Figure 3: 3D temperature contours and 2D melt pool cross-sections where the melt pool is stabilized at x=500 µm from the start of the laser initial location for cases where (a) absorptivity = 0.1, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 1 and laser beam radius = 12 µm, (b) absorptivity = 0.1, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 20 and laser beam radius = 12 µm, (c) absorptivity = 0.1, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 1 and laser beam radius = 18 µm, (d) absorptivity = 0.45, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 1 and laser beam radius = 18 µm, (e) absorptivity = 0.45, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 20 and laser beam radius = 12 µm, (f) absorptivity = 0.45, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 20 and laser beam radius = 18 µm.

W.E. Alphonso1, M.Bayat1,*, M. Baier 2, S. Carmignato2, J.H. Hattel1
1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Lyngby, Denmark
2Department of Management and Engineering – University of Padova, Padova, Italy

ABSTRACT

L-PBF(Laser Powder Bed Fusion)는 레이저 열원을 사용하여 선택적으로 통합되는 분말 층으로 복잡한 3D 금속 부품을 만드는 금속 적층 제조(MAM) 기술입니다. 처리 영역은 수십 마이크로미터 정도이므로 L-PBF를 다중 규모 제조 공정으로 만듭니다.

기체 기공의 형성 및 성장 및 용융되지 않은 분말 영역의 생성은 다중물리 모델에 의해 예측할 수 있습니다. 또한 이러한 모델을 사용하여 용융 풀 모양 및 크기, 온도 분포, 용융 풀 유체 흐름 및 입자 크기 및 형태와 같은 미세 구조 특성을 계산할 수 있습니다.

이 작업에서는 용융, 응고, 유체 흐름, 표면 장력, 열 모세관, 증발 및 광선 추적을 통한 다중 반사를 포함하는 스테인리스 스틸 316-L에 대한 충실도 다중 물리학 중간 규모 수치 모델이 개발되었습니다. 완전한 실험 설계(DoE) 방법을 사용하는 통계 연구가 수행되었으며, 여기서 불확실한 재료 특성 및 공정 매개변수, 즉 흡수율, 반동 압력(기화) 및 레이저 빔 크기가 용융수지 모양 및 크기에 미치는 영향을 분석했습니다.

또한 용융 풀 역학에 대한 위에서 언급한 불확실한 입력 매개변수의 중요성을 강조하기 위해 흡수율이 가장 큰 영향을 미치고 레이저 빔 크기가 그 뒤를 잇는 주요 효과 플롯이 생성되었습니다. 용융 풀 크기에 대한 반동 압력의 중요성은 흡수율에 따라 달라지는 용융 풀 부피와 함께 증가합니다.

모델의 예측 정확도는 유사한 공정 매개변수로 생성된 단일 트랙 실험과 시뮬레이션의 용융 풀 모양 및 크기를 비교하여 검증됩니다.

더욱이, 열 렌즈 효과는 레이저 빔 크기를 증가시켜 수치 모델에서 고려되었으며 나중에 결과적인 용융 풀 프로파일은 모델의 견고성을 보여주기 위한 실험과 비교되었습니다.

Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) is a Metal Additive Manufacturing (MAM) technology where a complex 3D metal part is built from powder layers, which are selectively consolidated using a laser heat source. The processing zone is in the order of a few tenths of micrometer, making L-PBF a multi-scale manufacturing process. The formation and growth of gas pores and the creation of un-melted powder zones can be predicted by multiphysics models. Also, with these models, the melt pool shape and size, temperature distribution, melt pool fluid flow and its microstructural features like grain size and morphology can be calculated. In this work, a high fidelity multi-physics meso-scale numerical model is developed for stainless steel 316-L which includes melting, solidification, fluid flow, surface tension, thermo-capillarity, evaporation and multiple reflection with ray-tracing. A statistical study using a full Design of Experiments (DoE) method was conducted, wherein the impact of uncertain material properties and process parameters namely absorptivity, recoil pressure (vaporization) and laser beam size on the melt pool shape and size was analysed. Furthermore, to emphasize on the significance of the above mentioned uncertain input parameters on the melt pool dynamics, a main effects plot was created which showed that absorptivity had the highest impact followed by laser beam size. The significance of recoil pressure on the melt pool size increases with melt pool volume which is dependent on absorptivity. The prediction accuracy of the model is validated by comparing the melt pool shape and size from the simulation with single track experiments that were produced with similar process parameters. Moreover, the effect of thermal lensing was considered in the numerical model by increasing the laser beam size and later on the resultant melt pool profile was compared with experiments to show the robustness of the model.

Figure 1: a) Computational domain for single track L-PBF which includes a 200 μm thick substrate and 45 μm powder layer thickness b) 3D temperature contour plot after scanning a single track with melt pool contours at two locations along the scanning direction where the green region indicates the melted regions.
Figure 1: a) Computational domain for single track L-PBF which includes a 200 μm thick substrate and 45 μm powder layer thickness b) 3D temperature contour plot after scanning a single track with melt pool contours at two locations along the scanning direction where the green region indicates the melted regions.
Figure 2: Main effects plot of uncertain parameters: absorptivity, recoil pressure coefficient and laser beam radius on the melt pool dimensions (width and depth)
Figure 2: Main effects plot of uncertain parameters: absorptivity, recoil pressure coefficient and laser beam radius on the melt pool dimensions (width and depth)
Figure 3: 3D temperature contours and 2D melt pool cross-sections where the melt pool is stabilized at x=500 µm from the start of the laser initial location for cases where (a) absorptivity = 0.1, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 1 and laser beam radius = 12 µm, (b) absorptivity = 0.1, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 20 and laser beam radius = 12 µm, (c) absorptivity = 0.1, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 1 and laser beam radius = 18 µm, (d) absorptivity = 0.45, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 1 and laser beam radius = 18 µm, (e) absorptivity = 0.45, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 20 and laser beam radius = 12 µm, (f) absorptivity = 0.45, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 20 and laser beam radius = 18 µm.
Figure 3: 3D temperature contours and 2D melt pool cross-sections where the melt pool is stabilized at x=500 µm from the start of the laser initial location for cases where (a) absorptivity = 0.1, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 1 and laser beam radius = 12 µm, (b) absorptivity = 0.1, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 20 and laser beam radius = 12 µm, (c) absorptivity = 0.1, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 1 and laser beam radius = 18 µm, (d) absorptivity = 0.45, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 1 and laser beam radius = 18 µm, (e) absorptivity = 0.45, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 20 and laser beam radius = 12 µm, (f) absorptivity = 0.45, Recoil pressure coefficient B = 20 and laser beam radius = 18 µm.
Figure 4: Validation of Numerical model with Recoil pressure coefficient B= 20, absorptivity = 0.45 and a) laser beam radius = 15 µm b) laser beam radius = 20 µm
Figure 4: Validation of Numerical model with Recoil pressure coefficient B= 20, absorptivity = 0.45 and a) laser beam radius = 15 µm b) laser beam radius = 20 µm

CONCLUSION

In this work, a high-fidelity multi-physics numerical model was developed for L-PBF using the FVM method in Flow-3D. The impact of uncertainty in the input parameters including absorptivity, recoil pressure and laser beam size on the melt pool is addressed using a DoE method. The DoE analysis shows that absorptivity has the highest impact on the melt pool. The recoil pressure and laser beam size only become significant once absorptivity is 0.45. Furthermore, the numerical model is validated by comparing the predicted melt pool shape and size with experiments conducted with similar process parameters wherein a high prediction accuracy is achieved by the model. In addition, the impact of thermal lensing on the melt pool dimensions by increasing the laser beam spot size is considered in the validated numerical model and the resultant melt pool is compared with experiments.

REFERENCES

[1] T. Bonhoff, M. Schniedenharn, J. Stollenwerk, P. Loosen, Experimental and theoretical analysis of thermooptical effects in protective window for selective laser melting, Proc. Int. Conf. Lasers Manuf. LiM. (2017)
26–29. https://www.wlt.de/lim/Proceedings2017/Data/PDF/Contribution31_final.pdf.
[2] L.R. Goossens, Y. Kinds, J.P. Kruth, B. van Hooreweder, On the influence of thermal lensing during selective
laser melting, Solid Free. Fabr. 2018 Proc. 29th Annu. Int. Solid Free. Fabr. Symp. – An Addit. Manuf. Conf.
SFF 2018. (2020) 2267–2274.
[3] J. Shinjo, C. Panwisawas, Digital materials design by thermal-fluid science for multi-metal additive
manufacturing, Acta Mater. 210 (2021) 116825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2021.116825.
[4] Z. Zhang, Y. Huang, A. Rani Kasinathan, S. Imani Shahabad, U. Ali, Y. Mahmoodkhani, E. Toyserkani, 3-
Dimensional heat transfer modeling for laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing with volumetric heat
sources based on varied thermal conductivity and absorptivity, Opt. Laser Technol. 109 (2019) 297–312.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2018.08.012.
[5] M. Bayat, A. Thanki, S. Mohanty, A. Witvrouw, S. Yang, J. Thorborg, N.S. Tiedje, J.H. Hattel, Keyholeinduced porosities in Laser-based Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) of Ti6Al4V: High-fidelity modelling and
experimental validation, Addit. Manuf. 30 (2019) 100835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100835.
[6] M. Bayat, S. Mohanty, J.H. Hattel, Multiphysics modelling of lack-of-fusion voids formation and evolution
in IN718 made by multi-track/multi-layer L-PBF, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 139 (2019) 95–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.05.003.
[7] J. Metelkova, Y. Kinds, K. Kempen, C. de Formanoir, A. Witvrouw, B. Van Hooreweder, On the influence
of laser defocusing in Selective Laser Melting of 316L, Addit. Manuf. 23 (2018) 161–169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.08.006.