Advertisement

X-ray CT analysis of the influence of process on defect in Ti-6Al-4V parts produced with Selective Laser Melting technology

  • Xin Zhou
  • Ning DaiEmail author
  • Mingqiang Chu
  • Lei Wang
  • Dawei Li
  • Lei Zhou
  • Xiaosheng Cheng
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 199 Downloads

Abstract

Selective Laser Melting (SLM) technology is a potential Additive Manufacturing (AM) process. It has the ability to manufacture metal parts with complex construction. However, there are always defects in SLM products due to the raw materials, manufacturing parameters, and post-treatment. To investigate the relationship between manufacturing process parameters and defects in SLM products, laser power and scan speed are selected as variable parameters to fabricate cube samples. The 3D information of each specimen are collected by X-ray computed tomography, including the size, morphology, and spatial distribution of defects. The mathematical model of laser power and scanning speed with defect volume fraction was established. The result shows that when the scanning speed is less than 1200 mm/s, the defect volume rate increases slowly, but when the scanning speed is faster than 1200 mm/s, the volume rate of defects increases rapidly. As the laser power increases, the volume rate of defect decreased initially and then followed by an increase. It can be concluded that there are many defects in the part manufactured by low laser power and high scanning speed parameter, and the same result by high laser power and high scanning speed parameter. Additionally, the defects are larger and some of them distribute along the scanning path in the latter. Besides, the process window for SLM Ti-6Al-4V is created for exposing the relationship between process parameters and defects, and volume-spherical scatters are used to characterize different process zones.

Keywords

Selective Laser Melting X-ray computed tomography Defect Process parameter 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Funding information

This work was financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (51775273); National Commercial Aircraft Manufacturing Engineering Technology Research Center Innovation Fund Project (COMAC-SFGS-2018-37); Equipment Pre-research Fund (6141B07090119, 61409230305); National Defense Basic Research (JCKY2018605C010); and Jiangsu Province Science and Technology Support Plan Project, China (BE2018010-2);Guangdong Introducing Innovative and Enterpreneurial Teams (NO:2016ZT06G025); Guangdong Natural Science Foundation NO:2017B030306014.

References

  1. 1.
    Murr LE, Martinez E, Gaytan SM, Ramirez DA, Machado BI, Shindo PW, Martinez JL, Ackelid U, Wicker RB (2011) Microstructural architecture, microstructures, and mechanical properties for a nickel-base superalloy fabricated by electron beam melting. Metall Mater Trans A 42(11):3491–3508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li SJ, Murr LE, Cheng XY, Zhang ZB, Hao YL, Yang R, Wicker RB (2012) Compression fatigue behavior of Ti–6Al–4V mesh arrays fabricated by electron beam melting. Acta Mater 60(3):793–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh S, Ramakrishna S, Singh R (2017) Material issues in additive manufacturing: a review. J Manuf Process 25:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ala’aldin A, Qattawi A, Castañón MAG (2018) Effect of manufacturing parameters on the microstructure and mechanical properties of metal laser sintering parts of precipitate hardenable metals. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 99(9–12):2491–2507Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heeling T, Cloots M, Wegener K (2017) Melt pool simulation for the evaluation of process parameters in selective laser melting. Addit Manuf 14:116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shah P, Racasan R, Bills P (2016) Comparison of different additive manufacturing methods using computed tomography. Case studies in nondestructive testing and evaluation S2214657116300260Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khorasani AM, Gibson I, Ghaderi A, Mohammed MI (2018) Investigation on the effect of heat treatment and process parameters on the tensile behaviour of SLM Ti-6Al-4V parts. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 101(9–12):3183–3197Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yamamoto S, Azuma H, Suzuki S, Kajino S, Sato N, Okane T, Shimizu T (2019) Melting and solidification behavior of Ti-6Al-4V powder during selective laser melting. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 1–10Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Volpp J (2019) Behavior of powder particles on melt pool surfaces. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 102(5–8):2201–2210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mugwagwa L, Dimitrov D, Matope S, Yadroitsev I (2019) Evaluation of the impact of scanning strategies on residual stresses in selective laser melting. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 102(5–8):2441–2450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lam LP, Zhang DQ, Liu ZH, Chua CK (2015) Phase analysis and microstructure characterisation of AlSi10Mg parts produced by Selective Laser Melting. Virtual Phys Prototyp 10(4):207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim F H, Moylan S P (2018) Literature review of metal additive manufacturing defects. Adv Manuf Ser (NIST AMS) 100–16Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peng T, Chen C (2018) Influence of energy density on energy demand and porosity of 316L stainless steel fabricated by selective laser melting. Int J Precis Eng Manuf Green Technol 5(1):55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gong H, Rafi K, Gu H, Starr T, Strucker B (2014) Analysis of defect generation in Ti–6Al–4V parts made using powder bed fusion additive manufacturing processes. Addit Manuf 1:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maskery I, Aboulkhair NT, Corfield MR, Tuck C, Clare AT, Leach RK, Wildman RD, Ashcroft IA, Hague RJM (2016) Quantification and characterisation of porosity in selectively laser melted Al–Si10–Mg using X-ray computed tomography. Mater Charact 111:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lévesque D, Bescond C, Lord M, Cao X, Wanjara P, Monchalin JP (2016) Inspection of additive manufactured parts using laser ultrasonics. AIP Conf Proc 1706(1):130003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davis G, Nagarajah R, Palanisamy S, Rashid R, Rajagopal P, Balasubramaniam K (2019) Laser ultrasonic inspection of additive manufactured components. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 102(5–8):2571–2579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quinsat Y, Guyon JB, Lartigue C (2019) Qualification of CT data for areal surface texture analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 100(9–12):3025–3035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lopez A, Bacelar R, Pires I, Santos TG, Sousa JP, Quintino L (2018) Non-destructive testing application of radiography and ultrasound for wire and arc additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 21:298–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lu QY, Wong CH (2017) Applications of non-destructive testing techniques for post-process control of additively manufactured parts. Virtual Phys Prototyp 2(4):301–321MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson A, Maskery I, Leach RK (2016) X-ray computed tomography for additive manufacturing: a review. Meas Sci Technol 27(7):072001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lopez E, Felgueiras T, Grunert C, Bruckner F, Reide M, Seidel A, Beyer E (2018) Evaluation of 3D-printed parts by means of high-performance computer tomography. J Laser Appl 30(3):032307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spierings AB, Schneider M, Eggenberger R (2011) Comparison of density measurement techniques for additive manufactured metallic parts. Rapid Prototyp J 17(5):380–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xin Zhou
    • 1
  • Ning Dai
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mingqiang Chu
    • 2
  • Lei Wang
    • 3
  • Dawei Li
    • 1
  • Lei Zhou
    • 1
  • Xiaosheng Cheng
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Mechanical and Electrical EngineeringNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingChina
  2. 2.Center of Excellence for Advanced MaterialDongguanChina
  3. 3.Institute of aeronautical manufacturing technologyShanghai Aircraft Manufacturing Co. LtdShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations