In-Process Thermal Imaging of the Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication Process

Researchers at NASA Langley Research Center have been developing the Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication (EBF3) metal additive manufacturing process for the past 15 years. In this process, an electron beam is used as a heat source to create a small molten pool on a substrate into which wire is fed. The electron beam and wire feed assembly are translated with respect to the substrate to follow a predetermined tool path. This process is repeated in a layer-wise fashion to fabricate metal structural components. In-process imaging has been integrated into the EBF3 system using a near-infrared (NIR) camera. The images are processed to provide thermal and spatial measurements that have been incorporated into a closed-loop control system to maintain consistent thermal conditions throughout the build. Other information in the thermal images is being used to assess quality in real time by detecting flaws in prior layers of the deposit. NIR camera incorporation into the system has improved the consistency of the deposited material and provides the potential for real-time flaw detection which, ultimately, could lead to the manufacture of better, more reliable components using this additive manufacturing process

A Design of Experiments Approach Defining the Relationships Between Processing and Microstructure for Ti-6Al-4V

A study was conducted to evaluate the relative significance of input parameters on Ti-6Al-4V deposits produced by an electron beam freeform fabrication process under development at the NASA Langley Research Center. Five input parameters where chosen (beam voltage, beam current, translation speed, wire feed rate, and beam focus), and a design of experiments (DOE) approach was used to develop a set of 16 experiments to evaluate the relative importance of these parameters on the resulting deposits. Both single-bead and multi-bead stacks were fabricated using 16 combinations, and the resulting heights and widths of the stack deposits were measured. The resulting microstructures were also characterized to determine the impact of these parameters on the size of the melt pool and heat affected zone. The relative importance of each input parameter on the height and width of the multi-bead stacks will be discussed

Qualitative effects of fresh and dried plum ingredients on vacuum-packaged, sliced hams

Boneless ham muscles (Semimembranosus + Adductor) were injected (20% w/w) with a curing brine containing no plum ingredient (control), fresh plum juice concentrate (FP), dried plum juice concentrate (DP), or spray dried plum powder (PP) at 2.5% or 5%. Hams were cooked, vacuum-packaged, stored at \u3c4 °C and evaluated at 2-week intervals over 10 week. Evaluations were performed on sliced product to determine cook loss, vacuum-package purge, Allo-Kramer shear force, 2-thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS), proximate analysis, objective color, sensory panel color and sensory attributes. FP, DP and 2.5% PP increased (P \u3c 0.05) cook loss by 2% to 7% depending on treatment and level, but the highest cook loss (17.7%) was observed in hams with 5% PP. Shear force values increased as the level of plum ingredient increased (P \u3c 0.05) from 2.5% to 5%, and the highest shear values were observed in hams containing 5% FP. There were no differences (P \u3e 0.05) in lipid oxidation among treatments as determined by TBARS and sensory evaluation. FP and PP ham color was similar to the control, but DP had a more intense atypical color of cured ham. Minimal changes in physical, chemical and sensory properties were observed during storage of all treatments. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Antioxidant properties of plum concentrates and powder in precooked roast beef to reduce lipid oxidation

Boneless beef roasts (Semimembranosus + Adductor) were injected (20%) with a brine containing (1) no plum ingredient (control), (2) 2.5 or 5% fresh plum juice concentrate (FP), (3) 2.5 or 5% dried plum juice concentrate (DP), or (4) 2.5 or 5% spray dried plum powder (PP). Whole roasts were cooked, vacuum-packaged and stored at \u3c4.0 °C for 10 wk. At 2 wk intervals, evaluations were performed on sliced product to determine vacuum-packaged purge, Allo-Kramer shear force, lipid oxidation (TBARS), color space values, and sensory attributes. All plum ingredients reduced TBARS values and had minimal effects on tenderness, sensory characteristics, color and appearance. Small changes in purge, color values, TBARS and some sensory properties were found during storage. These results indicate that 2.5% FP or DP could be incorporated into precooked beef roasts to reduce lipid oxidation and potentially, warmed-over flavor (WOF). © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Characterization of Al-Cu-Li Alloy 2090 Near Net Shape Extrusion

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Extruded Panels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. Presentation of Data for Tables and Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2. Material and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.3. Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Experimental Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Nasa/tm-1998-207668

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Extruded Panels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. Presentation of Data for Tables and Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2. Material and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.3. Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Experimental Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...