In-process Monitoring of Selective Laser Melting: Spatial Detection of Defects via Image Data Analysis

212 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”
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 measurement and monitoring methods for metal powder bed fusion: an updated review (2021, unknown): “In this framework, some studies focused on the detection of local over-heating phenomena known as ‘hot-spots’ via high-speed video imaging in the visible range (Grasso et al 2017, Colosimo and Grasso 2018, Yan et al 2020).”
Fluid and particle dynamics in laser powder bed fusion (2018, methodology): “[3] recorded images with a similar magnification at 300 fps through the viewing window of a Renishaw AM250 system.”