RÉPUBLIQUE ALGÉRIENNE DÉMOCRATIQUE ET POPULAIRE

Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique

École Nationale Polytechnique

Département Génie Mécanique

Centre de Développement des Technologies Avancées

Review study
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master in
Mechanical Engineering

Parametric study of the SLM/LPBF

additive manufacturing process

BENSALEM Sarah

Supervisors :
Dr. TAMSAOUT Toufik CDTA
Dr. SEDJAL Hamid ENP

ENP, 2024, March 31

10 Avenue des frères Ouddek, Hassen Badi BP182 El-Harrach 16200 Alger Algérie
www.enp.edu.dz Tél : (+213) 23 82 85 39 Fax : (+213) 023 82 85 29
Abstract

Metallic Additive Manufacturing (MAM), more commonly referred to as metal 3D print-

ing, is defined by the generation of a shape in metal alloys through the deposition of
successive layers. The most advanced "additive" process is laser melting on a powder bed
(referred to by the English acronyms SLM – Selective Laser Melting or LPBF – Laser
Powder Bed Fusion). The importance of in-depth knowledge of the involved mechanisms
becomes apparent, especially when it comes to better understanding the laser-material
interaction with the goal of optimizing the SLM process. This topic aims for a parametric
study through numerical simulation of the SLM/LPBF process, focusing on the effect of
certain parameters on the geometry of the formed bed, specifically examining the effect
of: laser traversal speed, laser power, average diameter of powder particles and patch
space between beads .

Keywords : Additive manufacturing, SLM, LPBF, Numerical simulation, keyhole.

Contents

List of Tables 4

List of Figures 5

Nomenclature 6

Introduction 9

State of the art 10

1 GENERALITIES OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.1 Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.2 Advantages and limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2 SELECTIVE LASER MELTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1 Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2 Parameters of the process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3 PHYSICAL PHENOMENA RELATED TO THE SLM PROCESS . . . . 13

3.1 Laser-Matter Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.1.1 At the Powder Bed Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1.2 At the Keyhole Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2 Hydrodynamics of the Molten Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2.1 Surface tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2.2 Thermocapillary stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2.3 Recoil pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.3 Physical phenomena within the solidified phase . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.4 Instabilities and defects associated with SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2
 CONTENTS

3.4.1 Balling instability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.4.2 Humping instability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.4.3 Formation of porosities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.4.4 High residual stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4 MODELING OF SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.1 Multi-scale and multi-physical challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.2 Bibliographic review of modeling and simulation of SLM . . . . . . 21

Conclusion 24

References 25

CONTENTS
List of Tables

1 Main parameters and the range of their values [1]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4
List of Figures

1 Diagram presenting the main steps of the SLM process [2] . . . . . . . . . 12

2 Absorbance as a function of incident energy [1]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3 Diagram of the beam trapping mechanism in the powder bed. . . . . . . . 14

4 Diagram of the beam trapping mechanism in the Keyhole. . . . . . . . . . 15

5 Melt pool zones in conduction mode (left) and Keyhole mode (right). . . . 15

6 Hydrodynamic forces acting on the molten pool [3]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

7 Effects of different hydrodynamic forces on the melt pool [4]. . . . . . . . . 17

8 Balling characteristics at different scan speeds [5]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

9 Photo (scale 1 mm) and diagram of the flow in the melt pool during hump-
ing, and cross-sectional view of the resulting hump (scale: 0.5 mm). Extract
from Fabbro (2010) [6] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

10 The multiple scales of SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

11 Simulation of the humping phenomenon in SLM. Extracted from Tang et

al. (2020) [7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

12 Comparison of fusion pools and simulated temperature fields without and

with a powder bed [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

13 Stages of keyhole formation. (a) Conduction mode. (b) Forced conduction

mode. (c) Keyhole threshold. (d) Initiation of the keyhole mode. [1] . . . . 22

14 Simulation of two layers consisting of four tracks. Extracted from Bayat et

al. (2019) [8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5
Nomenclature

Acronyms
- AM : Additive Manufacturing

- CAD : Computer Aided Design

- CAM : Computer Aided Manufacturing

- LPBF : Laser Power Bed Fusion

- SLM : Selective Laser Melting

Greek symbols
- κ : Curvature of the surface.

- σ : Surface tension.

Latin letters
- F⃗σ : Force of surface tension.

- F⃗M : Force of surface tension.

- Happ : Apparent height of bead.

- hdown : Descent height of the piston guiding the substrate.

- hp : Height of powder bed.

- kB : Boltzmann constant.

- Lv : Latent heat of evaporation.

- m : Molecular mass.

- P0 : Operation pressure.

- prec : Recoil pressure.

- Tb : Ambient temperature.
 LIST OF FIGURES

Operators
- ∇s : Surface gradient.

LIST OF FIGURES
Introduction

Additive Manufacturing (AM) has transformed the modern manufacturing by enabling the
production of complex geometries through the deposition of layers of material from digital
3D models. Among numerous AM techniques, Selective Laser Melting (SLM) has emerged
as one of the leading processes for the production of high-performance metal components
with superior mechanical properties and design freedom. SLM employs high power laser
to selectively melt metal powders and is a key technology in aerospace, biomedical, and
automotive sectors.

In this literature review, an effort has been made to provide a comprehensive review of
the state of the art of research work on the SLM process, highlighting the key physical
phenomena, process parameters, and modeling strategies. Specifically, it reviews ongoing
research on the effect of hydrodynamic forces, laser-matter interaction and thermal effects
on the quality and reliability of SLM-produced parts and process-induced instabilities.
Furthermore, different modeling strategies used to investigate and optimize the SLM
process are reviewed, highlighting scope, accuracy, and limitations.

By summarizing the recent advances and highlighting the research gaps, this review serves
as a valuable resource for understanding the critical challenges and prospects in SLM re-
search. The insights presented herein aim to support further advancements in process
optimization and predictive modeling, contributing towards the advancement of the de-
velopment of AM technologies.

9
State of the art

1 GENERALITIES OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

1.1 Principles

Additive manufacturing (AM) is the general term for those technologies that successively
join material to create physical objects as specified by 3D model data [9].

Additive manufacturing relies on a numerical chain that allows passing from a numerical
object to a real object, it can be summarized in four steps [10]:

(a) Creation of a digital 3D model of the product, either directly by a CAD tool, or by
scanning a real object and converting it into a CAD file (Reverse engineering).

(b) Creation of STL file, the previously designed volume is reduced to its simplest
geometric form. Its exterior surfaces are discretized using a triangular mesh, and
all other characteristics (construction history, assembly constraints, textures, etc.)
are erased.

(c) Defining the manufacturing strategy that will be adopted to produce the part. The
parameters that must be taken into consideration are:

- The orientation of the part, meaning the definition of the manufacturing di-
rection.
- The plate positioning, that is, the placement of the parts.
- The implementation, for the processes concerned, of supports. These supports
act as scaffolding and are manufactured at the same time as the part.

After setting these parameters, STL files are sliced, considering layer thickness and
machine resolution, to generate machine trajectories.

(d) Manufacturing of the pieces. Using a computer-controlled 3D printing machine, the

parts are produced layer by layer. This step is typically preceded by a phase of
preparing the workspace, such as adjusting the oxygen level in the manufacturing
chamber, preheating the feed material, etc.

After manufacturing, parts undergo post-processing operations like separation from the
manufacturing platform, surface treatment to remove imperfections, and additional treat-
ments for final properties.

10
 State of the art

1.2 Advantages and limits

Additive manufacturing presents multiple advantages compared to conventional manufac-

turing methods:

- Flexibility in design, it enables the production of any geometry in a single opera-

tion. Topological optimization helps to reduce weight while optimizing mechanical
strength.

- Manufacture complex metallic parts, simplify post-machining procedures, shorten

production cycles, and maximize material utilization [11].

- Optimal use of raw materials, deposited only where needed.

- Acceleration of the production process, thanks to the fluid digital chain.

On the other hand, the diffusion of the additive processes confronts always some chal-
lenges:

- High investment costs and operating expenses. However, this needs to be contextu-
alized based on the AM process.

- Lack of standards.

- The combined effect of improper scanning parameters and poor powder melting can
result in many issues, which can deteriorate the mechanical properties and impede
the large-scale industrial commercialization [11].

- Lack of understanding of physical mechanisms behind AM processes.

2 SELECTIVE LASER MELTING

2.1 Principle

Selective Laser Melting (SLM), also called Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF), is an ad-
ditive manufacturing process that relies on constructing a piece by stacking layers. This
is accomplished through consecutively melting and solidifying build material powder us-
ing a high-power laser. Its main advantage is that it can produce complex geometries
with adequate mechanical properties [12]. Atmosphere control by an inert gas (Argon or
nitrogen) is essential to prevent oxidation during the build process [13].

The main steps of the process are presented as follows:

(a) The powder is deposited on top of the substrate using a scraper, with a controlled
height hp

(b) The laser beam melts the particles of the powder and the substrate following the
trajectory described by the CAM model, forming a melt pool, which rapidly cools
into a solid layer with a height. Happ

Page 11
 State of the art

(c) The platform is lowered with a distance hdown , generally equals to Happ [2].

The same steps are repeated until the production of the final piece.

Figure 1: Diagram presenting the main steps of the SLM process [2]

2.2 Parameters of the process

The parameters of SLM can be divided into 2 categories, primary parameters which
contribute mainly to the physical phenomena noticed on the scale of the melt pool [2].

- Laser power.

- Diameter of laser beam.

- Laser speed.

- Thickness of powder bed.

- Hatching space between beads.

And secondary parameters, which have a less direct influence on the final outcome.

- Properties of the powder: morphology of grains, distribution [14].

- Preheating temperature. Important to reduce residual stresses [15, 1, 16]..

- Thermodynamics properties of the material [2].

The next table presents the main parameters and the range of their values.

Page 12
 State of the art

Table 1: Main parameters and the range of their values [1].

Laser parameters Values

Laser power (W ) 100-1000
Laser speed (mm.s ) −1
200-2000
Diameter of laser beam (µm) 50-200
Powder bed parameters Values
Thickness of layer (µm) 50-200
Diameter of particles (µm) 15-45
Hatching space (µm) 50-250
Preheating temperature (°C) 200-500

3 PHYSICAL PHENOMENA RELATED TO THE SLM PROCESS

Multiple physical phenomena intervene during the SLM process, the main ones are:

- The laser-matter interaction and the energy input towards the powder bed, which
provokes significant mass and heat transfer.

- Hydrodynamics of the melt pool, which is governed by complex hydrodynamic

forces.

- The fast solidification process, which results in a particular microstructure.

- The thermal cycles of heating and cooling resulting from the superposition of layers.

These phenomena have important consequences on the microstructure and the mechan-
ical properties of the final piece. In fact, the heat transfer influences the temperature
field distribution, which has a direct effect on the residual stresses, which may cause the
apparition of fissures within the piece. The hydrodynamics of the melt pool has a direct
influence on the morphology of the beads and the rugosity of the piece. The final mi-
crostructure of the piece is controlled by the cooling conditions. All these phenomena can
happen simultaneously, which complicates the process further [2].

3.1 Laser-Matter Interaction

The driving force of the SLM process is the laser energy absorbed by the material through
irradiation. The use of an inert gas (argon) complicates the laser-matter interaction [2].
The energy coupling varies based on the energy applied during the process. Trapp et
al. (2017) [17] and Ye et al. (2019) [18] studied this dependency and found that at
low volumetric energy, or during the initial moments of interaction, the absorption level
is relatively high because the incident radiation is trapped by the powder bed. During
melting, the laser illuminates a dense metal that acts like a mirror, reducing the absorption
level. Finally, during progressive vaporization, a recoil pressure applies to the surface

Page 13
 State of the art

of the molten pool, generating an optical cavity or "keyhole". This traps the incident
radiation through multiple reflections, increasing the energy coupling.

Figure 2: Absorbance as a function of incident energy [1].

3.1.1 At the Powder Bed Level

Absorption is governed by multiple reflections of incident laser beams. The laser beams
can penetrate considerable depths because the absorptivity of the powder is higher than
the known value for flat surfaces [16]. The incident beam is trapped by powder particles,
increasing the absorption of the powder bed [1]. Consequently, energy deposition must
be considered as a volumetric heat source distributed over the thickness of the powder
bed, rather than a surface heat source [16]. Factors influencing absorption and energy dis-
tribution include laser beam power, wavelength, polarization, angle of incidence, powder
temperature, surface roughness, and powder bed morphology [16].

Figure 3: Diagram of the beam trapping mechanism in the powder bed.

Page 14
 State of the art

3.1.2 At the Keyhole Level

When the temperature of the molten pool exceeds the metal vaporization temperature, the
metallic vapor expands into the working atmosphere, and by the action-reaction principle,
a recoil pressure applies to the surface of the molten pool, forming a vapor capillary (the
Keyhole), which acts as an optical cavity trapping incident radiation and increasing energy
coupling (Figure 4) [1].

Figure 4: Diagram of the beam trapping mechanism in the Keyhole.

This transition moves from a conduction melting mode, where the molten pool surface
is flat and penetration is shallow (Figure 5, left), to a Keyhole mode, where the molten
pools are deeper (Figure 5, right) [1].

Figure 5: Melt pool zones in conduction mode (left) and Keyhole mode (right).

3.2 Hydrodynamics of the Molten Pool

Once the melting temperature is reached, the phase transition from solid to liquid as well
as the formation of the melt pool is induced. Multiple forces govern the hydrodynamic
of the melt pool and influence its morphology. The most influential hydrodynamic forces
within the melt pool are :

3.2.1 Surface tension

It’s the force that tends to minimize the energy of the interface of the liquid, it’s given
by the equation
F⃗σ = σ · κ · ⃗n

Page 15
 State of the art

Where σ is the surface tension, κ is the curvature of the interface liquid/gas. This force
initiates a coalescence of individual melt drops and a reshaping of the resulting melt pool
[16].

3.2.2 Thermocapillary stress

Also called the Marangoni effect, it originates from the variation of tension surface coeffi-
cient of the melt pool with the temperature. A tangential forces is applied on the surface,
it has tendency to enlarge the melt pool, playing a prominent role in this process [4]. It
is given by the equation :
∂σ ⃗
F⃗M = · ∇s · T
∂T

3.2.3 Recoil pressure

When the temperature exceeds the vaporisation temperature of the metal, a release of
metallic vapor is observed. By the principle of action-reaction, a pressure is applied on
the surface of the melt pool, this pressure provokes the formation of a hollow capillary,
called keyhole. It can be expressed as [12]:

m · Lv Tb
  
prec = P0 · exp · 1−
KB · Tb T
Where P0 is the operation pressure, m is the molar mass of the material, Lv is the latent
heat of evaporation, KB is the constant of Boltzman and Tb is the ambient temperature.

Figure 6: Hydrodynamic forces acting on the molten pool [3].

Khairallah et al. [4] studied the effect of various hydrodynamic forces on the characteristics
of the melt pool.

Figure 7 illustrates the significant changes in melt pool characteristics when temperature-
dependent physical phenomena are considered.

If surface tension is assumed to be temperature-independent, non-physical effects are

observed. The melt pool is deepest with constant surface tension and exhibits a balling
effect (see Section ??) due to the tendency of surface tension to minimize surface area by
forming liquid spheres.

Page 16
 State of the art

In the second figure, strong temperature gradients under the laser beam necessitate the
activation of temperature-dependent surface tension. This induces Marangoni effects
(thermocapillary stresses), directing the melt flow from the hot spot of the laser beam
toward the cooler rear zone. This increases the melt pool depth, recirculates the melt
flow (thus cooling the laser spot area), and creates splattering, as the low-viscosity liquid
metal is ejected away from the surface.

In the final figure, the effect of recoil pressure is observed, adding additional forces to the
liquid surface and creating a surface depression in the melt pool.

x
Figure 7: Effects of different hydrodynamic forces on the melt pool [4].

3.3 Physical phenomena within the solidified phase

The significant temperature gradient during the process leads to the development of resid-
ual stresses and substantial deformations in the solidified part, which can cause cracks
and detachment of the part or its supports from the build platform.

Three main mechanisms contribute to the formation of significant residual stresses [2]:

- Temperature Gradient Mechanism: This occurs due to the compressive stress

exerted by the surrounding cold region on the hot spot (laser spot), preventing its
expansion. These stresses can reach the material’s yield strength.

- Cooling Contraction Mechanism: During cooling, the molten material tends to

contract, but the colder surrounding region slows this contraction.

- Thermal Cycling Effect: The successive heating and cooling cycles of the layers,
combined with the previous two mechanisms, are responsible for the formation of
residual stresses.

Reducing these stresses is a major challenge, as they can lead to part deformation.

3.4 Instabilities and defects associated with SLM

3.4.1 Balling instability

When the absorbed laser energy is insufficient to continuously melt the powder bed,
fragmentation occurs in the bead line due to surface tension effects. This discontinuity
can create porosities within the part [1].

Page 17
 State of the art

A systematic study by Li et al. [5] identified the key parameters influencing the balling
phenomenon:

- Oxygen promotes balling, as oxidation tends to reduce wettability (the ability of a

liquid to maintain contact with a solid surface). A direct solution is to use an inert
gas.

- Decreasing the scan speed and increasing the laser intensity reduces balling.

- A thick powder bed leads to poor wettability, thereby increasing the balling effect.

Figure 8: Balling characteristics at different scan speeds [5].

3.4.2 Humping instability

This phenomena occurs at high scan speeds and high laser power. It can be mixed up
with the balling phenomena since they both result in discontinuity of the bead, but the
physical mechanisms behind them are different. The liquid metal enters from the front
of the melt pool, it flows around the keyhole on its sides and downwards following the
leading edge of the keyhole (Figure 9). Due to the reduced fluid passage section caused
by the presence of the vapor capillary, the fluid flows backward at a speed of about
ten times that of the scanning speed [7] (principle of flow rate conservation). The main
flow is hindered on the sides by viscosity, so that only its central part manages to flow
backward at high speed into the pool, forming a relatively thin and elongated jet (Figure
9). Due to Plateau-Rayleigh instability, this flow forms a constriction at a certain length,
which promotes its cooling and anchors a point in the sample’s frame of reference. It is
at this moment that the hump forms due to accumulation effect, as the removal speed
of this point (equal to the scanning speed) is much lower than the liquid ejection speed.
Thus, the jet feeds a bulge that enlarges and solidifies as the solidification front progresses
forward. The feeding of the hump stops when a new constriction of the liquid jet occurs
following the same mechanisms, and the process repeats periodically, resulting in the
regular alternation of bumps and valleys observed on the beads.

Page 18
 State of the art

Figure 9: Photo (scale 1 mm) and diagram of the flow in the melt pool during humping,
and cross-sectional view of the resulting hump (scale: 0.5 mm). Extract from Fabbro
(2010) [6]

3.4.3 Formation of porosities

(a) Lack of Fusion Porosity: Porosities can result from insufficient overlap between
beads, where the scan spacing is too large, preventing full melting of the material
between tracks. Another cause is an insufficient incident energy density to melt the
entire powder bed thickness.

(b) Keyhole Closure Porosity: Another type of porosity results from keyhole closure.
A highly elongated keyhole can form with bulges on its upper front edge propagating
downward. As these bulges extend, they widen and periodically cause keyhole clo-
sure. The resulting porosity takes an almost spherical shape due to surface tension
[1].

Page 19
 State of the art

3.4.4 High residual stress

As mentioned in paragraph 3.3, important temperature gradients due to the cycles of

heating and cooling, provoke important residual stresses and deformations within the
piece, which can result in fissures and distorsion of the manufactured piece.

4 MODELING OF SLM

4.1 Multi-scale and multi-physical challenges

In light of the development presentes previously, the SLM process involves multiple cou-
pled physical phenomena at different scales. At a very fine scale, laser photons interact
with the powder bed and then the molten pool. Material vaporization introduces addi-
tional phenomena that influence both the flows in the pool and those in the surrounding
inert gas. As the bead solidifies, a columnar/dendritic structure begins to grow, with
competition between the dendrite "trunks." Significant temperature gradients and ther-
mal cycles are responsible at both the bead and part scales for the presence of residual
stresses, which can lead to significant distortions in the part or even detachment of the
part from the build plate (substrate).

Currently, numerical models are designed to simulate physical phenomena at specific

scales. In other words, it is currently impossible to predict all physical phenomena at
the scale of the entire part [2]. The majority of research efforts regarding modeling of
the SLM additive manufacturing process are conducted at two scales. The first is the
macroscopic scale, meaning the scale of the entire part. The second is the scale of the
melt pool, which is referred to as the mesoscopic scale. This is the scale considered in this
manuscript. The objective of simulations at this scale is generally to simulate the process
in the finest possible manner, to predict local temperature fields, flows in the pool and
metal vapor, hydrodynamic instabilities, etc.; in other words, all the physical phenomena
presented in this chapter. This numerical approach is referred to as "multiphysics."

Figure 10: The multiple scales of SLM

Page 20
 State of the art

4.2 Bibliographic review of modeling and simulation of SLM

Since the mesoscale is the focal point of this study, a brief overview of significant research
in this domain is presented.

Among the most prominent and widely referenced simulation models are those developed
by Khairallah et al. [4, 19, 20]. Their model, based on the Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian
(ALE) interface-tracking method (see section 2.3.1.1.1), intricately integrates a powder
bed with a granular representation that meticulously considers each individual powder
particle. Their findings indicate that the random distribution of powder bed particles can
adversely affect the uniformity and roughness of the melt track. Specifically, particles in
close proximity to the molten pool disturb its flow by adhering to the liquid metal.

Moreover, their model accounts for various hydrodynamic forces governing the molten
pool, including surface tension, the Marangoni effect, and recoil pressure. Their results
highlight the significant role of surface tension in controlling the coalescence of powder
particles. Notably, they incorporate multiple laser beam reflections using the Ray Tracing
method within their model. Their study demonstrates that the formation of ejecta, with
sizes comparable to the powder bed thickness, can obscure the incident laser beam and
disrupt the uniform melting of the powder. This phenomenon negatively impacts the
consistency of the melt track and may lead to surface roughness defects in manufactured
parts.

Yan et al. (2017) [21] investigated the SLM process using a Finite Volume (FV) formula-
tion implemented in the commercial software Flow-3D. Compared to the ALE formulation
by Khairallah et al. (2014) [20], the FV approach proved significantly more efficient in
terms of computational time. It was also successfully applied to simulate multi-layer
fabrication (Yan et al., 2018 [22]). A similar FV model was implemented by Qiu et al.
(2015) [23] within the open-source CFD code OpenFOAM. The formation of keyholes was
studied using the method proposed by Panwisawass et al. (2017) [24].

Tang et al. [7, 25] explored various hydrodynamic instabilities and influential parameters
affecting the occurrence of humping phenomena and porosity formation. They employed
a Discrete Element Method (DEM) and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) approach,
utilizing the open-source codes LIGGGHTS and OpenFOAM.

Figure 11: Simulation of the humping phenomenon in SLM. Extracted from Tang et al.
(2020) [7]

Chouhan et al. [26] also used a DEM-CFD approach to model the in-situ formation of
aluminum-copper alloys through the SLM process. Their simulations involved melting an
aluminum powder layer on a copper substrate, examining the impact of recoil pressure and
Marangoni convection flows on Al-Cu mixing. This study provides fundamental insights
into the mixing of dissimilar metals and aims to support future research on the design

Page 21
 State of the art

and development of new alloys using the SLM process.

The work of Masmoudi [27] investigates the impact of evaporation on the induced gas
flow and its implications for powder bed stability.

Mayi (2021) [1] developed a Finite Element Method (FEM) model using COMSOL to
study the effects of incorporating a granular powder bed and its advantages over a contin-
uous (equivalent) model. A ray tracing model was integrated into COMSOL to analyze
the transition between conduction, forced conduction, and keyhole melting regimes, as
well as the stability of these regimes.

Figure 12: Comparison of fusion pools and simulated temperature fields without and with
a powder bed [1]

Figure 13: Stages of keyhole formation. (a) Conduction mode. (b) Forced conduction
mode. (c) Keyhole threshold. (d) Initiation of the keyhole mode. [1]

Bayat et al. (2019) [8] developed a multiphysics numerical model for multi-layer SLM.

Page 22
 State of the art

Their model enables the analysis of porosity formation and evolution caused by lack of
fusion. It incorporates all previously discussed physical phenomena and accounts for
geometry-dependent absorptivity.

Figure 14: Simulation of two layers consisting of four tracks. Extracted from Bayat et al.
(2019) [8]

Page 23
Conclusion

Throughout this literature review chapter, we have examined the fundamental physical
principles utilized in the SLM process, along with the various numerical approaches pre-
viously documented in the literature.

We have explored the key principles of additive manufacturing processes, focusing specif-
ically on the Selective Laser Melting process. Our discussion has shed light on the unique
aspects and constraints of the SLM process. We have delved into the various physical
phenomena inherent in the process, as well as the potential instabilities and defects that
may arise. Finally, we have provided a concise overview of different simulations at a
mesoscopic scale, emphasizing their significant characteristics.

24
References

[1] Yaasin Mayi. Compréhension et simulation des phénomènes physiques affectant la

fabrication additive en SLM. PhD thesis, HESAM Université, October 2021.

[2] Alexis Queva. Simulation numérique multiphysique du procédé de fusion laser de lit
de poudre : Application aux alliages métalliques d’intérêt aéronautique. PhD thesis,
Université Paris sciences et lettres, July 2021.

[3] Emmanouil L. Papazoglou, Nikolaos E. Karkalos, Panagiotis Karmiris-Obratański,

and Angelos P. Markopoulos. On the modeling and simulation of slm and sls for metal
and polymer powders: A review. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering,
2022.

[4] Saad A. Khairallah, Andrew T. Anderson, Alexander Rubenchik, and Wayne E. King.
Laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing: Physics of complex melt flow and
formation mechanisms of pores, spatter, and denudation zones. Acta Materialia,
2016.

[5] Ruidi Li, Jinhui Liu, Yusheng Shi, Li Wang, and Wei Jiang. Balling behavior of
stainless steel and nickel powder during selective laser melting process. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology - INT J ADV MANUF TECHNOL,
2012.

[6] R Fabbro. Melt pool and keyhole behaviour analysis for deep penetration laser
welding. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 2010.

[7] C. Tang, K.Q. Le, and C.H. Wong. Physics of humping formation in laser powder
bed fusion. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2020.

[8] Mohamad Bayat, Sankhya Mohanty, and Jesper Henri Hattel. Multiphysics modelling
of lack-of-fusion voids formation and evolution in in718 made by multi-track/multi-
layer l-pbf. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2019.

[9] NF EN ISO/ASTM 52900 : Fabrication additive - Principes généraux - Fondamen-

taux et vocabulaire, 2021.

[10] Floriane Laverne, Frédéric Segonds, and Patrice Dubois. Fabrication additive -
principes généraux. Techniques de l’ingénieur, 2016.

[11] Jincheng Wang, Rui Zhu, Yujing Liu, and Laichang Zhang. Understanding melt pool
characteristics in laser powder bed fusion: An overview of single- and multi-track
melt pools for process optimization. Advanced Powder Materials, page 100137, 2023.

25
 Bibliographie

[12] Abbas Razavykia, Eugenio Brusa, Cristiana Delprete, and Reza Yavari. An overview
of additive manufacturing technologies—a review to technical synthesis in numerical
study of selective laser melting. Materials, 2020.

[13] Lawrence E. Murr, Sara M. Gaytan, Diana A. Ramirez, Edwin Martinez, Jennifer
Hernandez, Krista N. Amato, Patrick W. Shindo, Francisco R. Medina, and Ryan B.
Wicker. Metal fabrication by additive manufacturing using laser and electron beam
melting technologies. Journal of Materials Science Technology, 2012.

[14] H. Tang, Ma Qian, N. Liu, X. Zhang, G. Yang, and Jianyih Wang. Effect of powder
reuse times on additive manufacturing of ti-6al-4v by selective electron beam melting.
JOM, 2015.

[15] R. Mertens, B. Vrancken, N. Holmstock, Y. Kinds, J.-P. Kruth, and J. Van Hum-
beeck. Influence of powder bed preheating on microstructure and mechanical prop-
erties of h13 tool steel slm parts. Physics Procedia, 2016.

[16] Christoph Meier, Ryan Penny, Yu Zou, Jonathan Gibbs, and A Hart. Thermophysical
phenomena in metal additive manufacturing by selective laser melting: Fundamen-
tals, modeling, simulation and experimentation. Annual Review of Heat Transfer,
2018.

[17] Jianchao Ye, Saad A. Khairallah, Alexander M. Rubenchik, Michael F. Crumb, Gabe
Guss, Jim Belak, and Manyalibo J. Matthews. Energy coupling mechanisms and
scaling behavior associated with laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing.
Advanced Engineering Materials, 2019.

[18] Johannes Trapp, Alexander M. Rubenchik, Gabe Guss, and Manyalibo J. Matthews.
In situ absorptivity measurements of metallic powders during laser powder-bed fusion
additive manufacturing. Applied Materials Today, 2017.

[19] Saad A. Khairallah, Aiden A. Martin, Jonathan R. I. Lee, Gabe Guss, Nicholas P.
Calta, Joshua A. Hammons, Michael H. Nielsen, Kevin Chaput, Edwin Schwalbach,
Megna N. Shah, Michael G. Chapman, Trevor M. Willey, Alexander M. Rubenchik,
Andrew T. Anderson, Y. Morris Wang, Manyalibo J. Matthews, and Wayne E.
King. Controlling interdependent meso-nanosecond dynamics and defect generation
in metal 3d printing. Science, 2020.

[20] Saad A. Khairallah and Andy Anderson. Mesoscopic simulation model of selective
laser melting of stainless steel powder. Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
2014.

[21] Wentao Yan, Wenjun Ge, Ya Qian, Stephen Lin, Bin Zhou, Wing Kam Liu, Feng
Lin, and Gregory J. Wagner. Multi-physics modeling of single/multiple-track defect
mechanisms in electron beam selective melting. Acta Materialia, 2017.

[22] Wentao Yan, Ya Qian, Wenjun Ge, Stephen Lin, Wing Kam Liu, Feng Lin, and
Gregory J. Wagner. Meso-scale modeling of multiple-layer fabrication process in
selective electron beam melting: Inter-layer/track voids formation. 2018.

[23] Chunlei Qiu, Chinnapat Panwisawas, Mark Ward, Hector Basoalto, J.W. Brooks, and
Moataz Attallah. On the role of melt flow into the surface structure and porosity
development during selective laser melting. Acta Materialia, 2015.

Page 26
 Bibliographie

[24] Chinnapat Panwisawas, Chunlei Qiu, Magnus J. Anderson, Yogesh Sovani, Richard P.
Turner, Moataz M. Attallah, Jeffery W. Brooks, and Hector C. Basoalto. Mesoscale
modelling of selective laser melting: Thermal fluid dynamics and microstructural
evolution. Computational Materials Science, 2017.

[25] C. Tang, J.L. Tan, and C.H. Wong. A numerical investigation on the physical mech-
anisms of single track defects in selective laser melting. International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer, 2018.

[26] Arvind Chouhan, Marcel Hesselmann, Anastasiya Toenjes, Lutz Mädler, and Nils
Ellendt. Numerical modelling of in-situ alloying of al and cu using the laser powder
bed fusion process: A study on the effect of energy density and remelting on deposited
track homogeneity. Additive Manufacturing, 2022.

[27] Amal Masmoudi, Rodolphe Bolot, and Christian Coddet. Investigation of the
laser–powder–atmosphere interaction zone during the selective laser melting process.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2015.

Page 27