<p>This study clarifies how particle-size gradation regulates part performance in binder jetting of sand molds. The large-particle fraction <InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(A\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mi>A</mi> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>, printhead grayscale setting <InlineEquation ID="IEq2"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(B\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mi>B</mi> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> and layer thickness <InlineEquation ID="IEq3"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(C\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mi>C</mi> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> were selected as process factors. Single-factor tests, a 3-factor × 4-level response-surface design and multi-angle build verification were carried out. Multi-response contour maps based on second-order polynomial regression, together with a Boltzmann model for strength retention and analysis of build angle versus surface roughness, were used to identify the process window. Under combined constraints of dimensional error, tensile strength and permeability, a recommended parameter range of <InlineEquation ID="IEq4"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(A = 0{-}10\, {\text{wt}}.\%\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>A</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0</mn> <mo>-</mo> <mn>10</mn> <mspace width="0.166667em" /> <mtext>wt</mtext> <mo>.</mo> <mo>%</mo> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>, <InlineEquation ID="IEq5"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(B = 4{-}5\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>B</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>4</mn> <mo>-</mo> <mn>5</mn> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> and <InlineEquation ID="IEq6"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(C = 0.50\, \text{mm}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>C</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.50</mn> <mspace width="0.166667em" /> <mtext>mm</mtext> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> is obtained, with <InlineEquation ID="IEq7"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(A = 10\, \text{wt}.\text{\%}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>A</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>10</mn> <mspace width="0.166667em" /> <mtext>wt</mtext> <mo>.</mo> <mtext>\%</mtext> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>, <InlineEquation ID="IEq8"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(B = 4\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>B</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>4</mn> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> and <InlineEquation ID="IEq9"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(C = 0.50\,\text{ mm}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>C</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.50</mn> <mspace width="0.166667em" /> <mspace width="0.333333em" /> <mtext>mm</mtext> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> as a preferred setting. Compared with the baseline (<InlineEquation ID="IEq10"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(A = 0\, \text{wt}.\text{\%}, B = 5, C = 0.50\, \text{mm}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>A</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0</mn> <mspace width="0.166667em" /> <mtext>wt</mtext> <mo>.</mo> <mtext>\%</mtext> <mo>,</mo> <mi>B</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>5</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mi>C</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.50</mn> <mspace width="0.166667em" /> <mtext>mm</mtext> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>), this setting reduces dimensional error by 30.3 %, while tensile strength decreases by only 3.5 % and permeability increases by 5.1 %. Multi-angle tests further show that, at <InlineEquation ID="IEq11"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(B = 5\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>B</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>5</mn> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> and <InlineEquation ID="IEq12"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(C = 0.50\, \text{mm}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>C</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.50</mn> <mspace width="0.166667em" /> <mtext>mm</mtext> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>, increasing <InlineEquation ID="IEq13"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(A\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mi>A</mi> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> from <InlineEquation ID="IEq14"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(0\; \text{to}\; 10\, \text{wt}.\text{\%}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> <mspace width="0.277778em" /> <mtext>to</mtext> <mspace width="0.277778em" /> <mn>10</mn> <mspace width="0.166667em" /> <mtext>wt</mtext> <mo>.</mo> <mtext>\%</mtext> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> raises <InlineEquation ID="IEq15"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\({\theta }_{50}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <msub> <mi>θ</mi> <mn>50</mn> </msub> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> from 53.1° to 65.6° and reduces the peak-to-valley difference in roughness across build angles by 49.9 %. These results define a process-parameter window and selection strategy for high-precision, high-efficiency binder jetting under the conditions of this study.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Effect of Multi-Parameter Coupling on the Performance of Binder-Jetting Sand Molds and Optimization of the Process-Parameter Window

  • Gao-yang Yang,
  • Hao-qin Yang,
  • Zhong-de Shan,
  • Li-ping Wang,
  • Dan-dan Yan,
  • Chang-cai Gao,
  • Yong-jun Li

摘要

This study clarifies how particle-size gradation regulates part performance in binder jetting of sand molds. The large-particle fraction \(A\) A , printhead grayscale setting \(B\) B and layer thickness \(C\) C were selected as process factors. Single-factor tests, a 3-factor × 4-level response-surface design and multi-angle build verification were carried out. Multi-response contour maps based on second-order polynomial regression, together with a Boltzmann model for strength retention and analysis of build angle versus surface roughness, were used to identify the process window. Under combined constraints of dimensional error, tensile strength and permeability, a recommended parameter range of \(A = 0{-}10\, {\text{wt}}.\%\) A = 0 - 10 wt . % , \(B = 4{-}5\) B = 4 - 5 and \(C = 0.50\, \text{mm}\) C = 0.50 mm is obtained, with \(A = 10\, \text{wt}.\text{\%}\) A = 10 wt . \% , \(B = 4\) B = 4 and \(C = 0.50\,\text{ mm}\) C = 0.50 mm as a preferred setting. Compared with the baseline ( \(A = 0\, \text{wt}.\text{\%}, B = 5, C = 0.50\, \text{mm}\) A = 0 wt . \% , B = 5 , C = 0.50 mm ), this setting reduces dimensional error by 30.3 %, while tensile strength decreases by only 3.5 % and permeability increases by 5.1 %. Multi-angle tests further show that, at \(B = 5\) B = 5 and \(C = 0.50\, \text{mm}\) C = 0.50 mm , increasing \(A\) A from \(0\; \text{to}\; 10\, \text{wt}.\text{\%}\) 0 to 10 wt . \% raises \({\theta }_{50}\) θ 50 from 53.1° to 65.6° and reduces the peak-to-valley difference in roughness across build angles by 49.9 %. These results define a process-parameter window and selection strategy for high-precision, high-efficiency binder jetting under the conditions of this study.