DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Monitoring and prediction of porosity in laser powder bed fusion using physics-informed meltpool signatures and machine learning

Abstract

In this work we accomplished the monitoring and prediction of porosity in laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) additive manufacturing process. This objective was realized by extracting physics-informed meltpool signatures from an in-situ dual-wavelength imaging pyrometer, and subsequently, analyzing these signatures via computationally tractable machine learning approaches. Porosity in LPBF occurs despite extensive optimization of processing conditions due to stochastic causes. Hence, it is essential to continually monitor the process with in-situ sensors for detecting and mitigating incipient pore formation. In this work a tall cuboid-shaped part (10 mm × 10 mm × 137 mm, material ATI 718Plus) was built with controlled porosity by varying laser power and scanning speed. This test caused various types of porosity, such as lack-of-fusion and keyhole formation, with varying degrees of severity in the part. The meltpool was continuously monitored using a dual-wavelength imaging pyrometer installed in the machine. Physically intuitive process signatures, such as meltpool length, temperature distribution, and ejecta (spatter) characteristics, were extracted from the meltpool images. Subsequently, relatively simple machine learning models, e.g., K-Nearest Neighbors, were trained to predict both the severity and type of porosity as a function of these physics-informed meltpool signatures. These models resulted in a prediction accuracy exceedingmore » 95% (statistical F1-score). The same analysis was carried out with a complex, black-box deep learning convolutional neural network which directly used the meltpool images instead of physics-informed features. The convolutional neural network produced a comparable F1-score in the range of 89–97%. Finally, these results demonstrate that using pragmatic, physics-informed meltpool signatures within a simple machine learning model is as effective for flaw prediction in LPBF as using a complex and computationally demanding black-box deep learning model.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1];  [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [1]
  1. Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE (United States)
  2. Stratonics, Lake Forest, CA (United States)
  3. ARA Engineering, Sedona, AZ (United States)
  4. Honeywell, Phoenix, AZ (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC); Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
OSTI Identifier:
1977320
Alternate Identifier(s):
OSTI ID: 1854944
Grant/Contract Number:  
SC0021136; HR00110120C-0037
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Journal of Materials Processing Technology
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 304; Journal Issue: C; Journal ID: ISSN 0924-0136
Publisher:
Elsevier
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
36 MATERIALS SCIENCE; Engineering; Materials Science; Laser powder bed fusion; Porosity prediction; Meltpool monitoring; Imaging pyrometer; Physics-informed machine learning

Citation Formats

Smoqi, Ziyad, Gaikwad, Aniruddha, Bevans, Benjamin, Kobir, Md Humaun, Craig, James, Abul-Haj, Alan, Peralta, Alonso, and Rao, Prahalada. Monitoring and prediction of porosity in laser powder bed fusion using physics-informed meltpool signatures and machine learning. United States: N. p., 2022. Web. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2022.117550.
Smoqi, Ziyad, Gaikwad, Aniruddha, Bevans, Benjamin, Kobir, Md Humaun, Craig, James, Abul-Haj, Alan, Peralta, Alonso, & Rao, Prahalada. Monitoring and prediction of porosity in laser powder bed fusion using physics-informed meltpool signatures and machine learning. United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2022.117550
Smoqi, Ziyad, Gaikwad, Aniruddha, Bevans, Benjamin, Kobir, Md Humaun, Craig, James, Abul-Haj, Alan, Peralta, Alonso, and Rao, Prahalada. Wed . "Monitoring and prediction of porosity in laser powder bed fusion using physics-informed meltpool signatures and machine learning". United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2022.117550. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1977320.
@article{osti_1977320,
title = {Monitoring and prediction of porosity in laser powder bed fusion using physics-informed meltpool signatures and machine learning},
author = {Smoqi, Ziyad and Gaikwad, Aniruddha and Bevans, Benjamin and Kobir, Md Humaun and Craig, James and Abul-Haj, Alan and Peralta, Alonso and Rao, Prahalada},
abstractNote = {In this work we accomplished the monitoring and prediction of porosity in laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) additive manufacturing process. This objective was realized by extracting physics-informed meltpool signatures from an in-situ dual-wavelength imaging pyrometer, and subsequently, analyzing these signatures via computationally tractable machine learning approaches. Porosity in LPBF occurs despite extensive optimization of processing conditions due to stochastic causes. Hence, it is essential to continually monitor the process with in-situ sensors for detecting and mitigating incipient pore formation. In this work a tall cuboid-shaped part (10 mm × 10 mm × 137 mm, material ATI 718Plus) was built with controlled porosity by varying laser power and scanning speed. This test caused various types of porosity, such as lack-of-fusion and keyhole formation, with varying degrees of severity in the part. The meltpool was continuously monitored using a dual-wavelength imaging pyrometer installed in the machine. Physically intuitive process signatures, such as meltpool length, temperature distribution, and ejecta (spatter) characteristics, were extracted from the meltpool images. Subsequently, relatively simple machine learning models, e.g., K-Nearest Neighbors, were trained to predict both the severity and type of porosity as a function of these physics-informed meltpool signatures. These models resulted in a prediction accuracy exceeding 95% (statistical F1-score). The same analysis was carried out with a complex, black-box deep learning convolutional neural network which directly used the meltpool images instead of physics-informed features. The convolutional neural network produced a comparable F1-score in the range of 89–97%. Finally, these results demonstrate that using pragmatic, physics-informed meltpool signatures within a simple machine learning model is as effective for flaw prediction in LPBF as using a complex and computationally demanding black-box deep learning model.},
doi = {10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2022.117550},
journal = {Journal of Materials Processing Technology},
number = C,
volume = 304,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Mar 09 00:00:00 EST 2022},
month = {Wed Mar 09 00:00:00 EST 2022}
}

Works referenced in this record:

On the effect of spatter particles distribution on the quality of Hastelloy X parts made by laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing
journal, January 2019


On the limitations of Volumetric Energy Density as a design parameter for Selective Laser Melting
journal, January 2017


In-process monitoring of porosity in additive manufacturing using optical emission spectroscopy
journal, October 2019


A review on measurement science needs for real-time control of additive manufacturing metal powder bed fusion processes
journal, February 2016

  • Mani, Mahesh; Lane, Brandon M.; Donmez, M. Alkan
  • International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2016.1223378

Toward in-situ flaw detection in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing through layerwise imagery and machine learning
journal, April 2021


LPBF Right the First Time—the Right Mix Between Modeling and Experiments
journal, April 2019

  • Megahed, Mustafa; Mindt, Hans-Wilfried; Willems, Jöerg
  • Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation, Vol. 8, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1007/s40192-019-00133-8

Infrared thermography for laser-based powder bed fusion additive manufacturing processes
conference, January 2014

  • Moylan, Shawn; Whitenton, Eric; Lane, Brandon
  • 40TH ANNUAL REVIEW OF PROGRESS IN QUANTITATIVE NONDESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION: Incorporating the 10th International Conference on Barkhausen Noise and Micromagnetic Testing, AIP Conference Proceedings
  • DOI: 10.1063/1.4864956

Machine learning for metal additive manufacturing: Towards a physics-informed data-driven paradigm
journal, January 2022


Observation of keyhole-mode laser melting in laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing
journal, December 2014


Additive manufacturing of metallic components – Process, structure and properties
journal, March 2018


Computational Assessment of Thermokinetics and Associated Microstructural Evolution in Laser Powder Bed Fusion Manufacturing of Ti6Al4V Alloy
journal, May 2020


A Review of Machine Learning Applications in Additive Manufacturing
conference, November 2019

  • Razvi, Sayyeda Saadia; Feng, Shaw; Narayanan, Anantha
  • ASME 2019 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Volume 1: 39th Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
  • DOI: 10.1115/DETC2019-98415

Overview of modelling and simulation of metal powder bed fusion process at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
journal, November 2014


Density of additively-manufactured, 316L SS parts using laser powder-bed fusion at powers up to 400 W
journal, May 2014

  • Kamath, Chandrika; El-dasher, Bassem; Gallegos, Gilbert F.
  • The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 74, Issue 1-4
  • DOI: 10.1007/s00170-014-5954-9

A statistical learning method for image-based monitoring of the plume signature in laser powder bed fusion
journal, June 2019


In-process sensing in selective laser melting (SLM) additive manufacturing
journal, February 2016

  • Spears, Thomas G.; Gold, Scott A.
  • Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation, Vol. 5, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1186/s40192-016-0045-4

Additive manufacturing of fatigue resistant materials: Challenges and opportunities
journal, May 2017


Formation processes for large ejecta and interactions with melt pool formation in powder bed fusion additive manufacturing
journal, March 2019

  • Nassar, Abdalla R.; Gundermann, Molly A.; Reutzel, Edward W.
  • Scientific Reports, Vol. 9, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-41415-7

The metallurgy and processing science of metal additive manufacturing
journal, March 2016


Correlation between porosity and processing parameters in TiAl6V4 produced by selective laser melting
journal, September 2016


Machine Learning in Additive Manufacturing: A Review
journal, April 2020


Mechanistic artificial intelligence (mechanistic-AI) for modeling, design, and control of advanced manufacturing processes: Current state and perspectives
journal, April 2022


Neural network based image segmentation for spatter extraction during laser-based powder bed fusion processing
journal, October 2020


Revisiting fundamental welding concepts to improve additive manufacturing: From theory to practice
journal, January 2020


In situ quality control of the selective laser melting process using a high-speed, real-time melt pool monitoring system
journal, August 2014

  • Clijsters, S.; Craeghs, T.; Buls, S.
  • The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 75, Issue 5-8
  • DOI: 10.1007/s00170-014-6214-8

Review of in-situ process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing
journal, April 2016


Process defects and in situ monitoring methods in metal powder bed fusion: a review
journal, February 2017

  • Grasso, Marco; Colosimo, Bianca Maria
  • Measurement Science and Technology, Vol. 28, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1088/1361-6501/aa5c4f

Measurements of Melt Pool Geometry and Cooling Rates of Individual Laser Traces on IN625 Bare Plates
journal, February 2020

  • Lane, Brandon; Heigel, Jarred; Ricker, Richard
  • Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation, Vol. 9, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1007/s40192-020-00169-1

Effect of processing parameters on surface roughness, porosity and cracking of as-built IN738LC parts fabricated by laser powder bed fusion
journal, November 2020


A dimensionless number for predicting universal processing parameter boundaries in metal powder bed additive manufacturing
journal, January 2021


On the role of melt flow into the surface structure and porosity development during selective laser melting
journal, September 2015


Correlating in-situ sensor data to defect locations and part quality for additively manufactured parts using machine learning
journal, April 2022


Towards a generic physics-based machine learning model for geometry invariant thermal history prediction in additive manufacturing
journal, April 2022


Additive manufacturing in the context of structural integrity
journal, January 2017


Laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing: Physics of complex melt flow and formation mechanisms of pores, spatter, and denudation zones
journal, April 2016


A deep neural network for classification of melt-pool images in metal additive manufacturing
journal, October 2018

  • Kwon, Ohyung; Kim, Hyung Giun; Ham, Min Ji
  • Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 31, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1007/s10845-018-1451-6

Processing parameters in laser powder bed fusion metal additive manufacturing
journal, August 2020


Metal vapor micro-jet controls material redistribution in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing
journal, June 2017


In situ monitoring of selective laser melting using plume and spatter signatures by deep belief networks
journal, October 2018


Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review of Mechanical Properties
journal, July 2016


Overview of Materials Qualification Needs for Metal Additive Manufacturing
journal, January 2016


Extraction and evaluation of melt pool, plume and spatter information for powder-bed fusion AM process monitoring
journal, October 2018