Localized keyhole pore prediction during laser powder bed fusion via multimodal process monitoring and X-ray radiography

被引:3
|
作者
Gorgannejad, Sanam [1 ]
Martin, Aiden A. [1 ]
Nicolino, Jenny W. [1 ]
Strantza, Maria [1 ]
Guss, Gabriel M. [1 ]
Khairallah, Saad [1 ]
Forien, Jean-Baptiste [1 ]
Thampy, Vivek [2 ]
Liu, Sen [2 ]
Quan, Peiyu [2 ]
Tassone, Christopher J. [2 ]
Calta, Nicholas P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Lawrence Livermore Natl Lab, Livermore, CA 94550 USA
[2] SLAC Natl Accelerator Lab, Stanford Synchrotron Radiat Lightsource, Menlo Pk, CA 94025 USA
关键词
Laser powder bed fusion; In situ monitoring; X-ray radiography; Keyhole pore identification; Sensor fusion; ACOUSTIC-EMISSION; FAULT-DETECTION; CLASSIFICATION; HCTSA;
D O I
10.1016/j.addma.2023.103810
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
Systematic fault detection and control during laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) has been a long-standing objective for system manufacturers and researchers in the additive manufacturing (AM) industry. This manuscript investigates a data fusion approach for detection of keyhole porosity formation during laser irradiation of Ti-6Al-4V substrates by concurrent recording of thermally induced optical emission measured using both off-axis and coaxial photodiode sensors, and acoustic emission. Subsurface defect formation was monitored via high-speed synchrotron X-ray imaging at 20,000 frames per second, enabling temporal registration of keyhole pore formation events to the monitoring signals at a resolution of 50 mu s. We developed data fusion machine learning (ML) models for localized prediction of keyhole pore formation at various time scales ranging from 0.5 ms to 2 ms. The signal segments were featurized using two independent approaches: (1) power spectral density (PSD) and (2) highly comparative time series analysis (HCTSA) framework. The extracted features from different sensor mo-dalities were fused together to construct a multimodal feature space and sequential feature selection was used to determine the most informative features for training the ML models. The predictive performance was evaluated for three classifying algorithms: Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), and Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB). As a result, pore formation events were predicted with up to 0.95 F1-score, 1.0 recall and 0.94 accuracy. The most heavily weighted features indicate that model performance is chiefly governed by the acoustic monitoring signal, with a secondary contribution from the optical emission sensors.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Real-time monitoring of laser powder bed fusion process using high-speed X-ray imaging and diffraction
    Cang Zhao
    Kamel Fezzaa
    Ross W. Cunningham
    Haidan Wen
    Francesco De Carlo
    Lianyi Chen
    Anthony D. Rollett
    Tao Sun
    Scientific Reports, 7
  • [22] Real-time monitoring of laser powder bed fusion process using high-speed X-ray imaging and diffraction
    Zhao, Cang
    Fezzaa, Kamel
    Cunningham, Ross W.
    Wen, Haidan
    De Carlo, Francesco
    Chen, Lianyi
    Rollett, Anthony D.
    Sun, Tao
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2017, 7
  • [23] Development of a universal multimodal prediction method to optimise process parameters for improving densification during laser powder bed fusion
    Trofimov, Vyacheslav
    Xu, Shentao
    Dong, Zhi
    Hu, Gaoling
    Zou, Yujin
    Yang, Yongqiang
    Han, Changjun
    Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 2024, 19 (01)
  • [24] Identifying the keyhole stability and pore formation mechanisms in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing
    Guo, Liping
    Liu, Hanjie
    Wang, Hongze
    Wei, Qianglong
    Xiao, Yakai
    Tang, Zijue
    Wu, Yi
    Wang, Haowei
    JOURNAL OF MATERIALS PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY, 2023, 321
  • [25] Modelling of keyhole dynamics and melt pool flow in laser powder bed fusion process
    Li, Erlei
    Zhou, Zongyan
    Wang, Lin
    Zou, Ruiping
    Yu, Aibing
    POWDER TECHNOLOGY, 2022, 400
  • [26] Mesoscopic-scale simulation of pore evolution during laser powder bed fusion process
    Cao, Liu
    COMPUTATIONAL MATERIALS SCIENCE, 2020, 179
  • [27] Acoustic emission monitoring of a laser powder bed fusion process
    Jüngert, Anne
    Thenikl, Thomas
    Hofmann, Roman
    Maderner, Ludwig
    Werz, Martin
    e-Journal of Nondestructive Testing, 2024, 29 (10):
  • [28] In situ synchrotron X-ray imaging of 4140 steel laser powder bed fusion
    Bobel, Andrew
    Hector, Louis G., Jr.
    Chelladurai, Isaac
    Sachdev, Anil K.
    Brown, Tyson
    Poling, Whitney A.
    Kubic, Robert
    Gould, Benjamin
    Zhao, Cang
    Parab, Niranjan
    Greco, Aaron
    Sun, Tao
    MATERIALIA, 2019, 6
  • [29] Elucidation of laser irradiation behaviors associated with the keyhole dynamics during laser powder bed fusion
    Ren, Zhihao
    Fu, Guang
    Liu, Fei
    Mao, Shenglan
    Gao, Rui
    Jiang, Junjie
    Tang, Zhongshuai
    JOURNAL OF MATERIALS RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY-JMR&T, 2024, 32 : 1672 - 1682
  • [30] Characterizing the effects of laser control in laser powder bed fusion on near-surface pore formation via combined analysis of in-situ melt pool monitoring and X-ray computed tomography
    Kim, F. H.
    Yeung, H.
    Garboczi, E. J.
    ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING, 2021, 48 (48)