Process defects and in situ monitoring methods in metal powder bed fusion: a review
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Despite continuous technological enhancements of metal Additive Manufacturing (AM) systems, the lack of process repeatability and stability still represents a barrier for the industrial breakthrough. The most relevant metal AM applications currently involve industrial sectors (e.g. aerospace and bio-medical) where defects avoidance is fundamental. Because of this, there is the need to develop novel in situ monitoring tools able to keep under control the stability of the process on a layer-by-layer basis, and to detect the onset of defects as soon as possible. On the one hand, AM systems must be equipped with in situ sensing devices able to measure relevant quantities during the process, a.k.a. process signatures. On the other hand, in-process data analytics and statistical monitoring techniques are required to detect and localize the defects in an automated way. This paper reviews the literature and the commercial tools for in situ monitoring of powder bed fusion (PBF) processes. It explores the different categories of defects and their main causes, the most relevant process signatures and the in situ sensing approaches proposed so far. Particular attention is devoted to the development of automated defect detection rules and the study of process control strategies, which represent two critical fields for the development of future smart PBF systems.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Efficient quality assurance and monitoring technologies to detect the onset of defects and control the printing process are also crucial.
“Efficient quality assurance and monitoring technologies to detect the onset of defects and control the printing process are also crucial [428,429].”
From A comprehensive review of lunar-based manufacturing and construction (2024) · cites this paper as [429]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 151 · Cited by 833
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Bamberg J, Zenzinger G and Ladewig A 2016 In-process control of selective laser melting by quantitative optical tomography 19th World Conf. on Non-Destructive Testing
- Casavola C, Campanelli S L and Pappalettere C 2008 Experimental analysis of residual stresses in the selective laser melting process Proc. XIth Int. Congress and Exposition (Orlando, FL)
- Foster B K, Reutzel E W, Nassar A R, Hall B T, Brown S W and Dickman C J 2015 Optical, layerwise monitoring of powder bed fusion Solid Freedom Fabrication Symp. Proc. pp 295-307
- Gong X, Cheng B, Price S and Chou K 2013b Powder-bed electron- beam-melting additive manufacturing: powder characterization, process simulation and metrology Proc. of the ASME District F Early Career Technical Conf. pp 59-66
- Kleszczynski S, zur Jacobsmühlen J, Reinarz B, Sehrt J T, Witt G and Merhof D 2014 Improving process stability of laser beam melting systems Proc. of the Frauenhofer Direct Digital Manufacturing Conf.
- Authors
- Grasso, M., & Colosimo, B. M.
- Affiliations
- Politecnico di Milano (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Grasso, Marco
- Colosimo, Bianca Maria
- Venue
- Measurement Science and Technology
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2017-02-15
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 044005
- ISSN
- 0957-0233 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6501
- OpenAlex
- W2584508145
- Cited by
- 833
- References
- 151
- Citations by year
- 2026: 125 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 100 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 107 · 2021: 112 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 15
- FWCI
- 46.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Measurement Science and Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (H2020)
- Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Fault Detection and Control Systems
- Keywords
- metal powder bed fusion, in situ monitoring, process defects, defect detection, process signatures, in situ sensing, process control, statistical process monitoring, additive manufacturing, process repeatability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
