Advertisement

Multivariate Calibration and Experimental Validation of a 3D Finite Element Thermal Model for Laser Powder Bed Fusion Metal Additive Manufacturing

  • Mohamad Mahmoudi
  • Gustavo Tapia
  • Kubra Karayagiz
  • Brian Franco
  • Ji Ma
  • Raymundo Arroyave
  • Ibrahim Karaman
  • Alaa Elwany
Technical Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Metal additive manufacturing (AM) typically suffers from high degrees of variability in the properties/performance of the fabricated parts, particularly due to the lack of understanding and control over the physical mechanisms that govern microstructure formation during fabrication. This paper directly addresses an important problem in metal AM: the determination of the thermal history of the deposited material. Any attempts to link process to microstructure in AM would need to consider the thermal history of the material. In situ monitoring only provides partial information and simulations may be necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of the thermo-physical conditions to which the deposited material is subjected. We address this in the present work through linking thermal models to experiments via a computationally efficient surrogate modeling approach based on multivariate Gaussian processes (MVGPs). The MVGPs are then used to calibrate the free parameters of the multi-physics models against experiments, sidestepping the use of prohibitively expensive Monte Carlo-based calibration. This framework thus makes it possible to efficiently evaluate the impact of varying process parameter inputs on the characteristics of the melt pool during AM. We demonstrate the framework on the calibration of a thermal model for laser powder bed fusion AM of Ti-6Al-4V against experiments carried out over a wide window in the process parameter space. While this work deals with problems related to AM, its applicability is wider as the proposed framework could potentially be used in many other ICME-based problems where it is essential to link expensive computational materials science models to available experimental data.

Graphical Abstract

Two-stage multi-variate statistical calibration of the finite element thermal model

Keywords

Metal additive manufacturing Powder bed fusion Ti-6-Al-4V Finite element thermal models Uncertainty quantification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

R.A. also acknowledges the support of NSF through the NSF Research Traineeship (NRT) program under Grant No. NSF-DGE-1545403, “NRT-DESE: Data-Enabled Discovery and Design of Energy Materials (D3EM).” R.A. and I.K. also acknowledge the partial support from NSF through Grant No. NSF-CMMI-1534534.

Funding Information

This work was supported by an Early Stage Innovations grant from NASA’s Space Technology Research Grants Program, Grant No. NNX15AD71G. Portions of this research were conducted with High Performance Research Computing resources provided by the Texas A&M University (https://hprc.tamu.edu).

References

  1. 1.
    National Research Council (2008) Integrated computational materials engineering: a transformational discipline for improved competitiveness and national security. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Hagan A (2006) Bayesian analysis of computer code outputs: a tutorial. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 91 (10):1290–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chernatynskiy A, Phillpot SR, LeSar R (2013) Uncertainty quantification in multiscale simulation of materials: a prospective. Annual Rev Mater Res 43:157–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Panchal JH, Kalidindi SR, McDowell DL (2013) Key computational modeling issues in integrated computational materials engineering. Comput Aided Des 45(1):4–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDowell DL, Kalidindi SR (2016) The materials innovation ecosystem: a key enabler for the materials genome initiative. MRS Bull 41(4):326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    James M, Murphy D, Sexton MH, Barnett DN, Jones GS et al (2004) Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430(7001):768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Witteveen JAS, Sarkar S, Bijl H (2007) Modeling physical uncertainties in dynamic stall induced fluid–structure interaction of turbine blades using arbitrary polynomial chaos. Comput Struct 85(11):866–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Oijen M, Rougier J, Smith R (2005) Bayesian calibration of process-based forest models: bridging the gap between models and data. Tree Physiology 25(7):915–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Avramova MN, Ivanov KN (2010) Verification, validation and uncertainty quantification in multi-physics modeling for nuclear reactor design and safety analysis. Prog Nucl Energy 52(7):601–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kilian L, Zha T (2002) Quantifying the uncertainty about the half-life of deviations from PPP. J Appl Econ 17(2):107–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Modeling Across Scales (2016) A roadmapping study for connecting materials models and simulations across length and time scales (the minerals, metals and materials society 2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Howe D, Goodlet B, Weaver J, Spanos G (2016) Insights from the 3rd World Congress on Integrated Computational Materials Engineering. JOM 68(5):1378–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tapia G, Johnson L, Franco B, Karayagiz K, Ma J, Arroyave R, Karaman I, Elwany A (2017) Bayesian calibration and uncertainty quantification for a physics-based precipitation model of nickel–titanium shape-memory alloys. J Manuf Sci Eng 139(7):071002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franco BE, Ma J, Loveall B, Tapia GA, Karayagiz K, Liu J, Elwany A, Arroyave R, Karaman I (2017) A sensory material approach for reducing variability in additively manufactured metal parts. Scientific Reports, 7Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bauereiß A, Scharowsky T, Körner C (2014) Defect generation and propagation mechanism during additive manufacturing by selective beam melting. J Mater Process Technol 214(11):2522–2528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lopez F, Witherell P, Lane B (2016) Identifying uncertainty in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing models. J Mech Des 138(11):114502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seifi M, Salem A, Beuth J, Harrysson O, Lewandowski JJ (2016) Overview of materials qualification needs for metal additive manufacturing. JOM 68(3):747–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhen H, Mahadevan S (2017a) Uncertainty quantification in prediction of material properties during additive manufacturing. Scr Mater 135:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhen H, Mahadevan S (2017) Uncertainty quantification and management in additive manufacturing: current status, needs, and opportunities. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1–20Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Timothy G, Trucano LP, Swiler TI, Oberkampf WL, Pilch M (2006) Calibration, validation, and sensitivity analysis: what’s what. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91(10):1331–1357Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu B, Qingyan X (2004) Advances on microstructure modeling of solidification process of shape casting. Tsinghua Sci Technol 9(5):497–505Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu P, Lusk MT (2002) Parametric links among Monte Carlo, phase-field, and sharp-interface models of interfacial motion. Phys Rev E 66(6):061603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holm EA, Srolovitz DJ, Cahn JW (1993) Microstructural evolution in two-dimensional two-phase polycrystals. Acta metallurgica et materialia 41(4):1119–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spittle JA, Brown SGR (1989) Computer simulation of the effects of alloy variables on the grain structures of castings. Acta Metall 37(7):1803–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhu P, Smith RW (1992) Dynamic simulation of crystal growth by Monte Carlo method I. Model description and kinetics. Acta metallurgica et materialia 40(4):683–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Higdon D, Gattiker J, Williams B, Rightley M (2008) Computer model calibration using high-dimensional output. J Am Stat Assoc 103(482):570–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paulo R, García-donato G, Palomo J (2012) Calibration of computer models with multivariate output. Comput Stat Data Anal 56(12):3959–3974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khairallah SA, Anderson AT, Rubenchik A, King WE (2016) Laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing: physics of complex melt flow and formation mechanisms of pores, spatter, and denudation zones. Acta Mater 108:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khairallah SA, Anderson A (2014) Mesoscopic simulation model of selective laser melting of stainless steel powder. J Mater Process Technol 214(11):2627–2636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ganeriwala R, Zohdi TI (2016) A coupled discrete element-finite difference model of selective laser sintering. Granul Matter 18(2):21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Qiu C, Panwisawas C, Ward M, Basoalto HC, Brooks JW, Attallah MM (2015) On the role of melt flow into the surface structure and porosity development during selective laser melting. Acta Mater 96:72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Leitz KH, Singer P, Plankensteiner A, Tabernig B, Kestler H, Sigl LS (2015) Multi-physical simulation of selective laser melting of molybdenum. Proceedings of Euro PM, 4–7Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Panwisawas C, Qiu C, Anderson MJ, Sovani Y, Turner RP, Attallah MM, Brooks JW, Basoalto HC (2017) Mesoscale modelling of selective laser melting thermal fluid dynamics and microstructural evolution. Comput Mater Sci 126:479–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ly S, Rubenchik AM, Khairallah SA, Guss G, Matthews MJ (2017) Metal vapor micro-jet controls material redistribution in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Scientific Reports, 7Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pei W, Zhengying W, Zhen C, Li J, Shuzhe Z, Jun D (2017) Numerical simulation and parametric analysis of selective laser melting process of AlSi10Mg powder. Appl Phys A 123(8):540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Matsumoto M, Shiomi M, Osakada K, Abe F (2002) Finite element analysis of single layer forming on metallic powder bed in rapid prototyping by selective laser processing. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 42(1):61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roberts IA, Wang CJ, Esterlein R, Stanford M, Mynors DJ (2009) A three-dimensional finite element analysis of the temperature field during laser melting of metal powders in additive layer manufacturing. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 49(12):916–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Verhaeghe F, Craeghs T, Heulens J, Pandelaers L (2009) A pragmatic model for selective laser melting with evaporation. Acta Mater 57(20):6006–6012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shen N, Chou K (2012) Thermal modeling of electron beam additive manufacturing process. powder sintering effects ASME Paper No MSEC2012-7253Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hussein A, Hao L, Yan C, Everson R (2013) Finite element simulation of the temperature and stress fields in single layers built without-support in selective laser melting. Mater Des 52:638–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fu CH, Guo YB (2014) 3-dimensional finite element modeling of selective laser melting Ti-6Al-4V alloy. In: 25th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication SymposiumGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Loh L-E, Chua C-K, Yeong W-Y, Song J, Mapar M, Sing S-L, Liu Z-H, Zhang D-Q (2015) Numerical investigation and an effective modelling on the selective laser melting (SLM) process with aluminium alloy 6061. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 80:288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Romano J, Ladani L, Sadowski M (2015) Thermal modeling of laser based additive manufacturing processes within common materials. Procedia Manuf 1:238–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Heeling T, Cloots M, Wegener K (2017) Melt pool simulation for the evaluation of process parameters in selective laser melting. Additive Manuf 14:116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Xia M, Dongdong G, Guanqun Y, Dai D, Chen H, Shi Q (2017) Porosity evolution and its thermodynamic mechanism of randomly packed powder-bed during selective laser melting of Inconel 718 alloy. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 116:96–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Huang Y, Yang LJ, Du XZ, Yang YP (2016) Finite element analysis of thermal behavior of metal powder during selective laser melting. Int J Therm Sci 104:146–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dai K, Shaw L (2001) Thermal and stress modeling of multi-material laser processing. Acta Mater 49 (20):4171–4181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Van Belle L, Vansteenkiste G, Boyer JC (2012) Comparisons of numerical modelling of the selective laser melting. In: Key engineering materials, volume 504, pages 1067–1072. Trans Tech PublGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Liu Y, Zhang J, Pang Z (2018) Numerical and experimental investigation into the subsequent thermal cycling during selective laser melting of multi-layer 316l stainless steel. Opt Laser Technol 98:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zeng K, Pal D, Stucker B (2012) A review of thermal analysis methods in laser sintering and selective laser melting. In: Proceedings of Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium Austin, TX, pp 796–814Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schoinochoritis B, Chantzis D, Salonitis K (2017) Simulation of metallic powder bed additive manufacturing processes with the finite element method: a critical review. Proc Instit Mech Eng, Part B: J Eng Manuf 231(1):96–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Markl M, Körner C (2016) Multiscale modeling of powder bed–based additive manufacturing. Annu Rev Mater Res 46:93–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yin J, Zhu H, Ke L, Lei W, Dai C, Zuo D (2012) Simulation of temperature distribution in single metallic powder layer for laser micro-sintering. Comput Mater Sci 53(1):333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mills KC (2002) Recommended values of thermophysical properties for selected commercial alloys. Woodhead Publishing, SawstonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Masmoudi A, Bolot R, Coddet C (2015) Investigation of the laser–powder–atmosphere interaction zone during the selective laser melting process. J Mater Process Technol 225:122–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Criales LE, Arısoy YM, Özel T (2015) A sensitivity analysis study on the material properties and process parameters for selective laser melting of Inconel 625. In: ASME 2015 International manufacturing science and engineering conference, pages v001t02a062–v001t02a062. American society of mechanical engineersGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yang J, Sun S, Brandt M, Yan W (2010) Experimental investigation and 3D finite element prediction of the heat affected zone during laser assisted machining of Ti6Al4V alloy. J Mater Process Technol 210(15):2215–2222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Karayagiz K, Elwany A, Tapia G, Franco B, Johnson L, Ji M, Karaman I, Arroyave R (2018) Numerical and experimental analysis of heat distribution in the laser powder bed fusion of Ti-6 Al-4V. IISE Transactions, (just-accepted), 1–44Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bo C, Price S, Lydon J, Cooper K, Chou K (2014) On process temperature in powder-bed electron beam additive manufacturing: model development and validation. J Manuf Sci Eng 136(6):061018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vastola G, Zhang G, Pei Q X, Zhang Y-W (2016) Modeling the microstructure evolution during additive manufacturing of Ti6Al4V: a comparison between electron beam melting and selective laser melting. JOM 68(5):1370–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kennedy MC, O’Hagan A (2001) Bayesian calibration of computer models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical Methodology, 425–464Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Statistical science, 409–423Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Haylock RG, O’Hagan A (1996) On inference for outputs of computationally expensive algorithms with uncertainty on the inputs. Bayesian Stat 5:629–637Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Oakley J, O’hagan A (2002) Bayesian inference for the uncertainty distribution of computer model outputs. Biometrika 89(4):769–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Conti S, O’Hagan A (2010) Bayesian emulation of complex multi-output and dynamic computer models. J Stat Plan Inference 140(3):640–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI (2006) Gaussian processes for machine learning. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bhat K, Haran M, output MG (2010) Computer model calibration with multivariate spatial: a case study. Frontiers of Statistical Decision Making and Bayesian Analysis, 168–184Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Tapia G, Khairallah S, Matthews M, King WE, Elwany A (2017) Gaussian process-based surrogate modeling framework for process planning in laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing of 316l stainless steel. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1–13Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Mani M, Feng S, Lane B, Donmez A, Moylan S, Fesperman R (2015) Measurement science needs for real-time control of additive manufacturing powder bed fusion processes. US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Boluki S, Esfahani MS, Qian X, Dougherty ER (2017a) Incorporating biological prior knowledge for Bayesian learning via maximal knowledge-driven information priors. BMC Bioinforma 18(14):1–1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-017-1893-4 Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Boluki S, Esfahani MS, Qian X, Dougherty ER (2017) Constructing pathway-based priors within a Gaussian mixture model for Bayesian regression and classification. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinformatics PP(99):1–1.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2017.2778715 Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Romano J, Ladani L, Sadowski M (2016) Laser additive melting and solidification of Inconel 718: finite element simulation and experiment. JOM 68(3):967–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Boley CD, Khairallah SA, Rubenchik AM (2015) Calculation of laser absorption by metal powders in additive manufacturing. Appl Opt 54(9):2477–2482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    A Rubenchik SW, Mitchell S, Golosker I, LeBlanc M, Peterson N (2015) Direct measurements of temperature-dependent laser absorptivity of metal powders. Appl Opt 54(24):7230–7233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Grasso M, Colosimo BM (2017) Process defects and in situ monitoring methods in metal powder bed fusion: a review. Measure Sci Technol 28(4):044005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gelfand AE, Diggle P, Guttorp P, Fuentes M (2010) Handbook of spatial statistics. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Casella G, Berger RL (2002) Statistical inference volume, vol 2. CA, Duxbury Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mahmoudi M, Tapia G (2017) Multivariate statistical calibration of computer simulation models. https://github.com/mahmoudi-tapia/MVcalibration

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamad Mahmoudi
    • 1
  • Gustavo Tapia
    • 1
  • Kubra Karayagiz
    • 2
  • Brian Franco
    • 2
  • Ji Ma
    • 2
  • Raymundo Arroyave
    • 2
  • Ibrahim Karaman
    • 2
  • Alaa Elwany
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial & Systems EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Department of Materials Science & EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations