Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Additive Manufacturing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/addma

Research Paper

A novel high-efficient finite element analysis method of powder bed fusion

additive manufacturing
Yang Cao a, b, Xin Lin a, b, *, Nan Kang a, b, *, Liang Ma a, b, Lei Wei a, b, Min Zheng a, b, Jun Yu a, b,
Dongjian Peng c, Weidong Huang a, b
a
State Key Laboratory of Solidification Processing, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710072, PR China
b
Key Laboratory of Metal High Performance Additive Manufacturing and Innovative Design, MIIT China, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi
710072, PR China
c
Xi’an Space Engine Company Limited, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710100, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper aims to develop a high-efficient finite element (FE) model by combining the equivalent boundary
Powder bed fusion additive manufacturing condition method (EBCM) and dynamic mesh method (DMM) for accelerating the thermo-mechanical simulation
Finite element analysis of additive manufacturing by powder bed fusion (PBF). EBCM and DMM take advantage of the strong non-linear
High- efficient computation
phenomenon in the thermo-mechanical affected zone (TMAZ) by simplifying the temperature boundary condi­
Multi-scaled simulation
tions and optimizing the local mesh density, respectively. In detail, EBCM can reduce the difficulty of conver­
gence in computing, while DMM can reduce the scale of stiffness matrix. The experimentally calibrated lattice
Boltzmann method (LBM) firstly is used to produce the equivalent temperature function in TMAZ as the thermal
input conditions of the FE model. The thermo- mechanical responses of several PBF deposits under different
process parameters are predicted by the developed model, presenting good agreement with experiment data in
terms of in-situ temperature and residual stress. Compared with the normal model, the novel high-efficient model
notoriously cuts the computation cost without compromising precision. This study provides an important
simulation concept for high-efficient FE analyses with high fidelity of the AM technology.

1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM) enables to produce high-performance
parts using a layer-by-layer deposition technique according to a virtual
CAD model [1]. According to the powder feeding system, the metal AM
processes mainly consist of directed energy deposition (DED) and
powder bed fusion (PBF) [2]. Notably, the latter has been widely used to
fabricate more complex components in the aviation, aerospace, and
automobile industries due to the processing characteristics of the
self-support by the power bed and ultra-small layer thickness. In AM, the
rapid movement of the heat source by a laser (or electron beam) causes
steep temperature gradients in the small molten pool and the
already-deposited layers further undergo several rapid heating and
cooling cycles during the subsequent building process [3–5]. As a result,
significant thermal stresses are induced in the deposit, contributing to
part distortion, delamination or even build failure if the stress cannot be
appropriately controlled [6,7].
During AM processes, the complex interactions among the laser,
molten pool and powder also increase the difficulty for the under­
standing of the building processes [8]. Hence, both experiments and
simulation are employed to investigate AM technology allowing for a
large number of variables. Normally, experiments hardly elucidate such
complex process due to its limitations in terms of time-consuming,
expensive and parameter measurement. Alternatively, numerical simu­
lation provides an efficient and feasible approach to study the
thermo-metallurgical-mechanical behaviors in different scales during
the 3D-printing processes. However, validation and calibration of nu­
merical models by experiments are very necessary before predictions.
The literatures have reported copious in-situ measurements and nu­
merical simulations to study the thermo-mechanical responses in AM [4,
5,7–13]. Lu et al. launched an exhaustive experimental campaign to
measure the temperature field by thermocouples and infrared imaging
and the full-field strain by digital image correlation (DIC) technique in
the DED process [5,7,8]. In PBF, the model validation is usually carried
out according to the bending deformation of the cantilever beam
structures when supports are removed [9,14]. Besides, residual strains

* Corresponding authors at: State Key Laboratory of Solidification Processing, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710072, PR China.
E-mail addresses: xlin@nwpu.edu.cn (X. Lin), nan.kang@nwpu.edu.cn (N. Kang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.102187
Received 9 December 2020; Received in revised form 27 May 2021; Accepted 12 July 2021
Available online 26 July 2021
2214-8604/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Y. Cao et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187

and stresses in AM parts also can be determined by means of X-ray and
neutron diffraction measurements [10,15] as well as hole-drilling
method [16].
The AM numerical models can be classified into micro, meso and
macro scales [17]. Micro models (e.g. phase-filed model [18]) focus on
the microstructure prediction. Meso models are interested in capturing
the grain structure using cellular automata [19] and kinetic monte carlo
[20] methods, and the fluid dynamic phenomenon by the collision and
streaming of fluid particles, based on the lattice Boltzmann method
(LBM). It is worth mentioning that LBM can effectively and efficiently
address the melting and solidification problems when using
high-performance computation (HPC) based on parallel architectures,
especially for the study of the powder melting in PBF process [21–23].
Macro models, consisting of finite element (FE) method and computa­
tional fluid dynamics [24], mostly concern the evolution of the
thermo-mechanical field of the built part, being responsible for tem­
perature, residual stress and distortion [4,5,7].
In order to understand and further control the stress problems in AM,
the FE models usually use small mesh size less than the heat source
radius in order to achieve more accurate prediction [25]. However, the
mesh number dramatically rises as the build size increases, leading to
very expensive calculation cost, especially in PBF involving thousands of
scanning tracks (layers). Hereby, many researches have carried out
high-efficiency simulations [14,26–34]. Based on the inherent strain
method (ISM), Liang et al. [14] extracted the mean inherent strain
vector from a small representative volume and then applied to a
part-scale layer-by-layer model to predict the accumulative de­
formations in a double cantilever beam and complex canonical parts by
laser bed powder fusion (LBPF). Also, they performed a model validation
on both the accuracy and efficiency by experiments. Chiumenti et al.
[26] utilized an equivalent heat source with several cladding track­
s/layers as a basic unit to calculate the temperature field of LPBF blocks,
which improves the efficiency over five times due to the use of coarse
mesh. However, the scanning details are ignored so that the actual
thermal history of the cladding tracks cannot be predicted by their
model. Carraturo et al. [27] used the equivalent thermal load to capture
the deflection of LPBF part after support removal, based on the finite cell
method (FCM) modified from standard FE method, allowing a very
coarse discretization [28]. Similarly, residual stresses in AM parts also
can be roughly predicted by adopting coarser meshes and larger time
increment to simulate the real LPBF process [29,30]. In addition, the
dynamic adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) technology [31–33] provides
a good choice to improve the computing efficiency because it can
optimize the mesh density and distribution in real time according to
varying temperature gradients [34]. Nevertheless, the AMR algorithm is
relatively complex.
This given, the objective of this work is to develop a high-efficient FE
thermo-mechanical model by combining the equivalent boundary con­
ditions with the dynamic meshing method, allowing for calculation ef­
ficiency and prediction accuracy. Firstly, an in-situ measurement
platform was established and used to calibrate the model. Next, the LBM
model is employed to extract the local thermal response used to feed the
high- efficient model. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed model is
validated by comparing the predicted thermo-mechanical results with
the experimental data.
2. Experimental details
stresses before the LPBF procedure. The block parts with dimensions of
10 × 10 × 0.9 mm3 were then deposited at the processing parameters
listed in Table 1.
In addition, single-track deposition with different processing pa­
rameters was carried out to calibrate the heat source model of the
simulation. An optical microscope was used to characterize the size of
the molten pool of a single track.
2.2. In-situ temperature measurement
The placement and operation status of the in-situ measurement are
shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b), respectively. To provide a sufficient space for
setting a data recorder (using Graphtec GL-900) and uninterruptible
power supply, the substrate plate was supported to the processing plane
and restrained by stainless-steel brackets without other modifications to
the LPBF machine and forming process. Armored thermocouples (type
K) with the diameters of 1 ± 0.01 mm were used to measure the tem­
perature inside the substrate. Fig. 1(c) shows the geometric character­
istics of the substrate and locations of two thermocouples, TC1 and TC2,
1 mm below the upper surface of the substrate.
2.3. Residual stress measurement
A microindentation method [35–38] was used to characterize the
residual stress of the LPBF parts. The relationship between the von Mises
residual stress (σres ) and strain (εres ) can be expressed by:
H = Cσres (εrepr + εres ) (1)
σres
c2 = c20 − 0.32ln⁡[1 + ] (2)
σ (εres )
where H is the hardness, C is a constant related to the material, εrepr is the
equivalent plastic strain (in general, εrepr = 0.08 and C = 3 [38,39]
when the Vickers indenter is used), c20 is approximately 1 [40], and c2 is
defined as:
/
c2 = A Anom (3)
where A and Anom are the real and nominal projected contact areas
(Fig. 1(a)), respectively, and σ (ε) characterizes the power-law relation­
ship between the stress and strain in the uniaxial tensile experiment,
σ = K εn (4)
where both K and n are obtained by fitting the stress–strain curve (Fig. 1
(b)) of the previous related study [41], 722.58 and 0.15573,
respectively.
Thus, εres and σ res can be calculated using:
H
(5)
1
εres = ( )0.15573 − 0.08
2167.74
(
1 − c2
)
σ res = 722.58|εres |0.15573 [exp − 1] (6)
0.32
A LECO-AMH43 automatic hardness testing system was used to
evaluate H and c2 of the LPBF samples with a load of 300 g and dwell
time of 15 s (see in Fig. 2). To reduce the error and mutual influence

2.1. LPBF experiment Table 1

LPBF processing parameters.
An AlSi10Mg powder (Baohang Advanced Materials, China) with an Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
average particle size of 30 µm was used for the present analysis. The Laser power (W) 300 340 380 340 340
LBPF experiments were carried out in a solution SLM 280 system. The Scan speed (mm/s) 1500 1500 1500 1000 2000
block parts were fabricated using the reciprocating scanning strategy on Layer thickness (μm) 30
a cast AlSi10Mg substrate plate with dimensions of 50 × 50 × 20 mm3. Hatching distance (μm) 100
Radius of laser beam (μm) 70
The substrate plates were heated to 300 ◦ C for 2 h to relieve residual

2
Y. Cao et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187

Fig. 1. In-situ measurement:(a) placement status, (b) work status; (c) geometric characteristic of substrate; (d) location of indention on substrate.

Fig. 2. (a) Schematic diagram of A and Anom ; (b) tensile stress-strain curve and fitted curve.

3
Y. Cao et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187

between the test points, the data at each location of the top surface cooling stage. During the multi-layer multi-track LPBF process, the di­
(positions I, II, and III in Fig. 1(d)) were the averages of three nearby mensions of the molten pool are roughly steady after a certain period of
points. The distance between adjacent points was 200 µm, as shown in deposition [44,45]; i.e., the temperature field of the region surrounding
Fig. 1(d). the molten pool tends to maintain a quasi-steady state. Based on this
approximation, the temperature of the material in the ith cladding track
3. Computational modeling can be approximately expressed by the integral of thermal response:
⎧ ∫t ⎫
3.1. High efficient model ⎪
⎪
⎨ Ti0 + Kih dt ti ≤ ti1 ⎪
⎪
⎬
(7)
ti0
Ti (s, xi , yi , zi , ti ) = ∫ ti1 ∫t
The local temperature distribution of the molten pool during the ⎪
⎪
⎩ Ti0 + Kih dt +
⎪
Kic dt ti ≥ ti1 ⎪
⎭
LPBF with a rapidly varying and large gradient [3] has a negative effect ti0 ti1

on the solution efficiency. When the heat source moves along a straight
line at a constant speed, after a period of time, the temperature field
surrounding the cladding track reaches the quasi-steady state [42,43].
The materials near the current cladding track have the similar response
to heat source. The variation rate of the temperature near the molten
pool can be expressed as a function of the location (x, y, z), time (t), and
state of the material (s), where the state includes powder, liquid, and
solid. The thermal response includes the variation rate of the local
temperature Kh (x, y, z, t, s) at the heating stage and Kc (x, y, z, t, s) at the
where Ti0 is the temperature when the current track starts to deposit and
ti0 and ti1 are the start and end times of the heating stage, respectively.
Considering the multi-track process and its scanning strategy, the tem­
perature function Ti (s, xi , yi , zi , ti ) combined with the superposition
method [46] can be applied to the multi-track deposition process,
∑
TBC (s, x, y, z, t) = Ti (s, xi , yi , zi , ti ) (8)
i
This temperature function can be predefined as the Dirichlet

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of (a) EBCM and (b) DMM.

4
Y. Cao et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187

boundary condition to replace the Neumann boundary condition, i.e.,

( ) ∆t ( eq )
the heat flow condition from the laser energy input. This method is fj x + ej , t + ∆t − fj (x, t) = f j (x, t) − fj (x, t) + Fj (9)
τf
referred to as equivalent boundary condition method (EBCM), as shown
in Fig. 3(a). It should be mentioned that the model without high-efficient ( ) ∆t (( eq )
method is regarded as normal model in this study. hj x + ej , t + ∆t − hj (x, t) = hj (x, t) − hj (x, t) (10)
τh
In addition, the quality of the mesh in the LPBF model strongly in­
fluences the convergence, accuracy, and computational efficiency of the where τf and τh are the relaxation times of the velocity and temperature
numerical model [34]. The dynamic mesh method (DMM) has the ad­ fields, respectively. fj (x, t) and hj (x, t) represent the density and tem­
vantages of low computational cost and high accuracy. In this study, perature functions in the j-direction, respectively. Fj is the body force,
according to the different stages in the LPBF process, the corresponding such as gravity. Both f eq eq
j (x, t) and hj (x, t) are the equilibrium distribu­
models with different meshes and geometries are established automat­
tion functions [47]. The laser heat input is modeled using a Gaussian
ically before the analysis and are fixed during the simulation. Very fine
heat source,
mesh is set in the thermos-mechanical affected zone (TMAZ) while the
mesh is coarsened as far away the TMAZ, as shown in Fig. 3(b). The 2AP − 2r2
q= e R2 (11)
model information (including mesh conditions) is stored in the corre­ π R2
sponding input files of computational software, which will not require
memory consumption until calculation. According to the processing where A, P, and R are the absorptivity, laser power, and laser spot radius,
sequence, the input files are submitted for calculation in turn. Temper­ respectively. More detailed information on the used LBM model has
ature interpolation is used to maintain the continuity of the simulation. been presented by Zheng et al. [48,49].
Notably, the DMM in this study is essentially the preprocessing tech­ The transient heat transfer analysis in the FE model is governed by:
nology. This is different from the dynamic AMR used in 3DSIM [32] and ∂T ∂
(
∂T
)
∂
(
∂T
)
∂
(
∂T
)
∂
(
∂T
)
Pan computing [31] which can change the mesh density depending on ρC p = k + k + k + k +Q (12)
∂t ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z
the thermal gradient during the calculation.
The calculation frame of the high-efficient model in this study is where ρ, Cp , k, Q, and t are the density, specific heat, thermal conduc­
presented in Fig. 4. The temperature field obtained using the high- tivity, inner heat source, and time of heat transfer, respectively.
efficient model is then set as the predefined field of the mechanical FE The initial condition can be expressed as:
model to calculate the thermal stress.
T(x, y, z)t=0 = T0 (13)
3.2. Thermal analysis The boundary conditions can be expressed as:

The LBM can solve melting and solidification problems because it can ∂T
k − q + qc + qr = 0 (x, y, z) ∈ S (14)
conveniently describe the fluid dynamic phenomenon by the collision ∂n
and streaming of fluid particles[21,22]. Hence, the behavior of powder
where S is the boundary surface. T and n are the temperature and normal
particles in LPBF can be studied by LBM is and TBC (s, x, y, z, t) also can be
vector of S, respectively. The heat losses by convection and radiation can
accurately calculated.
be computed by:
In detail, the LBM model couples the temperature with the velocity
field. The density and velocity of particles are obtained with a distri­ qc = h(T − Ts ) (15)
bution function f(x, t). h(x, t) [47] is temperature distribution function.
The collision and streaming of distributions are considered by: qr = σB εr (T 4 − T 4s ) (16)

Fig. 4. The calculation frame of high efficient model.

5
Y. Cao et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187

where h, σB , and εr are the thermal convection coefficient, Stefan- Table 3

Boltzmann constant, and thermal radiation coefficient, respectively, Thermophysical parameters of AlSi10Mg used for thermal analysis [50,51].
and Ts is the temperature of the environment (set to 25 ℃ in this study). Material property Value Unit
In the high-efficient model, the heat flux q is replaced by the Dirichlet
Solidus temperature, Ts 557 ℃
boundary condition, as mentioned above.
Liquidus temperature, TL 587 ℃
Boiling temperature, Tb 2470 ℃
3.3. Mechanical analysis Density, ρ 2680 3
Kgm−
− 4 − 1 1
∂σ − 0.31 × 10 Nm K−
The relationship between the stress (σ) and total strain (ε) can be Temperature coefficient of surface tension,
∂T
expressed by: Surface tension at liquidus temperature, σL 0.824 Nm− 1
Latent heat of fusion, ∆Hf 389 × 103 J Kg− 1
dσ = Dε − CdT (17) Latent heat of vaporization, ∆Hv 10700 × 103 J Kg− 1
Linear thermal expansion coefficient, αL 23 × 10− 6 K− 1
where D is a fourth-order stiffness tensor. C is a stress matrix related to D Convective heat transfer coefficient, hc 82 Wm− 2 K− 1
Radiation emissivity, εr 0.4
and thermal expansion coefficient [12]. The strain component can be
expressed by:

εlp = εElp + εPlp + εTlp (l, p = 1, 2, 3) (18) computed straightforwardly as:

ρs − ρp
where εElp , εPlp , and εTlp are the elastic strain, plastic strain, and thermal ϕ= (20)
ρs
strain, respectively. The material in the plastic state confirms the von
Mises yield criterion, where the equivalent stress (σm ) can be expressed where ρs and ρp are the densities of the solid and powder, respectively.
by: The thermal conductivity of the powder (kp ) can be calculated as [52].
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ks (1 − ϕ)
σm =
(σ 1 − σ2 )2 + (σ2 − σ 3 )2 + (σ 3 − σ1 )2
(19) kp = (21)
2 1 + ψ kkgs

where σ 1 , σ 2 and σ3 are principal stress in different directions. ψ = 0.02 × 102(ϕ− 0.3)
(22)

3.4. Material properties
The peak temperature of the material under the irradiation of the
high-energy laser may considerably exceed the melting point during the
LPBF process. Thus, the temperature-dependent material thermal
physical parameters of AlSi10Mg covering a wide temperature range are
used in this study. The thermophysical parameters of AlSi10Mg alloy,
such as the viscosity, thermal conductivity, and specific heat are shown
in Table 2 [50]. Other parameters are presented in Table 3 [50,51].
Considering the porosity of the powder in the computational domain,
the thermophysical properties of the powder bed are established in
terms of solid material parameters and porosity (ϕ). The porosity is
Table 2
Temperature-dependent thermophysical parameters of AlSi10Mg [50].
Material property Temperature (℃)
where ks and kg are the thermal conductivities of the solid and gas,
respectively. The specific heats of the powder and solid are considered
equal.
The precise response of the mechanical model depends on the
appropriate mechanical properties of the material. However, large gaps
between the material properties in previous studies and experimental
values exist [15,53–55]. Therefore, the mechanical parameters of the
LPBF parts used in the FE analysis, such as the yield strength and elastic
modulus, were evaluated by our group [41]. The mechanical properties
of the as-cast substrate plates were obtained from reference [15], as
shown in Table 4. The linear thermal expansion coefficient and Poisson’s
ratio (0.33) of the substrate and parts were obtained from the literature
[50]. In addition, the powder bed was ignored in the mechanical
analysis.
Value 3.5. Simulation conditions

Viscosity, ν (Pa s) 600 0.0022

725 0.00125
3D LBM single-track models with laser powers of 300–380 W and
1175 0.0007 scanning speeds of 1000–2000 mm/s were developed in this study. The
1575 0.00058 substrate had dimensions of 2500 × 500 × 200 µm3. The melted
1975 0.00045 powder layer had a thickness of 30 µm. Hexahedral elements of LBM
2425 0.0004
models with a uniform mesh of 4 × 4 × 4 µm3 were used. Ti (s, xi , yi , zi ,
Thermal conductivity (Wm− 1 ℃− 1 ) 25 160
125 160 ti ) was fitted using the LBM temperature field.
225 160 Further, typical three-layer 3D FE models were developed to verify
325 160
425 160
Table 4
555 110
595 90 Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of AlSi10Mg.
925 100 Temperature Yield strength YS (MPa) Elastic modulus (GPa) Linear
1225 110 (℃) thermal
1525 115 Deposition Substrate Deposition Substrate
expansion
1825 120 [41] [15] [41] [15]
coefficient
Specific heat (JKg− 1 ℃− 1 ) 25 900 [15]
100 960 (10− 6 /℃)
300 1020
500 1125 25 314 195 76 69 21.7
665 1040 100 298 150 65 67 22.5
685 1040 200 236 105 59 62 23.5
825 1075 300 143 70 49 53 23.2
1287 1075 400 25 30 18 41 25.5

6
Y. Cao et al.
Fig. 5. FE model of (a) typical 3-layer and (b) 30-layer.
the efficiencies and accuracies of the EBCM and DMM, as shown in Fig. 5
(a). The substrate had dimensions of 10 × 10 × 1 mm3. The scanning
region had a length of 2 mm and width of 2 mm.
A 30-layer high-efficient model corresponding to the in-situ experi­
ment was then developed. The laser scanning area was 10 × 10 mm2.
The substrate had a length of 30 mm, width of 30 mm, and thickness of
2 mm, as shown in Fig. 5(b). Hexahedral elements with dimensions of
50 × 50 × 30 µm3 were employed in the fine mesh zone with di­
mensions of 2 mm × 1200 µm × 120 µm and 10 mm ×
1200 µm × 120 µm in three-layer and 30-layer FE models,
respectively.
The models with different meshes and geometries were developed by
the Abaqus scripting interface of Python. The Dirichlet boundary con­
dition was set through another scripting interface of Fortran: user sub­
routine DISP. The FE model simulations were carried out on a computer
with an Intel Corel(TM) i7 8700 CPU and RAM of 16 GB.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Validation of LBM thermal model
The temperature field calculated by the LBM model is shown in Fig. 6
(a) at a power of 340 W and scanning speed of 1500 mm/s. The tem­
perature gradient in the front of the laser irradiation zone is steeper than
that in the rear, and thus the cloud map of the temperature field exhibits
a comet tail appearance. Fig. 6(b) shows the cross- sectional geometries
of the molten pool obtained by the experiments. With the increase in the
laser power, the volume of the molten pool gradually increases. The
simulated width and depth of the molten pool under different powers are
7
Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187
in good agreement with the experimental results. These results provide
confidence in the fitting of the EBCM using the LBM model. It should be
mentioned that the simulation results slightly overestimate the pene­
tration while slightly underestimates the width of the molten pool. As
Kollmannsberger et al. reported, this might be attributed the adopted
Gaussian heat source with limited parameters does not accurately
represent the molten pool morphology [56].
4.2. Thermo-mechanical results
This section mainly shows the comparison between the high-efficient
model and the normal model. The EBCM used in the FE model is fitted by
the thermal history of the LBM model combined with the scanning
strategy. Fig. 7(a) shows the similar temperature distribution of a typical
three-layer FE model using the EBCM and DMM. A nonsymmetric
thermal field was observed owing to the different material properties
between the solid and powder. The heat flow transfers mainly through
the previously scanned consolidated region, which has a higher con­
ductivity than that of the powder in the unmelted region. Hence, at the
top surface of the deposited parts, the temperature of the consolidated
region is considerably higher than that of the powder bed [57,58]. Fig. 7
(b) present the comparison of the temperature history of points P1 and
P2 for normal and EBCM + DMM model, respectively. The results show
a good consistency.
The calculation costs, including the average number of iterations in
an increment, the number of increments, the system time and the total
CPU time, for the different models are presented in Table 5. FE method
splits the total time period of a nonlinear analysis into several in­
crements, as shown in Fig. 7(c). Automatic time increment is the default
Y. Cao et al.
Fig. 6. (a) Temperature field of LBM at 340 W and 1500 mm/s; (b) dimensions of molten pool from simulation and experiment at various power and 1500 mm/s.
selection. Abaqus uses the initial increment size at the beginning of the
increment. The size of the subsequent time increments is automatically
adjusted based on the solution converges. System time represents the
time required to execute all I/O requests, including data storage after
each increment and data transfer, etc. Total CPU time contains both the
system time and computational time.
The model with EBCM can significantly reduce the number of in­
crements and the calculation time. Compared to other regions, the high-
speed moving heat source with a high- energy input leads to a wide
quick temperature variation [59] in the region near the molten pool
which was predefined by EBCM(as shown in Fig. 3). Owing to the
relatively fine temperature changes (lower temperature gradient and
heating/cooling rates), the solution of the other regions more easily
converges at each increment which means that each increment requires
an average of 4 iterations. So Abaqus allows an extension of the incre­
ment in the model with EBCM during the simulation. Consequently, for a
certain thermal simulation of the LPBF process, the total number of
required increments is reduced which leads to a lower computational
cost and system time.
The model using the DMM can reduce the number of meshes and size
of the stiffness matrix of the FE analysis. However, it could be concluded
that DMM hardly favors the iteration convergence but improves the
iteration efficiency if the average number of iterations in each increment
keeps steady. DMM needs more system time for transferring data be­
tween old and new mesh. However, the less the mesh data, the less the
system time. The slight decrease in system time indicates its weak in­
fluence on the efficiency of DMM.
Fig. 8 presents the residual von Mises stress and stress components
(S11 in the X direction, S22 in the Y direction, and S33 in the Z direction of
the coordinate system) obtained using the sequential coupling temper­
ature fields with the different models. The tensile residual stress at the
top surface originates mainly from shrinkage restriction by surrounding
materials during the cooling [60]. All models provide similar
8
Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187
distribution patterns and magnitudes; high S11 and S22 are observed near
the edge of the deposition zone in the X and Y directions, respectively.
The magnitude of S33 with a uniform distribution is considerably lower
than those of S11 and S22. The potential cracks at the edge of the deposit
could partly be attributed to these factors. This phenomenon is similar to
those in the previous studies [13,58] which also verifies that the tem­
perature field obtained by the model with the EBCM and DMM can also
be used to predict the residual stress field reasonably, compared to the
normal model. Owing to the difference in the temperature field, the
distributions and magnitudes of the stress components are slightly
different, which may cause errors in the prediction, particularly S11 and
S22. For example, the maximum S22 values of both EBCM and
EBCM + DMM are approximately 15 MPa lower than the normal value.
4.3. Validation of high-efficient model
This section mainly shows the comparison between the high-efficient
model and the experiments. Fig. 9 shows the temperature evolution
obtained by the in-situ measurement and simulation using EBCM+DMM.
Good agreements between the measurement and simulation were
observed at different laser powers. As the variation trend of TC2 with the
deposition time is very similar to that of TC1, only the temperature data
of TC1 are presented in this manuscript. Notably, the heating and
cooling processes alternately occur during the deposition of each layer.
In the LPBF process, the thermal accumulation of the substrate increased
the temperature. When the deposition was completed, owing to the
dissipation of heat accumulation, the substrate gradually cooled. The
thermal histories of TC1 obtained by the experiment and simulation at
different scanning speeds are also shown in Fig. 10. The variation trends
of the temperature with the deposition time comply with those in Fig. 9.
With the increase in the power and decrease in the scanning speed, the
temperature increases, owing to the higher energy input. The rate and
range of temperature increase are positively correlated with the heat
Y. Cao et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187

Fig. 7. (a) Temperature field of typical 3-layer model at first deposition layer at 0.004 s, (b) temperature histories of points P1 and P2, and (c) time scheme of
nonlinear analysis.

experiment can be calculated as:

Table 5 ⃒ ⃒
The calculation time of various 3-layer model. ∑n ⃒ ⃒
⃒(Tsim )q − (Texp )q ⃒
100 ⃒ (Texp ) ⃒
Normal DMM EBCM EBCM+DMM q=1⃒
q ⃒
%Error = (23)
Average number of iteration in 8 8 4 4 ns
an increment
Number of increment 5646 5843 618 624 where (Tsim )q and (Texp )q are the simulation and experimental values in
System time 2838 s 2682 s 276 s 164 s the qth increment, respectively, and ns is the number of increments. The
Total CPU time 32,457 s 21,812 s 2187 s 1274 s
relative error of TC1 at different processing parameters are presented in
Table 6.
input. For example, the heating rate at 340 W and 2000 mm/s was The computation costs (wall clock time) of the normal and high-
reduced. efficient model at a power of 300 W and scanning speed of 1500 mm/
In the cooling stage, the simulated temperature decreased more s are 12,000 h and 18 h, respectively. Because the normal model
rapidly than the in-situ experimental data. A possible reason for this required large computation times, in this study, the time of the first-10-
behavior is that the environment temperature in the FE model is set to a tracks deposition is used to linearly estimate the calculation cost of the
constant of 25 ◦ C. The lower sink temperature leads to a faster heat 30-layer deposition. In the LPBF process, the calculation time increases
dissipation. The relative temperature error between the simulation and nonlinearly with the number of elements in the FE model. Thus, the

9
Y. Cao et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187

Fig. 8. Residual stress (a) von Mises stress and stress components, (b) S11, (c) S22, (d) S33 of various model.

Fig. 9. Temperature evolution of TC1 obtained from in-situ measurement and simulation at (a) 300 W, (b) 340 W, (c) 380 W with constant scanning speed
1500 mm/s.

high-efficient model could save more time. The high-efficient model
provides more obvious benefits for the larger model, as the larger
normal model is more demanding in terms of computing resources (such
as CPU and RAM).
In the microindentation test, the LPBF samples were initially ground
and polished, which led to a reduction in height and partial release of
stress. Fig. 11(a) shows the simulated and tested residual stress of the
deposit section with a height of 0.50 mm at 340 W/1500 mm/s. They
exhibit similar distributions, in which the residual stress in the center
and later depositions of the as-fabricated parts are higher than those in
the other regions. Fig. 11(b) and (c) present the residual stress obtained
by the numerical simulation and measurement at a scanning speed of
1500 mm/s and power of 340 W, respectively. In general, the value
obtained by the numerical simulation using the LPBF material properties

10
Y. Cao et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187

Fig. 10. Temperature evolution of TC1 obtained from in-situ measurement and simulation at (a) 1000 mm/s, (b) 1500 mm/s, (c) 2000 mm/s with constant laser
power of 340 W.

is 13 MPa higher than the value obtained by the microindentation

Table 6
method on average.
Error of TC1 between simulation and experiment.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 5. Conclusions
Error 4.5% 4.8% 6.3% 6.6% 4.3%
In this study, a 3D high-efficient FE model was developed to predict
the temperature of the PBF process and validated by in-situ experiments.
The simulated temperature fields obtained by the high-efficient model
and normal model were used for the sequential coupling statics analysis.
The stress field was then verified with the microindentation method. The
conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows.

Fig. 11. Comparison of residual stress prediction and experiment: (a) the case of 340 W/1500 mm/s; (b) using different powers under 1500 mm/s); (c) using
different scanning speeds under 340 W.

11
Y. Cao et al.
(1) The temperature results obtained from LBM model were used to
feed the coupled thermo-mechanical FE model by a scripting
interface, achieving the multi-scale simulation of AM processes.
(2) In-situ temperature and residual stress measurements were car­
ried out to calibrate the numerical model. Comparison of the
thermo-mechanical results between simulation and experiment
presented a good agreement.
(3) A high-efficient FE model for LPBF was proposed by combining
the EBCM and DMM, achieving a significant reduction on the
calculation cost without loss of accuracy.
(4) The EBCM displayed prominent high-efficiency since it favors
convergence and enlarges the increment size in LPBF simulation.
Meanwhile, DMM further improved the speed of convergence due
to the size reduction of the stiffness matrix.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yang Cao: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Writing – original draft. Xin Lin: Conceptualization, Writing – review &
editing, Supervision. Nan Kang: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Writing – review & editing. Liang Ma: Conceptualization, Visualization.
Lei Wei: Data curation, Methodology. Min Zheng: Visualization,
Methodology. Jun Yu: Investigation, Methodology. Dongjian Peng:
Investigation, Methodology. Weidong Huang: Investigation, Project
administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Key Research and Devel­
opment Programme of China (Grant No. 2016YFB1100602 and No.
2016YFB1100100) and National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. 52005411). Thanks for many useful helps form Mr. Xufei Lu,
Mr. Bo Yao, Mr. Xing Wang and Mr. Wenbo Lu in our group.
References
[1] D. Herzog, V. Seyda, E. Wycisk, C. Emmelmann, Additive manufacturing of metals,
Acta Mater. 117 (2016) 371–392, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2016.07.019.
[2] T. DebRoy, H.L. Wei, J.S. Zuback, T. Mukherjee, J.W. Elmer, J.O. Milewski, A.
M. Beese, A. Wilson-Heid, A. De, W. Zhang, Additive manufacturing of metallic
components – process, structure and properties, Prog. Mater. Sci. 92 (2018)
112–224, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.001.
[3] X. Lu, X. Lin, M. Chiumenti, M. Cervera, J. Li, L. Ma, L. Wei, Y. Hu, W. Huang,
Finite element analysis and experimental validation of the thermomechanical
behavior in laser solid forming of Ti-6Al-4V, Addit. Manuf. 21 (2018) 30–40,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.02.003.
[4] X. Lu, X. Lin, M. Chiumenti, M. Cervera, Y. Hu, X. Ji, L. Ma, W. Huang, In situ
measurements and thermo-mechanical simulation of Ti-6Al-4V laser solid forming
processes, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 153–154 (2019) 119–130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmecsci.2019.01.043.
[5] X. Lu, X. Lin, M. Chiumenti, M. Cervera, Y. Hu, X. Ji, L. Ma, H. Yang, W. Huang,
Residual stress and distortion of rectangular and S-shaped Ti-6Al-4V parts by
directed energy deposition: modelling and experimental calibration, Addit. Manuf.
26 (2019) 166–179, https://10.1016/j.addma.2019.02.001.
[6] K. Carpenter, A. Tabei, On residual stress development, prevention, and
compensation in metal additive manufacturing, Materials 13 (2) (2020), https://
doi.org/10.3390/ma13020255.
[7] X. Lu, M. Chiumenti, M. Cervera, J. Li, X. Lin, L. Ma, G. Zhang, E. Liang, Substrate
design to minimize residual stresses in directed energy deposition AM processes,
Mater. Des. 202 (2021), 109525, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109525.
[8] C. Li, C.H. Fu, Y.B. Guo, F.Z. Fang, A multiscale modeling approach for fast
prediction of part distortion in selective laser melting, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
229 (2016) 703–712, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.10.022.
[9] I. Setien, M. Chiumenti, S. van der Veen, M. San Sebastian, F. Garciandía,
A. Echeverría, Empirical methodology to determine inherent strains in additive
manufacturing, Comput. Math. Appl. 78 (7) (2019) 2282–2295, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.camwa.2018.05.015.
12
Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187
[10] R.K. Ganeriwala, M. Strantza, W.E. King, B. Clausen, T.Q. Phan, L.E. Levine, D.
W. Brown, N.E. Hodge, Evaluation of a thermomechanical model for prediction of
residual stress during laser powder bed fusion of Ti-6Al-4V, Addit. Manuf. 27
(2019) 489–502, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.03.034.
[11] M. Busi, N. Kalentics, M. Morgano, S. Griffiths, A.S. Tremsin, T. Shinohara, R. Logé,
C. Leinenbach, M. Strobl, Nondestructive characterization of laser powder bed
fusion parts with neutron Bragg edge imaging, Addit. Manuf. 39 (2021), 101848,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.101848.
[12] Z. Chen, H. Ye, H. Xu, Distortion control in a wire-fed electron-beam thin-walled
Ti-6Al-4V freeform, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 258 (2018) 286–295, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.04.008.
[13] E.R. Denlinger, M. Gouge, J. Irwin, P. Michaleris, Thermomechanical model
development and in situ experimental validation of the laser powder-bed fusion
process, Addit. Manuf. 16 (2017) 73–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2017.05.001.
[14] X. Liang, Q. Chen, L. Cheng, D. Hayduke, A.C. To, Modified inherent strain method
for efficient prediction of residual deformation in direct metal laser sintered
components, Comput. Mech. 64 (6) (2019) 1719–1733, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00466-019-01748-6.
[15] L. Wang, X. Jiang, Y. Zhu, X. Zhu, J. Sun, B. Yan, An approach to predict the
residual stress and distortion during the selective laser melting of AlSi10Mg parts,
The, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 97 (9–12) (2018) 3535–3546, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00170-018-2207-3.
[16] C. Chen, Z. Xiao, H. Zhu, X. Zeng, Distribution and evolution of thermal stress
during multi-laser powder bed fusion of Ti-6Al-4 V alloy, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 284 (2020), 116726, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2020.116726.
[17] J.H.K. Tan, S.L. Sing, W.Y. Yeong, Microstructure modelling for metallic additive
manufacturing: a review, Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 15 (1) (2019) 87–105, https://
doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2019.1677345.
[18] V. Fallah, M. Amoorezaei, N. Provatas, S.F. Corbin, A. Khajepour, Phase-field
simulation of solidification morphology in laser powder deposition of Ti–Nb alloys,
Acta Mater. 60 (4) (2012) 1633–1646, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
actamat.2011.12.009.
[19] J. Yang, H. Yu, H. Yang, F. Li, Z. Wang, X. Zeng, Prediction of microstructure in
selective laser melted Ti6Al4V alloy by cellular automaton, J. Alloy. Compd. 748
(2018) 281–290, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.03.116.
[20] S. Sunny, H. Yu, R. Mathews, A. Malik, W. Li, Improved grain structure prediction
in metal additive manufacturing using a dynamic kinetic Monte Carlo framework,
Addit. Manuf. 37 (2021), 101649, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101649.
[21] D. Sun, M. Zhu, S. Pan, D. Raabe, Lattice Boltzmann modeling of dendritic growth
in a forced melt convection, Acta Mater. 57 (6) (2009) 1755–1767, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.actamat.2008.12.019.
[22] R. Ammer, M. Markl, U. Ljungblad, C. Koerner, U. Ruede, Simulating fast electron
beam melting with a parallel thermal free surface lattice Boltzmann method,
Comput. Math. Appl. 67 (2) (2014) 318–330, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
camwa.2013.10.001.
[23] A. Xu, L. Shi, T.S. Zhao, Accelerated lattice Boltzmann simulation using GPU and
OpenACC with data management, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 109 (2017) 577–588,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.02.032.
[24] M. Bayat, S. Mohanty, J.H. Hattel, Multiphysics modelling of lack-of-fusion voids
formation and evolution in IN718 made by multi-track/multi-layer L-PBF, Int. J.
Heat. Mass Transf. 139 (2019) 95–114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2019.05.003.
[25] A.J. Dunbar, E.R. Denlinger, M.F. Gouge, P. Michaleris, Experimental validation of
finite element modeling for laser powder bed fusion deformation, Addit. Manuf. 12
(2016) 108–120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.08.003.
[26] M. Chiumenti, E. Neiva, E. Salsi, M. Cervera, S. Badia, J. Moya, Z. Chen, C. Lee,
C. Davies, Numerical modelling and experimental validation in selective laser
melting, Addit. Manuf. 18 (2017) 171–185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2017.09.002.
[27] M. Carraturo, J. Jomo, S. Kollmannsberger, A. Reali, F. Auricchio, E. Rank,
Modeling and experimental validation of an immersed thermo-mechanical part-
scale analysis for laser powder bed fusion processes, Addit. Manuf. 36 (2020),
101498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101498.
[28] J. Parvizian, A. Düster, E. Rank, Finite cell method, Comput. Mech. 41 (1) (2007)
121–133, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-007-0173-y.
[29] R.J. Williams, C.M. Davies, P.A. Hooper, A pragmatic part scale model for residual
stress and distortion prediction in powder bed fusion, Addit. Manuf. 22 (2018)
416–425, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.05.038.
[30] M. Bayat, C.G. Klingaa, S. Mohanty, D. De Baere, J. Thorborg, N.S. Tiedje, J.
H. Hattel, Part-scale thermo-mechanical modelling of distortions in laser powder
bed fusion – analysis of the sequential flash heating method with experimental
validation, Addit. Manuf. 36 (2020), 101508, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2020.101508.
[31] P. Michaleris, Modeling metal deposition in heat transfer analyses of additive
manufacturing processes, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 86 (2016) 51–60, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.finel.2014.04.003.
[32] K. Zeng, D. Pal, H.J. Gong, N. Patil, B. Stucker, Comparison of 3DSIM thermal
modelling of selective laser melting using new dynamic meshing method to ANSYS,
Mater. Sci. Technol. 31 (8) (2014) 945–956, https://doi.org/10.1179/
1743284714Y.0000000703.
[33] J. Baiges, M. Chiumenti, C.A. Moreira, M. Cervera, R. Codina, An adaptive finite
element strategy for the numerical simulation of additive manufacturing processes,
Addit. Manuf. 37 (2021), 101650, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101650.
Y. Cao et al.
[34] Z. Luo, Y. Zhao, A survey of finite element analysis of temperature and thermal
stress fields in powder bed fusion additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 21 (2018)
318–332, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.03.022.
[35] S. Suresh, A.E. Giannakopoulos, A new method for estimating residual stresses by
instrumented sharp indentation, Acta Mater. 46 (16) (1998) 5755–5767, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6454(98)00226-2.
[36] R. Moharrami, M. Sanayei, Developing a method in measuring residual stress on
steel alloys by instrumented indentation technique, Measurement 158 (2020),
107718, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.107718.
[37] S. Carlsson, P.L. Larsson, On the determination of residual stress and strain fields
by sharp indentation testing. Part II: experimental investigation, Acta Mater. 49
(12) (2001) 2193–2203, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6454(01)00123-9.
[38] S. Carlsson, P.L. Larsson, On the determination of residual stress and strain fields
by sharp indentation testing.: Part I: theoretical and numerical analysis, Acta
Mater. 49 (12) (2001) 2193–2203, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6454(01)
00122-7.
[39] Y.L. Hu, X. Lin, K. Song, X.Y. Jiang, H.O. Yang, W.D. Huang, Effect of heat input on
cracking in laser solid formed DZ4125 superalloy, Opt. Laser Technol. 86 (2016)
1–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2016.06.008.
[40] F. Liu, X. Lin, G. Yang, M. Song, J. Chen, W. Huang, Microstructure and residual
stress of laser rapid formed Inconel 718 nickel-base superalloy, Opt. Laser Technol.
43 (1) (2011) 208–213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2010.06.015.
[41] Y. Cao, X. Lin, Q.Z. Wang, S.Q. Shi, L. Ma, N. Kang, W.D. Huang, Microstructure
evolution and mechanical properties at high temperature of selective laser melted
AlSi10Mg, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 62 (2021) 162–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmst.2020.04.066.
[42] P. Levin, A general solution of 3-D quasi-steady-state problem of a moving heat
source on a semi-infinite solid, Mech. Res. Commun. 35 (3) (2008) 151–157,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechrescom.2007.09.003.
[43] X. Wang, E. Pan, Three-dimensional quasi-steady-state problem of moving heat and
diffusion sources in an infinite solid, Mech. Res. Commun. 35 (7) (2008) 475–482,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechrescom.2008.05.005.
[44] B. Cheng, J. Lydon, K. Cooper, V. Cole, P. Northrop, K. Chou, Melt pool sensing and
size analysis in laser powder-bed metal additive manufacturing, J. Manuf. Process.
32 (2018) 744–753, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.04.002.
[45] I.A. Roberts, C.J. Wang, R. Esterlein, M. Stanford, D.J. Mynors, A three-
dimensional finite element analysis of the temperature field during laser melting of
metal powders in additive layer manufacturing, Int. J. Mach. Tool. Manuf. 49
(12–13) (2009) 916–923, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2009.07.004.
[46] Y. Jiang, E. Li, X.Q. Zhang, Q.G. Wu, Y.H. Yap, Superposition method for the
simulation of heat transfer, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 120 (2018) 914–922, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.12.129.
[47] Z. Guo, B. Shi, C. Zheng, A coupled lattice BGK model for the Boussinesq equations,
Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 39 (4) (2002) 325–342, https://doi.org/10.1002/
fld.337.
13
Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102187
[48] M. Zheng, L. Wei, J. Chen, Q. Zhang, C. Zhong, X. Lin, W. Huang, A novel method
for the molten pool and porosity formation modelling in selective laser melting,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 140 (2019) 1091–1105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2019.06.038.
[49] M. Zheng, L. Wei, J. Chen, Q. Zhang, J. Li, S. Sui, G. Wang, W. Huang, Surface
morphology evolution during pulsed selective laser melting: numerical and
experimental investigations, Appl. Surf. Sci. 496 (2019), 143649, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.143649.
[50] P. Wei, Z. Wei, Z. Chen, Y. He, J. Du, Thermal behavior in single track during
selective laser melting of AlSi10Mg powder, Appl. Phys. A 123 (2017) 604, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00339-017-1194-9.
[51] H. Kobatake, J. Brillo, J. Schmitz, P.Y. Pichon, Surface tension of binary Al-Si
liquid alloys, J. Mater. Sci. 50 (9) (2015) 3351–3360, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10853-015-8883-6.
[52] H.M. Khan, M.H. Dirikolu, E. Koç, Z.C. Oter, Numerical investigation of heat
current study across different platforms in SLM processed multi-layer AlSi10Mg,
Optik 170 (2018) 82–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2018.05.081.
[53] J. Wu, L. Wang, X. An, Numerical analysis of residual stress evolution of AlSi10Mg
manufactured by selective laser melting, Optik 137 (2017) 65–78, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijleo.2017.02.060.
[54] B. Chen, S.K. Moon, X. Yao, G. Bi, J. Shen, J. Umeda, K. Kondoh, Strength and
strain hardening of a selective laser melted AlSi10Mg alloy, Scr. Mater. 141 (2017)
45–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2017.07.025.
[55] N. Takata, H. Kodaira, K. Sekizawa, A. Suzuki, M. Kobashi, Change in
microstructure of selectively laser melted AlSi10Mg alloy with heat treatments,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 704 (2017) 218–228, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
msea.2017.08.029.
[56] S. Kollmannsberger, M. Carraturo, A. Reali, F. Auricchio, Accurate prediction of
melt pool shapes in laser powder bed fusion by the non-linear temperature
equation including phase changes, Integr. Mater. Manuf. Innov. 8 (2) (2019)
167–177, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00132-9.
[57] L. Parry, I.A. Ashcroft, R.D. Wildman, Understanding the effect of laser scan
strategy on residual stress in selective laser melting through thermo-mechanical
simulation, Addit. Manuf. 12 (2016) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2016.05.014.
[58] B. Cheng, S. Shrestha, K. Chou, Stress and deformation evaluations of scanning
strategy effect in selective laser melting, Addit. Manuf. 12 (2016) 240–251,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.05.007.
[59] S. Price, B. Cheng, J. Lydon, K. Cooper, K. Chou, On process temperature in
powder-bed electron beam additive manufacturing: model development and
validation, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 136 (6) (2014), 061018, https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.4028485.
[60] T. Simson, A. Emmel, A. Dwars, J. Böhm, Residual stress measurements on AISI
316L samples manufactured by selective laser melting, Addit. Manuf. 17 (2017)
183–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.07.007.