Vision-based defect detection in laser

metal deposition process

Shyam Barua and Frank Liou
Mechanical Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA
Joseph Newkirk
Materials Science and Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA, and
Todd Sparks
Mechanical Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA
Abstract
Purpose Laser metal deposition (LMD) is a type of additive manufacturing process in which the laser is used to create a melt pool on a substrate to
which metal powder is added. The powder is melted within the melt pool and solidied to form a deposited track. These deposited tracks may contain
porosities or cracks which affect the functionality of the part. When these defects go undetected, they may cause failure of the part or below par
performance in their applications. An on demand vision system is required to detect defects in the track as and when they are formed. This is especially
crucial in LMD applications as the part being repaired is typically expensive. Using a defect detection system, it is possible to complete the LMD process
in one run, thus minimizing cost. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the research on a low-cost vision system to study the deposition process and
detect any thermal abnormalities which might signify the presence of a defect.
Design/methodology/approach During the LMD process, the track of deposited material behind the laser is incandescent due to heating by the
laser; also, there is radiant heat distribution and ow on the surfaces of the track. An SLR camera is used to obtain images of the deposited track behind
the melt pool. Using calibrated RGB values and radiant surface temperature, it is possible to approximate the temperature of each pixel in the image.
The deposited track loses heat gradually through conduction, convection and radiation. A defect-free deposit should show a gradual decrease in
temperature which enables the authors to obtain a reference cooling curve using standard deposition parameters. A defect, such as a crack or porosity,
leads to an increase in temperature around the defective region due to interruption of heat ow. This leads to deviation from the reference cooling curve
which alerts the authors to the presence of a defect.
Findings The temperature gradient was obtained across the deposited track during LMD. Linear least squares curve tting was performed and
residual values were calculated between experimental temperature values and line of best t. Porosity defects and cracks were simulated on the
substrate during LMD and irregularities in the temperature gradients were used to develop a defect detection model.
Originality/value Previous approaches to defect detection in LMD typically concentrate on the melt pool temperature and dimensions. Due to the
dynamic and violent nature of the melt pool, consistent and reliable defect detection is difcult. An alternative method of defect detection is discussed
which does not involve the melt pool and therefore presents a novel method of detecting a defect in LMD.
Keywords Layered manufacturing, Laser metal deposition, Vision sensor
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Many manufacturing industries require prototyping, or low
volume manufacturing of parts, especially during design of new
components. Conventional rapid prototyping methods, like
three dimensional printing, generate prototypes made of plastic.
Many plastic prototypes are used for conceptualization purposes
only and cannot be used in their actual intended function due to
inferior strength and toughness when compared to metals. Laser
metal deposition(LMD) is an additive manufacturing process in
which a laser is focused onto a at substrate (typically metal) to
createamelt pool towhichmaterial is added(typicallyintheform
of metal powder or wire). The added material melts in the melt
pool, solidies, and forms a deposit. The required part is built
layer-by-layer according to the path planning and the CAD
model. LMDhas been successfully used for applications such as
surface modication, coating, and mold and die repair. Some of
the control parameters involvedinLMDare laser power, powder
feed rate, and travel velocity of the substrate. All of the above
parameters constantly affect the size of the melt pool being
formed, which creates the need to monitor the process. Due to
the complex interactions of thermal, uid, and mass transfer,
it is difcult to generate accurate numerical models which can be
used in process control for real time applications. One of the
major factors hindering widespread LMD adoption by
companies is the high cost of equipment and labor. Figure 1 is
the schematic representationof the LMDsysteminthis research.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2546.htm
Rapid Prototyping Journal
20/1 (2014) 7786
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1355-2546]
[DOI 10.1108/RPJ-04-2012-0036]
Received: 4 March 2012
Revised: 2 September 2012
Accepted: 7 September 2012
77
Two common defects present in the LMD process are
porosities and cracks. Such defects are highly detrimental in
the case of critical applications, such as in the aerospace
industry. There are two main types of porosities; namely, gas
porosity and porosity caused due to lack of fusion between
deposited layers. Both of these kinds of porosities were
investigated in LMD (Ng et al., 2009). Figure 2 shows a void
present on an insert for a diecasting die that makes chainsaw
cylinders. The insert had to be re-machined and LMD had to
be performed again. There is considerable rework cost
including material, labor, and time which need to be
eliminated or minimized. The porosity caused due to lack of
fusion is due to the inability of the melt pool to melt the
powder particles due to low specic energy. This can be
caused by incorrect or varying standoff distance between the
deposition nozzle and substrate which leads to defocussing of
the laser beam and loss of power. The size and composition of
the substrate also have a major role to play in heat diffusion
and size of the melt pool. Gas porosity is mostly due to overly
high powder ow rate which traps the shielding gas within the
melt pool and also lowers the specic energy of the melt pool.
Since most of the powders used in LMD are gas atomized,
there is a possibility of entrapped gas within the powder
particles themselves. The Marangoni ow in the melt pool
was also determined to be a cause of gas retention bubbles
within the melt pool, causing large pores. Cracking typically
occurs when there is a difference in thermal coefcient of the
material being added and the substrate. It also occurs with
powder contamination in the powder feeder. All these defects
contribute to the variation in mechanical properties of each
deposit and must be detected as formed so as to take
corrective action. This proposed research is an effective
method to alert the user about a possible defect. The exact
type of defects, if interested, will still need to be investigated.
Since an LMD process deposits metal layer-by-layer, it is
possible to ensure the quality of the metal deposition process by
continuously monitoring the top layer, as it is being deposited,
toensure that nodefects are present. The technique proposedin
this paper is based on this scenario, to detect defects in each
layer, and if a defect is found, certain actions, such as
machining, closed loop control, laser remelting, or additive
remedies, can be undertaken to resolve the problem.
Previous methods of defect detection
The size of the melt pool is one of the most important
parameters inLMD. Inorder toensure uniformityof deposits, it
is necessary to ensure constant melt pool size and geometry.
Hence, monitoring the size and shape of the melt pool is an
important part of the quality control process. Conventional
image vision processing techniques use infrared lters along
witha highspeedshutter along withsynchronizing the laser with
the shutter Kizaki et al. (1993). These proprietary vision
systems are relatively expensive to purchase and maintain.
Previous work in this eld includes Kinsman and Duley (1993)
who used the number of bright pixels in the image to determine
the size of the melt pool. Some systems involve turning the laser
off while taking a melt pool measurement. Voelkel and
Mazumder (1990) used an illuminating argon-ion laser to
illuminate, online, the welding melt pool createdby a CO
2
laser.
Ciliberto et al. (2002) used nondestructive testing,
specically ultrasound testing to detect porosities in
aeronautical structures. Roge et al. (2003) used the dielectric
Figure 1 Left gure: overview of LMD process illustrating formation of melt pool and solidied track during deposition in positive x-axis and right
gure: actual system
Figure 2 Small void discovered on surface of insert after LMD process
and machining
Vision-based defect detection in laser metal deposition process
Shyam Barua, Frank Liou, Joseph Newkirk and Todd Sparks
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 20 Number 1 2014 7786
78
properties of the substrate to detect changes in capacitance due
to porosity or other defects. This was compared to destructive
testing using metallography and vacuum voltric measurement
using nitrogen absorption. Most of the above defect detection
methods are performedpost process, whenit is difcult torepair
and eliminate defects. Vision-based systems have become
popular as a defect detection system because of ease of
automation and reliability.
Conventional vision defect detection techniques and vision
systems are relatively expensive to purchase and maintain. There
is also an added complexity and failure rate associated with the
process. Much work has been performed in studying the melt
pool formed during LMD. Meriaudeau et al. (1996) used CCD
cameras to obtain surface temperature measurements to
determine the mass ow rate of powder and also monitor the
height and width of the deposited track. A mathematical model
was developed for the three dimensional heat temperature
distribution of a laser with a Gaussian distribution power prole
(Pinkerton and Li, 2004). There are other related models.
A mathematical model to predict the temperature distribution
within the human eye when subjected to a laser source (193nm)
was presented (Shahi et al., 2010). The transient
three dimensional temperature distribution for a laser sintered
duraform ne polyamide part by a moving Gaussian laser beam
(Singh and Prakash, 2010). Previous approaches (Sparks et al.,
2009) to the problem of imaging the laser melt pool involved a
simple lter design to remove the infrared radiation emitted,
coupled with a short pass lter to remove wavelengths longer
than 700nm. A 300mm pinhole lens was further used to cut
down the signal reaching the CMOS sensor.
Another approach, widely used in the industry, is the laser
strobe technique, in which a short duration pulsed laser is
projected onto the melt pool. The camera shutter is
synchronized to be open only during the pulse duration.
During the pulse duration, the main laser may be switched
off, thus ensuring that the illuminating laser intensity is more
than that of the laser creating the melt pool. Iravani-
Tabrizipour and Toyserkani (2007) used a trinocular optical
detector composed of three CCD cameras and interference
lters for real time measurement of deposition height.
A neural network model was used to determine the optimal
threshold value for their image. The drawbacks of
concentrating on the melt pool for defect detection include
instability of the melt pool due to Marangoni effects, powder,
shielding gas, etc. The melt pool shape is also transient and
porosities may be resolved during solidication. The general
steps used in defect detection vision systems in LMD include:
.
Image acquisition system. This is typically an advanced
camera with a high speed mechanical shutter. The
shutters function is to prevent overexposure of the
image sensor due to high intensity light inherent in LMD.
Some additional components such as lters, beam
splitters, and magnication lenses which are specic to
the LMD system may be required.
.
Image processing. The data present in the image is
interspersed with noise signals. Noise leads to loss of
signal quality and increases error in the system. Hence, it
is necessary to preprocess the image to minimize noise.
Gray scaling, thresholding, convolution and other
morphological operations are some of the preprocessing
steps before applying the defect detection algorithm.
.
Detection algorithm. From the images obtained it is
necessary to extract the relevant data required such as
melt pool size, length, depth, etc. This is system
dependent depending on the kind of input required by
the control system. The proposed research is to use
gradient variation instead of the traditional pore detection.
Thus, it is more sensitive in terms of defect detection for
metal deposition process.
.
Control system. The output of the detection algorithm is
used as a factor in gauging the quality of deposition. This
information is relayed to the control system which can
make appropriate changes in processing parameters to
ensure uniformity and quality of deposition. Once changes
in the process are detected, adjustments are made in the
control factors such as laser power, table velocity, etc. to
compensate accordingly.
Concept
The intensity of electromagnetic radiationandits wavelengthhas
been related to the temperature of the object through black body
radiation theory. For an ideal black body in a vacuum
environment, the relation between spectral radiance,
wavelength, and temperature is given by the Planck equation:
L
l

C
1
l
5
expC
2
=l T 2 1
1
where L
l
is the spectral radiance, Watts/steradian/m
2
, C
1
and C
2
are radiation constants, l is the wavelength of body in vacuum,
andTis the surface temperature of the body expressedinKelvin.
The stainless steel substrate upon which the deposition is
being made is not a perfect black body. Thus, there is a
variance in the emissivity of the substrate, which is below 1.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between spectral radiance,
wavelength, and temperature of a black body. Spectral
radiance of thermal emitters at unit emissivity is derived
from Plancks equation. These curves give the radiance of a
black body at various temperatures (in degrees Kelvin)
(Kral and Matthews, 1996). As temperature of the object
increases, there is an increase in spectral radiance with
decrease in wavelength of emitted light. The highest
Figure 3 Spectral radiance of thermal emitters at unit emissivity
derived from Plancks equation
Parameter Values in K
Wavelength, , m
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

R
a
d
i
a
n
c
e
,

L

B
(

,

T
)
,

W
/
(
c
m
2
)
(
s
r
)
(

m
)
10
4
10
2
10
10
2
10
4
10
6
10
8
0.1 0.5 1.0 5 10 50 100
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,500
1,000
800
600
400
273
200
Source: Kral and Matthews (1996)
Vision-based defect detection in laser metal deposition process
Shyam Barua, Frank Liou, Joseph Newkirk and Todd Sparks
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 20 Number 1 2014 7786
79
temperature recorded by an optical pyrometer in the melt
pool during LMD was 2,700K. Hence, the region of interest
(ROI) is concentrated around the wavelength of 0.5-0.8 mm.
During LMD, the laser melts the substrate and the melt pool
is at the highest temperature. The rest of the substrate acts as a
heat sink and heat ows from the heat source (melt pool) to the
heat sink. During heat transfer across a metallic substrate, heat
ow is interrupted or disturbed by defects such as porosities or
cracks (Yang et al., 2011). This leads to an increase in
temperature in the region around the defect. Due to the nature
of LMD, when three dimensional parts are made using tracks,
we seek to determine the presence of defects by observing the
surface temperature of the deposited track. Defects should lead
to sudden deviation from the expected temperature gradient of
the substrate, which would indicate the presence of a defect.
LMD system
The LMD system consists of a 1 kW laser diode system which
was run in continuous wave (CW) mode. The laser is coupled
to a ve axis vertical machining center which is used for post
process machining after LMD. LabVIEW control system is
used to control various process parameters in LMD.
The powder used is gas atomized 316L stainless steel with a
meshsize of 280/270. The elemental compositionis shownin
Table I. The SEM image of the powder as shown in Figure 4
shows that the powder particles are generally non-uniform in
shape and size and may contain internal voids. Powder is fed
through a powder feeder system with argon as the carrier gas.
Argon gas is also supplied as a shielding gas through ports in the
cladding head to reduce oxidation of the deposit.
In the LMD process, there are certain control parameter
values which are known to yield good deposits for a particular
powder and substrate material. In this case, LMD was
performed with standard parameters for depositing SS316L
powder as shown in Table II. The deposit was carried out to a
height of eight layers (about 4 mm total) with the deposition
being performed only in the positive direction along the x-axis.
Image acquisition system overview
As observed in Figure 5, the camera is mounted onto a tripod
which is placed such that the camera is perpendicular to the
direction of deposition. This is because, with a single camera,
the eld of view is restricted to only one axis while
maintaining depth of focus. Macro lenses are used to obtain
a close up view of the deposited track surface. Figure 6 is an
image of the incandescent track sent to the computer for
analysis during deposition so that the defects are detected
on demand. Neutral density lters are tted onto the lens to
reduce the intensity of the image and avoid saturation of the
sensor. They also serve the dual purpose of protecting the lens
from reected powder particles off the substrate. The camera
is connected to a laptop using a USB cable.
Although accurate temperature may not be needed to detect
defects, RAWimage is obtained fromthe camera in which RGB
values of each pixel are linearly related to the intensity of light
Figure 4 SEM image of SS316L metal powder used in deposition
process
Figure 5 Experimental setup of camera with respect to nozzle wherein
the camera is perpendicular to travel of table in the x-axis
Nozzle
Camera mounted perpendicular
to direction of deposition
Desposited track
Note: Deposition is performed only in the positive direction
of x-axis
Table I Composition of SS316L powder
Element Percentage
Carbon 0.03
Phosphorus 0.045
Silicon 1
Nickel 10-14
Iron 61.9-68.9
Manganese 2
Sulfur 0.03
Chromium 16-18
Molybdenum 2-3
Table II LMD process parameters
Parameter Value
Laser power 1,000 Watt
Powder feed rate 8 g/min
Table velocity 250 mm/min
Length of track 20 mm
Layer thickness About 0.5 mm
Layer width About 2.5 mm
Powder utilization About 80 percent
Vision-based defect detection in laser metal deposition process
Shyam Barua, Frank Liou, Joseph Newkirk and Todd Sparks
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 20 Number 1 2014 7786
80
collectedat that pixel location. These RGBvalues are calibrated
with known temperature readings to calibrate the camera for
temperature measurement. For calibrationof the camera sensor
with respect to temperature, a stainless steel test substrate is
placed in a box furnace and heated incrementally in steps of
508C from 08C to 1,0008C. The measurements were tabulated
and are shown in Figure 7(a). Images of the surface are taken at
periodic intervals using the SLR camera. As shown in
Figure 7(b), there is a visible change in color of substrate with
heat application.
Regression analysis is performed using a general linear
model and the resultant equation for determining surface
temperature using RGB values is calculated up to three
signicant digits (Panditrao and Rege, 2009). The regression
equation is shown in equation (2):
T 1930 0:603R 0:706G 2 4:98B 2
where T is the calculated temperature value in degrees
Celsius, R, G, and B are the red, green, and blue values of a
pixel, respectively. This equation is used to approximate
temperature of each pixel in the ROI. Although emissivity
may affect the sensor reading, since the proposed research is
focus on the pattern of the temperature gradient, the
emissivity may not be an important factor in this approach.
Defect simulation
The defects present in the laser deposition process are
porosities and cracks which are normally detected using
ultrasound method and X-ray computed tomography
(XRCT) (Wang et al., 2009). These methods are time
consuming and expensive such that on demand detection is
not possible. Pores were simulated by drilling holes in SS316
substrates (Figure 8) and by performing deposition over
the holes. The holes were lled with SS316 powder (same as
the powder used for deposition). The powder was lled in the
holes using a measuring spoon such that there exists
40-60 percent porosity in the hole. This ensures that the
laser is unable to melt the holes completely and the air
bubbles have insufcient time to escape, thereby creating a
porous deposit. The track width of this LMD process is
approximately 0.1
00
and the lay height is about 0.2
00
. The
substrate is substantially larger than the track and acts as a
heat sink during LMD.
Two stainless steel 316L metal substrates of dimensions 2
00
by 1
00
by 0.25
00
were joined together in a vice and tack welded
at both ends as shown in Figure 9. LMD was carried out over
the crack so that any deviation in the temperature gradient
can be observed. The deposit was created as a thin wall due to
better thermal radiance properties through the thin wall.
Image acquisition
Initially, the camera is lined up such that it is in focus with the
same plane as the melt pool. A 180mm macro lens is used to
obtain sufcient magnication of the track. All other settings
such as shutter speed, aperture, and ISO on the camera are
the same as the calibrated settings. The melt pool is kept out of
the viewnder so as to not damage the expensive CMOS
image sensor. The camera is able to take pictures on demand
andtransfer themtothe computer for processing. There is a cycle
time delay between consecutive images which consists of time
takentocapture the image andtime takentotransfer the image to
the computer. The time taken to capture an image varies from
0.13 to 0.33s depending onthe selected frame rate of the camera
andimage resolution. The downloadtime is dependent uponthe
size of the image and is approximately 7,324kB/s. Using an
image resolution of 5,184 pixels by 3,456 pixels and a memory
size of 2.9MB, the cycle time is approximately 1.4s.
Figure 6 Incandescent track demonstrating the color gradient from the
melt pool to the beginning of the deposited track
Note: Some sintered and unmelted particles of powder are also
visible, which are potential sources of noise in the system
Figure 7 Calibration of RGB values with color temperature
(a) (b)
R G B Temperature (Celsius)
2
0
0
0
0
15
212
167
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1,000
251
254
254
255
255
244
252
250
1
2
145
223
255
255
255
254
Notes: Calibration of RGB values vs. actual temperature of stainless steel substrate at 650 to 850;
color gradient change with increase in temperature (in color)
Vision-based defect detection in laser metal deposition process
Shyam Barua, Frank Liou, Joseph Newkirk and Todd Sparks
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 20 Number 1 2014 7786
81
Region of interest
Selecting a ROI, in this case the deposited track, helps to speed
up computer vision operations by allowing the code to process
only a small sub-region of the image (Bradski and Kaehler,
2010). In defect detection, it helps to correct for differences in
the positional relationship between the camera and the
substrate. Contour detection is used to obtain a bounding box
and these coordinates are used to set the ROI. Line scans of the
ROI are used to obtain RGBvalues of each pixel inthe line scan.
Due to the presence of sintered powder on the deposited track,
and rebounding powder particles, there is noise present in the
data in the form of extreme values, as seen in Figure 10(a).
A median of 3 line scans are performed to obtain the required
RGB values of the pixel. The RGB values are used in equation
(2) to calculate surface temperature of the track. Outlier values
at the beginning andendof the line scanare lteredout toobtain
the temperature gradient. Data smoothing is performed using
moving average method to smooth out noise while preserving
useful data. Moving average method is essentially a low pass
lter in which the local average is computed for each
temperature value so that false noise can be minimized. The
nal temperature gradient obtained is seen in Figure 10(b).
The temperature gradient obtained is approximately linear
and straight line curve tting was performed to obtain the
least squares tting. The residual values are calculated for a
batch of images during good deposition. The cases in
Figure 10(a) and (b) were conducted at different time. While
a linear pattern as shown in Figure 10(b) is a normal
pattern, Figure 10(a) shows a drastic different pattern when a
defect is encountered. This shows the feasibility of
differentiating the two cases.
Post defect detection
During deposition, if a defect is detected, corrective action
can be taken on the defective track. Conventionally, laser
scanning is performed on the defective track to eliminate
the defect. If unsuccessful, the deposited track is machined off
and LMD is performed again, allowing for changes in part
geometry after the machining operation. In either case,
signicant cost savings are achieved, emphasizing the
importance of on demand defect detection.
Results
The cooling curve for the deposited track with no defects is
shown in Figure 11. This can be compared to a bad deposit
with simulated porosities, as shown in Figure 12. The cooling
curve for the porous deposit is shown in Figure 13.
At the beginning and end of a deposited track, there are less
pixels available for image processing. Curve tting techniques
cannot be reliably applied when the sample data set is small. The
powder particles reecting off the substrate alsopose a signicant
amount of noise in the signal. Conventional techniques of
Figure 8 1/8
00
diameter holes drilled on substrate and lled with
SS316L powder to simulate porosities
Figure 9 Stainless steel substrates tack welded together to simulate 1/64
00
crack over which LMD is processed
Vision-based defect detection in laser metal deposition process
Shyam Barua, Frank Liou, Joseph Newkirk and Todd Sparks
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 20 Number 1 2014 7786
82
smoothing out noise using morphological operations such as
erosionanddilationresult inloss of signal data as well. Currently,
the camera being used for image acquisition is a Canon EOS 7D
model. This is connected via USBto a computer with a 2.2GHz
dual core processor with 4GB RAM. The software used for
acquiring images from the camera is GPhoto2. The entire time
taken for defect detection can be split up as:
.
actual time taken by the camera sensor to process the
image;
.
transfer time to computer; and
.
computational time.
The camera has the ability to take sevenframes per second(fps) in
burst mode. The software used to acquire the images, GPhoto2
has a minimum exposure time of 1s. Hence, there exists
Figure 12 Image obtained during deposition over simulated 0.125
00
diameter porosities showing the concentration of heat near the porosity
Figure 10 Straight line tting performed on temperature gradient
Temperature vs Pixels
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

i
n

C
e
l
c
i
u
s
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

i
n

C
e
l
c
i
u
s
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
pixel pixel
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,600
1,700
1,800
Temperature vs Pixels
(a) (b)
Notes: Initial temperature gradient obtained from line redundant scan; temperature gradient after chopping data
at beginning and end of curve
Figure 11 Temperature measured across horizontal line of pixels in a good deposit demonstrating linear decrease in temperature
1,800
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

i
n

c
e
l
c
i
u
s
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
pixel
Temperature vs Pixels
Vision-based defect detection in laser metal deposition process
Shyam Barua, Frank Liou, Joseph Newkirk and Todd Sparks
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 20 Number 1 2014 7786
83
abottleneckwhereinthe images are storedinthe buffer memoryof
the camera before being transferred to the computer. The two
main causes of delay are time required to transfer the image, and
the computational time itself. The time takenfor transfer of image
is approximately 1s. The area for most improvement is in
the computational time. Using a timer function, the actual time
needed for computation was found to be approximately
2 10
26
s. This speed can be reduced by optimizing the code.
Real time image processors utilize dedicated image processing
boards which would signicantly improve the speed of image
processing.
Statistical analysis
Sum of residuals (SOR) data was obtained for a sample set of
approximately 100 images and a normal probability plot was
plottedtoassess the normalityof the distribution. First, the x-axis
is transformed so that a cumulative normal density function will
plot in a straight line. Then, using the mean and standard
deviation (sigma), which are calculated fromthe data, the data is
transformedtothe standardnormal values (i.e. wherethe meanis
0 and the standard deviation is 1). Then the data points are
plotted along the tted normal line. During our deposition
process, we would rather eliminate a good deposit as bad (type II
error), rather than pass on a bad deposit as good (type I error).
A training set of 100 images, during good deposition, was taken
and the SOR was analyzed as shown in Figure 14(a) and (b).
Similarly, SOR was obtained for images during deposition
over simulated porosities and cracks. Figure 14(c) is a control
chart displaying SSRvalues when LMDis performed with zero/
minimum defects. The SOR in the normality test has a p-value
less than 0.05 which enables us to consider the SOR as a viable
quality metric.
Conclusion
Since an LMDprocess deposits metal layer-by-layer, it is possible
to ensure the quality of the metal deposition process by
continuously monitoring the top layer, as it is being deposited,
to ensure that no defects are present. During LMD, a clear
variation is observed in the radiance temperature measurement of
the deposit when there is a porosity or awin the deposit as shown
inFigure15. Theconductionof heat is altered, duetothepresence
of the aw, and this can be used to detect a defect. The defect can
then be corrected by laser scanning the track or the deposit can be
scrapped, thus saving further expenditure of labor and material.
One major advantage of this method over point IR temperature
source measurements is that the temperature of all points in the
image can be calculated unlike a point imaging method.
Figure 14 Histogram, normality test and run chart of LMD process with
zero defects
(a)
(b)
(c)
Notes: Histogram of SOR during good deposition showing positive
skewness; normality plot performed on SOR shows that SOR is a
significant factor; run chart
Figure 13 Temperature measured across horizontal line of pixels in a
deposit over drilled holes demonstrating temperature spikes near the
defect
Temperature vs Pixels
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

i
n

c
e
l
c
i
u
s
300 350 250 200 150 100 50 0
pixel
Vision-based defect detection in laser metal deposition process
Shyam Barua, Frank Liou, Joseph Newkirk and Todd Sparks
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 20 Number 1 2014 7786
84
An automated defect detection program is implemented with
simulated defects and demonstrates proof of concept in the LMD
process. Although the temperature calibration is discussed in this
paper, the actual defect detection is based on pattern change
instead of the actual temperature change. Thus, accurate
temperature calibration is not needed.
References
Bradski, G. and Kaehler, A. (2010), Learning OpenCv-Computer
Vision with the OpenCv Library, available at: www/coursehero.
com/textbooks/43027-Learning-OpenCV-Computer-Vision/-
with-the-OpenCV-Library (accessed October 29, 2010)
Ciliberto, A., Cavaccini, G., Salvetti, O., Chimenti, M.,
Azzarelli, L., Bison, P.G., Marinetti, S., Freda, A. and
Grinzato, E. (2002), Porosity detection in composite
aeronautical structures, Infrared Physics & Technology, Vol. 43,
pp. 139-143.
Iravani-Tabrizipour, M. and Toyserkani, E. (2007), An
image-based feature tracking algorithm for real-time
measurement of clad height, Machine Vision and
Applications, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 343-354.
Kinsman, G. and Duley, W.W. (1993), Fuzzy logic control of
CO
2
laser welding, Proceeding of the International Congress
on Application of Lasers and Electro-Optics, pp. 160-167.
Kizaki, Y., Azumi, H., Yamazaki, S., Sugimoto, H. andTakagi, S.
(1993), Phenomenological studies in laser cladding part 2:
thermometrical experiments on the meltpool, Japanese
Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 32, pp. 213-220.
Kral, J. and Matthews, E.K. (1996), Pyrolaser & pyrober
infrared temperature measurement with automatic
emissivity correction, paper presented at Metal 96
International Fair of Metallurgy Ostrava, Republic of
Czechoslovakia, May, available at: www.pyrometer.com/
paper0596.htm (accessed September 1, 2012)
Meriaudeau, F., Truchetet, F., Dumont, C., Renier, E. and
Bolland, P. (1996), Acquisition and image processing
system able to optimize laser cladding process, Proceedings
of ICSP96, pp. 1628-1631.
Ng, G., Jarfors, A., Bi, G. and Zheng, H. (2009), Porosity
formation and gas bubble retention in laser metal
deposition, Applied Physics A: Materials Science
& Processing, Vol. 97, pp. 641-649.
Panditrao, A.M. and Rege, P.P. (2009), Temperature
estimation of visible heat sources by digital photography
and image processing, IEEE Transactions on
Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol. 59, pp. 1167-1174.
Pinkerton, A.J. andLi, L. (2004), Ananalytical model of energy
distribution in laser direct metal deposition, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part B: Journal of
Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 218 No. 4, pp. 363-374.
Roge, B., Fahr, A., Gigure, J. and McRae, K. (2003),
Nondestructive measurement of porosity in thermal
barrier coatings, Journal of Thermal Spray Technology,
Vol. 12, pp. 530-535.
Shahi, S., Khorvash, M., Harun, S.W., Ahmad, H. and
Golnabi, H. (2010), The temperature distribution eximer
laser source (193 nm) within a human eye and review on
some side-effects, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 724-730.
Singh, A.K. and Prakash, R.S. (2010), DOE based three-
dimensional nite element analysis for predicting density of
a laser-sintered part, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 16
No. 6, pp. 460-467.
Sparks, T.E., Tang, L. and Liou, F. (2009), Development of
a melt pool tracking vision system for laser deposition,
Proceedings of the Twentieth Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, Austin, Texas, August 3-5.
Voelkel, D.D. and Mazumder, J. (1990), Visualization of a laser
melt pool, Applied Optics, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 1718-1720.
Wang, L., Pratt, P., Felicelli, S.D., El Kadiri, H., Berry, J.T.,
Wang, P.T. andHorstemeyer, M.F. (2009), Pore formationin
laser-assisted powder deposition process, Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Vol. 131, pp. 51-58.
Yang, S., Tian, G.Y., Abidin, I.Z. and Wilson, J. (2011),
Simulation of edge cracks using pulsed eddy current
stimulated thermography, J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control,
Vol. 133, pp. 9-11.
Further reading
Bi, G., Gasser, A., Wissenbach, K., Drenker, A. andPoprawe, R.
(2006), Investigation on the direct laser metallic powder
deposition process via temperature measurement, Applied
Surface Science, Vol. 253, pp. 1411-1416.
Boddu, M.R., Musti, S., Landers, R.G., Agarwal, S. and
Liou, F.W. et al. (2001), Empirical modeling and vision
based control for laser aided metal deposition process,
Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings, pp. 452-459.
Figure 15 Image obtained during change in travel speed during deposition
Note: The deposit is not uniform and temperature concentrations
near the 1/64'' crack defects are visible
Vision-based defect detection in laser metal deposition process
Shyam Barua, Frank Liou, Joseph Newkirk and Todd Sparks
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 20 Number 1 2014 7786
85
Jackson, A.W. and Gossard, A.C. (2007), Thermal imaging
of wafer temperature in MBE using a digital camera,
Journal of Crystal Growth, Vol. 301, pp. 105-108.
Paul, C.P., Ganesh, P., Mishra, S.K., Bhargava, P., Negi, J.
and Nath, A.K. (2007), Investigating laser rapid
manufacturing for Inconel-625 components, Optics
& Laser Technology, Vol. 39, pp. 800-805.
Susan, D.F., Puskar, J.D., Brooks, J.A. and Robino, C.V.
(2006), Quantitative characterization of porosity in
stainless steel LENS powders and deposits, J. Materials
Characterization, Vol. 57, pp. 36-43.
Corresponding author
Frank Liou can be contacted at: liou@mst.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Vision-based defect detection in laser metal deposition process
Shyam Barua, Frank Liou, Joseph Newkirk and Todd Sparks
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 20 Number 1 2014 7786
86