LPBF Right the First Time—the Right Mix Between Modeling and Experiments

  • Mustafa MegahedEmail author
  • Hans-Wilfried Mindt
  • Jöerg Willems
  • Paul Dionne
  • Lars Jacquemetton
  • James Craig
  • Piyush Ranade
  • Alonso Peralta
Thematic Section: Additive Manufacturing Benchmarks 2018
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Additive Manufacturing Benchmarks 2018


Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) is an additive manufacturing process with many adjustable input parameters that directly affect manufacturability and quality of the final product. The selection of the optimal input parameters makes the process qualification and part certification a costly and time-consuming task if performed using the traditional sequential and empirical approach.

Within the scope of the DARPA open manufacturing program, a rapid qualification framework is developed that relies on parallel multi-physics modeling and experimental efforts for verification and validation of the process input parameters during process development and material characterization. Product manufacturability is tested a priori via modeling and in-process monitoring is deployed to ensure input parameters are rapidly screened, and an optimal process window is selected. Process consistency and repeatability is further ensured through process characterization, process qualification, and via quantitative analysis of digital In-Process Quality Metrics™ (IPQM®s).

This paper discusses the rapid qualification methodology, model validation, and the application of the framework towards manufacturing of a challenging part defined by AFRL. The combination of numerical predictions, experimental refinement, and in-process monitoring delivered the first print right at first trial. Distortions are within predictions, geometric accuracy is within expectations, and quantitative metallurgical analysis shows dense as-built material with properties expected to fulfill performance requirements. In-process monitoring results provide a quantitative, digital Quality Signature™ or Digital Quality Record™ of process consistency and product quality.


Metal additive manufacturing Laser powder bed fusion Process modeling Validation Powder scale Residual stress Distortion Simulation Experimental validation Certification In-process monitoring Process development Process qualification ICME Uncertainty quantification 


Authors’ Contributions

All authors contributed to the effort described in this article.

Funding Information

This study is financially supported by the DARPA Open Manufacturing program, USA.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Competing Interests

The results presented in this work are that of the team involved in the DARPA Open Manufacturing program. References to literature and results of other research teams are made neutrally to gain better understanding of the modeling algorithms and the implications for real-life applications.


  1. 1.
    Frazier WE (2014) Metal additive manufacturing: a review. JMEPEG. 23:1917–1928. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seifi M, Salem A, Beuth J, Harrysson O, Lewandowski JJ (2016) Overview of materials qualification needs for metal additive manufacturing. JOM. 68(3):747–764. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    (2014) Additive manufacturing strategic research agenda 2014. AM Platform,
  4. 4.
    Peralta AD, Enright M, Megahed M, Gong J, Roybal M, Craig J (2016) Towards rapid qualification of powder bed laser additively manufactured parts. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 5:8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Kamath B. Eldasher, GF Gallegos, WE King A Sisto (2013) Density of additively-manufactured, 316L SS parts using laser powder-bed fusion at powers up to 400 W. LLNL-TR-648000 Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tang M, Pistorius PC, Beuth JL (2017) Prediction of lack-of-fusion porosity for powder bed fusion. Addit Manuf 14:39–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hann DB, Iammi J, Folkes J (2011) A simple methodology for predicting laser-weld properties from material and laser parameters. J Phys D Appl Phys 44.
  8. 8.
    Megahed M, Mindt HW, N'Dri N, Duan HZ, Desmaison O (2016) Metal additive manufacturing process and residual stress modelling. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 5.
  9. 9.
    Attar E (2011) Simulation der selektiven Elektronenstrahlschmelzprozesse. PhD Thesis University of Erlangen-NurembergGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Körner C, Attar E, Heinl P (2011) Mesoscopic simulation of selective beam melting processes. J Mater Process Technol 211:978–987. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Körner C, Bauereiß A, Attar E (2013) Fundamental consolidation mechanisms during selective beam melting of powders. Model Simul Mater Sci Eng 21(085011):18pp. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klassen A, Scharowsky T, Körner C (2014) Evaporation model for beam based additive manufacturing using free surface lattice Boltzmann methods. J Phys D Appl Phys 47(275303):12. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    King WE, Barth HD, Castillo VM, Gallegos GF, Gibbs JW, Hahn DE et al (2014) Observation of keyhole-mode laser melting in laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing. J Mater Process Technol 214:2915–2925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    King WE, Anderson AT, Ferencz RM, Hodge NE, Kamath C, Khairallah SA et al (2015) Laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing of metals; physics, computational, and materials challenges. Appl Phys Rev 2:041304. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kovaleva I, Kovalev O, Smurov I (2014) Model of heat and mass transfer in random packing layer of powder particles in selective laser melting. Phys Procedia 56:400–410. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mindt HW, Megahed M, Peralta A, Neumann J (2015) DMLM models - numerical assessment of porosity. 22nd ISABE Conference, Oct. 25–30, Phoenix, AZ., USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mindt HW, Megahed M, Shula B, Peralta AD, Neumann J (2016) Powder bed models - numerical assessment of as-built quality. AIAA ,SciTech, 4-8 January, San Diego.
  18. 18.
    Mindt HW, Megahed M, Lavery NP, Holmes MA, Brown SGR (2016) Powder bed layer charateristics: the overseen first-order process input. Metall Mater Trans A 47(8).
  19. 19.
    Feulvarch F, Robin V, Bergheau JM (2011) Thermometallurgical and mechanical modelling of welding - application to multipass dissimilar metal girth welds. Sci Technol Weld Join 16(3):221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Michaleris P (2014) Modeling metal deposition in heat transfer analyses of additive manufacturing processes. Finite Elem Anal Des 86:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Denlinger ER, Heigel JC, Michaleris P (2014) Residual stress and distortion modeling of electron beam direct manufacturing Ti-6Al-4V. J Eng Manuf 1:1–11Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heigel JC, Michaleris P, Reutzel EW (2015) Thermo-mechanical model development and validation of directed energy deposition additive manufacturing of Ti-6Al-4V. Addit Manuf 5:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keller N, Ploshikhin V (2014) Fast numerical predictions of residual stress and distortion of AM parts. 1st International Symposium on Material Science and Technology of Additive Manufacturing, Bremen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neugebauer F, Keller N, Ploshikhin V, Feuerhahn F, Köhler H (2014) Multi scale FEM simulation for distortion calculation in additive manufacturing of hardening stainless steel. International workshop on thermal forming an welding distortion, Bremen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Desmaison O, Pires PA, Levesque G, Peralta A, Sundarraj S, Makinde A, et al. (May 21–25, 2017) Influence of computational grid and deposit volume on residual stress and distortion prediction accuracy for additive manufacturing modeling. 4th World congress on integrated computational materials engineering - ICME 2017, Ypsilanti, Mi, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pires PA, Desmaison O, Megahed M (2018) ICME manufacturability assessment in powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. JOM. 70(9):1677–1685. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mindt HW, Desmaison O, Megahed M, Peralta A, Neumann J (2018) Modelling of powder bed manufacturing defects. J Mater Eng Perform 27(1):32–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    (2011) ATI 718 Plus alloy data sourcebook. : Revision 1.2, ATI AllvacGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chinestra F, Leygue A, Bordeu F, Aguado JV, Cueto E, Gonzalez D et al (2013) PGD-based computational vademecum for efficient design, optimization and control. Arch Comput Methods Eng 20:31–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chinesta F, Keunings R, Leygue A. (2014) The proper generalized decomposition for advanced numerical simulations. A primer. Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bertoli US, Wolfer A, Matthwes MJ, Delplanque J-PR, Schoenung JM (2017) On the limitations of volumetric energy density as a design parameter for selective laser melting. Mater Des 113:331–340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rappaz M, Drezet JM, Gremaud M (1999) A new hot tearing criterion. Met Trans 30A:449–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Boying TB, Grathwohl P (2001) Tracer diffusion coefficients in sedimentary rocks: correlations to porosity and hydraulic conductivity. J Contam Hydrol 53(1–2):85–100Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Western Electric Company (1956) Statistical quality control handbook, 1st edn. Western Electric Co., IndianapolisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ESI Software Germany GmbHEssenGermany
  2. 2.ESI US R&DHuntsvilleUSA
  3. 3.Sigma Labs Inc.Santa FeUSA
  4. 4.Stratonics Inc.Lake ForestUSA
  5. 5.Honeywell AerospacePlymouthUSA
  6. 6.Honeywell AerospacePhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations