Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Detectability by X-ray micro computed tomography of fatigue initiating

void defects in laser powder-bed additively manufactured
Ti-6Al-4V coupons
Stephen Sun a, *, Jonathan D. Miller b, Yi Rye Choi a, Suzana Turk a, Drew Donnelly a,
Qianchu Liu a, *
a
Defence Science Technology Group, Fishermans Bend, VIC 3207, Australia
b
Materials & Manufacturing Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, WPAFB, OH, USA

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

Keywords: Non-destructive inspection is important for the quality assurance of additively manufactured components. In this
Laser powder-bed fusion study, X-ray micro Computed Tomography (µCT) was assessed for its capabilities and limitations to detect
X-ray micro computed tomography fatigue-initiation porosities in Ti-6Al-4V additively manufactured coupons. Cylindrical coupons were built using
Fatigue
laser powder-bed fusion (L-PBF) from three different vendors and four different L-PBF machines that utilized
Defect
their default process parameters. Using OEM prescribed default process parameters, there was significant vari­
Detectability
ability in the defect distribution between machine to machine and also coupon to coupon that was on the same
build plate, primarily due the difference in the internal quality assurance procedures and scan strategies adopted
by each vendor. The probability of detection for conventional µCT (cubic voxel size 17.77 µm) was investigated
by comparing with what was detected using a Synchrotron Radiation Micro Computed Tomography (SRµCT) at
cubic voxel size 5.91 µm. It was found that µCT’s detectability relative to SRµCT was approximately 90% for
defect diameters of the circumscribed sphere of 230 µm and above and 100% for diameters of 340 µm and above
(12–14 times the voxel size of the µCT scan). The type of defect was a key factor to the detectability of large sized
defects (>200 µm in diameter) due to the flatness and elongated shape factors. Fatigue results showed the critical
defect √Area at the surface was approximately 100 µm at 500 MPa stress level, where significant scatter in
fatigue life was observed. Post-fatigue test fractography identified different types of fatigue initiating defects, of
which a ‘flat’ lack-of-fusion type defect was undetectable by either µCT or SRµCT. This type of defect was
extremely flat and occupied very little spatial resolution through the build direction which limited the detection
by automated threshold-based defect detection algorithms.

1. Introduction requirements have been in place from a historical need to quantify

Laser powder-bed fusion (L-PBF) is one of a number of Additive
Manufacturing (AM) technologies with potential technical and eco­
nomic benefits over conventional manufacturing technologies. Some of
these benefits include design flexibility and quick turn-around of prod­
ucts. AM also enables broadened applications of materials not easily
manufacturable by conventional methods, including Ti-6Al-4V for
aerospace applications [1]. However, build variability is one of the
major concerns and the major bottle neck for acceptance of AM into
Aerospace components. The material and process qualification protocols
for aerospace structural materials have been rigorous. The qualification
conventional materials and manufacturing processes. All manufacturing
processes must demonstrate reproducibility and stability from build to
build. An additively manufactured component can be prone to build
discontinuities, especially void defects, which has a detrimental effect
on fatigue strength. Hence, quality assurance, especially via a
non-destructive approach, has become a critical step towards the qual­
ification and certification of load-bearing AM components [2].
Literature has used a key metric, volumetric energy density (EV), as
the key influence on the void defects [3–8], defined by Eq. 1, where P is
the laser power, ν is the scan speed, h is the hatch space, and t is the layer
thickness.

* Correspondence to: Defence Science Technology Group, 506 Lorimer St, Fishermans Bend, VIC 3207, Australia.
E-mail addresses: stephen.sun@defence.gov.au (S. Sun), qianchu.liu@defence.gov.au (Q. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2024.103986
Received 5 July 2023; Received in revised form 14 December 2023; Accepted 13 January 2024
Available online 17 January 2024
2214-8604/© 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Sun et al.
P understand how accurately it can detect defects, especially critical
EV = (1)
v•h•t
AM void defects in L-PBF are mainly categorised by gas porosity,
keyhole porosity, and lack-of-fusion (LOF) defect [9,10]. Gas porosity is
formed from local gas entrapment as the molten metal rapidly solidifies.
The gas originates from moisture on the surface of the powder or
existing porosity in the powder feedstock introduced during the gas
atomization process. Gas porosity is usually small and spherical in shape
(approximately 10–30 µm in size). Keyhole porosity is caused by
excessive high energy input (at a high EV) leading to instabilities and
periodic collapse of keyhole walls trapping gas bubbles from the vapor
depression [11,12]. The most common LOF defects are caused by
incomplete melting of the powder onto the previous layer/track (at a
low EV) resulting in un-melted regions and producing cavities located
between layer/track boundaries. The LOF defect size can vary from
small to large depending on the severity of the insufficient melting.
These LOF defects in L-PBF builds can be avoided by careful optimiza­
tion of the process parameters to ensure sufficient melting between
layer/track boundaries.
Another cause for LOF defects is local melt pool instability during the
build leading to unpredictable un-melted regions and spatter [13],
which is attributed to localized turbulent gas flow and laser beam
fluctuations [13,14]. Molten ejected particles (spatter) due to instability
of the melt pool are projected back into the powder bed and could form
larger particles as it solidifies with neighbouring powders, described as
powder agglomeration spatter [15]. As the laser passes over the area
with the spattered particle, the layer thickness is varied where the
powder bed is disturbed, leading to insufficient energy to melt these
larger particles, and forming LOF defects [16,17]. Its morphology is
irregular in shape and size which can vary significantly depending on
the severity of the spatter particle. Process instability induced LOF de­
fects in L-PBF builds can be minimised with careful closed loop process
control to mitigate melt pool instability but are not totally unavoidable.
The variability of size and location of L-PBF LOF defects result in a wide
scatter in fatigue lives reported [18–21]. Therefore, the assessment and
control of L-PBF LOF defects require further research.
Non-destructive inspection (NDI), such as 3D X-Ray Micro Computed
Tomography (µCT) volumetric inspection [22], has become an estab­
lished method to characterise defects and determine the relative build
quality and variability [23–25]. Investigations into the detectability of
fatigue initiating void defects and fatigue properties are very limited in
the open literature, which is mostly focused on defect characterisation.
Sanaei et al. [23] used shape parameters such as sphericity and aspect
ratio to understand the differences in defect distribution between
different L-PBF machines. While, Nudelis and Mayr [26] categorized the
defects using sphericity and compactness to determine the effect of
processing parameters on the defect distribution. A study by Poudel
et al. [10] characterised the morphology and type of defect (gas
porosity, keyhole porosity, and LOF) by nine parameters including
maximum length, sphericity, flatness, roundness, sparseness, and aspect
ratio.
Using µCT results to understand the influence of void defects on the
fatigue properties has become the next important step towards process
qualification and inspection. Size, type, position, and morphology of the
void defects are some of the major parameters that influences fatigue
properties [27], which can easily be determined using µCT. Beretta and
Romano[28] showed the wide scatter of the fatigue properties for
machined Ti-6Al-4 V AM produced materials is significantly reduced if
the data are correlated to the fatigue initiating defect size. Romano et al.
[29] used extreme value statistics to predict the fatigue initiating defect
based on the largest defect size from µCT. Their research approach was
important to determine the critical fatigue initiating defect sizes and
shapes. The results show µCT could be a useful tool in predicting fatigue
properties.
However, prior to accepting the µCT results, it is essential to
2
Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986
fatigue-initiating defects in L-PBF builds. µCT is a complex method with
limited testing methods and standards [30,31]. For the X-ray µCT
approach, its detection capability is limited by the level of photon
transmittance through the material, which is primarily affected by the
thickness of the component and the material-specific density. Therefore,
for large components with high material-specific density, there will be a
reliance on the surrounding witness coupons to provide the reference
assessment of defect distribution. Other issues include inherent artefacts
such as beam hardening and ring artefacts that introduce noise particles
onto the images. In addition, the detectability of a defect is usually
limited by the voxel size of the scan in relation to the size of the defect. A
lower resolution µCT scan may be able to adequately resolve the largest
defects which typically govern fatigue life [32]. However, in order to
provide accurate information on void defects, a high resolution µCT scan
is absolutely desirable. Lower resolution µCT scans could inaccurately
characterise the defect morphology and size [33], or even not detect the
fatigue initiating defect. Therefore, for large components with high
material-specific density, there will be a reliance on the surrounding
witness coupons to provide the reference assessment of defect
distribution.
The aim of this investigation is to provide an assessment of the ca­
pabilities and limitations of µCT to detect different fatigue initiating void
defects. Ti-6Al-4 V cylindrical coupons were manufactured using L-PBF
by four different vendors using default process parameters. Different L-
PBF machines were used in order to produce coupons with a variety of
defect types and sizes to compare. Synchrotron Radiation (SRµCT) is
considered an advanced µCT method providing high quality scans at a
very high resolution that will be used as a ground truth to validate the
commercial µCT defect detection results. Fractographic analysis on fa­
tigue fracture surfaces was performed to measure the characteristics of
the fatigue initiating defects. This was then compared to the µCT and
SRµCT data to understand the fidelity of these NDI techniques.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials and L-PBF
Coupons (12 mm diameter and 100 mm long cylindrical rods) were
built using ELI Grade 23 Ti-6Al-4 V from three different vendors and
four different L-PBF machines: Vendor 1 (SLM Solution 250 single laser
configuration (SLM250-SL) and SLM Solution 250 dual/twin laser
configuration (SLM250-DL)), Vendor 2 (Renishaw AM400), and Vendor
3 (EOS-M280). The build location of all fatigue coupons are shown in
Fig. 1. The default process parameters and gas flow parameters for Ti-
6Al-4 V were used as recommended by the corresponding manufac­
turers, as listed in Table 1. Each vendor utilised their own internal
quality control process for machine, material and operator, which was
not prescribed for this study. Each machine manufacturer utilised its
own standard process parameters and own powder. Therefore, the build
quality depends on the process parameters that were prescribed or
optimised by each AM machine manufacturer as well as the internal
quality control of each vendor. The volumetric energy density (EV) was
defined by Eq. 1.
To eliminate residual stress-induced cracking, all builds were slowly
cooled for 24 h on the build plate before being removed from the ma­
chine. After that, a stress relief heat treatment was performed at 593 ◦ C
for 2hrs in an ultra-high purity argon chamber, followed by furnace cool
to room temperature, in accordance with ASTM F3301 [34].
2.2. Fatigue testing and fractography
The as-built 12-mm diameter rods were CNC machined to round dog-
bone coupons with a surface roughness (Ra) of 0.6 µm and dimensions of
6 mm minimum gauge diameter, 20 mm gauge length, and 10 mm
transition radius, which complied with ASTM E466 [35]. Fatigue testing
S. Sun et al. Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986

Fig. 1. Schematic of the build plate design and location of the fatigue coupons labelled in red. (left: Renishaw-AM400 and SLM250-SL/DL, right: EOS-M280).

ultrasonic bath for 480 s. High resolution fractography imaging was

Table 1
performed using a Thermo-Fisher Scientific Apreo S Scanning Electron
Build parameters used for each L-PBF machine type.
Microscope (SEM) equipped with a field-emission gun. For each spec­
Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3 imen, both fracture surfaces were analysed. Defects observed at the
Parameter SLM250 (SL Renishaw- EOS-M280
crack initiation sites were measured by taking the longest perpendicular
and DL) AM400
distances of the defect, then approximating the defect projected cross
Laser power P (W) 100 200 280
sectional area as an ellipse, as shown in Eq. 2 (d1 and d2 as shown in
Laser speed v (mm/s) 375 1100 1200
Hatch spacing h 0.13 0.105 0.14
Fig. 2). A similar area approximation was proposed by Masuo et al. [36]
(mm) and Molaei et al. [37], where they evaluated the effective defect area
Layer thickness t 0.03 0.03 0.03 using a rounded and elliptical approximation. The approximation is
(mm) effective since the sharp features create a high stress intensity and the
Volumetric Energy 68.4 57.7 55.6
crack is likely to grow into an elliptical shape [36]. The size of the defect
density EV (J/mm3)
Scan strategy 10 mm Stripe 5 mm Stripe 5 mm Stripe spacing was represented as the Murakami and Endo’s area parameter (square
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
spacing spacing root of area, Area) [38].
Environment Industrial grade UHP grade UHP grade Argona √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Argonb Argona √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ d1 d2
Build plate 200 200 200 Defect size = Area = π × × (2)
2 2
temperature (◦ C)
Powder TLS Technik Renishaw Carpenter 3D profilometer contour measurements of the fatigue initiating de­
manufacturer (Gas-atomised) (Gas- Technology (Gas- fects were performed on the fracture surfaces using a Bruker ContourGT-
atomised) atomised)
K Interferometer and Vision64 analysis software. A 50x green light
a
Ultra-high purity (UHP) grade Argon (<1 ppm Oxygen) interferometer lens, with a lateral field of view of 227.8 µm x 170.9 µm,
b
Industrial grade Argon (<10 ppm Oxygen) was used to capture the 3D geometry of the top and bottom fracture
surface of each fatigue coupon. The lateral and vertical resolution was
was performed using a 15 kN uniaxial MTS testing machine at room 0.356 µm and 0.01 nm, respectively.
temperature. Constant amplitude loads with 500 MPa peak stress and
R= 0.1 stress ratio were applied.
The fracture surfaces of specimens were cleaned in ethanol using an

Fig. 2. Schematic of the measured defect size and effective area.

3
S. Sun et al.
2.3. µCT and SRµCT defect detection and characterisation
The selected as-built coupons were scanned at the National Labora­
tory using a density absorption contrast X-ray Micro Computed To­
mography (µCT) based at the Australian National University (ANU)
using a HeliScan µCT system. The system used an optimised space-filling
X-ray source scanning trajectory [39]. The voltage and current were set
at 150 kV and 114 µA, respectively. A 1.5 mm thickness of Aluminium
filter was used. The resulting photon transmittance (signal-to-noise
ratio) was 10–15%, which is generally the optimal ratio for a high
quality image [40]. A total of 1200 projections with a rotation step of
0.3◦ was used for a scan rate of 40 mm/h. The tomographic volumes
were reconstructed using the multi-grid back-projection filtration tech­
nique described in [41], with a resulting 3D image dimensions of
16.35 mm × 16.35 mm× 105 mm and a cubic voxel size of 17.77 µm.
The poor image quality (Fig. 3a) was due to a few factors: (1) large voxel
size. The rationale for selecting a large cubic voxel size was to replicate
the voxel size used for a large component (approximately 30–40 mm
thickness). (2) The scan parameters could be further optimised. Due to
the large volume, high number of coupons, and high costs, the scan
parameters such as frame average binning and integration time, were
kept minimal to maximise the scan rate rather than quality.
Synchrotron radiation Micro-Computed Tomography (SRµCT) scans
were also performed on selected coupons, to provide the ground truth, at
the Imaging and Medical beamline (IMBL) at the Australian Synchrotron
as described in [42]. The system used a polychromatic X-ray source with
a Ruby detector. The equivalent voltage and current were approximately
80 kV and 200 µA, respectively, resulting in a photon transmittance of
30–35%. A total of 3600 projections with a rotation step of 0.1◦ was used
for a scan rate of 40 mm/h. The tomographic volumes were recon­
structed using X-Tract software described in [43], with the resulting 3D
image dimensions of 14.66 mm × 14.66 mm× 20 mm and a cubic voxel
size of 5.91 µm (image quality shown in Fig. 3b.
Defect characterisation was performed using an automated
threshold-based segmentation method (EzyPore porosity/inclusion
analysis in VGSTUDIO MAX 3.3 software). The gauge volume was
cropped of each fatigue coupon and analysed for direct comparison with
the fatigue and fractography results. EzyPore uses a relative grayscale
contrast based segmentation technique to detect defects. The grayscale
contrast percentage difference is specified then the algorithm starts
searching for areas with that contrast difference. The main parameters
within EzyPore, such as contrast % and probability threshold, were
selected to ensure as many of the void defects were captured above the
noise level. Due to noise particles, a minimum 3 × 3×3 pixel volume
was required to classify the segmentation as a detected defect. Hence,
Fig. 3. Slice view of the reconstructed images showing void defects within the coupon (a) µCT at 17.77 µm, and (b) SRµCT at 5.91 µm.
4
Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986
any defects that measured less than 3 pixels in any primary axis (x, y,
and z) were removed from the analysis, which was applied to both µCT
and SRµCT data. To locate the fatigue initiating defects, the fractured
coupons were re-scanned using a µCT system, and then aligned the ge­
ometry and internal features of the µCT and SRµCT data using a manual
registration feature in the VGSTUDIO MAX 3.3 software, as shown in
Fig. 3.
The EzyPore calculated projected sizes in the x, y, and z axis,
diameter (D), volume (VP), surface area (SP), and sphericity (Ψ), of each
defect were recorded. The projected sizes are the maximum projected
lengths in each of the primary axis (Fig. 4a). There are many methods to
extract defect sizes, most commonly reported in the literature are the
diameter values [35], which is the diameter of the circumscribed sphere
(Fig. 4b). VP calculation is based on the total volume of the cubic voxels
from the detected defect. SP calculation is based on the interpolation of
the surface of the defect that was detected with sub-voxel accuracy. The
two shape factors were defined to categorise the defect morphologies:
(1) sphericity indicates if a defect is smooth or highly irregular/flat, and
(2) aspect ratio measures if a defect is elongated.
The sphericity or roundness (Eq. 3) is the ratio of the surface area of
an equal-volume sphere to the actual surface area of the defect SP,
defined by Wadell [44], and schematically shown in Fig. 4c, ranges from
1 (perfect sphere) to 0 (highly irregular shape).
( )23
1
π3 6Vp
Sphericity ψ = (3)
Sp
The aspect ratio (AR), Eq. 4, was defined as the equivalent area to the
area of the largest bounding circle calculated from the largest projected
length in the plane perpendicular to the build direction, in this case the
x-y plane, schematically shown in Fig. 4d, ranges from 1 (perfect circle)
to 0 (elongated).
Ap Vp
AR = = (4)
A π (Lmax )2
A python script was developed to register each defect detected in µCT
to the SRµCT results by matching the proximity of the location (x,y and z
coordinates of each defect). The probability of detection (PoD) of defects
using µCT was established via comparing with SRµCT results. The PoD vs
defect size relationship was regressed using a simple logistic model as
shown in Eq. 5, where x is the diameter of the defect measured in µCT, x0
and β are the parameters that provides a best curve fitting. The PoD
showed the percentage of undetected defects (also known as false-
positives).
S. Sun et al.
Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the VGSTUDIO MAX 3.3 EzyPore extracted 3D defect geometry used for the µCT defect characterisation: (a) Projected sizes in the
x,y, and z axis, (b) Diameter of a circumscribed sphere, (b) Sphericity, and (c) 2D aspect ratio.
1 Accutom-10, along the build direction just below the fracture surface.
PoD = 1 − √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )β̅ (5)
1 + xxo
For all detected defects by µCT (true-positive), the diameter, sphe­
ricity and AR was compared to the SRµCT data. Cases with multiple
smaller defects being detected in SRµCT, as oppose to one large defect
detected in µCT at the same location, were checked manually and vali­
dated. It is important to note that not all defects are captured by SRµCT.
The method is also limited by its voxel size of 5.91 µm, hence smaller
defect types of sizes 25–30 µm are likely to be undetected.
To be consistent with the 2D fatigue and fractography measurements
from Eq. 2, fatigue-initiating defect size from the µCT analysis was also
represented by Murakami and Endo’s area parameter, approximated by
Eq. 6. The defined elliptical area of the defect is bound by the projected
sizes of the plane perpendicular to the direction of the loading, in this
case the x-y plane, schematically shown in Fig. 5a. For 2 defects at the
fatigue initiation site, then the defect size is approximated as a combined
defect when the distance between the two defects is less than the defect
size of the larger defect (d < √Area2), as shown in Fig. 5b. Fatigue
initiating defects near the edge is approximated as a surface defect when
the distance to the free surface is less than the defect size (d < √Area1),
as shown in Fig. 5c.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Defect size = Area = π ×
projected x projected y
× (6)
2 2
2.4. Metallurgical characterisation
Selected fracture coupons were cross-sectioned using a Struers
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of Area calculations used for comparisons between µCT and fatigue/fracture analysis of the fatigue initiating defects.
5
Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986
The cut samples were then mounted and polished to a 0.1 µm surface
finish, with a final polishing step of OP-S (colloidal silica) solution. Some
of the samples were then etched using Kroll’s etchant (92% distilled
water, 6% Nitric Acid, 2% Hydrofluoric Acid) to reveal the micro­
structure. Each sample was immersed for 20 s in the etchant, then
submerged and rinsed using water. Images of the 2D defect distribution
and microstructure was captured using an Olympus GX53 optical mi­
croscope at 10x and 50x magnification with a resulting image pixel size
of 6.45 µm.
3. Results
3.1. Detectability limitation of defects using µCT vs SRµCT
Fig. 6 provides the morphologies of the detected defect from SRµCT
categorised into 6 different types of defect based on the shape factors of
sphericity and AR. Type-A is distinguished as flat and irregular shaped
LOF defect. Type-B is a transition to Type-C where the AR decreases,
moving from irregular LOF defects to elongated LOF defects. Type-D is a
mixture of rounded LOF defects, gas-porosity, and keyhole porosity.
Generally, gas-porosity and keyhole porosity consists of an AR and
sphericity close to 1. However, µCT calculated sphericity close to 1 do
not exist due to inaccuracy from pixelation effect. Type-E is a transition
to type F where the AR decreases, moving from spherical gas porosity to
elongated LOF defects.
The PoD results (Fig. 7) of µCT indicates, when compared to SRµCT,
is approximately 90% for defect diameters of 230 µm and above and
100% for defect diameters of 340 µm and above (i.e. 12–14 times the
S. Sun et al.
Fig. 6. Top view parellel projected 3D render of the morphologies of different types of void defects in L-PBF detected by SRµCT, catagorised based on sphericity and
aspect ratio.
Fig. 7. Probability of detection based on diameter of the defect of µCT at
17.77 µm voxel size, using SRµCT at 5.91 µm as a reference, from 5 cou­
pons analysed.
voxel size of the µCT scan). Fig. 8 shows smaller defect sizes of
approximately 50–150 µm (Type-D and Type E especially) are difficult
to detect. Spatial resolution is one of the key factor to the detectability of
defects. Generally feature resolution of size 3 times the voxel size is the
detectable limit to differentiate from noise particles. Therefore, a min­
imum feature size of 54 µm should be detectable for a µCT voxel size of
17.77 µm. However, this definition does not assure that all void defects
above the minimum feature size will be detected. For features (defects)
with irregular shapes, there are limited voxels within the defect to
produce the contrast difference between the defect and the surrounding
material. Therefore, it is difficult for automated threshold-based defect
6
Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986
detection algorithms to differentiate between void defects and noise
particles. Similar observations were reported in Sundar et al. [45] where
they showed that the µCT detectability rate was 100% when compared
to serial sectioned coupons for defect sizes of 70 µm and above, which is
about 11–12 times the voxel size (6.08 µm) of their µCT scan.
The type of defect is another key factor to the difficulty in detect­
ability of large size LOF defect. Fig. 8 shows most of the undetected
defects larger than 200 µm in diameter are Type-B and Type-C, which
indicates difficulty in detecting large flat or elongated defects. Fig. 9
shows most of the undetected large defects consisted of a low AR or a
low projected size Z. Flatness as indicated by the small projected size in
the build direction z. Fig. 9a shows an undetected defect with a large
diameter and high AR, but a very low projected size z, which indicates
these defects occupy the spatial resolution on the slice view of the build
(xy-plane), however do not occupy enough spatial resolution through
the build direction, therefore limiting the detection. Another limiting
factor is the elongated shape of defects that do not occupy enough
spatial resolution through the slice view of the build (xy-plane), as
shown in Fig. 9b, therefore also limiting the contrast to differentiate
between the void defects and noise particles.
Fig. 10a shows the diameter calculated using µCT is relatively ac­
curate when compared to SRuCT. The inaccuracy of diameters calcu­
lated from µCT are due to two factors: (1) The diameter calculated from
µCT is over estimated due to detection as one defect, when compared to
SRµCT detecting as two defects, as shown by the red arrows in Fig. 11.
(2) The diameter calculated from µCT is under-estimated as some re­
gions of the defect consisted of lower contrast due to limited spatial
resolution, hence only able to detect a portion of the defect, as high­
lighted by the blue circles in Fig. 11. Shape factor comparison shows the
µCT over estimates the sphericity (Fig. 10b), while a large scatter is
observed for the aspect ratio (Fig. 10c). The discrepancies may be linked
with the low resolution pixelation effect in the µCT images, when
compared to the higher resolution detailed images of the SRµCT.
S. Sun et al. Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986

Fig. 8. Violin plot showing the distribution of undetected and detected defects based on the type of defect at µCT at 17.77 µm voxel size, using SRµCT at 5.91 µm as a
reference. The data set plotted was from the SRµCT.

Fig. 9. 3D scatter plot of large diameter defects (>200 µm) detected by SRµCT but was undetected by µCT (a) flat LOF defect, and (b) elongated LOF defect.

Therefore, accuracy of the defect characterisation is limited by the
image quality and feature resolution. Improving the µCT scan quality,
such as increasing the frame average binning at the cost of scan time,
could increase the contrast difference between the defects and the noise
particles, hence improving the feature details.
3.2. µCT defect characterisation of fatigue coupons
Fig. 12 shows there is significant variability in the number of defects
and diameters from (1) machine to machine, and (2) coupon to coupon
from the same build plate. For instance, the SLM250-SL, coupon 1 has 79
defects detected, while coupon 2 on the same build plate has 15148
defects detected (Table 2). Most of the defects observed are Type-D and
Type-E, approximately 50–200 µm in diameter, as shown in Fig. 13. For
the SLM250-DL, larger diameter defects are observed, mostly Type-A
and Type-B, approximately 100–800 µm. Meanwhile, for the EOS-
M280 and Renishaw-AM400 builds, the build quality is significantly
higher. The EOS-M280 builds shows more consistency of defect

7
S. Sun et al.
Fig. 10. Calculated values of each detected defect of µCT at 17.77 µm voxel size
when compared to SRµCT at 5.91 µm (a) Diameter, (b) Sphericity, and (c)
Aspect ratio.
distribution from coupon to coupon across the same build plate,
although minor variability in the defect distribution still existed. For
instance, on the EOS-M280 builds, coupon 1 has approximately 233
defects, and coupon 4 on the same build plate has about 3 times more
defects, approximately 704 defects. The defect distribution in the EOS-
M280 builds is observed in a linear pattern spaced out about 5 mm, as
shown in Fig. 14, also known as linear stitch defects [32], which could
indicate LOF at the stripe boundaries. The defects are mostly Type-D and
Type-E in the range of 50–150 µm. Renishaw-AM400 coupons all have a
consistently higher build quality with very few defects detected mostly
Type-D and Type-E in the range of 100–200 µm.
8
Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986
Table 2 shows having a build quality with very few defects deter­
mined by µCT does not indicate good fatigue properties. For instance,
EOS-M280 coupon 1 consisted of a defect volume density of 0.0046%
and resulted in a very high fatigue life of a runout at 13,000,000 cycles.
Meanwhile, SLM250-SL coupon 1 consisted of a lower defect volume
density of 0.0019% resulted in a significantly lower fatigue life of
47,837 cycles.
3.3. Fatigue initiating defect detection limitations by µCT and SRµCT
Fractographic analysis of the fracture surfaces shows there are
different types of void defects that cause fatigue initiation, as shown in
Fig. 15 and Table 3. A large number of coupons initiated from different
types of LOF defects. SLM250-SL laser builds coupons 1, 2, and 3 initi­
ated from small shaped LOF defects (Fig. 15a) and is considered Type-E,
based on the shape factors determined by SRµCT (Fig. 6). While the
SLM250-DL builds all consisted of large irregular shaped defects with
unmelted particles trapped inside (all Type-A), as shown in Fig. 15b,
consistent with spatter related void defects [16,17]. The EOS-M280
builds initiated from small LOF defects (Type-D and Type-E), as shown
in Fig. 15c, highlighted red is the fatigue initiating defects, and blue is
the other internal defects that appeared in a linear pattern consistent
with the defect distribution shown in Fig. 14.
Coupon 1, 2 and 3 of Renishaw-AM400 builds and SLM250-SL laser
coupon 4 initiated from a defect that appears very flat with little or no
un-melted powder trapped within the defect. Based on the SEM images
in Fig. 15d, these LOF defects are distinguished by the irregular sharp
boundaries and distinctive ripple lined patterns with a few microns apart
within the defect. Similar morphologies were reported by Liu et al. [46],
who described them as LOF defects without trapped un-melted powder.
These fatigue initiating defects are all un-detected by both the µCT and
SRµCT, as shown in Figs. 16 and 17.
Coupon 4 from the Renishaw-AM400 builds initiated from a spher­
ical gas porosity (Type-D), as shown in Fig. 15d. The defect is detected
by SRµCT, however, is undetected by µCT due to the feature resolution
limitations of the µCT scan to be able to detect a defect of a 29 µm size.
The Murakami’s area parameter (√Area) is directly related to the
fatigue life, as shown in Fig. 16. Fatigue life increases with decreasing
√Area. However, other factors such as distance to surface and shape
factors could play an important role to predicting the fatigue life [27].
Fig. 16 also shows the critical √Area size at the surface is approximately
100 µm at 500 MPa stress level, where significant scatter in fatigue life is
observed. The effect of defect morphology and location on the fatigue
life is outside the scope of this study and hence are not detailed
addressed, but will be incorporated in the next study. Fig. 16 also shows
that compared to the fractographic analysis, most of the defects are
detected by µCT and SRµCT, with some discrepancy in the √Area. The
fatigue initiation caused by the undetected defects did not increase the
fatigue life.
Further examination of the present results in Fig. 18 shows that void
defects are observed from a polished surface of the SLM250-DL coupon
and very few defects for the Renishaw-AM400 coupon. However, after
etching the surface, both builds revealed dark elongated features (ar­
rows in Fig. 18 etched microstructure) that are all perpendicular to the
build direction, and are not microstructure related. These features could
be the undetected defects and are only observed after etching the surface
possibly from the etchant seeping out of crack-like features.
Based on Table 3, the √Area of the undetected defects measured by
fractographic analysis ranged from 85 to 130 µm, so the horizontal
spatial resolution is well within the detectable range, especially SRµCT.
However, interferometer measurement of the defect geometry of
Renishaw-AM400 Coupon 1 (Fig. 19a) confirmed the undetected defects
occupied very little spatial resolution through the build direction The
defect consisted of a flat region across most of the defect, and a narrow
void region with a width of ≈ 10 µm and a cavity depth of ≈ 12 µm,
which limited the detection. The other fatigue initiating LOF defects are
S. Sun et al. Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986

Fig. 11. Slice images showing the accuracy of detection by 17.77 µm µCT when compared to 5.91 µm SRµCT. (left) Raw scan images showing pixilation effect in the
µCT image where the SRµCT image clearly defines the features of the defect. (Right) after segmentation showing difficulty by µCT to detect as two defects (red arrow)
and missed detection of some regions of the defect (blue circle).

Fig. 12. Left: 3D render of the defect distribution using VGSTUDIO EzyPore analysis (µCT at 17.77 µm voxel size) of the gauge volumes of the dog-bone coupons.
Right: Kernel density estimation (KDE) comparison of the defect diameter distribution from each machine.

all detected by both the µCT and SRµCT as shown in Fig. 20. This can be
attributed to the larger dimension volume all across the defect, and
enough spatial resolution through the build direction, as shown in
Fig. 19b.

9
S. Sun et al. Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986

Table 2
Defect distribution comparison per coupon showing the resulting fatigue life, VGSTUDIO EzyPore analysis of number of defects, defect size (at 50 µm intervals), and
defect volume density. Note: defects were detected based on µCT at 17.77 µm voxel size, from the gauge volume in Fig. 12 from the four different Laser-PBF machines.
Defect volume density % = (Total volume of defects) / (Total gauge volume) x 100.
Coupon Number of Diameter, D (µm) Defect Volume Fatigue life
No. defects Density (%) (Cycles)
0- 50 - 100 - 150 - 200 - 250 - > 300
50 100 150 200 250 300

SLM250 SL 1 79 0 50 20 7 2 0 0 0.0019 47,837

2 15148 0 9895 4391 657 152 39 14 0.3077 39,682
3 9428 0 5740 2831 562 194 63 38 0.2309 36,371
4 420 0 261 111 32 13 2 1 0.0107 70,791
SLM250 DL 1 330 0 64 106 61 32 34 33 0.0386 27,097
2 3285 0 534 1032 682 370 251 416 0.4898 18,278
3 1272 0 300 378 219 126 96 153 0.1476 18,731
4 1139 0 225 294 195 102 81 242 0.1140 28,803
EOS M280 1 233 0 205 28 0 0 0 0 0.0046 Runout
@ 13000000
2 683 0 484 183 15 1 0 0 0.0182 1929,497
3 400 0 322 76 1 1 0 0 0.0100 Runout
@ 13000000
4 704 0 423 234 45 2 0 0 0.0247 101,732
Renishaw 1 17 0 6 4 2 4 0 1 0.0014 49,193
AM400 2 11 0 6 3 1 1 0 0 0.0004 75,394
3 12 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 0.0005 126,840
4 66 0 5 32 24 4 1 0 0.0049 7374,890

Fig. 13. Violin plot showing the defect distribution based on defect type within the gauge volume of the dog-bone coupons, from the detected defects of the µCT data
set at 17.77 µm voxel size.

4. Discussion
4.1. Defect variability in L-PBF
Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) prescribed default process
parameters generally result in builds with very few defects due to their
internal research and development on process optimisation. Based on
the results in our work, there was significant variability in the defect
distribution between vendor to vendor and coupon to coupon. It has
been well established that there are multitudes of synergising processing
parameters, coupon position on the build plate and gas flow circulation
that affect the defect distribution, each requiring careful attention. The
Renishaw-AM400 builds all resulted in very few defects, with some
variation in the defect distribution from coupon to coupon, which in­
dicates the inherent unpredictability and randomness of defect
formation. The EOS-M280 builds all resulted in LOF defects forming
along the stripe boundaries, which could be related to scan strategy
settings. On the other hand, the SLM250-SL and SLM250-DL builds
resulted in significantly higher defect distribution than expected. One
possible reason can be the quality assurance system of the vendor. Both
SLM250-SL and SLM250-DL were from the same vendor. As prescribed
by qualification standards for laser based AM systems for Aerospace
applications [47], internal quality assurance systems such as machine
calibration, software upgrades, material handling and operator training
can all affect build quality in L-PBF. At the time of manufacturing, the
vendor’s quality assurance system was not considered, and hence there
is a possibility this affected the build quality for vendor 1.
Interestingly, one of the key observations from this study was that all
local vendors of L-PBF machines adopt different qualification strategies.
For instance, powder preparation/handling procedures, standard

10
S. Sun et al. Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986

Fig. 14. Image from the reconstructed SRµCT showing a 2D slice view of the defect formation (black regions within the volume) of the coupons built using the four
different L-PBF machines. Note: Inherent rings are artefacts from the SRµCT scan. A larger size scale bar is shown for the Renishaw-AM400 coupon image due to the
smaller cross-section area as the coupon was CNC machined first, followed by SRµCT scan.

Fig. 15. SEM morphology of the fatigue initiating region on the fracture surface.

operation of the printing process, and post process support removal and
heat treatment, were all considered their own intellectual property. This
could impact the build stability and variability depending on the se­
lection of the local vendor. Improved data pedigree and on-going global
efforts for standard operating procedures, such as ASTM F2924 [48],
could minimise such variability between different local AM vendors. In
addition, technological advancement could also reduce the build vari­
ability significantly between coupon to coupon on the same build plate
due to research developments efforts by the L-PBF OEM in improving
powder handling, process stability and optimised gas flow control for
the new line of L-PBF machines.
4.2. Undetected fatigue initiating defects
The most important consideration for the acceptance of AM appli­
cations is the NDI detection capability of fatigue critical defects. This
study has shown that a very low defect volume density (<0.001%) does
not always result in a good fatigue life, which was primarily due to two
factors:
1. For builds with very low defect volume density, the unpredictability
and randomness of defect formation led to a critical size LOF defect
near the surface, resulting in pre-mature fatigue failure (for instance

11
S. Sun et al. Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986

Table 3
Comparison of fatigue life values and the detectability of the initiating fatigue defect from the four different Laser-PBF builds.
Coupon No. Fatigue life (Cycles) Fractography measured √Area (µm) Defect type µCT Detected by µCT? Detected by SRµCT?

SLM250 SL 1 47,837 112.9 Type-E Yes Yes

2 39,682 388.3 Type-E Yes Yes
3 36,371 112.0 Type-E Yes Yes
4 70,791 85.0 - No No
SLM250 DL 1 27,097 216.3 Type-A Yes Yes
2 18,278 388.3 Type-A Yes Yes
3 18,731 515.4 Type-A Yes Yes
4 28,803 337 Type-A Yes Yes
EOS M280 1 Runout @ 13000000 No initiating defect
2 1929,497 83.0 Type-D Yes Yes
3 Runout @ 13000000 No initiating defect
4 101,732 79.7 Type-E Yes Yes
Renishaw AM400 1 49,193 128.7 - No No
2 75,394 110.4 - No No
3 126,840 131.2 - No No
4 7374,890 28.9 Type-D No Yes

Fig. 16. Fatigue initiating defect morphology from µCT in relation to the defect size and fatigue life. Comparison of the measured defect size during fractography
when compared to µCT and SRµCT. For internal defects the measured distance of the defect from the point closest to the free edge, d was also represented. Fatigue
tests were performed at constant amplitude loads with 500 MPa peak stress and R= 0.1 stress ratio.

SLM250-SL coupon 1). This is the primary reason for the wide scatter
in fatigue lives reported in the literature [18–21], and hence indus­
trial µCT detection capabilities of fatigue initiating defects are crucial
for further developments in adopting AM into fatigue critical com­
ponents. For builds with very high defect volume density, the
probability for a critical size LOF defect to form near the surface is
very high, hence a low fatigue life is expected.
2. The large sized fatigue initiating defects that were undetectable by
both µCT and SRµCT (Fig. 17) was a major concern revealed by this
study. These defects were only observed after fatigue testing when
the fracture surface was revealed. It was anticipated that large flat
fatigue initiating defects would be undetected by µCT due to voxel
size limitations along the build direction (Fig. 9b). However, it was
not expected that such defects would also be undetected by SRµCT,
which indicates extremely flat LOF defects were formed in the builds.
Based on the interferometer results in our work (Fig. 19a), the
morphology of the undetected defects confirmed it was extremely flat
with very little or no spatial resolution through the build direction. Also
based on the fracture surface (Fig. 15d), the √Area and AR appears to be
very high, so it could be categorised as a Type-A defect with an
extremely low sphericity. The exact cause is yet to be determined, but
there is indication of LOF that was generated from localised instabilities
resulting in micron sized depth of un-melted regions.
Based on the literature, these types of defects are not new, as they
have been observed in both L-PBF and electron beam melting. Slit-
shaped defects were reported in Yadollahi et al. [49], and were only
observed after etching the surface. Zhang et al. [50] also reported de­
fects with the gap width ranging from ~100 to ~900 nm observed only
after HIP process. As-built coupons produced by electron beam melting
(EBM) also exhibited slit-shaped defects, similar to defect characteristics
shown on etched cross-section microscope images [51]. Günther et al.
[52] also reported similar LOF defects that were caused by local unstable
disturbances and are most critical in terms of fatigue life due to their

12
S. Sun et al. Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986

Fig. 17. Defect characterisation showing the defect distribution in red, registered fracture surface, information of the initiating defect location which were not
detected by a conventional µCT or SRµCT (a) Renishaw-AM400 Coupon 2 (b) Renishaw-AM400 Coupon 1.

Fig. 18. Further examination of optical microscope 2D characterisation of defects along the build orientation of a surface polished (0.1 µm finish) and etched surface
by Kroll’s etchant. The cross-section was cut from the fatigue coupons below the fracture surface.

high stress concentration. Pegues et al. [6] mentioned large LOF defects
that are very flat and could occur in builds with relatively good density.
They recommended increasing the energy density slightly to avoid flat
LOF defects.
Future work is required to characterise these extremely flat LOF
defects in details, and understand the cause and formation mechanism of
them. For instance via nano-resolution SRuCT, advanced serial
sectioning methods, and in-situ µCT fatigue testing. Based on our fatigue
results, these undetected large defects are critical because they are most
detrimental to the fatigue life, but are currently undetectable by µCT and
even high resolution SRµCT scans.
5. Conclusion
The capabilities and limitations of µCT to detect void defects for PBF
Ti-6Al-4 V builds were investigated. The following conclusions are
drawn:
1. The µCT at voxel size of 17.77 µm was able to detect 90% of defect
diameters of 230 µm and above and 100% of defect diameters of
320 µm and above (12-14 times the voxel size of the µCT scan), when
compared to ground truth of SRµCT scan at a voxel size of 5.91 µm.
2. The type of defect was a key factor to the detectability of large sized
defects (>200 µm in diameter). Elongated LOF defect do not occupy

13
S. Sun et al.
Fig. 19. Interferometer measurements of the fatigue initiating defect geometry (a) Renishaw-AM400 Coupon 2, (b) EOS-M280 Sample 2.
enough spatial resolution through the slice view of the build. Flat
defects with a high AR but a very low projected size z occupy the
spatial resolution on the slice view of the build (xy-planes), however
do not occupy enough spatial resolution through the build direction,
therefore also limiting the detection.
3. Using OEM prescribed default process parameters, there was signif­
icant variability in the defect distribution between machine to ma­
chine and also coupon to coupon that was on the same build plate. It
was likely the internal quality assurance procedures and scan
14
Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986
strategies adopted by each vendor was responsible for the major
variability in the defect distribution.
4. For some builds with very low defect volume density, the unpre­
dictability and randomness of defect formation led to a critical size
LOF defect near the surface, resulting in pre-mature fatigue failure.
5. The critical defect √Area at the surface was approximately 100 µm
at 500 MPa stress level, where significant scatter in fatigue life was
observed.
S. Sun et al. Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986

Fig. 20. Defect characterisation showing the defect distribution in red, registered fracture surface, information on the initiating defects detected by a conventional
µCT and SRµCT (a) SLM250-SL coupon 1 (b) EOS-M280 coupon 2 (c) SLM250-DL coupon 2 (d) SLM250-DL coupon 3.

6. Most fatigue initiating defects were all detectable by µCT at voxel
size of 17.77 µm even with a relatively poor image quality.
7. However, some large sized fatigue initiating LOF defects (√Area of
80 to 150 µm) were completely missed by both µCT and SRµCT. The
missed LOF defects were extremely flat in morphology and do not
occupy the spatial resolution through the build direction to be
detected even at SRµCT 5.91 µm.
8. This study has shown that a very good defect volume density
(<0.001%) determined by µCt at 17.77 µm voxel size does not al­
ways result in a good fatigue life, primarily due to undetected LOF
defects that were detrimental to the fatigue life.
Investigation, Conceptualization. Choi Yi Rye: Writing – review &
editing, Investigation, Conceptualization. Liu Qianchu: Writing – re­
view & editing, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Project adminis­
tration, Conceptualization. Donnelly Drew: Supervision, Project
administration, Data curation, Conceptualization.
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.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Data availability

Miller Jonathan D: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Super­

Data will be made available on request.
vision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology,
Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Sun
Acknowledgements
Stephen: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Valida­
tion, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation,
The authors acknowledged the financial support from Defence Sci­
Conceptualization. Turk Suzana: Writing – review & editing,
ence and Technology Group (DSTG) for the present work. The authors

15
S. Sun et al.
would like to acknowledge the contribution of DSTG colleagues (Mr.
Mark Harris and Mr. Dale Goldsmith) for fabricating the test coupons.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the contribution RMIT
Centre for additive Manufacturing (RCAM) and Amaero Pty Ltd for
fabricating the test coupons. The authors would also like to acknowledge
the contribution of the staff at the National Laboratory for X-ray Micro
Computed Tomography (CTLab) at the Australian National University
(ANU). The authors would also like to acknowledge the contribution
from the team at the Imaging and Medical beamline (IMBL) at the
Australian Synchrotron (Proposal No.16015 and 17366).
References
[1] R. Jones, R.K.S. Raman, A.P. Iliopoulos, J.G. Michopoulos, N. Phan, D. Peng,
Additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V replacement parts for military aircraft, Int. J.
Fatigue 124 (2019) 227–235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.02.041.
[2] M.C. Brennan, J.S. Keist, T.A. Palmer, Defects in metal additive manufacturing
processes, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 30 (2021) 4808–4818, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11665-021-05919-6.
[3] J.P. Oliveira, A.D. LaLonde, J. Ma, Processing parameters in laser powder bed
fusion metal additive manufacturing, Mater. Des. 193 (2020) 108762, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108762.
[4] A. du Plessis, Effects of process parameters on porosity in laser powder bed fusion
revealed by X-ray tomography, Addit. Manuf. 30 (2019) 100871, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.addma.2019.100871.
[5] H. Gong, K. Rafi, H. Gu, G.D. Janaki Ram, T. Starr, B. Stucker, Influence of defects
on mechanical properties of Ti–6Al–4V components produced by selective laser
melting and electron beam melting, Mater. Des. 86 (2015) 545–554, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.147.
[6] J.W. Pegues, S. Shao, N. Shamsaei, N. Sanaei, A. Fatemi, D.H. Warner, P. Li,
N. Phan, Fatigue of additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V, Part I: The effects of powder
feedstock, manufacturing, and post-process conditions on the resulting
microstructure and defects, Int. J. Fatigue 132 (2020) 105358, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.105358.
[7] G. Kasperovich, J. Haubrich, J. Gussone, G. Requena, Correlation between porosity
and processing parameters in TiAl6V4 produced by selective laser melting, Mater.
Des. 105 (2016) 160–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.05.070.
[8] R. Zhao, C. Chen, W. Wang, T. Cao, S. Shuai, S. Xu, T. Hu, H. Liao, J. Wang, Z. Ren,
On the role of volumetric energy density in the microstructure and mechanical
properties of laser powder bed fusion Ti-6Al-4V alloy, Addit. Manuf. 51 (2022)
102605, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2022.102605.
[9] N. Sanaei, A. Fatemi, Defects in additive manufactured metals and their effect on
fatigue performance: a state-of-the-art review, Prog. Mater. Sci. 117 (2021)
100724, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2020.100724.
[10] A. Poudel, M.S. Yasin, J. Ye, J. Liu, A. Vinel, S. Shao, N. Shamsaei, Feature-based
volumetric defect classification in metal additive manufacturing, Nat. Commun. 13
(2022) 6369, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34122-x.
[11] M. Bayat, A. Thanki, S. Mohanty, A. Witvrouw, S. Yang, J. Thorborg, N.S. Tiedje, J.
H. Hattel, Keyhole-induced porosities in Laser-based Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) of
Ti6Al4V: high-fidelity modelling and experimental validation, Addit. Manuf. 30
(2019) 100835, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100835.
[12] J.-B. Forien, N.P. Calta, P.J. DePond, G.M. Guss, T.T. Roehling, M.J. Matthews,
Detecting keyhole pore defects and monitoring process signatures during laser
powder bed fusion: a correlation between in situ pyrometry and ex situ X-ray
radiography, Addit. Manuf. 35 (2020) 101336, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2020.101336.
[13] M. Qu, Q. Guo, L.I. Escano, A. Nabaa, S.M.H. Hojjatzadeh, Z.A. Young, L. Chen,
Controlling process instability for defect lean metal additive manufacturing, Nat.
Commun. 13 (2022) 1079, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28649-2.
[14] J.V. Gordon, S.P. Narra, R.W. Cunningham, H. Liu, H. Chen, R.M. Suter, J.L. Beuth,
A.D. Rollett, Defect structure process maps for laser powder bed fusion additive
manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 36 (2020) 101552, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2020.101552.
[15] Z.A. Young, Q. Guo, N.D. Parab, C. Zhao, M. Qu, L.I. Escano, K. Fezzaa,
W. Everhart, T. Sun, L. Chen, Types of spatter and their features and formation
mechanisms in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process, Addit.
Manuf. 36 (2020) 101438, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101438.
[16] M. Taheri Andani, R. Dehghani, M.R. Karamooz-Ravari, R. Mirzaeifar, J. Ni,
Spatter formation in selective laser melting process using multi-laser technology,
Mater. Des. 131 (2017) 460–469, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.06.040.
[17] Z. Ji, Q. Han, A novel image feature descriptor for SLM spattering pattern
classification using a consumable camera, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 110 (2020)
2955–2976, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05995-3.
[18] E. Wycisk, S. Siddique, D. Herzog, F. Walther, C. Emmelmann, Fatigue
performance of laser additive manufactured Ti–6Al–4V in very high cycle fatigue
regime up to 109 cycles, Front. Mater. 2 (2015), https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmats.2015.00072.
[19] V.-D. Le, E. Pessard, F. Morel, S. Prigent, Fatigue behaviour of additively
manufactured Ti-6Al-4V alloy: the role of defects on scatter and statistical size
effect, Int. J. Fatigue 140 (2020) 105811, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2020.105811.
16
Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986
[20] P. Li, D.H. Warner, A. Fatemi, N. Phan, Critical assessment of the fatigue
performance of additively manufactured Ti–6Al–4V and perspective for future
research, Int. J. Fatigue 85 (2016) 130–143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2015.12.003.
[21] N. Sanaei, A. Fatemi, Analysis of the effect of internal defects on fatigue
performance of additive manufactured metals, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 785 (2020)
139385, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2020.139385.
[22] A. du Plessis, I. Yadroitsava, I. Yadroitsev, Effects of defects on mechanical
properties in metal additive manufacturing: a review focusing on X-ray
tomography insights, Mater. Des. 187 (2020) 108385, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2019.108385.
[23] N. Sanaei, A. Fatemi, N. Phan, Defect characteristics and analysis of their
variability in metal L-PBF additive manufacturing, Mater. Des. 182 (2019) 108091,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108091.
[24] I. Maskery, N.T. Aboulkhair, M.R. Corfield, C. Tuck, A.T. Clare, R.K. Leach, R.
D. Wildman, I.A. Ashcroft, R.J.M. Hague, Quantification and characterisation of
porosity in selectively laser melted Al–Si10–Mg using X-ray computed tomography,
Mater. Charact. 111 (2016) 193–204, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matchar.2015.12.001.
[25] R. Cunningham, A. Nicolas, J. Madsen, E. Fodran, E. Anagnostou, M.D. Sangid, A.
D. Rollett, Analyzing the effects of powder and post-processing on porosity and
properties of electron beam melted Ti-6Al-4V, Mater. Res. Lett. 5 (2017) 516–525,
https://doi.org/10.1080/21663831.2017.1340911.
[26] N. Nudelis, P. Mayr, Defect-based analysis of the laser powder bed fusion process
using X-ray data, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 123 (2022) 3223–3232, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00170-022-10407-9.
[27] Y. Nadot, Fatigue from defect: influence of size, type, position, morphology and
loading, Int. J. Fatigue 154 (2022) 106531, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2021.106531.
[28] S. Beretta, S. Romano, A comparison of fatigue strength sensitivity to defects for
materials manufactured by AM or traditional processes, Int. J. Fatigue 94 (2017)
178–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.06.020.
[29] S. Romano, A. Brandão, J. Gumpinger, M. Gschweitl, S. Beretta, Qualification of
AM parts: extreme value statistics applied to tomographic measurements, Mater.
Des. 131 (2017) 32–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.05.091.
[30] A. du Plessis, I. Yadroitsev, I. Yadroitsava, S.G. Le Roux, X-ray microcomputed
tomography in additive manufacturing: a review of the current technology and
applications, 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 5 (2018) 227–247, https://doi.org/10.1089/
3dp.2018.0060.
[31] A. du Plessis, S.G. le Roux, Standardized X-ray tomography testing of additively
manufactured parts: a round robin test, Addit. Manuf. 24 (2018) 125–136, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.09.014.
[32] K.S. Stopka, A. Desrosiers, T. Nicodemus, N. Krutz, A. Andreaco, M.D. Sangid,
Intentionally seeding pores in additively manufactured alloy 718: process
parameters, microstructure, defects, and fatigue, Addit. Manuf. 66 (2023) 103450,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2023.103450.
[33] Z. Guo, P. Ni, Y. Dai, W. Zhang, K. Huang, Measurement of small defect testing
accuracy in additive manufacturing alloy using industrial CT method, J. Phys.:
Conf. Ser. 1827 (2021) 012039, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1827/1/
012039.
[34] ASTM F3301–18a: Standard of Additive manufacturing - Post processing methods -
Stardard specification for thermal post processing metal parts made via powder
bed fusion. 2018. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/
10.1520/F3301–18A.
[35] ASTM E466-15, Standard practice for conducting force controlled constant
amplitude axial fatigue tests of metallic materials, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1520/E0466-15.
[36] H. Masuo, Y. Tanaka, S. Morokoshi, H. Yagura, T. Uchida, Y. Yamamoto,
Y. Murakami, Influence of defects, surface roughness and HIP on the fatigue
strength of Ti-6Al-4V manufactured by additive manufacturing, Int. J. Fatigue 117
(2018) 163–179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.07.020.
[37] R. Molaei, A. Fatemi, N. Sanaei, J. Pegues, N. Shamsaei, S. Shao, P. Li, D.H. Warner,
N. Phan, Fatigue of additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V, Part II: the relationship
between microstructure, material cyclic properties, and component performance,
Int. J. Fatigue 132 (2020) 105363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2019.105363.
[38] Y. Murakami, M. Endo, Effects of defects, inclusions and inhomogeneities on
fatigue strength, Int. J. Fatigue 16 (1994) 163–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/
0142-1123(94)90001-9.
[39] A.M. Kingston, G.R. Myers, S.J. Latham, B. Recur, H. Li, A.P. Sheppard, Space-
filling X-ray source trajectories for efficient scanning in large-angle cone-beam
computed tomography, IEEE Trans. Comput. Imaging 4 (2018) 447–458, https://
doi.org/10.1109/TCI.2018.2841202.
[40] C.V. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Yann Quinsat, Christophe Tournier, Influence of
resolution on the X-ray CT-based measurements of metallic AM lattice structures,
Weld. World (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-020-00920-4.
[41] G.R. Myers, A.M. Kingston, S.J. Latham, B. Recur, T. Li, M.L. Turner, L. Beeching,
A.P. Sheppard, Rapidly converging multigrid reconstruction of cone-beam
tomographic data, Dev. X-Ray Tomogr. X 9967 (2016) 99671M, https://doi.org/
10.1117/12.2238267.
[42] A.W. Stevenson, J.C. Crosbie, C.J. Hall, D. Hausermann, J. Livingstonea, J.E. Lyec,
Quantitative characterization of the X-ray beam at the Australian Synchrotron
Imaging and Medical Beamline (IMBL), J. Synchrotron Radiat. 24 (2016) 110–141,
https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577516015563.
S. Sun et al.
[43] T.E. Gureyev, Y. Nesterets, D. Ternovski, D. Thompson, S.W. Wilkins, A.
W. Stevenson, A. Sakellariou, J.A. Taylor, Toolbox for advanced X-ray image
processing, Proc. SPIE 8141 (2011) 14, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.893252.
[44] H. Wadell, Volume, shape, and roundness of rock particles, J. Geol. 40 (1932)
443–451, https://doi.org/10.1086/623964.
[45] V. Sundar, Z. Snow, J. Keist, G. Jones, R. Reed, E. Reutzel, Flaw identification in
additively manufactured parts using X-ray computed tomography and destructive
serial sectioning, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 30 (2021) 4958–4964, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11665-021-05567-w.
[46] Q. Liu, J. Elambasseril, S.J. Sun, M. Leary, M. Brandt, P.K. Sharp, The effect of
manufacturing defects on the fatigue behaviour of Ti-6Al-4V specimens fabricated
using selective laser melting, Adv. Mat. Res. 891-892 (2014) 1519–1524, https://
doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.891-892.1519.
[47] NASA-STD-6030: Additive Manufacturing requirements for spaceflight system.
2021. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 〈https://standards.nasa.
gov/standard/NASA/NASA-STD-6030〉.
17
Additive Manufacturing 81 (2024) 103986
[48] ASTM F2924-14R21, Standard specification for additive manufacturing titanium-6
aluminum-4 vanadium with powder bed fusion, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1520/F2924-14R21.
[49] A. Yadollahi, N. Shamsaei, S.M. Thompson, A. Elwany, L. Bian, Effects of building
orientation and heat treatment on fatigue behavior of selective laser melted 17-4
PH stainless steel, Int. J. Fatigue 94 (2017) 218–235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2016.03.014.
[50] B. Zhang, W.J. Meng, S. Shao, N. Phan, N. Shamsaei, Effect of heat treatments on
pore morphology and microstructure of laser additive manufactured parts, Mater.
Des. Process. Commun. 1 (2019) e29, https://doi.org/10.1002/mdp2.29.
[51] N. Hrabe, T. Gnäupel-Herold, T. Quinn, Fatigue properties of a titanium alloy
(Ti–6Al–4V) fabricated via electron beam melting (EBM): Effects of internal defects
and residual stress, Int. J. Fatigue 94 (2017) 202–210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2016.04.022.
[52] J. Günther, D. Krewerth, T. Lippmann, S. Leuders, T. Tröster, A. Weidner,
H. Biermann, T. Niendorf, Fatigue life of additively manufactured Ti–6Al–4V in the
very high cycle fatigue regime, Int. J. Fatigue 94 (2017) 236–245, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.05.018.