Original Article

Proc IMechE Part B:

J Engineering Manufacture
2017, Vol. 231(1) 96–117
Simulation of metallic powder bed Ó IMechE 2015
Reprints and permissions:
additive manufacturing processes with sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0954405414567522

the finite element method: A critical journals.sagepub.com/home/pib

review

Babis Schoinochoritis1, Dimitrios Chantzis1 and Konstantinos Salonitis2

Abstract
This article provides a literature review of finite element simulation studies for metallic powder bed additive manufactur-
ing processes. The various approaches in the numerical modeling of the processes and the selection of materials proper-
ties are presented in detail. Simulation results are categorized according to three major findings’ groups (i.e.
temperature field, residual stresses and melt pool characteristics). Moreover, the means used for the experimental vali-
dation of the simulation findings are described. Looking deeper into the studies reviewed, a number of future directions
are identified in the context of transforming simulation into a powerful tool for the industrial application of additive man-
ufacturing. Smart modeling approaches should be developed, materials and their properties should be further character-
ized and standardized, commercial packages specialized in additive manufacturing simulation have to be developed and
simulation needs to become part of the modern digital production chains. Finally, the reviewed studies are organized in a
table and characterized according to the process and material studied, the modeling methodology and the experimental
validation method used in each of them. The key findings of the reviewed studies are also summarized.

Keywords
Additive manufacturing, finite element analysis, residual stresses, distortion

Date received: 17 September 2014; accepted: 15 December 2014

Introduction classification schematic listing all those processes is

The term additive manufacturing (AM) broadly
describes manufacturing of parts by adding material in
layers. Key advantages of AM, as opposed to the con-
ventional subtractive technologies for metals process-
ing, have led to an increasing attention by several core
manufacturing industries, such as aerospace, automo-
tive, medical and consumer goods.1 A large number of
different AM processes for fabricating metallic parts,
utilizing different combinations of stock material form,
material delivery and heat source have been developed
over the years. In the powder-based processes, metallic
powder is spread on the bed before scanned by the
beam or being fed directly to the heat source affected
region.2 The powder bed processes can be further clas-
sified based on whether the stock material gets fully
melted, partially melted or a polymer binder is used for
consolidation.2–4 Over the previous decades, a signifi-
cant number of different processes, covering all of the
aforementioned categories, have been developed. A
provided in Figure 1, where the types of processes dis-
cussed in this article are highlighted with orange color.
Despite the numerous powder bed processes, the most
commercialized among them are the selective laser
melting (SLM), electron beam melting (EBM) and
selective laser sintering (SLS).
Despite the freedom in design, the ability to build
parts composed of multiple materials and the almost
zero computer-aided design (CAD)-to-part time that
AM can offer, there are still serious obstacles toward
its wider acceptance and establishment into the modern
1
Spectrum Engineering Solutions Ltd, London, UK
2
Department of Manufacturing and Materials, Cranfield University,
Cranfield, UK
Corresponding author:
Konstantinos Salonitis, Department of Manufacturing and Materials,
Cranfield University, BD50, College Road, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43
0AL, UK.
Email: k.salonitis@cranfield.ac.uk
Schoinochoritis et al.
Figure 1. Classification of metallic powder additive manufacturing processes.
industrial practice. AM processes involve a high level
of complexity and the physical mechanisms acting dur-
ing the process are not yet well understood.5 Thus, the
parts produced using AM processes are often not ful-
filling the mechanical performance requirements set by
manufacturers or exhibit difficulty to predict distortion
behavior.6 This fact, along with long lead times,7 can
be considered as the main reason preventing the total
transition to AM when it comes to the production of
metallic parts. Poor mechanical performance can be
attributed to the remaining porosity and the presence
of thermally induced residual stresses and distortion in
the finished parts.8 Porosity is generated by instabilities
during material consolidation.9 That phenomenon,
which is commonly referred in the literature as ‘‘bal-
ling,’’9 does not allow a full surface contact between
melted material particles, leading to parts with lower
density than the respective solid material and therefore
decreased mechanical strength.10 On the other hand,
residual stresses and distortion are generated by the
thermo-mechanical nature of the process itself and the
thermal gradients created when building the part.11
Residual stresses and distortion affect significantly the
mechanical properties and cause dimensional inaccura-
cies to the final part. An overview of the current issues
in the AM industrial practice is illustrated in the dia-
gram of Figure 2.
Numerical methods can be classified into mesh-
based methods and mesh-free methods.12 The finite ele-
ment method (FEM) belongs to the first class and was
originally introduced by Turner et al.13 In the FEM, a
continuum of matter (domain) is discretized into a finite
number of elements forming a mesh, thus reducing the
problem to that of a finite number of unknowns.14
Each finite element possesses simpler geometry and
therefore, it is easier to analyze than the actual struc-
ture.15 The FEM has proven to be an essential tool for
solving boundary, initial and eigenvalue problems in
97
almost every engineering discipline.14 The FEM has
also proved to be very popular in the study of the physi-
cal phenomena during AM processes and their para-
metric optimization, as it is a resource efficient
methodology,16 which can save a large number of phys-
ical experiments from being conducted.17 Thus, FEM
has eventually become the most common technique for
predicting the porosity, the residual stresses and the dis-
tortion of parts produced by AM processes. Other
numerical methods used include the Lattice Boltzmann
method (LBM)5,18–20 and the finite volume method
(FVM),21,22 in studies that take into account the fluid
dynamics of the melt pool. The ultimate goal of studies
in this field is adjusting the process parameters for
achieving the desired mechanical integrity and reducing
the number of faulty parts, toward minimizing manu-
facturing costs. The literature studies in the field of
modeling and simulation of other types of manufactur-
ing processes already exist.12,23–25 In the field of simu-
lating AM processes, the only existing review article is
dealing with thermal analysis methods in SLS and
SLM.26 The aim of this article is to provide an overview
of the finite element numerical modeling and simulation
of the AM processes utilizing a metallic powder bed.
The structure of this article is organized as follows.
Section ‘‘Numerical modeling’’ describes how modeling
for simulation is performed. Details about mathemati-
cal modeling, meshing, simulation techniques, heat
source models and temperature-dependent material
properties implementation into the model are provided.
Section ‘‘Simulation results’’ presents the simulation
results of the reviewed studies. The results are categor-
ized by subject into three groups: (1) temperature his-
tory, (2) residual stresses and distortion and (3) melt
pool characteristics. The means of experimental verifi-
cation of the simulation results are explained in section
‘‘Experimental validation’’ and the relevant applica-
tions are reported. In section ‘‘Challenges,’’ the current
98
Figure 2. Challenges in additive manufacturing industrial application.
challenges in the use of finite element analysis (FEA) in
AM process simulation are listed and already imple-
mented, or potential solutions are presented. Finally,
this study is summarized and a number of concluding
remarks are given in section ‘‘Conclusion.’’
Numerical modeling
Thermo-mechanical analysis workflow
The typical workflow followed for simulating the tem-
perature field and approximating residual stresses and
distortion using the FEM is presented in Figure 3. The
inputs defined by the user during the pre-processing
stage are the part geometry, the mesh, the initial and
boundary conditions, the applied loads and the mate-
rial properties. In the processing stage, the partial dif-
ferential equation governing the system is discretized
into equations for each element and then all the equa-
tions are assembled into a global equation. The solu-
tion of the equation can be used in the post-processing
stage in order to visualize the temperature field on the
part geometry. In order to approximate residual stres-
ses and distortions, a mechanical analysis is performed,
following a similar workflow. The temperature field
obtained by the thermal analysis is now applied as a
load. The thermo-mechanical analysis can be coupled
or uncoupled. In coupled analysis, the heat generation
caused by friction or in our case by plastic deformation
of the material is considered in the calculation of the
temperature field. In order to take this effect into
account, the thermal and mechanical analyses are per-
formed simultaneously. On the other hand, uncoupled
analysis is performed sequentially and the interactions
between temperature and stress fields are not consid-
ered. The latter method is the one used in most cases,
as it can save computational time despite the loss in
accuracy. For reaching the solution of the FEA, either
Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 231(1)
explicit or implicit methods can be used. If t is the cur-
rent time, the state of the system yðt þ DtÞ at a later
time would be calculated as a function of the current
state yðtÞ by an explicit method
yðt þ DtÞ ¼ fðyðtÞÞ ð1Þ
An implicit method would require the solution of an
equation involving both the current and the later state
of the system in order to find yðt þ DtÞ
gðyðtÞ; yðt þ DtÞÞ ¼ 0 ð2Þ
Explicit methods can exhibit numerical instability if
the value of the time step Dt exceeds a certain value
depending on the problem. The advantage of implicit
methods is that they are unconditionally stable; hence,
larger time increments can be used. Small time incre-
ments required by explicit methods have an impact on
computational cost,27 in contrast to implicit methods
where computational cost is proportional to the size of
the finite element model.28 However, the implicit
method may encounter difficulty to converge when the
problem is highly non-linear.29,30 In our case, the
problem could involve nonlinearities due to
temperature-dependent material properties and plas-
tic deformations.
Heat transfer mechanisms
In additive processes, the part is created by consolidat-
ing material in specific regions according to the part
geometry. To achieve consolidation, heat is added to
the system by irradiation using a heat source. The beam
is inactive when traveling and no geometry exists in the
underlying region, offering time for cooling. Heat
escapes the system to the surroundings by convection
and radiation from the free surfaces. Specifically, for a
Schoinochoritis et al. 99

Figure 3. Finite element analysis workflow.

powder bed process, the heat transfer mechanisms act-

ing during the process are illustrated in Figure 4.
The general energy balance equation in a closed sys-
tem with respect to the first law of thermodynamics can
be expressed as31

QL ¼ QCD þ QCV þ QR ð3Þ

where QL , QCD , QCV and QR are the heat quantities for

the heat flux, conduction, convection losses and radia-
tion losses, respectively. Considering the part volume in
an AM process, the heat conduction equation accord-
ing to the Fourier’s law is
     
∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T ∂T
k þ k þ k þ q_ ¼ rCp
∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂t
ð4Þ

where K is the thermal conductivity, T is the tempera- Figure 4. Physical mechanisms during additive processes.31
ture of the part, q_ is the rate at which heat is supplied to
the system, r is the density of the material, Cp is the spe-
cific heat capacity and t is the interaction time between In the general case, where the heat supplied by the
the beam and the material. beam is modeled as a heat flux and heat is lost from the
In order to capture the solid–liquid transformations, system by convection and radiation, the boundary con-
the above equation can be modified so that the enthalpy dition for the free surfaces of the part is33
change is taken into account. The enthalpy change dH
is given by k ∂T  q_ s þ hðT  T0 Þ þ seðT4  T40 Þ ¼ 0 ð8Þ
∂n
dH ¼ Cp dT ð5Þ where n is the vector normal to the surface, q_ s is the rate
of the heat input from the beam, h is the heat transfer
and the heat conduction equation is transformed to
coefficient, s is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and e is
      the emissivity.
∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T ∂H
k þ k þ k þ q_ ¼ r
∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂t
ð6Þ Modeling assumptions
The process simulation can be three-dimensional
The initial conditions can be expressed as32
(3D)34,35 or include only two dimensions,36–39 so that
Tðx; y; z; 0Þ ¼ T0 ð7Þ the computational time is reduced. Two-dimensional
(2D) modeling can be used when melting of a single
supposing that the initial temperature of the powder is layer is simulated, but is inadequate when multiple
equal to the ambient temperature T0 . layers are processed. Radiation losses from the free
100 Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 231(1)

surfaces are neglected in a number of studies,31 while

they are taken into account in other studies.37,38,40–42
For simplification reasons, the heat loss from the bot-
tom of the substrate can be omitted.43 Those simplifica-
tions regarding heat transfer phenomena can reduce
the accuracy of the analysis. However, loss of accuracy
occurs only to a limited extent as the main heat transfer
mechanism is conduction through the powder bed and
solidified regions. Gravity effects can be taken into
account by applying a force load to the elements.44
Gravity modeling can capture node displacements as
those occurring when fabricating overhang structures.
The effect of phase changes is included in the model by
defining the latent heat required for phase change at
the melting point.45–47 The phase changes are also mod- Figure 5. Locally refined mesh.45
ifying the material properties.48 The powder particles
can be modeled explicitly49 or represented by a conti-
nuum body with adjusted properties,48,50,51 which is
isotropic and homogenous.41,42 Modeling explicitly the
powder particles can offer increased accuracy and
microscopic insight, but has serious effects in the com-
putational effort required. Especially, for the simula-
tion of real case studies, this approach would cause the
increase of finite elements to a number that is unaccep-
table for a feasible computational time. Therefore, the
second approach is followed by the vast majority of the
published studies. Moreover, fluid dynamic phenomena
and convection in the melt pool are usually neglected,
since in most studies the size of the melt pool is tiny
compared to the entire part.40,52 In order to reduce the
demands for computational power, a number of
researchers have not modeled the exact heat source
path, replacing the scanning vectors of each layer with
scanning areas.48,53 In extreme cases, applying the Figure 6. Coarse mesh used at the substrate.31
energy input simultaneously to a whole layer can sub-
stitute the scanning vectors.54 Programming complexity
can be reduced in this way, as well. spot.17,34,35,44,45,49 An example of a mesh created using
this technique is presented in Figure 5. Other studies
utilize a uniform mesh for the whole model.36,50,52,59–62
Meshing In the two previous cases, the mesh thickness is usually
The quality of a FEA is strongly affected by the char- equal to the layer thickness.37 The solid substrate can
acteristics of the underlying mesh, with a poor mesh be meshed with larger element size than the overlying
potentially leading to unstable and/or inaccurate layers in order to reduce simulation time,40,43,51,63,64
numerical computation.55 Furthermore, the mesh qual- as shown in Figure 6. The already solidified layers
ity has a remarkable impact on the computational effi- can also be meshed with a coarse mesh.48
ciency of the simulation and the time required for the
analysis.56,57 A popular technique among AM simula-
tion studies is using mesh density which varies across
Element birth and death
different regions of the model. Certain regions, particu- The material in powder or liquid form does not contrib-
larly those close to the heat source, exhibit steep tem- ute to the overall stiffness of the model. In order to
perature gradients and an accurate analysis would reach accurate results when predicting the residual
require a more dense mesh in those areas.58 For that stresses and distortion, this fact has to be taken into
reason, a local refinement technique is employed in account. In order to simulate the transition of the mate-
order to update the mesh density in each load step, rial from powder to liquid and finally to solid, a num-
according to the needs stated above. In several studies, ber of studies use a method known as ‘‘element birth
fine meshing is used for the region directly heated by and death,’’31,63–66 as defined in the ANSYS finite ele-
the beam and a close surrounding area, while the mesh ment software.67 The elements are deactivated until
coarsens as moving away from the beam solidification. This means that they are visually present
Schoinochoritis et al.
Figure 7. Gaussian heat source.
in the model without adding to the overall stiffness of
the matrix,31,68 as their actual stiffness has been multi-
plied by a severe reduction factor.67 After solidification,
the elements are activated, obtaining back their actual
stiffness. A control loop determines when an element is
activated according to whether its temperature after a
load step has surpassed or not the melting point.47 In
other studies, the elements of every single layer are
added simultaneously.62,69 From a programming point
of view, controlling the state of the elements and locally
refining the mesh in each load step increase the level of
difficulty in the preparation of the analysis.
Heat source models
The impact of the heat source in the powder bed can be
modeled as a heat flux load or as a temperature load.
In the vast majority of studies where a heat flux load is
used, the heat source follows a Gaussian intensity dis-
tribution. An example of a Gaussian intensity distribu-
tion is presented in Figure 7. The intensity IðrÞ of a
Gaussian heat flux at a radial distance from the beam
center equal to r is given by the following equation45
 
2
IðrÞ ¼ 2AP2 exp  2r2 ð9Þ
pv v cal analysis is performed, either coupled or uncoupled
where A is the absorptivity of the powder, P is the beam
power and v is the radius where the intensity is reduced
from the intensity at the center of the beam by a factor
of e2 .
Heat flux loading that does not follow a Gaussian
distribution has been implemented in a number of stud-
ies. Van Belle et al.37 applied the heat flux created by
the laser beam on the surface of a single element, which
is of equal size with the beam diameter. They are claim-
ing that due to the very small size of the finite elements,
this will have minor effect to the simulation results.
Contuzzi et al.35 did not consider a Gaussian power
density distribution but a constant power density
101
Figure 8. Laser beam modeling by Matsumoto et al.36
instead, modeling the laser beam so that it irradiates
five elements in a cross layout. A constant energy input
applied to five elements in a cross layout was also used
by Matsumoto et al.,36 as shown in Figure 8. As stated
previously, another way of modeling the heat source is
applying a temperature load to certain elements.48
Fixed temperature loading is used by Ma and Bin52 for
a laser beam size of 2 3 2 mm. The temperature is set
at 1740 K, which is slightly higher than the melting
temperature of the material (nickel).
Temperature-dependent material properties
Detailed definition of material properties is the basis
for performing accurate simulation of AM processes.
Due to the thermal character of the process, the mate-
rial properties should be stated with relation to the
temperature and also the transition of the material
from powder to liquid and finally to solid. The proper-
ties that affect significantly the process evolution and
their dependence on temperature is of high interest are
the density, the thermal conductivity and the specific
heat capacity. Other material properties, such as the
Young modulus,37,44,52 the tangent modulus,52 the yield
strength44,52,59 and the thermal expansion coeffi-
cient,37,45,52 can also be considered as temperature
dependent. Those properties are used when a mechani-
with the thermal analysis. Thus, their temperature
dependency affects the residual stresses and distortion
results.
Density. Density as a physical quantity describes the
mass per unit volume of a substance. As a temperature-
dependent property, material density changes during
the process and at most times the density of the final
part is higher than the powder bed density.34 However,
in a number of studies, the density has been considered
to be constant, in order to reduce the complexity of the
analysis.34,41,49,51,52,59–62,69 Other studies consider two
different densities for the powder and the solid state.35–
102
37,42,44,70
In those studies, the powder density can vary
from 40% to 60% of the solid density, depending on
which assumption for the powder packing is followed.
For example, Antony et al.50 and Patil and Yadava46
calculated the powder density on the bed, rbed , using
the following formula, where rs is the density of the
solid material, assuming that all solid particles in the
powder bed have a spherical shape, are equal in size
and are densely arranged in a cubic array
prs
rbed ¼ ð10Þ
6
For a more detailed analysis, the density is changing
with temperature.31,71,72 The relation of density with
temperature can be linear, as in the study of Yin et
al.,42 where a linear increase of density with tempera-
ture has been assumed. In a few SLS studies, along
with temperature, the effects of sintering are accounted,
through applying sintering laws, for determining the
density.39
Thermal conductivity. The thermal conductivity of a mate-
rial determines the rate at which heat transfers through
the material. Thermal conductivity is a temperature-
dependent material property. In addition, the thermal
conductivity of powder is different than the solid mate-
rial, as the contact area among adjacent particles is
smaller.73 It has been proved that the effective thermal
conductivity of powders is a function of multiple fac-
tors, such as particle size and shape, solid volume frac-
tion, thermal conductivity of the solid and the thermal
conductivity of the gaseous media.74 Several studies
consider constant thermal conductivities, both for the
powder and the solid state, in order to reduce the com-
plexity of the model.35–37,50,54,75 However, numerous
studies consider a temperature-dependent thermal con-
ductivity, in order to reach more realistic results. The
thermal conductivity of the solid material has been
defined experimentally at certain temperature points.
The conductivity for the intermediate temperature
points is calculated with linear interpolation.41 The
powder’s effective thermal conductivity is calculated in
relation to the solid thermal conductivity according to
theoretical models, which take into account the poros-
ity and the thermal conductivity of the surrounding
gas.22,31,32,39,40,51,63,69,71,72,76 Some models take into
account only the porosity without considering the sur-
rounding gas.45 In SLS, the models can also include the
sintering potential,17,34 the effect of the sintering
necks47 and the initial sintering temperature42 as para-
meters. In some cases, a constant conductivity is
assumed for the powder and a temperature-dependent
conductivity for the solidified material.44,46 Finally, a
zero thermal conductivity for powders can be assumed
as well. In a study published by Wang et al.,77 this
approach did not have a noticeable effect on the simula-
tion results, as the inter-particle heat transfer was so
weak at high scanning speeds that could be disregarded.
Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 231(1)
Figure 9. Temperature profiles of consecutive spots.31
Specific heat. The amount of the energy needed for a
certain temperature rise can be found using the specific
heat capacity of the material, which is a temperature-
dependent property as well. As in the case of the ther-
mal conductivity, several studies use pre-defined values
for the heat capacity and the value for any given tem-
perature point is calculated by linear interpolation or
extrapolation.34,41–47,49,51,52,59–62,64,69,73,78 The specific
heat capacity of powder beds can be found taking into
account the powder bulk density or for powder mix-
tures applying the law of Kopp–Neumann.63 Other
studies consider constant specific heat. In some cases,
the material while in powder form has different specific
heat capacity than the material in solid form,37,71 while
in other studies the same value is assumed for both
states.19,35,36,70 A different approach is calculating the
evolution of specific heat capacity during the process,
according to the current temperature.39,40,50 In studies
where a melt pool stability analysis is performed, the
specific heat capacity can be defined for the solid and
the liquid phase as well.50,75
Simulation results
Temperature field
The temperature field history of the part during the
process can provide useful input for determining the
distribution of the thermal stresses and predicting the
residual stresses and distortion.31 The temperature at
every scanned region of the part undergoes similar ther-
mal cycles,26,31,44,45,66 except the edges.31,44 This phe-
nomenon is presented in the diagram of Figure 9, where
the temperature profiles of a number of consecutive
spots have been recorded. Van Belle et al.,37 when
explaining the cyclic temperature history, state that
each element reaches peak temperature values when it
is scanned itself and also when neighboring elements
are scanned. The laser scanning of additional layers also
leads to secondary peaks in the temperature of the
underlying layers.31 Roberts et al.31simulated the tem-
perature field during SLM. Their findings indicate that
the upper layers reach higher temperatures than the
bottom layer which is in contact with the base plate.
Schoinochoritis et al.
Figure 10. (a) Powder stacking strategy, (b) laser irradiation region and (c) meshing of a simulation model considering powder
arrangements.49
The lower conductivity of the bottom layer, if com-
pared with the steel base plate, shields to some extent
the upper layers. They also observed that as the number
of layers increased, the temperature of the bottom layer
experienced a slight but steady rise, which can cause the
generation of residual stresses after completion of the
process and during cooling. Thus, determining the
number of layers should be done in accordance with the
rest of the process parameters and not only considering
dimensional accuracy requirements. Despite the time
for cooling that powder recoating offers, a small but
incremental rise of temperature was also observed in
the rest of the part and the base plate. A great tempera-
ture gradient is observed from the surface of the powder
bed to the substrate.41 Li and Gu51 pointed out that the
temperature gradient decreases as the distance from the
top of the melt pool in the Z-axis increases. The reason
for that is the higher conductivity that the solidified
material in the previous layers has, if compared with
the molten material. According to Kolossov et al.,34 the
103
temperature difference between the top and bottom of
the part is so high (i.e. 2513 °C) that a 3D model is nec-
essary for obtaining accurate results. In their 3D model,
a higher maximum temperature was observed as the
laser beam moved from the center of the first layer to
the center of the second layer. In SLS, the temperature
gradient under the beam spot is greater than that in the
already sintered areas, according to Ren et al.63 In a
semi-scanned layer, the residual heat in the powder-half
is higher than that of the solid-half.65 Liu et al.49 devel-
oped a 3D finite element model, which takes into
account powder arrangements as shown in Figure 10,
in order to study SLS. They came to the conclusion that
the temperature field of laser sintering is intermittent in
the micro scale, because of the discretely distributed
particles, and that the temperature distribution is
remarkably inhomogeneous with the maximum tem-
perature to be observed in the top layer. This approach
offers enhanced accuracy. However, it would not be
recommended for real parts, as modeling in the micro-
104
Figure 11. Temperature versus scanning speed.51
scale, would mean an enormous number of elements
and a huge computation cost. A number of studies
point out that the cooling rate of overhang structures is
relatively smaller than normal geometries, as they exhi-
bit inferior heat removal due to the insulating behavior
of the unconsolidated powder below them.48,78
Overhang structures should be given extra attention, as
they may also require a support in order to avoid col-
lapsing. Papadakis et al.79 reported that when using lat-
tice structures to support parts during fabrication, a
densely meshed support leads to higher temperature
gradients between the scanned region and the substrate.
On the other hand, wide-meshed supports can lead to
increased building platform temperatures and therefore
smaller gradients.
The effect of the process parameters to the tempera-
ture field characteristics has drawn the attention of a
significant number of researchers. In several studies, it
has been reported that the maximum temperature of
the part is increasing with the laser power32,40,42,50 and
decreasing with the scanning speed.32,40,42,64 The depen-
dence of temperature and of the time that material at a
certain point remains liquid, for an SLM process, with
the scan speed and the laser power is shown in Figures
11 and 12 respectively. As reported by Li and Gu51 the
cooling rate of the molten pool increased slightly when
the power of the laser in the SLM process doubled
from 150 to 300 W. A significant rise of the cooling
rate was observed when the scanning speed increased
from 100 to 400 mm/s. In addition, the maximum tem-
perature gradient increased significantly when doubling
the laser power while it slightly decreased when increas-
ing the scanning speed. Higher spot radius causes lower
maximum temperature,42,47 due to lower intensity if the
power remains constant. According to Shen and
Chou,47 an increased beam diameter in EBM can lead
to a lower cooling rate due to the smaller temperature
gradients. The cooling rate of a layer was found to be
higher when the layer is scanned over a solid substrate
instead of being scanned on loose powder bed.45 The
effect of preheating to the temperature history has also
Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 231(1)
Figure 12. Temperature versus laser power.51
been studied. Zhang et al.40 observed that a preheating
temperature of 200 °C, when melting composite W-Ni-
Fe powder, can lead to an increased maximum tem-
perature by 6 °C, allowing for less energy input by the
laser beam. The temperature field is remarkably sensi-
tive to changes in the scanning pattern. Ma and Bin52
developed a 3D finite element model to investigate the
effect of different scanning patterns in the evolution of
temperature, distortion and thermal stresses during
SLS. More specifically, they compared the ‘‘S’’ and the
fractal scanning pattern, as shown in Figure 13(a) and
(b), respectively. Their findings indicate that the fractal
pattern leads to much more symmetrical temperature
field if compared to the ‘‘S’’ pattern. Increasing scan
interval (i.e. the distance the laser beam moves after
each time step) also causes the part temperature to
decrease, as reported by Patil and Yadava46 However,
a very high scan interval can lead to insufficient energy
density input and inadequate melting of the material
between the two scan lines.32
Residual stresses and distortion
Thermal stresses are created when part or all of the vol-
ume of a body is not free to expand or contract in
response to temperature changes.81 In order to numeri-
cally predict the residual stresses and distortion in parts
manufactured by AM processes, a mechanical simula-
tion, is performed using as thermal loading the tem-
perature distribution history recorded in the thermal
analysis. Warping and loss of edge tolerance are the
effects of distortion from a part quality perspective.44
The largest residual stresses are observed at the top
layer and the interface between the part and the sub-
strate.37,53,54 Filleting the transition from the substrate
to the actual part can prevent stress concentration in
this region.68 While high tensile stresses were reported
by Hodge et al.78 at the top layer, the bottom layer was
dominated by high compressive stresses. In the x-direc-
tion, the part initially encounters compressive stresses
which are gradually turning to tensile stresses after
Schoinochoritis et al.
Figure 13. (a) The ‘‘S’’ scanning pattern and (b) the fractal scanning pattern.80
beam scanning and when cooling occurs.44 In SLS,
according to Jiang et al.,44 distortion in the vertical
direction is mainly caused by shrinkage due to the sin-
tering of porous powders. However, in the horizontal
direction, the distortion is mostly caused by the thermal
loading. Generally, in SLS, major distortion of the part
appears during the laser scanning process, with the
effect of the residual thermal stresses on distortion
being rather small if compared with that of the transi-
ent thermal stresses.52 Dai and Shaw59 state that in AM
processes, the transient thermal stresses are those caus-
ing the distortion, while the residual thermal stresses
have little and basically opposite effect to that of the
transient ones. The effect of residual stresses appears
when, as described by Papadakis et al.,79 detaching the
part from the building platform. That causes a relaxa-
tion of the residual stresses and a subsequent develop-
ment of deformations. According to Hussein et al.,45
high temperatures lead to a decreasing elastic modulus
which causes stress reduction. Therefore, high thermal
stresses appearing in the already solidified regions tend
to reduce as moving closer to the melt pool. In addi-
tion, when scanning neighboring tracks, the previously
scanned tracks are reheated, due to track overlap, and
the residual stresses are thus released. Thin-walled
structures exhibit high residual stresses after SLM pro-
cessing, according to Neugebauer et al.54 It is indicative
that in the blades of an impeller, which are thin-walled
structures, the stresses were found to be the highest
over the whole part.
The effect of process parameters on residual stresses
and distortion has been given great attention.
Preheating has been found to lead to larger longitudi-
nal compressive stresses divisions at the lower side of
the part, which is connected to the supports, and also
to larger deformations of the part in the negative z-
direction.79 Preheating was found to lead to higher ten-
sile stresses by Krol et al.16 High scanning speeds are
reported to lead to distortion due to sudden drop of
temperature versus time.50 In SLS, according to Wang
et al.,77 lower distortion in the final part can be accom-
plished with lower laser power. As described previ-
ously, scanning patterns have a significant effect on the
105
temperature distribution history and therefore on the
generation of residual stresses and distortion. The effect
of two SLS scanning patterns in residual stresses and
distortion was investigated by Ma and Bin52 The two
scanning patterns used were the ‘‘S’’ pattern and the
fractal pattern as depicted in Figure 13. The results
showed that the fractal pattern can offer smaller distor-
tion due to more symmetrical temperature field com-
pared to the ‘‘S’’ pattern. Matsumoto et al.36 observed
that when the neighboring track begins to solidify high
tensile stresses appear between the solidified tracks at
the side end of the solid part. This may lead to cracking
of the layer. They also report that the amount of deflec-
tion caused by SLM increases as the laser track length
increases and thus shortening the path may be used to
prevent distortion. Cantilever beams are experiencing
larger distortion when being built in the lengthwise
direction than in the orthogonal direction, according to
Neugebauer et al.66
Melt pool characteristics
Melt pool dimensions are important for ensuring that a
strong bonding between powder particles will be
achieved. Bonding of the particles significantly affects
the porosity and therefore the part quality. In addition,
melt pool width and length should be thoroughly con-
sidered in the way they affect the already fabricated
areas. Remelting of such areas may cause dimensional
inaccuracies and loss of surface quality. The point with
the highest temperature in the melt pool is named as
‘‘center of the melt pool.’’ It has been observed by vari-
ous researchers that this point is not located at the cen-
ter of the beam spot, as it is normally expected. It has
been reported that the center of the melt pool is slightly
displaced backward from the laser scanning direc-
tion.42,46,75 This displacement can increase as the beam
power increases.51 According to Yin et al.,42 the melt
pool displacement can be attributed to the heat accu-
mulation in the previously scanned area. This phenom-
enon is graphically presented in Figures 14 and 15. The
melt pool with the surrounding area is eventually, as
the beam scanning progresses, taking the shape of a
106 Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 231(1)

Figure 14. Displacement of the melt pool center with respect to the laser beam.75

comet tail as shown in Figures 14 and 16. The accumu-

lated heat along with the higher conductivity of the
melt zone leads to steeper thermal gradients in front of
the melt pool.26,40,45 As a result, the isotherm curves
that occur at the front end of the melt pool are denser
than those at the back end, as reported by Zhang et
al.40 This can be easily observed in Figure 14. This phe-
nomenon is claimed to be more intense, according to Li
and Gu,51 at lower scanning speeds.
Several studies investigate how the melt pool charac-
teristics are influenced by the process parameters. The
length of the melt pool increases when the scanning
speed increases.45,49,64,75 Hussein et al.45 attribute this
phenomenon to the lack of time for cooling of the mol-
ten regions. On the other hand, the melt pool width
decreases with scanning speed and so does the Figure 15. Center of the melt pool slightly displaced backward
depth,32,42,43,45,75,76 as the interaction of the beam with the scanning direction.22
the material becomes shorter. A melt pool depth
greater than the powder layer thickness is essential for
proper bonding between powder particles and the sub- Chou,47 when they represented the top layer as powder
sequent quality of the part.39 The increase of the beam instead of solid material. The higher thermal resistance
power causes the melt pool width and length to of the powder is causing this effect. Caution should be
increase.32,42,49,50 The depth of the melt pool also taken at the control of the melt pool temperature and
increases with beam power.43 Generally, a larger melt depth. Whereas a deeper melt pool ensures proper
pool is produced when increasing the power of the heat bonding, the layer thickness should be adjusted prop-
source.51 The effect of power variation on the melt pool erly in order to prevent over-melting of the top layer.72
size is shown in Figure 17. The increase of the laser A lower melt pool length-to-width is achieved with
beam diameter, in SLS, causes the melt pool length and decreased scanning speed, as reported by Zäh and
width to decrease.42,50 However, the decrease rate of Lutzmann.71 At higher speeds, the length-to-width
the two values is not the same, with the width to be ratio varies significantly with the applied beam power
decreasing more rapidly, according to Yin et al.42 The and decreases when increasing the power. During their
increase of the initial powder porosity leads to study, Zäh and Lutzmann71 reached the conclusion
increased depth of the melt pool but decreased length.47 that in order to prevent Plateau–Rayleigh instabilities,
The width does not seem to be affected. A longer, which are the root of ‘‘balling,’’ the length-to-width
wider and deeper melt pool was observed by Shen and ratio should be kept under 2.1. Childs et al.72 report
Schoinochoritis et al. 107

Figure 16. Melt pool shape evolution.32

that ‘‘balling’’ during single track SLM was observed

when the length-to-width ratio exceeded a value in the
range of 2.8–3.3. This range is close to a ratio of value
p, which causes the Plateau–Rayleigh instability.

Experimental validation
Some level of abstraction is used when developing pro-
cess simulation models in order the computational time
required to be realistic and feasible.83 Thus, validation
of the simulation model, through comparison with
experimental results, is recommended.16
The temperature history of a part during fabrication
can be experimentally recorded using conventional
measurement instruments such as thermographic cam- Figure 17. Melt pool dimensions change with beam power:82
eras46,48,66 or thermocouples.71 While thermocouples (a) 20 W (b) 40 W (c) 60 W and (d) 80 W.
are measuring temperature only at the spots where
installed, thermal cameras can provide a temperature
distribution imaging, giving therefore more insight in 3 2.8 mm2, having a resolution of 256 3 256 pixels.
the temperature field evolution. Raytheonä infrared The frame rate was set at 10 frames per second (fps).
cameras have been used by Kolossov et al.34 and Zäh and Lutzmann71 utilized a thermocouple to mea-
Roberts et al.31 to measure the temperature during sure the temperature evolution during EBM. In order
SLM. In the case of Kolossov et al.,34 the camera was not to interrupt the process sequence, the measuring
equipped with a spectral band pass filter with transmis- device is attached to the build chamber from the reverse
sion between 3 and 5 mm and was calibrated using a side of the platform. In fact, the temperature is mea-
pyrometer. The size of the image was approximately 2.8 sured slightly below, about 300 mm, the surface layer. A
108
Figure 18. Infrared thermometer-thermocouple combined
temperature measurement system.38
system combining an infrared thermometer and a ther-
mocouple, as presented in Figure 18, was employed by
Bai et al.38 to measure temperature during SLS of
polymer-coated molybdenum powder. The thermo-
meter is used to measure the temperature of the powder
surface, while the thermocouple is used for measure-
ment of the inside temperature. Neugebauer et al.,66 for
temperature field validation, used a novel temperature
sensor, which is developed by Köhler et al.84 and com-
bines ratio pyrometry with 2D-resolved measurement.
For the experimental measurement of residual stres-
ses, neutron diffraction is one of the most advantageous
non-destructive methods so far.85 Papadakis et al.79
used neutron diffractometry to validate the residual
stresses obtained by the numerical model. Eight mea-
suring points along the same horizontal path on the
cantilever beam were defined, while the experimental
and numerical results were found to be in good accor-
dance. Krol et al.16 applied FEA in order to optimize
support structures for AM parts. The STRESS-SPEC
materials science diffractometer, which was developed
by Hofmann et al.,86 was employed for the validation
of numerical results. Zaeh and Branner53 also utilized
the STRESS-SPEC materials science diffractometer in
order to measure residual stresses of SLM fabricated
cantilevers.
In order to validate numerical results regarding melt
pool dimensions, porosity, surface roughness and other
microstructural characteristics, microscopy is
employed.75 Microscopy methods include optical
microscopy (OM) and scanning electron microscopy
(SEM). The cross-sections under investigation are first
grinded and polished according to metallographic stan-
dard procedures.51 Contuzzi et al.35 used OM in order
to calibrate and validate a numerical model for the
SLM process. Measurements of width and depth of a
single solidified track showed good agreement with the
simulation results. Numerical results for a single track
width and height produced with SLM were also com-
pared with experimental results by Antony et al.50
using SEM. Whereas width measurements were found
to be in good agreement with the simulation results, it
is reported that the simulated track height cannot
Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 231(1)
capture height deviations occurring as the layer under-
goes thermal shrinkage and densification. Good agree-
ment between simulation and experimental results was
also reported by Li et al.,32 when studying the effect of
scanning speed into track width. The melt pool dimen-
sions and the presence of ‘‘balling’’ were experimentally
recorded by Childs et al.72 using photography and
video recording at a rate of 25 frames per second. The
effect of processing parameters in the microstructure of
SLM W-Ni-Fe parts was experimentally investigated
by means of SEM in a study published by Zhang
et al.40 The simulation findings indicated that high tem-
perature and longer irradiation time by the beam are
required for the proper melting and solidification of
tungsten, which is also validated by the experimental
results. Song et al.41 simulated SLM in order to obtain
those process parameters that would minimize porosity
in the fabrication of Ti6Al4V parts. The process para-
meters found by FEA were in good agreement with the
experimentally found optimal parameters. Observing
the porosity of the fabricated parts was performed
using OM. Numerically found porosity of SLS parts
was also validated against SEM observations by Liu
et al.49 Bonding between subsequent layers, which sig-
nificantly affects porosity, was experimentally investi-
gated by Li and Gu.51 Experimental observations were
conducted using a PMG3 optical microscope manufac-
tured by Olympus and a Quanta 200 scanning electron
microscope manufactured by FEI.
Challenges
FEA can prove a powerful numerical tool, which can
be used to predict the mechanical performance of parts
produced by AM and adjust the process parameters
accordingly. As it can save money and time, if com-
pared with conducting physical experiments, industrial
practice can be benefited from the use of FEA in the
product and process development phases. However, a
significant number of obstacles appear when it comes
to the full exploitation of FEA by industry for the pur-
pose of optimizing AM processes.
Due to the transient nature of the analysis, compu-
tational costs remain quite high. From an industrial
perspective, this prevents the application of FEA for
on-line process optimization. Therefore, emphasis
should be given to smart approaches that reduce mod-
eling complexity without sacrificing accuracy. The sim-
plest and most popular approach is applying a coarser
mesh as moving away from the heat source, lowering
the total number of elements. Another strategy
employed in order to reduce computational effort is
replacing the moving heat source with a heat flux
applied simultaneously to the whole area of each
deposition layer.54 Less time steps are then required for
reaching a solution. A large amount of computational
time can be saved if using a steady-state analysis
instead of a transient one, practically reducing the
Schoinochoritis et al.
number of time steps to one. This approach was fol-
lowed by Ding et al.,87,88 who achieved the steady-state
transformation by attaching an Eulerian reference
frame at the heat source, when simulating the wire and
arc additive layer manufacturing (WAALM) process.
According to the researchers, additional time can be
saved, as using an Eulerian frame does not require as
dense mesh as the typical transient approach does. The
total thermo-mechanical analysis time saved was
almost 80% of the transient analysis time.
Simulation, in general, has an inductive character,
meaning that it should allow researchers to draw con-
clusions beyond the nature of the specific problem stud-
ied. At this point, AM simulation lacks transferability
of results. This lack can be attributed to the great diver-
sity in the modeling of the material properties and the
assumptions followed and also to the limited under-
standing of the physics of the process.89,90 Regarding
materials characterization and standardization, most of
the advancements are coming from official sources.
ASTM International91 has created a committee devoted
to AM, namely the F42, who have published a number
of material specifications for AM. NIST, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology,92 has also
began an initiative since 2013 for the characterization
of AM materials. As far as it concerns the understand-
ing of the physical mechanisms acting during the pro-
cess, the studies utilizing the FEM, as those studied in
this article, can only give a macroscopic insight and are
mostly aimed at drawing quick but safe conclusions.
Deeper understanding can be gained by studies that are
modeling the material at the powder particle level and
consider the effects of fluid flow at the melt pool and
the gas–liquid–solid interactions. The LBM19,93 and the
FVM82 are methods commonly used in this type of
studies, while other numerical methods such as the
Monte Carlo-based ray tracing method94 are more
rarely used.
Commercial FEA tools, specialized to AM modeling
and simulation, exist only at a limited extend regarding
their capabilities. This weakens the position of FEA as
a tool for the global industry. The reason is that highly
qualified personnel is required in order to address the
challenges of modeling an AM process and incorporate
techniques such as ‘‘element birth and death’’ and
‘‘moving heat source’’ into the existing general-purpose
FEA packages. The industrial needs for specialized
software can be observed if looking at the welding
simulation current situation. Welding, as a process with
long tradition in the manufacturing domain and a vast
number of different applications, can be simulated by
dedicated welding simulation tools, such as the NX
Weld Assistant95 developed by Siemens PLM Software.
The area of design for AM, including topology optimi-
zation, layer generation and STL file conversion has
been covered by commercial solutions developed in the
last years by well-established companies, such as
Altair.96 On the other hand, commercialization of
simulation for AM processes is still at an immature
109
stage. However, it must be mentioned that efforts being
done for the integration of design and FEA modules
provide a promising vision of the future.97
In a more and more computer-enabled world, AM is
the last step in a digital production chain. This is proba-
bly the main driver for its rising popularity. An holistic
approach to all the stages from design to manufacturing
is the current trend. CAD, computer-aided manufactur-
ing (CAM) and computer-aided process planning
(CAPP) are becoming integrated98–100 with special
applications in AM.101,102 In this direction, it is essen-
tial that simulation of the process becomes part of this
chain. Adjusting the process parameters based on
design features and requirements or considering design
modifications due to machinery limitations would be
therefore possible, saving significant amounts of faulty
parts. Taking into account the high computational
demands and the extended geographical span of the
modern manufacturing networks, deploying such an
approach into a cloud-based architecture, as the one
presented by Ari and Muhtaroglu,103 using advanced
algorithms for parallel processing as those proposed by
Bangerth et al.97 and Paszyński et al.104 and exploiting
the capabilities of knowledge management105 can be the
key factors for a successful implementation.
Conclusion
The latest studies in the finite element simulation of
metallic powder bed additive processes are reviewed in
this article. Those studies are summarized in Table 1
and are characterized according to the process and
material studied, the modeling methodology and the
experimental validation method used. In addition, the
scope of each study is reported.
The following remarks can be concluded from the
table mentioned above:
 The majority of the simulation studies are focused
on the SLM process, with the EBM given the least
attention.
 Steel is the material used in most of the studies.
 Regarding the scope of the studies, the temperature
field is what most studies target at. Melt pool char-
acteristics seem to be given the least attention by
researchers. However, other methods, such as the
FVM, are more favorable in the study of the melt
pool than FEM.
 There are not many new experiments reported. A
great number of researchers use previously pub-
lished experiments in order to validate their simula-
tion models.
Based on the above, strengthening the role of simula-
tion in AM process optimization would require greater
attention to be given in the development of models for
processes other than SLM and models that consider
materials for special applications, such as Inconel
Table 1. Summary of reviewed publications.
110

Authors Year Process Material Number of Model Element FEA code used Experimental Scope
dimensions size (mm) size (mm) validation

Krol et al.16 2013 N/A AlSi12 3 23233 N/A N/A Neutron Residual
diffraction stresses—
verification of
simulation
results
Boillat et al.17 2004 SLS Titanium 3 Hollow cylinder: N/A N/A N/A Process
0.3 inner radius, optimization
1.2 outer radius, combining FEA
0.6 depth and neural
networks
Zeng et al.26 2012 SLM Ti6Al4V 3 Powder bed: 3 3 3 Powder bed: Free ANSYS N/A Temperature
3 3 Substrate: 1 3 meshing Substrate: field—melt pool
1 3 0.3 0.025 3 0.025 3 characteristics
0.03
Roberts et al.31 2009 SLM Ti6Al4V 3 Powder bed: Scanned region: ANSYS N/A Temperature
13130.015 0.025 3 0.025 3 field
Substrate: 33333 0.025 Coarser
mesh away from
the beam
Li et al.32 2009 SLM 316L Stainless Steel 3 Powder bed: 2.2 3 Powder bed: 0.1 3 ANSYS Microscopy Temperature
1.2 3 0.1 0.1 3 0.1 field—melt pool
Substrate: 3 3 1.8 Substrate: free grid characteristics
3 0.4 at the contact
surface. Coarser
mesh at the rest
Kolossov et al.34 2004 SLS Titanium 3 53532 Scanned region: N/A Infrared camera Temperature
0.01 3 0.01 3 field
0.01Away from the
beam: 0.1 3 0.1 3
0.1
Contuzzi et al.35 2011 SLM 316L Stainless Steel 3 6 3 9 3 1.3 Scanned region: ANSYS Optical Temperature
0.056 3 0.056 3 microscope field
0.056 Coarser
mesh away from
the beam
Matsumoto et al.36 2002 SLM Nickel alloy 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Residual
stresses—
distortion
Van Belle et al.37 2012 SLM 15-5PH Steel 2/3 0.6 3 0.5 3 0.5 N/A ABAQUS N/A Temperature
field—residual
stresses
(continued)
Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 231(1)
Table 1. Continued

Authors Year Process Material Number of Model Element FEA code used Experimental Scope
dimensions size (mm) size (mm) validation

Bai et al.38 2006 SLS Polymer-coated 2 N/A 10 3 0.2 Code written Infrared thermometer— Temperature
molybdenum powder in FORTRAN Thermocouple field
Schoinochoritis et al.

Childs et al.39 2000 SLS Stainless Steel 2/3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Melt pool
characteristics
Zhang et al.40 2010 SLM W-Ni-Fe composite 3 Powder bed: 1 3 2 Powder bed: 0.05 ANSYS SEM Temperature
powder 3 0.05 Substrate: 2 3 0.05 3 0.05 field—melt pool
3 3 3 1.5 Substrate: free characteristics
mesh
Song et al.41 2012 SLM Ti6Al4V 3 Powder bed: 2 3 1 0.005 3 0.005 3 ANSYS Optical microscope Temperature
3 0.05 Substrate: 0.005 field
25 3 10 3 5
Yin et al.42 2012 SLS Iron 3 0.9 3 0.9 3 0.03 0.0075 3 0.0075 3 ANSYS N/A Temperature
0.0075 field—melt pool
characteristics
Zhang et al.43 2011 SLS W-Cu composite powder 3 3.4 3 1.6 3 0.3 Powder bed: 0.1 3 ANSYS N/A Melt pool
0.1 3 0 Substrate: characteristics
coarser mesh
Jiang et al.44 2002 SLS 316L Stainless Steel 3 N/A Scanned region: ABAQUS N/A Temperature
0.183 3 0.183 3 field—residual
0.083 Coarser stresses—
mesh away from distortion
the beam
Hussein et al.45 2013 SLM 316L Stainless Steel 3 12.2 3 3.2 3 1.0 Scanned region: ANSYS N/A Temperature
0.75 3 0.75 3 0.75 field—residual
Coarser mesh stresses—melt
away from the pool
beam characteristics
Patil and Yadava46 2007 SLS Titanium 3 N/A N/A Code written Infrared camera Temperature
in MATLAB field—melt pool
characteristics
Shen and Chou47 2012 EBM Ti6Al4V 3 N/A N/A ABAQUS N/A Temperature
field—melt pool
Schilp et al.48 2014 SLS Inconel 718 3 N/A 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.5 ANSYS Infrared camera Temperature
field
Liu et al.49 2012 SLS Pure Fe 3 N/A N/A ANSYS Optical microscopy/SEM Temperature
field—melt pool
characteristics
Antony et al.50 2009 SLM 316L Stainless Steel 3 N/A 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 N/A SEM Temperature
field—melt
pool—
microstructure
(continued)
111
Table 1. Continued
112

Authors Year Process Material Number of Model Element FEA code used Experimental Scope
dimensions size (mm) size (mm) validation

Li and Gu51 2014 SLM AlSi10Mg 3 Powder bed: 1.54 Powder bed: ANSYS OM/SEM Temperature
3 0.7 3 0.1 0.0175 3 0.0175 3 field—melt pool
Substrate: 2 3 1 3 0.025 Substrate: characteristics
0.4 coarser mesh
Ma and Bin52 2007 SLS Nickel 3 60 3 60 3 2 23232 N/A N/A Temperature
field—residual
stresses—
distortion
Zaeh and Branner53 2010 SLM Tool Steel 1.2709 3 N/A N/A ANSYS Neutron diffraction Residual
stresses—
distortion
Neugebauer et al.54 2014 SLM Inconel 718 3 100 3 100 3 100 N/A MSC Marc N/A Residual
stresses
Ren et al.63 2011 SLS W-Ni composite powder 3 Powder bed: 3.4 3 Powder bed: 0.1 3 ANSYS N/A Temperature
1.6 3 0.2 0.1 3 0.1 field
Substrate: 4.4 3 3 Substrate: coarser
3 0.6 mesh
Zhang et al.64 2010 SLS Copper 3 Single layer powder Powder bed: 0.1 3 ANSYS N/A Temperature
bed: 3.4 3 1.6 3 0.1 3 0.1 field—melt pool
0.1 Multi-layer Substrate: coarser characteristics
powder bed: mesh
3.4 3 1.6 3 0.3
Substrate: 4.8 3 2
3 0.5
Shen and Chou65 2012 EBM Ti6Al4V 3 300 3 300 3 150 N/A N/A N/A Temperature
field
Neugebauer et al.66 2014 SLM X4CrNiCuNb 3 N/A 0.5 3 0.5 3 0.4 MSC Marc/Mentat Thermal camera Temperature
field—
distortion
Zäh and Lutzmann71 2010 EBM 316L Stainless Steel 3 N/A N/A N/A Thermocouple Melt pool
characteristics
Childs et al.72 2005 SLM/SLS M2/H13 Tool Steel 314- 3 N/A N/A N/A Photography Melt pool
HC Stainless Steel characteristics
Chen and Zhang76 2007 SLS AISI 1018—Bni-2 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Melt pool
composite powder characteristics
Hodge et al.78 2013 SLM 316L Stainless Steel 3 0.6 3 0.6 3 0.2 0.0025 3 0.0025 3 Diablo N/A Temperature
0.0025 field—residual
stresses—
distortion
Papadakis et al.79 2012 SLM Tool Steel 1.2709 3 Powder bed: 70 3 1 3 1 3 0.5 ANSYS Neutron diffraction Temperature
15 3 12 Supports: field—residual
30 3 15 3 8 stresses—
distortion
Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 231(1)

FEA: finite element analysis; SLS: selective laser sintering; SLM: selective laser melting; EBM: electron beam melting; SEM: scanning electron microscopy; OM: optical microscopy.
Schoinochoritis et al.
alloys. Furthermore, a solid experimental base should
be created, in order to be used as a reference point for
future simulation studies.
Regarding the simulation results of the studies
reviewed in this article, conclusions can be drawn as
follows. The fabricated part undergoes similar tempera-
ture cycles at every scanned region, except its edges.
However, the upper layers tend to reach higher tem-
peratures than the bottom layer which is in contact
with the base plate. The bottom layer itself experiences
a slight temperature increase as more layers are added,
with this fact implying the need for cautious consider-
ation of the slicing strategy and the total number of
layers. The major temperature gradients, developed
during the process, are those in the z-axis between the
top layer and the substrate. As a result, 3D models
should be preferred to 2D ones for obtaining accurate
results. Process parameters have a significant impact in
the temperature history of the part. The maximum tem-
perature in the part has been observed to increase with
the laser power and decrease with the scanning speed.
The same observations were also made for the maxi-
mum temperature gradient. The maximum temperature
was also found to increase when lowering the spot dia-
meter of the heat source and when preheating the pro-
cess chamber. Residual stresses and distortion play a
significant role in the structural integrity and the qual-
ity of the fabricated part. High tensile stresses are
observed at the top layer and high compressive stresses
at the interface between the part and the substrate.
Thin-walled structures are exhibiting high residual
stresses. In SLS, residual stresses have a little effect on
distortion, which is mainly caused by transient thermal
stresses during processing. Distortion can be prevented
by applying lower scanning speeds, lower power at the
heat source and suitable scanning strategies that utilize
shorter paths. The melt pool dimensions and shape are
strongly influencing the bonding between the scanned
region and the already solidified regions. The center of
the melt pool is displaced backward the scanning direc-
tion, while its shape is taking the form of a comet tail
as the process evolves. Steeper thermal gradients are
observed at the front of the melt pool than in the back.
The melt pool length increases with the scanning speed
and the beam power and decreases with the beam dia-
meter and the initial powder porosity. The melt pool
width and depth have been found to decrease with the
scanning speed and the beam diameter, while they
increase with the beam power. Generally, the melt pool
dimensions depend on the interaction time with the
beam and the rate of energy input. The length-to-width
ratio, which is critical for the development of Plateau–
Rayleigh instabilities and the subsequent propagation
of the ‘‘balling’’ effect, has been observed to increase
with the scanning speed and decrease with the beam
power. As described in this study, process parameters
have a significant impact on the quality of the final part
113
in terms of residual stresses, distortion and porosity.
However, determining the process parameters can also
be influenced by other factors such as productivity,
energy consumption and manufacturing costs. Thus,
the selection of the optimal process parameters should
be dealt as a multi-dimensional problem.
The FEM has proven valuable in the simulation of
AM for metallic parts. By understanding the nature of
the process and predicting the effect of process para-
meters into the mechanical characteristics of the final
part, the process can be adjusted and optimized in
order to produce right first time parts at greater rates.
Scrap rates and faulty parts can thus be reduced lead-
ing to more eco-friendly and cost-effective produc-
tion. However, there are still issues that need to be
addressed. Long computational times do not allow
for on-line process optimization based on FEA. In
addition, transferability of simulation results to differ-
ent case studies is limited. A common ground in mate-
rial properties modeling is hard to be found between
different researchers of the field. Furthermore, specia-
lized software for AM simulation is limited only to
product design solutions, with the area of process
simulation being at its very first stages of develop-
ment. Finally, the total shift of manufacturing to a
web and cloud-enabled paradigm is fueling the inte-
gration of FEA tools with other digital manufacturing
tools in order to serve the needs of today’s global
manufacturing networks.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any fund-
ing agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.
References
1. Mellor S, Hao L and Zhang D. Additive manufacturing:
a framework for implementation. Int J Prod Econ 2014;
149: 194–201.
2. Levy GN, Schindel R and Kruth JP. Rapid manufactur-
ing and rapid tooling with Layer Manufacturing (LM)
technologies, state of the art and future perspectives.
CIRP Ann: Manuf Techn 2003; 52(2): 589–609.
3. Santos EC, Shiomi M, Osakada K, et al. Rapid manu-
facturing of metal components by laser forming. Int J
Mach Tool Manu 2006; 46(12–13): 1459–1468.
4. Gu DD, Meiners W, Wissenbach K, et al. Laser additive
manufacturing of metallic components: materials, pro-
cesses and mechanisms. Int Mater Rev 2012; 57: 133–164.
5. Bauereiß A, Scharowsky T and Körner C. Defect genera-
tion and propagation mechanism during additive manu-
facturing by selective beam melting. J Mater Process
Tech 2014; 214(11): 2522–2528.
114
6. Chantzis D, Van der Veen S, Zettler J, et al. An indus-
trial workflow to minimise part distortion for machining
of large monolithic components in aerospace industry.
Procedia CIRP 2013; 8: 281–286.
7. Williams CB, Cochran JK, Rosen DW. Additive manu-
facturing of metallic cellular materials via three-dimen-
sional printing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2011; 53(1-4):
231–239.
8. Leuders S, Thöne M, Riemer A, et al. On the mechanical
behaviour of titanium alloy TiAl6V4 manufactured by
selective laser melting: fatigue resistance and crack
growth performance. Int J Fatigue 2013; 448: 300–307.
9. Kruth JP, Levy G, Klocke F, et al. Consolidation phe-
nomena in laser and powder-bed based layered manufac-
turing. CIRP Ann: Manuf Techn 2007; 56(2): 730–759.
10. Gu D, Wang H and Zhang G. Selective laser melting
additive manufacturing of Ti-based nanocomposites: the
role of nanopowder. Metall Mater Trans A 2014; 45(1):
464–476.
11. Kruth JP, Froyen L, Van Vaerenbergh J, et al. Selective
laser melting of iron-based powder. J Mater Process Tech
2004; 149(1–3): 616–622.
12. Parandoush P and Hossain A. A review of modeling and
simulation of laser beam machining. Int J Mach Tool
Manu 2014; 85: 135–145.
13. Turner MJ, Clough RW, Martin HC, et al. Stiffness and
deflection analysis of complex structures. J Aeronaut Sci
1956; 23(9): 805–823.
14. Madenci E and Guven I. The finite element method and
applications in engineering using ANSYS. 1st ed. New
York: Springer, 2006, p.1.
15. Markopoulos AP. Finite element method in machining pro-
cesses. 1st ed.New York: Springer, 2013, p.30.
16. Krol TA, Seidel C, Schilp J, et al. Verification of struc-
tural simulation results of metal-based additive manufac-
turing by means of neutron diffraction. Phys Procedia
2013; 41: 849–857.
17. Boillat E, Kolossov S, Glardon R, et al. Finite element
and neural network models for process optimization in
selective laser sintering. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineer-
ing Manufacture 2004; 218(6): 607–614.
18. Körner C, Bauereiß A and Attar E. Fundamental conso-
lidation mechanisms during selective beam melting of
powders. Model Simul Mater Sc 2013; 21(8): 085011.
19. Körner C, Attar E and Heinl P. Mesoscopic simulation
of selective beam melting processes. J Mater Process Tech
2011; 211(6): 978–987.
20. Scharowsky T, Bauereiß A, Singer RF, et al. Observation
and numerical simulation of melt pool dynamic and beam
powder interaction during selective electron beam melt-
ing. In: National science foundation solid freeform fabrica-
tion symposium, Austin, TX, 6–8 August 2012. Austin,
TX: Laboratory for Freeform Fabrication.
21. Chen T and Zhang Y. Numerical simulation of two
dimensional melting and resolidification of a two-
component metal powder layer in selective laser sintering
process. Numer Heat Tr A: Appl 2004; 46(7): 633–649.
22. Dai D and Gu D. Thermal behavior and densification
mechanism during selective laser melting of copper matrix
composites: simulation and experiments. Mater Design
2014; 55: 482–491.
Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 231(1)
23. Dandekar CR and Shin YC. Modeling of machining of
composite materials: a review. Int J Mach Tool Manu
2012; 57: 102–121.
24. Shi B and Attia H. Current status and future direction in
the numerical modeling and simulation of machining pro-
cesses: a critical literature review. Mach Sci Technol 2010;
14(2): 149–188.
25. Arrazola PJ, Özel T, Umbrello D, et al. Recent advances
in modelling of metal machining processes. CIRP Ann:
Manuf Techn 2013; 62(2): 695–718.
26. Zeng K, Pal D and Stucker B. A review of thermal analy-
sis methods in Laser Sintering and Selective Laser Melt-
ing. In: National science foundation solid freeform
fabrication symposium, Austin, TX, 6–8 August 2012.
Austin, TX: Laboratory for Freeform Fabrication.
27. Yang DY, Jung DW, Song IS, et al. Comparative investi-
gation into implicit, explicit, and iterative implicit/explicit
schemes for the simulation of sheet-metal forming pro-
cesses. J Mater Process Tech 1995; 50(1–4): 39–53.
28. Sun JS, Lee KH and Lee HP. Comparison of implicit and
explicit finite element methods for dynamic problems. J
Mater Process Tech 2000; 105(1–2): 110–118.
29. Harewood FJ and McHugh PE. Comparison of the
implicit and explicit finite element methods using crystal
plasticity. Comp Mater Sci 2007; 39(2): 481–494.
30. Prior AM. Applications of implicit and explicit finite ele-
ment techniques to metal forming. J Mater Process Tech
1994; 45(1–4): 649–656.
31. Roberts IA, Wang CJ, Esterlein R, et al. A three-
dimensional finite element analysis of the temperature
field during laser melting of metal powders in additive
layer manufacturing. Int J Mach Tool Manu 2009; 49:
916–923.
32. Li R, Shi Y, Liu J, et al. Effects of processing parameters
on the temperature field of selective laser melting metal
powder. Powder Metall Met C + 2009; 48(3–4): 186–195.
33. Labudovic M, Hu D and Kovacevic R. A three dimen-
sional model for direct laser metal powder deposition and
rapid prototyping. J Mater Sci 2003; 38(1): 35–49.
34. Kolossov S, Boillat E, Glardon R, et al. 3D FE simula-
tion for temperature evolution in the selective laser sinter-
ing process. Int J Mach Tool Manu 2004; 44: 117–123.
35. Contuzzi N, Campanelli SL and Ludovico AD. 3D finite
element analysis in the Selective Laser Melting process.
Int J Simulat Model 2011; 10(3): 113–121.
36. Matsumoto M, Shiomi M, Osakada K, et al. Finite ele-
ment analysis of single layer forming on metallic powder
bed in rapid prototyping by selective laser processing. Int
J Mach Tool Manu 2002; 42(1): 61–67.
37. Van Belle L, Vansteenkiste G and Boyer JC. Compari-
sons of numerical modelling of the Selective Laser Melt-
ing. Key Eng Mat 2012; 504–506: 1067–1072.
38. Bai PK, Cheng J, Liu B, et al. Numerical simulation of
temperature field during selective laser sintering of
polymer-coated molybdenum powder. T Nonferr Metal
Soc 2006; 16: 603–607.
39. Childs THC, Hauser C, Taylor CM, et al. Simulation and
experimental verification of crystalline polymer and direct
metal Selective Laser Sintering. In: National science foun-
dation solid freeform fabrication symposium, Austin, TX,
7–9 August 2000. Austin, TX: Laboratory for Freeform
Fabrication.
Schoinochoritis et al.
40. Zhang DQ, Cai QZ, Liu JH, et al. Select laser melting of
W–Ni–Fe powders: simulation and experimental study.
Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2010; 51: 649–658.
41. Song B, Dong S, Liao H, et al. Process parameter selec-
tion for selective laser melting of Ti6Al4V based on tem-
perature distribution simulation and experimental
sintering. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2012; 61(9–12): 967–974.
42. Yin J, Zhu H, Ke L, et al. Simulation of temperature dis-
tribution in single metallic powder layer for laser micro-
sintering. Comp Mater Sci 2012; 53(1): 333–339.
43. Zhang J, Li D, Li J, et al. Numerical simulation of tem-
perature field in selective laser sintering. In: Li D, Liu Y
and Chen Y (eds) Computer and computing technologies in
agriculture IV. 1st ed.New York: Springer, 2011, pp.474–
479.
44. Jiang W, Dalgarno KW and Childs THC. Finite element
analysis of residual stresses and deformations in direct
metal SLS process. In: National science foundation solid
freeform fabrication symposium, Austin, TX, 5–7 August
2002. Austin, TX: Laboratory for Freeform Fabrication.
45. Hussein A, Hao L, Yan C, et al. Finite element simula-
tion of the temperature and stress fields in single layers
built without-support in selective laser melting. Mater
Design 2013; 52: 638–647.
46. Patil RB and Yadava V. Finite element analysis of tem-
perature distribution in single metallic powder layer dur-
ing metal laser sintering. Int J Mach Tool Manu 2007; 47:
1069–1080.
47. Shen N and Chou K. Thermal modeling of electron beam
additive manufacturing process: powder sintering effects.
In: ASME international manufacturing science and engi-
neering conference, Notre Dame, IN, 4–8 June 2012,
pp.287–295. New York: ASME.
48. Schilp J, Seidel C, Krauss H, et al. Investigations on tem-
perature fields during laser beam melting by means of
process monitoring and multiscale process modelling.
Adv Mech Eng 2014; 2014: 217584 (7 pp.).
49. Liu FR, Zhang Q, Zhou WP, et al. Micro scale 3D FEM
simulation on thermal evolution within the porous struc-
ture in selective laser sintering. J Mater Process Tech
2012; 212(10): 2058–2065.
50. Antony K, Arivazhagan N and Senthilkumaran K.
Numerical and experimental investigations on laser melt-
ing of stainless steel 316L metal powders. J Manuf Pro-
cess 2014; 16(3): 345–355.
51. Li Y and Gu D. Parametric analysis of thermal behavior
during selective laser melting additive manufacturing of
aluminum alloy powder. Mater Design 2014; 63: 856–867.
52. Ma L and Bin H. Temperature and stress analysis and
simulation in fractal scanning-based laser sintering. Int J
Adv Manuf Tech 2007; 34(9–10): 898–903.
53. Zaeh MF and Branner G. Investigations on residual
stresses and deformations in selective laser melting. Prod
Engineer 2010; 4(1): 35–45.
54. Neugebauer F, Keller N, Hongxiao X, et al. Simulation
of selective laser melting process using specific layer based
meshing. In: Fraunhofer direct digital manufacturing con-
ference, Berlin, 12–13 March 2014. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer
Verlag.
55. Parthasarathy VN and Kodiyalam S. A constrained opti-
mization approach to finite element mesh smoothing.
Finite Elem Anal Des 1991; 9(4): 309–320.
115
56. Sypkens Smit M and Bronsvoort WF. Efficient tetrahe-
dral remeshing of feature models for finite element analy-
sis. Eng Comput 2009; 25(4): 327–344.
57. Vartziotis D, Wipper J and Papadrakakis M. Improving
mesh quality and finite element solution accuracy by
GETMe smoothing in solving the Poisson equation.
Finite Elem Anal Des 2013; 66: 36–52.
58. Riedlbauer D, Steinmann P and Mergheim J. Thermome-
chanical finite element simulations of selective electron
beam melting processes: performance considerations.
Comput Mech 2014; 54(1): 109–122.
59. Dai K and Shaw L. Distortion minimization of laser-
processed components through control of laser scanning
patterns. Rapid Prototyping J 2002; 8(5): 270–276.
60. Dai K and Shaw L. Finite-element analysis of effects of
the laser-processed bimaterial component size on stres-
ses and distortion. Metall Mater Trans A 2003; 34(5):
1133–1145.
61. Dai K, Klemens P and Shaw L. Numerical simulation of
bi-materials laser densification. In: National science foun-
dation solid freeform fabrication symposium, Austin, TX,
7–9 August 2000. Austin, TX: Laboratory for Freeform
Fabrication.
62. Dai K and Shaw L. Thermal and stress modeling of
multi-material laser processing. Acta Mater 2001; 49(20):
4171–4181.
63. Ren J, Liu J and Yin J. Simulation of transient tempera-
ture field in the selective laser sintering process of W/Ni
powder mixture. In: Li D, Liu Y and Chen Y (eds) Com-
puter and computing technologies in agriculture IV. 1st
ed.New York: Springer, 2011, pp.494–503.
64. Jian Z, Deying L, Longzhi Z, et al. Simulation of tem-
perature field in selective laser sintering of copper pow-
der. In: IEEE international conference on mechanic
automation and control engineering, Wuhan, China, 26–28
June 2010, pp.3282–3285. New York: IEEE.
65. Shen N and Chou K.Numerical thermal analysis in elec-
tron beam additive manufacturing with preheating
effects. In: National science foundation solid freeform fab-
rication symposium, Austin, TX, 6–8 August 2012. Aus-
tin, TX: Laboratory for Freeform Production.
66. Neugebauer F, Keller N, Ploshikhin V, et al. Multi scale
FEM simulation for distortion calculation in additive
manufacturing of hardening stainless steel. In: BIAS 4th
international workshop on thermal forming and welding dis-
tortion, Bremen, 9–10 April 2014. Bremen: BIAS Verlag.
67. ANSYS Inc. Help manual (ANSYS 15.0). Canonsburg,
PA: ANSYS Inc., 2013.
68. Denlinger ER, Heigel JC and Michaleris P. Residual
stress and distortion modeling of electron beam direct
manufacturing Ti-6Al-4V. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engi-
neering Manufacture. Epub ahead of print 16 July 2014.
DOI: 10.1177/0954405414539494.
69. Dai K and Shaw L. Thermal and mechanical finite ele-
ment modeling of laser forming from metal and ceramic
powders. Acta Mater 2004; 52: 69–80.
70. Yadroitsev I, Gusarov A, Yadroitsava I, et al. Single
track formation in selective laser melting of metal pow-
ders. J Mater Process Tech 2010; 210(10): 1624–1631.
71. Zäh MF and Lutzmann S. Modelling and simulation
of electron beam melting. Prod Engineer 2010; 4(1):
15–23.
116
72. Childs THC, Hauser C and Badrossamay M.Selective
laser sintering (melting) of stainless and tool steel pow-
ders: experiments and modelling. Proc IMechE, Part B: J
Engineering Manufacture 2005; 219: 339–357.
73. Roberts IA. Investigation of residual stresses in the laser
melting of metal powders in additive layer manufacturing.
PhD Thesis, University of Wolverhampton, Wolver-
hampton, 2012.
74. Shapiro M, Dudko V, Royzen V, et al. Characterization
of powder beds by thermal conductivity: effect of gas
pressure on the thermal resistance of particle contact
points. Part Part Syst Char 2004; 21(4): 268–275.
75. Gusarov AV, Yadroitsev I, Bertrand P, et al. Heat trans-
fer modelling and stability analysis of selective laser melt-
ing. Appl Surf Sci 2007; 254(4): 975–979.
76. Chen T and Zhang Y. Thermal modeling of laser sinter-
ing of two-component metal powder on top of sintered
layers via multi-line scanning. Appl Phys A: Mater 2007;
86(2): 213–220.
77. Wang XC, Laoui T, Bonse J, et al. Direct selective laser
sintering of hard metal powders: experimental study and
simulation. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2002; 19(5): 351–357.
78. Hodge N, Ferencz RM and Solberg JM. Implementation
of a thermomechanical model in Diablo for the simula-
tion of selective laser melting. Report, Lawrence Liver-
more National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, October
2013.
79. Papadakis L, Branner G, Schober A, et al. Numerical
modeling of heat effects during thermal manufacturing of
aero engine components. In: IAENG world congress on
engineering, London, 4–6 July 2012. Hong Kong:
IAENG.
80. Yang J, Bin H, Zhang X, et al. Fractal scanning path gen-
eration and control system for selective laser sintering
(SLS). Int J Mach Tool Manu 2003; 43(2): 293–300.
81. Kruth JP, Deckers J, Yasa E, et al. Assessing and com-
paring influencing factors of residual stresses in selective
laser melting using a novel analysis method. Proc
IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2012; 226:
980–991.
82. Verhaeghe F, Craeghs T, Heulens J, et al. A pragmatic
model for selective laser melting with evaporation. Acta
Mater 2009; 57(20): 6006–6012.
83. Krol TA, Westhaeuser S, Zaeh MF, et al. Development
of a simulation-based process chain—strategy for differ-
ent levels of detail for the preprocessing definitions. In:
ASIM 21. Symposium Simulationstechnik der Arbeitsge-
meinschaft Simulation, Winterthur, 7–9 September 2011.
Bonn: ASIM.
84. Köhler H, Jayaraman V, Brosch D, et al. A novel thermal
sensor applied for laser materials processing. Phys Proce-
dia 2013; 41: 502–508.
85. Hutchings MT, Withers PJ, Holden TM, et al. Introduc-
tion to the characterization of residual stress by neutron dif-
fraction. 1st ed.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2005, p.2.
86. Hofmann M, Schneider R, Seidl GA, et al. The new
materials science diffractometer STRESS-SPEC at FRM-
II. Physica B 2006; 385–386(2): 1035–1037.
87. Ding J, Colegrove P, Mehnen J, et al. A computationally
efficient finite element model of wire and arc additive
manufacture. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2014; 70(1–4):
227–236.
88. Ding J, Colegrove P, Mehnen J, et al. Thermo-mechani-
cal analysis of Wire and Arc Additive Layer
Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 231(1)
Manufacturing process on large multi-layer parts. Comp
Mater Sci 2011; 50(12): 3315–3322.
89. Bourell DL, Beaman JJ, Leu MC, et al. A brief history of
additive manufacturing and the 2009 roadmap for addi-
tive manufacturing: looking back and looking ahead. In:
National science foundation US—TURKEY workshop on
rapid technologies, Istanbul, Turkey, 24–25 September
2009. Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University.
90. Hague R, Mansour S and Saleh N. Material and design
considerations for rapid manufacturing. Int J Prod Res
2004; 42(22): 4691–4708.
91. ASTM International. Subcommittee F42.05 on materials
and processes, http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUB
COMMIT/F4205.htm (2014, accessed 5 September 2014).
92. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Charac-
terization of additive manufacturing materials, http://
www.nist.gov/el/isd/sbm/camm.cfm (2014, accessed 5
September 2014).
93. Ammer R, Markl M, Ljungblad U, et al. Simulating fast
electron beam melting with a parallel thermal free surface
lattice Boltzmann method. Comput Math Appl 2014;
67(2): 318–330.
94. Zhou J and Zhang Y. Numerical simulation of laser irra-
diation to a randomly packed bimodal powder bed. Int J
Heat Mass Tran 2009; 52(13–14): 3137–3146.
95. Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc.
NX Welding Assistant webpage, http://www.plm.auto
mation.siemens.com/en_us/products/nx/for-design/process-
specific/welding-design.shtml (2014, accessed 5 September
2014).
96. Altair Engineering Inc. Altair Hyperworks home page,
http://www.altairhyperworks.com/ (2014, accessed 5
September 2014).
97. Bangerth W, Burstedde C, Heister T, et al. Algorithms
and data structures for massively parallel generic adap-
tive finite element codes. ACM T Math Software 2011;
38(2): 14.
98. Salonitis K and Stavropoulos P. On the integration of the
CAx systems towards sustainable production. Procedia
CIRP 2013; 9: 115–120.
99. Sivakumar S and Dhanalakshmi V. An approach towards
the integration of CAD/CAM/CAI through STEP file
using feature extraction for cylindrical parts. Int J Comp
Integ M 2012; 26(6): 561–570.
100. Houshmand M and Valilai OF. A layered and modular
platform to enable distributed CAx collaboration and
support product data integration based on STEP stan-
dard. Int J Comp Integ M 2013; 26(8): 731–750.
101. De Amorim Almeida H and Da Silva Bártolo PJ. Vir-
tual topological optimisation of scaffolds for rapid pro-
totyping. Med Eng Phys 2010; 32(7): 775–782.
102. Kerbrat O, Mognol P and Hascoët JY. A new DFM
approach to combine machining and additive manufac-
turing. Comput Ind 2011; 62(7): 684–692.
103. Ari I and Muhtaroglu N. Design and implementation of
a cloud computing service for finite element analysis.
Adv Eng Softw 2013; 60–61: 122–135.
104. Paszyński M, Pardo D, Torres-Verdı́n C, et al. A paral-
lel direct solver for the self-adaptive hp Finite Element
Method. J Parallel Distr Com 2010; 70(3): 270–281.
105. Gardan N. Knowledge management for topological
optimization integration in additive manufacturing. Int
J Manuf Eng 2014; 2014: 356256 (9 pp.).
Schoinochoritis et al. 117

Appendix 1 QCV heat loss due to convection

QL heat input from the heat flux
Notation
QR heat loss due to radiation
A absorptivity r radial distance
Cp specific heat capacity t time
e Euler’s number T temperature
f function relating the state of a system at a T0 ambient temperature
later time with the current state in explicit y state of a system
methods e emissivity
g function relating the state of a system at a p pi
later time with the current state in implicit r density
methods rbed density of powder on the powder bed
h heat transfer coefficient rs density of solid material
I intensity s Stefan–Boltzmann constant
k thermal conductivity v radial distance where the intensity is
n vector normal to surface reduced from the intensity at the center of
P beam power the beam by a factor of e2
q_ rate of heat input
q_ s rate of heat input from the beam
QCD heat loss due to conduction