Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Measurements of Melt Pool Geometry and Cooling Rates of Individual Laser Traces on IN625 Bare Plates

  • 22 Accesses

  • 1 Citations

Abstract

The complex physical nature of the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process warrants use of multiphysics computational simulations to predict or design optimal operating parameters or resultant part qualities such as microstructure or defect concentration. Many of these simulations rely on tuning based on characteristics of the laser-induced melt pool, such as the melt pool geometry (length, width, and depth). Additionally, many of numerous interacting variables that make the LPBF process so complex can be reduced and controlled by performing simple, single-track experiments on bare (no powder) substrates, yet still produce important and applicable physical results. The 2018 Additive Manufacturing Benchmark (AM Bench) tests and measurements were designed for this application. This paper describes the experiment design for the tests conducted using LPBF on bare metal surfaces, and the measurement results for the melt pool geometry and melt pool cooling rate performed on two LPBF systems. Several factors, such as accurate laser spot size, were determined after the 2018 AM Bench conference, with results of those additional tests reported here.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. 1.

    Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper in order to specify the experimental procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

References

  1. 1.

    Liepa T, AMB2018-02 Description, NIST (2018). https://www.nist.gov/ambench/amb2018-02-description. Accessed 15 Feb 2019

  2. 2.

    Heigel JC, Lane BM (2017) The effect of powder on cooling rate and melt pool length measurements using in situ thermographic techniques. In: Proceedings of the solid freeform fabrication symposium, Austin, TX, pp 1340–1348

  3. 3.

    Lane B, Mekhontsev S, Grantham S, Vlasea M, Whiting J, Yeung H, Fox J, Zarobila C, Neira J, McGlauflin M, Hanssen L, Moylan S, Donmez MA, Rice J (2016) Design, developments, and results from the NIST additive manufacturing metrology testbed (AMMT). In: Proceedings of the 26th annual international solid freeform fabrication symposium, Austin, TX, pp 1145–1160

  4. 4.

    Heigel J, Lane B (2017) Measurement of the melt pool length during single scan tracks in a commercial laser powder bed fusion process. In: Proceedings of the international conference on manufacturing science and engineering, Los Angeles, CA, 2017

  5. 5.

    Lane B, Moylan S, Whitenton EP, Ma L (2016) Thermographic measurements of the commercial laser powder bed fusion process at NIST. Rapid Prototyp J 22:778–787

  6. 6.

    Sakuma F, Hattori S (1982) Establishing a practical temperature standard by using a narrow-band radiation thermometer with a silicon detector. In: Temperature, its measurement and control in science and industry. AIP, New York, pp 421–427

  7. 7.

    Woolliams ER, Anhalt K, Ballico M, Bloembergen P, Bourson F, Briaudeau S, Campos J, Cox MG, del Campo D, Dong W, Dury MR, Gavrilov V, Grigoryeva I, Hernanz ML, Jahan F, Khlevnoy B, Khromchenko V, Lowe DH, Lu X, Machin G, Mantilla JM, Martin MJ, McEvoy HC, Rougié B, Sadli M, Salim SGR, Sasajima N, Taubert DR, Todd ADW, Van den Bossche R, van der Ham E, Wang T, Whittam A, Wilthan B, Woods DJ, Woodward JT, Yamada Y, Yamaguchi Y, Yoon HW, Yuan Z (2016) Thermodynamic temperature assignment to the point of inflection of the melting curve of high-temperature fixed points. Philos Trans R Soc Math Phys Eng Sci 374:20150044. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0044

  8. 8.

    Ghosh S, Ma L, Levine LE, Ricker RE, Stoudt MR, Heigel JC, Guyer JE (2018) Single-track melt-pool measurements and microstructures in Inconel 625. JOM 70:1011–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-018-2771-x

  9. 9.

    del Campo L, Pérez-Sáez RB, González-Fernández L, Esquisabel X, Fernández I, González-Martín P, Tello MJ (2010) Emissivity measurements on aeronautical alloys. J Alloys Compd 489:482–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2009.09.091

  10. 10.

    Teodorescu G, Jones PD, Overfelt RA, Guo B (2008) Normal emissivity of high-purity nickel at temperatures between 1440 and 1605 K. J Phys Chem Solids 69:133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpcs.2007.08.047

  11. 11.

    Liepa T, CHAL-AMB2018-02-MP-xsection, NIST. (2018). https://www.nist.gov/ambench/chal-amb2018-02-mp-xsection. Accessed 15 Feb 2019

  12. 12.

    Stoudt M, Williams ME, Levine LE, Creuziger AA, Young SW, Heigel JC, Lane BM, Phan TQ (2020) Location-specific microstructure characterization within In625 additive manufacturing benchmark test artifacts. Integr Mater Manuf Innov

  13. 13.

    Ricker RE, Heigel JC, Lane BM, Zhirnov I, Levine LE (2019) Topographic measurement of individual laser tracks in alloy 625 bare plates. Integr Mater Manuf Innov. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00157-0

  14. 14.

    Levine LE, Lane BM, Heigel JC, Migler K, Stoudt MR, Phan TQ, Ricker RE, Strantza M, Hill MR, Zhang F, Seppala J, Garboczi E, Bain E, Cole D, Allen AJ, Fox JC, Campbell C (2020) Outcomes and conclusions from the 2018 AM-Bench measurements, challenge problems, modeling submissions, and conference. Integr Mater Manuf Innov. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00164-1

  15. 15.

    Holst GC (2008) Testing and evaluation of infrared imaging systems. SPIE Press, Bellingham

  16. 16.

    ISO 12233:2014, Photography—electronic still-picture cameras—resolution measurements, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, n.d

  17. 17.

    Lane B, Whitenton E (2015) Calibration and measurement procedures for a high magnification thermal camera. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg

  18. 18.

    I. BIPM IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP., Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), International Organization for Standardization Geneva (1995)

  19. 19.

    Taylor BN, Kuyatt CE (1994) Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results. NIST Technical Note 1297. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1297

  20. 20.

    Fox JC, Lane BM, Yeung H (2017) Measurement of process dynamics through coaxially aligned high speed near-infrared imaging in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the SPIE 10214 thermosense: thermal infrared applications, XXXIX, Anaheim, CA, pp 1021407–17. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2263863

  21. 21.

    King WE, Barth HD, Castillo VM, Gallegos GF, Gibbs JW, Hahn DE, Kamath C, Rubenchik AM (2014) Observation of keyhole-mode laser melting in laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing. J Mater Process Technol 214:2915–2925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.06.005

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Brandon Lane.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lane, B., Heigel, J., Ricker, R. et al. Measurements of Melt Pool Geometry and Cooling Rates of Individual Laser Traces on IN625 Bare Plates. Integr Mater Manuf Innov (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-020-00169-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Laser powder bed fusion
  • Selective laser melting
  • Thermography
  • Melt pool length
  • Cooling rate