journal article·2026-05Open access

Accurate measurement of porosity size and morphology in aluminium alloy laser welds

Abhurip Saha, Jeffrey Rodelas, Michael Maguire, Tarasankar DebRoy, Todd A. Palmer

Abstract

Conventional two-dimensional optical microscopy is the most common tool for capturing and quantifying keyhole collapse porosity and other defects formed during the laser welding of aluminium alloys. This approach is of limited utility since only a single longitudinal or transverse metallographic cross-section, comprising only a small fraction of the overall weld volume, can be extracted or analysed at a time. X-ray computed tomography tools, on the other hand, enable three-dimensional visualisation and analysis of porosity and defects to be made across the full weld volume. When comparing these two measurement techniques, two-dimensional microscopy tools significantly underestimated the fraction of defects present within the weld at levels between 50% and 80%. Three-dimensional x-ray computed tomography tools also provide a means for accurately characterising the location, size and morphology of irregularly shaped defects. By categorising the defect shapes using a Zingg's shape analysis, in which the distribution of defect morphologies could be quantified as disk, rod and spherical shapes, a transition in defect morphology moving from stationary beam to oscillating beam welds was detected and quantified.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses · Advanced Welding Techniques Analysis · Aluminum Alloy Microstructure Properties

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

The Pennsylvania State University

Metallurgy & Welding Engineering Department, Sandia National Laboratories

Funding

Directorate for Engineering · Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration

References (46)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/S0921-5093(99)00653-X10.1016/S0921-5093(99)00653-X ↗
2. 10.1016/S0921-5093(99)00674-710.1016/S0921-5093(99)00674-7 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.actamat.2014.09.00210.1016/j.actamat.2014.09.002 ↗
4. 10.2351/1.495306510.2351/1.4953065 ↗
5. 10.1080/13621718.2021.191356210.1080/13621718.2021.1913562 ↗
6. 10.1080/13621718.2022.209134310.1080/13621718.2022.2091343 ↗
7. 10.1177/1362171824124644810.1177/13621718241246448 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.optlastec.2020.10654010.1016/j.optlastec.2020.106540 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2021.11705310.1016/j.jmatprotec.2021.117053 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.12.10210.1016/j.jmrt.2020.12.102 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.11.02210.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.11.022 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.msea.2006.05.04010.1016/j.msea.2006.05.040 ↗
13. 10.1007/s11661-009-9964-410.1007/s11661-009-9964-4 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.actamat.2015.01.03410.1016/j.actamat.2015.01.034 ↗
15. 10.1533/wint.2003.317210.1533/wint.2003.3172 ↗
16. 10.1088/0022-3727/35/13/32010.1088/0022-3727/35/13/320 ↗
17. 10.1088/0022-3727/27/9/00210.1088/0022-3727/27/9/002 ↗
18. 10.1088/0022-3727/43/44/44550110.1088/0022-3727/43/44/445501 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2013.10.00510.1016/j.jmapro.2013.10.005 ↗
20. Xiao R. Laser beam welding of aluminum alloys. In: Lasers in material processing and manufacturing III. SPIE 2008 Feb 1 Vol. 6825 pp. 40–49.10.1117/12.771519 ↗
21. 10.1080/0950711090283691110.1080/09507110902836911 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2011.04.00210.1016/j.jmatprotec.2011.04.002 ↗
23. 10.1179/stw.2001.6.6.35110.1179/stw.2001.6.6.351 ↗
24. 10.2351/1.52185810.2351/1.521858 ↗
25. 10.2351/1.52192210.2351/1.521922 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.10.01110.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.10.011 ↗
27. 10.1007/s00170-019-03502-x10.1007/s00170-019-03502-x ↗
28. 10.1016/S0921-5093(03)00637-310.1016/S0921-5093(03)00637-3 ↗
29. Rubben K Mohrbacher H Leirman E. Advantages of using an oscillating laser beam for the production of tailored blanks. In: Lasers in material processing. SPIE 1997 Aug 18 Vol. 3097 pp. 228–241.10.1117/12.281143 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.10.00410.1016/j.jmapro.2018.10.004 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.01.01810.1016/j.jmapro.2020.01.018 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.optlastec.2020.10654010.1016/j.optlastec.2020.106540 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.optlastec.2020.10656210.1016/j.optlastec.2020.106562 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.10.03810.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.10.038 ↗
35. 10.1088/0022-3727/38/5/00910.1088/0022-3727/38/5/009 ↗
36. 10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i16/10960310.17485/ijst/2017/v10i16/109603 ↗
37. Madison JD Susan DF Kilgo AC. 3D RoboMET Characterization. Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM) Albuquerque NM (United States); 2015.10.2172/1226519 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.petrol.2011.06.00410.1016/j.petrol.2011.06.004 ↗
39. 10.1364/OE.26.02262610.1364/OE.26.022626 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2021.10253710.1016/j.ndteint.2021.102537 ↗
41. 10.1007/s00170-018-2519-310.1007/s00170-018-2519-3 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.06.01510.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.06.015 ↗
43. Liu EJ, Cashman KV, Rust AC. Optimising shape analysis to quantify volcanic ash morphology. Geo Res J 2015; 8: 14–30.
44. 10.1533/wint.2003.313810.1533/wint.2003.3138 ↗
45. Zingg T. Beitrag Zur Schotteranalyse. Zürich: A.-G. Gebr. Leemann & Co, 1935.
46. 10.1111/j.1365-3091.2007.00892.x10.1111/j.1365-3091.2007.00892.x ↗