0
Research Papers

A Reverse Compensation Framework for Shape Deformation Control in Additive Manufacturing

[+] Author and Article Information
Kai Xu, Tsz-Ho Kwok, Zhengcai Zhao

Epstein Department of Industrial and
Systems Engineering,
University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA 90089

Yong Chen

Epstein Department of Industrial and
Systems Engineering,
University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA 90089
e-mail: yongchen@usc.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Computers and Information Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 22, 2016; final manuscript received August 28, 2016; published online February 16, 2017. Editor: Bahram Ravani.

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 17(2), 021012 (Feb 16, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: JCISE-16-2026; doi: 10.1115/1.4034874 History: Received July 22, 2016; Revised August 28, 2016

Shape deformation is a well-known problem in additive manufacturing (AM). For example, in the stereolithography (SL) process, some of the factors that lead to part deformation including volumetric shrinkage, thermal cooling, added supporting structures, and the layer-by-layer building process. Variant sources of deformation and their interactions make it difficult to predict and control the shape deformation to achieve high accuracy that is comparable to numerically controlled machining. In this paper, a computational framework based on a general reverse compensation approach is presented to reduce the shape deformation in AM processes. In the reverse compensation process, the shape deformation is first calculated by physical measurements. A novel method to capture the physical deformation by finding the optimal correspondence between the deformed shape and the given nominal model is presented. The amount of compensation is determined by a compensation profile that is established based on nominal and offset models. The compensated digital model can be rebuilt using the same building process for a part with significantly less part deformation than the built part related to the nominal model. Two test cases have been performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the presented computational framework. There is a 40–60% improvement in terms of L2- and L-norm measurements on geometric errors.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Topics: Deformation , Shapes
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

An example of a physical object built by the MIP-SL process that deforms when compared to the nominal shape

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Deformation sources

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

A computational framework to reduce shape deformation in AM processes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Models with no salient feature points (a) nominal CAD model and (b) built physical model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Cross-parameterization of two models with 35 artificial markers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Schematic of modified letter H part

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Built object of the modified letter H model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Sample points of the nominal model and the corresponding points on the physical model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Simple bar test part with double thickness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Offset models and built physical parts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparisons of deformation of models without offset and with offsets

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Compensated profile

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Compensated STL model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparisons of deformation before and after compensation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of physical built parts: (a) original part and (b) part with compensation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Testcase 2: (a) nominal model and (b) scan model with markers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of baseline nominal model and scan model compensation: (a) comparison of entire model and (b) magnified views of two sections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Physical built parts of offset models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Deformation using offset models: (a) offset outward model and (b) offset inward model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Compensation: (a) compare with nominal model and (b) compensated STL model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Physical parts comparisons: (a) without compensation and (b) with compensation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Deformation of built part with compensation: (a) comparison of entire model and (b) magnified views of two sections

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In