Abstract:In the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process, the operating conditions are essential in determining laser-induced keyhole regimes based on the thermal distribution. These regimes, classified into shallow and deep keyholes, control the probability and defects formation intensity in the LPBF process. To study and control the keyhole in the LPBF process, mathematical and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models are presented. For CFD, the volume of fluid method with the discrete element modeling technique was used, while a mathematical model was developed by including the laser beam absorption by the powder bed voids and surface. The dynamic melt pool behavior is explored in detail. Quantitative comparisons are made among experimental, CFD simulation and analytical computing results leading to a good correspondence. In LPBF, the temperature around the laser irradiation zone rises rapidly compared to the surroundings in the powder layer due to the high thermal resistance and the air between the powder particles, resulting in a slow travel of laser transverse heat waves. In LPBF, the keyhole can be classified into shallow and deep keyhole mode, controlled by the energy density. Increasing the energy density, the shallow keyhole mode transforms into the deep keyhole mode. The energy density in a deep keyhole is higher due to the multiple reflections and concentrations of secondary reflected beams within the keyhole, causing the material to vaporize quickly. Due to an elevated temperature distribution in deep keyhole mode, the probability of pores forming is much higher than in a shallow keyhole as the liquid material is close to the vaporization temperature. When the temperature increases rapidly, the material density drops quickly, thus, raising the fluid volume due to the specific heat and fusion latent heat. In return, this lowers the surface tension and affects the melt pool uniformity.

Identifying the keyhole stability and pore formation mechanisms in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing

Understanding keyhole induced-porosities in laser powder bed fusion of aluminum and elimination strategy

Keyhole fluctuation and pore formation mechanisms during laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing

Analytical prediction of keyhole porosity in laser powder bed fusion

Mechanism of keyhole pore formation in metal additive manufacturing

In-Situ Characterization of Pore Formation Dynamics in Pulsed Wave Laser Powder Bed Fusion

Dynamics of pore formation during laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing

Numerical simulation of keyhole-induced pores for TA15 in laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF)

Modelling of keyhole dynamics and melt pool flow in laser powder bed fusion process

Formation mechanism of pore defects and surface ripples under different process parameters via laser powder bed fusion by numerical simulation and experimental verification

Direct observation of pore formation mechanisms during LPBF additive manufacturing process and high energy density laser welding

Machine learning–aided real-time detection of keyhole pore generation in laser powder bed fusion

Transient dynamics and stability of keyhole at threshold in laser powder bed fusion regime investigated by finite element modeling

Critical instability at moving keyhole tip generates porosity in laser melting

Numerical studies of melt pool and gas bubble dynamics in laser powder bed fusion process

Quantification of Interdependent Dynamics during Laser Additive Manufacturing Using X‐Ray Imaging Informed Multi‐Physics and Multiphase Simulation

Pore defects in Laser Powder Bed Fusion: Formation mechanism, control method, and perspectives

Effect of Laser-Matter Interaction on Molten Pool Flow and Keyhole Dynamics

The interplay between vapour, liquid, and solid phases in laser powder bed fusion

Simulation of the Effect of Keyhole Instability on Porosity during the Deep Penetration Laser Welding Process

Keyhole Formation by Laser Drilling in Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Ti6Al4V Biomedical Alloy: Mesoscopic Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation versus Mathematical Modelling Using Empirical Validation