Research Papers

On Process Temperature in Powder-Bed Electron Beam Additive Manufacturing: Process Parameter Effects

[+] Author and Article Information
Steven Price, Bo Cheng

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487

James Lydon, Kenneth Cooper

Additive Manufacturing Laboratory,
Marshall Space Flight Center,
Huntsville, AL 35812

Kevin Chou

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
e-mail: kchou@eng.ua.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received April 15, 2014; final manuscript received August 31, 2014; published online October 24, 2014. Assoc. Editor: David L. Bourell.

This material is declared a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 136(6), 061019 (Oct 24, 2014) (10 pages) Paper No: MANU-14-1218; doi: 10.1115/1.4028485 History: Received April 15, 2014; Revised August 31, 2014

Build part certification has been one of the primary roadblocks for effective usage and broader applications of metal additive manufacturing (AM) technologies including powder-bed electron beam additive manufacturing (EBAM). Process sensitivity to operating parameters, among others such as powder stock variations, is one major source of property scattering in EBAM parts. Thus, it is important to establish quantitative relations between the process parameters and process thermal characteristics that are closely correlated with the AM part properties. In this study, the experimental techniques, fabrications, and temperature measurements, developed in recent work (Cheng et al., 2014, "On Process Temperature in Powder-Bed Electron Beam Additive Manufacturing: Model Development and Experimental Validation," ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., (in press)) were applied to investigate the process parameter effects on the thermal characteristics in EBAM with Ti-6Al-4 V powder, using the system-specific setting called “speed function (SF)” index that controls the beam speed and the beam current during a build. EBAM parts were fabricated using different levels of SF index (20–65) and examined in the part surface morphology and microstructures. In addition, process temperatures were measured by near infrared (NIR) thermography with further analysis of the temperature profiles and the melt pool size. The thermal model, also developed in recent work, was further employed for EBAM temperature predictions, and then compared with the experimental results. The major results are summarized as follows. SF index noticeably affects the thermal characteristics in EBAM, e.g., a melt pool length of 1.72 mm and 1.26 mm for SF20 and SF65, respectively, at 24.43 mm build height. SF setting also strongly affects the EBAM part quality including the surface morphology, surface roughness and part microstructures. In general, a higher SF index tends to produce parts of rougher surfaces with more pore features and large β grain columnar widths. Increasing the beam speed will reduce the peak temperatures, also reduce the melt pool sizes. Simulations conducted to evaluate the beam speed effects are in reasonable agreement compared to the experimental measurements in temperatures and melt pools sizes. However, the results of a lower SF case, SF20, show larger differences between the simulations and the experiments, about 58% for the melt pool size. Moreover, the higher the beam current, the higher the peak process temperatures, also the larger the melt pool. On the other hand, increasing the beam diameter monotonically decreases the peak temperature and the melt pool length.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Jurren, K., ed., 2012, Workshop of Measurement Science Roadmap for Metal-Base Additive Manufacturing , NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.
Mahamood, R. M., Akinlabi, E. T., Shukla, M., and Pityana, S., 2013, “Characterizing the Effect of Laser Power Density on Microstructure, Microhardness, and Surface Finish of Laser Deposited Titanium Alloy,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 135(6), p. 064502. [CrossRef]
Zhao, H., Zhang, G., Yin, Z., and Wu, L., 2013, “Effects of Interpass Idle Time on Thermal Stresses in Multipass Multilayer Weld-Based Rapid Prototyping,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 135(1), p. 011016. [CrossRef]
Zäh, M. F., and Lutzmann, S., 2010, “Modeling and Simulation of Electron Beam Melting,” Prod. Eng., Res. Dev., 4(1), pp. 15–23. [CrossRef]
Zäh, M. F., and Kahnert, M., 2009, “The Effect of Scanning Strategies on Electron Beam Sintering,” Prod. Eng., 3(3), pp. 217–224. [CrossRef]
Jamshidinia, M., Kong, F., and Kovacevic, R., 2013, “Numerical Modeling of Heat Distribution in the Electron Beam Melting® of Ti-6Al-4V,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 135(6), p. 061010. [CrossRef]
Gong, H., Rafi, K., Starr, T., and Stucker, B., 2013, “The Effects of Processing Parameters on Defect Regularity in Ti-6Al-4V Parts Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting and Electron Beam Melting,” 24th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium—An Additive Manufacturing Conference, Austin, TX, Aug. 12–14, pp. 424–439.
Hrabe, N., and Quinn, T., 2013, “Effects of Processing on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of a Titanium Alloy (Ti–6Al–4V) Fabricated Using Electron Beam Melting (EBM), Part 1: Distance From Build Plate and Part Size,” Mater. Sci. Eng.: A, 573, pp. 264–270. [CrossRef]
Soylemez, E., Beuth, J. L., and Taminger, K., 2010, “Controlling Melt Pool Dimensions Over a Wide Range of Material Deposition Rates in Electron Beam Additive Manufacturing,” Proceedings of 21st Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, Aug. 9–11, pp. 571–582.
Miller, D., Deckard, C., and Williams, J., 1997, “Variable Beam Size SLS Workstation and Enhanced SLS Model,” Rapid Prototyping J., 3(1), pp. 4–11. [CrossRef]
Song, Y.-A., and Koenig, W., 1997, “Experimental Study of the Basic Process Mechanism for Direct Selective Laser Sintering of Low-Melting Metallic Powder,” CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol., 46(1), pp. 127–130. [CrossRef]
Simchi, A., and Pohl, H., 2003, “Effects of Laser Sintering Processing Parameters on the Microstructure and Densification of Iron Powder,” Mater. Sci. Eng.: A, 359(1), pp. 119–128. [CrossRef]
Chatterjee, A., Kumar, S., Saha, P., Mishra, P., and Choudhury, A. R., 2003, “An Experimental Design Approach to Selective Laser Sintering of Low Carbon Steel,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 136(1), pp. 151–157. [CrossRef]
Yadroitsev, I., Bertrand, P., and Smurov, I., 2007, “Parametric Analysis of the Selective Laser Melting Process,” Appl. Surf. Sci., 253(19), pp. 8064–8069. [CrossRef]
Meier, H., and Haberland, C., 2008, “Experimental Studies on Selective Laser Melting of Metallic Parts,” Materialwiss. Werkstofftech., 39(9), pp. 665–670. [CrossRef]
Zhang, K., Liu, W., and Shang, X., 2007, “Research on the Processing Experiments of Laser Metal Deposition Shaping,” Opt. Laser Technol., 39(3), pp. 549–557. [CrossRef]
Wang, L., and Felicelli, S., 2007, “Process Modeling in Laser Deposition of Multilayer SS410 Steel,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 129(6), pp. 1028–1034. [CrossRef]
Neela, V., and De, A., 2009, “Three-Dimensional Heat Transfer Analysis of LENSTM Process Using Finite Element Method,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 45(9–10), pp. 935–943.
Patil, R. B., and Yadava, V., 2007, “Finite Element Analysis of Temperature Distribution in Single Metallic Powder Layer During Metal Laser Sintering,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 47(7–8), pp. 1069–1080. [CrossRef]
Dong, L., Makradi, A., Ahzi, S., and Remond, Y., 2009, “Three-Dimensional Transient Finite Element Analysis of the Selective Laser Sintering Process,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 209(2), pp. 700–706. [CrossRef]
Kumar, A., and Roy, S., 2009, “Effect of Three-Dimensional Melt Pool Convection on Process Characteristics During Laser Cladding,” Comput. Mater. Sci., 46(2), pp. 495–506. [CrossRef]
Cheng, B., Price, S., Lydon, J., Cooper, K., and Chou, K., 2014, “On Process Temperature in Powder-Bed Electron Beam Additive Manufacturing: Model Development and Experimental Validation,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. (in press).
Mahale, T. R., 2009, “Electron Beam Melting of Advanced Materials and Structures,” Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Gong, X., Anderson, T., and Chou, K., 2014, “Review on Powder-Based Electron Beam Additive Manufacturing Technology,” Manuf. Rev., 1, pp. 1–12. [CrossRef]
Gong, X., and Chou, K., 2013, “Characterization of Sintered Ti-6Al-4V Powders in Electron Beam Additive Manufacturing,” ASME 2013 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, Madison, WI, June 10–14, ASME Paper No. MSEC2013-1131. [CrossRef]
Wang, K., Zeng, W., Shao, Y., Zhao, Y., and Zhou, Y., 2009, “Quantification of Microstructural Features in Titanium Alloys Based on Stereology,” Rare Met. Mater. Eng., 38(3), pp. 398–403.
Bontha, S., Klingbeil, N. W., Kobryn, P. A., and Fraser, H. L., 2009, “Effects of Process Variables and Size-Scale on Solidification Microstructure in Beam-Based Fabrication of Bulky 3D Structures,” Mater. Sci. Eng.: A, 513–514, pp. 311–318. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Actual beam speed and (b) beam current versus build height (SF36)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Actual beam speed versus SF at different build heights

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

A CAD Model used in EBAM experiments for temperature measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Typical NIR temperature images at different SF values

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Beam diameter effects on EBAM process temperatures, simulation versus experiment: (a) profile and (b) melt pool size (v = 671 mm/s, i = 6.7 mA)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Measured temperature profiles (averaged) at different SF values (6.65 mm build height)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Compensated temperature profiles at different SF values (6.65 mm build height)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Measured melt pool length and width versus SF (6.65 mm build height)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Melt pool size results at different build heights from different tests

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Compiled melt pool (a) length and (b) width (from experiment), at different build heights and different SF values

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Fabricated parts from EBAM Experiments with different SF values

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

EBAM build part surface morphology versus SF: (a) stereoscopic images, (b) white-light interferometric images, and (c) surface roughness (from scanning surface)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Microstructure versus SF: optical microscopic images, from X-plane: (a) SF 20, (b) SF 36, (c) SF 50, and (d) SF 65

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Cooling rates associated with different beam speeds

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Temperature profile comparisons, simulation versus experiment, for 4 beam speeds

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Melt pool size comparisons, simulation versus experiment, for four SF values: (a) length and (b) width

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Melt pool size and shape illustration (simulations) at four different beam speeds

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Beam current effects on EBAM process temperatures, simulation versus experiment: (a) profile and (b) melt pool size (v = 506 mm/s, d = 0.65 mm)




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In