Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 3139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Full Length Article

Partitioning of laser energy during directed energy deposition


Frederick Lia a,b , Joshua Park a,c , Jay Tressler a , Richard Martukanitz a,
a
Center for Innovative Materials Processing through Direct Digital Deposition (CIMP-3D), Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University,
State College, PA 16801, United States
b
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16801, United States
c
Department of Engineering Science and Mechanic, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16801, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An energy balance that describes the transfer of energy is proposed for the laser-based directed energy
Received 11 November 2016 deposition process. The partitioning of laser energy was experimentally measured and accurately val-
Received in revised form 14 July 2017 idated using a special process calorimeter for Ti-6Al-4V and Inconel 625TM alloys. The total energy
Accepted 23 August 2017
provided by the laser was partitioned as: the energy directly absorbed by the substrate, the energy
absorbed by the powder stream and deposited onto the substrate, the energy reected from the substrate
Keywords:
surface, and the energy reected or absorbed and lost from the powder stream. Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V
Additive manufacturing
showed higher overall or bulk absorption than the Inconel 625TM alloy. Processing with powder resulted
Laser deposition
Ti-6Al-4V
in lower laser energy absorption within the substrate than without powder, due to the shadowing effect
Inconel 625 of the powder stream within the beam and loss of energy representing unfused powder. During process-
Laser energy absorption ing at a laser power of approximately 1 kW the total energy absorbed during the deposition process was
Calorimetry found to be 42% for the Ti-6Al-4V alloy and 37% for the Inconel 625TM alloy. Under these conditions 14%
of the total energy was lost by the Ti-6Al-4V unfused powder; whereas only 11% was lost by the Inconel
625TM powder.
2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction ow analysis, and an important aspect of the results was that a


small percentage of total absorbed energy from the laser welding
The absorption of energy is an important factor to consider process was actually used to melt material. Other researchers had
when modeling additive manufacturing (AM) processes, since it is also conducted experiments over a range of selected laser beam
responsible for initiating the thermal response of the material. The welding velocities to examine the resultant dimensionless param-
amount of energy absorbed will directly govern the resulting ther- eters and subsequent melting efciencies. Weld pool volumes were
mal proles throughout the part; therefore, the determination of estimated through curve tting polynomials to empirical data in
how energy is partitioned and utilized during the process is neces- the form of geometrical cross sections. These analyses had shown
sary for developing accurate thermal models, as well as providing that the energy absorbed during the laser beam welding process
insight for improving the efciency of the process. ranged between 16 and 65%, depending upon specic processing
Several prior studies have been conducted to determine energy conditions.
absorption and related phenomena in laser welding processes Similar experiments and analyses have also been applied to
[13]. Tadamalle et al. recently examined the effects of travel speed, the laser deposition process. Picasso et al. realized the imporan-
heat input, and other parameters on energy absorption and melt- tance of energy absorption in the creation of a simple but realistic
ing efciencies during laser welding [1]. This research examined model for laser cladding [4]. Their research involved a series of
how melting efciencies of 304L austenitic stainless steel varied laser cladding experiments in an attempt to generate a two-step
over a range of velocities during pulsed laser beam welding, and energy balance. Through the use of several processsing parame-
provided insight into the absorption phenomena that occurred dur- ter inputs and geometric melt pool assumptions, they were able
ing the welding process. Tadamalle, et al. also proposed the use to determine energy absorption values based on varying veloc-
of two dimensionless parameters derived from the Rosenthal heat ity and powder feed rates. Calorimetric experiments were utilized
for the powder bed fusion (PBF) process for measuring both Ti-
6Al-4V and Inconel 625TM [5,6]. The absoptivity of the powders
Corresponding author. were determinded by measuring the increased temperature of a
E-mail address: rxm44@psu.edu (R. Martukanitz). refractory metal under the pre-placed powder. The absoptivity of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.08.012
2214-8604/ 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.
0/).
32 F. Lia et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 3139

Fig. 1. Schematics showing the laser-based directed energy process and features of the process that are responsible for allocating energy for deposition, as well as energy
lost.

the pre-placed Ti-6Al-4V powder was 0.74 and the absorption of bulk is the energy lost during processing. Through
process, and QLOST
the pre-placed Inconel 625TM powder was found to be 0.67. Mar- process calorimetry experiments, the total energy absorbed may be
tukanitz et al. employed calorimetry to investigate the absorption directly measured and may be dened through the bulk absorption
phenomena during laser deposition with pre-placed powder using coefcient, :
a Nd:YAG laser with pure iron and Inconel 625TM powder at varing
bulk
QABS
powder thicknesses [7]. Their results showed the bulk absorption
= (2)
of the powder to be between 40 and 75% for the iron powder and QIN
between 45 and 75% for the Inconel 625TM , depending upong the
The total energy captured or lost during the process may be
powder layer thickness. A similar calorimetry experiment was used
further dened as:
to measure absorption for Inconel 625TM during the directed energy
deposition (DED) process by Wirth et al. [8]. The experiment was bulk substrate powder
QABS = QABS + QDEP (3)
conducted using a 6 kW high power diode laser and an absorp-
tion coefcient of 0.38 for Inconel 625TM was reported using an and
untreated substrate surface. They proposed an energy ux analysis bulk substrate powder
QLOST = QREF + QLOST (4)
for the laser-based DED process that included workpiece absorp-
tion, powder absorption or reection within the powderstream, substrate is the laser energy directly absorbed by the sub-
where QABS
and total reection representing the fused powder. However, this powder
research only distinguished the absoption coefcient for the work- strate, QDEP is the energy absorbed by the powder stream and
substrate is the laser energy reected
transported to the substrate, QREF
piece and the powder materials. Heigel et al. reported an estimated
powder
absoption coefcient of 0.45 for laser-based DED using Inconel from the substrate surface, and QLOST represents the energy
625TM powder while employing a 2.5 kW ytterbium ber laser, scan reected from the powder stream, energy lost due to evaporation,
speed of 10.6 mm/s, and powder feed rate of 19 g/min [9]. and energy lost due to unfused powder. The schematics shown in
Pinkerton and Li proposed an energy distribution model for the Fig. 1 illustrate the components of energy that result in the for-
laser deposition process [10] to describe partitioning of energy dur- mation of the deposit and heating of the substrate during laser
ing deposition of 316L stainless steel using an 800 W Nd:YAG laser. deposition, as well as energy lost during the process.
The results of their analytical model and experimentation indicated Utilizing Eqs. (1), (3), and (4), the complete energy balance may
that approximately 54% of the laser power was reected by the sub- be dened to describe partitioning of energy during the laser-based
strate, 30% was absorbed by the substrate, 11% was reected by the directed energy deposition process:
powder, 4% was lost due to dispersed powder, and only 1% could
substrate powder substrate powder
be attributed to the deposited powder. Pinkerton also explored the QIN = QABS + QDEP + QREF + QLOST (5)
interaction between a direct diode laser and the powder stream
The energy balance may also be formulated in terms of the ratio
during the directed energy deposition process [11]. The results of
of the individual components to the total energy input:
this investigation indicated the importance of powder tragectories
and retention time within the beam on the absorption phenomena, substrate
ABS + DEP
powder substrate
+ REF
powder
+ LOST =1 (6)
and supported earlier investigations that attempted to relate laser
power, powder ow rate, and particle size on energy absorption. where the respective coefcients represent the proportion of
energy either captured or lost by the powder and substrate. It
2. Energy absorption during direct energy deposition should be noted that the use of coefcients in Eq. (6) is useful to
dene the energy absorbed or reected from the substrate regard-
A simple energy balance may be used to generally describe the less of whether or not a powder stream is present within the
transfer of energy during the laser-based directed energy deposi- beam path. The presence of powder within the beam will decrease
tion process: the total laser energy to the substrate due to shadowing, and
bulk bulk the energy that passes through the powder stream will either be
QIN = QABS + QLOST (1)
absorbed or reected from the substrate and may be represented
where QIN is the total laser energy presented from the processing substrate and Q substrate , respectively. However, the proportion of
as QABS REF
bulk is the total energy absorbed during the
head to the substrate, QABS energy that is either absorbed or reected from the substrate should
F. Lia et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 3139 33

Fig. 2. General schematic of a process calorimetry experiment (Ref. [7]).

remain unchanged. Hence, the bulk absorption coefcient, , mea- Ti-6Al-4V and Inconel 625TM alloys. These experiments were con-
sured directly from process calorimetry experiments may be used ducted using powder fed into the beam, as well as using only
to dene the energy lost using Eqs. (2) and (6) when powder feeding the laser beam without powder. When powder was employed,
is employed and may be represented as: both substrate and powder for Inconel 625TM was used for the
powder powder
experiment; however, in the case of Ti-6Al-4V, the substrate was
substrate substrate
= ABS + DEP = 1 REF LOST (7) commercially pure titanium (CP Ti-2) and the powder was Ti-6Al-
Conversely, when no powder is employed the absorption coef- 4V alloy. These substrate materials were also used when no powder
cient may be described by: was employed.
The powder materials used for the experiments were produced
substrate substrate
= ABS = 1 REF (8) having a 100/+325 mesh size. Spherical Ti-6Al-4V powder, shown
in Fig. 3a, was acquired from Phelly Materials and represented
The relationships shown above may be utilized with results from a mean particle size of 127 m (d10 = 77 m and d90 = 187 m).
relatively simple calorimetry experiments to estimate the parti- Spherical Inconel 625TM powder, shown in Fig. 3b, was purchased
tioning of energy during the laser-based directed energy deposition from Allegheny Technologies Incorporated and had a mean particle
process. size of 103 m (d10 = 53 m and d90 = 168 m).
Cylindrical tubing having an outer diameter of 12.7 mm and a
3. Experiment procedures wall thicknesses of 1 mm for the CP Ti-2 and Inconel 625TM was
utilized. The tubing length for the experiments was 15 cm, and
Process calorimetry experiments may be used to measure the approximately 12 cm of the tubing was attened to approximately
amount of total energy absorbed during the deposition process. 9.5 mm using a hydraulic press to achieve a relatively at surface
A description of process calorimetry has been discussed previ- for processing. Water was chosen as the calorimetry uid, due to
ously by Martukanitz et al. [7]. For these experiments the process its well-known physical properties and ow characteristics. Rub-
calorimeter utilized tubing representing the substrate material ber stoppers 12.7 mm in outer diameter with 3.2 mm through holes
with a known water ow rate to measure the amount of energy were inserted into the ends of each tubing-substrate to provide a
absorbed by the change in water temperature between the inlet tight seal for the water ow. The rubber stoppers, at the inlet and
and outlet. A general schematic of the process calorimeter is shown outlet, were tted with 3.2 mm stainless steel nozzles used to con-
in Fig. 2. During processing with the calorimeter, specic process nect the outlet to a polybutylene and brass push-to-connect tting
parameters that are of interest may be employed. Based on the total that was drilled to accept three K-type thermocouples at the center
energy leaving the laser processing head, which is also measured of the tting. The inlet and outlet ttings were also connected to
to account for losses in the optical delivery system, and the amount plastic tubing that served to provide chilled ice water from an reser-
of energy that is absorbed by process calorimetry, dened by the voir that was pumped through the calorimeter using a Lytron MCS
absorption coefcient, , may be determined using Eq. (2). pump and collected within an output reservoir. Although the pump
Calorimetry experiments were conducted to determine the rate was held constant, actual ow rate through the calorimeter was
amount of energy that was absorbed by the substrate during laser- measured before and after each experiment and recorded.
based directed energy deposition for two material representing

Fig. 3. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of the powder materials used during the experiments: (a) Ti-6Al-4V (b) Inconel 625TM .
34 F. Lia et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 3139

Fig. 4. Photograph of process calorimeter employing Inconel 625TM tubing.

Table 1
Processing conditions used during the calorimetry experiments.

Material Laser Power Measured Laser Laser Beam Travel Powder Shielding Gas Powder Feed
Setting Power Diameter Speed Feed Rate Flow Rate Gas Flow Rate
(W) (W) (mm) (mm/s) (g/min) (l/min) (l/min)

Ti-6Al-4V No Powder 1000 940 4 10.6 0 9.5 9.5


Ti-6Al-4V With Powder 1000 940 4 10.6 13 9.5 9.5
Ti-6Al-4V With Powder 1500 1360 4 10.6 13 9.5 9.5
Ti-6Al-4V With Powder 2000 1780 4 10.6 13 9.5 9.5
Inconel 625 No Powder 1000 940 4 10.6 0 9.5 9.5
Inconel 625 With Powder 1000 940 4 10.6 18 9.5 9.5

A mounting bracket was used to fasten the calorimetry tub- the variability of the measured data, and two experiments were
ing in the processing chamber, while also minimizing surface heat performed when powder was not utilized to estimate the variance.
losses from the tubing through the use of berglass insulation. In To assess the total energy provided by the powder captured in
addition to the berglass insulation that was cut and tted into the deposit, the weight of the deposited material was measured by
the aluminum bracket, a berglass blanket attached to and trail- weighing the tubing-substrate before and after experiments when
ing the processing head was utilized to continually cover the tube powder was employed.
calorimeter during processing. Inlet and outlet water temperatures
at the polybutylene and brass push-to-connect tube ttings were 4. Results & discussion
continually measured using a National Instruments Ni9213 DAQ
data acquisition system at a rate of 60 Hz. The three temperatures Experimental results of the process calorimeter represented the
for each of the inlet and outlet tting were averaged and the dif- difference in water temperatures at the calorimeter inlet and out-
ference between the outlet and inlet temperatures was recorded. let. Fig. 5 shows one of the experimental results for Ti-6Al-4V alloy
A photograph of the tubing calorimeter prior to experimentation is that had been processed at 1 kW laser power with powder. Total
shown in Fig. 4. energy absorbed, QABS bulk , was calculated by difference numerically
Using the process calorimeter arrangement described above, integrating the difference in inlet and outlet temperature. The aver-
laser processing experiments were conducted using an IPG Model age values for measured absorbed energy during the experiments
YLR-12000-C ytterbium ber laser having a characteristic wave- are shown in Table 2, and Fig. 6 graphical illustrates the results. The
length of 1070 nm and utilizing a 200 m diameter ber optic laser energy dened in Table 2 represent the power presented to the
delivery system to a Precitec Model YW50 processing head employ- tubing-substrate over the time required to complete the process,
ing a 192 mm focal length. The laser beam was defocused by placing and thus, is shown in joules. The absorbed energy was measured
the substrate below the focal position to obtain a 4 mm spot size of directly from calorimetry measurements based on energy required
the defocused beam. The laser was set to provide 1000, 1500, and to heat the water. The bulk absorption coefcient was calculated
2000 W of power outputs during the experiments, and an Ophir based on the measured data using Eq. (2). The values obtained for
Photonics Model 774258A power meter was used to measure the all of the replicated experimental runs were utilized to determine
actual power being presented to the tubing-substrate. Experiments the standard deviation (Std. Dev.) for the bulk absorption coef-
were conducted by depositing the Ti-6Al-4V or Inconel 625TM cient, , and the measured mass of the deposit, when powder was
powder onto the tubing-substrate that comprised the calorime- utilized.
ter at powder ow rates of 13 g/min and 18 g/min, respectively. A The experiments utilizing the CP Ti-2 tubing-substrate and the
glove box containing an argon gas environment through continu- Ti-6Al-4V powder resulted in average absorption coefcients of
ous purging at 9.5 l/min was used during processing. Argon gas was between 0.37 and 0.42, depending upon the laser power. The results
also provided through the processing nozzle at a rate of 9.5 l/min, of the titanium experiments with powder appeared to indicate
and argon carrier gas at a rate of 9.5 l/min was used to assist powder a downward trend for the absorption coefcient with increasing
feeding. As mentioned earlier, experiments were conducted with power. When the CP Ti-2 material was irradiated without powder,
and without powder. The majority of the experiments were con- the average absorption coefcients was found to be 0.51. The exper-
ducted using 940 W presented to the tubing-substrate; however, iments conducted using the laser power of 940 W presented to
a limited number of experiments were conducted with the CP Ti- the tubing-substrate enabled the comparison for absorption at this
2 tubing and Ti-6Al-4V powder at 1360 and 1780 W to ascertain power between the Ti-6Al-4V and Inconel 625TM alloys. As shown
the effect of power on absorption. Shown in Table 1 are the exper- in the gure, the Ti-6Al-4V alloy exhibited higher absorption than
imental parameters for each condition. Three experiments were the Inconel 625TM alloy when powder or no powder was employed.
conducted for each condition when powder was employed to assess For both materials, a higher bulk absorption was observed when
powder was not introduced when compared to processing with
F. Lia et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 3139 35

Fig. 5. Experiment result of the process calorimetry for Ti-6Al-4V at 1 kW laser power processed with powder.

Table 2
Results of calorimetry measurements for total energy absorbed and the bulk absorption coefcient.

Material Laser Laser Total Absorbed Bulk Absorption Std. Dev. for Mass of Std. Dev. for
Power Energy Energy Coefcient Absorption Deposit Mass
(W) (J) (J) () (g)

Ti-6Al-4V No Powder 940 9033 4576 0.51 0.02 0 0


Ti-6Al-4V With Powder 940 8817 3682 0.42 0.01 1.05 0.03
Ti-6Al-4V With Powder 1360 13,320 4913 0.37 0.01 1.25 0.13
Ti-6Al-4V With Powder 1780 17,000 6625 0.39 0.01 1.38 0.12
Inconel 625 No Powder 940 8939 3707 0.41 0.04 0 0
Inconel 625 With Powder 940 8982 3329 0.37 0.01 1.02 0.07

Fig. 6. Energy absorption coefcients in terms of the actual laser power utilized during the experiments for the titanium and Inconel 625TM material.

powder. The lower measured absorption when powder was uti- The amount of energy representing the fused powder may be
lized is believed to be due to the loss of energy from a portion of the estimated based on the relationship [2,5,12]:
powder that was heated within the beam but not fused to the sub-
powder
strate. This loss of energy would represent the parameter LOST
in Eqs. (7) and (8). powder
QDEP = mCp  T (9)
36 F. Lia et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 3139

Table 3
Results of the energy distribution from the laser energy input.

Material Energy Absorption Energy Lost


powder powder
QInput QDEP Qsubstrate
ABS Qsubstrate
REF QLOST
(J) (J) (J) (J) (J)

Ti-6Al-4V 9033 0 4576 4457 0


1 kW, no powder
Ti-6Al-4V 8817 889 2793 3893 1242
1 kW, with powder
Ti-6Al-4V 13,320 1040 3873 6629 1778
1.5 kW, with powder
Ti-6Al-4V 17,000 1172 5453 8543 1832
2 kW, with powder
Inconel 625 8939 0 3707 5232 0
1 kW, no powder
Inconel 625 8982 557 2772 4706 947
1 kW, with powder

where m is the mass of the deposit, Cp is the specic heat of the pow- powder
powder, DEP , Eq. (7) may be used to estimate the nal coef-
der material, and T is the change in temperature of the material. cient expressing the amount of energy from the unfused powder,
If it is assumed that all of the powder that was fused to the sub- powder
LOST . Data representing the measured and calculated energies,
strate reached the initial melting temperature of the material, T as well as the measured and calculated coefcients, based on this
may be approximated by the difference between the solidus tem- analysis is shown in Tables 3 and 4. Fig. 7 represents a graphical
perature and ambient temperature. Utilizing the measurements for representation of the various partitioning coefcients from Table 4
the increased mass obtained during the deposition experiments, for both materials at the lower energy levels, which were 8817 J for
powder
QDEP was determined using the above method. The proportion the titanium and 8982 J for the Inconel 625TM .
of energy captured and deposited by the powder, which may also be The values for the energy absorption coefcients shown in
represented by the absorption coefcient for the deposited powder, Table 4 signify the proportion of energy absorbed for the respective
powder
DEP , may be dene through: sources, and dene the partitioning of the laser energy for the pro-
powder
cess. In viewing the data of Table 4, the fraction of energy absorbed
powder QDEP on the substrate decreases with the introduction of either the Ti-
DEP = (10)
QIN 6Al-4V or Inconel 625TM powder. This was undoubtedly due to a
With the additional information regarding the amount of energy portion of the laser energy being captured by the powder stream.
representing the powder that was deposited, Eqs. (7) and (8) may This phenomenon is illustrated in Fig. 1 which shows the shad-
be employed to determine the complete partitioning of energy for owing effect of the powder stream within the beam. Whereas, the
the process. Utilizing the experiments conducted without powder, fraction of energy that is absorbed or reected on the substrate
the amount of energy directly absorbed by the substrate, ABSsubstrate , remains relatively constant, the total energy reaching the substrate
was measured. Eq. (8) also provided the ratio of energy lost due is decreased. This observation also indicates that alterations to the
substrate . Knowing these values,
to reection from the substrate, REF powder volume within the stream, such as changes in mass ow
along with the estimated absorption coefcient to heat and fuse rate or positioning of the powder stream to the beam, may impact

Fig. 7. Partitioning coefcients for the titanium and Inconel deposits with powder at the lower power level (1 kW).
F. Lia et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 3139 37

Table 4
Results of individual absorption coefcients.

Material Energy Absorption Coefcients


powder substrate substrate powder
QInput (J) DEP ABS REF LOST

Ti-6Al-4V 9033 0 0.51 0.49 0


1 kW, no powder
Ti-6Al-4V 8817 0.10 0.32 0.44 0.14
1 kW, with powder
Ti-6Al-4V 13,320 0.08 0.29 0.50 0.13
1.5 kW, with powder
Ti-6Al-4V 17,000 0.07 0.32 0.50 0.11
2 kW, with powder
Inconel 625 8939 0 0.41 0.59 0
1 kW, no powder
Inconel 625 8982 0.06 0.31 0.52 0.11
1 kW, with powder

this value. Conditions that result in greater powder volume within alloy systems. Calorimetry was conducted during deposition exper-
the beam will reduce the amount of energy absorbed on the surface iments with and without powder additions. The results of the
of the substrate. experiments performed without powder provided a direct mea-
Viewing the coefcients for when powder was utilized indi- surement of the amount of laser energy absorbed and reected from
cated other trends of interest. For the Ti-6Al-4V material, which the substrate. Experiments were also conducted when powder was
was the only material evaluated at various laser energies, increas- employed to determine the quantity of laser energy absorbed by
ing the laser energy resulted in a notable decrease in the fraction of the powder and captured by the deposit, and these experiments
energy absorbed by the powder; although, the total amount of pow- were augmented by measuring the mass of powder deposited and
der contributed to the deposit increased (Table 2). A 93% increase estimating the energy required to melt this material. Based upon
in laser energy from 8817 J to 17,000 for depositing the titanium the results of these experiments, quantitative values were derived
powder on the titanium substrate decrease the energy provided by to describe the partitioning of laser energy under these processing
powder
the deposited powder, DEP , by 30%. Although not as evident as conditions.
energy absorbed by the powder, the fraction of energy lost by the The results of the analysis indicated that greater energy was
powder also appeared to increase with increasing laser energy. A absorbed during the laser process when powder was not employed.
partial explanation for this may be explained by lower fractions The lower absorbed energy observed during the use of powder was
of powder being captured in the deposit at higher laser energy due to the energy reected from the powder within the laser beam
due to higher temperatures and greater recoil forces, which would and the energy removed from the system when powder was not
increase expulsion from the melt pool. It was also observed that fused to the substrate. Absorption of laser energy with or without
increased laser energy appeared to exhibit little effect on the frac- powder was found to be approximately 15% greater for titanium
tion of energy directly captured or reected by the substrate. Based than the Inconel 625TM alloy, and may be attributed to the higher
on these observations, it may be warranted to explore alternate optical absorption of titanium at the 1070 nm wavelength when
parameters besides laser energy for improving process efciency compared to the nickel alloy. During deposition of both powders the
of directed energy deposition; however, it must also be stated that total amount of laser energy absorbed by the deposit and substrate
the effect of increasing mass ow rate with a concomitant increase was found to be approximately 40%, with slightly higher values
in laser energy was not evaluated. for titanium. Conversely, the energy lost was found to be approx-
When viewing the partitioning coefcients for both materials imately 60%, with marginally greater energy lost with the Inconel
when powder was used at the lower laser energy levels, 8817 J for 625TM .
the titanium and 8939 J for the Inconel, the approximate apportion-
ing of laser energy may be compared. This is graphically illustrated Acknowledgement
in Fig. 6. For both materials. The amount of energy captured by
the substrate in both cases was approximately 30%. The fraction of The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the
energy reected by the Inconel was found to be higher than that Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for partial funding of
of the titanium. The difference in reected energy may likely be this work under award N00014-12-1-0840. The views, opinions
attributed to the spectral reectivity of both titanium and nickel. and/or ndings expressed are those of the author and should not
At a wavelength of 1070 nm, which represents the ytterbium laser be interpreted as representing the ofcial views or policies of the
used during the investigation, titanium has an optical reectivity of Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
70%, while nickel has an optical reectivity of 74% [13]. The lower
reectivity of the titanium agrees with the trend observed in the Appendix A. Process Parameters and Measured
results of this research, since the bare titanium substrates demon- Experimental Data Used for Calculation of Absorption
strated higher absorption than that of the Inconel 625TM substrates. Coefcients

5. Conclusions Process Parameters and Measured Experimental Data Used for


Calculation of Absorption Coefcients
A process calorimeter was utilized to measure the amount of
energy absorbed during laser-based directed energy deposition See Tables A1A4
between 1 and 2 kW of laser power for titanium and Inconel 625TM
38 F. Lia et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 3139

Table A1
Measured process parameters used during calorimetry experiments for titanium alloys.

Ti-6Al-4V Laser Power Laser Duration Deposited Weight Mass Flow Rate Specic Heat Capacity Total T*t
(W) (s) (g) (g/s) (J/g C) ( C*s)

1 kW, no powder 940 9.65 0 69.17 4.202 16.40


1 kW, no powder 940 9.57 0 67.09 4.202 15.70
Average 940 9.61 0 68.13 4.202 16.05
Std. Dev. 0 0.06 0 1.47 0 0.50

1 kW, with powder 940 9.42 1.08 53.39 4.202 16.36


1 kW, with powder 940 9.38 1.02 54.77 4.202 16.38
1 kW, with powder 940 9.33 1.05 52.18 4.202 16.45
Average 940 9.38 1.05 53.44 4.202 16.40
Std. Dev. 0 0.04 0.03 1.29 0 0.04

1.5 kW, with powder 1360 9.78 1.15 24.30 4.202 46.59
1.5 kW, with powder 1360 9.77 1.40 24.85 4.202 47.62
1.5 kW, with powder 1360 9.83 1.20 25.09 4.202 48.08
Average 1360 9.79 1.25 24.75 4.202 47.43
Std. Dev. 0 0.03 0.13 0.40 0 0.76

2 kW, with powder 1780 9.53 1.52 56.28 4.202 29.03


2 kW, with powder 1780 9.60 1.30 55.51 4.202 28.43
2 kW, with powder 1780 9.52 1.32 53.62 4.202 28.69
Average 1780 9.55 1.38 55.14 4.202 28.72
Std. Dev. 0 0.04 0.12 1.37 0 0.30

Table A2
Measured process parameters used during calorimetry experiments for Inconel 625TM .

Inconel 625 Laser Power Laser Duration Deposited Weight Mass Flow Rate Specic Heat Capacity Total T*t
(W) (s) (g) (g/s) (J/g C) ( C*s)

1 kW, no powder 940 9.50 0 70.31 4.202 13.31


1 kW, no powder 940 9.52 0 71.68 4.202 11.56
Average 940 9.51 0 70.99 4.202 12.44
Std. Dev. 0 0.01 0 0.97 0 1.24

1 kW, with powder 940 9.47 0.99 35.89 4.202 21.57


1 kW, with powder 940 9.58 1.10 36.08 4.202 21.58
1 kW, with powder 940 9.62 0.99 35.04 4.202 23.51
Average 940 9.56 1.02 35.67 4.202 22.22
Std. Dev. 0 0.08 0.07 0.56 0 1.12

Table A3
Values for energy balance calculations for titanium alloys.

Ti-6Al-4V Qlaser Total Qtube Q Powder Deposited Q Substrate Absorbed Q Substrate Reected Q Powder Loss
(J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J)

1 kW, no powder 9072 4747 0 4747 4325 0


1 kW, no powder 8994 4406 0 4406 4588 0
Average 9033 4576 0 4576 4457 0
Std. Dev. 55 241 0 241 186 0

1 kW, with powder 8855 3671 915 2756 3892 1292


1 kW, with powder 8821 3769 863 2906 3895 1157
1 kW, with powder 8774 3606 890 2716 3892 1276
Average 8817 3682 889 2793 3893 1242
Std. Dev. 41 82 26 100 2 74

1.5 kW, with powder 13306 4737 959 3778 6834 1735
1.5 kW, with powder 13282 4954 1163 3790 6372 1956
1.5 kW, with powder 13373 5047 996 4051 6683 1643
Average 13320 4913 1040 3873 6629 1778
Std. Dev. 47 159 109 154 235 161

2 kW, with powder 16971 6834 1294 5541 8218 1919


2 kW, with powder 17090 6602 1101 5501 8738 1750
2 kW, with powder 16938 6438 1121 5317 8672 1828
Average 17000 6625 1172 5453 8543 1832
Std. Dev. 80 199 106 119 283 85
F. Lia et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 3139 39

Table A4
Values for energy balance calculations for Inconel 625TM .

Inconel 625 Qlaser Total Qtube Q Powder Deposited Q Substrate Absorbed Q Substrate Reected Q Powder Loss
(J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J)

1 kW, no powder 8931 3932 0 3932 4999 0


1 kW, no powder 8947 3482 0 3482 5465 0
Average 8939 3707 0 3707 5232 0
Std. Dev. 11 318 0 318 330 0

1 kW, with powder 8899 3254 536 2718 4716 930


1 kW, with powder 9008 3272 598 2674 4688 1048
1 kW, with powder 9039 3461 536 2925 4715 863
Average 8982 3329 557 2772 4706 947
Std. Dev. 74 115 36 134 16 94

References of Lasers & Electro-Optics, vol. 97, Laser Institute of America, 2004, pp.
14041409.
[1] A. Tadamalle, Y. Reddy, E. Ramjee, V. Reddy, Inuence of welding speed on [8] F. Wirth, D. Eisenbarth, K. Wegener, Absorptivity measurements and heat
melting efciency of laser welding, Adv. Prod. Eng. Manage. 8 (1) (2013) source modeling to simulate laser cladding, Phys. Procedia 83 (2016)
5260. 14241434.
[2] P.W. Fuerschbach, D.O. McCollum, Variation of laser energy transfer efciency [9] J.C. Heigel, M.F. Gouge, P. Michaleris, T.A. Palmer, Selection of powder or wire

with weld pool depth, in: Sandia National Laboratories, Conf. 9511146-1, feedstock material for the laser cladding of Inconel 625, J. Mater. Process.
SAND095-2493C, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1995, pp. 17, 87185-0340. Technol. 231 (2016) 357365.
[3] A.K. Nath, R. Sridhar, P. Ganesh, R. Kaul, Laser power coupling efciency in [10] A.J. Pinkerton, L. Li, An analytical model of energy distribution in laser direct
conduction and keyhole welding of austenitic stainless steel, Sadhana 27 (Part metal deposition, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B: J. Eng. Manuf. 218 (2004)
3) (2002) 383392. 363374.
[4] M. Picasso, C. Marsden, J.D. Wagniere, A. Frenk, M. Rappaz, A simple but [11] A.J. Pinkerton, An analytical model of beam attenuation and powder heating
realistic model for laser cladding, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 25B (1994) 281291. during coaxial laser direct metal deposition, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 40 (2007)
[5] A. Rubenchik, S. Wu, S. Mitchell, I. Golosker, M. LeBlanc, N. Peterson, Direct 73237334.
measurements of temperature-dependent laser absorptivity of metal [12] V. Giuliani, R.J. Hugo, P. Gu, Powder particle temperature distribution in laser
powders, Appl. Opt. 54 (24) (2015) 72307233. deposition technologies, Rapid Prototyp. J. 15 (4) (2009) 244254.
[6] C.D. Boley, S.C. Mitchell, A.M. Rubenchik, S.S.Q. Wu, Metal powder [13] P. Fisher, V. Romano, H.P. Weber, N.P. Karapatis, E. Boillat, R. Glardon,
absorptivity: modeling and experiment, Appl. Opt. 55 (23) (2016) 64966500. Sintering of a commercially pure titanium powder with a Nd:YAG laser
[7] R.P. Martukanitz, R.M. Melnychuk, S.M. Copley, Dynamic absorption of a source, Acta Mater. 51 (2003) 16511662.
powder layer Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on Applications

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen