Measurements of Melt Pool Geometry and Cooling Rates of Individual Laser Traces on IN625 Bare Plates

The complex physical nature of the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process warrants use of multiphysics computational simulations to predict or design optimal operating parameters or resultant part qualities such as microstructure or defect concentration. Many of these simulations rely on tuning based on characteristics of the laser-induced melt pool, such as the melt pool geometry (length, width, and depth). Additionally, many of numerous interacting variables that make the LPBF process so complex can be reduced and controlled by performing simple, single-track experiments on bare (no powder) substrates, yet still produce important and applicable physical results. The 2018 Additive Manufacturing Benchmark (AM Bench) tests and measurements were designed for this application. This paper describes the experiment design for the tests conducted using LPBF on bare metal surfaces, and the measurement results for the melt pool geometry and melt pool cooling rate performed on two LPBF systems. Several factors, such as accurate laser spot size, were determined after the 2018 AM Bench conference, with results of those additional tests reported here.

[1]  G. Teodorescu,et al.  Normal emissivity of high-purity nickel at temperatures between 1440 and 1605 K , 2008 .

[2]  Brandon M. Lane,et al.  Measurement of process dynamics through coaxially aligned high speed near-infrared imaging in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing , 2017, Commercial + Scientific Sensing and Imaging.

[3]  Li Ma,et al.  Single-Track Melt-Pool Measurements and Microstructures in Inconel 625 , 2018, 1802.05827.

[4]  Chandrika Kamath,et al.  Observation of keyhole-mode laser melting in laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing , 2014 .

[5]  Brandon M. Lane,et al.  The effect of powder on cooling rate and melt pool length measurements using in situ thermographic techniques | NIST , 2017 .

[6]  Shawn Moylan,et al.  Thermographic Measurements of the Commercial Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process at NIST. , 2015, Rapid prototyping journal.

[7]  E. Iso,et al.  Measurement Uncertainty and Probability: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement , 1995 .

[8]  Leonard M. Hanssen,et al.  Design, Developments, and Results from the NIST Additive Manufacturing Metrology Testbed (AMMT) | NIST , 2016 .

[9]  Brandon M. Lane,et al.  Topographic Measurement of Individual Laser Tracks in Alloy 625 Bare Plates , 2019, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation.

[10]  J. Heigel,et al.  Measurement of the Melt Pool Length During Single Scan Tracks in a Commercial Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process , 2017 .

[11]  C. Vidal,et al.  Guide to the expression of uncertainty , 2019, Springer Reference Medizin.

[12]  Fan Zhang,et al.  Outcomes and Conclusions from the 2018 AM-Bench Measurements, Challenge Problems, Modeling Submissions, and Conference , 2020, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation.

[13]  M. Cox,et al.  Thermodynamic temperature assignment to the point of inflection of the melting curve of high-temperature fixed points , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[14]  Gerald C. Holst,et al.  Testing and evaluation of infrared imaging systems , 1993 .

[15]  Susumu Hattori,et al.  Establishing a practical temperature standard by using a narrow-band radiation thermometer with a silicon detector , 1983 .

[16]  L. Campo,et al.  Emissivity measurements on aeronautical alloys , 2010 .

[17]  M. E. Williams,et al.  Location-Specific Microstructure Characterization Within IN625 Additive Manufacturing Benchmark Test Artifacts , 2020, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation.

[18]  B. Lane,et al.  Calibration and Measurement Procedures for a High Magnification Thermal Camera , 2016 .

[19]  Barry N. Taylor,et al.  Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of Nist Measurement Results , 2017 .