# US 11,029,666 B2 · Fabrication of process-equivalent test specimens of additively manufactured components

> Agents: this data is available as JSON from the patentgrep API and MCP server — see https://patentgrep.com/llms.txt

- Number: US 11,029,666 B2
- Document ID: US11029666B2
- Status: Granted
- Kind: B2
- Application number: 15/816,562
- Filed: 2017-11-17
- Published: 2019-05-23
- Granted: 2021-06-08
- Earliest claimed: 2017-11-17
- Assignees: Raytheon Technologies Corporation
- Applicants: United Technologies Corporation
- Inventors: Rebecca L. Runkle; Anthony Patrick Ventura; Thomas Anthony Rebbecchi
- Web page: https://patentgrep.com/patent/US11029666B2

## CPC

- G05B 19/4155: characterised by program execution, i.e. part program or machine function execution, e.g. selection of a program
- B22F 10/28: Powder bed fusion, e.g. selective laser melting [SLM] or electron beam melting [EBM]
- B22F 10/85: for controlling or regulating additive manufacturing processes
- B22F 12/90: Means for process control, e.g. cameras or sensors
- B33Y 10/00: Processes of additive manufacturing
- B33Y 50/02: for controlling or regulating additive manufacturing processes
- G06F 30/17: Mechanical parametric or variational design
- G05B 2219/31372: Mes manufacturing execution system
- G05B 2219/49018: Laser sintering of powder in layers, selective laser sintering SLS
- G06F 2119/08: Thermal analysis or thermal optimisation
- Y02P 10/25: Process efficiency
- Y02P 90/02: Total factory control, e.g. smart factories, flexible manufacturing systems [FMS] or integrated manufacturing systems [IMS]
- G05B: CONTROL OR REGULATING SYSTEMS IN GENERAL; FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS OF SUCH SYSTEMS; MONITORING OR TESTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUCH SYSTEMS OR ELEMENTS (systems for controlling or regulating non-electric variables G05D; systems for regulating electric or magnetic variables G05F; control devices or systems insofar as characterised by mechanical features only G05G)
- B22F: WORKING METALLIC POWDER; MANUFACTURE OF ARTICLES FROM METALLIC POWDER; MAKING METALLIC POWDER (making alloys by powder metallurgy C22C); APPARATUS OR DEVICES SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR METALLIC POWDER
- B33Y: ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING, i.e. MANUFACTURING OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL [3D] OBJECTS BY ADDITIVE DEPOSITION, ADDITIVE AGGLOMERATION OR ADDITIVE LAYERING, e.g. BY 3D PRINTING, STEREOLITHOGRAPHY OR SELECTIVE LASER SINTERING
- G06F: ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING (computer systems based on specific computational models G06N)
- Y02P: CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING OF GOODS

## Abstract

A method of fabricating process-equivalent test specimens to an additively manufactured component includes generating a processing history model of a component, dividing the component into regions based on input data variations in processing history, wherein each region is characterized by an identified range of input data, determining additive manufacturing processing parameters needed to additively manufacture one or more test specimens that each mimic the processing history in one of the regions, and fabricating the one or more test specimens using the processing parameters determined.

## Claims

### Claim 1

A method of fabricating process-equivalent test specimens of an additively manufactured component, the method comprising:
generating a processing history model of a component, wherein the processing history model comprises a thermal history model of the component;
dividing the processing history model of the component into a plurality of regions based on input data variations in processing history, wherein each region of the plurality of regions is characterized by an identified range of input data, the input data including thermal conditions of the component within each of a plurality of build layers;
determining test specimen additive manufacturing processing parameters needed to additively manufacture a plurality of test specimens such that each test specimen of the plurality of test specimens has a processing history that matches a processing history of a respective region of the plurality of regions sufficiently that the test specimen and the respective region are metallurgically equivalent, wherein the additive manufacturing processing parameters comprise laser power, laser speed, hatch distance, layer thickness, beam offset, and beam focus; and
fabricating the plurality of test specimens using the test specimen additive manufacturing processing parameters determined, wherein the test specimen additive manufacturing processing parameters are different than processing parameters used to fabricate the component.

### Claim 2 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1, wherein generating a processing history model of a component comprises simulating a build process of the component and wherein input data comprises processing history metrics derived from a computational model of the additive manufacturing process.

### Claim 3 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1, wherein generating a processing history model of a component comprises:
fabricating the component using an additive manufacturing build process;
collecting in-situ sensor data throughout the build process to construct the processing history of the component; and
mapping the in-situ sensor data and/or processing history metrics derived from the in-situ sensor data to locations in the component geometry, wherein the in-situ sensor data and the processing history metrics derived from the in-situ sensor data are the input data.

### Claim 4 (depends on 3)

The method of claim 3, wherein the in-situ sensor data comprises sensor signals detected across a component geometry for each of a plurality of build layers.

### Claim 5 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1, wherein the ranges of input data are non-overlapping.

### Claim 6 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of test specimens includes a first test specimen and a second test specimen and wherein processing parameters needed to additively manufacture the first test specimen are determined for a first region having a low range of input data, wherein all of values of the input data of the first region are below an identified maximum value; and wherein processing parameters needed to additively manufacture the second test specimen are determined for a second region having a high range of input data, wherein all values of the input data of the second region are above an identified minimum value.

### Claim 7 (depends on 6)

The method of claim 6, wherein the plurality of test specimens includes a third test specimen and wherein the processing parameters needed to additively manufacture the third test specimen are determined for a third region having an intermediate range of input data, wherein the intermediate range of input data is between the minimum and maximum values.

### Claim 8 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1 and further comprising:
collecting in-situ sensor data throughout the fabrication of each test specimen of the plurality of test specimens to construct the processing history for each test specimen;
wherein the processing history of each test specimen specimens is generally uniform throughout each test specimen;
wherein each test specimen has a processing history metallurgically equivalent to the processing history of a selected region of the component.

### Claim 9 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1, wherein the component and the plurality of test specimens are fabricated using a powder bed fusion process, wherein the powder comprises a metal.

### Claim 10

An additive manufacturing system for fabricating test specimens, the system comprising:
an additive manufacturing machine for fabricating a component and separate test specimens;
a sensor for detecting in-situ sensed data throughout a build process;
a processor that performs the steps of:
generating a processing history model of a component geometry, wherein input data comprising in-situ sensor data and/or processing metrics is mapped to the component, the input data including thermal conditions of the component within each of a plurality of build layers;
dividing the processing history model of the component geometry into a first region characterized by a first range of input data, and a second region characterized by a second range of input data, wherein the first and second ranges of input data are non-overlapping; and
using the first range of input data by an additive manufacturing machine processing routine using a first set of processing parameters to fabricate a first test specimen that has a processing history that includes thermal condition data within the first range of input data, and using the second range of input data by an additive manufacturing machine processing routine using a second set of processing parameters to fabricate a second test specimen that has a processing history that includes thermal condition data within the second range of input data, wherein the first set of processing parameters is different than the second set of processing parameters;
wherein the additive manufacturing processing parameters comprise laser power, laser speed, hatch distance, layer thickness, beam offset, and beam focus; and
wherein processing metrics are derived from the in-situ sensor data or from a computational model of an additive manufacturing process of the component.

### Claim 11 (depends on 10)

The additive manufacturing system of claim 10, wherein in-situ sensor data comprises sensor signals detected across a component geometry for each of a plurality of build layers.

### Claim 12 (depends on 10)

The additive manufacturing system of claim 10, wherein input data of the first region indicate a hot region relative to other regions of the component.

### Claim 13 (depends on 10)

The additive manufacturing system of claim 10, wherein input data of the second region indicate a cool region relative to other regions of the component.