Multi-fidelity Modeling for Uncertainty Quantification in Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing
Source abstract
Abstract
Computer simulation of the additive manufacturing (AM) process involves multi-physics, multi-scale models. These sophisticated higher fidelity (HF) AM models, though more accurate, are computationally very expensive. On the other hand, AM process simulation using lower fidelity (LF) analytical models with simplified physics is fast but has significant prediction error. This paper presents a multi-fidelity (MF) modeling approach for constructing a prediction model for an AM process by fusing information from physics-based models of different fidelity and experimental data, thus maximizing the accuracy within the available computational resources. The LF model is corrected in two stages: first using the HF model simulation results and then the experimental data. A Bayesian calibration approach is used to estimate the correction factors and the MF model parameters to account for both process variability as well as model uncertainty. The proposed methodology is demonstrated by constructing a multi-fidelity model to predict the lack-of-fusion porosity in the laser powder bed fusion AM process, by combining an HF multi-physics computational model and an LF Rosenthal equation-based analytical solution. Further, an approach is developed to measure the effectiveness of the method by validating the prediction against experimental data.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Manufacturing Process and Optimization · Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (53)
Show source-provided references
1. Zhang S, Rauniyar S, Shrestha S, Ward A, Chou K (2019) An experimental study of tensile property variability in selective laser melting. J Manuf Process 43:26–3510.1016/j.jmapro.2019.03.045 ↗
2. Kerwien S, Collings S, Liou F, Bytnar M (2013) Measurement science roadmap for metal-based additive manufacturing. NIST
3. Oliveira JP, LaLonde A, Ma J (2020) Processing parameters in laser powder bed fusion metal additive manufacturing. Mater Des 193:10876210.1016/j.matdes.2020.108762 ↗
4. Atzeni E, Salmi A (2012) Economics of additive manufacturing for end-usable metal parts. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 62(9–12):1147–115510.1007/s00170-011-3878-1 ↗
5. Bandyopadhyay A, Traxel KD (2018) Invited review article: Metal-additive manufacturing—modeling strategies for application-optimized designs. Addit Manuf 22:758–774
6. Wei H, Mukherjee T, Zhang W, Zuback J, Knapp G, De A, DebRoy T (2021) Mechanistic models for additive manufacturing of metallic components. Prog Mater Sci 116:10070310.1016/j.pmatsci.2020.100703 ↗
7. Bayat M, Mohanty S, Hattel JH (2019) Multiphysics modelling of lack-of-fusion voids formation and evolution in in 718 made by multi-track/multi-layer L-PBF. Int J Heat Mass Transf 139:95–11410.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.05.003 ↗
8. Martin AA, Calta NP, Khairallah SA, Wang J, Depond PJ, Fong AY, Thampy V, Guss GM, Kiss AM, Stone KH et al (2019) Dynamics of pore formation during laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Nat Commun 10(1):1–1010.1038/s41467-019-10009-2 ↗
9. Tang M, Pistorius PC, Beuth JL (2017) Prediction of lack-of-fusion porosity for powder bed fusion. Addit Manuf 14:39–48
10. Bruna-Rosso C, Demir AG, Previtali B (2018) Selective laser melting finite element modeling: validation with high-speed imaging and lack of fusion defects prediction. Mater Des 156:143–15310.1016/j.matdes.2018.06.037 ↗
11. Nath P, Mahadevan S (2021) Probabilistic predictive control of porosity in laser powder bed fusion. J Intell Manuf 10(1115/1):4053184
12. Hu Z, Mahadevan S (2017) Uncertainty quantification and management in additive manufacturing: current status, needs, and opportunities. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 93(5):2855–287410.1007/s00170-017-0703-5 ↗
13. Moges T, Ameta G, Witherell P (2019) A review of model inaccuracy and parameter uncertainty in laser powder bed fusion models and simulations. J Manuf Sci Eng 10(1115/1):4042789
14. Gross DC (1999) Fidelity implementation study group report. No. SISO-REF-002-1999. Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO)
15. Peherstorfer B, Willcox K, Gunzburger M (2018) Survey of multifidelity methods in uncertainty propagation, inference, and optimization. SIAM Rev 60(3):550–59110.1137/16M1082469 ↗
16. Bayoumy AH, Kokkolaras M (2020) A relative adequacy framework for multi-model management in design optimization. J Mech Des. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-020-02591-710.1007/s00158-020-02591-7 ↗
17. Wang L, Chen X, Kang S, Deng X, Jin R (2020) Meta-modeling of high-fidelity fea simulation for efficient product and process design in additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 35:101211
18. Sarkar S, Mondal S, Joly M, Lynch ME, Bopardikar SD, Acharya R, Perdikaris P (2019) Multifidelity and multiscale bayesian framework for high-dimensional engineering design and calibration. J Mech Des 10(1115/1):4044598
19. Zhou X, Hsieh SJ, Wang JC (2019) Accelerating extrusion-based additive manufacturing optimization processes with surrogate-based multi-fidelity models. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 103(9):4071–408310.1007/s00170-019-03813-z ↗
20. Ling Y, Mullins J, Mahadevan S (2014) Selection of model discrepancy priors in Bayesian calibration. J Comput Phys 276:665–68010.1016/j.jcp.2014.08.005 ↗
21. Gilks WR (2005) Markov chain Monte Carlo. Encyclopedia of biostatistics. Wiley, New York
22. Arulampalam MS, Maskell S, Gordon N, Clapp T (2002) A tutorial on particle filters for online nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian tracking. IEEE Trans Signal Process 50(2):174–18810.1109/78.978374 ↗
23. Sisson W, Mahadevan S, Smarslok BP (2021) Optimization of information gain in multifidelity high-speed pressure predictions. AIAA J 59(8):3096–3105
24. Bandler JW, Biernacki RM, Chen SH, Grobelny PA, Hemmers RH (1994) Space mapping technique for electromagnetic optimization. IEEE Trans Microw Theory Tech 42(12):2536–254410.1109/22.339794 ↗
25. Nath P, Hu Z, Mahadevan S (2019) Uncertainty quantification of grain morphology in laser direct metal deposition. Modell Simul Mater Sci Eng 27(4):04400310.1088/1361-651X/ab1676 ↗
26. Sobol IM (2001) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simul 55(1–3):271–28010.1016/S0378-4754(00)00270-6 ↗
27. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Saisana M, Tarantola S (2008) Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. Wiley, New York
28. Sudret B (2008) Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(7):964–97910.1016/j.ress.2007.04.002 ↗
29. Sparkman D, Millwater HR, Garza J, Smarslok BP (2016) Importance sampling-based post-processing method for global sensitivity analysis. In: Proceedings of the 18th AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Conference, p 144010.2514/6.2016-1440 ↗
30. Li C, Mahadevan S (2016) An efficient modularized sample-based method to estimate the first-order Sobol’ index. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 153:110–12110.1016/j.ress.2016.04.012 ↗
31. Hu Z, Mahadevan S (2019) Probability models for data-driven global sensitivity analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 187:40–5710.1016/j.ress.2018.12.003 ↗
32. Williams CK, Rasmussen CE (2006) Gaussian processes for machine learning, vol 2. MIT Press, Cambridge
33. Kleijnen JP (2009) Kriging metamodeling in simulation: A review. Eur J Oper Res 192(3):707–71610.1016/j.ejor.2007.10.013 ↗
34. C Montgomery D (1997) Montgomery design and analysis of experiments
35. Pronzato L (2017) Minimax and maximin space-filling designs: some properties and methods for construction. Journal de la Société Française de Statistique 158(1):7–36
36. Husslage BG, Rennen G, Van Dam ER, Den Hertog D (2011) Space-filling Latin hypercube designs for computer experiments. Optim Eng 12(4):611–63010.1007/s11081-010-9129-8 ↗
37. Bichon BJ, Eldred MS, Swiler LP, Mahadevan S, McFarland JM (2008) Efficient global reliability analysis for nonlinear implicit performance functions. AIAA J 46(10):2459–246810.2514/1.34321 ↗
38. Echard B, Gayton N, Lemaire M (2011) AK-MCS: an active learning reliability method combining Kriging and Monte Carlo simulation. Struct Saf 33(2):145–15410.1016/j.strusafe.2011.01.002 ↗
39. Saltelli A, Tarantola S (2002) On the relative importance of input factors in mathematical models: safety assessment for nuclear waste disposal. J Am Stat Assoc 97(459):702–70910.1198/016214502388618447 ↗
40. Zadeh FK, Nossent J, Sarrazin F, Pianosi F, Van Griensven A, Wagener T, Bauwens W (2017) Comparison of variance-based and moment-independent global sensitivity analysis approaches by application to the SWAT model. Environ Model Softw 91:210–22210.1016/j.envsoft.2017.02.001 ↗
41. Andres T (1997) Sampling methods and sensitivity analysis for large parameter sets. J Stat Comput Simul 57(1–4):77–11010.1080/00949659708811804 ↗
42. Sarrazin F, Pianosi F, Wagener T (2016) Global sensitivity analysis of environmental models: convergence and validation. Environ Model Softw 79:135–15210.1016/j.envsoft.2016.02.005 ↗
43. Jeffreys H (1946) An invariant form for the prior probability in estimation problems. Proc R Soc Lond A 186(1007):453–46110.1098/rspa.1946.0056 ↗
44. Ling Y, Mahadevan S (2013) Quantitative model validation techniques: new insights. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 111:217–23110.1016/j.ress.2012.11.011 ↗
45. Rebba R, Mahadevan S (2008) Computational methods for model reliability assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(8):1197–120710.1016/j.ress.2007.08.001 ↗
46. Li C, Mahadevan S (2016) Role of calibration, validation, and relevance in multi-level uncertainty integration. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 148:32–4310.1016/j.ress.2015.11.013 ↗
47. Mullins J, Ling Y, Mahadevan S, Sun L, Strachan A (2016) Separation of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in probabilistic model validation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 147:49–5910.1016/j.ress.2015.10.003 ↗
48. Reitermanova Z, et al. (2010) Data splitting. In: Proceedings of the WDS, vol. 10, pp 31–36
49. Rosenthal D (1941) Mathematical theory of heat distribution during welding and cutting. Weld J 20:220–234
50. Promoppatum P, Yao SC, Pistorius PC, Rollett AD (2017) A comprehensive comparison of the analytical and numerical prediction of the thermal history and solidification microstructure of Inconel 718 products made by laser powder-bed fusion. Engineering 3(5):685–69410.1016/J.ENG.2017.05.023 ↗
51. Flow Science, Inc. (2019) FLOW-3D Users Manual, Version 12.0. Santa Fe, NM. https://www.flow3d.com/
52. Fouda YM, Bayly AE (2020) A DEM study of powder spreading in additive layer manufacturing. Granular Matter 22(1):1–1810.1007/s10035-019-0971-x ↗
53. Lee Y, Zhang W (2016) Modeling of heat transfer, fluid flow and solidification microstructure of nickel-base superalloy fabricated by laser powder bed fusion. Addit Manuf 12:178–188