Process Uncertainty Analysis of Stochastic Lack-of-Fusion Defects in Laser Powder Bed Fused Inconel 718
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract This manuscript introduces a computational framework to simulate the generation of stochastic lack-of-fusion (LoF) defects produced by random fluctuations in the melt pool geometry during laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). The framework facilitates the analysis of the relationship between the manufacturing process parameters and the resulting stochasticity in lack-of-fusion defects. Several sources of uncertainty in the LPBF process contribute to this stochasticity, and this analysis quantifies the aforementioned relationship. A spectral matching algorithm was developed to statistically reproduce experimentally observed melt pool fluctuations obtained from image segmentation of scan tracks. These fluctuations were coupled with an analytical mean melt pool geometry model to estimate dynamic melt pool behavior in LPBF IN718. The dynamic melt pool histories were employed to simulate LoF defects. The volume fraction of simulated LoF defects was validated against volume fractions from IN718 experimental builds reported in the literature. Parameter combinations in the power–velocity ( P – V ) and layer thickness–hatch ( L – H ) spaces were sampled with dynamic melt pool histories; statistical volume element (SVE) simulations were then executed, and the distributions of defect volume fraction, equivalent diameter and sphericity were constructed. The extreme values of both equivalent diameter and sphericity were noted to be present even near fully dense conditions in the P – V space. Stochastic LoF defects were found to occur within the accepted criterion curve in the L – H space, indicating the impact of melt pool fluctuations on the generation of stochastic LoF in nominally defect-free regimes. A sub-optimal process regime was identified in the L – H space. The proposed framework offers a way to assess the impact of parameter selection on LoF defect distributions to further advance the design, qualification and certification of LPBF parts.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (56)
Show source-provided references
1. Gong H, Rafi K, Gu H, Starr T, Stucker B (2014) Analysis of defect generation in Ti-6Al-4V parts made using powder bed fusion additive manufacturing processes. Addit Manuf. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2014.08.00210.1016/j.addma.2014.08.002 ↗
2. Grasso M, Colosimo BM (2017) Process defects and in situ monitoring methods in metal powder bed fusion: a review. Meas Sci Technol 28(4):044005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6501/aa5c4f10.1088/1361-6501/aa5c4f ↗
3. Masuo H et al (2018) Influence of defects, surface roughness and HIP on the fatigue strength of Ti-6Al-4V manufactured by additive manufacturing. Int J Fatigue 117:163–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.07.02010.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.07.020 ↗
4. du Plessis A et al (2018) X-ray microcomputed tomography in additive manufacturing: a review of the current technology and applications. 3D Print Addit Manuf 5(3):227–247. https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2018.006010.1089/3dp.2018.0060 ↗
5. Mostafaei A et al (2022) Defects and anomalies in powder bed fusion metal additive manufacturing. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 26(2):100974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2021.10097410.1016/j.cossms.2021.100974 ↗
6. Hao Kan W et al (2022) A critical review on the effects of process-induced porosity on the mechanical properties of alloys fabricated by laser powder bed fusion. J Mater Sci 57(21):9818–9865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-022-06990-710.1007/s10853-022-06990-7 ↗
7. Yeratapally SR, Lang C, Edward H, Glaessgen (2020) A computational study to investigate the effect of defect geometries on the fatigue crack driving forces in powder-bed AM materials. In: AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum. AIAA SciTech Forum. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-138610.2514/6.2020-1386 ↗
8. Brown A, Jones, Z, Tilson W (2017) Classification, effects, and prevention of build defects in powder-bed fusion printed Inconel 718. NTRS Author Affiliations: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Jacobs Engineering and Science Services and Skills Augmentation Group (ESSSA) NTRS Report/Patent Number: M17-5848 NTRS Document ID: 20170003400 NTRS Research Center: Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)
9. Cunningham R et al (2016) Evaluating the effect of processing parameters on porosity in electron beam melted Ti-6Al-4V via synchrotron X-ray microtomography. JOM 68(3):765–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-015-1802-010.1007/s11837-015-1802-0 ↗
10. Cao M, Liu Y, Dunne FPE (2022) A crystal plasticity approach to understand fatigue response with respect to pores in additive manufactured aluminium alloys. Int J Fatigue 161:106917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.10691710.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.106917 ↗
11. Ming Tang P, Pistorius C, Beuth JL (2017) Prediction of lack-of-fusion porosity for powder bed fusion. Addit Manuf 14:39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.12.00110.1016/j.addma.2016.12.001 ↗
12. Rosenthal D (2022) The theory of moving sources of heat and its application to metal treatments. Trans Am Soc Mech Eng 68(8):849–865. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.401862410.1115/1.4018624 ↗
13. Reddy T et al (2024) Fatigue-based process window for laser beam powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Int J Fatigue 187:108428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2024.10842810.1016/j.ijfatigue.2024.108428 ↗
14. Mukherjee T, DebRoy T (2018) Mitigation of lack of fusion defects in powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. J Manuf Process 36:442–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.10.02810.1016/j.jmapro.2018.10.028 ↗
15. Khairallah SA et al (2016) Laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing: physics of complex melt flow and formation mechanisms of pores, spatter, and denudation zones. Acta Mater 108:36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2016.02.01410.1016/j.actamat.2016.02.014 ↗
16. Wang J et al (2023) Understanding melt pool characteristics in laser powder bed fusion: An overview of single- and multi-track melt pools for process optimization. Adv Powder Mater 2(4):100137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmate.2023.10013710.1016/j.apmate.2023.100137 ↗
17. Rodgers TM, Madison JD, Tikare V (2017) Simulation of metal additive manufacturing microstructures using kinetic Monte Carlo. Comput Mater Sci 135:78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2017.03.05310.1016/j.commatsci.2017.03.053 ↗
18. Rodgers TM et al (2021) Simulation of powder bed metal additive manufacturing microstructures with coupled finite difference-Monte Carlo method. Addit Manuf 41:101953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.10195310.1016/j.addma.2021.101953 ↗
19. Subraveti V et al (2024) Three-dimensional prediction of lack-of-fusion porosity volume fraction and morphology for powder bed fusion additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 13(2):511–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-024-00347-510.1007/s40192-024-00347-5 ↗
20. Dilip JJS et al (2017) Influence of processing parameters on the evolution of melt pool, porosity, and microstructures in Ti-6Al-4V alloy parts fabricated by selective laser melting. Prog Addit Manuf 2(3):157–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-017-0030-210.1007/s40964-017-0030-2 ↗
21. Gordon JV et al (2020) Defect structure process maps for laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 36:101552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.10155210.1016/j.addma.2020.101552 ↗
22. Montalbano T et al (2021) Uncovering the coupled impact of defect morphology and microstructure on the tensile behavior of Ti-6Al-4V fabricated via laser powder bed fusion. J Mater Process Technol 294:117113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2021.11711310.1016/j.jmatprotec.2021.117113 ↗
23. Anahid M et al (2024) Analytical probabilistic modeling of additive manufacturing-induced process defects and experimental validation. J Mater Eng Perform. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-024-10354-410.1007/s11665-024-10354-4 ↗
24. Li Y et al (2024) Statistical parameterized physics-based machine learning digital shadow models for laser powder bed fusion process. Addit Manuf 87:104214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2024.10421410.1016/j.addma.2024.104214 ↗
25. Richter B et al (2025) Analytical prediction of lack-of-fusion porosity including uncertainty and variable melt pools for powder bed fusion. Addit Manuf 103:104733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2025.10473310.1016/j.addma.2025.104733 ↗
26. Markl M, Körner C (2016) Multiscale modeling of powder bed-based additive manufacturing. Annu Rev Mater Res 46:93–123. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-070115-03215810.1146/annurev-matsci-070115-032158 ↗
27. Scime L, Beuth J (2019) Melt pool geometry and morphology variability for the Inconel 718 alloy in a laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process. Addit Manuf 29:100830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.10083010.1016/j.addma.2019.100830 ↗
28. Nadammal N et al (2021) Critical role of scan strategies on the development of microstructure, texture, and residual stresses during laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 38:101792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.10179210.1016/j.addma.2020.101792 ↗
29. Weaver J et al (2022) AM bench 2022 measurement results data: optical microscopy of laser-scanned single tracks and pads (AMB2022-03). https://doi.org/10.18434/mds2-271810.18434/mds2-2718 ↗
30. Dong W, Hinnebusch S, To AC (2024) Predicting recoater interference in laser powder bed fusion process by considering both global thermal deformation and local edge deformation using the modified inherent strain method. Addit Manuf 90:104330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2024.10433010.1016/j.addma.2024.104330 ↗
31. Chen H et al (2022) A review on discrete element method simulation in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Chin J Mech Eng Addit Manuf Front 1(1):100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjmeam.2022.10001710.1016/j.cjmeam.2022.100017 ↗
32. DebRoy T et al (2018) Additive manufacturing of metallic components—process, structure and properties. Prog Mater Sci 92:112–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.00110.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.001 ↗
33. Snow Z et al (2023) Observation of spatter-induced stochastic lack-of-fusion in laser powder bed fusion using in situ process monitoring. Addit Manuf 61:103298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2022.10329810.1016/j.addma.2022.103298 ↗
34. Liu Y et al (2015) Investigation into spatter behavior during selective laser melting of AISI 316L stainless steel powder. Mater Des 87:797–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.08.08610.1016/j.matdes.2015.08.086 ↗
35. Scime LR (2018) Methods for the expansion of additive manufacturing process space and the development of in-situ process monitoring methodologies. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University. https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/6720581.v110.1184/R1/6720581.v1 ↗
36. Miner JP et al (2024) Impact of melt pool geometry variability on lack-of-fusion porosity and fatigue life in powder bed fusion-laser beam Ti-6Al-4V. Addit Manuf 95:104506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2024.10450610.1016/j.addma.2024.104506 ↗
37. Pribe JD et al (2024) A process-structure-property simulation framework for quantifying uncertainty in additive manufacturing: application to fatigue in Ti-6Al-4V. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 12(3):231–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-023-00303-910.1007/s40192-023-00303-9 ↗
38. Hekmatjou H et al (2020) A comparative study of analytical Rosenthal, finite element, and experimental approaches in laser welding of AA5456 alloy. Metals 10(4):436. https://doi.org/10.3390/met1004043610.3390/met10040436 ↗
39. Yeratapally SR et al (2020) A 3D model to predict explicit morphologies and volume fraction of lack-of-fusion pores generated in selective laser melting processes. Technical report NF1676L-36059. NTRS Document ID: 20200002950 NTRS Research Center: Langley Research Center (LaRC). National Aeronautics and Space Administration
40. Wang J et al (2023) Understanding melt pool characteristics in laser powder bed fusion: an overview of single- and multi-track melt pools for process optimization. Adv Powder Mater 2(4):100137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmate.2023.10013710.1016/j.apmate.2023.100137 ↗
41. Weaver JS, Heigel JC, Lane BM (2022) Laser spot size and scaling laws for laser beam additive manufacturing. J Manuf Process 73:26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.10.05310.1016/j.jmapro.2021.10.053 ↗
42. Kanafi MM (2017) Rocky road—surface roughness impacts on rubber friction. Aalto University, Espoo
43. Betz W, Papaioannou I, Straub D (2014) Numerical methods for the discretization of random fields by means of the Karhunen-Loève expansion. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 271:109–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2013.12.01010.1016/j.cma.2013.12.010 ↗
44. Vieira Rielli V et al (2022) On the detailed morphological and chemical evolution of phases during laser powder bed fusion and common post-processing heat treatments of IN718. Addit Manuf 50:102540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.10254010.1016/j.addma.2021.102540 ↗
45. Denlinger ER et al (2016) Thermal modeling of Inconel 718 processed with powder bed fusion and experimental validation using in situ measurements. Addit Manuf 11:7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.03.00310.1016/j.addma.2016.03.003 ↗
46. Khorasani M et al (2022) A comprehensive study on meltpool depth in laser-based powder bed fusion of Inconel 718. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 120(3):2345–2362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-08618-710.1007/s00170-021-08618-7 ↗
47. Yang H, Li Z, Wang S (2020) The analytical prediction of thermal distribution and defect generation of Inconel 718 by selective laser melting. Appl Sci 10(20):7300. https://doi.org/10.3390/app1020730010.3390/app10207300 ↗
48. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9(7):671–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.208910.1038/nmeth.2089 ↗
49. Harris CR et al (2020) Array programming with NumPy. Nature 585(7825):357–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-210.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 ↗
50. Clark A (2015) Pillow (PIL Fork) documentation
51. Groeber MA, Jackson MA (2014) DREAM.3D: a digital representation environment for the analysis of microstructure in 3D. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 3(1):56–72. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9772-3-510.1186/2193-9772-3-5 ↗
52. Kumar P et al (2019) Influence of laser processing parameters on porosity in Inconel 718 during additive manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 103(1):1497–1507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03655-910.1007/s00170-019-03655-9 ↗
53. Sun Q et al (2019) Minimum image quality for reliable optical characterizations of soil particle shapes. Comput Geotech 114:103110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.10311010.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103110 ↗
54. Rubenchik AM, King WE, Sheldon SW (2018) Scaling laws for the additive manufacturing. J Mater Process Technol 257:234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.02.03410.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.02.034 ↗
55. Ye J et al (2019) Energy coupling mechanisms and scaling behavior associated with laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Adv Eng Mater 21(7):1900185. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.20190018510.1002/adem.201900185 ↗
56. Virtanen P et al (2020) SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods 17(3):261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-210.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 ↗