Additive Manufacturing COLOSIMO Insitu Monitoring

Collaborative
Firmaclassroom- MIT+Polimi+TUM
convenzione
Politecnico di Milano e Veneranda
Smart AM and In-situ Monitoring
Fabbrica del Duomo di Milano
Bianca M. Colosimo Aula Magna – Rettorato

Mercoledì
Department of Mechanical Engineering, 27 di
Politecnico maggio
Milano 2015
biancamaria.colosimo@polimi.it
AM & Industry 4.0
Digital twin Digital manufacturing Big data
The AM challenges - product quality
D D
ooc
? ?
One quality Quality Quality Complex Lattice on
p quality
characteristic profiles Surfaces shapes manifold
characteristics
Classification of defects in AM Tapia & Elwany, 2014, Mani et al., 2015
Grasso & Colosimo, 2017, Everton et al., 2016
Grasso et al. 2021, Craeghs et al. 2011
Macro-geometry
Incomplete jobs or bending Acute corners Super-elevated edge

Grasso et al. 2021
Micro-geometry
Balling
balling Dross formation Staircase effect
Grasso et al. 2021
Microstructural defects and inclusions Residual stress, cracking delamination
Oxide inclusions
(Casati, et al. (2016))
partially molten particles.

(Casati, et al. (2016))
Grasso et al. 2021
Volumetric errors
Gaytan, et al. (2009)
Gong et al,2014
During the atomization process, argon might be trapped and

carried into molten pool and results in the formation of gas
bubbles (voids)
Gaytan, et al. (2009)
Why in-situ monitoring…
PROCESS PRODUCT
CONTROLLABLE GEOMETRIC
Laser velocity Dimensional deviations
Laser Power Geometric deviations
Laser Beam Diameter
Layer thickness PROCESS SIGNATURES MECHANICAL
Inert Gas Flow Rate Strength
Inert Gas Flow Pattern Hardness
Scanning Pattern «Process mapping» Thoughness
Fatigue Resistance
PREDEFINED
Powder Size PHYSICAL
Layer thickness Residual Stresses
Packing Density Surface Roughness
Absorptivity Porosity
Reflectance
Build Plate
Source: NIST –NISTIR 8036
Why in-situ monitoring…
«The limited stability and repeatability of the process still represent a major barrier for the industrial
breakthrough of metal AM systems»
Everton et al. (2016), Spears & Gold (2016), Sames et al. (2016), Mani et al. (2015), Tapia & Elwany (2014), Grasso & Colosimo (2017)
Current defective rates are an

industrial barrier
• Expensive materials
• Long processes, long/expensive post-  From sensorized to
process measurements
intelligent AM systems
• Long/expensive trial-and-error
inflates the time-to-market
• Stringent quality requirements
(aerospace & healthcare)
• Customized products
In-situ Monitoring in LPBF and EBM
Total n° of publications on in-situ monitoring LPBF/EBM (SCOPUS/Scholar)
Process Affiliation
In-situ sensing and data gathering for:

1. Process characterization / comprehension
2. In-situ metrology
• Geometrical distortions & surface topography
• Optical tomography
• Microstructure
3. In-situ monitoring (design of alarm rule for automated anomaly
Updated to Nov 2020 detection)
Everton et al. (2016), Spears and Gold (2016), Sames et al. (2016), Mani et al.
(2015), Tapia and Elwany (2014), Grasso and Colosimo (2017)
Different levels of process signatures
Level 0 Signals from sensors embedded into

the AM system (chamber control,
automation, …)
Level 1 Powder bed & printed slice (powder

bed inhomogenity, geometrical
distortions, surface pattern,…)
Level 2 Scan track (process by-products:

spatters & plume, hot/cold spots,
heating/cooling gradients, …)
Level 3
Melt pool (stability of size, shape,
intensity, temperature distribution,
etc …)
6/30
In-situ Monitoring in LPBF

Level 2 Level 3
Level 0 Level 1
Signals Powder bed & printed slice Scan track Melt pool
from sensors embedded into the (powder bed inhomogenity, (process by-products: spatters & (stability of size, shape,
AM system (chamber control, geometrical distortions, surface plume, hot/cold spots, intensity, temperature
automation, …) pattern,…) heating/cooling gradients, …) distribution, etc …)
Co-axial monitoring
Off-axis monitoring
In-situ sensing
• High-resolution cameras • Pyrometers / photodiodes

• High-speed cameras • High-speed cameras (visible & infrared)
• IR cameras
• Stereo vision, …
Level 1: powder bed - Coating check
Coating check:
Check the
homogeneity in the
deposition step
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYzo3iNf9j4
Available in almost all the industrial solutions
Co-axial monitoring
Characteristics and settings for co-axial sensing setups (SLM)
3
Doubenskaia et al., 2012
Spears and Gold, 2016

Ex:
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2224-78902015000300008
Company Toolkit name signature

Concept QM meltpool 3D Melt pool (area and intensity)
Some industrial examples
EOS EOSTATE Meltpool Melt pool
SLM Solutions Meltpool monitoring System Melt pool
Aconity Extensive Process Monitoring Melt pool?
In-situ monitoring for zero-waste
1. AM – defects - challenges in product inspection
Level 0 – existing signals
Grasso Gallina & Colosimo B.M. (2018)
EBM
Table (Z axis)
Controller Feedback Event log
• Current feedback
Heat Power Supply Table (Z axis) • Arctrip counter
• Current
• position
Total cool time • Beam control melt • Current feedback • Rake move done
• …• Total heat time • Beam current • Current position • Rake start move to
Preheating • Filament current • … position
Temperature
• Preheat time • Filament voltage Temperature • Rake is moving
• Bottom
Melt temperature • Focus • Bottom temperature • Table move done
• Contour time • High Voltage • Column temperature • Pump ON
• Column
• Square temperature
time • … • … • Io trap ON
• …• Scanlength histogram Rake (powder recoating) Vacuum • Filament Grid ON
• Filament current • Left/right sensor pulse • Backing vacuum • Beam on
Vacuum
• Filament voltage • Left/right pulse length • Chamber vacuum • Right/left is pulse valid
• Backing
• Focusvacuum • Left/right next position • Column vacuum • Zero pulse counter
• High Voltage • Current feedback • … • Power on
• Chamber
• Arc trip vacuum
counter • Current position • Power supply ok
• Column vacuum
• Time to create layer • … • …
• …
 Research goal: data fusion and in-line monitoring of multiple sensor signals for quick
detection of process defects and errors
14
Level 0 – existing signals
Example: repeated production of the «calibration sat-box» on Arcam A2
Part dimensions 126 x 126 x 98,6 mm

Material Ti6Al4V (size 45 – 106 μm)
Major process parameters
Layer thickness 50 μm
Max current 20 mA
Focus offset 25 mA
Speed function 45
Line offset 0.2 mm
Hatch rotation 90°
In control Out of control
Layer n+1
Layer n
Z
Geometrical distortion caused by wrong powder dosing
(melting of a non-uniform layer thickness)
15
Level 0 – existing signals –
Machine learning and statistical process control
Example: repeated production of the «calibration sat-box» on Arcam A2
Pulse left
Machine learning (SVM)
Training on dataset representative on in-control In-situ detection of
process conditions wrong powder
Data-driven estimation of control region deposition
Pulse right
17

Level 2 Level 3
Level 0 Level 1
Co-axial monitoring
Off-axis monitoring
In-situ sensing

• IR cameras
Off-axis sensing – commercial solutions
Commercial solutions – some examples
Company Toolkit name signature In-situ sensing

Concept QM coating Power bed Off-axial camera (visible)
EOSTATE Exposure OT Thermal map over entire power bed Off-axis camera (visible)
EOS
EOSTATE Powerbed Off-axial camera (visible)
SLM Solutions Layer Control System (LCS) Power bed Off-axial camera (visible)
Arcam LayerQam Slice pattern and geometry Off-axial camera (visible)
Commercial solutions – SIGMA LABS

• Third party and platform independent in-situ monitoring solutions
• PrintRite3D® SENSORPAK™ includes co-axial and off-axis sensors
• PrintRite3D® INSPECT™ provides in-situ quality metric estimations based on co-axial and/or off-axis sensors
• PrintRite3D® CONTOUR™ includes an off-axis method for part geometry monitoring layer by layer by using an off-axis high-spatial
resolution camera.
Level 1 – powder bed
Powder bed
Powder bed homogeneity Surface pattern classification

Aminzadeh & Kurfess, 2018 (Georgia Tech)
Normal energy Low energy

Smooth surface Porous surface
Foster 2015 (PennState Univesity)

Scime Beuth, 2019 (Carnegie Mellon) via CNN
Level 2 – Slice – STATIC (PICTURE)
Slice
In-situ inspection Super-elevated edge detection
Caltanissetta et al., 2018, Pagani et al., 2020 Caltanissetta et al., 2018 Thermal map on entire slice
Pre-scan Krauss et al., 2014
Post-scan
Flaw detection
Thermal map
to detect
delamination
defects
Modelling and monitoring lattice structure
Colosimo et al. 2021 JQT
Lattice structure
• weight reduction;
• fatigue and wear resistance;
• heat dissipation;
• high energy absorption capacity
Main application: Aerospace, Aeronautic, Automotive and Defence sectors
Vibration absorbers - sandwich

Helicopter exhaust gas nozzle with Lattice-filled turbo intercooler for panels filled with a lattice core. Hip implant with cavities for
integral cooling. racing car https://powerandmotionworld.it/ medicinal deposits
(https://altairenlighten.com) (https://altairenlighten.com) (https://www.fraunhofer.de/)
Lattice inspection – ex-situ
Colosimo et al. 2021 JQT
SLM process 3D Reconstruction process
Input: nominal CAD model Alignment of nominal

and real meshes
z-axis
Nominal CAD
x-axis slice evolution along z
Output: printed specimen X-rays CT
Out of contr
z-axis
x-axis
Real Tomography
slice evolution along z
Level 2 – from ex-situ to in-situ monitoring of lattice structures
Grasso, M., Garghetti, F., Pagani, L., Colosimo, B.M. (2021)
In-situ monitoring of lattice structures (Colosimo et al. ingoing work)
Lattice on manifold
Scimone et al. 2021 Technometrics
Level 2 – Future trends
- Increase resolution - Reduce false alarm rates

(line scanners/multi-sensor)
line scanner mounted on powder recoater for powder bed

topography (5 µm/pixel)
Non-uniformities in the powder bed are identified by quantifying out-of-
focus regions in the raw scans
Tan-Puc & Seita, 2019 (Nanyang University)
Monitoring the max deviation from the nominal shape with time
10/20 BM Colosimo – LANE 2020

Level 2 Level 3
Level 0 Level 1
Co-axial monitoring
Off-axis monitoring
In-situ sensing

• IR cameras
In-situ monitoring of LPBF processes
Grasso et al., Journal of Manufacturing Science & Technology, 2016
Colosimo and Grasso, Journal of Quality Technology, 2018
Hot-spot detection and localization via Study of process by-products signatures for process
spatio-temporal statistical methods monitoring and optimization
By-product generation in LPBF
High-speed image
acquisition
(off-axis)
Olympus i-speed 3
Spatters Plume
In-situ monitoring of LPBF processes
HOT SPOT
Hot-spot detection and localization via spatio-temporal statistical methods
Image stream Corner A (no defect) Corner C (defect)
HOT-SPOT
Y (N pixels)
J frames
X (M pixels) Corner B (no defect)

Spatially weighted PCA+clustering
Neural network (Polimi & ESA)
Intensity profiles over time Spatio-temporal modeling (Polimi & GA Tech)
(8bpp – scale: 0-255)
Level 3: track -
Spatters and plume
Spatter *
• Powder spatters: non-melted powder
particles blown away as a result of the
impact with the metallic vapour
• Droplet spatters: liquid or vapourized

metal out of the melt pool
Ti6Al4V particle dynamics at 10 kHz
*Ly et al. 2017 available at http://rdcu.be/tC7W
Plume
• The plume is formed by the partial material vaporization,
which may also lead to the formation of plasma as a
consequence of metallic vapor ionization.
• The plume differs from the surrounding atmosphere in terms

of chemical composition, temperature and pressure, and it
can interfere with the optical properties of the beam
SLM of zinc, infrared range, 50 fps
Level 3: track -
Spatters and plume
Repossini et al., Additive Manufacturing, 2017
Spatter characterization via high-speed video imaging
Off-axis high speed video acquisition

• 1000 frames per second
• Visible range
• Spatial resolution: ~250µm/pixel
• Field of view: about 120x120 mm
High-speed video Image segmentation Classification
spatters Descriptors
• LHZ area
• average spatter area
• spatter spatial spread
LHZ • n° of spatters
1000 fps
LHZ = Laser Heated Zone
9
Level 3: track -
Spatters and plume Repossini et al., Additive Manufacturing, 2017
99,00% 100% =TARGET DENSITY

98,00%
(Archimede’symethod)
Part density
97,00%
96,00%
95,00%
94,00%
93,00%
Under Normal Over
Under-melting Normal- melting Over-melting
(40 kJ/cm3) (80 kJ/cm3) (120 kJ/cm3)
Centroids of
spatters (red) and
LHZ (black)
• Maraging steel
• 3 levels of energy density
• two builds, layer thickness
40 and 50 µm
Level 2
Recent developments and promising directions…
In-situ monitoring of
spatio-temporal cooling
transients for
microstructure
prediction in EBM
Camera type: FLIR X6580sc
Raplee et al., 2017 (Oak Spectral Range: 3-5 μm
Ridge National Lab.) Temperature range: 300 -1500 °C
Frame rate: 100 Hz
Material: AISI 316L powder
Possible enabling
technology to keep under
control LPBF / EBM of Example from Popovich et al., 2017
functionally graded (LPBF)
materials Variation of the grain size (fine VS
coarse) by varying the process
parameters

Level 2 Level 3
Level 0 Level 1
Co-axial monitoring
Off-axis monitoring
In-situ sensing

• IR cameras
LEVEL 3 – Melt pool monitoring
Coaxial monitoring - Melt pool in LPBF Mean shift due to dirty f-theta lens
Dirthy lens
Photodiode
signal
Many seminal studies
focusing on the effect of
process parameters on
• intensity profile Doubenskaia et al., 2012
the melt pool Orthogonal to scan direction
e.g.,
Craeghs et al., 2011; Berumen et
al., 2010; Chivel, 2013; Clijsters Camera
thickness +
Layer
et al., 2014; Doubenskaia et al.,
2012; Pavlov et al., 2010
• Average intensity
• Area & shape (e.g., aspect ratio)
- EOState Melt Pool

Most industrial LPBF systems have optional coaxial - Renishaw InfiniAM Spectral
monitoring tools for melt pool monitoring - Concept laser QM Meltpool 3D
- SLM solution Melt Pool Monitoring
- Trumpf ….
Level 3
Open data set – Polimi & Trumpf

https://www.ic.polimi.it/open-data-challenge/
Most industrial LPBF systems can be equipped with coaxial monitoring

tools
 2D / 3D mapping of melt pool measurements
 Possibility to identify locations where anomalous melt pool
size/intensity was observed
Some industriale examples EOSTATE Meltpool Renishaw InfiniAM Spectral

Level 3
Recent developments and promising directions…

More recent studies focus on automed features
extraction and machine learning / AI methods for
prediction and classification
Example: convolutional neural network to estimate track
properties by using coaxial melt pool images
Yuan et al., 2019 (UC Berkely, Lawrence Livermore Lab)
Melt pool imaging

Unsupervised maching learning
method for melt pool
classification into in-control,
under-melting, keyhole
porosity
Scime and Beuth, 2019 (Carnegie
Automated feature extraction Mellon University)
to represent melt pool shape
Keyhole porosity detected in overhang region
From melt pool monitoring to closed loop control
Seminal studies of Prof. Kruth A more recent study

Renken et al. 2019 (University of Bremen, Aconity 3D)
Kruth et al., 2007
(KU Leuven)
• Feasibility of closed-loop control in less than half or the melt

pool diameter
• Combining model-based feedforward and feed-back
strategy leads to the lowest standard deviation of the pyrometer
signal
From monitoring to control Vasileska, Demir, Colosimo, Previtali, 2019
biancamaria.colosimo@polimi.it 42
From monitoring to correction
https://www.3dprintingmedia.network/penelope-politecnico-di-milano-
researchers-file-patent-for-self-repairing-lpbf-system/
Colosimo et al., 2020 (Polimi)

Prof. Bianca Maria Colosimo
Deputy Head of Department
phone: +39 02 2399 8490
Bianca Maria Colosimo
References
• Abdelrahman, M., Reutzel, E.W., Nassar, A.R., Starr, T.L., 2017. Flaw detection in powder bed fusion using optical imaging, Addit. Manuf. 15, 1–11.
• Anwar, A. B., & Pham, Q. C. (2018). Study of the spatter distribution on the powder bed during selective laser melting. Additive Manufacturing, 22, 86-97.
• Arnold, C., Pobel, C., Osmanlic, F., & Körner, C. (2018). Layerwise monitoring of electron beam melting via backscatter electron detection. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 24(8), 1401-1406.
• Barrett, C., Carradero, C., Harris, E., McKnight, J., Walker, J., MacDonald, E., & Conner, B. 2018a. Low Cost, High Speed Stereovision for Spatter Tracking in Laser Powder Bed Fusion, Proceedings of the
29th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium.
• Boone, N., Zhu, C., Smith, C., Todd, I., & Willmott, J. R. (2018). Thermal near infrared monitoring system for electron beam melting with emissivity tracking. Additive Manufacturing, 22, 601-605.
• Caltanissetta, F., Grasso, M., Colosimo, B.M. 2019. In-situ defect detection and correction in laser powder bed fusion, to be presented at AITEM 2019, Padova Septamber 9-11, 2019, Italy
• Colosimo, B.M., Grasso, M. 2018, Spatially weighted PCA for monitoring video image data with application to additive manufacturing, Journal of Quality Technology, 50(4), 391-417
• Colosimo, B.M., Grasso, M., Garghetti, F. Rossi, B. 2019. Novel solutions for lattice structure modelling and monitoring, under submission to IISE Transactions
• Dickins, A., Widjanarko, T., Lawes, S., Stravroulakis, P., Leach, R., 2018. Design of a multi-sensor in-situ inspection system for additive manufacturing, Proc. ASPE/Euspen Advancing Precision in Additive
Manufacturing, 248-242
• Ev erton, S. K., Hirsch, M., Stravroulakis, P., Leach, R. K., & Clare, A. T. 2016. Review of in-situ process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing. Materials & Design, 95, 431-
445.Spears and Gold (2016),
• Ferrar, B., Mullen, L., Jones, E., Stamp, R., & Sutcliffe, C. J. (2012). Gas flow effects on selective laser melting (SLM) manufacturing performance. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 212(2), 355-
364.
• Grasso M., Colosimo B.M., 2017, Process Defects and In-situ Monitoring Methods in Metal Powder Bed Fusion: a Review, Measurement Science and Technology, 28(4), 1-25, DOI: 1 0.1088/1361-6501/aa5c4f
• Grasso, M., Caltanissetta, F., Colosimo, B.M., 2019. A novel self-repairing additive manufacturing system for in-situ defects detection and correction, to be presented at 19th International Conference &
Ex hibition 3rd June – 7 th June 2019, Bilbao, Spain
• Grasso, M., Colosimo, B.M. 2019, A Statistical Learning Method for Image-based Monitoring of the Plume Signature in Laser Powder Bed Fusion, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 57, 103-
1 15
• Grasso, M., Demir, A.G., Previtali, B., Colosimo, B.M. 2018a, In-situ Monitoring of Selective Laser Melting of Zinc Powder via Infrared Imaging of the Process Plume, Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 49, 229-239.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2017.07.001
• Grasso, M., Laguzza, V., Semeraro, Q., & Colosimo, B. M. 2016. In-process Monitoring of Selective Laser Melting: Spatial Detection of Defects via Image Data Analysis. Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering, 139(5), 051001-1 – 051001-16.
• Guo, Q., Zhao, C., Escano, L. I., Young, Z., Xiong, L., Fezzaa, K., ... & Chen, L. 2018. Transient dynamics of powder spattering in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process revealed by in-situ
high-speed high-energy x-ray imaging. Acta Materialia, 151, 169-180.
• Kruth, J. P., Mercelis, P., Van V aerenbergh, J., & Craeghs, T. 2007. Feedback control of selective laser melting. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on advanced research in virtual and rapid
prototyping (pp. 521-527).
References
• Land, W. S., Zhang, B., Ziegert, J., & Dav ies, A. 2015. In-situ metrology system for laser powder bed fusion additive process. Procedia Manufacturing, 1, 393-403.
• Lane, B., Whitenton, E., & Moylan, S. (2016, May). Multiple sensor detection of process phenomena in laser powder bed fusion. In Thermosense: Thermal Infrared Applications XXXVIII (Vol. 9861, p.
986104). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
• Ly , S., Rubenchik, A. M., Khairallah, S. A., Guss, G., & Matthews, M. J. 2017. Metal vapor micro-jet controls material redistribution in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Scientific reports, 7(1),
4085.Yuan et al., 2019
• Montazeri, M., & Rao, P. (2018). Sensor-Based Build Condition Monitoring in Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing Process Using a Spectral Graph Theoretic Approach. Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 1 40(9), 091002.
• Nassar, A. R., Gundermann, M. A., Reutzel, E. W., Guerrier, P., Krane, M. H., & Weldon, M. J. (2019). Formation processes for large ejecta and interactions with melt pool formation in powder bed fusion
additive manufacturing. Scientific reports, 9(1), 5038.
• Olakanmi, E. O., Cochrane, R. F., & Dalgarno, K. W. 2015. A review on selective laser sintering/melting (SLS/SLM) of aluminium alloy powders: Processing, microstructure, and properties. Progress in
Materials Science, 74, 401-477.
• Raplee, J., Plotkowski, A., Kirka, M.M., Dinwiddie, R., Okello, A., Dehoff, R.R., Babu, S.S. 2017, Thermographic Microstructure Monitoring in Electron Beam Additive Manufacturing, Nature Scientific
Reports, 7:43554 | DOI: 1 0.1038/srep43554
• Renken, V., von Freyberg, A., Schünemann, K., Pastors, F., Fischer, A., (2019). In-process closed-loop control for stabilising the melt pool temperature in selective laser melting. Progress in Additive
Manufacturing, 1-11.
• Repossini G., Laguzza V., Grasso M., Colosimo B.M., 2018, On the use of spatter signature for in-situ monitoring of Laser Powder Bed Fusion, Additive Manufacturing, 1 6, 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.addma.2017.05.004.
• Sames, W. J., List, F. A., Pannala, S., Dehoff, R. R., & Babu, S. S. 2016. The metallurgy and processing science of metal additive manufacturing. International Materials Reviews, 1-46.Mani et al. (2015),
• Scime, L., Beuth, J., 2018. Anomaly detection and classification in a laser powder bed additive manufacturing process using a trained computer v ision algorithm, Addit. Manuf. 19, 114–126.
• Szost, B., Wang, X., Johns, D., Sharma, S., Clare, A. T., & Ashcroft, I. A. (2018). Spatter and oxide formation in laser powder bed fusion of Inconel 718. Additive Manufacturing, 24, 446-456.
• Tan Phuc, L., Seita, M. 2019. A high-resolution and large field-of-view scanner for in-line characterization of powder bed defects during additive manufacturing. Materials & Design, 1 64, 107562.
• Tapia, G., & Elwany, A. 2014. A review on process monitoring and control in metal-based additive manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 136(6), 060801.
• Tax , D.M.J., Duin, R.P.W., 2004. Support V ector Data Description, Journal of Machine Learning, 54(1), 45-66
• Wasmer, K., Le-Quang, T., Meylan, B., & Shevchik, S. A. (2019). In Situ Quality Monitoring in AM Using Acoustic Emission: A Reinforcement Learning Approach. Journal of Materials Engineering and
Performance, 28(2), 666-672.
• Wong, H., Neary, D., Jones, E., Fox, P., & Sutcliffe, C. (2019). Pilot capability evaluation of a feedback electronic imagingsystem prototype for in-process monitoring in electron beam additive manufacturing.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 100(1-4), 707-720.
• Y e, D., Zhu, K., Fuh, J. Y. H., Zhang, Y., & Soon, H. G. (2019). The investigation of plume and spatter signatures on melted states in selective laser melting. Optics & Laser Technology, 111, 395-406.
• Zhang, Y., Fuh, J. Y., Ye, D., & Hong, G. S. (2019). In-situ monitoring of laser-based PBF v ia off-axis vision and image processing approaches. Additive Manufacturing, 25, 263-274.

Additive Manufacturing COLOSIMO Insitu Monitoring

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Additive Manufacturing COLOSIMO Insitu Monitoring

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Collaborative

Bianca M. Colosimo Aula Magna – Rettorato

Digital twin Digital manufacturing Big data

Incomplete jobs or bending Acute corners Super-elevated edge

balling Dross formation Staircase effect

Microstructural defects and inclusions Residual stress, cracking delamination

partially molten particles.

During the atomization process, argon might be trapped and

Gaytan, et al. (2009)

Source: NIST –NISTIR 8036

Current defective rates are an

Total n° of publications on in-situ monitoring LPBF/EBM (SCOPUS/Scholar)

In-situ sensing and data gathering for:

Different levels of process signatures

Level 0 Signals from sensors embedded into

Level 1 Powder bed & printed slice (powder

Level 2 Scan track (process by-products:

Different levels of process signatures

• High-resolution cameras • Pyrometers / photodiodes

Spears and Gold, 2016

Company Toolkit name signature

Grasso Gallina & Colosimo B.M. (2018)

Example: repeated production of the «calibration sat-box» on Arcam A2

Part dimensions 126 x 126 x 98,6 mm

In control Out of control

Example: repeated production of the «calibration sat-box» on Arcam A2

Different levels of process signatures

• High-resolution cameras • Pyrometers / photodiodes

Commercial solutions – some examples

Company Toolkit name signature In-situ sensing

Commercial solutions – SIGMA LABS

Powder bed homogeneity Surface pattern classification

Normal energy Low energy

Foster 2015 (PennState Univesity)

Main application: Aerospace, Aeronautic, Automotive and Defence sectors

Vibration absorbers - sandwich

SLM process 3D Reconstruction process

Input: nominal CAD model Alignment of nominal

Output: printed specimen X-rays CT

In-situ monitoring of lattice structures (Colosimo et al. ingoing work)

- Increase resolution - Reduce false alarm rates

line scanner mounted on powder recoater for powder bed

Tan-Puc & Seita, 2019 (Nanyang University)

Different levels of process signatures

• High-resolution cameras • Pyrometers / photodiodes

Hot-spot detection and localization via spatio-temporal statistical methods

Image stream Corner A (no defect) Corner C (defect)

X (M pixels) Corner B (no defect)

• Droplet spatters: liquid or vapourized

• The plume differs from the surrounding atmosphere in terms

Spatter characterization via high-speed video imaging

Off-axis high speed video acquisition

High-speed video Image segmentation Classification

99,00% 100% =TARGET DENSITY

Recent developments and promising directions…

Different levels of process signatures

• High-resolution cameras • Pyrometers / photodiodes

- EOState Melt Pool

Open data set – Polimi & Trumpf

Most industrial LPBF systems can be equipped with coaxial monitoring

Some industriale examples EOSTATE Meltpool Renishaw InfiniAM Spectral

Recent developments and promising directions…

Melt pool imaging

Seminal studies of Prof. Kruth A more recent study