As a researcher in the field of non-conventional machining processes, such as EDM, ECM, PeP, and the hybrid machining processes that can be derived from them, I would be interested in which of these processes you see as the best option for post-processing additive machining processes. It would be important that the advantages and disadvantages are shown.
To stimulate an active discussion, the question of which essential problems arise after an AD processing and which requirements do I make of the post-processing procedures. First of all, I think of surface quality (roughness, material phases before and after post-processing) and complexity of the geometric construct (all surfaces can be processed freely).
For metal AM process there is a need for Wire EDM and conventional machining, especially if producing end use components. It is also important to highlight the extensive research in surface finish techniques for such parts. More importantly however, there is an increasing need for high skilled machinists to carry out these operations especially on the more complex structures we can now manufacture. The post-processing need should be considered in the early design/build preparation stages to ensure it can be applied successfully.
I agree with Paul's opinion. The surface treatment of complex structures could be done, for example, by plasma electrolytic polishing if the structures are exposed. The question arises here, which "roughness" has to be assumed if they are produced from additive machining? What are the relationships between functional geometry and surface roughness?
Interesting question. Hypothetically the best post process would be no post process!
WEDM is commonly used to remove parts from build plates in LPBF but I have seen an excellent patent which details synthesis of ceramics at the interface so even metals parts can be 'broken' away from the substrate.
As for the remaining surfaces - I see all of the examples you mention as being necessary in the same way that from a surface integrity and geometrical perspective LPBF parts are essentially equivalent to good quality castings. Therefore I think there is a challenge for designers to create components which take advantage of AM but are easily post processed.
We should also be mindful that for many materials (including the ones I work with) there will be a need for heat treatments to 'CTRL+ATL+DEL' the unfavourable microstructure from process. Syncing post processing with this is also an important consideration. Great question!
@Schulze: My two cents: If you're actually looking for the post-processing techinques in order to implement a desired surface property, then you have various options among them SMAT (Surface Mechanical Attrition Treatment). These methods give a desirable roughness to the surface and improve its mechanical properties.
I would suggest that you explore the process of Ball-End Magnetorheological Finishing. The process is deterministic in nature, and so you can control the shear as well as normal forces, which is difficult with most of the available surface finishing processes. Moreover, you can attain a surface Ra value in a couple of nanometers and you can finish virtually any material.
I have done some work in this field and would be happy to answer your queries if you want.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity