skip to main content

Title: A functional modeling approach for quality assurance in metal additive manufacturing
Purpose Due to the complexity of and variations in additive manufacturing (AM) processes, there is a level of uncertainty that creates critical issues in quality assurance (QA), which must be addressed by time-consuming and cost-intensive tasks. This deteriorates the process repeatability, reliability and part reproducibility. So far, many AM efforts have been performed in an isolated and scattered way over several decades. In this paper, a systematically integrated holistic view is proposed to achieve QA for AM. Design/methodology/approach A systematically integrated view is presented to ensure the predefined part properties before/during/after the AM process. It consists of four stages, namely, QA plan, prospective validation, concurrent validation and retrospective validation. As a foundation for QA planning, a functional workflow and the required information flows are proposed by using functional design models: Icam DEFinition for Function Modeling. Findings The functional design model of the QA plan provides the systematically integrated view that can be the basis for inspection of AM processes for the repeatability and qualification of AM parts for reproducibility. Research limitations/implications A powder bed fusion process was used to validate the feasibility of this QA plan. Feasibility was demonstrated under many assumptions; real validation is not included in this study. more » Social implications This study provides an innovative and transformative methodology that can lead to greater productivity and improved quality of AM parts across industries. Furthermore, the QA guidelines and functional design models provide the foundation for the development of a QA architecture and management system. Originality/value This systematically integrated view and the corresponding QA plan can pose fundamental questions to the AM community and initiate new research efforts in the in-situ digital inspection of AM processes and parts. « less
Authors:
; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
2015693
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10219954
Journal Name:
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume:
27
Issue:
2
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
288 to 303
ISSN:
1355-2546
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Additive manufacturing (AM) presents unique challenges to the nondestructive testing community, not least in that it requires inspection of parts with complex forms that are not possible using subtractive manufacturing. The drive to use AM for parts where design approaches include damage tolerance and retirement-for-cause with high quality and where safety criticality imposes new QA/QC requirements is growing. This article reviews the challenges faced to enable reliable inspection and characterization in metal powderbased AM processes, including issues due to geometric and microstructural features of interest, the limitation on existing and emerging NDT techniques, and remaining technology gaps. The article looks at inspection from powder to finished part, but focuses primarily on monitoring and characterization during the build. In-process, quantitative characterization and monitoring is anticipated to be transformational in advancing adoption of metal AM parts, including offering the potential for inprocess repair or early part rejection during part fabrication.
  2. Abstract

    The goal of this work is to predict the effect of part geometry and process parameters on the instantaneous spatial distribution of heat, called the heat flux or thermal history, in metal parts as they are being built layer-by-layer using additive manufacturing (AM) processes. In pursuit of this goal, the objective of this work is to develop and verify a graph theory-based approach for predicting the heat flux in metal AM parts. This objective is consequential to overcome the current poor process consistency and part quality in AM. One of the main reasons for poor part quality in metal AM processes is ascribed to the heat flux in the part. For instance, constrained heat flux because of ill-considered part design leads to defects, such as warping and thermal stress-induced cracking. Existing non-proprietary approaches to predict the heat flux in AM at the part-level predominantly use mesh-based finite element analyses that are computationally tortuous — the simulation of a few layers typically requires several hours, if not days. Hence, to alleviate these challenges in metal AM processes, there is a need for efficient computational thermal models to predict the heat flux, and thereby guide part design and selection of processmore »parameters instead of expensive empirical testing. Compared to finite element analysis techniques, the proposed mesh-free graph theory-based approach facilitates layer-by-layer simulation of the heat flux within a few minutes on a desktop computer. To explore these assertions we conducted the following two studies: (1) comparing the heat diffusion trends predicted using the graph theory approach, with finite element analysis and analytical heat transfer calculations based on Green’s functions for an elementary cuboid geometry which is subjected to an impulse heat input in a certain part of its volume, and (2) simulating the layer-by-layer deposition of three part geometries in a laser powder bed fusion metal AM process with: (a) Goldak’s moving heat source finite element method, (b) the proposed graph theory approach, and (c) further comparing the heat flux predictions from the last two approaches with a commercial solution. From the first study we report that the heat flux trend approximated by the graph theory approach is found to be accurate within 5% of the Green’s functions-based analytical solution (in terms of the symmetric mean absolute percentage error). Results from the second study show that the heat flux trends predicted for the AM parts using graph theory approach agrees with finite element analysis with error less than 15%. More pertinently, the computational time for predicting the heat flux was significantly reduced with graph theory, for instance, in one of the AM case studies the time taken to predict the heat flux in a part was less than 3 minutes using the graph theory approach compared to over 3 hours with finite element analysis. While this paper is restricted to theoretical development and verification of the graph theory approach for heat flux prediction, our forthcoming research will focus on experimental validation through in-process sensor-based heat flux measurements.

    « less
  3. The goal of this work is to predict the effect of part geometry and process parameters on the instantaneous spatiotemporal distribution of temperature, also called the thermal field or temperature history, in metal parts as they are being built layer-by-layer using additive manufacturing (AM) processes. In pursuit of this goal, the objective of this work is to develop and verify a graph theory-based approach for predicting the temperature distribution in metal AM parts. This objective is consequential to overcome the current poor process consistency and part quality in AM. One of the main reasons for poor part quality in metal AM processes is ascribed to the nature of temperature distribution in the part. For instance, steep thermal gradients created in the part during printing leads to defects, such as warping and thermal stress-induced cracking. Existing nonproprietary approaches to predict the temperature distribution in AM parts predominantly use mesh-based finite element analyses that are computationally tortuous—the simulation of a few layers typically requires several hours, if not days. Hence, to alleviate these challenges in metal AM processes, there is a need for efficient computational models to predict the temperature distribution, and thereby guide part design and selection of process parameters insteadmore »of expensive empirical testing. Compared with finite element analyses techniques, the proposed mesh-free graph theory-based approach facilitates prediction of the temperature distribution within a few minutes on a desktop computer. To explore these assertions, we conducted the following two studies: (1) comparing the heat diffusion trends predicted using the graph theory approach with finite element analysis, and analytical heat transfer calculations based on Green’s functions for an elementary cuboid geometry which is subjected to an impulse heat input in a certain part of its volume and (2) simulating the laser powder bed fusion metal AM of three-part geometries with (a) Goldak’s moving heat source finite element method, (b) the proposed graph theory approach, and (c) further comparing the thermal trends predicted from the last two approaches with a commercial solution. From the first study, we report that the thermal trends approximated by the graph theory approach are found to be accurate within 5% of the Green’s functions-based analytical solution (in terms of the symmetric mean absolute percentage error). Results from the second study show that the thermal trends predicted for the AM parts using graph theory approach agree with finite element analyses, and the computational time for predicting the temperature distribution was significantly reduced with graph theory. For instance, for one of the AM part geometries studied, the temperature trends were predicted in less than 18 min within 10% error using the graph theory approach compared with over 180 min with finite element analyses. Although this paper is restricted to theoretical development and verification of the graph theory approach, our forthcoming research will focus on experimental validation through in-process thermal measurements.« less
  4. Part design and process parameters directly influence the spatiotemporal distribution of temperature and associated heat transfer in parts made using additive manufacturing (AM) processes. The temporal evolution of temperature in AM parts is termed herein as thermal profile or thermal history. The thermal profile of the part, in turn, governs the formation of defects, such as porosity and shape distortion. Accordingly, the goal of this work is to understand the effect of the process parameters and the geometry on the thermal profile in AM parts. As a step towards this goal, the objectives of this work are two-fold: (1) to develop and apply a finite element-based framework that captures the transient thermal phenomena in the fused filament fabrication (FFF) additive manufacturing of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) parts, and (2) validate the model-derived thermal profiles with experimental in-process measurements of the temperature trends obtained under different feed rate settings (viz., the translation velocity, also called scan speed or deposition speed, of the extruder on the FFF machine). In the specific context of FFF, this foray is the critical first-step towards understanding how and why the thermal profile directly affects the degree of bonding between adjacent roads (linear track of deposited material),more »which in turn determines the strength of the part, as well as, propensity to form defects, such as delamination. From the experimental validation perspective, we instrumented a Hyrel Hydra FFF machine with three non-contact infrared temperature sensors (thermocouples) located near the nozzle (extruder) of the machine. These sensors measure the surface temperature of a road as it is deposited. Test parts are printed under three different settings of feed rate, and subsequently, the temperature profiles acquired from the infrared thermocouples are juxtaposed against the model-derived temperature profiles. Comparison of the experimental and model-derived thermal profiles confirms a high-degree of correlation therein, with maximum absolute error less than 10%. This work thus presents one of the first efforts in validation of thermal profiles in FFF via in-process sensing. In our future work, we will focus on predicting defects, such as delamination and inter-road porosity based on the thermal profile.

    « less
  5. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEGmore »channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.« less