Automated Segmentation and Chord Length Distribution of Melt Pools in Complex 3D Printed Metal Artifacts
Source abstract
Abstract
We present a new computational approach for large-scale segmentation and spatially-resolved analysis of melt pools in complex 3D printed parts and qualification artifacts. Our hybrid segmentation includes human-in-the-loop image processing of a few representative optical images of melt pools that are then used for training machine learning models for automated segmentation of melt pool boundaries in large parts. Our approach specifically targets minimizing the need for manual annotation. Considering imperfect segmentation and errors unavoidable with most algorithms, we further propose chord length distribution as a statistical description of melt pool sizes relatively tolerant to segmentation errors. We first show and validate our new approach on optical images of melt pools in a simple 3D printed plate sample (IN718 alloy) as well as selected regions of a complex qualification artifact (AlSi10Mg alloy). We then demonstrate the application of our approach on an entire cross section of the artifact.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes · Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. Wohlers T, Caffrey T (2016) Additive manufacturing: the state of the industry. Manuf Eng 156(5):45–45
2. Wimpenny DI, Pandey PM, Kumar LJ et al (2017) Advances in 3D printing & additive manufacturing technologies. Springer, USA10.1007/978-981-10-0812-2 ↗
3. Furton E, Nayir S, Beese AM (2023) Effect of size, location, and aspect ratio of internal pores on failure behavior of laser powder bed fusion Ti-6AL-4V. JOM 75(6):1953–196310.1007/s11837-023-05751-4 ↗
4. Luo Q, Yin L, Simpson TW, Beese AM (2022) Effect of processing parameters on pore structures, grain features, and mechanical properties in Ti-6AL-4V by laser powder bed fusion. Addit Manuf 56:102915
5. Ali H, Ghadbeigi H, Mumtaz K (2018) Processing parameter effects on residual stress and mechanical properties of selective laser melted Ti-6AL-4V. J Mater Eng Perform 27:4059–406810.1007/s11665-018-3477-5 ↗
6. Trapp J, Rubenchik AM, Guss G, Matthews MJ (2017) In situ absorptivity measurements of metallic powders during laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing. Appl Mater Today 9:341–34910.1016/j.apmt.2017.08.006 ↗
7. Metelkova J, Kinds Y, Kempen K, de Formanoir C, Witvrouw A, Van Hooreweder B (2018) On the influence of laser defocusing in selective laser melting of 316L. Addit Manuf 23:161–169
8. Ioannidou C, König H-H, Semjatov N, Ackelid U, Staron P, Koerner C, Hedström P, Lindwall G (2022) In-situ synchrotron x-ray analysis of metal additive manufacturing: current state, opportunities and challenges. Mater Design 219:11079010.1016/j.matdes.2022.110790 ↗
9. Martin AA, Calta NP, Hammons JA, Khairallah SA, Nielsen MH, Shuttlesworth RM, Sinclair N, Matthews MJ, Jeffries JR, Willey TM et al (2019) Ultrafast dynamics of laser-metal interactions in additive manufacturing alloys captured by in situ x-ray imaging. Mater Today Adv 1:10000210.1016/j.mtadv.2019.01.001 ↗
10. Amato K, Gaytan S, Murr LE, Martinez E, Shindo P, Hernandez J, Collins S, Medina F (2012) Microstructures and mechanical behavior of Inconel 718 fabricated by selective laser melting. Acta Mater 60(5):2229–223910.1016/j.actamat.2011.12.032 ↗
11. Criales LE, Arısoy YM, Lane B, Moylan S, Donmez A, Özel T (2017) Laser powder bed fusion of nickel alloy 625: experimental investigations of effects of process parameters on melt pool size and shape with spatter analysis. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 121:22–3610.1016/j.ijmachtools.2017.03.004 ↗
12. 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 70:1011–101610.1007/s11837-018-2771-x ↗
13. Ocylok S, Alexeev E, Mann S, Weisheit A, Wissenbach K, Kelbassa I (2014) Correlations of melt pool geometry and process parameters during laser metal deposition by coaxial process monitoring. Phys Procedia 56:228–23810.1016/j.phpro.2014.08.167 ↗
14. Keshavarzkermani A, Marzbanrad E, Esmaeilizadeh R, Mahmoodkhani Y, Ali U, Enrique PD, Zhou NY, Bonakdar A, Toyserkani E (2019) An investigation into the effect of process parameters on melt pool geometry, cell spacing, and grain refinement during laser powder bed fusion. Optics Laser Technol 116:83–9110.1016/j.optlastec.2019.03.012 ↗
15. Mair P, Braun J, Kaserer L, March L, Schimbäck D, Letofsky-Papst I, Leichtfried G (2022) Unique microstructure evolution of a novel Ti-modified Al-Cu alloy processed using laser powder bed fusion. Mater Today Commun 31:10335310.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.103353 ↗
16. Moylan S, Cooke A, Donmez MA, Jurrens K, Slotwinski J (2012) A review of test artifacts for additive manufacturing10.6028/NIST.IR.7858 ↗
17. Monzón M, Ortega Z, Martínez A, Ortega F (2015) Standardization in additive manufacturing: activities carried out by international organizations and projects. Int J Adv Manufact Technol 76:1111–112110.1007/s00170-014-6334-1 ↗
18. Taylor H, Garibay E, Wicker R (2021) Toward a common laser powder bed fusion qualification test artifact. Addit Manuf 39:101803
19. Schmid S, Krabusch J, Schromm T, Jieqing S, Ziegelmeier S, Grosse CU, Schleifenbaum JH (2021) A new approach for automated measuring of the melt pool geometry in laser-powder bed fusion. Progress Addit Manuf 6:269–27910.1007/s40964-021-00173-7 ↗
20. Global test artifact data exchange program. https://gtadexp.org/, accessed: 2023-08-16
21. Meijering E, Jacob M, Sarria J-C, Steiner P, Hirling H, Unser EM (2004) Design and validation of a tool for neurite tracing and analysis in fluorescence microscopy images. Cytom Part A J Int Soc Anal Cytol 58(2):167–17610.1002/cyto.a.20022 ↗
22. Ng CC, Yap MH, Costen N, Li B (2015) Automatic wrinkle detection using hybrid hessian filter. In: Computer Vision–ACCV 2014: 12th Asian conference on computer vision, Singapore, Singapore, November 1-5, 2014, Revised Selected Papers, Part III 12, Springer, 2015, pp 609–62210.1007/978-3-319-16811-1_40 ↗
23. Ridge operators. https://scikit-image.org/docs/stable/auto_examples/edges/plot_ridge_filter.html, accessed: 2023-08-16
24. Lorenz C, Carlsen IC, Buzug TM, Fassnacht C, Weese J (1997) A multi-scale line filter with automatic scale selection based on the hessian matrix for medical image segmentation. In: Scale-space theory in computer vision: first international conference, Scale-Space’97 Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 2–4, 1997 Proceedings 1, Springer, 1997, pp 152–16310.1007/3-540-63167-4_47 ↗
25. Van der Walt S, Schönberger JL, Nunez-Iglesias J, Boulogne F, Warner JD, Yager N, Gouillart E, Yu T (2014) Scikit-image: image processing in python. PeerJ 2:e45310.7717/peerj.453 ↗
26. Stuckner J, Harder B, Smith TM (2022) Microstructure segmentation with deep learning encoders pre-trained on a large microscopy dataset. Npj Comput Mater 8(1):20010.1038/s41524-022-00878-5 ↗
27. Buslaev A, Iglovikov VI, Khvedchenya E, Parinov A, Druzhinin M, Kalinin AA (2020) Albumentations: fast and flexible image augmentations. Information 11(2):125. https://doi.org/10.3390/info1102012510.3390/info11020125 ↗
28. Taha AA, Hanbury A (2015) Metrics for evaluating 3d medical image segmentation: analysis, selection, and tool. BMC Med Imag 15(1):1–2810.1186/s12880-015-0068-x ↗
29. Torquato S, Lu B (1993) Chord-length distribution function for two-phase random media. Phys Rev E 47(4):295010.1103/PhysRevE.47.2950 ↗
30. ASTM Standard, E112-13 (2013) Standard test methods for determining average grain size, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/E011210.1520/E0112 ↗
31. Standard ASTM, E1382–97 (2015) Standard test methods for determining average grain size using semiautomatic and automatic image analysis. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/E1382-97R1510.1520/E1382-97R15 ↗
32. ASTM Standard, ASTM E1181-02 (2015) Standard test methods for characterizing duplex grain sizes, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/E1181-02R1510.1520/E1181-02R15 ↗
33. Turner DM, Niezgoda SR, Kalidindi SR (2016) Efficient computation of the angularly resolved chord length distributions and lineal path functions in large microstructure datasets. Modell Simul Mater Sci Eng 24(7):07500210.1088/0965-0393/24/7/075002 ↗
34. Latypov MI, Kühbach M, Beyerlein IJ, Stinville J-C, Toth LS, Pollock TM, Kalidindi SR (2018) Application of chord length distributions and principal component analysis for quantification and representation of diverse polycrystalline microstructures. Mater Charact 145:671–68510.1016/j.matchar.2018.09.020 ↗
35. Whitman SE, Latypov MI, SR-CLD: spatially resolved chord length distribution for quantification and visualization of heterogeneous microstructures, Pending submission