You are on page 1of 9

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Additive Manufacturing 5 (2015) 3139

Approximation of absolute surface temperature measurements of powder


bed fusion additive manufacturing technology using in situ infrared
thermography
Emmanuel Rodriguez, Jorge Mireles , Cesar A. Terrazas, David Espalin,
Mireya A. Perez, Ryan B. Wicker
W.M. Keck Center for 3D Innovation, The University of Texas at El Paso, 500 W. University Ave., Engineering Building Room 108, El Paso, TX 79968, USA
Accepted 11 December 2014
Available online 7 January 2015

Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM) has several possible advantages over traditional manufacturing including increased design freedom, reduced
material usage, and shorter lead-times. A noteworthy capability of AM is the ability to monitor the process during material deposition and interrupt
the process during fabrication if necessary. Recently, such monitoring, feedback, and control have been made possible by implementing in situ
infrared (IR) thermography in powder bed fusion AM technologies. The purpose of the current research was to investigate the acquisition of
absolute surface temperatures using in situ IR imaging of the melted or solid surfaces layer-by-layer during fabrication within an electron beam
melting (EBM) system. The thermal camera was synchronized with the systems signal voltages of three synchronized events (pre-heating, melting,
and raking) to automatically capture images. To acquire absolute temperature values from the IR images, a calibration procedure was established
to determine the solid materials emissivity and reflected temperature or mean radiant temperature of the build chamber, which are necessary input
parameters for the IR camera. A blackbody radiator was fabricated via EBM and was used as a tool to determine the emissivity of Ti6Al4V
(determined to be 0.26 in the temperature range of the current study). Furthermore, a mathematical model was developed to determine the view
factors associated with the systems interior (e.g. heat shielding) that were used in calculating the mean radiant temperature of the manufacturing
environment (342 C). Experimental validation of the model was performed using a thermocouple embedded during fabrication that showed
a 3.77% difference in temperature. A temperature difference of 366 C (1038 C vs. 672 C) was observed when comparing uncorrected IR
temperature data with corrected temperature data. Upon validation of the IR parameters for a melted area, experimentation was conducted to also
determine powder emissivity (found to be 0.50). The thermal model presented here can be modified and implemented in other AM technologies
for consideration of radiation energy to acquire absolute temperatures of layered surfaces, leading to improved thermal monitoring and control of
the fabrication process.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Electron beam melting; Infrared; Monitoring; Emissivity; Surface temperature

1. Introduction
Electron beam melting (EBM) is an additive manufacturing
(AM) process for direct-metal freeform fabrication that uses
metal powder as the precursor to build solid metal parts. Within
the past decade, the development of processing parameters for

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 915 747 6837.


E-mail address: jmireles3@utep.edu (J. Mireles).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2014.12.001
2214-8604/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

several alloys (copper, niobium, iron, TiAl, TiNb, and nickelbased superalloys) has made them suitable for fabrication by
EBM technology [1,9,13,1720]. Although EBM has been used
in the commercial fabrication of parts for the medical and
aerospace industries [8,24]; opportunities still exist to make AM
systems more repeatable and reproducible for the production of
high-quality products that may be qualified during fabrication
through the use of monitoring, feedback and control. Christensen
et al. [5] discussed qualification of EBM technology for orthopedic applications and a need for systematic process monitoring

32

E. Rodriguez et al. / Additive Manufacturing 5 (2015) 3139

to understand process variables. Murr et al. [16] showed the


microstructural anisotropy that is inherent in EBM products
and discussed these differences arise from temperature gradients
within the process. Murr et al. [16] further described that it may
be possible to selectively grade the alloys mechanical properties
(through resulting microstructures) with control of processing
parameters. Extending the work of Murr et al. [16], Mireles [14]
demonstrated that microstructural control was possible in EBM
by developing a closed-loop automatic feedback control system where microstructure control was verified through optical
microscopy. In this work, successful monitoring and control of
processing temperature was employed to intentionally create a
graded microstructure of Ti6Al4V EBM-fabricated parts [15]
showing a difference in alpha width from 0.65 m to 1.31 m.
Rodriguez [21] further demonstrated the benefits of in situ monitoring using IR thermography to enable development of EBM
processing parameters for copper, a complicated material to process in EBM because of its thermal expansion and heat capacity
due to a large thermal expansion property that causes warping
if excess processing temperature is used.
In addition to those briefly described above, IR imaging systems have been installed in a number of powder bed fusion AM
systems around the world. However, the authors have not been
able to identify any published work suggesting absolute temperature measurements have been acquired. As will be described
shortly, this is most likely a result of the complexity with accurately determining emissivity (a difficult parameter to measure
due to process temperature variations and changes in surface
morphologies) of the surfaces under study as well as developing a radiation model of the build chamber. Examples of prior
IR studies include Schwerdtfeger et al. [22] in which an IRimaging system was developed to monitor the EBM process for
porosity within a parts melt surface. The aforementioned system
was designed with an integrated shuttered mechanism to prevent metallization (metal coating that occurs due to evaporation
of metal during melting) of the viewing glass which prevented
continuous monitoring. Dinwiddie et al. [7] also installed an IR
camera and developed two shutterless imaging systems (one
using a single mirror periscope and another using a revolving Kapton film) that helped provide continuous monitoring of
the EBM process. Additionally, IR imaging has been used by
other researchers to monitor selective laser melting AM technology [2,11]. It is important to note that these researchers,
which integrated IR in AM systems, used thermal imaging with
the objective of searching for surface abnormalitieswhich may
lead to defective products. The purpose of the current work was
to acquire absolute temperature measurements of the build surfaces of parts under fabrication using in situ IR imaging with
previously determined material emissivity and a developed thermal model that considers the effects of radiant temperature on
a parts surface temperature. Obtaining absolute temperature
measurements during the EBM process can provide numerous
benefits to the quality of parts being produced using this and
other powder-based AM processes. As a result, the following
provides details of the method developed for EBM with IR
imaging to measure accurate layer-by-layer part surface temperatures.

2. Methods
2.1. Electron beam melting process
The EBM process uses a metal powder (typically Ti6Al4V,
ASTM F75 CoCr, or Grade 2 Titanium), as the precursor material to build solid parts in a layerwise fashion inside a vacuum
chamber (104 Torr). The Arcam A2 system follows four steps
in its fabrication process: (1) depositing a layer of metal powder
(typically in the range 0.050.20 mm thick) across the build platform using the machines raking mechanism, (2) preheating the
layer to 50% of the metals melting temperature (760 C for
Ti6Al4V) using the electron beam gun at a low beam current
(8.8 mA) and high scan speed (14,600 mm/s) to lightly sinter the
metal powder (also helps reduce the parts residual stresses), (3)
selectively melting the preheated powder by increasing the beam
power (up to 17 mA) and reducing the scan speed (500 mm/s) to
effectively reach the materials melting point, and (4) lowering
the build platform a height equal to one layer thickness. This
process is repeated until the part is complete.
2.2. Thermal imaging system installation
The IR camera utilized in this study was a FLIR SC645 (FLIR
Systems, Inc., Wilsonville, OR) with a resolution of 640 480
pixels and a temperature range of up to 2000 C. The distance
between the camera and the powder bed was 330 mm, resulting in a field of view of 274 mm by 206 mm (with a 25 lens),
and a spatial resolution of 175 m/pixel. The camera was positioned atop the build chamber and used a zinc-selenide (ZnSe)
viewing window. This window type was selected due to its
high transmittance of the IR wavelengths; it is the most widely
used type of window in IR imaging [10]. A mechanical shutter
mechanism was installed inside the chamber covering the ZnSe
window to protect it from metallization that may occur during
the melting of metal powder particles. The shutter also served to
ensure that images were not obscured from unwanted particles
on the windows surface. The angle between the surface normal
and the camera was 18 (with an incline allowance of up to
25 ). A computer-aided design (CAD) rendering of this setup
is shown in Fig. 1. Images of the build surface were captured
by the IR camera following the completion of the melt process
step. An automated system was developed using LabVIEW software (National Instruments, Austin, TX) to open the shutter for
1 second upon completion of the melt step; images were captured during the 1 s interval. This process was repeated for each
subsequent layer.
2.3. IR camera calibration
IR imagers are capable of providing quantitative thermal
images; however, their measurement accuracy is dependent upon
the effect of environmental conditions and surface properties
(e.g. reflectivity and emissivity). Measuring and accounting for
such conditions is critical to the calibration procedure of IR
cameras to obtain absolute temperature measurements. The radiant energy received from an object will be a function of its

E. Rodriguez et al. / Additive Manufacturing 5 (2015) 3139

33

Fig. 1. CAD rendering of the Arcam A2 vacuum chamber with IR Camera.

temperature, spectral emissivity (a surfaces ability to emit radiation energy), reflections from its surroundings, and atmospheric
transmission. Fig. 2 is a schematic representation of the sources
that were measured by the IR camera. These sources include
the target, radiation from surroundings (e.g. heat shield surfaces), and emission and absorption from the environment (e.g.
viewing glass). The main sources of thermographic disturbance
are the ambient sources, or reflecting sources, and the targets
emissivity.

was placed inside the build chamber atop the build platform
and heated to 300 C. The emissivity value for the blackbody
(0.99), previously provided by the manufacturer, was assigned
to the IR camera. An average temperature for the surface of
the blackbody was recorded without the ZnSe window present,
assigning an external transmission of 100%. The window was
then installed and the external optics transmission parameter was
modified until the average temperature of the surface equaled
that of the temperature measured without the viewing window.

2.3.1. External optics transmission


External optics transmission was a parameter assigned to
the IR camera that supported its internal measurement function, yielding a temperature value. To determine the percent
transmission of the ZnSe window, a blackbody hot plate calibration source (Omega model: BB-2A, Stamford, Connecticut)

2.3.2. Mean radiant temperature calculation


Surface radiation can be measured by determining the enclosures mean radiant temperature, or reflected temperature using
view factor calculations, or a geometric consideration for radiation energy. It was important to first identify the reflections
striking a surface. The Arcam A2 system uses a heat shield

Fig. 2. Schematic of the various sources of radiation that an IR camera measures.

34

E. Rodriguez et al. / Additive Manufacturing 5 (2015) 3139

Fig. 3. CAD rendering of the Arcam A2 heat shield used (bottom view) showing thermocouple locations (a) and isometric view of heat shield assembly (b).

placed atop the build surface (Fig. 3) that serves as a thermal


insulator to the build platform. The heat shield was the primary
source of reflection onto the build surface, or the surface being
observed by the IR camera. Thus, only the surface radiations
of the six-surface enclosure, comprised of five independent surfaces (front, left, rear, right, and top shield) as well as the build
surface, were considered. The mean radiant temperature (Tmr )
may be defined as the temperature of an isothermal cavity whose
radiation heat transfer to the sample is the same as the actual cavity being measured [6], and was determined from the following
equation:

Tmr = 4
Tj4 FSj
(1)
j

where FSj is the view factor between the target surface (S) and
each wall (j), representing the fraction of the radiation leaving the
surface s that strikes the j-th wall. Tj represents the temperature of
the j-th wall [6]. In Eq. (1), the basic formulation for determining
the view factor between two walls (F12 ) is:
 
cos 1 cos 2
1
F12 =
dA1 dA2
(2)
A1 A1 A2
r 2
where A is the area of each wall, r is the distance between the
two walls, and is the angle between each walls normal vector
and the vector pointing toward each wall.
After identifying the enclosure, the thermal state and radiation properties of each surface (shield walls) of the enclosure
were specified [23]. In the current analysis, the surfaces were
assumed to be opaque, diffuse, and gray; therefore, nontransparent (which is a reasonable assumption since the heat
shields are solid steel sheets). The surfaces were diffuse emitters and diffuse reflectors independent of wavelength (a common
assumption made in radiation problems to simplify analysis)
[4]. Also, each surface of the enclosure was assumed to have
isothermal properties and the incoming and outgoing radiations
were assumed to be uniformly distributed over each surface
[4]. The view factor for each wall of the enclosure was calculated independently by using published formulae and plots,
algebra (utilizing the basic formulation shown by Eq. (2)),

and then verified using MATLAB software (MathWorks, Natick, MA) [21]. Shield wall temperature measurements were
recorded during three different builds of Ti6Al4V using type
K thermocouples (Range: 270 to 1372 C, Model: HKQIN116U-26, Omega Stamford, CT) cemented (high-temperature
cement, Omegabond 400, Omega, Stamford, CT) to the shield
walls (Fig. 3). The use of only three thermocouples was limited
by the pass-through that was installed which allowed the installation of wiring inside the system while still maintaining an
appropriate vacuum environment for fabrication. The temperatures of the shield walls were measured during each build,
averaged for each wall, and used to calculate the mean radiant
temperature using the view factor model. For this experiment, it
was assumed that the left and right shields as well as the front
and rear shields had the same temperatures (since they were
exposed to the same thermal environment and the surface area
of each paired shield was the same).
2.3.3. Emissivity calculation
Any real surface has a distinct emissivity surface property (the
ability to emit radiation energy and denoted ), that is unitless
and varies between 0 and 1 [4,12]. The emissivity of a surface
is not constant; instead, it varies with temperature and surface
morphology. A common tool used in determining emissivity
is a blackbody cavity, or radiator. A blackbody cavity is one in
which radiation enters through an opening and undergoes multiple reflections within the cavity before exiting [4]. To determine
the materials (Ti6Al4V) emissivity, a rectangular prism with
an internal cavity was fabricated via EBM. Construction of these
samples in EBM was purposefully done to acquire the true emissivity value, since the unique EBM produced part surface is fairly
constant in every Ti6Al4V build. Once fabricated, the part was
removed from the machine for thorough cleaning of the internal
cavity. The powder inside the cavity was removed by directing
the hose of Arcams powder recovery system toward the cavitys
opening for 15 min. This is a system which uses a combination of pressurized air and metal powder (Ti6Al4V) to remove
sintered particles from a part. After the cavity was cleaned of all
sintered powder, it was used as a blackbody radiator.

E. Rodriguez et al. / Additive Manufacturing 5 (2015) 3139

35

Fig. 4. (a) CAD rendering (wire frame view) of blackbody radiator model and its internal cavity, (b) IR image of the blackbody radiator with software measurement
tools and cemented-on thermocouple.

To calculate the emissivity of the material, the blackbody was


heated to measure the thermal radiation coming from its orifice at
a temperature of 200300 C. A hot plate (Corning Model PC420, Corning, Tewksbury, MA) was placed inside the vacuum
chamber on top of the build platform. The blackbody was placed
on the hot plate and a type K thermocouple was cemented on its
top surface (Fig. 4b). Heat shield wall temperatures were measured by cementing a second type K thermocouple to one of the
side walls of the heat shield enclosure, and the third type K thermocouple to the top shield of the enclosure. The hot plate was set
to yield a temperature of 180 C and 200 C. IR images of the
blackbody specimen were captured and thermocouple temperature measurements were recorded using a National Instruments
thermocouple input module (NI 9213, Austin, TX) and LabVIEW as the data acquisition software.
Emissivity was computed by the following equation [6]:
=

4
Tr4 Tmr
4
TS4 Tmr

(3)

where Tr is the radiant temperature of the targets surface, TS


is the absolute surface temperature, and Tmr is the mean radiant
temperature (in temperature units of Kelvin). Using Thermacam Researcher Professional software (FLIR Systems, Inc.,
Wilsonville, OR), the radiant temperature was measured by placing a rectangular region of interest on the blackbody specimens
surface and assigning it an emissivity of 0.99 to acquire blackbody radiation. The absolute surface temperature was measured
by placing a spot meter tool directly on the blackbody radiator
orifice (Fig. 4a). According to Castrejon et al. [3] the blackbody
radiator design (Fig. 4a) selected in this research yields an emissivity (level of blackness) at the cavitys orifice of 0.994 0.2
[3]. In these tests this value of emissivity was assigned to the
orifice and an absolute temperature was obtained corresponding
to the spot meter tool placed within the orifice area (Fig. 4b).
The mean radiant temperature was determined by the experiment described in the previous section using Eq. (1). Using
Thermacam software, the emissivity of the region of interest
(Fig. 4b) was adjusted until the temperature was equal to that

of the orifice. The resulting emissivity value was the value used
as the emissivity of melted (solid) Ti6Al4V. Additionally, a
thermocouple was cemented on the surface of the blackbody
radiator to be used as a validation tool. The validity of input
parameters was verified by comparing the IR cameras output
temperature measurement to that of the thermocouple. Fig. 4a
shows a CAD rendering of the blackbody radiator and Fig. 4b, an
IR image of the blackbody radiator at an elevated temperature.
Upon validation of the solid emissivity, a similar procedure that
will be discussed later (using a thermocouple) was implemented
to determine the emissivity of the Ti6Al4V powder.
2.4. Experimental IR parameter verication
To verify the aforementioned theoretical models, that is, the
radiation heat transfer theory used to derive the view factor
models and the blackbody radiator model, an experimental verification procedure was carried out. The experiment was designed
to compare the temperature measurements from a thermocouple
embedded during fabrication and the IR cameras temperature
measurements taken consecutively during the embedding process. To accomplish this, a solid cube was fabricated using
EBM on a thermocouple to make real-time temperature measurements while simultaneously acquiring IR images. Step one
in the experiment was to insert a type K thermocouple (Range:
270 to 1372 C, Model: HKQIN-116U-26, Omega Stamford,
CT) through a drilled hole in the center of the EBM start plate,
or build platform. The thermocouple contains an Inconel sheath
which protects the junction from damage that may be incurred
from the high-power electron beam. Fig. 5a is a CAD rendering of this setup. When the manufacturing process commenced,
the solid part was manufactured on the thermocouple, embedding it within the solid part as the layered process continued
(shown in Fig. 5b). Thermocouple temperature measurements
were recorded using National Instruments data acquisition software and a thermocouple input module (NI 9213, Austin, TX).
It is important to note that the tip of the thermocouple was only
partially exposed (2 mm) into the Z-axis build plane to prevent

36

E. Rodriguez et al. / Additive Manufacturing 5 (2015) 3139

Fig. 5. (a) CAD rendering of thermocouple placement through drilled hole within the build platform, (b) EBM-fabricated part with embedded thermocouple for
solid, and (c) embedded thermocouple within sintered powder of an EBM-fabricated part.

Fig. 6. IR image of EBM part with embedded thermocouple to verify solid emissivity measurements (a) and embedded thermocouple within sintered powder to
measure powder emissivity (b).

bending or breaking of the powder re-coater blades. Temperature measurements recorded at the thermocouple junction point
(about 0.5 mm from the thermocouple tip) were compared to
its counterpart IR measurements. The thermocouple junction
point was 0.15 mm in diameter which corresponds to three
EBM build layers of IR measurements. Therefore IR images captured at layers 19, 20, and 21 (representing layers closest to the
installed thermocouple) or corresponding Z-heights 1.33 mm,
1.40 mm, and 1.47 mm were used to compare IR temperature
measurements to thermocouple temperature measurements. It is
important to note that, for the experiment in Fig. 6a, the electron
beam scanned over the thermocouple, which was still exposed
at layer 19 and fully covered by solid Ti6Al4V at layers 20
and 21. Furthermore, temperature differences between layers
(Table 4) are most likely due to differences in scan direction from
layer to layer. The same validation procedures were followed
using a hollow cube to determine the emissivity of the sintered
powder (experimental setup shown in Fig. 5c). For the experiment shown in Fig. 5c, the temperature of the thermocouple was
used as an accurate representation of the powder temperature
and the emissivity of the surrounding powder was adjusted until
the IR temperature agreed with that of the thermocouple.

Upon determining the IR parameters, cylinders were fabricated using the standard processing parameters to fabricate
parts in EBM using Ti6Al4V. The average temperature from
a melted cylinder was taken at every other layer and recorded
until build completion. Additionally, the EBM system automatically logs temperature measurements every 10 layers using
a single thermocouple that is located below the build platform. Both temperature measurements were plotted against the
corresponding layer and compared. To prevent reduction in
transmittance, the ZnSe glass was cleaned every three builds
using Kimwipes (Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, Inc., Roswell,
GA) and isopropyl-alcohol.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. External optics transmission
Table 1 summarizes the parameters assigned to the camera
and the recorded temperatures in testing the external optics
transmission. The temperature measurements without a window showed the ideal temperature, or the temperature without
emission. The temperature with the ZnSe window installed was

E. Rodriguez et al. / Additive Manufacturing 5 (2015) 3139

37

Table 1
External optics testing of ZnSe window IR image parameters assigned.
Experiment

Emissivity

Ext. optics transmission

Avg. temp. ( C)

Std. dev. ( C)

No window
ZnSe window
ZnSe window (adjusted)

0.99
0.99
0.99

1.00
1.00
0.94

309
298
309

5
2
2

reduced (11 C) due to the windows emission, and thus the


percent transmission camera parameter was modified until the
temperature with and without the glass installed was equal.
The external optics transmission was found to be 94%. In the
cameras internal measurement function, anything that was not
transmission was considered emission. Therefore, 6% of the
radiation reaching the detector was from the window. Different
windows have different emissions, thus new calculations will
be required if a different window is used. The experiment was
repeated after 5000 h of use to determine the effectiveness of
the shutter mechanism and it was found that the external optics
transmission was maintained at 94%. Thus, it can be concluded
that the shutter mechanism protects the glass from metallization and further allows an adequate level of transmission to be
maintained.
3.2. Mean radiant temperature
The mean radiant temperature was calculated by employing
Eq. (1). A summary of all view factors found, the average shield
temperatures recorded during Ti6Al4V processing, and the
calculation of the mean radiant temperature is given in Table 2.
Due to the symmetrical configuration of the heat shield, the
left and right shields were assigned the same view factor. The
resulting mean radiant temperature (Tmr = 342 C) can be used as
a standard for IR in situ measurements when processing standard
Ti6Al4V builds with EBM. It is important to note that a recalculation of mean radiant temperature would be required if
the processing conditions for Ti6Al4V using EBM change
beyond those recommended by Arcam. Furthermore, it would
be of benefit to permanently install a set of thermocouples within
the vacuum chamber, such as on the heat shield walls, when
using the IR camera as this would ensure that shield temperatures
for each corresponding build are utilized and the correct mean

radiant temperature is calculated for every build. This can also


be extended to produce automatic layer-by-layer mean radiant
temperature measurements for further accuracy.
3.3. Emissivity studies
The determined emissivity for the solid (after the melt step)
Ti6Al4V was measured to be 0.26. Table 3 lists the average emissivity measured from two different experiments using
the EBM fabricated blackbody, including data obtained from
literature [25], and shows a close similarity in measurements.
According to Yang et al. [25] emissivity of Ti6Al4V remains
nearly constant up to 760 C before the material begins to oxidize and the emissivity increases rapidly. It is important to note
that processing Ti6Al4V in EBM occurs in a vacuum environment, thus thermal oxidation is either limited or does not occur
during fabrication. It is also important to note that the emissivity determined applies only to the surface of the part after it has
undergone melting and will not be the same for the powder precursor or other surface morphologies such as the surface during
melting, or liquidus phase.
3.4. Evaluation of experimental IR parameter verication
By using the calculated input parameters (atmospheric transmission equal to 0.94, mean radiant temperature equal to 342 C,
and an emissivity of 0.26) determined using the previously
described procedures, temperature measurements, using the IR
camera and the embedded thermocouple with the experimental
setup as described in Section 2.2, were acquired and compared.
Fig. 6a shows an IR image capture of the EBM part fabrication
with the embedded thermocouple used to verify the radiation
parameters. Fig. 6b shows the IR image captured of the thermocouple embedded within the sintered powder of a hollow cube.
Measurements were obtained for the described region of interest in Fig. 6a, and Table 4 provides the results for 3 fabrication

Table 2
Mean radiant temperature calculations.
View factors

Average shield wall temperatures

Fsurface-top shield = 0.05


Fsurface-left shield = 0.26
Fsurface-rear shield = 0.18
Fsurface-right shield = 0.26
Fsurface-front shield = 0.12

Top shield avg. temp. (K) = 584


Left shield avg. temp. (K) = 641
Rear shield avg. temp. (K) = 638
Right shield avg. temp. (K) = 641
Front shield avg. temp. (K) = 638

T 4 Fsj =

Tmr (K) =
Tmr

( C)

6.1E+09
4.3E+10
3.0E+10
4.3E+10
2.0E+10
1.4E+11


4

T4 Fs j

T 4 Fsj =

615
342

Table 3
Emissivity data of Ti6Al4V (solid).
Sample

Temperature ( C)

Emissivity ()

EBM 1 (solid)
EBM 2 (solid)
Yang et al.
Yang et al.
Yang et al.
Yang et al.
Yang et al.
Yang et al.
Yang et al.

177
198
165
250
350
450
550
700
750

0.26
0.26
0.25
0.27
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.27

38

E. Rodriguez et al. / Additive Manufacturing 5 (2015) 3139

Table 4
Thermocouple and IR simultaneous temperature measurements for solid part.
Layer number

Thermocouple ( C)

IR camera ( C)

% Difference

19
20
21

730
717
712

703
689
685

3.72
3.84
3.76

Average

3.77

layers. As can be seen in the table, the IR camera and thermocouple measurements agree within an average difference of
3.77%.
Emissivity of sintered powder was measured using the methods described in Section 2.2 and IR temperature data was taken
from the region of interest described in Fig. 6b. The mean radiant temperature determined in Section 3.2 was used for all IR
temperature calculations. Table 5 shows the results obtained
where the original IR temperature was corrected using different emissivity values until it was in close agreement with the
thermocouple measurement that was taken simultaneously. The
resulting emissivity value for Ti6Al4V sintered powder was
determined to be 0.50. Powder emissivity will tend to vary from
the particle size, shape, and packing used, thus the emissivity determined is specific to Ti6Al4V powder used in this
study (purchased from Arcam AB). With results provided in
Table 5, it is now possible to determine temperature of the powder throughout processing. It was found that powder temperature
upon deposition was 430 C. Such thermal gradient between
the recently melted part and newly deposited powder can cause
excess cooling that leads to thermal stresses and undesirable
microstructures (e.g. martensitic  phase in Ti6Al4V). By
using this information, it may become possible to optimize the
process by adding a powder heating system that reduces thermal
gradients due to powder deposition.

3.5. Absolute temperature measurements


The temperature measurements from the IR camera and those
obtained from the EBM system for a 35 mm tall build are
plotted in Fig. 7. From the graph, it can be observed that the
thermocouple temperature and IR temperatures were in close
agreement with each other at the beginning of fabrication (when
the thermocouple is closest to the build surface). As fabrication continued, the IR camera showed that the temperature at
the top surface increased while the temperature below the build
platform decreased as more layers were fabricated. The results
from Fig. 7 correlate closely to the expected behavior. That is, as
fabrication progresses, the thermocouple below the build platform moves away from the heat source, or the pre-heating and
melting cycles. Subsequently, the build environments temperature increases as the build progresses since more heat is added by
each layers pre-heating and melting cycles. Furthermore, a plot
of uncorrected IR temperature data is shown using default camera parameters where the radiant temperature is set to 26.9 C.
A difference of 366 C was evident when comparing the corrected temperature data using the developed thermal model to
the uncorrected temperature data using default camera settings.
It is also important to note that the uncorrected temperature data
and the thermocouple data from the fabrication process do not
agree.
The results obtained here show the need to monitor the surface temperature during fabrication since the thermal behavior
can vary significantly during processing. It is also important to
note that the EBM system in its commercial state relies on the
thermocouple measurements to provide absolute temperatures
that are used for parameter (e.g. beam power) adjustments during fabrication. The EBM software performs algorithms based
on a time independent heat equation to predict surface temperatures as a function of the thermocouple measurement under

Table 5
Thermocouple and IR simultaneous temperature measurements for sintered powder.
Layer number

IR camera, C (uncorrected)

Thermocouple ( C)

Emissivity

IR camera, C (corrected)

% Difference

19
20
21

994
996
993

680
678
676

0.50
0.50
0.50

678
680
677

0.25
0.29
0.15

Average

0.23

Fig. 7. EBM processing temperature measurements for temperature measurements using default IR camera parameters, corrected parameters, and thermocouple data
from the bottom of the build platform.

E. Rodriguez et al. / Additive Manufacturing 5 (2015) 3139

the build platform, the parts geometry, and the Z-height. IR


measurements yield real-time absolute surface temperature data
that is otherwise unachievable through the predictive mathematical algorithms. The IR measurements obtained here showed
that the thermocouple temperature is different from the IR
temperature, specifically as a build progresses, thus the use
of a surface temperature for parameter adjustments should be
considered. Furthermore, it is important to ensure absolute temperature measurements are being obtained, specifically when
using temperature measurements for layerwise monitoring, control, and/or parameter development for processing of novel
materials.
4. Conclusions
To use IR imaging with a certain level of accuracy, the operator must provide the camera with the targets emissivity, reflected
temperature, and optics transmission as they are necessary to
support an infrared cameras measurement functions to obtain
absolute temperature measurements. A step-by-step procedure
was developed in this research to obtain emissivity measurements for Ti6Al4V material pre-melting (powder form) and
post-melting. A thermal model was established to determine the
view factors associated with the Arcam A2s thermal enclosure.
The view factors were found to be necessary when computing
the reflected temperature and thus, with shield wall temperature measurements, it became possible to determine the mean
radiant temperature. The integrated thermal-imaging system in
EBM yields a higher level of feedback that can allow for captured IR images to be analyzed and processed as a means to
identify absolute thermal non-uniformity on the parts surface.
Such theory and calculations expressed in this research can
be used in other AM technologies that use in situ IR thermography. Future work will consist of establishing a correlation
between processing parameters, IR surface temperature measurements, and mechanical and microstructural properties for
EBM-fabricated parts.
References
[1] Amato KN, Hernandez J, Murr LE, Martinez E, Gaytan SM, Sindo PW.
Comparison of microstructures and properties for a Ni-base superalloy
(Alloy 625) fabricated by electron and laser beam melting. J Mater Sci Res
2012:341.
[2] Bayle F, Doubenskaia M. Selective laser melting process monitoring with
high speed infrared camera and pyrometer. Fundamentals of laser assisted
micro- and nanotechnologies. In: SPIE. 2008. p. 18.
[3] Castrejon-Garcia R, Castrejon-Pita JR, Castrejon-Pita AA. Design, development, and evaluation of a simple backbody radiative source. Rev Sci
Instrum 2010;81(5). p. 055106.
[4] Cengel YA. Heat and mass transfer: a practical approach. Boston, MA:
McGraw Hill; 2007.

39

[5] Christensen A, Kircher R, Lippincott A. Qualification of electron beam


melted Ti6Al4V for orthopaedic applications. In: Materials and processes for medical devices conference. 2008. p. 4853.
[6] Coppa P, Consorti A. Normal emissivity of samples surrounded by surfaces
at diverse temperatures. Measurement 2005:12431.
[7] Dinwiddie R, Dehoff R, Lloyd P, Lowe L, Ulrich J. Thermographic in situ
process monitoring of the electron beam melting technology used in additive manufacturing. In: Thermosense: thermal infrared applications XXXV.
Baltimore, MD: SPIE; 2013. p. 19.
[8] Gibson I, Rosen DW, Stucker B. Additive manufacturing technologies.
New York: Springer; 2010.
[9] Hernandez J, Li SJ, Martinez E, Murr LE, Pan XM, Amato KN, et al. Microstructures and hardness properties for beta phase Ti24Nb4Zr7.9Sn alloy
fabricated by electron beam melting. J Mater Sci Technol 2013:10117.
[10] IRISS. 10 things you need to know about infrared windows. Bradenton,
FL: IRISS, Inc.; 2013.
[11] Krauss H, Eschey C, Zaeh MF. Thermography for monitoring the selective melting process. In: Solid freeform fabrication symposium. 2012. p.
9991014.
[12] Maldague X. Theory and practice of infrared technology for nondestructive
testing. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2001.
[13] Martinez E, Murr LE, Hernandez J, Pan X, Amato K, Frigola P, et al. Microstructures of niobium components fabricated by electron beam melting.
Metallogr Microstruct Anal 2013;2(3):1839.
[14] Mireles J. Process study and control of electron beam melting technology
using infrared thermography. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest, UMI Dissertations
Publishing; 2013.
[15] Mireles J, Terrazas C, Medina F, Wicker RB. Automatic feedback control
in electron beam melting using infrared thermography. In: Solid freeform
fabrication symposium. 2013. p. 70817.
[16] Murr LE, Esquivel EV, Quinones SA, Gaytan SM, Lopez MI, Martinez EY,
et al. Microstructures and mechanical properties of electron beam-rapid
manufactured Ti6Al4V biomedical prototypes compared to wrought
Ti6Al4V. Mater Charact 2009:96105.
[17] Murr LE, Gaytan SM, Ceylan A, Martinez E, Martinez JL, Hernandez
DH, et al. Characterization of titanium aluminide alloy components fabricated by additive manufacturing using electron beam melting. Acta Mater
2010:188794.
[18] Murr LE, Martinez E, Pan XM, Gaytan SM, Castro JA, Terrazas CA, et al.
Microstructures of Rene 142 nickel-based superalloy fabricated by electron
beam melting. Acta Mater 2013:428996.
[19] Murr LE, Martinez E, Pan X, Meng C, Yang J, Li S, et al. Microstructures and properties of solid and reticulated mesh components of
pure iron fabricated by electron beam melting. J Mater Res Technol 2013:
37685.
[20] Ramirez DA, Murr LE, Martinez E, Hernandez DH, Martinez JL, Machado
BI, et al. Novel precipitate-microstructural architecture developed in the
fabrication of solid copper components by additive manufacturing using
electron beam melting. Acta Mater 2011:408899.
[21] Rodriguez E. Development of a thermal imaging feedback control system
in electron beam melting. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest, UMI Dissertations
Publishing; 2013.
[22] Schwerdtfeger J, Singer RF, Korner C. In situ flaw detection by IR-imaging
during electron beam melting. Rapid Prototyp J 2012:25963.
[23] Sparrow EM. Radiation heat transfer. New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation; 1978.
[24] Wohlers T. Wohlers report. Fort Collins, CO: Wohlers Associates; 2013.
[25] Yang J, Sun S, Brandt M, Yan W. Experimental investigation and 3D finite
element prediction of the heat affected zone during laser assisted machining
of Ti6 Al4 V alloy. J Mater Process Technol 2010:221522.

You might also like