Statistical modelling and optimization of clad characteristics in laser metal deposition of austenitic stainless steel

  • Piyush Pant
  • Dipankar ChatterjeeEmail author
  • Titas Nandi
  • Sudip Kumar Samanta
  • Aditya Kumar Lohar
  • Anirban Changdar
Technical Paper


The study aims to design and develop an integrated system to model and optimize the direct metal deposition process. Direct metal deposition is an emerging metal additive manufacturing technology, in which powder particles are melted using a high-energy laser source to consolidate a solid layer. With the aim to work with a variety of materials, process economy is an important consideration. Keeping this in mind, the present work shows application of statistical methods and evolutionary algorithms in laser-based manufacturing. A regression model using response surface method has been developed considering laser power, scan speed and powder flow rate as the process parameters, while capture efficiency and clad layer height are considered as the clad characteristics response. The developed regression model provides useful information to control responses and ensure building a desired clad layer height as per prototyping requirements. A robust correlation between the experimentally obtained values and model-predicted values for responses is achieved, and the error percentage is 5% and 10% for capture efficiency and clad layer height, respectively. Genetic algorithm-based approach for optimization yields improvement of 30.93% and 71.02% for capture efficiency and clad layer height, respectively.


Response surface methodology Additive manufacturing Genetic algorithm Diode laser Coaxial nozzle Aero-component 



This research is supported by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and CSIR-CMERI, Government of India (Project No. GAP121512).


  1. 1.
    Shah K, Pinkerton AJ, Saloman A, Li L (2010) Effects of melt pool variables and process parameters in laser direct metal deposition of aerospace alloys. Mater Manuf Process 25(12):1372–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mazumder J (2000) A crystal ball view of direct-metal deposition. JOM 52(12):28–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mazumder J, Dutta D, Kikuchi N, Ghosh A (2000) Closed loop direct metal deposition: art to part. Opt Lasers Eng 34(4–6):397–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alam MK, Urbanic RJ, Nazemi N, Edrisy A, Urbanic RJ (2018) Predictive modeling and the effect of process parameters on the hardness and bead characteristics for laser-cladded stainless steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 94(1–4):397–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choi J, Chang Y (2005) Characteristics of laser aided direct metal/material deposition process for tool steel. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45(4–5):597–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Urbanic RJ, Saqib SM, Aggarwal K (2016) Using predictive modeling and classification methods for single and overlapping bead laser cladding to understand bead geometry to process parameter relationships. J Manuf Sci Eng 138(5):051012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Lee HK (2008) Effects of the cladding parameters on the deposition efficiency in pulsed Nd: YAG laser cladding. J Mater Process Technol 202(1):321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balu P, Leggett P, Hamid S, Kovacevic R (2013) Multi-response optimization of laser-based powder deposition of multi-track single layer hastelloy C-276. Mater Manuf Process 28(2):173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tabernero I, Lamikiz A, Ukar E, Martínez S, Celaya A (2014) Modeling of the geometry built-up by coaxial laser material deposition process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 70(5–8):843–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mahamood RM, Akinlabi ET (2016) Processing parameters optimization for material deposition efficiency in laser metal deposited titanium alloy. Lasers Manuf Mater Process 3:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El Cheikh H, Courant B, Branchu S, Hascoet JY, Guillén R (2012) Analysis and prediction of single laser tracks geometrical characteristics in coaxial laser cladding process. Opt Lasers Eng 50(3):413–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu H, Qin X, Huang S, Hu Z, Ni M (2018) Geometry modeling of single track cladding deposited by high power diode laser with rectangular beam spot. Opt Lasers Eng 100:38–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Akinlabi ET, Mahamood RM, Shukla M, Pityana S (2012) Effect of scanning speed on material efficiency of laser metal deposited Ti6Al4V. Int J Mech Mechatron Eng 6(11):2509–2513Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lestan Z, Klancnik S, Balic J, Brezocnik M (2015) Modeling and design of experiments of laser cladding process by genetic programming and nondominated sorting. Mater Manuf Process 30(4):458–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chandrasekhar N, Ragavendran M, Ravikumar R, Vasudevan M, Murugan S (2017) Optimization of hybrid laser-tig welding of 316LN stainless steel using genetic algorithm. Mater Manuf Process 32(10):1094–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu H, Qin X, Huang S, Jin L, Wang Y, Lei K (2018) Geometry characteristics prediction of single track cladding deposited by high power diode laser based on genetic algorithm and neural network. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 19(7):1061–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sathiya P, Panneerselvam K, Soundararajan R (2012) Optimal design for laser beam butt welding process parameter using artificial neural networks and genetic algorithm for super austenitic stainless steel. Opt Laser Technol 44(6):1905–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caiazzo F, Caggiano A (2018) Laser direct metal deposition of 2024 Al alloy: trace geometry prediction via machine learning. Materials 11(3):444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farahmand P, Kovacevic R (2014) Parametric study and multi-criteria optimization in laser cladding by a high power direct diode laser. Lasers Manuf Mater Process 1(1–4):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goyal R, Dubey AK (2016) Modeling and optimization of geometrical characteristics in laser trepan drilling of titanium alloy. J Mech Sci Technol 30(3):1281–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pandey AK, Dubey AK (2013) Modeling and optimization of kerf taper and surface roughness in laser cutting of titanium alloy sheet. J Mech Sci Technol 27(7):2115–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saini SK, Dubey AK, Pant P, Upadhyay BN, Choubey A (2017) Study of laser drilled hole quality of yttria stabilized zirconia. Lasers Manuf Mater Process 4(3):121–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palanisamy A, Selvaraj T, Subbarayan S (2017) Taguchi-based grey relational analysis for modeling and optimizing machining parameters through dry turning of Incoloy 800H. J Mech Sci Technol 31(9):4159–4165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Palanisamy A, Selvaraj T (2019) Optimization of turning parameters for surface integrity properties on incoloy 800H superalloy using cryogenically treated multi-layer CVD coated tool. Surf Rev Lett 26(02):1850139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abioye TE, Medrano-Tellez A, Farayibi PK, Oke PK (2017) Laser metal deposition of multi-track walls of 308LSi stainless steel. Mater Manuf Process 32(14):1660–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wen S, Shin YC (2011) Modeling of the off-axis high power diode laser cladding process. J Heat Transfer 133(3):031007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2016) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. WileyGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Montgomery DC (2017) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Minitab 17 Statistical Software. Minitab, Inc., State CollegeGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Palanisamy A, Selvaraj T (2018) Optimisation of turning parameters on heat treated INCOLOY 800H using cryogenically treated CVD tool with grey-based entropy method. Int J Mach Mach Mater 20(5):401–424Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Srinivas N, Deb K (1994) Multi-objective optimization using non-dominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2(3):221–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Deb K (1999) An introduction to genetic algorithms. Sadhana 24(4–5):293–315MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Deb K (2012) Optimization for engineering design: algorithms and examples. PHI Learning Pvt Ltd, New DelhGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yildiz AR (2013) Comparison of evolutionary-based optimization algorithms for structural design optimization. Eng Appl Artif Intell 26(1):327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nakhjavani OB, Ghoreishi M (2006) Multi criteria optimization of laser percussion drilling process using artificial neural network model combined with genetic algorithm. Mater Manuf Process 21(1):11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia
  2. 2.CSIR-Central Mechanical Engineering Research InstituteDurgapurIndia

Personalised recommendations