See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329772671

Development of a DEM-CFD Platform for Particle Scale Modelling of Selective

Laser Melting process

Poster · November 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18020.42883

CITATIONS READS

0 72

2 authors:

Akash Aggarwal Arvind Kumar

Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
10 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS    124 PUBLICATIONS   557 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Innovative thermal energy storage systems View project

PCM and Ice Slurry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Akash Aggarwal on 19 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Development of a DEM – CFD Platform for Particle Scale Modelling
of Selective Laser Melting process MS 7

A M G
Akash Aggarwal, Arvind Kumar ICSSP-2018, Trivandrum, India

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India

Introduction Why particle scale modelling? Methodology Single Layer Powder Bed Generation
Selective Laser Melting (SLM):
Additive manufacturing process that  Extracting real-time information from experiments  Coupled DEM – CFD model is developed  Open source DEM code
uses a focused laser beam. about temperature, porosity generation, melt pool using open-source codes to study the LIGGGHTS for powder spreading.
formation is challenging. melting mode transition.
Bottlenecks: Defects.  PSD is experimentally measured.
 Real-time measurement by IR camera/ pyrometry  Discrete Element Method (DEM)
Understanding of mechanisms of defects  Image analysis of SEM
formation is required for intelligent process is challenging as process is determines the spatial arrangement of
micrographs.
control & process engineering. • highly localized (melt pool size on the powder particles.
order of 60 – 200 µm)  Cloud of randomly generated
 FVM based Volume Of Fluid approach is
particles with the experimentally
• rapid (cooling rate : 105 K/s) used to identify and track the interface.
measured PSD.
• transient (traversal speed on the order  Computational modelling is validated with
 After particles are settled, a
of 1 – 5 m/s) in-house single track experiments.
recoater deposits a layer of 25
 Macro scale approaches provide information  Microstructural and mechanical micron thickness.
at the process scale, but unable to provide characterizations of coupons and bulk
 Particles information is coupled
information about the local phenomena. samples.
with CFD code OpenFOAM.

Free Surface Thermo-Fluidic Modelling Melting Mode Transition

 Computational domain : 316L stainless steel substrate 500 × 200 × 200 𝜇𝑚3 , an argon inert gas region 500 × 100 × 200 𝜇𝑚3
 Melting mode is changed by defocusing keeping all
25 µm thick 316L stainless steel powder layer other process parameters the same.
 Volume of fluid (VOF) method captures the interface between the metal (powder particles, substrate) and the inert gas.  Relationship of spot radius (𝑅𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑡 ) with defocus
 VOF transport equation for interface tracking distance (𝑓𝑑 ) is given by
1 𝑥 ∈ 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 (𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 ) 2
𝝏𝜸 𝑉𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑑 𝜋𝑅02
+ 𝛁 ∙ 𝜸𝑼 + 𝛁 ∙ 𝟏 − 𝜸 𝜸 𝑼𝒓 = 𝟎 𝛾 𝑥, 𝑡 = = 0<𝛾<1 𝑥 ∈ 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑅𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑡 = 𝑅0 1+ 𝑓𝑅 =
𝛛𝒕 𝑉 𝑓𝑅 𝜆
0 𝑥 ∈ 𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑠

 Thermo-physical properties using continuum formulation based on the classical mixture theory. 𝑅0 is spot radius at focal plane, 𝑓𝑅 denotes Rayleigh
length and 𝜆 denotes wavelength
Mass Conservation Equation
𝛁∙ 𝑼 =𝟎
Momentum Conservation Equation
𝛛 𝝆𝑼 𝑻
Marangoni convection
+ 𝑼 ∙ 𝛁(𝝆𝑼 ) = −𝛁𝒑 + 𝛁 ∙ (µ 𝛁 𝑼 + 𝛁 𝑼 + 𝑭𝑵 + 𝑭 𝑫 + 𝑭𝑺 Recoil pressure
𝛛𝒕 Surface tension force Laser beam traverses a distance of
2 350 µm from location A to point B
1 − 𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑,𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝜎 2𝜌
𝐹𝐷 = 𝐶𝑈 𝐹𝑁 = 𝜌𝑙 𝑔𝛽𝑇 𝑇 − 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝐹𝑆 = 𝜎𝜅𝑛 + 𝛻𝑇 − 𝑛 𝑛 ∙ 𝛻𝑇 + 𝑛 𝑃𝑣 𝛻𝛾
𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑,𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 3 + 𝑏 𝑑𝑇 𝜌𝑚 + 𝜌𝑔

Energy Conservation Equation Heat flux loss due to evaporation

𝛛(𝝆𝑪𝒑 𝑻 Experiments
+ 𝛁 ∙ 𝝆𝑼 𝑪𝒑 𝑻 = 𝛁 ∙ 𝒌𝛁𝑻 + 𝑺𝑳𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕 + 𝑸𝑳𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔 + 𝑸𝑳𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒓
𝛛𝒕  Single track experiments and bulk specimen
fabrication.
𝜕  Tracks were deposited on a 25 μm thick 316L stainless
𝑆𝐿𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 = −𝐿 𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑,𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝜕𝑡 steel powder layer placed on 316L stainless steel
0 substrate of thickness of 1 mm by varying the defocus
′′ ′′
2𝜌𝐶𝑝𝑒𝑓𝑓 distance.
𝑄𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 = 𝑞𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝑞𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ′′
+ 𝑞𝑐𝑜𝑛 |𝛻 𝛾 | Heat flux losses due to radiation and convection
𝜌𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 + 𝜌𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝐶𝑝𝑔𝑎𝑠

2𝜂𝑃 𝑥 − 𝑥𝑖 − 𝑣𝑡 2 + 𝑧 − 𝑧𝑖 2 2𝜌𝐶𝑝𝑒𝑓𝑓
𝑄𝐿𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑟 = SLM facility at AM
2 𝑒𝑥𝑝 −2 2 𝑓𝑡𝑜𝑝 |𝛻 𝛾 |
𝜌𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 + 𝜌𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝐶𝑝𝑔𝑎𝑠
𝜋𝑅𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑡 𝑅𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑡 Lab, IIT Kanpur

Computational Results of Single Track

Temperature (K)

Vmax = 4.6 m/s

Focus move = 3 mm
Conduction Mode

Magnified
image

Focus move = 1.5 mm Vmax = 6.6 m/s

Transition Mode

Laser beam traversal direction

Focus move = 3 mm Vmax = 6.8 m/s

Keyhole Mode
Laser beam traversal direction

The effect of defocusing on the melt pool

morphology (a) conduction mode,
(b) transition mode, (c) keyhole mode Solidified molten track boundary 200 µm

Flow in the melt pool at t = 500 µs Temperature field along a cross Porosity at high energy
Evolution of the melt pool during a section (a) conduction mode, density
deep penetration SLM (keyhole mode) (b) keyhole mode

Experimental Validation Characterizations of Bulk Samples Conclusions

 Transition from conduction to keyhole mode  Planar interface growth, then cellular grains form which grows epitaxially
 Simulated melt pool width agrees well with experimental measurement along maximum heat flux Particle scale model helped to better
but melting depth is slightly under predicting (lower)  Cell spacing decreased from about 0.45 μm in conduction mode to understand the physics of
 Possible reason for underprediction: Internal reflection of the laser beam 0.28 μm in keyhole mode  laser irradiation on the powder bed
in the powder layer and the melt pool
𝒇𝒅 = 3 mm 𝒇𝒅 = 0 mm  melt flow due to thermo-capillary force
 effect of recoil pressure
 phase transition (melting, solidification,
evaporation and condensation)
 porosity formation
 most importantly, melting mode
Top view of the deposited single tracks
Cross sectional view of the deposited single tracks transitions and its effects
Comparison of melt pool dimensions
Width (Expt), Width (Num),
𝑾𝑬𝒙𝒑𝒕 − 𝑾𝑵𝒖𝒎 Depth of penetration Depth of penetration 𝑫𝑬𝒙𝒑𝒕 − 𝑫𝑵𝒖𝒎
Room temperature mechanical properties As compared to the conduction mode,
𝒇𝒅 𝑾𝑬𝒙𝒑𝒕 (Expt), (Num), 𝑫𝑬𝒙𝒑𝒕
Wexpt (μm) Wnum (μm)
(%), difference DExpt (μm) DNum (μm) (%), difference Higher Micro-hardness Nano-hardness YTS UTS Elongation stable keyhole mode provides
hardness in (HV1) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%)
0 mm 86.13 84.67 1.69 93.82 88.5 5.67  finer grains
keyhole mode
1.5 mm 91.98 91.304 0.73 53.83 41.7 22.53 (due to the 0 mm (Keyhole) 213.67 ± 2.11 4.7 ± 0.15 465.46 ± 5.20 525.81 ± 6.44 78.01 ± 6.79
3 mm 95.4 102.89 -7.85 25.69 20.5 20.20 finer grains)  higher micro and nano hardness
1.5 mm (Transition) 211.16 ± 1.82 4.58 ± 0.18 461.14 ± 10.05 521.77 ± 6.70 70.45 ± 1.98
3 mm(Conduction) 207.55 ± 2.73 3.89 ± 0.09 464.33 ± 5.13 524.68 ± 4.26 65.71 ± 8.12  higher elongation to failure

View publication stats