In situ morphology-based defect detection of selective laser melting through inline coherent imaging

By Jordan A. Kanko, Allison P. Sibley, J. Fraser. 2016

186 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Process defects and in situ monitoring methods in metal powder bed fusion: a review (2017, unknown): “In particular, three quantities were considered by different authors (Kanko et al., 2016; Krauss et al., 2012 – 2014; Bayle and Doubenskaia, 2008; Lane et al., 2015; Price et al., 2012; Grasso et al., 2016): i) the geometry of the track, ii) the temperature profile over the track and iii) material e”
Additive manufacturing for energy: A review (2020, background): “The associated data processing, highspeed imaging rate, and time-resolved measurements are also critical [153].”
The barriers to the progression of additive manufacture: perspectives from UK industry (2018, background): “, 2016) and low-coherence interferometric imaging for melt pool morphology (Kanko et al., 2016).”
On the use of spatter signature for in-situ monitoring of Laser Powder Bed Fusion (2017, unknown): “Process signature Literature in LPBF Melt pool (size, shape, temperature) [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Track along the scan path (geometry, temperature) [20] [17] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Slice (surface pattern, geometry, thickness, temperature) [27] [28] [29] [”
In-situ sensing, process monitoring and machine control in Laser Powder Bed Fusion: A review (2021, background): “OCT has found increasing applications in AM fabrication processes and PBF in particular [38].”