In-Situ Infrared Camera Monitoring for Defect and Anomaly Detection in Laser Powder Bed Fusion: Calibration, Data Mapping, and Feature Extraction
0
❗
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This research paper explores the challenges of identifying defects in the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) manufacturing process through in-situ monitoring.
- The researchers proposed a new approach to accurately map in-situ data to a three-dimensional (3D) geometry, aiming to reduce the amount of data storage required.
- The researchers also introduced several new infrared (IR) features for defect detection or process model calibration, including laser scan order, local preheat temperature, maximum pre-laser scanning temperature, and the number and landing locations of spatters.
- The paper presents the processing of other common IR features, such as interpass temperature, heat intensity, cooling rates, and melt pool area, along with the underlying algorithm and Python implementation.
- The researchers printed and monitored a number of different parts to provide evidence of process defects and anomalies that can be detected using the various IR features.
Plain English Explanation
The laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process is a type of 3D printing that uses lasers to fuse metal powder into complex shapes. However, this process can sometimes result in defects, such as instability in the molten metal, ejection of particles, changes in temperature, and issues with the powder spreading.
To identify these defects, manufacturers often use in-situ monitoring, which involves collecting and analyzing large amounts of data generated during the printing process. This research paper proposes a new approach to make this monitoring more efficient.
The first goal was to find a way to accurately map the in-situ data onto the 3D geometry of the printed part, which would reduce the amount of data that needs to be stored. The second goal was to introduce several new infrared (IR) features that could be used to detect defects or fine-tune the process model.
These new IR features include things like the order of the laser scans, the local temperature before and during printing, and the number and locations of any ejected particles (spatters). The researchers also looked at other common IR features, such as the temperature between printing layers, the intensity of the heat, the cooling rates, and the size of the molten metal pool.
By printing and monitoring a variety of parts, the researchers were able to identify examples of the different types of defects and anomalies that can be detected using these IR features.
Technical Explanation
The researchers proposed a new approach to accurately map in-situ data to a three-dimensional (3D) geometry, which would help reduce the amount of storage required for the large volumes of data generated during the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) manufacturing process.
In addition, the paper introduced several new infrared (IR) features that could be used for defect detection or process model calibration, including:
- Laser scan order: The order in which the laser scans the powder bed can affect the thermal history and defect formation.
- Local preheat temperature: The temperature of the powder bed before the laser scans can influence the melt pool behavior and defect formation.
- Maximum pre-laser scanning temperature: The maximum temperature of the powder bed before the laser scans can also impact the melt pool and defects.
- Number of spatters generated locally and their landing locations: The ejection of powder particles (spatters) during the process can lead to defects.
The paper also covered the processing of other common IR features, such as:
- Interpass temperature: The temperature between printing layers
- Heat intensity: The intensity of the heat input from the laser
- Cooling rates: The rate at which the material cools after printing
- Melt pool area: The size of the molten metal pool during printing
The researchers provided the underlying algorithm and Python implementation for analyzing these IR features.
To test the effectiveness of these IR features, the researchers printed and monitored a number of different parts. They were able to identify various process defects and anomalies that could be detected using the different IR features.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a comprehensive approach to using in-situ monitoring and IR feature analysis to detect defects in the LPBF manufacturing process. The researchers' efforts to reduce the data storage requirements through 3D geometry mapping and introduce new IR features for defect detection are valuable contributions to the field.
However, the paper does not discuss the potential limitations or challenges of implementing this approach in a real-world manufacturing setting. For example, the accuracy and reliability of the 3D mapping and IR feature extraction may be affected by factors such as sensor placement, environmental conditions, and the complexity of the printed parts.
Additionally, the paper does not address the computational resources and processing time required to analyze the large volumes of data generated during in-situ monitoring. This could be a significant challenge, especially for manufacturers with limited resources or tight production schedules.
Further research may be needed to explore the scalability and practical implementation of this approach, as well as to investigate the potential trade-offs between data storage, processing requirements, and the accuracy of defect detection. Integrating multi-physics simulations with machine learning could also be a promising avenue for enhancing the defect detection capabilities of this approach.
Conclusion
This research paper presents a novel approach to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of in-situ monitoring for the detection of defects in the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) manufacturing process. By proposing a method for accurately mapping in-situ data to 3D geometry and introducing several new infrared (IR) features for defect detection, the researchers have made valuable contributions to the field.
The ability to reliably identify process defects and anomalies through in-situ monitoring is crucial for ensuring the quality and consistency of 3D-printed metal parts. The techniques and insights presented in this paper could have significant implications for the advancement of additive manufacturing and the broader adoption of LPBF technology in various industries, from aerospace to medical devices.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
❗
0
In-Situ Infrared Camera Monitoring for Defect and Anomaly Detection in Laser Powder Bed Fusion: Calibration, Data Mapping, and Feature Extraction
Shawn Hinnebusch, David Anderson, Berkay Bostan, Albert C. To
Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process can incur defects due to melt pool instabilities, spattering, temperature increase, and powder spread anomalies. Identifying defects through in-situ monitoring typically requires collecting, storing, and analyzing large amounts of data generated. The first goal of this work is to propose a new approach to accurately map in-situ data to a three-dimensional (3D) geometry, aiming to reduce the amount of storage. The second goal of this work is to introduce several new IR features for defect detection or process model calibration, which include laser scan order, local preheat temperature, maximum pre-laser scanning temperature, and number of spatters generated locally and their landing locations. For completeness, processing of other common IR features, such as interpass temperature, heat intensity, cooling rates, and melt pool area, are also presented with the underlying algorithm and Python implementation. A number of different parts are printed, monitored, and characterized to provide evidence of process defects and anomalies that different IR features are capable of detecting.
Read more7/18/2024
📶
0
New!Investigation on domain adaptation of additive manufacturing monitoring systems to enhance digital twin reusability
Jiarui Xie, Zhuo Yang, Chun-Chun Hu, Haw-Ching Yang, Yan Lu, Yaoyao Fiona Zhao
Powder bed fusion (PBF) is an emerging metal additive manufacturing (AM) technology that enables rapid fabrication of complex geometries. However, defects such as pores and balling may occur and lead to structural unconformities, thus compromising the mechanical performance of the part. This has become a critical challenge for quality assurance as the nature of some defects is stochastic during the process and invisible from the exterior. To address this issue, digital twin (DT) using machine learning (ML)-based modeling can be deployed for AM process monitoring and control. Melt pool is one of the most commonly observed physical phenomena for process monitoring, usually by high-speed cameras. Once labeled and preprocessed, the melt pool images are used to train ML-based models for DT applications such as process anomaly detection and print quality evaluation. Nonetheless, the reusability of DTs is restricted due to the wide variability of AM settings, including AM machines and monitoring instruments. The performance of the ML models trained using the dataset collected from one setting is usually compromised when applied to other settings. This paper proposes a knowledge transfer pipeline between different AM settings to enhance the reusability of AM DTs. The source and target datasets are collected from the National Institute of Standards and Technology and National Cheng Kung University with different cameras, materials, AM machines, and process parameters. The proposed pipeline consists of four steps: data preprocessing, data augmentation, domain alignment, and decision alignment. Compared with the model trained only using the source dataset, this pipeline increased the melt pool anomaly detection accuracy by 31% without any labeled training data from the target dataset.
Read more9/20/2024
0
New!Reference Dataset and Benchmark for Reconstructing Laser Parameters from On-axis Video in Powder Bed Fusion of Bulk Stainless Steel
Cyril Blanc, Ayyoub Ahar, Kurt De Grave
We present RAISE-LPBF, a large dataset on the effect of laser power and laser dot speed in powder bed fusion (LPBF) of 316L stainless steel bulk material, monitored by on-axis 20k FPS video. Both process parameters are independently sampled for each scan line from a continuous distribution, so interactions of different parameter choices can be investigated. The data can be used to derive statistical properties of LPBF, as well as to build anomaly detectors. We provide example source code for loading the data, baseline machine learning models and results, and a public benchmark to evaluate predictive models.
Read more9/20/2024
0
Deep Learning for Melt Pool Depth Contour Prediction From Surface Thermal Images via Vision Transformers
Francis Ogoke, Peter Myung-Won Pak, Alexander Myers, Guadalupe Quirarte, Jack Beuth, Jonathan Malen, Amir Barati Farimani
Insufficient overlap between the melt pools produced during Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) can lead to lack-of-fusion defects and deteriorated mechanical and fatigue performance. In-situ monitoring of the melt pool subsurface morphology requires specialized equipment that may not be readily accessible or scalable. Therefore, we introduce a machine learning framework to correlate in-situ two-color thermal images observed via high-speed color imaging to the two-dimensional profile of the melt pool cross-section. Specifically, we employ a hybrid CNN-Transformer architecture to establish a correlation between single bead off-axis thermal image sequences and melt pool cross-section contours measured via optical microscopy. In this architecture, a ResNet model embeds the spatial information contained within the thermal images to a latent vector, while a Transformer model correlates the sequence of embedded vectors to extract temporal information. Our framework is able to model the curvature of the subsurface melt pool structure, with improved performance in high energy density regimes compared to analytical melt pool models. The performance of this model is evaluated through dimensional and geometric comparisons to the corresponding experimental melt pool observations.
Read more5/21/2024