Comparison of Porosity Analysis Based on X-Ray Computed Tomography on Metal Parts Produced by Additive Manufacturing
Source abstract
Abstract
The determination of uncertainty in porosity analysis based on X-ray computed tomography (XCT) images is currently the focus of research. This study aims to contribute to that by investigating the variation in porosity analysis resulting only from the segmentation and data analysis and by focusing on metal parts produced by different additive manufacturing processes, partially fabricated with intended porosity. Samples manufactured from aluminum, titanium alloy and nickel-chromium-based feedstock by liquid metal jetting (LMJ), laser-based powder bed fusion (PBF-LB) and directed energy deposition (DED) were scanned by XCT. The reconstructed volumes were distributed to four operators with different experience levels using Avizo, Dragonfly, Image J/Fiji, IPSDK Explorer, and VG Studio Max for porosity analysis. It was found that for all parts, the majority of operators chose a global manual threshold for image segmentation. Depending on the characteristics of the pores in the investigated samples, relative standard uncertainties up to 12% and 38% were observed for the LMJ and PBF-LB parts. For the part produced by DED, which showed the lowest overall porosity, relative standard uncertainties between 70% and 89% were observed for different image qualities; all were affected by the presence of artefacts investigated on purpose.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes · Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Laboratoire National de Métrologie et d’Essais (LNE), 75015 Paris, France
Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA 94550, USA
Reactiv’IP, 38000 Grenoble, France
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. Baumgärtner, B., Hussein, J., and Hausotte, T. (2023). Investigation of the Shape and Detectability of Pores with X-Ray Computed Tomography. J. Manuf. Mater. Process., 7.10.3390/jmmp7030103 ↗
2. Standard Method for microCT-Based Additive Manufacturing Quality Control 1: Porosity Analysis10.1016/j.mex.2018.09.005 ↗
3. Directed Energy Deposition (DED) Additive Manufacturing: Physical Characteristics, Defects, Challenges and Applications10.1016/j.mattod.2021.03.020 ↗
4. An Overview of Modern Metal Additive Manufacturing Technology10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.10.060 ↗
5. Methods for Rapid Pore Classification in Metal Additive Manufacturing10.1007/s11837-019-03761-9 ↗
6. Microstructural Porosity in Additive Manufacturing: The Formation and Detection of Pores in Metal Parts Fabricated by Powder Bed Fusion10.1002/amp2.10021 ↗
7. Pore Evolution Mechanisms during Directed Energy Deposition Additive Manufacturing10.1038/s41467-024-45913-9 ↗
8. Process-Structure-Property Relationships for Droplet-on-Demand Liquid-Metal-Jetted Parts
9. Ansell, T.Y. (2021). Current Status of Liquid Metal Printing. J. Manuf. Mater. Process., 5.10.3390/jmmp5020031 ↗
10. Processing and Microstructure of a Cu-Al-Fe-Mn Alloy via Droplet-on-Demand Additive Manufacturing10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112544 ↗
11. Molten Metal Jetting for Repairing Aluminum Components10.1016/j.addlet.2024.100259 ↗
12. Review of Porosity Uncertainty Estimation Methods in Computed Tomography Dataset10.1088/1361-6501/ac1b40 ↗
13. Carmignato, S., Dewulf, W., and Leach, R. (2018). Processing, Analysis and Visualization of CT Data. Industrial X-Ray Computed Tomography, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-59573-3 ↗
14. 3D Segmentation Algorithms for Computerized Tomographic Imaging: A Systematic Literature Review10.1007/s10278-018-0101-z ↗
15. A Review and a Statistical Analysis of Porosity in Metals Additively Manufactured by Laser Powder Bed Fusion10.29026/oea.2022.210058 ↗
16. Laboratory X-Ray Tomography for Metal Additive Manufacturing: Round Robin Test
17. Wu, Z., Patridge, J.P., Juhasz, M.J., Ashby, A., and Calta, N.P. (2025, January 23–27). Multi-Layer in-Situ Photodiode Assisted Flaw Detection and Fatigue Assessment in Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Proceedings of the TMS 2025 Annual Meeting & Exhibition (TMS2025), Las Vegas, NV, USA.
18. Feature-Sensitive Ring Artifact Correction for Computed Tomography10.1007/s10921-022-00914-w ↗
19. Nikon Metrology X-Tek X-Ray and CT Inspection—Inspect-X 5.2-Getting Started Guide XTM0548-A1.
20. Particle Size Analysis: A Comparison of Laboratory-Based Techniques and Their Application to Geoscience10.1016/j.sedgeo.2024.106607 ↗
21. (2008). Evaluation of Measurement Data—Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Standard No. JCGM 100:2008.
22. Du Plessis, A. (2025, April 23). Application Note: Dragonfly Basic Automated Porosity Analysis for Additively Manufactured Parts. Available online: https://dragonfly.comet.tech/getmedia/c6d4a904-9ace-46dd-b0a7-08bfe56999b9/DF_Application_Note_Additive_Manufacturing_Automated_Porosity_Analysis.pdf?disposition=attachment.
23. Fiji: An open-source platform for biological-image analysis10.1038/nmeth.2019 ↗
24. Ferreira, T., and Rasband, W. (2024, November 25). ImageJ User Guide ImageJ/Fiji 1.46r 2012. Available online: https://imagej.net/ij/docs/guide/.
25. BoneJ: Free and Extensible Bone Image Analysis in ImageJ10.1016/j.bone.2010.08.023 ↗
26. Doube, M. (2024, November 29). BoneJ Particle Analyser 2004–2025. Available online: https://bonej.org/particles.
27. X-Ray Computed Tomography-Based Porosity Segmentation in Additive Manufacturing: Comparison of Traditional and AI Approaches10.1051/matecconf/202440605011 ↗
28. Observer-Dependent Variability of the Thresholding Step in the Quantitative Analysis of Soil Images and X-Ray Microtomography Data10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.03.015 ↗