Comparison of density measurement techniques for additive manufactured metallic parts
By A. Spierings, M. Schneider, R. Eggenberger. 2011
578 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Automotive Engineering, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Mechanical Engineering
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7144eee103f42a5f1f517bff1e9a240cef700a33
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Automotive Engineering
- Ian Ashcroft
- Christopher John Tuck
- L. Parry
- N. Aboulkhair
- Richard J. M. Hague
- M. Simonelli
- Jun Wei
- Chen-Nan Sun
In Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
- Ian Ashcroft
- N. Aboulkhair
- Christopher John Tuck
- L. Parry
- Richard J. M. Hague
- G. Levy
- N. Herres
- Jun Wei
In Mechanical Engineering
- Ian Ashcroft
- Christopher John Tuck
- L. Parry
- N. Aboulkhair
- Richard J. M. Hague
- M. Simonelli
- Jun Wei
- Chen-Nan Sun
Citations in the corpus
- Influence of the particle size distribution on surface quality and mechanical properties in AM steel parts (2011, methodology): “A comparison of different density measurement methods [8] showed that the repeatability of this method is < 0.”
- Influence of SLM process parameters on the surface finish, porosity rate and fatigue behavior of as-built Inconel 625 parts (2017, methodology): “Finally, for optimized conditions, a 0.1 – 0.25% minimum porosity rate is achievable with SLM, to be compared with the values obtained by (Spierings et al., 2011) with SLM on a 316L stainless steel, which are comprised between 0.3 and 0.5%.”