Introduction
Experiment type | Measurement type | Dataset references | Journal references |
---|---|---|---|
Single-track and pad scans | Cross-sectional optical microscopy | [7] | This paper |
Thermography | [8] | [9] | |
EBSD and EDS | [10] | [11] | |
3D build | Thermography | [12] | [13] |
EBSD | [14] | [15] |
Methods
Material and Laser Processing
laser power | 285 W |
---|---|
Laser speed | 960 mm/s |
Laser spot size (Gaussian diameter) | 67 µm |
Laser energy distribution | Rotationally symmetric Gaussian |
Scan direction (see Fig. 1) | + X |
Track length | 10 mm |
Inert gas | Argon |
Max. oxygen level | < 1 000 ppm |
Gas flow speed (Z = 10 mm) and direction | 4.3 m/s in − Y |
Chamber pressure | 95 kPa ± 5 kPa |
Substrate and chamber temperature | 23.5 °C ± 1 °C |
Laser incidence angle | 5° ± 0.5° |
Case number | Laser power (W) | Scan speed (mm/s) | Spot size D4σ (µm) | VEDσ = P/v/σ2 (J/mm3) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline | 0 | 285 | 960 | 67 | 1058 |
Change spot | 1.1 | 285 | 960 | 49 | 1978 |
1.2 | 285 | 960 | 82 | 706 | |
Change speed | 2.1 | 285 | 1200 | 67 | 847 |
2.2 | 285 | 800 | 67 | 1270 | |
Change power | 3.1 | 325 | 960 | 67 | 1207 |
3.2 | 245 | 960 | 67 | 910 |
Cross-Sectional Measurements
Challenge Predictions
Results
Single Tracks
Case | Laser power (W) | Scan speed (mm/s) | Spot size (µm) | Width (µm) | SD (µm) | U (k = 2) (µm) | Depth (µm) | SD (µm) | U (k = 2) (µm) | Aspect ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 285 | 960 | 67 | 136.3 | 2.9 | 6.2 | 139.7 | 1.9 | 14.1 | 2.1 |
1.1 | 285 | 960 | 49 | 106.2 | 3.6 | 5.5 | 227.2 | 3.2 | 22.9 | 4.3 |
1.2 | 285 | 960 | 82 | 141.7 | 1.8 | 6.0 | 102.4 | 1.1 | 10.4 | 1.4 |
2.1 | 285 | 1200 | 67 | 112.9 | 1.7 | 4.9 | 109.7 | 1.7 | 11.2 | 1.9 |
2.2 | 285 | 800 | 67 | 156.1 | 4.9 | 7.7 | 176.5 | 2.6 | 17.9 | 2.3 |
3.1 | 325 | 960 | 67 | 134.3 | 2.5 | 6.0 | 166.1 | 2.0 | 16.8 | 2.5 |
3.2 | 245 | 960 | 67 | 129.4 | 1.6 | 5.5 | 116.9 | 1.2 | 11.8 | 1.8 |
Pad Trends
Pad, cross-sectional position, and odd/even track group | Mean \(d_{{\text{p}}}\) (µm) | SD \(d_{{\text{p}}}\) (µm) | Mean \(d_{{\text{o}}}\) (µm) | SD \(d_{{\text{o}}}\) (µm) | Mean \(w_{{\text{p}}}\) (µm) | SD \(w_{{\text{p}}}\) (µm) | Mean \(w_{{\text{o}}}\) (µm) | SD \(w_{{\text{o}}}\) (µm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X-pad, 0.9 mm, odd | 166.0 | 7.0 | 82.7 | 7.3 | 95.1 | 6.6 | 118.2 | 8.4 |
X-pad, 0.9 mm, even | 162.0 | 3.9 | 95.1 | 11.8 | 90.0 | 5.4 | 95.7 | 6.8 |
X-pad, 1.3 mm, odd | 163.5 | 6.1 | 79.3 | 7.1 | 100.0 | 5.0 | 127.3 | 6.6 |
X-pad, 1.3 mm, even | 155.8 | 4.7 | 91.8 | 7.8 | 86.2 | 4.2 | 87.1 | 4.2 |
Y-pad, 0.6 mm, odd | 175.2 | 5.9 | 76.1 | 7.8 | 102.3 | 6.7 | 131.4 | 6.2 |
Y-pad, 0.6 mm, even | 120.0 | 10.2 | 88.1 | 6.7 | 82.3 | 4.5 | 81.3 | 6.3 |
Y-pad, 1.5 mm, odd | 175.1 | 6.7 | 82.3 | 6.7 | 100.8 | 9.0 | 123.9 | 8.1 |
Y-pad, 1.5 mm, even | 123.5 | 9.8 | 88.0 | 6.3 | 84.6 | 7.2 | 87.2 | 6.3 |
Y-pad, 1.9 mm, odd | 174.0 | 7.1 | 83.3 | 9.3 | 98.0 | 7.8 | 122.2 | 7.8 |
Y-pad, 1.9 mm, even | 124.7 | 10.7 | 89.2 | 8.9 | 83.0 | 3.5 | 89.0 | 4.2 |
Y-pad, 2.9 mm, odd | 170.1 | 7.2 | 87.6 | 6.8 | 91.8 | 9.7 | 109.7 | 7.3 |
Y-pad, 2.9 mm, even | 137.1 | 7.7 | 91.1 | 8.8 | 86.6 | 5.1 | 101.7 | 6.9 |
Prediction Trends
Discussion
Single-Track Versus Pad Scans
Pad Scan Trends with Position
Conclusions
-
The single-track melt pool depth increased with volumetric energy density while the width did not show a consistent trend within the relatively narrow VEDσ range studied here. Predictions from eight challenge submissions for width were more accurate than for depth.
-
Single tracks and the first track of pad scans showed comparable widths and depths while the average melt pool depth and width for pad scans was higher than single tracks and first tracks of pad scans due to heat buildup. In general, the pad scan depths and widths increased with track number due to heat buildup.
-
The pad scan melt pool depth was smaller when the scan direction and gas flow direction were parallel likely due to an increased interaction between the plume by-products and the laser. This was not predicted by the four challenge submissions.
-
Cross sections at different locations within pads revealed no trends or weak trends of melt pool size versus position. This was counter to other examples in literature, which show a strong dependence on position near the edges of 2D scans. The laser turnaround time for the pads was much slower (\(\ge \) 5.0 ms) than other examples, which allowed for more cooling between the end of one track and the start of the next track.