0
Research Papers

Optimizing Ultrasonic Additive Manufactured Al 3003 Properties With Statistical Modeling

[+] Author and Article Information
C. D. Hopkins

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,  The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210hopkins.626@osu.edu

P. J. Wolcott

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43221wolcott.27@osu.edu

M. J. Dapino1

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, E307 Scott Laboratory,  The Ohio State University, 201 W. 19th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210dapino.1@osu.edu

A. G. Truog

Welding Engineering Program, Department of Materials Science and Engineering,  The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43221truog.1@osu.edu

S. S. Babu

Welding Engineering Program, Department of Materials Science and Engineering,  The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43221babu.13@osu.edu

S. A. Fernandez

Center for Biostatistics,  The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210fernandez.71@osu.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 134(1), 011004 (Dec 06, 2011) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4005269 History: Received November 29, 2010; Revised August 24, 2011; Accepted September 09, 2011; Published December 06, 2011; Online December 06, 2011

Ultrasonic additive manufacturing (UAM) has proven useful in the solid-state, low tempe’rature fabrication of layered solid metal structures. It is necessary to optimize the various process variables that affect the quality of bonding between layers through investigation of the mechanical strength of various UAM builds. We investigate the effect of the process parameters tack force, weld force, oscillation amplitude, and weld rate on the ultimate shear strength (USS) and ultimate transverse tensile strength (UTTS) of 3003-H18 aluminum UAM built samples. A multifactorial experiment was designed and an analysis of variance was performed to obtain an optimal set of process parameters for maximizing mechanical strength for the tested factors. The statistical analyses indicate that a relatively high mechanical strength can be achieved with a process window bounded by a 350 N tack force, 1000 N weld force, 26 μm oscillation amplitude, and about 42 mm/s weld rate. Optical analyses of bond characterization did not show a consistent correlation linking linear weld density and bonded area of fractured surfaces to mechanical strength. Therefore, scanning electronmicroscopy (SEM) was conducted on fractured samples showing a good correlation between mechanical strength and area fraction that shows ductile failure.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Loading scheme and tape diagram of (a) shear and (b) tensile specimens—not to scale

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Interval plot showing USS and UTTS experimental results–bars represent one standard deviation and numbers above each plot represent number of samples tested

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Measured force versus displacement curves for shear tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Measured force versus displacement curves for transverse tensile tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Interaction plot between tack force and weld force for USS data

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Deviation in average USS and UTTS as a function of selected levels for each parameter: (a) Ultimate strength versus tack force, (b) ultimate strength versus weld force, (c) ultimate strength versus amplitude, and (d) ultimate strength versus weld rate

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Micrographs of (a) Experiment 6, Sample 2 (high USS and UTTS) and (b) Experiment 8, Sample 2 (low USS and UTTS) used in calculating total LWD

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

LWD versus average mechanical strength (USS and UTTS) of UAM built Al 3003 specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Optical images of transverse tensile fracture surfaces (top surface) from Experiment #2 (a) before image processing and (b) after threshold adjustment. Region I is damaged material caused by bonding or contact with previous surface. Region II is material unaffected by the UAM process

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Percentage of bonded area on fracture surfaces versus mechanical strength of both UTTS and USS samples

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Example SEM images representing shear ductile failure, ductile failure, flow, brittle shear, and machined surface

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