1. Introduction
In recent years, there has been a marked increase in the interest in space exploration [
1]. Several missions have been carried out and are still currently under development, expanding the frontier of human presence in space in a way that has never been seen before. According to forecasts by the website specializing in nanosatellites [
2], by the end of 2022, there should be approximately 646 nanosatellites in orbit, a record since the beginning of operations in 1998 and twice as many as in 2021. The United States of America leads a number of constellations with 54% of the satellite constellations, followed by the European Community with 26%. Currently, 86% of all nanosats are CubeSat compositions, with an emphasis on the 3U configuration, that is, the composition of three cubes of 1 L volume each.
The construction of satellites is extremely complex and subject to high risks, and the present study intends to contribute to a small part of this area with a methodology for the construction of titanium CubeSat structures. The CubeSat frame can be designed in a range of materials, from polymers to metals, with characteristics that meet mission requirements [
3]. However, metallic structures have proven useful in withstanding extreme launches and operating conditions. For example, Nano Avionics US LLC (Columbia, IL) produces a series of aluminum alloy frames, class 7075-T7351, for CubeSats [
4]. NASA has developed a number of suppliers of aluminum CubeSat primary structures, with the aluminum alloys 6061 or 7075, which have proven to be reliable and stable in the conditions of wide temperature variations in space [
5]. The use of titanium in the construction of CubeSats is less well known, with reports of its use in stabilization and propulsion systems, particularly in N
2H
4 tanks [
6].
Several manufacturing processes have been applied in the construction of space structures, and additive manufacturing (AM) is currently one of the most promising tools [
7]. In general, additive manufacturing does not lend itself well to the construction of large finished products. The time and costs involved would be extremely high, and the examples available in the market are just proofs of concept and, except for rare excesses, are not relevant in the manufacturing scenario. As examples, turbine blades by directed energy deposition AM have been repaired [
8], and cooling channels by AM in plastic injection molds have been constructed [
9]. This is also the case in the present study of CubeSat structures, as it is not logical to build an integral structure using AM [
10]. On the other hand, connectors are somewhat customizable and can be joined to supporting structures at the edges produced by conventional means. Two AM techniques are competitive for titanium parts: selective laser melting (SLM) and electron beam melting (EBM) [
11]. Therefore, this study analyzed both alternatives.
Few authors have studied the union between the parts manufactured conventionally and those by AM. The specific case of titanium components is even more limited. For example, Yu et al. [
12] reported some results on SLM parts joined to wrought Ti-6Al-4V by laser beam welding (LBW). The authors utilized a fiber laser with a power of 4 kW and welding speeds between 1 and 2 m/min to weld two 5 mm plates, wrought, and SLM plates. The fusion zone is marked by acicular α’ martensite inside the prior β grains. The hardness reached 450 HV in the fusion zone and was slightly depleted in the heat-affected zone.
The objective of the present study is to investigate whether SLM and EBM connectors can be properly joined via LBW to titanium tubes as an original contribution to the CubeSat designs.
2. Materials and Methods
Figure 1a shows a three-way tube connector that is to be built using SLM and EBM. The typical dimensions of a cross-sectional cut are presented in
Figure 1b. The computer model was designed in Solid Works
® version 2022 (Dassault Systèmes, France), and slicing was performed in AM machines.
The powders used in the SLM and EBM processes had a composition of Ti6Al4V alloy (Ti, 5.72%Al, 4.1%V, 0.37%Fe, 0.065%C, 0.04%N, 0.15%O, 0.013%H, by weight), as given by the powder fabricant. Spherical particles of the powder were sieved to obtain a granulometric distribution between 45 and 60 µm.
SLM was performed on an EOS M280 instrument (Krailling, Germany) using a laser power of 170 W and a process speed of 1350 mm/s. Each layer was applied by rotating the previous layer by 60° to mitigate anisotropy, with a thickness of 30 µm each and a distance between the lines of 0.1 mm. The process chamber was filled with argon at ambient pressure after purging to eliminate atmospheric gas.
The EBM equipment was a GE ARCAM Q10 (West Chester, PA, USA) with an electron source of a current of 41 mA and a voltage of 60 keV. In the focal plane, the estimated current was 3.073 mA. After purging with pure argon, the chamber was evacuated to 3.9 kbar after a purge with pure argon. The process speed was set to 8000 mm/s, and the powder bed was preheated to 560 °C before the start of growth. The different processing speeds for SLM and EBM are due to the in-built recipes in the models and could not be changed, although this parameter could change the quality of the built volume.
The connectors built by SLM and EBM were laser-welded to commercially pure grade 2 titanium tubes to compose a cube of 1 L volume. The tubes that made up the edges of the cube had an outer diameter of 6 mm and a wall thickness of 1 mm. The connectors and tube were designed to minimize the weight of the assembly. The maximum permissive gap tube to the connector terminal is 0.5 mm.
For the LBW, IPG Photonics YLR2000 (Oxford, MA, USA) equipment with a maximum power of 2 kW and a minimum focal diameter of 0.1 mm was used. The welding strategy involves laser spot welding on one side of the connector to the tube to join the three tubes in each connector until the complete formation of the structure is reached. Each spot weld was performed 3 mm from the edge with a power of 1 kW per shot and a beam diameter of 7.4 mm. The pulse temporal length was 400 ms; therefore, each laser shot had an energy of 400 J and an energy density of 9.3 J/mm2. A shielding gas nozzle blasted 10 L/min of pure argon during the spot welding.
The density measurements of the connectors were obtained using the Archimedes method, according to ASTM C373-18 [
13]. For the measurements, a Shimadzu analytical balance model AUX320 was used. The dry angle mass was measured after the angle was maintained in a muffle furnace at 50 °C for 5 h. To measure the submerged mass, the connector was first placed in a beaker with distilled water and heated at 100 °C for 5 h. At the end of the time that the connector was kept at 100 °C, the heating was turned off, and the sample was left in a beaker with water for 24 h before the mass was measured. The saturated mass was measured after the submerged mass was measured. As the connectors were removed from the beaker with water, the excess water was dried with absorbent paper, and the mass was measured.
Optical microscopy (OM) was performed using a Zeiss microscope Axio Imager.A2m (Oberkochen, Germany). Microstructural analysis was performed on the samples, which were cut on a metallographic saw with a diamond disk with a constant lubrication and on Bakelite synthetic resin. The sanding process was carried out in a motorized sander at a speed of 300 rpm, with silicon carbide water sandpaper of 220, 320, 400, 600, 800, 1200, 1500, and 2000 grit. at a speed of 600 rpm and a diamond paste with a granulometry of 6 µm, 3 µm, and 1 µm. Final polishing was performed using colloidal silica. To visualize the microstructure, after polishing the samples were etched with Kroll reagent (10 mL of HF, 45 mL of HNO
3, and 45 mL of H
2O) for 30 s, washed in water, and dried with a jet of compressed air. The etching methodology was based on ASTM E 407-99 [
14].
The real piece was compared with the electronic model of the connector using 3D scanning of the part after fabrication. Three-dimensional scanner equipment of the brand GOM model ATOS Triple Scan was used; it offered 16,924 measurement points with a resolution of 20 nm. The results allowed for the determination of the maximum and minimum differences between the real and electronic surfaces of the model in relation to the normal of their surfaces.
Roughness analysis was performed using a Leica confocal microscope (DCM3D). A roughness analysis was performed to measure the difference in surface finish between the connectors produced by SLM and EBM. As reported in the literature, there are differences in the surface finish of parts produced by SLM and EBM [
15].
The Vickers microhardness test was used to measure the variation in the hardness values of the two samples analyzed in different regions. The Vickers microhardness tests were performed using a Future-Tech microhardness meter, model FM-700. The load used in the tests was a 100 g force (gf), with a load application time of 10 s, and with the aid of a microscope coupled to the microhardness meter, the diagonals of the impression were measured, and the equipment provided toughness values. The samples used for mapping the hardness profile were the same as those used in the microstructural analyses. Therefore, the samples were embedded, sanded, polished, and etched. The samples to be tested were positioned in a microdurometer such that the weld bead was perpendicular to the indentation line. The first indentation was performed on the angle towards the weld bead until it reached the tube, maintaining a spacing between the indentations of 0.05 mm.
Tensile strength tests were carried out in the universal testing machine Emic, model DL 100 kN, with a maximum capacity of 10,000 kgf and a bench speed of 1 mm/min, at room temperature.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.H.M.d.S. and D.J.C.; methodology, R.H.M.d.S.; validation, R.H.M.d.S. and D.J.C.; formal analysis, R.H.M.d.S.; investigation, M.S.F.d.L.; resources, M.S.F.d.L.; data curation, R.H.M.d.S. and D.J.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.F.d.L.; writing—review and editing, M.S.F.d.L. and D.J.C.; supervision, M.S.F.d.L. and D.J.C.; project administration, M.S.F.d.L. funding acquisition, M.S.F.d.L. and D.J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), grant number 2019/25229-7. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
Thanks are due to BioFabris National Institute for fabricating the AM connectors.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Space Industry Is on Its Way to $1 Trillion in Revenue by 2040. Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/21/space-industry-is-on-its-way-to-1-trillion-in-revenue-by-2040-citi.html (accessed on 26 October 2022).
- Nanosats Database—Constellations, Companies, Technologies and More. Available online: https://www.nanosats.eu/ (accessed on 22 October 2022).
- Levchenko, I.; Bazaka, K.; Belmonte, T.; Keidar, M.; Xu, S. Advanced Materials for Next-Generation Spacecraft. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1802201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- CubeSat Structural Frame—NanoAvionics. Available online: https://nanoavionics.com/cubesat-components/cubesat-structural-frame/ (accessed on 22 October 2022).
- McIntosh, D.M.; Baker, J.D.; Matus, J.A. The NASA CubeSat Missions Flying on Artemis-1. Available online: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4646&context=smallsat (accessed on 22 October 2022).
- Morris, D.; Noble, R. CubeSat Advanced Technology Propulsion System Concept. 2014. Available online: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2014/Propulsion/2/ (accessed on 22 October 2022).
- Sacco, E.; Moon, S.K. Additive manufacturing for space: Status and promises. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 105, 4123–4146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angel, N.M.; Basak, A. On the fabrication of metallic single crystal turbine blades with a commentary on repair via additive manufacturing. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2020, 4, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shinde, M.S.; Ashtankar, K.M. Additive manufacturing–assisted conformal cooling channels in mold manufacturing processes. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2017, 9, 1687814017699764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ampatzoglou, A.; Tsantzalis, S.; Mazarakos, D.E.; Kostopoulos, V. 3D printed frame for cubesat applications for low-earth orbit mission. Int. J. Comput. Aided Eng. Technol. 2017, 9, 434–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rafi, H.K.; Karthik, N.V.; Gong, H.; Starr, T.L.; Stucker, B.E. Microstructures and mechanical properties of Ti6Al4V parts fabricated by selective laser melting and electron beam melting. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2013, 22, 3872–3883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, H.; Li, F.; Yang, J.; Shao, J.; Wang, Z.; Zeng, X. Investigation on laser welding of selective laser melted Ti-6Al-4V parts: Weldability, microstructure and mechanical properties. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2018, 712, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASTM C373-18; Standard Test Methods for Determination of Water Absorption and Associated Properties by Vacuum Method for Pressed Ceramic Tiles and Glass Tiles and Boil Method for Extruded Ceramic Tiles and Non-tile Fired Ceramic Whiteware Products. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
- ASTM E407-07(2015)e1; Standard Practice for Microetching Metals and Alloys. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
- Vayssette, B.; Saintier, N.; Brugger, C.; Elmay, M.; Pessard, E. Surface roughness of Ti-6Al-4V parts obtained by SLM and EBM: Effect on the High Cycle Fatigue life. Procedia Eng. 2018, 213, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sing, S.L.; An, J.; Yeong, W.Y.; Wiria, F.E. Laser and electron-beam powder-bed additive manufacturing of metallic implants: A review on processes, materials and designs. J. Orthop. Res. 2016, 34, 369–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leary, M. Surface roughness optimisation for selective laser melting (SLM): Accommodating relevant and irrelevant surfaces. In Laser Additive Manufacturing; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2017; pp. 99–118. [Google Scholar]
- Gu, D.; Hagedorn, Y.C.; Meiners, W.; Meng, G.; Batista RJ, S.; Wissenbach, K.; Poprawe, R. Densification behavior, microstructure evolution, and wear performance of selective laser melting processed commercially pure titanium. Acta Mater. 2012, 60, 3849–3860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, M.; Yu, P. An Overview of Densification, Microstructure and Mechanical Property of Additively Manufactured Ti-6Al-4V—Comparison among Selective Laser Melting, Electron Beam Melting, Laser Metal Deposition and Selective Laser Sintering, and with Conventional Powder; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- CubeSat Structures—Cubesat Components—SPACEMANIC. Available online: https://www.spacemanic.com/cubesat-structures (accessed on 26 October 2022).
- Huang, J.L.; Warnken, N.; Gebelin, J.C.; Strangwood, M.; Reed, R.C. On the mechanism of porosity formation during welding of titanium alloys. Acta Mater. 2012, 60, 3215–3225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, Y.; Tian, W.; Guo, Y.; Sun, Z.; Xu, J. Relationships among the Microstructure, Mechanical Properties, and Fatigue Behavior in Thin Ti6Al4V. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 2016, 7278267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Motyka, M. Martensite formation and decomposition during traditional and AM processing of two-phase titanium alloys—An overview. Metals 2021, 11, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omoniyi, P.O.; Akinlabi, E.T.; Mahamood, R.M. Heat treatments of Ti6Al4V alloys for industrial applications: An overview. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 1107, p. 012094. [Google Scholar]
- Kahraman, N. The influence of welding parameters on the joint strength of resistance spot-welded titanium sheets. Mater. Des. 2007, 28, 420–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sekerere, K.; Mushiri, T. Finite element analysis of a cubesat. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operational Management (IEOM), Bristol, UK, 24–25 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Habib, L.; Abdelkader, Z.; Habib, B.; Benallel, B.F. Experimental study of tensile test in resistance spot welding process. Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct. 2016, 13, 1228–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
| Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).