................................................8 The Solid Ground Curing (SGC) process...............................................................11 FDM head dual-material nozzles...........................................................................12 Model Maker 3D Plotter.......................................................................................13 Possible methods for powder deposition...............................................................18 Internal secondary air pipe system........................................................................23 Plug formation using timer operated air knife........................................................24 Plug formation using alternating air valves.............................................................24 Flow pattern of plug phase conveying...................................................................26 Complete experimental apparatus..........................................................................30 Air handling and powder deposition components.................................................31 Mechanized slider collection components.............................................................31 Multiple plugs passing through parallel tubing system.........................................32 Loading of powder into polyurethane tubing........................................................35

vii

3.6: 3.7: 3.8: 3.9:

Powder plug moving through tubing......................................................................35 Main air line division by three port manifold........................................................36 Screw clamp operating as flow rate controller.......................................................37 Nozzle with supply tubing and connections.........................................................38

3.10: Nozzle and support stand......................................................................................39 3.11: Severe stair stepping in adjacent layers..................................................................40 3.12: Motor control circuit diagram................................................................................42 3.13: Motor and thread winding system.........................................................................43 3.14: Exploded slider collection system..........................................................................44 3.15: Potentiometer and calibration template..................................................................45 3.16: Parameters tested for deposition characteristics....................................................49 3.17: Deposited powder path characteristics evaluated..................................................49 4.1: 4.2: 4.3: 4.4: 4.5: 4.6: 4.7: 4.8: Output voltage vs. angular displacement of potentiometer...................................54 Velocity of slider system vs. motor input voltage.................................................56 Volumetric flow rate vs. powder plug lengths for a pressure of 34.5 kPa.............59 Volumetric flow rate vs. powder plug lengths for a pressure of 25.9 kPa.............60 Volumetric flow rate vs. powder plug lengths for a pressure of 17.2 kPa.............61 Actual powder path showing width and spread....................................................64 Powder deposition width vs. nozzle lengths.........................................................65 Powder deposition width vs. nozzle diameter.......................................................66

viii

4.9:

Powder deposition width vs. nozzle height...........................................................67

4.10: Powder deposition width vs. slider collection system speed................................68 4.11: Powder deposition width vs. air pressure..............................................................69 4.12: Default parameter setup, original image (a), annotated image (b)..........................72 4.13: Nozzle height of 7.0 mm, original image (a), annotated image (b)..........................73 4.14: Nozzle height of 9.0 mm, original image (a), annotated image (b)..........................73 4.15: Nozzle length of 10.0 mm, original image (a), annotated image (b)........................74 4.16: Nozzle diameter of 3.0 mm, original image (a), annotated image (b)...................74 4.17: Transition from red to green powder, original image (a), annotated image (b).....76 5.1: 5.2: 5.3: 5.4: 5.5: 5.6: 5.7: 5.8: 5.9: A.1: A.2: Multiple Powder Deposition system....................................................................79 Proposed deposition nozzle...................................................................................81 Nozzle array positioning........................................................................................82 Powder deposition head.........................................................................................83 Proposed motion system for the multiple powder deposition system.................85 Portion of motion pattern for powder deposition.................................................86 Powder plugs passing through tubing....................................................................87 Plug loading system, 1 of 54 required....................................................................87 Operation of proportioning valve for powder composition adjustment................89 Base board............................................................................................................109 Track groove........................................................................................................110

ix

A.3: A.4: A.5: A.6: A.7: A.8: A.9:

Main support stand.............................................................................................111 Main air line 1......................................................................................................112 Main air line 2......................................................................................................113 Luer fitting............................................................................................................114 Luer lock...............................................................................................................115 Middle tubing.......................................................................................................116 Screw clamp.........................................................................................................117

A.10: Reducer fitting......................................................................................................118 A.11: Teflon tubing........................................................................................................119 A.12: Straight micro-fitting............................................................................................120 A.13: Nozzle .................................................................................................................121 A.14: Nozzle support....................................................................................................122 A.15: Motor spool.........................................................................................................123 A.16: Circuit support.....................................................................................................124 A.17: Slider top ............................................................................................................125 A.18: Slider bottom........................................................................................................126 A.19: Adhesive surface..................................................................................................127 A.20: Eye hook..............................................................................................................128 A.21: Funnel ..................................................................................................................129 A.22: Layout of fixtures attached to base board...........................................................130

A.23: Layout of fixtures attached to main support.......................................................131 A.24: Exploded manifold assembly................................................................................132 A.25: Exploded nozzle assembly...................................................................................133 A.26: Exploded motor assembly....................................................................................134 A.27: Powder print head................................................................................................136 A.28: Proposed nozzle...................................................................................................137 A.29: Motion system.....................................................................................................138 A.30: Powder loading system........................................................................................139

xi

LIST OF TABLES

3.1: 4.1: 4.2: 4.3: 4.4:

Laserlite LPC3000 polycarbonate properties....................................................34 Output voltage for potentiometer angular displacement increments.....................54 Time measurements for calibrated motor input voltage.........................................55 Linear velocity of slider collection for calibrated motor input voltages.................56 Deposited powder length for air pressure of 34.5 kPa and a linear velocity of 192 mm/s............................................................................................................59

4.5: 4.6:

Volumetric flow rate for an air pressure of 34.5 kPa.............................................59 Deposited powder length for air pressure of 25.9 kPa and a linear velocity of 192 mm/s............................................................................................................60

4.7: 4.8:

Volumetric flow rate for an air pressure of 25.9 kPa.............................................60 Deposited powder length for air pressure of 17.2 kPa and a linear velocity of 192 mm/s............................................................................................................61

4.9: .10:

Volumetric flow rate for an air pressure of 17.2 kPa.............................................61 Default parameter values........................................................................................64

4.11: Powder path width and spread for various nozzle lengths....................................65 4.12: Powder path width and spread for various nozzle diameters................................66 4.13: Powder path width and spread for various nozzle heights....................................67 4.14: Powder path width and spread for various slider collection system speeds.........68

xii

4.15: Powder path width and spread for various air pressures......................................69 5.1: 5.2: 5.3: Laserlite LN4010 nylon compound properties.................................................91 Laserlite LNF5000 nylon compound properties...............................................91 Laserlite LWX2010 wax compound properties.................................................92

xiii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Solid freeform fabrication (SFF) is a set of modern technologies in which threedimensional solid objects are built directly from computer-aided design models. They are additive processes which build objects by successively adding raw material in particles or layers to create a solid volume of the desired shape [Burns93]. The major applications for these objects include quick production prototypes for testing and design verification and as patterns for casting and tooling. SFF can dramatically reduce the time and costs required to bring a product to market. Several technologies have been developed that accomplish these prototyping objectives. They include photopolymer resin curing by ultraviolet light

(Stereolithograthy and Solid Ground Curing), thermal fusion of powders by laser scanning (Selective Laser Sintering), joining of powders by ink-jet spreading of a binder (ThreeDimensional Printing), compacting and sintering of powders (Freeform Powder Molding), extruding heated thermoplastics (Fused Deposition Modeling), and laser cutting of laminated sheets of paper (Laminated Object Manufacturing). SFF technologies are progressing tremendously in terms of processes and materials used for the creation of conceptual and functional parts, yet versatility in the selection of materials for each system is still relatively limited and varies substantially for each specific system.

Current SFF technologies offer multiple material choices. However, they only permit a single material for each region of a part. Changes among material composition are discrete. These additive build processes have the potential to fabricate parts with selective heterogeneous material compositions. Realizing this potential, and, in particular, developing the capability to fabricate parts with continuously variable material composition will revolutionize existing SFF and manufacturing capabilities. The ability to fabricate parts with continuously changing material composition throughout the part would give an endless control over final part characteristics. Engineers may then begin to design at the microscopic level, optimizing material composition to provide the final part properties desired. Not all SFF systems can readily adapt to a heterogeneous material blend. Some are best suited for building with a premixed uniform material type, at least within each layer. Selective Laser Sintering

(SLS), Three-Dimensional printing (3DP), and Freeform Powder Molding (FPM) on the other hand, fabricate parts out of powder and hence have the greatest potential for adapting to heterogeneous material compositions. SLS and 3DP use similar processes to prototype parts. First, a computer solid model of the prototype is generated and sliced appropriately to generate the layerwise data. Next, a powder-leveling mechanism lays a thin (75 m to 250 m) uniform layer of powder. The material is then bonded, by laser thermal fusion (SLS) or by liquid adhesion (3DP), in the image of the corresponding two-dimensional slice. The unbound powder

Figure 1.1: Typical Selective Laser Sintering system [SFF Group95].

Figure 1.2: Typical Three-Dimensional Printing system [Michaels92].

remains for support. Finally, another layer of loose powder is deposited and the process is repeated until the three-dimensional solid object is complete. illustrate the two fabrication systems. Figures 1.1 and 1.2

The FPM operates with a slightly different process to prototype parts. Rock and Gilman [Rock95] describe the fabrication process. First, the layerwise cross-sectional data is generated from the CAD model. Next, a thin layer of powder is deposited. One powder type is deposited in the locations corresponding to the models cross-sectional data, and a second powder is deposited elsewhere for support. No details of the deposition method for the FPM are provided. After each layer is deposited, it is leveled and compacted by a vertical press. After the deposition of all of the layers, the entire powder volume is sintered. The two powders have different thermal responses, thus only the powder deposited in the models location will be sintered. powder is then removed. Figure 1.3 illustrates this process. The secondary

Figure 1.3: Freeform Powder Molding process [Rock95].

Machines in both the SLS and 3DP processes currently use a powder leveling drum to distribute uniform layers of powder. First a piston raises a small increment exposing an amount of powder to the roller mechanism. The roller advances spreading the 4

powder over the buildspace. The roller returns in the opposite direction compacting the powder, ensuring a near uniform layer. Figure 1.4 illustrates this process. This

application method allows for the use of multiple materials, but they must be mixed prior to their distribution and therefore may be varied layer-by-layer at best. Development of an alternate method of powder distribution is necessary in order to reach the potential of building parts of heterogeneous material compositions, continuously varying in three dimensions.

Figure 1.4: Powder leveling system [Lee93].

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

There is a need to develop continuously heterogeneous materials for high-performance fabrication and physical rapid prototyping. Because SFF is an additive building process, built layer-by-layer, adjusting material composition throughout the entire part, or even layer, is theoretically feasible. The use of fine powders as their build material makes SLS, 3DP, and FPM potentially adaptable to a heterogeneous material composition. However, a new method of powder deposition is required that will allow for the selective placement of multiple combinations of powder composition to make possible the fabrication of continuously heterogeneous parts. The objective of this thesis is to explore a new

powder deposition approach and to design, fabricate, and test a low cost experimental apparatus to illustrate its fundamental operating principles.

1.2 SOLUTION OVERVIEW

A viable replacement to the roller distribution system currently used in SLS is a pneumatic conveying system. Pneumatic conveying is the movement of dry material through an enclosed pipeline by the motion of air. It has been used successfully for many years in the chemical and processing industries for the transportation of materials such as flour, granular chemicals, lime, soda ash, plastic chips, and coal [Sadler49]. Several advantages can be gained by pneumatic conveying. They include dust and contamination free transportation with a great flexibility in routing. It allows for build materials to be

stored outside a prototyping device. It is easily automated and controlled, thus the proportional mixing of several powders can be performed without manual interference. A delivery system of this kind provides the potential for depositing continuously heterogeneous powder layers for use in SLS, 3DP, and FPM. The feasibility of

employing such a system is shown by the design and fabrication of a low cost experimental apparatus that explores the operating principles and performance capabilities of a larger scale system. It demonstrates the ability to control the proportion of three materials deposited through a single nozzle and the results are extrapolated to estimate the performance of a large scale deposition system of this manner. Figure 1.5 illustrates the fundamental components of the experimental apparatus used for testing. A standard connection to a compressed air line supplies the pressurized air. A filter and pressure regulator cleanse the compressed air of any impurities or surges. A manifold distributes the pressurized air into three parallel lines. The air then travels through a flow rate control which adjusts the air flow rate to a desired condition. Each of three materials is transported through the three parallel lines, respectively. By adjusting the airflow used in each individual pipe, different rates of mass flow are achieved for each material. Thus, the proportion of each material deposited by the nozzle can be

controlled. The pipes merge to allow mixing before exiting through the same orifice in a nozzle. The material is deposited ont a collection system for visual inspection and

Figure 1.5: Schematic of experimental apparatus.

analysis.

The linear motion is provided by a motor and slider system capable of

adjustable and constant linear velocity.

1.3 THESIS OVERVIEW

Chapter Two reviews existing SFF material systems, methods of powder deposition, and, in particular, pneumatic conveying. Chapter Three provides a detailed description of the design and fabrication of the experimental apparatus. Also discussed are methods of data collection and how they are related to the performance of the experimental apparatus and a proposed larger scale system. Chapter Four includes the results and data analysis of the deposition achieved by the experimental apparatus.

Chapter Five develops a conceptual design of a scaled up version and estimates the performance that can be expected based on the performance results of the experimental system. Chapter Six remarks on the performance capabilities of the experimental system and that expected for a larger scale model. It also analyzes the deficiencies expected in delivering powder in a pneumatic conveying system and provides recommendations for future work. Finally, the Appendix includes a Bill of Materials, a parts list, and dimensioned component drawings along with assembled and exploded drawings of the experimental apparatus.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Solid freeform fabrication (SFF) is a relatively new technology, yet tremendous progress has been made in terms of the systems and materials. This chapter examines several methods in which SFF systems are incorporating multiple materials and several methods of material deposition, in particular pneumatic conveying. Section 2.1 reviews a few processes which have added a secondary material for support generation. Section 2.2 examines methods of controlling the microstructure of fabricated parts. These methods include dual material blends used for reducing the difficulty associated with fabricating with ceramics and metals, selective material deposition within each layer, and depositing material of controlled composition within each layer. Section 2.3 reviews the current roller distribution system, alternative methods of depositing an entire layer of powder, and ink-jet-style deposition. Section 2.4 examines the deposition method chosen for this research, pneumatic conveying. Section 2.5 provides some general observations based upon the literature reviewed.

2.1 SECONDARY SUPPORT MATERIALS

Layered manufacturing requires supports during fabrication to provide stability for overhang structures. Some SFF systems have solved this problem by building support

10

structures using a temporary secondary support material. Examples are Solid Ground Curing (SGC), Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), Freeform Powder Molding (FPM), and the Model Maker 3D Plotting System. In the SGC process (Fig. 2.1), the part is fabricated using ultraviolet sensitive photopolymer resin. During the processing of each layer, the uncured resin is removed and wax is added to fill in the voids. Once solidified, the wax serves as a solid filler providing complete support throughout fabrication [Burns93]. This petroleum soluble wax is washed away during post-process finishing.

Figure 2.1: The Solid Ground Curing (SGC) process [Burns93].

11

The FDM system extrudes two materials using a dual nozzle system (Fig. 2.2). One nozzle is used for dispensing the model material, and the second nozzle is used for dispensing material for use as a base and support for the model material. The support material is designed not to adhere well with the model material and is very brittle, thus it can easily be removed during post-processing. Tests have also been performed using an ammonium soluble ABS plastic as a support material [FDM96].

Model material source

Support material source

FDM head

Modeler tip

Support tip

Figure 2.2: FDM head dual-material nozzles.

The FPM system described by Rock and Gilman [Rock95] uses a secondary powder to contain the model material and provide three dimensional support (Fig. 1.3). For each cross-section of the fabricated part, a primary powder type is deposited in the locations corresponding to the parts cross-sectional data and a secondary powder is deposited elsewhere for total support. The two powders have different thermal

12

responses, thus during sintering only the primary powder will be sintered. The unbound secondary powder is poured out during post-processing. The Model Maker 3D Plotter (Fig. 2.3) distributes liquid thermoplastics and waxes through a dual inkjet system [Sanders96]. The dispensed thermoplastic solidifies to form the model and the dispensed wax solidifies to form the support structure. Similar to SGC, the petroleum soluble wax is washed away during post-processing.

Figure 2.3: Model Maker 3D Plotter [Sanders96].

The dual material systems previously described have distinct areas of model and support material. The support material serves no purpose in the final application of the part and is used only as a means of building a better quality part. It is removed during finishing and cleaning. However, these systems illustrate the potential of fabricating with selectively placed materials throughout each layer.

13

2.2 SECONDARY MICROSTRUCTURE MATERIALS

Secondary materials have also been used in SFF to facilitate the fabrication of parts with control over their microstructure. This section discusses several methods of gaining this microstructure control. These include dual material blends used for reducing the difficulty associated with fabricating with ceramics and metals, selective material deposition within each layer, and depositing material of controlled composition within each layer. Using a dual material blend for fabrication in SFF is not a recent advancement. In this method, a secondary material is used to contain the primary material, usually ceramic or metal, during fabrication. 3DP utilizes this approach to create ceramic [Yoo93] and metal [Michaels92] preforms. The binder is selectively spread onto the powder bed, either ceramic or metal, through ink-jet deposition and captures the powder in the threedimensional shape desired. After the preform is fabricated, a firing process removes the binder and densifies the part. SLS uses a similar dual material approach. In its indirect processing method, a low melting temperature binder is uniformly premixed with the material of choice prior to the sintering process [Bourell92] [Badrinarayan92]. After sintering, the binder is burnt off, leaving behind the desired material. The sintering and debinding processes result in a lower density green part. Post-processing is necessary to increase the strength and utility of the part. Several methods have been studied, including infiltration [Deckard93]

14

[Vail92] [Tobin93] [Sindel94], hot isostatic pressing [Carter93], and heat treatments [Prabhu93]. FDM and similar systems have also used a similar method. Agarwala et al.

[Agarwala95] have worked with fabricating with a ceramic powder blended within polymer/wax based binder systems for use with FDM. Greul et al. [Greul95] have

developed a process similar to FDM called Multiphase Jet Solidification (MJS). They deposit a blend of 50% binder (polymers and waxes) and 50% metal powders. After a deposition process similar to FDM, the binder is removed in solvent and the porous metal part is sintered to reach the final part density. Other research has focused on adjustment of material content layer-by-layer. Pegna [Pegna95] has been performing research using multiple reactant bulk materials to form parts. In his experiments, alternate layers of sand and cement were applied. After the preparation of each layer, they were placed into a pressurized steam chamber of 3 atmospheres and 300C. Successful bonding was achieved between the two reactant materials. Applications of this sort were directed into the construction industry. Pegna successfully combined multiple materials but they were done layer-by-layer and much automation must be added to make this system feasible for rapid prototyping for each layer of material was hand deposited and leveled. Beck et al. [Beck92] report on a method of altering material content within each layer. They developed the recursive mask and deposit, or MD*, process to fulfill this

15

need. The MD* process is a thermal spray shape deposition system. Thermal spray methods are used to deposit thin, heated planar layers of material, which then solidify. The part is built by spraying a succession of cross-sectional layers. The MD* system has the potential for selective material deposition within each layer, enabling multi-material parts to be produced during a single build process. The process could be adapted to manufacture complete, integrated electromechanical assemblies, including mechatronics. Mechatronics are parts that perform both mechanical and electrical functions. Selective control of the composition of particle clusters within each layer can also be achieved by 3DP in its current configuration. The original powder composition remains uniform, but variance in the particle clustering can be obtained by manipulating the application of the binder. Multiple jets of different binder composition or

concentration could be used to build components with composition and density variations on a fine scale [Cima92]. Cima and Sachs have been using a process similar to the original 3D Printing device to build objects by controlling their microstructure and composition [Ashley95]. Rather than ejecting a binder, the nozzles eject a ceramic slurry. Alteration of the slurry composition allows for changes in the material composition throughout the building cycle. One unique application for this is products such as pills that release measured drug doses at specified times during the day.

16

SFF devices often build parts on a point-by-point basis, and some devices allow for the possibility of varying the composition and structure of particle clusters from position to position with complete freedom. Several potential applications of this building process include components with anisotropic thermal, electrical, or mechanical properties or microengineered porosity [Cima92].

2.3 MATERIAL DEPOSITION

SLS and 3DP can benefit from an alternate powder deposition system. Not only could it potentially allow for heterogeneous material composition, but it could also provide better packed powder layers. There have been several alternative approaches of depositing powder layers. This section reviews the current roller distribution system and several alternative powder delivery methods including simultaneous deposition of entire layers and deposition jet-style scanning. The current powder deposition method, shown in Fig. 1.3, uses a powder leveling drum to distribute a layer of powder. Yoo et al. [Yoo93] describe this deposition

process. First, the build area is lowered and a thin layer of loosely packed agglomerates is created by spreading the powder over the build area with a counter-rotating spreader rod. Next, the build area is raised slightly to expose the upper portion of the loosely packed layer. The spreader rod is then rotated back across the build area to compact the powder

17

into a uniform layer rather than to sweep away the excess powder. This produces a dense uniform layer upon which the sintering or binding is performed. Van der Schueren and Kruth [Van der Schueren95] explored three methods of powder deposition for a fabrication system based on the principles of SLS. The first approach used a scraper blade to sweep powder over a build container (Fig. 2.4.a). Several problems were reported. To ensure that the build plane was completely covered with each new layer, a surplus of powder was needed at the beginning of each sweep. The excess powder increased the weight of the material to be pushed, thus, there was an increase in friction between the transported powder and the underlying layer. Another problem arose from in the fixed intersection edge between scraper blade and the powder surface. Any irregularity in the powder would be swept over the build surface and cause unacceptable grooves in the surface. The final problem was the low powder bed density. This would result in structurally weak parts with high porosity.

Figure 2.4: Possible methods for powder deposition [Van der Schueren95].

18

The second approach explored was the use of a counter rolling cylinder to sweep the powder into place (Fig. 2.4.b). The rotary movement of the cylinder caused any irregularity in the powder appearing in the intersecting edge between the cylinder and the powder surface to be dissipated because the irregularity will only remain in the path of the roller momentarily. This method also allows for compacting the powder while its distributed by simultaneously applying a vertical vibration during deposition. This

vibratory counter rotating method is similar to the approach taken by Yoo et al. [Yoo93]. The third and final approach explored was the one chosen for implementation into Van der Schueren and Kruths fabrication system. It delivers powder in a slot feed mechanism (Fig. 2.4.c). The powder flows vertically out of the feeder when there is a gap between the slot and the substrate. This method significantly reduces the friction created in the other two methods. However, like the scraper blade method, it minimally

compacts the powder bed. Van der Schueren and Kruth therefore employ a vibratory counter rolling cylinder in combination with the slot feeder in order to deposit the powder with minimal friction while compacting the powder. An alternative compaction method would be to apply a vertical press, as is done in the FPM process [Rock95]. This method removes the contact edge and sliding friction problems. Any irregularity in the powder bed will not be propagated throughout the rest of the build plane. Melvin and Beaman [Melvin91] at the University of Texas at Austin developed an electrostatic powder application system. It delivers the powder from a storage

19

container using compressed air, passes the powder particles through an electric field, and sprays them onto a grounded plate. The experimental apparatus consisted of a powder canister which holds and delivers powder similar to an aerosol can, flow control devices that regulate compressed air flow into the canister, and air flow that carries the air from the powder canister to the feed head. The powder leaves the canister and enters the feed head which forces it through a spray nozzle and electromagnetically charges it. Two 13.5 kV, 0.31 mA power sources charge the powder in the nozzle. One source delivers the positive charge, while the other source delivers the negative charge. The layer thickness ranged from 0.012 (0.30 mm) to 0.016 (0.41 mm) with a variance of 0.002 (0.05 mm) to 0.003 (0.08 mm). The new application method showed a reduction in the number of air pockets as compared to the roller deposition method. Clogging was observed each time the powder flow was cut off. These clogs were easily cleared using a pressurized air purge. Rather than depositing the powder by an entire layer, the method of powder deposition developed in the work of this thesis experiment explores the use of ink-jet style deposition using an array of nozzles for deposition. Multiple nozzles help to

reduce the time required to deposit a layer of powder over a given area. Their use is not uncommon in either SFF technologies or in the printing industry. 3D Printing has used an eight-nozzle print head [Ashley95] and a 32 nozzle print head [Michaels92] to distribute the binder. Recent printheads have grown in size to 1280 jets [Ashley95]. These nozzle

20

clusters are moved at linear speeds reported between 1.65 [Sachs92] and 2.5 m/s [Cima92]. In the printing industry, high resolutions must be maintained without any sacrifice in speed. Arrays of 128 bubble jet nozzles have been produced on one chip with a nozzle density of 12 nozzles/mm [Sachs92]. An example of a high speed application is the Djit printer from Diconix, Inc. It uses a line printing bar containing 1500 jets to print at linear speeds up to 5 m/s [Heinzel85]. The deposition requirements proposed for this thesis are unique. The deposition systems previously discussed are only capable of depositing single materials, at least within each layer. Adapting to an ink-jet style of powder deposition would provide the potential for selective powder placement. Current ink-jet systems cannot accommodate the deposition of powder due to the larger particle sizes and higher viscosity of the powder. Alternative powder transportation methods need to be explored.

2.4 PNEUMATIC CONVEYING

The flow of powders represents a greater challenge than that of the low viscosity binder and printing ink. Geldart [Geldart90] states that powders are not solids, although they can withstand some deformation. Powders are not liquid, although they can be made to flow. Powders are not gases, although they can be compressed. The space between

21

particles is filled with gases and therefore the solid/gas interaction, the interparticle contact area, and adhesion between particles must be considered during flow analysis. In the past, solids were commonly transported in suspension form via lean-phase conveying. Lean-phase conveying is defined by the low volumetric concentration of solids, typically less than ten percent. problems. Conveying in this form may cause a few

There is a high rate of pipe wear and particle attrition due to the high

velocities. Depositing powder in this manner for use in SLS, 3DP, or FPM would also have several other undesirous effects. For instance, it is likely to deposit the powder with too large a force and disturb the underlying powder bed, and the control over the accuracy of desired powder compositions may be lost due to the local sandstorm effect. An alternate transportation approach is dense-phase conveying. It is defined as the conveying of particles by air along a pipe that is filled with particles at one or more cross-sections [Konrad86]. It offers improvements in slower air speeds and lower

volumes of gas required for transporting the same amount of material, which is of particular importance if an inert gas is needed to reduce the risk of explosions [Konrad86]. The work of Albright et al. [Albright51] was one of the first to study dense-phase conveying. The purpose was to minimize the amount of gas required to feed solids into a coal gasification reactor. Since then, its use has grown substantially. Dense-phase conveying appears more appropriate for powder deposition in SLS, 3DP, and FPM. The slower air speeds are less likely to disturb the previously deposited

22

powder bed and greater control over powder placement should be gained. The lower volumes of air should also benefit the SLS process which uses an inert gas, usually nitrogen, in the process chamber to prevent oxidation or explosions [Behrendt95]. Dense-phase conveying is not without problems. Since a section of the pipeline is completely filled with material, clogging can be a common occurrence and the flow somewhat unstable. One approach to reduce this clogging has been to artificially create distinct plugs of material. Conveying in this form is known as plug-phase conveying. Konrad [Konrad86] reports of three commercial systems developed to deal exclusively with plug-phase conveying. In the first, a bypass system was developed by Lippert [Lippert66] to stabilize pressure fluctuations in plug-phase conveying (Fig. 2.5). The conveying pipeline has an additional bypass pipeline in which there are holes at set intervals. No additional air is blown into this bypass pipe. alternative route for the conveying air to break up lengthy plugs. It merely serves as an

Fluted Nozzles

Inner Tube

Figure 2.5: Internal secondary air pipe system [Mainwaring93].

The other two systems artificially induce plugs of solid material separated by the addition of a secondary air source. There are distinct plugs of material separated by plugs

23

of air. One such system uses an air knife to provide regular pulses of air that will chop up the moving solids fed into the pipeline (Fig. 2.6). In the other system, the plugs are created by using alternating air valves (Fig. 2.7).

Figure 2.6: Plug formation using timer operated air knife [Geldart90].

Figure 2.7: Plug formation using alternating air valves [Geldart90].

24

SLS, 3DP, and FPM could use a powder delivery system similar to the commercial plug-phase conveying systems utilizing an additional air source with some modifications. These systems do not provide a continuos flow of powder, but this can be overcome by running two parallel pipelines operating at opposite phases. They would also require the addition of a dispensing nozzle to mix and to accurately deposit the powder onto the underlying powder bed. Various powders must be delivered to the dispensing nozzle through different tubing systems for continuously heterogeneous material deposition. By controlling the velocity of plugs throughout each of the material supply systems, different proportions of each material could be combined and deposited. Unfortunately, experimental evidence available in literature regarding plug-phase conveying is contradictory [Konrad81]. Lippert [Lippert66] measured the pressure drop across individual moving plugs in a horizontal pipeline. The pressure drop was found to be proportional to the plug length squared divided by the pipe diameter. Flain [Flain72] used a fine cohesive material to construct plugs of a given length in a horizontal pipeline. He then measured the pressure drop required to move these plugs and concluded that this pressure drop was proportional to the square of the plug length. While they agree that the pressure drop is proportional to the square of the plug length for fine cohesive material, Dickson et al. [Dickson78], however, suggest a linear relationship for both coarse and fine materials. Fine powders are defined as those with particle sizes between 1

25

and 100 m [Brown70] which are also commonly used in SLS [Lakshminarayan92] and 3DP [Sachs92]. Konrad [Konrad86] has done extensive work on plug-phase pneumatic conveying. He found that solid materials flow in discrete plugs that fill the tube cross-section at approximately maximum packing density. Between the plugs, the upper part of the pipe contains moving air with some dispersed particles. The lower half is filled with a

stationary bed of particles (Fig. 2.8). Each plug picks up the particle bed in front of it, while leaving behind a stationary layer of nearly equal thickness behind it.

Moving particles

Air

Stationary particles Figure 2.8: Flow pattern of plug-phase conveying.

Konrad et al. [Konrad80] developed a theoretical model to predict the pipeline pressure drop in horizontal dense-phase plug conveying. The theory is based on the following premises. The material is conveyed only in the plugs and in the regions just in front of and behind them. There is a layer of stationary material between the plugs. The

26

flow pattern resembles that of a gas-liquid system. The pressure drop required to move a single horizontal plug is therefore given by the expression:

P =2 H

(k

+ 1)c cos cos D

)+ 4 c

(2.1)

where, H is the plug length. g is the acceleration due to gravity. w is the angle of wall friction. kw is the Jansen coefficient at the wall. F is the stress on the front end of the plug. = sin-1 (sin w / sin ). B is the bulk density. w is tan w. is the angle of internal friction. D is the pipe diameter. C is the interparticle cohesion. Cw is the particle wall cohesion.

This equation can only be used to predict general flow trends in the experimental apparatus since it uses multiple tubing systems with several of the above parameters being unknown. There is therefore a need to collect experimental data for each of these tubing systems in order to determine these parameters and thereby enable the use of this equation.

27

2.5 OBSERVATIONS
The literature has shown that incorporating multiple material systems into SFF technologies is beneficial in fabricating for a variety of utilities. The use of multiple materials is evolving from a temporary fabrication aid to a tool for producing parts with spatially tailored material properties [Rock95] for a variety of applications. SLS, 3DP, and FPM could benefit from an alternative deposition mechanism that will provide potential for fabrication of three-dimensional heterogeneous parts. For this research, the deposition mechanism combines principles from ink-jet printing and plug-phase pneumatic conveying for potentially delivering powder with continuously heterogeneous material composition.

28

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

This thesis explores the feasibility of implementing a plug-phase pneumatic conveying powder delivery system for three-dimensional continuously heterogeneous material deposition for potential use in SLS, 3DP, and FPM. This chapter describes the Section 3.1 This

experimental apparatus developed to explore deposition of this kind.

describes the design, fabrication and operation of the experimental apparatus.

includes the powder preparation, air handling system, and mechanized slider collection system. Section 3.2 describes the experimental setup and testing procedure for each evaluation of the performance of the experimental apparatus.

3.1 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS

An experimental apparatus (Fig. 3.1) was designed and built to demonstrate the deposition characteristics achievable by plug-phase pneumatic conveying powder delivery. The apparatus is capable of depositing a narrow path of powder in a thin layer with selectively variable powder composition.

29

Figure 3.1: Complete experimental apparatus.

The experimental apparatus consists of two major functional components. One is the pressurized air handling system, which is responsible for transporting the multiple powders through the tubing system, delivering them to the nozzle in appropriate quantities, and discharging them through the nozzle orifice in the composition desired (Fig. 3.2). The other major functional component is the mechanized slider collection system, which is responsible for providing linear motion of constant, yet adjustable, velocity for the collection of an even distribution of deposited powder (Fig. 3.3).

30

Figure 3.2: Air handling and powder deposition components.

Figure 3.3: Mechanized slider collection components.

31

This experimental apparatus demonstrates the feasibility of depositing powder with selectively continuous heterogeneous composition. It simulates the operation of commercial plug-phase conveying systems, such as those discussed in Section 2.4, by manually creating and transporting a single plug. In order to deposit multiple powders simultaneously, three plug-conveying systems are run in parallel, with each transporting a different powder. They join at a nozzle prior to being deposited (Fig. 3.4). Pressurized air is used to propel the plugs of powder through the tubing. Control of the air flow rate driving each plug may be used to control the rate at which each of the parallel plugs reach the nozzle, thus controlling the contribution each plug makes to the final deposited powder composition.

Parallel powder plugs Discharge point (nozzle) Air

Air Mixed powder Air

Intersection of parallel tubing systems at nozzle

Figure 3.4: Multiple plugs passing through parallel tubing system.

32

The following sections discuss the material preparation and the major components and functions of the experimental apparatus used for continuously heterogeneous powder deposition by plug-phase pneumatic conveying.

3.1.1 POWDER PREPARATION & LOADING The material used for deposition in the experiments was Laserlite LPC3000 polycarbonate which was supplied by the DTM Corporation. It is one of the materials available for use in DTMs commercial Sinterstation 2000 systems (SLS processes). It was chosen for this experimental work for several reasons. Many deposition methods require the powder transported to be able to flow with a minimal amount of shear applied to it [Sachs92]. The polycarbonates spherical particle shape allows for easy flow. Guidelines suggest that the inside diameter of the pipe should be at least three times that of the largest particle size to avoid potential pipe blockage [Marcus90]. Even with the miniature tubing inner diameters used, 1.5 mm, the particle sizes, 30 - 175 m, are well within this limit. Polycarbonate is not easily affected by environmental conditions, and its material properties should therefore remain consistent throughout testing. The general properties of Laserlite LPC3000 polycarbonate are shown in Tbl. 3.1.

33

Table 3.1: Laserlite LPC3000 polycarbonate properties [DTM94c]. General Properties Specific Gravity, 20C Moisture Absorption, 20C, 65% relative humidity Powder Tap Density Volume Average Particle Size Particle Size Range, 90% Value 1.20 g/cm3 0.35% 0.62 g/cm 3 90 microns 30-175 microns Test Method ASTM D792 ASTM D570 ASTM D4164 laser diffraction laser diffraction

The polycarbonate was also chosen because it is amorphous and hence easily dyed. This was an important consideration because the deposited powder composition was to be visually inspected. Quantities of powder were therefore dyed red, green, and blue. The dying procedure was performed by diluting standard food coloring with water and mixing it with a quantity of polycarbonate powder. This resulted in a thick slurry with much conglomeration (i.e., groups of particles adhered together). The mixture was dried at 70C for several hours with periodic mixing. During mixing, all conglomerates were broken to prevent an increase in particle size. The drying and mixing processes returned the powder to characteristics similar to the original with exception of its color. The powder was sealed in a bag with desiccant to eliminate the potential effects of atmospheric humidity during long-term storage. To simulate the operation principles of the plug-phase pneumatic conveying systems commercially available, the plugs were manually created. Prior to pressurizing the tubing system, a single plug of loosely compacted powder was formed in each of the three polyurethane tubing lines. They were created by bending a section of tubing and filling it with powder via a funnel (Fig. 3.5). Once pressurized, the plugs were pushed

34

into the smaller diameter Teflon tubing and their density increased significantly. The powder would then be ready to flow through the tubing in plug form until discharging out the nozzle (Fig. 3.6).

Funnel

Polyurethane tubing

Figure 3.5: Loading of powder into polyurethane tubing.

Tubing

Powder plug
Figure 3.6: Powder plug moving through tubing.

3.1.2 AIR HANDLING SYSTEM Pressurized air is used to propel the transported material within a pneumatic conveying system. For this experiment, the air was provided through connections to high-pressure air lines. These connections include a pressure regulator to eliminate pressure surges from

35

the supplied air and a controller and gage to adjust the pressure of the dispensed air. Two connections are used to provide two independently controlled pressure sources. An end of each main air line of the experimental apparatus slips over barbed fitting to connect to the pressurized air source. These two main air lines are constructed of polyurethane tubing that are 1.8 m and 3.4 m long, respectively, and each with an inner diameter of 3.2 mm and an outer diameter of 6.4 mm. The other end of each tube is connected to a three port manifold. The manifold receives pressurized air from the two independently controlled pressure sources and distributes it among three parallel tubing lines in proportions determined by desired powder compositions (Fig. 3.7).
Main air lines

Three port manifold

Figure 3.7: Main air line division by three port manifold.

Each of these three parallel tubing lines is loaded with powder prior to pressurizing the lines (see Section 3.1.1). Screw clamps are used to constrict the diameter of each of the parallel tubing lines and thereby allowing for variance of the air flow rates in each tube (Fig. 3.8). They are located prior to the powder plugs. They therefore affect 36

the air flow rate that reaches the powder plugs rather than adjusting the diameter of tubing that the plugs pass through. Each tube has a length of 210 mm, with an inner diameter of 3.2 mm and an outer diameter of 6.4 mm, and is constructed of a flexible material (polyurethane) to allow for easy routing and compression by the screw clamp. Each of these parallel tubes is connected to smaller tubing line for delivery to the nozzle by a reducing compression fitting. Each of the three smaller tubes have a 1.6 mm inner diameter, a 3.2 mm outer diameter, and a length of 120 mm. Each of these smaller tubes is coated in Teflon since its extremely low coefficient of friction facilitates the easy passage of the powder plugs.

Screw clamp

Flexible tubing

Figure 3.8: Screw clamp operating as flow rate controller.

Each Teflon tube is connected to the deposition nozzle by straight compression fittings (Fig. 3.9). The nozzle was fabricated out of ABS plastic with a FDM1600 rapid prototyping system. The nozzle has three equally spaced tubing extensions, each

37

extending 30 degrees from the vertical with an inner diameter of 1.5 mm, an outer diameter of 3.5 mm, and length of 15.0 mm. These tubing extensions attach to the material supply lines. These extensions join and merge together through a 1.5 mm diameter passage of length 6.0 mm before reaching the nozzles exit orifice. Alternative nozzles were

fabricated for testing of different lengths and diameters. The nozzle is held stationary in a support bracket (Fig. 3.10). This support bracket provides three positions of various vertical heights for nozzle placement and can be positioned along the track groove in a variety of positions using Velcro adhesion.
Powder supply tubing

Straight compression fittings Nozzle

Figure 3.9: Nozzle with supply tubing and connections.

38

Figure 3.10: Nozzle and support stand.

Proper design and fabrication of the nozzle is fundamental to the success of the powder deposition. The nozzle has three equally-spaced identical extensions to accept powder from three sources, respectively. They are aligned 30 degrees from the vertical to provide sufficient space for the fittings connecting it to the Teflon tubing. Too large an angle could attribute to too severe a deviation in the flow pattern and too small an angle would require tremendous lengthening of the extensions to provide sufficient space for the fittings. The extensions join and merge together to allow for mixing of the powders reaching the nozzle before discharging them through the nozzle orifice. The fabrication process characteristics inherent to a FDM1600 system were a significant factor in the design of the nozzle. It is important not to create areas where support material is required and would be embedded inside the nozzle, and where it would be difficult, if not impossible, to remove. Also, there is a great concern for the surface quality of the interior passages of the nozzle. Severe stair-stepping patterns

between adjacent horizontal layers (Fig. 3.11) should be avoided or they will disrupt 39

Stair-step pattern observed between adjoining layers

Figure 3.11: Severe stair stepping between adjacent layers.

powder flow. Stairsteps become more pronounced as the part surface becomes more horizontal. After nozzle fabrication, finishing was required to minimize any stray ABS plastic strands or fabrication inconsistencies from the interior of the nozzles. This was

performed by washing the nozzle, alternatingly with acetone and water. Acetone etched away the ABS plastic and water cleansed the plastic of the solvent to eliminate any residual effects. These fluids were flushed through the nozzle interior passages with eye droppers. Next, the interior passages of the nozzle were bored out to ensure that each passageway was clear of obtrusions. A final acetone and water wash was performed on the nozzle interior. Finally, a light sanding was performed to enhance exterior surface quality.

40

3.1.3 MECHANIZED SLIDER COLLECTION SYSTEM A mechanized slider collection system was developed to provide a relative linear motion of the powder delivery head. The system provides constant, adjustable head velocity and collects the discharged powder such that it may be saved for subsequent evaluation. The slider collection system is propelled by a Delco gear-reduced ball-bearing motor which operates at 200 rpm with no load and a power supply of 12 VDC and 1 amp. A DC power supply plugged into a 115 VAC outlet supplies the requisite power to run the motor. The velocity of the slider collection system can be controlled so that the powder deposition may be analyzed at several linear speeds. This is provided

through an adjustable speed control circuit which controls the motor shafts angular velocity and thus the velocity of the slider collection system. The motor control circuit uses pulse-width modulation through an integrated circuit (IC) chip to provide a control range of 5% to 98% by simple adjustment of the potentiometer knob. controller circuit diagram is shown in Fig. 3.12. The motor

41

Figure 3.12: Motor control circuit diagram.

To translate the angular displacement of the motor shaft into linear motion of the slider system, a reel system was developed. Attached to the motor shaft is a spool used for the winding of a thin thread and thereby pulling the slider system (Fig. 3.13). The spool has an outer diameter of 30 mm and was fabricated out of ABS plastic with a FDM1600 system. Its diameter was made sufficiently large so that changes in the diameter caused by the wrapping of the nylon thread would produce only negligible error. The thread passes through an eye-hook to properly guide it before attaching to the slider system. Extra thread can be let out to allow the motor to operate for a few seconds before pulling the slider system. This allows the motor to ramp up and reach its steady state angular velocity.

42

Spool

Motor

Thread

Eye hook

Figure 3.13: Motor and thread winding system.

The slider system consists of several components. A track is used to guide the slider platform in a straight line travel path. It has a travel surface area 500 mm wide and 700 mm long, with 10 mm high flanges on the sides acting as retaining walls. The slider platform slides freely within the track flanges; loose enough to not cause too severe friction, but securely enough to not deviate from straight line motion. It is attached to the thread and is pulled with a constant velocity by the motor. The slider platform also is used to transport the powder collection system. The powder collection system consists of two parts (Fig. 3.14). One part is the collection tray. It fits securely on top of the slider platform. The other part is a thin adhesive surface. This fits underneath the tray and the adhesive surface is exposed to the discharged powder through an opening in the collection tray. During the linear translation of the slider system, powder is collected on the adhesive surface for subsequent analysis.

43

Thread

Collection tray

Adhesive surface Slider platform

Figure 3.14: Exploded slider collection system.

Calibration of the motor and slider collection system is necessary for powder deposition data analysis. This was performed by measuring the voltage supplied to the motor and the corresponding average velocity of the slider system for various increments of the potentiometer. A template is used to mark positions of the potentiometer knob in 18 degree increments (Fig. 3.15). Voltages are read for each of these positions along with corresponding average linear velocities of the slider collection system for several of the positions.

44

Figure 3.15: Potentiometer and calibration template.

3.2 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Several characteristics of the experimental apparatus dictate the performance capabilities of deposition systems based on similar principles. One such is the volumetric flow rate of the discharged powder for a variety of pressure and plug length combinations. The rate at which the powder can be discharged through the nozzle is essential in estimating the time required for the deposition of an entire layer. Also of importance is the

characteristics of the powder being deposited. The path shape width, height, and spread of the powder is essential to providing consistent layers of powder. Finally, the ability to deposit multiple powders needs to be observed. Tests were designed to observe the mixing capabilities of the system and the ability of changing material composition on the fly. The following sections describe the purpose of each experiment and the experimental methods and details. These experiments include estimating the volumetric flow rate, evaluating the powder path characteristics, and exploring multiple powder deposition.

45

3.2.1 ESTIMATING THE VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE One of the beneficial characteristics of plug-phase pneumatic conveying is its ability to deliver large volumes of powder of consistent density with a minimal air pressure. Minimizing the pressure required is necessary to reduce the potential for disturbing the underlying powder bed. However, minimizing the air pressure also decreases the

volumetric flow rate and increases the time required for depositing a single layer of powder. Tests were therefore designed to estimate the average volumetric flow rate for several plug length and pressure combinations. A single plug of powder is created in one of the supply tubes. Air flow at a set pressure is provided to this one supply tube only. The reason for testing with a single tube is that air is delivered to the manifold at a set pressure. The manifold distributes the air to each of the three supply tubes. The air will take a preferential route in which the pressure drop is least [Mainwaring93]. This may cause the pressure among the parallel tubes to fluctuate and be disproportional. After creating a plug in one of the tubing systems and an input voltage is selected to be sent to the motor, the volumetric flow rate can be determined for various plug length and pressure combinations. By measuring the length of the deposited powder, DL, with a constant linear velocity for the slider and collection system, the average volumetric flow rate ,Q, can be determined by performing the following calculation:

46

Q = PL 2 V 4 DL

(3.1)

where PL is the powder plug length, is the tubing inner diameter, and V is the average linear velocity of the slider collection system. One of the major performance criteria of implementing a new powder delivery system is the rate at which each layer of powder is deposited. SFF technologies are continuously trying to minimize fabrication times, so creating a large delay in the powder deposition stage would be undesirable. For comparison, Sachs et al. [Sachs92] report of times on the order of 0.1 - 1.0 second per layer. In the case of the experimental

apparatus, the deposition time, t, for a single layer given a buildspace of width, w, length, l, and height, h, can be estimated by:

t=wlh Q

(3.2)

Note that these times are not exact because of the acceleration and deceleration required at the start and finish of each pass. This time can be further reduced to: t=wlh Q n (3.3)

47

by using an array of n nozzles. Ideally, the number of nozzles in the powder distribution head would equal the workspace width divided by the deposition width of the powder from each nozzle. This would provide for a single-pass, single-direction deposition. Development of a high speed deposition system is not the focus of this research. However, selective placement of a controlled powder composition is of greater importance. Further tests were performed to evaluate the deposition characteristics while changing several parameters of the experimental apparatus setup.

3.2.2 EVALUATING THE POWDER PATH CHARACTERISTICS Another area of importance in evaluating the performance of the experimental apparatus is the characteristics of the path of powder deposited. This is necessary for evaluating the tolerance to which multiple materials may be placed and in developing the spatial positioning required for an array of nozzles. Control of the deposited powder is

essential. It should not be randomly sprayed, but be placed in the locations desired. A test was designed to evaluate the effects that several parameters had on the path of the deposited powder. For each test run, a single plug of powder is created in one of the supply tubes. Then the pressure and voltage are set accordingly, and a single pass deposition test is run to evaluate the effect of changing a single design parameter on the deposition characteristics of the powder path.

48

The parameters to be examined include the nozzle length (L), nozzle diameter (), the deposition height (H), the velocity of the slider collection system (V), and the volumetric flow rate (Q). Figure 3.16 shows these parameters. The characteristics of the powder path of interest are the height (h), width (w) of the main proportion of powder, and the total spread (s) of powder. Figure 3.17 illustrates the observed characteristics.

Q Nozzle L

H V Slider/Collection System Figure 3.16: Parameters tested for deposition characteristics.

s w h

Figure 3.17: Deposited powder path characteristics evaluated.

49

3.2.3 EXPLORING MULTIPLE POWDER DEPOSITION The experiments previously described show the capabilities of depositing a single material. In order to make a significant improvement over deposition methods previously done, the simultaneous deposition of multiple materials needs to be achieved. A series of experiments were designed to evaluate the mixing performance of the experimental apparatus using a dual powder delivery: Two powder plugs of different color are loaded in two supply tubes, respectively. The air from the two pressure sources are set equal and directed through the manifold to each polyurethane tube. Single pass deposition runs are performed to evaluate the effects that the nozzle height and nozzle diameter each have on the mixing of the deposited powder. These experiments, however, are not data

intensive because of the limited control the experimental apparatus has over the pressurized air. Instead they qualitatively show the feasibility of multiple material deposition in such a manner. The path of powder is inspected visually for the major mixing characteristics evident for each of the parameters. Characteristics to be observed are segregation among the different colored powder and the spatial pattern and thoroughness of the mixing that occurs. Another series of trials is attempted to demonstrate transitions among powder composition. These are performed similar to the mixing experiments with one exception. Instead of setting the plugs in motion simultaneously, one plug is sent slightly ahead of

50

the other. The air supplied to the leading plug is stopped at approximately the time air is supplied to the trailing plug. A transition between the powder composition should be observed. However, exact measurements are not possible due to the simplicity of the controls of the experimental apparatus.

51

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

An experimental apparatus has been designed and built to explore the feasibility of employing plug-phase pneumatic conveying to deposit powder in SLS, 3DP, and FPM in a manner that extends their fabrication capabilities to include continuous heterogeneous material composition. Several tests were performed to evaluate the experimental These included

apparatuss performance both quantitatively and qualitatively.

determining the linear velocity of the slider system, the volumetric flow rate of corresponding air pressure and plug lengths, the powder path characteristics for several design parameters and its ability for depositing heterogeneous compositions. following sections describe these experiments in more detail. The

4.1 LINEAR VELOCITY EXPERIMENTS

The mechanized slider collection system was designed to travel at a constant, yet adjustable, linear velocity. A series of experiments were performed to calibrate the motor controller with the various linear velocities within the slider collection systems operating range. First, the motor input voltages were found in relation to the corresponding angular increments of the potentiometer knob. Next, the average linear velocity of the slider collection system was tested for various motor input voltages.

52

A template was created to divide the angular displacement of the potentiometer knob into 18 degree increments (Fig. 3.15). For each of these positions, the output voltage from the control circuit was measured. Table 4.1 shows the average output voltage for corresponding potentiometer angular displacements from its origin. Figure 4.1 is a plot of the average output voltage with the addition of a maximum and minimum voltage measured for each data set. A series of tests were performed to determine the average linear velocity of the slider collection system for several of the calibrated voltages. A pair of marks were made within the track groove at an increment of 300 mm. The front of the slider collection tray was positioned 35 mm behind the starting point to allow the slider collection system to begin motion before measurements were taken, and thus, diminish the initial acceleration from the linear velocity measurement. Also, a significant extra amount length of thread was unwound from the spool to allow the motor to reach steady-state angular velocity before pulling the slider tray. For each incremented potentiometer position, ten tests were performed to measure the time required for the slider collection system to travel 300 mm. Note that lower voltages are not included in the data for they were not sufficient to turn the motor shaft and pull the slider system. Also, higher voltages are not included for they produced too extreme a velocity and measurement became severely uncertain. The results are shown in Tbl. 4.2.

53

Table 4.1: Output voltage for potentiometer angular displacement increments.

Potentiometer Angular Displacement (degrees) 0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180 198 216 234 252 270 288 306

Average Output Voltage (Volts) 0.034 0.038 0.052 0.57 1.37 2.3 3.2 4.2 5.3 6.4 7.2 8.1 9.2 9.7 10.5 11.2 11.3 11.4

Output Voltage vs. Angular Displacement of Potentiometer

12

10

0 0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180 198 216 234 252 270 288 306

Angular Displacement of Potentiometer (degrees)

Figure 4.1: Output voltage vs. angular displacement of potentiometer.

54

Table 4.2: Time measurements for calibrated motor input voltage.

VOLTAGE
4.3 V time # 1 (s) time # 2 (s) time # 3 (s) time # 4 (s) time # 5 (s) time # 6 (s) time # 7 (s) time # 8 (s) time # 9 (s) time # 10 (s) mean (s) standard deviation
4.03 3.97 3.97 3.87 3.90 3.94 3.91 3.94 3.91 3.95 3.94 0.0451

5.3 V
1.57 1.50 1.53 1.50 1.59 1.57 1.59 1.62 1.57 1.60 1.56 0.0412

6.3 V
1.03 1.00 1.09 1.06 1.03 1.07 1.10 0.99 1.07 1.05 1.05 0.0363

7.5 V
0.85 0.84 0.88 0.85 0.84 0.88 0.87 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.87 0.0215

8.5 V
0.78 0.82 0.75 0.72 0.80 0.84 0.72 0.79 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.0414

The average linear velocity of the slider collection system for each calibrated voltage was then calculated by dividing the distance traveled (300 mm) by the time measured for the linear translation to occur. The corresponding average linear velocities are shown in Tbl. 4.3. These values along with maximum and minimum velocities

calculated for each data set are plotted in Fig. 4.2.

55

Table 4.3: Linear velocity of slider collection for calibrated motor input voltages. Average Input Voltage (volts) verage Linear Velocity (mm/s) A 4.2 76 5.3 192 6.4 286 7.2 345 8.1 385

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Velocity of Slider System vs. Average Motor Input Voltage

Input Voltage (V)

Figure 4.2: Velocity of slider system vs. motor input voltage.

As seen by the low standard deviations in the time measurements, the linear velocity calculated for the slider collection system is fairly accurate. This calibration is not intended for use solely as an evaluation of the performance of the mechanized slider collection system; rather it is to be used as a means for calculating other data.

56

4.2 POWDER VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATES

The volumetric flow rate achievable by the experimental apparatus will influence deposition by plug-phase pneumatic conveying acceptance into the SFF industry. SFF technologies are steadily trying to improve upon their build times in all stages of the fabrication process. The time required for the deposition of an entire layer is directly related to the volumetric flow rate of the powder. A series of measurements were taken to calculate the volumetric flow rate of the discharged powder for a variety of pressure and plug length combinations. Air pressure was kept at a minimum to reduce the force that the powder would have on the underlying powder bed and to ensure that a transition to lean-phase conveying did not occur. A variety of plug length and pressure combinations were tested to determine the volumetric flow rate of the polycarbonate powder. The plug lengths ranged from 40 mm to 80 mm and the air pressures ranged from 17.2 kPa (2.5 psi) to 34.5 kPa (5.0 psi). The longer plug lengths were not used in combination with the lower air pressures since there was not enough pressure to transport the powder. First, a single plug of powder is created in one of the supply tubes. Air at a set pressure is provided to this tube only. After creating a plug in one of the tubing systems and an input voltage is selected to be sent to the motor, the motor is activated and the tubing pressurized. By measuring the length of the deposited powder path, the average

57

volumetric flow rate can be determined. This deposited length and the other parameter inputs are substituted into equation 3.1 to determine the average volumetric flow rate. This testing method relies on the results of the slider collection system velocity calibration to determine the value for V at the set potentiometer position. For each of these experiments, a linear velocity of 192 mm/s was used. The volume of powder

deposited was calculated by multiplying the cross-sectional area of the interior of the polyurethane tubing by the powder plug length. The cross-sectional area of the interior of the polyurethane tubing is equal to 8.04 mm2. The nozzle used was set at a height of 5.0 mm, and it had a length of 6.0 mm and diameter of 1.5 mm. The deposited powder lengths for each trial for each air pressure and plug length are shown in Tbl. 4.4, 4.6, and 4.8. The average volumetric flow rate was calculated for each of these data points using equation 3.1. Tables 4.5, 4.7, and 4.9 show the average volumetric flow rate for each data set and maximum and minimum calculated for each data set. The volumetric flow rate values are plotted in Fig. 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.

58

Table 4.4: DEPOSITED POWDER LENGTH for air pressure of 34.5 kPa and linear velocity of 192 mm/s.

PLUG LENGTH
40 mm trial # 1 (mm) trial # 2 (mm) trial # 3 (mm) trial # 4 (mm) trial # 5 (mm) trial # 6 (mm) trial # 7 (mm) trial # 8 (mm) trial # 9 (mm) trial # 10 (mm) mean (mm) std. dev.
35 38 32 42 40 38 36 41 38 40 38 3

50 mm
46 45 38 42 44 43 46 42 45 44 44 2

60 mm
45 47 51 47 52 54 46 48 53 47 49 3

70 mm
66 64 62 63 66 68 72 70 74 67 67 4

80 mm
71 78 80 85 81 87 79 88 83 79 81 5

Table 4.5: VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE for air pressure of 34.5 kPa.

PLUG LENGTH
40 mm mean (mm/s) 3 maximum (mm/s) 3 minimum (mm/s)
3

50 mm
1778 2035 1681

60 mm
1874 2062 1718

70 mm
1611 1463 1746

80 mm
1526 1743 1406

1628 1933 1473

Volumetric Flow Rate vs. Plug Lengths for a Pressure of 34.5 kPa
2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 40 50 60 70 80

/s)

Powder Plug Length (mm)

Figure 4.3: Volumetric flow rate vs. powder plug length for an air pressure of 34.5 kPa.

59

Table 4.6: DEPOSITED POWDER LENGTH for air pressure of 25.9 kPa and linear velocity of 192 mm/s.

PLUG LENGTH
40 mm trial # 1 (mm) trial # 2 (mm) trial # 3 (mm) trial # 4 (mm) trial # 5 (mm) trial # 6 (mm) trial # 7 (mm) trial # 8 (mm) trial # 9 (mm) trial # 10 (mm) mean (mm) std. dev.
43 39 37 42 36 40 41 38 42 37 39.5 2.46

50 mm
48 45 46 47 49 47 51 48 44 49 47.4 2.07

60 mm
50 55 50 61 53 58 52 62 64 65 57 5.75

Table 4.7: VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE for air pressure of 25.9 kPa.

PLUG LENGTH
40 mm mean (mm/s) 3 maximum (mm/s) 3 minimum (mm/s)
3

50 mm
1631 1757 1516

60 mm
1628 1856 1428

1566 1718 1439

Volumetric Flow Rate vs. Plug Lengths for a Pressure of 25.9 kPa
2200

/s) 2000
1800 1600 1400 1200

Volumetric Flow Rate (mm

1000 40 50 60

Powder Plug Length (mm)

Figure 4.4: Volumetric flow rate vs. powder plug length for an air pressure of 25.9 kPa.

60

Table 4.8: DEPOSITED POWDER LENGTH for air pressure of 17.2 kPa and linear velocity of 192 mm/s.

PLUG LENGTH
40 mm trial # 1 (mm) trial # 2 (mm) trial # 3 (mm) trial # 4 (mm) trial # 5 (mm) trial # 6 (mm) trial # 7 (mm) trial # 8 (mm) trial # 9 (mm) trial # 10 (mm) mean (mm) std. dev.
48 45 44 43 41 46 47 49 45 42 45 2.36

50 mm
53 58 54 52 60 58 56 61 59 55 56.6 2.79

Table 4.9: VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE for air pressure of 17.2 kPa.

PLUG LENGTH
40 mm mean (mm/s) 3 maximum (mm /s) 3 minimum (mm/s)
3

50 mm
1366 1487 1268

1375 1509 1263

Volumetric Flow Rate vs. Plug Lengths for a Pressure of 17.2 kPa
2200

2000
3

/s)
1800

1600

1400

1200

1000 40 50

Powder Plug Length (mm)

Figure 4.5: Volumetric flow rate vs. powder plug length for an air pressure of 17.2 kPa.

61

SFF technologies are continuously trying to improve upon build time without sacrificing build quality. The additional complexity of depositing heterogeneous powder layers incur a time penalty but it should not be too significant. For a deposition system using plug-phase pneumatic conveying, the deposition time hinges upon the volumetric flow rate reliably achieved within the operating parameters of the system. For each of the tests performed, the average volumetric flow rate was on the order of 1.5 103 mm3/s. In order to achieve continuous flow, conveying lines will have to be run in parallel 180 degrees out of phase to supply a steady flow of powder plugs. Assuming that the nozzle has the mechanics to traverse the entire layer area in a raster fashion, the deposition of a single layer can be estimated by equation 3.2. Assuming that a 10 by 10 (254 mm by 254 mm) build area with a layer thickness of 0.008 (0.2 mm) is required, the deposition time for a single nozzle system with continuous flow would be on the order of nine seconds. Deposition in this manner may also cause additional time penalties. In order to deliver the powder in the density necessary for sintering or liquid binder adhesion, a thicker layer may need to be deposited and then further compacted by a mechanical force to increase its density. Also,

acceleration and deceleration of the powder head during each pass of the raster motion will cause an additional time loss. The deposition time, however, can be reduced significantly. For instance, using an array of n nozzles would reduce the deposition time an order of n. Including a rough

62

estimate of the time penalties discussed previously, an array of ten nozzles all capable of simultaneous continuous deposition would result in a deposition time on the order of two seconds per layer. This is slightly higher than the 0.1 to 1.0 second times reported by Sachs et al. [Sachs92], but not too high for the greater fabrication capabilities gained.

4.3 POWDER PATH CHARACTERISTICS

The rapid deposition of large quantities of powder can be achieved through several alternative methods, yet none match a plug-phase pneumatic conveying systems control of the powder throughout its transportation. This is because when it reaches the nozzle orifice, it remains intact as a densely packed plug with a known flow rate and can be deposited with control. Experiments were performed with the experimental apparatus to observe the effects of the design parameters on the deposited powder path characteristics. These parameters include the nozzle length, diameter, and height; slider collection system speed; and air pressure (Fig. 3.16). All parameters were kept at their default values while one parameter was modified at a time to observe its effect on the powder path characteristics. The default values used in these experiments are shown in Tbl. 4.10. The powder characteristics measured were the main width, total spread, and the height (Fig. 3.17).

63

Table 4.10: Default parameter values.

PARAMETER nozzle length nozzle diameter nozzle height slider collection velocity air pressure powder plug length DEFAULT VALUE 6.0 mm 1.5 mm 5.0 mm 192 mm/s 17.2 kPa 50 mm

The height of the powder path was measured at its peak (Fig. 3.17). The heights were on the order of 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm for each test. Heights remained consistent for each sample taken and their values varied indirectly with the main powder width. Exact values are not reported because it was not possible to make accurate measurements. For each test, also measured were the main width and the total spread of the powder path (Fig. 4.6). Measurements were taken along areas of consistent width and spread. These reported values varied roughly 10% among each data sample. These results are shown in Tbl. 4.11-15. The average width and spread along with maximum and minimum values measured for each data set are plotted in Fig. 4.7-11.

spread

width

mm
Figure 4.6: Actual powder path showing width and spread.

64

Table 4.11: Powder path width and spread for various nozzle lengths.

NOZZLE LENGTH (mm)

2.0 6.0 10.0 width (mm) spread (mm) width (mm) spread (mm) width (mm) spread (mm) trial # 1 trial # 2 trial # 3 trial # 4 trial # 5 trial # 6 trial # 7 trial # 8 trial # 9 trial # 10 mean std. dev.
3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.55 0.44 5.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.50 0.97 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.35 0.58 9.0 7.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 8.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.55 0.83 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.30 0.63 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.50 0.85

Note: Measurements are taken to the nearest 0.5 mm.

Powder Deposition Width vs. Nozzle Length

10 8 6
Width

4 2 0 2 6 10

Spread

Nozzle Length (mm)

Figure 4.7: Powder deposition width vs. nozzle lengths.

65

Table 4.12: Powder path width and spread for various nozzle diameters.

NOZZLE DIAMETER (mm)

1.5 3.0 width (mm) spread (mm) width (mm) spread (mm) trial # 1 trial # 2 trial # 3 trial # 4 trial # 5 trial # 6 trial # 7 trial # 8 trial # 9 trial # 10 mean std. dev.
3.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.35 0.58 9.0 7.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 8.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.55 0.83 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.05 0.37 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.20 0.63

Note: Measurements are taken to the nearest 0.5 mm.

Powder Deposition Width vs. Nozzle Diameter

10 8 6 4 2 0 1.5 3.0
Width Spread

Nozzle Diameter (mm)

Figure 4.8: Powder deposition width vs. nozzle diameter.

66

Table 4.13: Powder path width and spread for various nozzle heights.

NOZZLE HEIGHT (mm)

5.0 7.0 9.0 width (mm) spread (mm) width (mm) spread (mm) width (mm) spread (mm) trial # 1 trial # 2 trial # 3 trial # 4 trial # 5 trial # 6 trial # 7 trial # 8 trial # 9 trial # 10 mean std. dev.
3.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.35 0.58 9.0 7.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 8.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.55 0.83 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.55 0.37 11.0 9.0 12.0 13.0 13.0 10.0 12.0 13.0 10.0 14.0 11.70 1.64 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.50 0.41 8.0 9.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 12.0 11.0 12.0 12.0 13.0 11.30 1.64

Note: Measurements are taken to the nearest 0.5 mm.

Powder Deposition Width vs. Nozzle Height

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5 7 9
Width Spread

Nozzle Height (mm)

Figure 4.9: Powder deposition width vs. nozzle height.

67

Table 4.14: Powder path width and spread for various slider collection system speeds.

Slider Collection System Speed (mm/s)

192.0 286.0 385.0 width (mm) spread (mm) width (mm) spread (mm) width (mm) spread (mm) trial # 1 trial # 2 trial # 3 trial # 4 trial # 5 trial # 6 trial # 7 trial # 8 trial # 9 trial # 10 mean std. dev.
2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.75 0.26 13.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 12.5 12.0 11.0 11.45 0.90 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.35 0.58 9.0 7.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 8.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.55 0.83 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.60 0.32 6.0 7.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 6.90 0.88

Note: Measurements are taken to the nearest 0.5 mm.

Powder Deposition Width vs. Slider Collection System Speed

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 192 289 385
Width Spread

Velocity (mm/s)

Figure 4.10: Powder deposition width vs. slider collection system speed.

68

Table 4.15: Powder path width and spread for various air pressures.

Air Pressure (KPa)

17.2 25.9 34.5 width (mm) spread (mm) width (mm) spread (mm) width (mm) spread (mm) trial # 1 trial # 2 trial # 3 trial # 4 trial # 5 trial # 6 trial # 7 trial # 8 trial # 9 trial # 10 mean std. dev.
3.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.35 0.58 9.0 7.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 8.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.55 0.83 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.30 0.26 15.0 14.0 16.0 15.0 13.0 13.0 16.0 15.0 14.0 17.0 14.80 1.32 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.5 4.0 4.50 0.53 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.00 0.00

Note: Measurements are taken to the nearest 0.5 mm and the maximum width of the deposition area is 20.0 mm which was equaled or exceeded each case by the 34.5 KPa air pressure.

Powder Deposition Width vs. Air Pressure

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 17.2

Width Spread

25.9

34.5

Air Pressure (KPa)

Figure 4.11: Powder deposition width vs. air pressure.

69

The results show that a powder path of 3 to 4 mm can be consistently deposited. The average width for all values not including the wider diameter nozzle is 3.4 mm with a standard deviation of 0.84. The total spread of the powder changed dramatically with the various parameters. The average value was 10.63 mm with a standard deviation of 4.55. Changing the nozzle length had little effect on the width and spread of the powder path other than slightly reducing the width as the length increased. Enlarging the nozzle diameter caused the main width to increase but had little effect on the overall spread of the powder. In future systems, a wider nozzle could be used in areas where the tolerance of the position of the powder is relaxed. Increasing the height of the nozzle from the deposition surface had minimal effects on the main width of powder but caused significant widening of the overall spread. Increasing the speed of the slider collection system had minimal effect on the main width but caused the overall spread to reduce. This is because the longer time the nozzle spends over a particular area, the more force is applied to the underlying powder which causes the powder to spread further. Varying the air pressure effected the deposited powder path more than any other of the parameters. Changing the air pressure causes a change in the volumetric flow rate and hence the force in which the powders impact the collection surface. No linear trend was observed on the main powder width but the higher air pressures caused a significant increase in the total spread of the powder. This shows that higher air pressures should be

70

avoided to reduce the force the powder has on the underlying bed and to make sure that a transition to lean-phase conveying does not occur.

4.4 MULTIPLE POWDER MIXING

The main benefit of powder deposition with the experimental apparatus is not its ability to accurately and rapidly deposit a powder layer, but rather its ability to deposit selectively heterogeneous material compositions throughout each layer. A series of

experiments were therefore performed to analyze the effects that system parameter changes had on the mixing of two powders being deposited simultaneously. The

parameters tested were the nozzles vertical height, diameter, and length. Observations were made on the general mixing capabilities and any patterns observed were recorded. As before, the default experimental parameter settings were set as shown in Tbl. 4.10. The experiments were performed by creating two equal powder plugs, red and blue, in two of the parallel polyurethane tubes. The air pressure from the two air sources were set equal and directed through the manifold to each polyurethane tube. The powder plugs were then set in motion and reached the nozzle simultaneously, where upon they were deposited on the traversing slider collection system. With the original nozzle setup (length equal to 6.0 mm, height equal to 5.0 mm, and diameter equal to 1.5 mm), the mixing was poor and somewhat segregated (Fig. 4.12). Mixing occurred in the main width, but there were distinct areas of red and blue rather

71

than a uniform blend. The different powders seemed to be divided by the centerline of the cross-section. The spread was completely divided by color on each side of the centerline.

blue side red side (mm)

(a) (b)

Figure 4.12: Default parameter setup with a height of 5.0 mm; (a) original image, (b) annotated image.

Elevating the nozzle height to 7.0 mm produced greater mixing in the main powder width but the powder types were still somewhat segregated by the centerline (Fig 4.13). The mixing was not thorough for there are distinct areas of bi-modal colors rather than a uniform blend. Raising the nozzle height to 9.0 mm produced a greater mixing (Fig. 4.14). The main width appeared thoroughly mixed with no spatial patterns evident. However, the mixing remained macroscopic rather than microscopic. In particular, there were areas of red and blue powder rather than blended powder particles. Increasing the length of the nozzle produced greater mixing at the center of the main powder width but the powders were still somewhat segregated by the centerline (Fig 4.15). 72 Increasing the nozzle

diameter improved mixing in the main width, but uniform mixing was still not achieved (Fig. 4.16).

blue side red side (mm)

(a) (b)

Figure 4.13: Nozzle height of 7.0 mm; (a) original image, (b) annotated image.

blue side red side (mm)

(a) (b)

Figure 4.14: Nozzle height of 9.0 mm; original image (a), annotated image (b).

73

blue side

red side (mm)

(a) (b)

Figure 4.15: Default parameter setup with nozzle length of 10.0 mm; (a) original image , (b) annotated image.

(mm)
(a) (b)

Figure 4.16: Default parameter setup with nozzle diameter of 3.0 mm; (a) original image, (b) annotated image.

Uniform mixing was not achieved for any setting.

Future systems should

therefore consider developing a flow analysis of the powder passing through the nozzle to better stimulate thorough mixing of the multiple powders. Also, it was not possible to analyze the proportions of powder deposited with various volumetric flow rates because the differences of volumetric flow rates achieved by this experimental device are on the order of ten percent. Future systems should therefore also consider maintaining a

74

constant volumetric flow rate for each powder supply line and control the deposited material composition by proportioning the amount of powder which each nozzle receives.

4.5 MULTIPLE MATERIAL TRANSITIONS

In order to facilitate truly continuous heterogeneous material composition, it is important that the deposition system is capable of changing the material composition on the fly. The experimental apparatus provides this capability. In particular, it can currently mix two powders on the fly, and if automated, it would also be able to change this composition on the fly to enable a point-by-point layer design. Experiments were therefore conducted with the experimental apparatus to examine its transitional powder mixing capabilities. In these experiments it was not possible to measure quantitative data to accurately illustrate the transitions because of the lack of automated control within the experimental apparatus. However, transition from one

powder color to the next was tested. The experiment was set up identically to that described in Section 4.4 with one exception: Instead of setting the plugs in motion simultaneously, one was sent slightly ahead of the other. The air supplied to the leading powder plug was ceased as the trailing powder plug approached the nozzle. This resulted in a transition from one material type to the next. Figure 4.17 illustrates a transition from red to green powder colors.

75

red

green

(mm) (a) (b)

Figure 4.17: Transition from red to green powder, (a) original image, (b) annotated image.

These transitions are obviously severely error prone with the current experimental setup. A more precise transition would require timing to the fraction of a second to provide the transitions desired. A future system would require automation to control the timing and would need to be calibrated to determine the transient stages required for initiating and stopping powder flow.

4.6 OBSERVATIONS
The experimental results and analysis demonstrate that depositing continuously heterogeneous powder composition with the experimental apparatus is feasible. Many beneficial deposition qualities were illustrated by the experimental apparatus. However, several deficiencies were also apparent. These deficiencies need to be overcome before deposition by plug-phase pneumatic conveying can be integrated into SLS, 3DP, or FPM. The results illustrate that powder can be transported through the tubing system and deposited with control. Conveying at lower air pressures resulted in lower particle 76

speeds which lend to this control. The results also show the potential for selectively depositing continuously heterogeneous material compositions. Multiple powders were directed to the tubing and deposited simultaneously through a single nozzle. Other

results demonstrate the capabilities of selectively altering the material composition of the deposited powder on the fly. Several deficiencies of the experimental apparatus also became apparent. First, the range of operational volumetric flow rates is limited, varying only 10% among the various setups. This is unfortunate because until this problem is overcome, it will not be possible to achieve precise heterogeneous material deposition varying under computer control. Also, three powders were unable to be simultaneously deposited. This was because the pressure drops in the parallel tubing lines were not equal and the air bypassed one of the lines. A third controlled pressure input would remedy this problem. However, the basic feasibility of deposition of continuously heterogeneous material composition by plug-phase pneumatic conveying has been demonstrated. The next step, in addition to developing a more precise powder mixing control, is therefore to explore how this concept can be integrated with SLS, 3DP, or FPM. Hence, Chapter 5 will present a conceptual design of a proposed larger scale system based on the results and analysis of the performance of the experimental apparatus.

77

CHAPTER 5

MULTIPLE POWDER DEPOSITION SYSTEM

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The results and analysis of the performance of the experimental apparatus illustrate that depositing continuously heterogeneous powder layers is feasible for Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), Three Dimensional Printing (3DP), and Freeform Powder Molding (FPM) with a plug-phase pneumatic conveying system. In its present form, the

experimental apparatus is not suited for implementation into SLS, 3DP, or FPM. It lacks the automation and the speed necessary for satisfactory operation. However, its

operating principles can be used as the basis for the design of a larger scale system to provide selectively heterogeneous material fabrication potential. The results from testing of the experimental apparatus are used for developing a conceptual design of the multiple powder deposition (MPD) system (Fig. 5.1). Similar to the experimental apparatus, the MPD system conveys three powders, each through its own tubing system, to a nozzle where they selectively merge prior to deposition. Drastic improvements are made by automating the powder plug creation and by depositing with an array of nozzles to help reduce the deposition time. The array of nozzles scans the build area in raster fashion rather than having the build area move under a stationary nozzle.

78

Powder storage and loading chambers

Supply tubing

Powder print head Discharge tubing

Figure 5.1: Multiple Powder Deposition System.

Motion system

Included in this chapter are overviews of the major functional components contained in the conceptual design of the MPD system, a review of the software and control requirements, and the powder properties that most effect the conveying of various powders. An analysis of the MPD systems expected performance in depositing a single layer of powder is estimated based on the results discussed in Chapter 4.

79

5.2 NOZZLE ARRAY AND POWDER DEPOSITION HEAD

Depositing each powder layer with a single nozzle system would take the rapid out of rapid prototyping. To aid in minimizing the deposition time required for each layer, an array of independently operating nozzles is proposed. These nozzles are similar in

design to that used in the experimental apparatus with some minor modifications. The nozzle array is contained within the powder deposition head and scans the build area in unison during the powder deposition cycle. The general form of the nozzle remains unchanged from that discussed in Section 3.1.2 except for a few minor design modifications (Fig. 5.2). In order to better accommodate the numerous tubes and fittings into a small area, vertical nozzle extensions should be used. They should taper into the nozzle without severe bending. Based upon results discussed in Chapter 4, a nozzle length of 10.0 mm is recommended. This length minimized the deviation of the powder path and produced greater mixing of multiple powders over the shorter lengths. This mixing was far from uniform though. There were still significant areas of segregated powder types. A more accurate analysis of the flow patterns observed within the nozzle will be needed. This flow analysis should be applied to the design of a new nozzle which will allow for the optimization of multiple powder mixing. Areas that should be addressed are the optimal angle for merging the nozzle extensions and alternative shapes and sizes of the nozzle mixing passageway.

80

Figure 5.2: Proposed deposition nozzle.

Future nozzles will furthermore have to be fabricated by a process other than FDM. In particular, a process is needed that produces precise, smooth surfaces inside the nozzle to minimize its friction with the powder. The surface quality of the nozzle is currently the weak point in the tubing system. A glass blown nozzle is recommended for its improved surface quality, ability to fabricate a variety of shapes, and its transparency for visualizing internal flow patterns. A space of 18.0 mm is required between the center points of adjacent nozzles because of the robust size of the fittings required for connecting the nozzle extensions to the tubing. The powder deposition width of each nozzle is on the order of 3 mm, so there will be a significant void between each nozzle. To help minimize this void, a second row of nozzles is used. Each nozzle is placed in the center of the pair of nozzles in the row in

81

front at distance of 18.0 mm behind. A pair of rows each containing five and four, respectively, nozzles is used. As discussed previously, plug-phase conveying does not supply a continuous deposition of powder. To obtain a continuous deposition, a second pair of nozzle rows will be used. The second row pair will operate 180 degrees out of phase with the other row pair and they will be aligned directly behind the first row pair at a distance of 18.0 mm (Fig. 5.3).
Slow axis 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0

18.0 100.0 mm 18.0 18.0

Primary nozzle row pair Fast axis

Secondary nozzle row pair

9.0 dimensions in mm

9.0 9.0 100.0 mm

9.0

Figure 5.3: Nozzle array positioning.

Finally, a powder deposition head (Fig. 5.4) will be needed to house the array of nozzles and transport them in unison with the motion system. In the future system, a 100.0 mm by 100.0 mm area head would contain the array of nozzles shown in Fig. 5.3.

82

The open top accommodates the tubing lines which supply powder to the nozzles. The circular openings permit it to slide on the motion system poles, and bearings are used to reduce sliding friction during motion. The large opening shown is used for the exit of the discharge tubing.

Openings for sliding on the motion system poles Opening for discharge tubing exit

Figure 5.4: Powder deposition head.

5.3 MOTION SYSTEM

To deposit a complete layer of powder, the nozzle array must scan the entire build area. Unlike the motion system used for the experimental apparatus, the MPD system moves the nozzles over the build area rather than moving the build surface underneath a stationary nozzle. This is the more feasible approach for there is greater difficulty in moving the larger inertia powder bed with the same speed and accuracy.

83

The motion requirement for the MPD system is linear motion with constant velocity in two dimensions, namely x and y. Changes in the vertical height will be

provided by the lowering and raising of the powder bed, as is presently done with both SLS and 3DP. requirements. Numerous mechanical systems can easily accommodate these design The motion system designed for the MPD system operates with

principles similar to that of an ink jet printer. One axis of travel is fast. During travel on this axis, the nozzles deposit powder onto the powder bed surface. The second axis of travel is slower. Travel along this axis provides a small increment in position for the nozzles to make a new pass along the fast axis over the powder bed. The motion system designed for the MPD system is a simple series of pulleys, sliders, and stepper motors (Fig. 5.5). Along the fast axis, a pair of slider poles is used to guide the powder deposition head and maintain its stability. Connected to each side of the deposition head is a V-belt. The deposition head is propelled along the axis in the requisite direction by a stepper motor attached to one of the pulleys. The velocity

requirements are to be determined based upon the flow analysis, but should be on the order of 250 mm/s. The slow axis operates with similar principles. A pair of stepper motor driven pulley systems is attached to each side of the fast axis pulley system. Each motor is controlled through a position feedback to aid in positioning control. After the completion of each pass along the fast axis, the slower axis increments an appropriate

84

Slow axis

Fast Axis

Figure 5.5: Proposed motion system for the Multiple Powder Deposition System.

distance. After deposition of each powder layer, the deposition head and slider poles can be positioned as to not interfere with either the laser scanning or binder spreading. The motion pattern required is similar to a simple raster pattern with some modifications required due to the spacing of the nozzles. After a single pass along the fast axis, 6 mm voids will be left in between the paths of powder. The slow axis will increment the deposition head over 3 mm (the width of each powder path) and another deposition pass will be made. This results in 3 mm voids between the powder paths. After another 3 mm increment along the slow axis and deposition pass, a complete area of

85

powder is deposited. This area is 81 mm wide. Before making the next deposition pass, the deposition head needs to be moved 82.5 mm along the slow axis and the pattern is repeated until a complete layer is deposited. A portion of this motion sequence is shown in figure 5.6. The motion system modeled can deposit a powder bed 300 mm by 250 mm.

Slow axis

Fast axis

Figure 5.6: Portion of motion pattern for powder deposition.

5.4 POWDER PLUG CREATION & DELIVERY

An automated plug creation system similar to the commercial systems illustrated in Fig. 2.7 is used to feed powder to the nozzles. A timer operated valve switches the air flow between the loading bin and the tubing. When air enters the bin, powder is forced out the bottom and enters the tubing. After the desired powder plug length of is created, the air flow is switched to the tubing system. This air propels the powder plug through the tubing system. The use of alternating air valves creates equally spaced powder plugs spaced by equal lengths of air within the tubing (Fig. 5.7).

86

Figure 5.7: Powder plugs passing through tubing.

In the MPD system, each nozzle requires independent delivery of 3 powders. There are a total of 18 nozzles, thus 54 plug loading systems are needed. Figure 5.1 of the complete MPD system only shows a portion of these. Each plug loading system (Fig. 5.8) operates as described for the commercial system. These containers are

relatively large and are therefore stored remotely while connected by tubing to the system.
Powder loading bin

Pressurized air input

Timer operated solenoid valve

Figure 5.8: Plug loading system, 1 of 54 required.

The tubing system connecting the plug loading system to each nozzle needs to have a low coefficient of friction and be flexible. During the motion of the deposition head, the distance from the plug loading systems to the nozzle array will fluctuate

87

tremendously. Great care needs to be made in the routing of the tubing as to not cause bends which will disrupt the flow of powder. Calibration of the flow rates for various plug length and air pressure combinations is required for each material and each of the 54 delivery tubes. Proportioning the powder composition by adjusting the flow rate of powder through the tubing system is not recommended for several reasons. As shown in testing of the experimental apparatus, flow rates within the operating range of the system may only be different on the order of 10%. This would severely restrict the material compositions available. Also, changing flow rates within each tube may not be achievable on the fly. For instance, the gradual increasing of the volumetric flow rate of an individual plug may not be achieved because the plugs traveling behind it will prevent an air flow rate adjustment from reaching the leading plug. A simple solution to the problem would be to convey the powder in each tubing system at identical flow rates and to control the flow of powder entering the nozzle through the nozzle extensions. A valve system needs to be designed and tested to

accomplish this need. The valve system should be able to direct the proportion of powder desired to enter the nozzle through the tubing extensions and to divert the remainder of the powder or conveying air into the discharge tubing (Fig. 5.9). Controlling the powder flow in this manner will prevent stalling of the powder plugs within the tubing and spraying of the powder bed with pressurized air.

88

Discharge tubing Unwanted powder portion and conveying air

Powder delivery tube

Nozzle extension

Proportioning valve system Powder portion used for desired material contribution
Figure 5.9: Proposed operation of proportioning valve for powder composition adjustment.

5.5 SOFTWARE & CONTROL

Current CAD software allows for specifying only discrete material regions. In order to design for heterogeneous material blends, the current state of software needs to be improved to include continuously heterogeneous material composition in three dimensions. Through this software the material composition at each point of the threedimensional part needs to be determined to develop the control of the MPD system. The software might break the three-dimensional part into a finite element grid with the material composition specified for each node. The spacing of the grid will be determined by the tolerance achievable by the MPD system. From this node data, the necessary control parameters for the MPD system can be generated.

89

The most difficult area of control is the array of proportioning valves. 162 valve systems need to be independently controlled based on the nozzle position over the build area and the proportion of air or powder to pass into the nozzle extension. A

programmable logic controller (PLC) can handle the control of both the valve system and motion system. The loading and conveying of plugs of powder can be done continuously or only when the powder from the individual tube is to be deposited. The latter method would save tremendously on material costs.

5.6 POWDER PROPERTY EFFECTS

The deposition experiments performed thus far have only used one powder, polycarbonate, dyed different colors to simulate the deposition of multiple materials. The ability to fabricate parts of multiple colors would only produce cosmetic improvements. To capture all of the benefits of continuously heterogeneous material deposition, a variety of materials with diverse properties should be able to be deposited. Mainwaring [Mainwaring93] summarizes the effects that material properties have on conveying. No one property dictates a materials suitability for conveying. The properties that influence materials flow the most are its particle size distribution and particle shape. A wide particle size distribution is more problematic than fine powders, specifically those with an average size below 100 m, as is used in SLS and 3DP. Spherical particle shapes are also recommended. Particle shapes that naturally do not

90

flow well have difficulty being conveyed. These include cylindrical and disk shaped particles. The use of plug-phase conveying helps to initiate the flow of particles that normally will not flow. Even if a product will not flow naturally in plug form, short plugs can be artificially created to permit reliable conveying [Mainwaring93]. Guidelines suggest that the particle sizes be at least three times smaller than the inner diameter of the tubing transporting them. Thus for the MPD system, particle sizes should be maintained under 500 m. All of the materials commercially available for use in SLS satisfy these requirements and should be able to be deposited in the MPD system with no modifications. Sample SLS material properties are shown in Tbl. 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.

Table 5.1: Laserlite LN4010 Nylon Compound Properties [DTM94a]. General Properties Specific Gravity, 20C Moisture Absorption, 20C, 65% relative humidity Powder Tap Density Volume Average Particle Size Particle Size Range, 90% Value 1.04 g/cm3 1.0% 0.58 g/cm 3 120 microns 60-250 microns Test Method ASTM D792 ASTM D570 ASTM D4164 laser diffraction laser diffraction

Table 5.2: Laserlite LNF5000 Nylon Compound Properties [DTM94b]. General Properties Specific Gravity, 20C Moisture Absorption, 20C, 65% relative humidity Powder Tap Density Volume Average Particle Size Particle Size Range, 90% Value 1.04 g/cm3 1.0% 0.55 g/cm 3 50 microns 15-90 microns Test Method ASTM D792 ASTM D570 ASTM D4164 laser diffraction laser diffraction

91

Table 5.3: Laserlite LWX2010 Wax Compound Properties [DTM94d]. General Properties Specific Gravity, 20C Powder Tap Density Volume Average Particle Size Particle Size Range, 90% Value 1.04 g/cm3 0.55 g/cm 3 105 microns 25-235 microns Test Method ASTM D792 ASTM D4164 laser diffraction laser diffraction

5.7 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

While the complexity of the MPD system is much greater than that of the experimental apparatus, both deposit powders with similar operating principles. Thus, the

performance expected for the MPD system should be accurately predicted from the testing and analysis of the experimental apparatus. The most important parameters that will affect the MPD systems acceptance into the solid freeform fabrication industry are the time required for depositing each layer and the spatial increment at which the material composition may be specified and met by the deposition system. The results of the experimental apparatus predict that a volumetric flow rate on the order of 1.5103 mm3/s can be expected for each nozzle. One might therefore expect to completely deposit a powder layer of 10 by 10 (254 mm by 254 mm) with a thickness of 0.008 (0.2 mm) with the MPD system in approximately one second. The actual time may be slightly higher due to acceleration and deceleration of the motion system. On par, the total deposition time, however, should remain below five seconds. This is slower than the deposition time of the conventional roller distribution method, due

92

mainly to the added complexity of depositing continuously heterogeneous material composition. The spatial interval achievable for the specified powder composition may vary in all three dimensions. The 3 mm width of the powder path dictates a spacing of roughly 3.0 mm in the direction of the slow axis. The composition of the material deposited may be accurately controlled at a spacing of roughly 3 mm. The composition of the material in between the 3 mm interval will be determined by the nearest node. The spatial interval in the vertical direction will be on the order of the powder layer thickness assuming that the powder does not bleed into the underlying powder bed and a compaction method is used to level the surface. Material composition in between the specified positions will be equal to the nearest node. Lastly, the spatial interval relies on the transient capabilities of the control system. Calibration is necessary to accurately predict the transient patterns of the control system relative to the powder deposition. The control points in the deposition system will be the proposed proportioning valves. Having these control points located near the deposition points (nozzles) should help to minimize residual effects of commencing and ceasing flow. The limiting factor in minimizing the nodal spacing is the width in which the powder may be deposited. Deposition in the direction of the head motion can be

accurately controlled to a much tighter interval.

93

5.8 DESIGN SUMMARY

The proposed conceptual design of the MPD system applies the principles developed and tested with the experimental device into a larger scale operation. This system should be capable of depositing powder layers with continuously heterogeneous material composition. It may selectively deposit three powder types through an array of nozzles that as a whole are capable of providing continuous powder deposition. An automated plug loading system is proposed. The powder plugs are created and transported through the supply tubing similar to the commercial systems previously discussed (Section 2.4). Identical volumetric flow rates should be used for each supply tubing and the control of the deposited powder composition may be met through a proportioning valve system. An array of 18 nozzles, with 9 operating simultaneously, will be used to accept the powder from the supply tubing, uniformly mix each of three powder components, and deposit the final powder composition onto the build area. The nozzle array is necessary to help minimize the deposition time for each layer. The powder print head, which contains the nozzle array, will scan the build area in an altered raster pattern (Fig. 5.6). The motion is provided by a system similar to an ink-jet pulley system. The MPD systems acceptance into the SFF industry will rely on the deposition time for each layer and the tolerance at which the powder can be deposited on a point-topoint basis. Based on the results of the experimental apparatus, deposition times can be

94

expected to be on the order of two seconds. Deposition tolerances will vary significantly in each dimension. The use of plug-phase conveying helps to minimize deposition error by providing deposition at low particle speeds and with a minimal amount of air combined in the flow. Further development of this conceptual deposition system requires much testing, analysis, and calibration. However, based on the performance of the experimental apparatus and that estimated for the proposed MPD system, plug-phase pneumatic conveying combined with a raster motion is clearly a feasible method for the deposition of continuously heterogeneous material composition for use in SLS, 3DP, or FPM.

95

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

This thesis has explored the fabrication of continuously heterogeneous parts in physical rapid prototyping. It was achieved by developing a new method for depositing powder layers for use in Selective Laser Sintering, Three-Dimensional Printing, and Freeform Powder Molding. It presents a foundation to which other research should be built upon. This chapter concludes the thesis by outlining the contributions made by this thesis and suggestions for future work.

6.1 CONCLUDING REMARKS

There is a definite need for fabricating parts of continuously heterogeneous material composition. When achieved, engineers may then begin to design at the microscopic level with endless control over final part properties. Because they use additive build

processes, some solid freeform technologies, in particular SLS, 3DP, and FPM, can readily adapt to selectively heterogeneous material blends. Many SFF systems have fabricated using dual material build processes. These are used primarily for support generation, but have expanded to include methods of controlling the microstructure of fabricated parts. In order to adapt SLS, 3DP, and FPM to the capability of continuously heterogeneous material composition, a new method of

96

powder deposition needs to be devised. Plug-phase pneumatic conveying is a viable choice. This thesis explored the feasibility of implementing a plug-phase pneumatic conveying powder delivery system for three-dimensional continuously heterogeneous material composition for potential use in SLS, 3DP, or FPM. It was done through the design, fabrication, and testing of an experimental apparatus. The experimental apparatus used plug-phase conveying to transport three materials through a tubing system to a deposition nozzle where they were selectively mixed prior to deposition. Results show that continuously heterogeneous material composition is feasible through the deposition methods of the experimental apparatus. These results are used to model a conceptual design of a larger scale deposition system. Further development of this larger scale system should be the next stage in future research.

6.2 CONTRIBUTIONS
This thesis addresses the need for fabricating continuously heterogeneous material parts in SFF by developing a method of powder deposition that can accommodate changing material composition on the fly. The final results were limited by the simplicity of the experimental apparatus, but they demonstrate that plug-phase pneumatic conveying is a feasible approach for depositing continuously heterogeneous powder layers.

97

6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

This thesis builds a foundation for further research in fabricating parts of continuously heterogeneous material composition. A number of issues remain before a fully functional prototype system can be built: Development of a flow analysis and redesign of the nozzle. The nozzle used in the experimental apparatus definitely had its limitations. Further research should focus on analyzing the flow conditions that take place within the nozzle to achieve uniform mixing. This will include exploring other nozzle shapes, sizes and adding static mixing in the nozzle passageway. This analysis should be applied to a redesign of the nozzle which optimizes its mixing and deposition potential. Method of proportioning powder composition. Because of the limited range of

operational flow rates achievable, an alternative method of varying composition needs to be developed. This method needs to be able to selectively allow certain quantities of each powder into the nozzle and be able to adjust the composition rapidly. Transient effects in the switching of powder composition. Once the methods of

proportioning are developed the transient effects of switching powder composition needs to be further analyzed. These results need to be incorporated into the control of the proportioning system. Deposition onto underlying powder bed. Testing needs to be performed to determine the force at which the underlying powder bed becomes disturbed and adjust the flow

98

correspondingly. The underlying powder bed should be compacted and heated to simulate the conditions present in SLS, 3DP, and FPM. Exploring other powder alternatives. This research focused on only one powder, polycarbonate. Assumptions concerning the flow of other powders are made. These assumptions need to be validated and the range of material and their relevant properties need to be explored for potential implementation into this deposition system. Height measurements. The height of the deposited powder needs to be accurately measured. This could be done by shadowing as is used in measuring contact angles. The path height could be projected onto a screen by a light source. The scaling factor can be determined by calibration through the projection of an object of known height. Compaction methods. The powder layers deposited may be of lower density than desired. Methods of compaction and leveling each layer need to be explored. Adjusting other parameters within SLS, 3DP, and FPM to adapt to heterogeneous material composition. These fabrication systems currently use only homogeneous material blends. Changing material properties throughout the part may also result in changing fabrication techniques. For example, in SLS the time and intensity at which the laser must pass over each point may become variable along with the material composition.

99

Development of software capable of heterogeneous material composition. Current CAD software allows for specifying only discrete material regions. In order to design for heterogeneous material blend, the current state of software needs to be improved. The heterogeneous geometry needs to be converted into a form for controlling the parameters of the deposition system.

100

REFERENCES

[Agarwala95]

M. Agarwala, R. van Weeren, R. Vaidyanathan, A. Bandyopadhyay, G. Carrasquillo, V. Jamalabad, N. Langrana, A. Safari, S. Garofalin, S. Danforth, J. Burlew, R. Donaldson, P. Whalen, and C. Ballard, Structural Ceramics by Fused Deposition of Ceramics, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 7-9 1995, University of Texas, Austin Texas, http://www.caip.rutgers.edu/sff/Austin_paper_ presented.html. C. Albright J. Holden, H. Simmons, and L. Schmidt, Pressure Drop in Flow of Dense Coal-Air Mixtures, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, vol. 43, no. 8, August 1951, pp. 18371840. S. Ashley, Rapid Prototyping is Coming of Age, Mechanical Engineering, vol. 117, no. 7, July 1995, pp. 62-68. B. Badrinarayan and J. Barlow, Metal Parts From Selective Laser Sintering of Metal-Polymer Powders, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 3-5 1992, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 141- 146. J. Beck, F. Prinz, D. Siewiorek, and L. Weiss, Manufacturing Mechatronics Using Thermal Spray Shape Deposition, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 3-5 1992, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 272- 279. U. Behrendt and M. Shellabear, The EOS Rapid Prototyping Concept, Computers in Industry, vol. 28, 1995, pp. 57-61. D. Bourell, H. Marcus, J. Barlow, and J. Beaman, Selective Laser Sintering of Metals and Ceramics, The International Journal of Powder Metallurgy, vol. 28, no.4, 1992, pp. 369-381. R. Brown and J. Richards, Principles of Powder Mechanics, P. Danchwerts (ed.), Pergamon Press, 1970, pp. 1-12.

[Albright51]

[Ashley95]

[Badrinarayan92]

[Beck92]

[Behrendt95]

[Bourell92]

[Brown70]

101

[Burns93]

M. Burns, Automated Fabrication - Improving Productivity in Manufacturing, PTR Prentice Hall, 1993. W. Carter and M. Jones, Direct Laser Sintering of Metals, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 911 1993, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 51- 59. M. Cima, A. Laudner, S. Khanuja, and E. Sachs, Microstructural Elements of Components Derived from Three Dimensional Printing, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 3-5 1992, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 220227. L. Deckard and T. Claar, Fabrication of Ceramic and Metal Matrix Composites From Selective Laser Sintered Ceramic Preforms, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 9-11 1993, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 215222. A. Dickson, B. Skews, and R. Marcus, Plug Phase Conveying, Proceedings of Pneumotransport 4, paper D6, Organized by BHRA Fluid Engineering, Cranfield, Bedford, UK, June 1978. Laserlite LN4010 Nylon Compound product data sheet, DTM Corp., Austin, Texas, 1994. Laserlite LNF5000 Nylon Compound product data sheet, DTM Corp., Austin, Texas, 1994. Laserlite LPC3000 Polycarbonate Compound product data sheet, DTM Corp., Austin, Texas, 1994. Laserlite LWX2010 Wax Compound product data sheet, DTM Corp., Austin, Texas, 1994. FDM users group meeting, William Priedeman, Stratasys, Inc., June 24-26, 1996. Alexandria MN. R. Flain, Pneumatic Conveying: How the System is Matched to the Materials, Process Engineering, November 1972, pp. 88-90.

[Carter93]

[Cima92]

[Deckard93]

[Dickson78]

[DTM94a]

[DTM94b]

[DTM94c]

[DTM94d]

[FDM96]

[Flain72]

102

[Geldart90]

D. Geldart, Powder Processing - The Overall View, in: Principles of Powder Technology, M. Rhodes (ed.), John Wiley and Sons, 1990, pp. 1-8. M. Greul, T. Pintat, and M. Greulich, Rapid Prototyping of Functional Metallic Parts, Computers in Industry, vol. 28, 1995, pp. 23-28. J. Heinzel and C. Hertz, Ink-Jet Printing, in: Advances in Electronics and Electron physics, P. Hawkes(ed.), Academic Press, Inc., vol. 65, 1985, pp. 91-171. K. Konrad, D. Harrison, R. Nedderman, and J. Davidson, Prediction of the Pressure Drop for Horizontal Dense Phase Pneumatic Conveying of Particles, Proceedings of Pneumotransport 5, paper E1, Organized by BHRA Fluid Engineering, Cranfield, Bedford, UK, April 1980. K. Konrad, Dense Phase Pneumatic Conveying of Particles, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge, UK, 1981. K. Konrad, Dense-Phase Pneumatic Conveying: A Review, Powder Technology, vol. 49, 1986, pp. 1-35. U. Lakshminarayan and H. Marcus, An Experimental Study of the Relationship between Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of a Ceramic Fabricated by Selective Laser Sintering, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 3-5 1992, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 44-53. S. Lee, E. Sachs, and M. Cima, Powder Layer Position Accuracy in Powder-Based Rapid Prototyping, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 9-11, 1993, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 223- 236. A. Lippert, Pneumatic Conveyance of Solids at High Concentrations, Chemie-Ingenieur-Technik, vol. 38, no. 3, 1966, pp. 350-355.

[Greul95]

[Heinzel85]

[Konrad80]

[Konrad81]

[Konrad86]

[Lakshminarayan92]

[Lee93]

[Lippert66]

103

[Mainwaring93]

N. Mainwaring, Characterization of Materials for Pneumatic Conveying, American Ceramic Society Bulletin, vol. 72, no. 8, August 1993, pp. 63-71. R. Marcus, Pneumatic Conveying of Solids, Chapman and Hall, 1990. L. Melvin and J. Beaman, The Electrostatic Application of Powder for Selective Laser Sintering, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 1991, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 171- 177. S. Michaels, E. Sachs, and M. Cima, Metal Parts Generation By Three Dimensional Printing, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 3-5 1992, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 244- 250. J. Pegna, Exploratory Investigation of Layered Fabrication Applied to Construction Automation, Design Engineering Technical Conferences, vol. 1, ASME 1995, pp. 219-226. G. Prabhu and D. Bourell, Supersolidus Liquid Phase Selective Laser Sintering of Prealloyed Bronze Powder, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 9-11 1993, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 317- 324. S. Rock and C. Gilman, A New SFF Process for Functional Part Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing: Freeform Powder Molding, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 7-9 1995, University of Texas, Austin Texas. E. Sachs, M. Cima, P. Williams, D. Brancazio, and J. Cornie, Three Dimensional Printing: Rapid Tooling and Prototypes Directly from a CAD Model, Journal of Engineering for Industry, vol. 114, November 1992, 481-488. A. Sadler, Gas-Solids Fluidizing for Transport, Chemical Engineering, vol. 56, no. 5, 1949, pg. 110.

[Marcus90]

[Melvin91]

[Michaels92]

[Pegna95]

[Prabhu93]

[Rock95]

[Sachs92]

[Sadler49]

104

[Sanders96]

Sanders Prototype, Inc., May prototype.com/techdesc.htm.

1996, http://www.sanders-

[SFF Group95]

Solid Freeform Fabrication Group, University of Texas, at Austin, 1995, http://sffoffice.utexas.edu. M. Sindel, T. Pintat, M. Gruel, O. Nyrhila, and C. Wilkening, Direct Laser Sintering of Metals and Metal Melt Infiltration for Near Net Shape Fabrication of Components, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 8-10 1994, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 94- 101. J. Tobin, B. Badrinarayan, J. Barlow, J. Beaman, and D. Bourell, Indirect Metal Composite Part Manufacture Using the SLS Process, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 9-11 1993, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 303307. N. Vail and J. Barlow, Ceramic Structures by Selective Laser Sintering of Microencapsulated, Finely Divided Ceramic Materials, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 3-5 1992, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 124130. B. Van der Schueren and J. Kruth, Powder Deposition in Selective Metal Powder Sintering, Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, 1995, pp. 23- 31. J. Yoo, M. Cima, S. Khanuja, and E. Sachs, Structural Ceramic Components by 3D Printing, Proceedings Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, August 9-11 1993, University of Texas, Austin Texas, pp. 40-50 .

[Sindel94]

[Tobin93]

[Vail92]

[Van der Schueren95]

[Yoo93]

105

APPENDIX A

BILL OF MATERIALS FOR EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS

PART SOURCE CATALOG # COST $6.00/each $8.00/25 $8.00/25 $10.25/3 $41.00/3 $19.43/each $27.00/25 ft. $20.75/50 ft. $309.50 $52.00 $29.95 $15.95 $21.99 $5.00 $1.99 QUANTITY TOTAL COST 1 4 4 3 3 6 $6.00 $8.00 $8.00 $10.25 $41.00 $58.29 $27.00 $20.75 $309.50 $52.00 $29.95 $15.95 $21.99 $5.00 $1.99

manifold Cole Parmer H-06464-82 luer adapter Cole Parmer H-06359-17 luer lock Cole Parmer H-06359-67 screw clamp Cole Parmer H-06833-10 str. micro-fitting Cole Parmer H-06173-00 reducer fitting Cole Parmer H-06391-70 Teflon PFA tubing Cole Parmer H-06375-01 Polyurethane tubing Cole Parmer H-06423-01 instrument cart Cole Parmer MO02-K31 power receptacle Cole Parmer AO-09 motor C and H DCGM7505 motor control kit Marlin P. Jones 4057-MD AC/DC converter Radio Shack 273-1653B board True Value plywood tape Walmart Scotch Mailing Tape nozzle self-fabricated nozzle support self-fabricated spool self-fabricated slider platform self-fabricated slider tray self-fabricated funnel self-fabricated circuit support self-fabricated main support stand scrap metal track groove scrap metal eye hook spare thread spare powder DTM Laserlite LPC3000 Polycarbonate

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1

TOTAL

$615.67

106

APPENDIX B

PARTS LIST FOR EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS

PART
base board track groove main support stand main air line 1 main air line 2 luer fitting luer lock manifold middle tubing screw clamps reducer fitting Teflon tubing straight micro-fitting nozzle nozzle support motor motor spool speed control circuit circuit support slider top slider bottom adhesive surface eye hook funnel AC/DC converter

QUANTITY
1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 multiple 1 multiple 1 4 1

REFERENCE CODE
A B C D1 D2 E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X

107

APPENDIX C

SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWINGS OF EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS

108

Part : Base Board

Source : True Value

Catlog Number : Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : Plywood

Quantity : 1

Reference Code : A

Figure A.1: Base board.

109

Part : Track Groove

Source :

Catlog Number : Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : Sheet Metal

Quantity : 1

Reference Code : B

Figure A.2: Track Groove

110

Part : Main Support Stand

Source :

Catlog Number : Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : Sheet Metal

Quantity : 1

Reference Code : C

Figure A.3: Main support stand.

111

Part : Main Air Line 1

Source : Cole Parmer

Catlog Number : H-06375-01 Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : Polyurethane

Quantity : 1

Reference Code : D1

Figure A.4: Main air line 1.

112

Part : Main Air Line 1

Source : Cole Parmer

Catlog Number : H-06375-01 Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : Polyurethane

Quantity : 1

Reference Code : D2

Figure A.5: Main air line 2.

113

Part : Luer Fitting

Source : Cole Parmer

Catlog Number : H-06359-17 Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : Plastic

Quantity : 5

Reference Code : E

Figure A.6: Luer fitting.

114

Part : Luer Lock

Source : Cole Parmer

Catlog Number : H-06359-67 Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : Plastic

Quantity : 5

Reference Code : F

Figure A.7: Luer lock.

115

Part : Middle Tubing

Source : Cole Parmer

Catlog Number : H-06423-01 Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : Polyurethane

Quantity : 3

Reference Code : H

Figure A.8: Middle tubing.

116

Part : Screw Clamps

Source : Cole Parmer

Catlog Number : H-06833-10 Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : Plastic

Quantity : 3

Reference Code : I

Figure A.9: Screw Clamp.

117

Part : Reucer Fitting

Source : Cole Parmer

Catlog Number : H-06391-70 Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : PTFE

Quantity : 3

Reference Code : J

Figure A.10: Reducer fitting.

118

Part : Teflon Tubing

Source : Cole Parmer

Catlog Number : H-006375-01 Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : Teflon PFA

Quantity : 3

Reference Code : K

Figure A.11: Teflon tubing.

119

Part : Straight Micro-Fitting

Source : Cole Parmer

Catlog Number : H-06173-00 Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : Plastic

Quantity : 3

Reference Code : L

Figure A.12: Straight micro-fitting.

120

Part : Nozzle

Source :

Catlog Number : Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : ABS plastic

Quantity : 1

Reference Code : M

Figure A.13: Nozzle.

121

Part : Nozzle Support

Source :

Catlog Number : Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : ABS plastic

Quantity : 1

Reference Code : N

Figure A.14: Nozzle support.

122

Part : Motor Spool

Source :

Catlog Number : Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : ABS plastic

Quantity : 1

Reference Code : P

Figure A.15: Motor spool.

123

Part : Circuit Support

Source :

Catlog Number : Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : ABS plastic

Quantity : 1

Reference Code : R

Figure A.16: Circuit Support.

124

Part : Slider Top

Source :

Catlog Number : Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : ABS plastic

Quantity : 6

Reference Code : S

Figure A.17: Slider Top.

125

Part : Slider Bottom

Source :

Catlog Number : Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : ABS plastic

Quantity : 1

Reference Code : T

Figure A.18: Slider bottom.

126

Part : Adhesive Surface

Source : Walmart

Catlog Number : Scotch Mailing Tape Note: All dimensions in mm. Material :

Quantity : 1

Reference Code : U

Figure A.19: Adhesive surface.

127

Part : Eye Hook

Source :

Catlog Number : Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : Steel

Quantity : 1

Reference Code : V

Figure A.20: Eye Hook.

128

Part : Funnel

Source :

Catlog Number : Note: All dimensions in mm. Material : ABS plastic

Quantity : 4

Reference Code : W

Figure A.21: Funnel.

129

Figure A.22: Layout of fixtures attached to base board.

130

Figure A.23: Layout of fixtures attached to main support stand.

131

Figure A.24: Exploded manifold assembly.

132

Figure A.25: Exploded nozzle assembly.

133

Figure A.26: Exploded motor assembly.

134

APPENDIX D

SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWINGS OF MULTIPLE POWDER DEPOSITION SYSTEM

135

Figure A.27: Powder print head.

136

Figure A.28: Proposed nozzle.

137

Figure A.29: Motion system.

138

Figure A.30: Powder loading system.

139

VITA

Shawn Fitzgerald was born in Pompton Plains, New Jersey on October 2, 1972. He attended St. James High School in Carneys Point, New Jersey. He obtained his Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Virginia Tech in May of 1994. After an eight month internship with the Delaware River and Bay Authority in New Castle, Delaware, Shawn returned to Virginia Tech to receive his Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering in July 1996. He is working for the Defense Systems and

Electronics group of Texas Instruments located in the greater Dallas area.

140