TY - JOUR
T1 - Additive manufacturing for plastic extrusion die tooling
T2 - A numerical investigation
AU - Lieber, Samuel C.
AU - Varghese, Allen P.
AU - Tarantino, Robert
AU - Tafuni, Angelantonio
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 CIRP
PY - 2023/4
Y1 - 2023/4
N2 - Additive Manufacturing (AM) has become commonplace to iterate concepts and realize products in different industries. The maturation of AM has made it a viable alternative to Subtractive Manufacturing (SM) processes, nevertheless there remain several unexplored opportunities. One of these is profile plastic extrusion tooling, which is typically produced at low volumes, can be complex in geometry, and could benefit from AM's bottom-up process. Such manufacturing options raise the question of how one can evaluate whether AM should be considered as opposed to SM. The objective of this work is to establish a technology assessment method to evaluate which extrusion profile cases warrant consideration for AM. Results from Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations of polymer flow through the flow channel are related to several applied parameters used by the extrusion industry. This provides a means to evaluate a tool's design virtually before implementing in production. The technology assessment is performed on a U-Channel case, which is a common open profile shape with several product variations in industry. Results from this work indicate that there is no advantage of pursuing AM over an SM informed design for the specific U-Channel case used in this study. In addition, streamlining features alone do not necessarily lead to clear improvements, highlighting the need for technology assessment tools and methods to evaluate whether AM or SM should be implemented. This work lays the foundation for evaluating which extrusion profile cases warrant consideration for an AM process.
AB - Additive Manufacturing (AM) has become commonplace to iterate concepts and realize products in different industries. The maturation of AM has made it a viable alternative to Subtractive Manufacturing (SM) processes, nevertheless there remain several unexplored opportunities. One of these is profile plastic extrusion tooling, which is typically produced at low volumes, can be complex in geometry, and could benefit from AM's bottom-up process. Such manufacturing options raise the question of how one can evaluate whether AM should be considered as opposed to SM. The objective of this work is to establish a technology assessment method to evaluate which extrusion profile cases warrant consideration for AM. Results from Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations of polymer flow through the flow channel are related to several applied parameters used by the extrusion industry. This provides a means to evaluate a tool's design virtually before implementing in production. The technology assessment is performed on a U-Channel case, which is a common open profile shape with several product variations in industry. Results from this work indicate that there is no advantage of pursuing AM over an SM informed design for the specific U-Channel case used in this study. In addition, streamlining features alone do not necessarily lead to clear improvements, highlighting the need for technology assessment tools and methods to evaluate whether AM or SM should be implemented. This work lays the foundation for evaluating which extrusion profile cases warrant consideration for an AM process.
KW - Additive Manufacturing
KW - Computational Fluid Dynamics
KW - Design for additive manufacturing
KW - Profile extrusion die tooling
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85146432420&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85146432420&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cirpj.2023.01.003
DO - 10.1016/j.cirpj.2023.01.003
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85146432420
SN - 1755-5817
VL - 41
SP - 401
EP - 412
JO - CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology
JF - CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology
ER -