Advertisement

Computational Investigation of Melt Pool Process Dynamics and Pore Formation in Laser Powder Bed Fusion

  • Bo ChengEmail author
  • Lukas Loeber
  • Hannes Willeck
  • Udo Hartel
  • Charles Tuffile
Article
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

In the laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process, the presence of porosity may result in cracks and significantly affects the part performance. A comprehensive understanding of the melt pool process dynamics and porosity evolution can help to improve build quality. In this study, a novel multi-physics computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model has been applied to investigate the fluid dynamics in melt pools and resultant pore defects. To accurately capture the melting and solidification process, major process physics, such as the surface tension, evaporation as well as laser multi-reflection, have been considered in the model. A discrete element method is utilized to model the generation of powder spreading upon build plate by additional numerical simulations. Multiple single track experiments have been performed to obtain the melt pool shape and cross-sectional dimension information. The predicted melt pool dimensions were found to have a reasonable agreement with experimental measurements, e.g., the errors are in the range of 1.3 to 10.6% for melt pool width, while they are between 1.4 and 15.9% for melt depth. Pores are captured by both CFD simulation and x-ray computed tomography measurement for the case with a laser power of 350 W and laser speed of 100 mm/s. The formation of keyholes maybe related to the melt pool front wall angle, and it is found that the front wall angle increases with the increase in laser line energy density. In addition, a larger laser power or smaller scanning speed can help to generate keyhole-induced pores; they also contribute to produce larger sized pores.

Keywords

additive manufacturing computational fluid dynamics (CFD) discrete element method (DEM) keyhole melt pool stainless steel 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Michael Kuntzer for the preparation of L-PBF experiments.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Leuders, M. Thöne, A. Riemer, T. Niendorf, T. Tröster, H.A. Richard, and H.J. Maier, On the Mechanical Behaviour of Titanium Alloy TiAl6V4 Manufactured by Selective Laser Melting: Fatigue Resistance and Crack Growth Performance, Int. J. Fatigue, 2013, 48, p 300–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    N.T. Aboulkhair, N.M. Everitt, I. Ashcroft, and C. Tuck, Reducing Porosity in AlSi10 Mg Parts Processed by Selective Laser Melting, Additive Manufacturing, 2014, 1, p 77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Gong, H. Gu, K. Zeng, J.J.S. Dilip, D. Pal, B. Stucker, D. Christiansen, J. Beuth, and J.J.Lewandowski, Melt pool characterization for selective laser melting of Ti-6Al-4V pre-alloyed powder. In 25th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication SymposiumAn Additive Manufacturing Conference, Austin, TX, USA, August 4-6, 2014, pp. 256–267Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Siddique, M. Imran, M. Rauer, M. Kaloudis, E. Wycisk, C. Emmelmann, and F. Walther, Computed Tomography for Characterization of Fatigue Performance of Selective Laser Melted Parts, Mater. Des., 2015, 83, p 661–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    X. Cai, A.A. Malcolm, B.S. Wong, and Z. Fan, Measurement and Characterization of Porosity in Aluminium Selective Laser Melting Parts Using X-ray CT, Virt. Phys. Prototyp., 2015, 10(4), p 195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Shrestha, T. Starr, and K. Chou, Individual and Coupled Contributions of Laser Power and Scanning Speed Towards Process-Induced Porosity in Selective Laser Melting. In 29th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication SymposiumAn Additive Manufacturing Conference, Austin, TX, USA, August 13–15, 2018, pp. 1400–1409Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.L.A. Leung, S. Marussi, R.C. Atwood, M. Towrie, P.J. Withers, and P.D. Lee, In Situ X-Ray Imaging of Defect and Molten Pool Dynamics in Laser Additive Manufacturing, Nat. Commun., 2018, 9(1), p 1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Cunningham, C. Zhao, N. Parab, C. Kantzos, J. Pauza, K. Fezzaa, T. Sun, and A.D. Rollett, Keyhole Threshold and Morphology in Laser Melting Revealed by Ultrahigh-Speed X-Ray Imaging, Science, 2019, 363(6429), p 849–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Shrestha, K. Chou, Computational Analysis of Thermo-Fluid Dynamics with Metallic Powder in SLM. In TMS Annual Meeting and Exhibition, pp. 85–95. Springer, Cham, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Xia, G. Dongdong, Yu Guanqun, D. Dai, H. Chen, and Q. Shi, Porosity Evolution and Its Thermodynamic Mechanism of Randomly Packed Powder-Bed During Selective Laser Melting of Inconel 718 Alloy, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf, 2017, 116, p 96–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Yan, W. Ge, Ya Qian, S. Lin, B. Zhou, W.K. Liu, F. Lin, and G.J. Wagner, Multi-physics Modeling of Single/Multiple-Track Defect Mechanisms in Electron Beam Selective Melting, Acta Mater., 2017, 134, p 324–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.L. Tan, C. Tang, and C.H. Wong, A Computational Study on Porosity Evolution in Parts Produced by Selective Laser Melting, Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2018, 49(8), p 3663–3673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Y.S. Lee and W. Zhang, Modeling of Heat Transfer, Fluid Flow and Solidification Microstructure of Nickel-Base Superalloy Fabricated by Laser Powder Bed Fusion, Addit. Manuf., 2016, 12, p 178–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Cheng, X. Li, C. Tuffile, A. Ilin, H. Willeck, and U. Hartel, Multi-physics modeling of single track scanning in selective laser melting: powder compaction effect. In 29th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication SymposiumAn Additive Manufacturing Conference, Austin, TX, USA, August 13–15, 2018, pp. 1887–1902Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Yu-Che, C.-H. San, C.-H. Chang, H.-J. Lin, R. Marwan, S. Baba, and W.-S. Hwang, Numerical Modeling of Melt-Pool Behavior in Selective Laser Melting with Random Powder Distribution and Experimental Validation, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2018, 254, p 72–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.-H. Cho and S.-J. Na, Implementation of real-time multiple reflection and Fresnel absorption of laser beam in keyhole, J. Phys. D Appl. Phys., 2006, 39(24), p 5372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K.C. Mills, Recommended Values of Thermo-physical Properties for Selected Commercial Alloys, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, 2002, p 211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Masmoudi, R. Bolot, and C. Coddet, Investigation of the Laser–Powder–Atmosphere Interaction Zone During the Selective Laser Melting Process, J. Mater. Process. Technol., 2015, 225, p 122–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    W.E. King, A.T. Anderson, R.M. Ferencz, N.E. Hodge, C. Kamath, S.A. Khairallah, and A.M. Rubenchik, Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing of Metals; Physics, Computational, and Materials Challenges, Appl. Phys. Rev., 2015, 2(4), p 041304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    A.V. Gusarov and I. Smurov, Modeling the interaction of laser radiation with powder bed at selective laser melting, Phys. Proc., 2010, 5, p 381–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    I. Yadroitsev, P. Bertrand, and I. Smurov, Parametric Analysis of the Selective Laser Melting Process, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2007, 253(19), p 8064–8080CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bo Cheng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lukas Loeber
    • 2
  • Hannes Willeck
    • 2
  • Udo Hartel
    • 2
  • Charles Tuffile
    • 1
  1. 1.Robert Bosch LLC, Research and Technology CenterCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Robert Bosch GmbHRenningenGermany

Personalised recommendations