Advertisement

Integrated Computational Materials Engineering to Predict Melt-Pool Dimensions and 3D Grain Structures for Selective Laser Melting of Inconel 625

  • Jonathan Robichaud
  • Tim Vincent
  • Ben Schultheis
  • Anil ChaudharyEmail author
Thematic Section: Additive Manufacturing Benchmarks 2018
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Additive Manufacturing Benchmarks 2018

Abstract

This work presents a comparison of simulation results with the experimental data for four of the six challenges within the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Additive Manufacturing (AM) Benchmark Test Series (AM Bench) problem AMB2018-02. This comparison is akin to a test case to assess the technology maturity level (TML) for the AM predictive capabilities that can be utilized to improve AM products in the industry. The solutions are for the prediction of melt-pool geometry, cooling rate, solidification grain shapes, and their 3D structure. These results were obtained using the Additive Manufacturing Parameter Predictor (AMP2) software. AMP2 is an Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) suite of software developed by Applied Optimization, Inc. (AO). The melt-pool geometry is obtained using a thermal-computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solution of melt-pool physics. The melt-pool geometry, mean track cross section, 3D distribution of thermal gradient, and the liquid-to-solid interface velocity are predicted by the thermal-CFD model and utilized as input for the solidification grain structure computation. The grain shapes and 3D structure are modeled using cellular automata (CA). AO received a second-place award for predicting the grain structure within three single laser tracks on a bare plate of alloy Inconel 625 (IN625).

Keywords

Integrated computational materials engineering Additive manufacturing Computational fluid dynamics Cellular automata Inconel 625 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    O’Connell PJ (2012) Systems engineering applications for small business innovative research (SBR) projects. Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. https://scholar.afit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2284&context=etd. Accessed 31 Dec 2018
  2. 2.
    Cowles B, Backman D, Dutton R (2012) Verification and validation of ICME methods and models for aerospace applications. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 1(1):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    AMP2. Applied Optimization, Fairborn, OH. http://appliedo.com/amp2/. Accessed 15 Jan 2019
  4. 4.
    DebRoy T, Wei HL, Zuback JS, Mukherjee T, Elmer JW, Milewski JO, Beese AM, Wilson-Heid A, De A, Zhang W (2018) Additive manufacturing of metallic components–process, structure and properties. Prog Mater Sci 92:112–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knapp GL, Mukherjee T, Zuback JS, Wei HL, Palmer TA, De A, DebRoy T (2017) Building blocks for a digital twin of additive manufacturing. Acta Mater 135:390–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gan Z, Liu H, Li S, He X, Yu G (2017) Modeling of thermal behavior and mass transport in multi-layer laser additive manufacturing of Ni-based alloy on cast iron. Int J Heat Mass Transf 111:709–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gan Z, Yu G, He X, Li S (2017) Surface-active element transport and its effect on liquid metal flow in laser-assisted additive manufacturing. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 86:206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shamsaei N, Yadollahi A, Bian L, Thompson SM (2015) An overview of direct laser deposition for additive manufacturing; part II: mechanical behavior, process parameter optimization and control. Addit Manuf 8:12–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foster SJ, Carver K, Dinwiddie RB, List F, Unocic KA, Chaudhary A, Babu SS (2018) Process-defect-structure-property correlations during laser powder bed fusion of alloy 718: role of in situ and ex situ characterizations. Metall Mater Trans A 49(11):5775–5798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gan Z, Lian Y, Lin SE, Jones KK, Liu WK, Wagner GJ (2019) Benchmark study of thermal behavior, surface topography, and dendritic microstructure in selective laser melting of Inconel 625. Integr Mater Manufact Innov:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00130-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vincent TJ, Rumpfkeil MP, Chaudhary A (2018) Numerical simulation of molten flow in directed energy deposition using an iterative geometry technique. Lasers Manuf Mater Process 5(2):113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ribic BD (2011) Modeling of plasma and thermo-fluid transport in hybrid welding. Pennsylvania State University. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/654. Accessed 15 Jan 2019
  13. 13.
    Heigel JC, Lane BM (2017) Measurement of the melt pool length during single scan tracks in a commercial laser powder bed fusion process. Addit Manuf Mater 2.  https://doi.org/10.1115/MSEC2017-2942
  14. 14.
    Criales LE, Arısoy YM, Lane B, Moylan S, Donmez A, Özel T (2017) Predictive modeling and optimization of multi-track processing for laser powder bed fusion of nickel alloy 625. Addit Manuf 13:14–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Capriccioli A, Frosi P (2009) Multipurpose ANSYS FE procedure for welding processes simulation. Fusion Eng Des 84(2–6):546–553.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2009.01.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Criales LE, Arısoy YM, Özel T (2016) Sensitivity analysis of material and process parameters in finite element modeling of selective laser melting of Inconel 625. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 86(9–12):2653–2666.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-8329-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cagran C, Reschab H, Tanzer R, Schützenhöfer W, Graf A, Pottlacher G (2009) Normal spectral emissivity of the industrially used alloys NiCr20TiAl, Inconel 718, X2CrNiMo18-14-3, and another austenitic steel at 684.5 nm. Int J Thermophys 30(4):1300–1309.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-009-0604-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Montgomery C, Beuth J, Sheridan L, Klingbeil N (2015) Process mapping of Inconel 625 in laser powder bed additive manufacturing. Solid Free Fabr Symp:1195–1204Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    DREAM.3D. http://dream3d.bluequartz.net/. Accessed 09 May 2018
  20. 20.
    Rai A, Helmer H, Körner C (2017) Simulation of grain structure evolution during powder bed based additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 13:124–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    NIST (2018) Additive manufacturing benchmark test series (AM-BENCH) AMB2018-02 description. https://www.nist.gov/ambench/amb2018-02-description. Accessed 15 Jan 2019
  22. 22.
    NIST (2018) CHAL-AMB2018-02-MP-length. https://www.nist.gov/ambench/chal-amb2018-02-mp-length. Accessed 15 Jan 2019
  23. 23.
    NIST (2018) Additive manufacturing benchmark test series (AM-BENCH) awards. https://www.nist.gov/ambench/awards. Accessed 15 Jan 2019

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Robichaud
    • 1
  • Tim Vincent
    • 1
  • Ben Schultheis
    • 1
  • Anil Chaudhary
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Applied OptimizationFairbornUSA

Personalised recommendations