4.8 Article

On the influence of laser defocusing in Selective Laser Melting of 316L

Journal

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
Volume 23, Issue -, Pages 161-169

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2018.08.006

Keywords

Selective Laser Melting; Stainless steel 316L; Defocus; Melt pool morphology; Increased productivity

Funding

  1. H2020-MSCA-ITN-2016 project PAM2 (Precision Additive Metal Manufacturing), EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020 [721383]
  2. IWT-FM SBO project CombiLaser [IWT.150521]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite its many benefits, Selective Laser Melting's (SLM) relatively low productivity compared to deposition based additive manufacturing techniques is a major drawback. Increasing the laser beam diameter improves SLM's build rate, but causes loss of precision. The aim of this study is to investigate laser beam focus shift, or defocus, using a dynamic focusing unit, in order to increase the laser spot size. When applied to the SLM process, focus shift can be integrated into a hull-core strategy. This involves scanning the core with a high productivity parameter set using defocus while enabling return to the focused smaller spot size position for hull scanning. To assess the process stability, single line scans were made from 316L stainless steel powder. The consolidated melt pool morphology was analyzed and correlated with the process parameters comprising laser power, scanning speed and defocus distance. In order to link the melt pool morphology with the heat input, Volumetric Energy Density, Normalized Enthalpy and Rosenthal equation were considered. The suitability of using the Normalized Enthalpy as a design parameter to predict the melt pool depth and Rosenthal equation to predict its width was highlighted. This study shows that within a single laser setup, implementing defocus can lead to a potential productivity increase by 840%, i.e. to 18.8 mm(3)/s.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available