Advances in the modeling of laser direct metal deposition

Andrew J. Pinkerton
Citation: Journal of Laser Applications 27, S15001 (2015); doi: 10.2351/1.4815992
View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.2351/1.4815992
View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/lia/journal/jla/27/S1?ver=pdfcov
Published by the Laser Institute of America
Articles you may be interested in
2D longitudinal modeling of heat transfer and fluid flow during multilayered direct laser metal deposition process
J. Laser Appl. 24, 032008 (2012); 10.2351/1.4726445
Comprehensive predictive modeling and parametric analysis of multitrack direct laser deposition processes
J. Laser Appl. 23, 022003 (2011); 10.2351/1.3567962
Modeling of transport phenomena during the coaxial laser direct deposition process
J. Appl. Phys. 108, 044908 (2010); 10.1063/1.3474655
Thermal and microstructural aspects of the laser direct metal deposition of waspaloy
J. Laser Appl. 18, 216 (2006); 10.2351/1.2227018
Microstructure and corrosion behavior of high power diode laser deposited Inconel 625 coatings
J. Laser Appl. 15, 55 (2003); 10.2351/1.1536652

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
188.253.33.225 On: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:28:44

JOURNAL OF LASER APPLICATIONS

LASER ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

FEBRUARY 2015

Advances in the modeling of laser direct metal deposition

Andrew J. Pinkertona)
Department of Engineering, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4YR, United Kingdom

(Received 7 March 2013; accepted for publication 4 July 2013; published 9 December 2014)
This paper provides a review of the current state of the art in modeling of laser direct metal
deposition and cladding processes and identifies recent advances and trends in this field. The
different stages of the process and the features, strengths and weaknesses of models relating to them
are discussed. Although direct metal deposition is now firmly in the industrial domain, the benefits to
be gained from reliable predictive modeling of the process are still to be fully exploited. The genuine
progress there has been in this field in the last five years, particularly in discretized modeling, means
modeling cannot be overlooked as an enabling method for academia and industry, but there is still
C 2014 Laser Institute of America.
more work to be done. V
Key words: laser, deposition, cladding, model, simulation, review

I. INTRODUCTION

Even finding consensus on a name for the laser direct

metal deposition (laser cladding, direct metal deposition,
direct laser deposition, directed light fabrication, laser powder fusion, laser engineered net shaping, etc) process has
to-date proved impossible. It is, thus, of no surprise that there
is such a disparate range of models of the process. But this
must be viewed as a positive thing: they are advancing the
modeling of the different stages of the deposition process
and, excitingly, the complete process in umpteen ways.
Academic attention to process modeling continues to
increase but has still been outpaced by the growth of additive
manufacturing in general, which has seen double digit growth
for 15 of its 24 yrs.1 Figure 1 illustrates the growth of laser
direct metal deposition (LDMD) modeling of all types and
models describing themselves as numerical in the title or
keywords in particular. Empiricalstatistical and analytical
models were almost exclusively used until the advent of numerical and hybrid analyticalnumerical models, which principally refers to those employing the discretization method,
over the last 10 years.
II. EMPIRICALSTATISTICAL MODELS

Empiricalstatistical models have been produced since

the advent of LDMD as they avoid the complexity of analyzing the physical phenomena of the process itself. Direct
metal deposition is typically described as having three
primary process inputs of laser power, powder mass flow
rate, and traverse speed. Most models have concentrated on
relating these to final track geometry, typically using regression methods to relate input and response variables (Table I).
Other models have addressed less common response parameters such as, clad angle,2 deposition efficiency,3 and uniformity index (clad area / (track width  height)),4 while others
have used less common experimental designs, for example
a)

Electronic mail: aj.pinkerton@lancaster.ac.uk. Telephone: 44 (0)1524

593547.

1042-346X/2015/27(S1)/S15001/7/$28.00

Hartleys plan.5 The process and response variables have

also been related in other ways: Toyserkani et al. proposed
Elman recurrent neural network modeling6 and Hua and
Choi proposed use of fuzzy logic to adaptively predict and
control clad height as a function of laser power.7
However, examination of Table I shows an inherent disadvantage of the empiricalstatistical approach. These models give broadly similar but seldom exactly the same results,
even though in many cases they are based on similar methods. Qi et al.8 suggested 1214 factors with a strong effect
on final part characteristics, so the models are, at least to
some extent, specific to the values of factors that were fixed.
Despite design of experiment methods, models have not
significantly advanced the number of process variables they
are able to account for in the recent past, and limitations of
experimental time mean there are no indications that they
will in the future. There is thus so real sign that this modeling method will change significantly in the future.
III. APPROACHES TO THE PHYSICAL MODELING OF
DIRECT METAL DEPOSITION

The large number of variables and diverse phenomena

within the LDMD process means the complete process is
commonly considered in stages and different physical
models applied at each stage. This introduces intermediate
variables that need to be carried over from one stage of the
process to the other. Figure 2 illustrates how the complete
process is typically broken down physically and Fig. 3 the
corresponding model-part this creates. Advances in physical
modeling of the different process stages and the process as a
whole are then considered.
A. Models of the powder stream process

The powder stream and powder stream processes are

highly significant for track formation as they directly affect
beam attenuation and powder distribution, velocity, and temperature at substrate height. The spatial distribution of powder particles beneath a coaxial nozzle and their interaction

S15001-1

C 2014 Laser Institute of America

V

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
188.253.33.225 On: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:28:44

S15001-2

J. Laser Appl., Vol. 27, No. S1, February 2015

FIG. 1. Growth in the publication of laser cladding and metal deposition

models per year since 1985 [based on SCOPUS data, title and keyword
searches, absolute values give an estimate only].

with the laser beam have traditionally been described by analytical methods, typically by approximating the stream shape
to an idealized Gaussian distribution and the particle path to
extensions of the nozzle passages (e.g., Refs. 1719).
Attenuation has been taken care of via the BeerLambert
law and powder temperature from total time of a particle
within the beam.17 The most advanced analytical models can
now account for variable particle velocity20 and return the
values of powder distribution at the substrate level, beam
attenuation, and powder temperature.21 The analytical models are well tested and still widely used as good approximations but tend to rely on estimated or experimental values for
variables such as powder stream divergence.
The use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods
is not in itself very new: Lin produced realistic model of mass
flow in the powder stream in 2000. The numerical method
allows stream modeling without many of the assumptions
mentioned above and has shown assumptions like straight
powder paths and constant powder speed to be approximations
rather than reality. Models of this type have increased greatly
in sophistication in the last few years. Pan and Liou22,23 produced a stochastic model for initial trajectory of the particle
when entering the powder stream and several authors have
produced CFD models of powder flow in the nozzle and
powder stream with different degrees of complexity.2426
The most advanced models of this type now include the

Andrew J. Pinkerton

FIG. 2. (Arbitrary) Stages of direct metal deposition or laser cladding in

terms of physical limits.

nozzle and stream, account for the size and shape of particle
using a shape factor,27 and provide both particle heating
and mass flow results28 (Fig. 4).
Further, the LDMD process must build on a solid wall or
substrate, but the effect of this on the gas and powder flows
has only just been considered. The gasliquid interface geometry input to the powder stream model shown in Fig. 3
has thus been neglected. Kovalov et al.29 used an advanced
CFD model of a three passage nozzle, similar to that of Wen
et al.,28 to consider the substrate effect. The flow was very
different from that of a free stream with vortex flows forming above the substrate (Fig. 5). Focussing on powder flow,
Zekovic et al.30 modeled powder flow from a LENS nozzle
using the ke turbulent model and showed changes in powder concentrations below the nozzle due to ricocheting particles when a substrate was in place. Ibarra-Medina and
Pinkerton31 showed the same effect with a coaxial nozzle
and also drew attention to the implications for powder heating and beam attenuation. This type of model was firmly
confirmed as state of the art by a verified CFD model based
on the same assumptions as that of Zekovic et al. by
Tabernero et al. in 2010.32,33
Modeling of the powder stream process is advancing
rapidly. Models with the substrate in place would probably
benefit from further testing to establish under what circumstances the effects they reveal are significant. However, they

TABLE I. Empiricalstatistical relationships between track geometry and LDMD primary process variables (P laser power, F powder mass flow rate,
V traverse speed, RSM response surface method, RA regression analysis).
Primary process response variable
Work
Kumar (Ref. 9)
Sun (Ref. 10) (ANOVA, RSM)
El Cheikh (Ref. 11)
Davim (Ref. 12) (ANOVA, RA)
Ocelik (Ref. 13)
Davim (Ref. 14)
De Oliveira (Refs. 10 and 15) (RA)
Felde (Ref. 16)
a

Track height

Track width

Track depth or melt area

P1/4 V1F1/4
P, V, F, PF, P2
P1/4 V1F3/4
P, V, F
V21F
P, V, Fa
FV21

P, V, F, PV, V2
P3/4V1/4
P, V, F
PV1/2
P, FV, Fa
PV1/2
1/2 1 1/2
P V F

P, V, F, P2, F2
Ln(P4/5F1/4)
P, V, F
P2V1/2
P, Fa
PV1/3F1/3

Taking confidence values above 5%.

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
188.253.33.225 On: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:28:44

J. Laser Appl., Vol. 27, No. S1, February 2015

Andrew J. Pinkerton

S15001-3

FIG. 3. Subprocesses and process variables corresponding to the physical stages of deposition shown in Fig. 2.

could mean the ubiquitous free stream powder model has

been superceded.

B. Models of the melt pool process

Models of the melt pool are at the heart of the deposition

process. The typical assumptions of an analytical model are
quasistationary conditions, a mathematically simple substrate shape (typically semi-infinite or thin plate), and geometrically simple melt pool boundaries, either combinations
of half ellipses34,35 (based on moving source heat theory36,37)
or circles11,38,39 (assuming surface tension normal to the surface shapes the molten pool). Despite these necessary simplifications, there have been some recent informative models
and ones covering the effect of powder types and laser focus
points on wall layer formation4042 and on combining laser
and induction heating for hybrid rapid cladding43 stand out.
The ability to use iterative numerical solution methods for

FIG. 4. Modeled coaxial powder flow and heating (Ref. 28).

analytically formulated models44,45 has also reduced the constraints of using this modeling method.
Numerical discretized methods more naturally account
for inhomogeneity in problems but in practice makes calculating melt pool geometry an exacting task. Therefore, models using this method have tended to focus on calculating the
temperature distributions and thermal history of the final
part.4648 Early models applied a heat flux to an unchanging
surface (e.g., Ref. 49), but more recent models have come to
rely on the element activation (birth) methodology,
although Ye et al.48 have also demonstrated use of the alternative fixed boundary method (after Refs. 50 and 51).
Models of this type differ in the way heat is added to the substrate: using a heat flux,47 activating the new elements at the
liquidus temperature (assuming particles at this temperature

FIG. 5. Gas jet flows onto a flat substrate with a triple coaxial nozzlevelocity
field and gas streamlines (Courtesy of Professor O. Kovalev, Theoretical and
experimental investigation of gas flows, powder transport and heating in
coaxial laser direct metal deposition (DMD) process, J. Therm. Spray
Technol. 20, 465478 (2011). Copyright 2011, Springer).

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
188.253.33.225 On: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:28:44

S15001-4

J. Laser Appl., Vol. 27, No. S1, February 2015

Andrew J. Pinkerton

FIG. 6. Simulated deposition of a thin wall using a multistage model (Ref. 76).

and 100% attenuation)48,5254 or using a combination of the

two methods.55 Kumar and Roy56 presented a twodimensional finite volume model that explicitly returns solidification front information such as thermal gradient suitable
for use by a solidification model.
The model types above have the failing of not explicitly
calculating fluid flows within the melt pool. Some compensate for it by increasing conductivity within the melt pool.
This can be done either isotropically or anisotropically57 but
requires arbitrary or experimentally set enhancement factors.
A more advanced form of model, incorporating fluid flow
effects and a free-surface method to predict the melt pool
and subsequent track shape, has now emerged.5861 The
most recent and advanced models by Morville et al.59 explicitly track the dynamic shape of the free surface using an arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) moving mesh and
realistically predict thin wall growth including the characteristic shapes near the limits of the wall.
Despite the importance of this work, probably the state
of the art in melt pool modeling has come from models that
encompass both the powder stream and melt pool processes.
Toyserkani et al.62,63 began by proposing a single model
encompassing the two but with the two processes largely
decoupled. More complex analyticalnumerical and numerical models have followed.8,61,6473
The levels set method was used by Qi et al. to simulate
formation of a single track8 and by He et al. to simulate two
overlapping clad tracks64,65 using an hybrid analytical and numerical discretized model. The powder stream was treated analytically as Gaussian and the beam subject to BeerLambert
attenuation, while the melt pool simulations were fully numerical and incorporated Marangoni and capillary effects. Peyre
et al.66 used a similar combination of an analytical powder
stream model and a numerical finite element (FE) method for
heat flow within the built part but also incorporated an

approach to model the deposition of vertically aligned tracks.

In further recent work aimed at this subject by Gharbi, Peyre
et al.72,73 a rare analytical model covering both powder stream
and melt pool correlates thin wall surface finish to melt pool
size for different thermo-capillary behaviors.
Different from these are the continuum models of Wen
and Shin67 and Ibarra-medina et al.,74 which contain no analytical component. Wen and Shin modeled the LENS process, incorporating Marangoni and Capillary effects, and
used a level-set method for melt pool surface tracking (akin
to Han et al.75). Gas flow in the powder stream was taken as
turbulent, described by the ke model as reported in another
paper dedicated to this subject.67 The model was also applied
to two overlapping tracks,68 off-axis deposition69 and cladding with an additional hard particle phase.70 The model of
Ibarra-medina et al. incorporated the same effects but considered an annular nozzle and used the volume of fluid
(VOF) method (Fig. 6).
In summary, models have advanced by ceasing to consider
purely thermodynamic effects and incorporating fluid dynamics
effects in a predictive way. This means modeling of the melt
pool process is advancing as quickly as that of the powder
stream process. Most benefit in the immediate future would
come from better integration of these state-of-the-art melt pool
models with other subprocess models of the powder stream and
final properties.
C. Models of microstructure, stress, and final
geometry

Obtaining final part properties is the ultimate aim of the

modeling process. The core ones can be considered as final
geometry (including distortion), microstructure, and stress
distributions. Many other properties can be derived from
these. To obtain the distribution of residual stress, many

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
188.253.33.225 On: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:28:44

J. Laser Appl., Vol. 27, No. S1, February 2015

models consist of a discretized melt pool model of the type

described in Sec. III B and exploit the functionality of commercial software such as ANSYS (e.g., Refs. 77 and 78) and ABAQUS
(e.g., Ref. 79). The stress is affected by variables such as layer
height,80 substrate geometry and temperature fed from the previous model-part81,82 and from those such as phase transformation calculated within this process stage.83 Models of this type
are difficult to verify but work by Labudovic et al.,84 using a
high speed camera and off-line metallographical and x-ray diffraction analyses, and by Rangaswamy et al.85 and Moat
et al.,86 using neutron diffraction, has facilitated this.
As a whole, LDMD microstructure modeling is a younger
area than stress modeling. Investigations in this area have
tended to be experimental and concentrate on high performance materials, particularly titanium8790 and superalloys.9195
Phase-microstructure models are again usually based on discretized melt pool model of the type described in Sec. III B,
with added subroutines to relate the temperature history at
each node to the final material state. Authors such as Wang
et al.96 have used continuous cooling transformation diagrams; however, Colaco and Vilar suggest that the nonequilibrium solidification that can occur in LDMD means that
modified expressions are needed.97 Papers in this area have
considered deposition of a range of materials including stainless steels,52,96 medium carbon steel,98 and titanium alloys,55
each using thermo-metallurgical phase transformation models
specific to the material. However, work has not been limited
to purely metallic coatings and phase analysis: Lei et al. considered composite coatings on Ti6Al4V alloys99 using the
WilsonFrenkel growth law to relate the modeled temperature
distribution and history in a test part to the size of TiC particles that formed. In other work, Pirch et al. concentrated on
calculating dendritic growth direction in multitrack deposits.100 Models in this area have advanced by expanding both
the parameters they consider and return. The residual stress
models of Bruckner et al.101 and Alimardani et al.102 include
decoupled analytical model of the powder stream which enable them to also calculate an (idealized) track geometry. The
former also accounts for phase effects.
IV. SUMMARY

There are some genuinely new analytical models being

produced but the proportion of numerical models, particularly those based on the discretization method, in this field is
continuing to increase. Probably, the most interesting development in the last few years has been the growth in analytical discretized and discretized models that span multiple
stages of direct metal deposition. Further development of
this towards a usable, unified model is an exciting prospect.
But models have many uses.103 An overall process
model (red to red in Fig. 3) could be used for process planning or design, analytical models are the classic way to
increase understanding of an unfamiliar aspect of the process, and there are other opportunities for modelling in control that have not even been touched on here.104110
There is still plenty of opportunity for genuinely better
models and these could benefit the laser community in multiple ways.

Andrew J. Pinkerton

S15001-5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is grateful to the authors and publishers who

have allowed him to use their figures in this paper to example leading models in the field. Thanks also to Milan Brandt
for giving me this opportunity and to colleagues working on
the INLADE project over the last few years.
1

T. Wohlers, Wohlers Report 2012 Additive Manufacturing and 3D

Printing State of the Industry Annual Worldwide Progress Report
(Wohlers Associates, Inc, 2012).
2
G. C. Onwubolu, J. P. Davim, C. Oliveira, and A. Cardoso, Prediction of
clad angle in laser cladding by powder using response surface methodology and scatter search, Opt. Laser Technol. 39, 11301134 (2007).
3
H.-K. Lee, Effects of the cladding parameters on the deposition efficiency in pulsed Nd:YAG laser cladding, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
202, 321327 (2008).
4
P. Balu, P. Leggett, S. Hamid, and R. Kovacevic, Multi-response optimization of laser-based powder deposition of multi-track single layer
Hastelloy C-276, Mater. Manuf. Processes 28, 173182 (2013).
5
Q. Zhang, M. Anyakin, R. Zhuk, Y. Pan, V. Kovalenko, and J. Yao,
Application of regression designs for simulation of laser cladding,
Phys. Procedia 39, 921927 (2012).
6
E. Toyserkani, A. Khajepour, and S. Corbin, Application of
experimental-based modeling to laser cladding, J. Laser Appl. 14,
165173 (2002).
7
Y. Hua and J. Choi, Adaptive direct metal/material deposition process
using a fuzzy logic-based controller, J. Laser Appl. 17, 200210
(2005).
8
H. Qi, J. Mazumder, and H. Ki, Numerical simulation of heat transfer
and fluid flow in coaxial laser cladding process for direct metal deposition, J. Appl. Phys. 100, 024903 (2006).
9
S. Kumar, V. Sharma, A. K. S. Choudhary, S. Chattopadhyaya, and S.
Hloch, Determination of layer thickness in direct metal deposition using
dimensional analysis, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 67(912), 26812687
(2013).
10
Y. Sun and M. Hao, Statistical analysis and optimization of process parameters in Ti6Al4V laser cladding using Nd:YAG laser, Opt. Lasers
Eng. 50, 985995 (2012).
11
H. El Cheikh, B. Courant, S. Branchu, J. Y. Hascoet, and R. Guillen,
Analysis and prediction of single laser tracks geometrical characteristics
in coaxial laser cladding process, Opt. Lasers Eng. 50, 413422 (2012).
12
J. P. Davim, C. Oliveira, and A. Cardoso, Predicting the geometric form
of clad in laser cladding by powder using multiple regression analysis
(MRA), Mater. Des. 29, 554557 (2008).
13
V. Ocelik, U. de Oliveira, M. de Boer, and J. T. M. de Hosson, Thick
Co-based coating on cast iron by side laser cladding: Analysis of processing conditions and coating properties, Surf. Coat. Technol. 201,
58755883 (2007).
14
J. P. Davim, C. Oliveira, and A. Cardoso, Laser cladding: An experimental study of geometric form and hardness of coating using statistical
analysis, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part B 220, 15491554 (2006).
15
U. de Oliveira, V. Ocelk, and J. T. M. De Hosson, Analysis of coaxial
laser cladding processing conditions, Surf. Coat. Technol. 197, 127136
(2005).
16
I. Felde, T. Reti, K. Zoltan, L. Costa, R. Colaco, R. Vilar, and B. Ver
o,
A simple technique to estimate the processing window for laser clad
coatings, in Surface Engineering Coatings and Heat Treatments 2002:
Proceedings of the 1st ASM International Surface Engineering and the
13th IFHTSE Congress (Pub. ASM International, OH, 2003), pp.
237242.
17
Y. L. Huang, J. Liu, N. H. Ma, and J. G. Li, Three-dimensional analytical model on laser-powder interaction during laser cladding, J. Laser
Appl. 18, 4246 (2006).
18
Y. Fu, A. Loredo, B. Martin, and A. B. Vannes, A theoretical model for
laser and powder particles interaction during laser cladding, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 128, 106112 (2002).
19
O. O. Diniz Neto and R. Vilar, Physical-computational model to
describe the interaction between a laser beam and a powder jet in laser
surface processing, J. Laser Appl. 14, 4651 (2002).
20
N. Yang, Concentration model based on movement model of powder
flow in coaxial laser cladding, Opt. Laser Technol. 41, 9498 (2009).

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
188.253.33.225 On: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:28:44

S15001-6
21

J. Laser Appl., Vol. 27, No. S1, February 2015

O. O. D. Neto, A. M. Alcalde, and R. Vilar, Interaction of a focused

laser beam and a coaxial powder jet in laser surface processing, J. Laser
Appl. 19, 8488 (2007).
22
H. Pan and F. Liou, Numerical simulation of metallic powder flow in a
coaxial nozzle for the laser aided deposition process, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 168, 230244 (2005).
23
H. Pan, R. G. Landers, and F. Liou, Dynamic modeling of powder delivery systems in gravity-fed powder feeders, ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.
128, 337345 (2006).
24
J. Ibarra-Medina and A. Pinkerton, Numerical investigation of
powder heating in coaxial laser metal deposition, Surf. Eng. 27,
754761 (2011).
25
H. S. Li, X. C. Yang, J. B. Lei, and Y. S. Wang, A numerical simulation
of movement powder flow and development of the carrier-gas powder
feeder for laser repairing, in Conference on Material Processing and
Manufacturing II (SPIE Digital Library, Beijing, China, 2005), pp.
557564.
26
J. M. Lin, Numerical simulation of the focused powder streams in
coaxial laser cladding, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 105, 1723 (2000).
27
A. Haider and O. Levenspiel, Drag coefficient and terminal velocity of
spherical and nonspherical particles, Powder Technol. 58, 6370 (1989).
28
S. Y. Wen, Y. C. Shin, J. Y. Murthy, and P. E. Sojka, Modeling of
coaxial powder flow for the laser direct deposition process, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer 52, 58675877 (2009).
29
O. B. Kovalev, A. V. Zaitsev, D. Novichenko, and I. Smurov,
Theoretical and experimental investigation of gas flows, powder transport and heating in coaxial laser direct metal deposition (DMD) process,
J. Therm. Spray Technol. 20, 465478 (2011).
30
S. Zekovic, R. Dwivedi, and R. Kovacevic, Numerical simulation and
experimental investigation of gas-powder flow from radially symmetrical
nozzles in laser-based direct metal deposition, Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manuf. 47, 112123 (2007).
31
J. Ibarra-Medina and A. J. Pinkerton, CFD model of the laser, coaxial
powder stream and substrate interaction in laser cladding, Phys.
Procedia 5, 337346 (2010).
32
I. Tabernero, A. Lamikiz, S. Martnez, E. Ukar, and L. N. L
opez de
Lacalle, Modelling of energy attenuation due to powder flow-laser beam
interaction during laser cladding process, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
212, 516522 (2012).
33
I. Tabernero, A. Lamikiz, E. Ukar, L. N. L
opez de Lacalle, C. Angulo,
and G. Urbikain, Numerical simulation and experimental validation of
powder flux distribution in coaxial laser cladding, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 210, 21252134 (2010).
34
K. Partes, Analytical model of the catchment efficiency in high speed
laser cladding, Surf. Coat. Technol. 204, 366371 (2009).
35
A. Fathi, E. Toyserkani, A. Khajepour, and M. Durali, Prediction of melt
pool depth and dilution in laser powder deposition, J. Phys. D 39,
26132623 (2006).
36
H. S. Carslaw and J. C. Jaeger, Conduction of Heat in Solids, 2nd ed.
(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1959).
37
D. Rosenthal, The theory of moving sources of heat and its application
to metal treatments, Trans. ASME 68, 849866 (1946).
38
C. Lalas, K. Tsirbas, K. Salonitis, and G. Chryssolouris, An analytical model
of the laser clad geometry, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 32, 3441 (2007).
39
H. El Cheikh, B. Courant, J. Y. Hascoet, and R. Guillen, Prediction and
analytical description of the single laser track geometry in direct laser
fabrication from process parameters and energy balance reasoning,
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 212, 18321839 (2012).
40
G. Zhu, D. Li, A. Zhang, G. Pi, and Y. Tang, The influence of standoff
variations on the forming accuracy in laser direct metal deposition,
Rapid Prototyping J. 17, 98106 (2011).
41
G. Zhu, D. Li, A. Zhang, G. Pi, and Y. Tang, The influence of laser and
powder defocusing characteristics on the surface quality in laser direct
metal deposition, Opt. Laser Technol. 44, 349356 (2012).
42
M. N. Ahsan, A. J. Pinkerton, R. J. Moat, and J. Shackleton, A comparative study of laser direct metal deposition characteristics using gas and
plasma-atomized Ti-6Al-4V powders, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528,
76487657 (2011).
43
S. Zhou, X. Dai, and H. Zheng, Analytical modeling and experimental
investigation of laser induction hybrid rapid cladding for Ni-based WC
composite coatings, Opt. Laser Technol. 43, 613621 (2011).
44
M. N. Ahsan and A. J. Pinkerton, An analytical-numerical model of laser
direct metal deposition track and microstructure formation, Modell.
Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 19, 055003 (2011).

Andrew J. Pinkerton
45

C. Chan, J. Mazumder, and M. M. Chen, Fluid flow in laser melted

pool, in Modeling of Casting and Welding Processes II (New England
College, Henniker, NH, 1983), pp. 297316.
46
M. M. Mahapatra and L. Li, Modeling of pulsed-laser superalloy powder
deposition using moving distributed heat source, in Proceedings of the
Minerals, Metals & Materials Society Extraction & Processing Division
(EPD) Congress 2012 (John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey,
2012), pp. 113120.
47
V. Neela and A. De, Three-dimensional heat transfer analysis of
LENSTM process using finite element method, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 45, 935943 (2009).
48
R. Ye, J. E. Smugeresky, B. Zheng, Y. Zhou, and E. J. Lavernia,
Numerical modeling of the thermal behavior during the LENSV process, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 428, 4753 (2006).
TM
49
L. Wang and S. Felicelli, Analysis of thermal phenomena in LENS
deposition, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 435436, 625631 (2006).
50
K. Takeshita and A. Matsunawa, Numerical simulation of the moltenpool formation during the laser surface-melting process, Metall. Mater.
Trans. B 32, 949959 (2001).
51
L. Costa, R. Vilar, T. Reti, R. Colaco, A. M. Deus, and I. Felde,
Simulation of phase transformations in steel parts produced by laser
powder deposition, in 4th Hungarian Conference on Materials Science,
Testing and Informatics, October 1214 2003 (Trans Tech Publications,
Switzerland, 2005), pp. 315320.
52
L. Costa, R. Vilar, T. Reti, and A. M. Deus, Rapid tooling by laser powder deposition: Process simulation using finite element analysis, Acta
Mater. 53, 39873999 (2005).
53
A. Vasinonta, M. L. Griffith, and J. L. Beuth, A process map for consistent build conditions in the solid freeform fabrication of thin-walled
structures, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 123, 615622 (2000).
54
T. B. Chen and Y. W. Zhang, Analysis of melting in a subcooled twocomponent metal powder layer with constant heat flux, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 26, 751765 (2006).
55
A. Suarez, M. J. Tobar, A. Ya~
nez, I. Perez, J. Sampedro, V. Amig
o, and
J. J. Candel, Modeling of phase transformations of Ti6Al4V during laser
metal deposition, Phys. Procedia 12A, 666673 (2011).
56
S. Kumar and S. Roy, Development of a theoretical process map for
laser cladding using two-dimensional conduction heat transfer model,
Comput. Mater. Sci. 41, 457466 (2008).
57
S. Safdar, A. J. Pinkerton, L. Li, M. A. Sheikh, and P. J. Withers, An anisotropic enhanced thermal conductivity approach for modelling laser
melt pools for Ni-base super alloys, Appl. Math. Model. 37, 11871195
(2013).
58
J. Choi, L. Han, and Y. Hua, Modeling and experiments of laser cladding with droplet injection, ASME Trans. J. Heat Transfer 127, 978986
(2005).
59
S. Morville, M. Carin, P. Peyre, M. Gharbi, D. Carron, P. Le Masson, and
R. Fabbro, 2D longitudinal modeling of heat transfer and fluid flow during multilayered direct laser metal deposition process, J. Laser Appl. 24,
032008 (2012).
60
F. Kong and R. Kovacevic, Modeling of heat transfer and fluid flow in
the laser multilayered cladding process, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 41,
13101320 (2010).
61
L. Han and F. W. Liou, Numerical investigation of the influence of laser
beam mode on melt pool, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 47, 43854402
(2004).
62
E. Toyserkani, A. Khajepour, and S. Corbin, 3-D finite element modeling of laser cladding by powder injection: effects of laser pulse shaping
on the process, Opt. Lasers Eng. 41, 849867 (2004).
63
E. Toyserkani, A. Khajepour, and S. Corbin, Three-dimensional finite
element modeling of laser cladding by powder injection: Effects of powder feed rate and travel speed on the process, J. Laser Appl. 15, 153160
(2003).
64
X. He and J. Mazumder, Transport phenomena during direct metal deposition, J. Appl. Phys. 101, 053113 (2007).
65
X. He, G. Yu, and J. Mazumder, Temperature and composition profile
during double-track laser cladding of H13 tool steel, J. Phys. D 43,
015502 (2010).
66
P. Peyre, P. Aubry, R. Fabbro, R. Neveu, and A. Longuet, Analytical
and numerical modelling of the direct metal deposition laser process,
J. Phys. D 41, 025403 (2008).
67
S. Y. Wen and Y. C. Shin, Modeling of transport phenomena during the
coaxial laser direct deposition process, J. Appl. Phys. 108, 044908
(2010).
R

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
188.253.33.225 On: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:28:44

J. Laser Appl., Vol. 27, No. S1, February 2015

68

S. Y. Wen and Y. C. Shin, Comprehensive predictive modeling and

parametric analysis of multitrack direct laser deposition processes,
J. Laser Appl. 23, 022003 (2011).
69
S. Wen and Y. C. Shin, Modeling of the off-axis high power diode laser
cladding process, J. Heat Transfer 133, 031007-10 (2011).
70
S. Wen and Y. C. Shin, Modeling of transport phenomena in direct laser
deposition of metal matrix composite, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 54,
53195326 (2011).
71
M. Alimardani, V. Fallah, M. Iravani-Tabrizipour, and A. Khajepour,
Surface finish in laser solid freeform fabrication of an AISI 303L stainless steel thin wall, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 212, 113119 (2012).
72
M. Gharbi, P. Peyre, C. Gorny, M. Carin, S. Morville, P. Le Masson, D.
Carron, and R. Fabbro, Influence of various process conditions on surface finishes induced by the direct metal deposition laser technique on a
Ti-6Al-4V alloy, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 213, 791800 (2013).
73
P. Peyre, M. Gharbi, C. Gorny, M. Carin, S. Morville, D. Carron, P. Le
Masson, T. Malot, and R. Fabbro, Surface finish issues after direct metal
deposition, Mater. Sci. Forum 706709, 228233 (2012).
74
J. Ibarra-Medina, M. Vogel, and A. J. Pinkerton, A CFD model of laser
cladding: From deposition head to melt pool dynamics, in 30th
International Congress on Applications of Lasers and Electro-optics
(ICALEO) (LIA, Orlando, FL, 2011), p. 708.
75
L. Han, K. M. Phatak, and F. W. Liou, Modeling of laser deposition and
repair process, J. Laser Appl. 17, 8999 (2005).
76
J. Ibarra-Medina, A. J. Pinkerton, M. Vogel, and N. NDri, Transient
modelling of laser deposited coatings, in 26th International Conference
on Surface Modification Technologies (Valardocs, India, 2012).
77
G. Palumbo, S. Pinto, and L. Tricarico, Numerical finite element investigation on laser cladding treatment of ring geometries, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 155, 14431450 (2004).
78
H.-Y. Zhao, H.-T. Zhang, C.-H. Xu, and X.-Q. Yang, Temperature and
stress fields of multi-track laser cladding, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc.
China 19, s495s501 (2009).
79
G. Yang, W. Wang, L. Qin, and X. Wang, Numerical simulation temperature field of laser cladding titanium alloy, in Applied Mechanics and
Materials (Trans Tech Publications Inc., Durnten-Zurich, Switzerland,
2012), Vol. 117119, pp. 16331637.
80
A. Nickel, D. Barnett, G. Link, and F. Prinz, Residual stresses in layered
manufacturing, in 10th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium,
(University of Texas, Austin TX, 1999), pp. 239246; available online
at http://utwired.engr.utexas.edu/lff/symposium/proceedingsArchive/pubs/
Table%20of%20Contents/1999_TOC.cfm.
81
A. H. Nickel, D. M. Barnett, and F. B. Prinz, Thermal stresses and deposition patterns in layered manufacturing, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 317, 5964
(2001).
82
R. Jendrzejewski, G. Sliwinski, M. Krawczuk, and W. Ostachowicz,
Temperature and stress fields induced during laser cladding, Comput.
Struct. 82, 653658 (2004).
83
S. Ghosh and J. Choi, Modeling and experimental verification of transient/residual stresses and microstructure formation of multi-layer laser
aided DMD process, J. Heat Transfer 128, 662679 (2006).
84
M. Labudovic, D. Hu, and R. Kovacevic, A three dimensional model for
direct laser metal powder deposition and rapid prototyping, J. Mater.
Sci. 38, 3549 (2003).
85
P. Rangaswamy, M. L. Griffith, M. B. Prime, T. M. Holden, R. B. Rogge,
J. M. Edwards, and R. J. Sebring, Residual stresses in LENS (R) components using neutron diffraction and contour method, Mater. Sci. Eng., A
399, 7283 (2005).
86
R. J. Moat, A. J. Pinkerton, L. Li, P. J. Withers, and M. Preuss, Residual
stresses in laser direct metal deposited Waspaloy, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
528, 22882298 (2011).
87
S. H. Mok, G. Bi, J. Folkes, I. Pashby, and J. Segal, Deposition of
Ti6Al4V using a high power diode laser and wire, Part II: Investigation
on the mechanical properties, Surf. Coat. Technol. 202, 46134619
(2008).
88
E. Brandl, F. Palm, V. Michailov, B. Viehweger, and C. Leyens,
Mechanical properties of additive manufactured titanium (Ti6Al4V)

Andrew J. Pinkerton

S15001-7

blocks deposited by a solid-state laser and wire, Mater. Des. 32,

46654675 (2011).
89
B. Baufeld, E. Brandl, and O. van der Biest, Wire based additive layer
manufacturing: Comparison of microstructure and mechanical properties
of Ti6Al4V components fabricated by laser-beam deposition and
shaped metal deposition, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 211, 11461158
(2011).
90
B. Baufeld, O. V. d. Biest, and R. Gault, Additive manufacturing of
Ti6Al4V components by shaped metal deposition: Microstructure and
mechanical properties, Mater. Des. 31(1), S106S111 (2010).
91
M. Gaumann, C. Bezencon, P. Canalis, and W. Kurz, Single-crystal laser
deposition of superalloys: Processing-microstructure maps, Acta Mater.
49, 10511062 (2001).
92
X. Do, D. Li, A. Zhang, B. He, H. Zhang, and T. Doan, Investigation on
multi-track multi-layer epitaxial growth of columnar crystal in direct laser
forming, J. Laser Appl. 25, 012007 (2013).
93
R. Vilar, E. C. Santos, P. N. Ferreira, N. Franco, and R. C. da Silva,
Structure of NiCrAlY coatings deposited on single-crystal alloy turbine
blade material by laser cladding, Acta Mater. 57, 52925302 (2009).
94
M. Rombouts, G. Maes, M. Mertens, and W. Hendrix, Laser metal deposition of Inconel 625: Microstructure and mechanical properties, J. Laser
Appl. 24, 052007 (2012).
95
A. Clare, O. Olusola, J. Folkes, and P. Farayibi, Laser cladding for railway
repair and preventative maintenance, J. Laser Appl. 24, 032004 (2012).
96
L. Wang and S. Felicelli, Process modeling in laser deposition of multilayer SS410 steel, ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 129, 10281034 (2007).
97
R. Colaco and R. Vilar, Phase selection during solidification of AISI 420
and AISI 440C tool steels, Surf. Eng. 12, 319325 (1996).
98
J. Ahlstr
om, B. Karlsson, and S. Niederhauser, Modelling of laser cladding of medium carbon steelA first approach, J. Physique IV, 120,
405412 (2004).
99
Y. Lei, R. Sun, Y. Tang, and W. Niu, Numerical simulation of temperature distribution and TiC growth kinetics for high power laser clad TiC/
NiCrBSiC composite coatings, Opt. Laser Technol. 44, 11411147
(2012).
100
N. Pirch, S. Keutgen, S. Gasser, K. Wissenbach, and I. Kelbassa,
Modeling of coaxial single and overlap-pass cladding with laser radiation, in Proceedings of the 37th International MATADOR Conference,
edited by S. Hinduja and L. Li (Springer, London, 2013), pp. 337391.
101
F. Bruckner, D. Lepski, and E. Beyer, Modeling the influence of process
parameters and additional heat sources on residual stresses in laser
cladding, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 16, 355373 (2007).
102
M. Alimardani, E. Toyserkani, and J. P. Huissoon, A 3D dynamic
numerical approach for temperature and thermal stress distributions in
multilayer laser solid freeform fabrication process, Opt. Lasers Eng. 45,
11151130 (2007).
103
H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia, Mathematical models in materials science,
Mater. Sci. Technol. 24, 128136 (2008).
104
E. Toyserkani and A. Khajepour, A mechatronics approach to laser powder deposition process, Mechatronics 16, 631641 (2006).
105
A. Fathi, A. Khajepour, M. Durali, and E. Toyserkani, Geometry control of the deposited layer in a nonplanar laser cladding process using a
variable structure controller, ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 130, 031003
(2008).
106
D. Salehi and M. Brandt, Melt pool temperature control using LabVIEW
in Nd:YAG laser blown powder cladding process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 29, 273278 (2006).
107
L. Song, V. Bagavath-Singh, B. Dutta, and J. Mazumder, Control of
melt pool temperature and deposition height during direct metal deposition process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 58, 247256 (2012).
108
L. Tang and R. G. Landers, Layer-to-Layer Height Control for Laser
Metal Deposition Process, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 133, 021009 (2011).
109
D. Hu and R. Kovacevic, Sensing, modeling and control for laser-based
additive manufacturing, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 43, 5160 (2003).
110
T. Lie, R. Jianzhong, T. E. Sparks, R. G. Landers, and F. Liou, Layer-tolayer height control of laser metal deposition processes, in American
Control Conference, 2009. ACC 09 (IEEE, 2009), pp. 55825587.

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
188.253.33.225 On: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:28:44