Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 77 references

Radiometric Temperature Measurement for Metal Additive Manufacturing via Temperature Emissivity Separation

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Temperature emissivity separation brings LPBF temperature readings to ±28 K accuracy, and time-at-temperature signatures flag 71% of pores above 20 µm at a 5% false-alarm rate.

desk verdict Useful engineering validation of TES for LPBF meltpool temperature, with a solid ±28 K point-melting benchmark; the layerwise and porosity claims are weaker than the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08088 v1 pith:OCMCUOHF submitted 2025-02-12 physics.optics

Ryan W. Penny , A. John Hart This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords temperatureemissivityseparationlaserpowderbedfusionspectralimagingspectrometermeltpoolporositydetectionprocessmonitoringcoolingrate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the main obstacle to accurate optical temperature measurement in laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) is unknown spectral emissivity, and that temperature-emissivity separation (TES) can remove that obstacle by solving for temperature and emissivity together from spectrally resolved radiance. Using a custom imaging spectrometer on an LPBF testbed, the authors show that TES retrieves melting and liquidus temperatures of pure metals and alloys to within ±28 K across a 1000 K range, a precision they contrast with typical wideband and two-color pyrometry. In a printed test artifact, TES-derived temperature fields reveal cooling-rate evolution as heat accumulates, and a time-at-temperature process signature detects 71% of pores larger than 20 µm at a 5% false-alarm rate when a ±1 layer vertical allowance is used. If the approach holds, it would give LPBF a path from raw radiance to trustworthy temperature fields, enabling deterministic process tuning and in situ defect detection during printing.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is temperature-emissivity separation (TES), a set of algorithms that jointly estimate temperature and spectral emissivity from spectrally resolved radiance, applied to an imaging spectrometer that records ~30 spectral bands from each of 19 spatial channels viewing the meltpool. The key identity is the underdetermined system $L_n = \varepsilon_n B_n(T)$; the two-temperature method resolves it by measuring the same location at two times and assuming $\varepsilon_n$ is unchanged between them, the two-location method makes the same assumption between two neighboring channels, and the greybody method sets two spectral bands to equal emissivity. The instrument couples a custom LPBF testbed to the spectrometer through an aperture-division multiplexing lens, and temperature-emissivity fitting is performed by least-squares optimization. This machinery converts raw radiance into temperature fields whose fidelity is then used to derive process signatures such as maximum temperature, time-at-temperature integral, and cooling rate, which are correlated to porosity measured by micro-CT.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to instrument an LPBF build with fine thermocouples or a known-phase reference (such as the melting plateau of a pure metal) while using the two-temperature method, and to compare retrieved temperatures against the reference specifically during intervals when emissivity is expected to change rapidly; if the bias exceeds the claimed ±28 K in those intervals, the constant-emissivity assumption fails under real process conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a temperature field in laser powder bed fusion can be recovered without assuming a known or constant emissivity by applying temperature-emissivity separation (TES) to spectrally resolved radiance measurements. The measured radiance in each spectral band is modeled as $L_n = \varepsilon_n B_n(T)$, where $B_n(T)$ is Planck's law and $\varepsilon_n$ is the spectral emissivity; with $n$ bands this is $n$ equations for $n+1$ unknowns, so the authors break the underdetermination by assuming invariance along one axis of the spatial-spectral-temporal dataset. They implement three such methods: the two-temperature method, which assumes emissivity is unchanged between two times; the two-location method, which assumes emissivity is constant between two spatial channels; and the greybody method, which sets two spectral emissivities equal. In point-melting experiments on titanium, iron, nickel, copper, aluminum, Ti-6Al-4V, 316 stainless steel, and Inconel 718, the recovered melting and liquidus temperatures match reference values with a maximum error of 28 K over a 633–1940 K range. During printing of a 316 stainless steel artifact, the two-temperature method yields layerwise temperature traces showing a decrease in cooling rate as the build progresses, and thresholding the time-at-temperature integral produces detection of 71% of pores larger than 20 µm at a 5% false-alarm rate with a ±1 layer vertical allowance.

Load-bearing premise

The layerwise temperature data rely on the assumption that the spectral emissivity of the observed material does not change between the two time frames used in the two-temperature fit, even though the material crosses solid, liquid, and oxide states during cooling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LPBF temperature measurements can be made without assuming a constant or textbook emissivity, so radiometric readings no longer carry a large unknown systematic bias.
  • Time-at-temperature and cooling-rate signatures can be computed from trusted temperature fields, allowing defect-prone fusion conditions to be identified by layer and by spatial channel.
  • Deterministic process tuning becomes possible: scan parameters can be adjusted between parts based on measured temperature history rather than on indirect radiance levels.
  • The same TES approach could support closed-loop control, where measured temperature deviations feed back into laser power or scan speed during a build.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The retrieved spectral emissivity itself is a physically meaningful process signal: because emissivity differs between powder, liquid, and oxide states, its retrieved value could flag the material state at the meltpool without waiting for a thermal signature to cross a threshold.
  • The porosity-detection results likely understate the instrument's sensitivity, since the paper counts any pore in an alarm cylinder as one volume-equivalent pore and grants no lateral allowance; validating the lateral volume of sensitivity could improve reported detection rates.
  • A testable extension would be to determine the minimum number of spectral bands needed for robust TES, since the paper notes the detector could theoretically support more than 10,000 spatial channels, suggesting a path to wide-field, high-speed monitoring.
  • Because the two-temperature method assumes emissivity is constant between the two observation times, adapting TES to rapid solidification events may require shorter time baselines or a model that lets emissivity evolve between the two frames.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper describes a temperature-emissivity separation (TES) approach for laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) thermography. A custom imaging spectrometer, integrated with an LPBF testbed, acquires spectrally resolved radiance in 30 spectral bands over about 1.2 to 2.4 µm. Three TES algorithms—the two-temperature method, a two-location method, and a greybody method—are compared. The two-temperature method is used to retrieve layerwise temperature series during printing of a 316L test artifact. Point-melting experiments on five pure metals and three alloys serve as an external validation, with a reported maximum error of 28 K over a 933–1940 K range. From the layerwise data the authors extract three process signatures (time-at-temperature integral, cooling rate, and maximum temperature), and correlate them with micro-CT porosity, reporting detection of 71% of pores larger than 20 µm at a 5% false-alarm rate with a ±1 layer allowance. The porosity study is explicitly described as exploratory.

Significance. The external melting-point benchmarks are the paper's strongest feature: retrieved melting/liquidus temperatures are compared with tabulated values, so the central temperature-accuracy claim is not circular. If the ±28 K fidelity holds over the full retrieval range, this would be a substantial improvement over constant-emissivity and two-color approaches in LPBF, and the demonstration of in situ detection of pores below 20 µm would be industrially relevant. The manuscript is also candid about the exploratory character of the porosity analysis and about known unknowns such as the channel sensitivity volume. The main reservations concern the lack of a quantitative bound on the two-temperature emissivity-invariance assumption in the rapid-cooling regime, and the apparent in-sample selection of porosity thresholds; both need clarification before the layerwise temperature and porosity results can be fully relied upon.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, §3.2, Fig. 5] The two-temperature TES method is load-bearing for all layerwise results, but the manuscript does not state how the two time frames are selected for each retrieval. Watson's method assumes emissivity is unchanged between two measurements taken at different temperatures; in LPBF, the material can pass through solid, liquid, and oxide states with strongly temperature-dependent emissivity, as Fig. 1 itself shows. The point-melting validation in §3.1 only tests quasi-isothermal melting plateaus, so it does not bound the bias of cooling-curve temperatures used for the process signatures in Fig. 6 and the porosity analysis in Fig. 7. Please specify the frame-pairing rule, report the typical temperature difference between paired frames, and quantify the sensitivity of the retrieved temperatures and of the three process signatures to plausible emissivity drift (for example, by comparing against a two-location or greybody retrieval on the same layerwise data, with error propagation rather than visual comparison as in Fig. S2).
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 7] The reported pore-detection probabilities are in-sample estimates because the threshold values and the ±1/±2/±3 layer deviation allowances are evidently chosen using the same micro-CT labels that define detection success. The text gives no threshold values or a priori selection rule, and the statement that "setting the threshold for roughly equal rates of pore detection" is used for the cooling-rate panel indicates post hoc tuning. Without a validation split, bootstrap, or pre-registered thresholds, the headline figure of 71% detection of pores >20 µm at a 5% false-alarm rate is optimistic. Please state how each threshold was chosen, and either fix thresholds from a training subset or evaluate the detection curves with cross-validation.
  3. [§S1 (radiance calibration)] The instrument calibration is fit to a blackbody over 1023–1423 K and then extrapolated to the full 933–1940 K measurement range, but neither the functional form of the correction function nor the fit residuals are reported. The external melting-point benchmarks provide some end-to-end validation, but they sample only specific transition temperatures; the layerwise traces in Fig. 5 use intermediate temperatures and rapid transients that are not independently benchmarked. Please provide the calibration function, residuals, and an uncertainty estimate, and propagate this uncertainty into the retrieved temperature and process-signature data.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1 and §3.1] The 316 stainless steel liquidus values are reversed between the text and the table; the text says the measured inflection is 1723 K against a nominal 1739 K, while the table lists Reference 1723 K and Measured 1739 K. Please reconcile.
  2. [§5] The conclusion states "temperature range of 633 to 1940 K"; Table 1 shows the lowest benchmark is aluminum at 933 K, so "633" appears to be a typo.
  3. [Abstract and §1] There are several typos: "Plank's Law" should be "Planck's law", "Wein Approximation" should be "Wien approximation", and "spacebourne" should be "spaceborne".
  4. [§2.4] The misspelling "Sicpy.optimize" should be "SciPy.optimize"; elsewhere in the paper "SciPy" is spelled correctly, so please unify.
  5. [§3.4] The paragraph beginning "It should be noted that this is effectively a worst-case assumption" conflates the conservative volume-equivalent-pore convention with the optimistic ±layer deviation allowance; these two effects should be separated and explained clearly.
  6. [§3.3] The phrase "where the laser powder is reduced to 90 W" should read "where the laser power is reduced to 90 W".
  7. [Table 1] Alloy measurements are reported without uncertainty; the text explains this by the single-point nature of liquidus, but a repeated-measures or fitting-uncertainty estimate would strengthen the comparison.
Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central temperature retrieval rests on Planck's law plus invariance assumptions on emissivity (temporal, spatial, or spectral). The porosity detection additionally rests on a geometric mapping between spectrometer channels and micro-CT cylinders and on alarm thresholds selected from the same data. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Spectrometer radiance calibration correction function = Fit to 9 blackbody temperatures between 1023 K and 1423 K
    Maps detector counts per second to W/m2/sr/µm. It is used for all reported temperatures, including 933 K and 1940 K, which lie outside the fitted range; no extrapolation uncertainty is quoted.
  • Process signature alarm thresholds = Not reported numerically
    Thresholds for low integral, low cooling rate, and low maximum temperature are selected to set detection and false-alarm rates on the same artifact that is later evaluated.
  • Vertical deviation allowance = 0, 1, 2, or 3 layers; headline result uses 1 layer
    Added to the alarm volume after inspecting micro-CT data; it increases reported detection rates and should be treated as a tuned parameter.
  • Cooling event window and peak-finding settings = 20-point window; SciPy find_peaks distance=3, prominence=4
    Hand-chosen definitions for extracting cooling rates in Section 3.2.1; they shape the cooling-rate signature used in porosity detection.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Planck's law with spectral emissivity (Eqs. 1 and 2) relates measured radiance to temperature and emissivity.
    Core radiometric model; standard physics assumed throughout.
  • domain assumption The two-temperature method assumes spectral emissivity is unchanged between the two time frames used in the fit.
    Stated in Section 2.4 for Watson's method; Fig. 1 shows emissivity depends on temperature for stainless steel, so this is not guaranteed during meltpool cooling.
  • domain assumption The greybody method assumes equal emissivity for the two longest-wavelength bands.
    Stated in Section 2.4 for Barducci and Pippi's method; the two longest-wavelength bands are forced to equal emissivity.
  • domain assumption The two-location method assumes constant emissivity between neighboring spatial channels.
    Stated in Section 2.4; the neighboring-channel emissivity is assumed equal, though material state can vary across the meltpool boundary.
  • domain assumption The measured spectral radiance is thermal emission only, with no significant reflected laser or non-thermal contributions.
    The 1.2 µm longpass filter rejects the 1.075 µm laser line, but reflected laser, plume emission, and scattering contributions are not quantified.
  • domain assumption The pause or inflection in retrieved temperature marks the true melting or liquidus point, and the observed volume is sufficiently uniform for that comparison.
    Section 2.5 uses this to convert temperatures into accuracy metrics; finite meltpool gradients and emissivity changes could bias the comparison.
  • domain assumption Each spectrometer channel senses a 92 µm diameter, 30 µm tall cylinder, and the map to micro-CT coordinates is exact.
    Section 3.4 assumes this volume mapping; the authors note the volume-of-sensitivity is unknown and no lateral allowance is made.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radiometric Temperature Measurement for Metal Additive Manufacturing via Temperature Emissivity Separation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OCMCUOHF

@misc{pith2026250208088,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radiometric Temperature Measurement for Metal Additive Manufacturing via Temperature Emissivity Separation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OCMCUOHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08088}
}
abstract

Emission of blackbody emission from the meltpool and surrounding area in laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) makes this process visible to a range of optical monitoring instruments intended for online process and quality control. Yet, these instruments have yet to prove capable of reliably detecting the finest flaws that influence LPBF component mechanical performance, limiting their adoption. One hindrance lies in interpreting measurements of radiance as temperature, despite the physical link between these variables being readily understood as a combination of Plank's Law and spectral emissivity. Uncertainty in spectral emissivity arises as it is nearly impossible to predict and can be a strong function of wavelength; in turn, this manifests uncertainty in estimated temperatures and thereby obscures the LPBF process dynamics that indicate component defects. This paper presents temperature emissivity separation (TES) as a method for accurate retrieval of optically-measured temperatures in LPBF. TES simultaneously calculates both temperature and spectral emissivity from spectrally-resolved radiance measurements and, as the latter term is effectively measured, more accurate process temperatures result. Using a bespoke imaging spectrometer integrated with an LPBF testbed to evaluate this approach, three basic TES algorithms are compared in a validation experiment that demonstrates retrieval of temperatures accurate to $\pm 28$ K over a $1000$ K range. A second investigation proves industrial feasibility through fabrication of an LPBF test artifact. Temperature data are used to study the evolution of fusion process boundary conditions, including a decrease in cooling rate as layerwise printing proceeds. A provisional correlation of temperature fields to component porosity assessed by 3D computed tomography demonstrates in situ optical detection of micron-scale porous defects in LPBF.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08088 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Emissivity measurements of stainless steel coupons. All curves are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Schematic illustration of imaging spectrometer coupled to the LPBF testbed using aperture division multiplexing. (b) Experimental apparatus, showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Point melting experiment using a pure titanium specimen. In the top panel, the measured value of 1919 K is taken to be the average temperature between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of measured melting and liquidus points against their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Retrieved temperatures for layers 20 and 117 using the two time TES method, where dropouts (temperatures below the instrument noise floor) are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of laser power, test artifact density, and observed boundary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pore detection probabilities for a selection of process signatures. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    International, Wholers report, Tech

    A. International, Wholers report, Tech. rep., ASTM International (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Thomas, G

    M. Thomas, G. J. Baxter, I. Todd, Normalised model-based pro- cessing diagrams for additive layer manufacture of engineer- ing alloys, Acta Materialia 108 (2016) 26 – 35. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2016.02.025. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1359645416300994

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.02.025 2016

  3. [3]

    Kasperovich, J

    G. Kasperovich, J. Haubrich, J. Gussone, G. Requena, Correlation between porosity and processing parameters in TiAl6V4 produced by selective laser melting, Materials & Design 105 (2016) 160–170. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.05.070

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2016.05.070 2016

  4. [4]

    Zhang, Y

    B. Zhang, Y . Li, Q. Bai, Defect formation mechanisms in selective laser melting: A review, Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering 30 (3) (2017) 515–527. doi:10.1007/s10033-017-0121-5 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10033-017-0121-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10033-017-0121-5 2017

  5. [5]

    W. E. King, H. D. Barth, V . M. Castillo, G. F. Gallegos, J. W. Gibbs, D. E. Hahn, C. Kamath, A. M. Rubenchik, Observation of keyhole-mode laser melting in laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214 (12) (2014) 2915 – 2925. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.06.005. URL http://www.sciencedirec...

    doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.06.005 2014

  6. [6]

    N. P. Calta, J. Wang, A. M. Kiss, A. A. Martin, P. J. Depond, G. M. Guss, V . Thampy, A. Y . Fong, J. N. Weker, K. H. Stone, C. J. Tassone, M. J. Kramer, M. F. Toney, A. Van Buuren, M. J. Matthews, An instrument for in situ time-resolved x-ray imaging and di ffraction of laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing processes, Review of Scientific Instru...

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5017236 2018

  7. [7]

    Chivel, Optical in-process temperature monitoring of selective laser melting, Physics Procedia 41 (2013) 904–910

    Y . Chivel, Optical in-process temperature monitoring of selective laser melting, Physics Procedia 41 (2013) 904–910. doi:10.1016/j.phpro. 2013.03.165

    doi:10.1016/j.phpro 2013

  8. [8]

    H. D. Carlton, A. Haboub, G. F. Gallegos, D. Y . Parkinson, A. A. MacDow- ell, Damage evolution and failure mechanisms in additively manufactured stainless steel, Materials Science and Engineering: A 651 (2016) 406 –

    work page 2016

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Nadot, C

    Y . Nadot, C. Nadot-Martin, W. H. Kan, S. Boufadene, M. Foley, J. Cairney, G. Proust, L. Ridosz, Predicting the fatigue life of an AlSi10Mg alloy manufactured via selective laser melting by using data from Computed Tomography, Additive Manufacturing (2019) 100899doi:https://do...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Yadollahi, M

    A. Yadollahi, M. Mahtabi, A. Khalili, H. Doude, J. Newman Jr, Fatigue life prediction of additively manufactured material: E ffects of surface roughness, defect size, and shape, Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures 41 (7) (2018) 1602–1614

    2018

  3. [12]

    Blakey-Milner, P

    B. Blakey-Milner, P. Gradl, G. Snedden, M. Brooks, J. Pitot, E. Lopez, M. Leary, F. Berto, A. du Plessis, Metal additive manufacturing in aerospace: A review, Materials & Design 209 (2021) 110008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110008. URL https://www.sciencedirect...

    2021

  4. [13]

    Gruber, P

    K. Gruber, P. Szymczyk-Zi ´ołkowska, S. Dziuba, S. Duda, P. Zielonka, S. Seitl, G. Lesiuk, Fatigue crack growth characterization of Inconel 718 after additive manufacturing by laser powder bed fusion and heat treat- ment, International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287. doi...

    2023

  5. [14]

    Frazier, Metal additive manufacturing: A review., Journal of Materials Engineering & Performance 23 (6) (2014) 1917 – 1928

    W. Frazier, Metal additive manufacturing: A review., Journal of Materials Engineering & Performance 23 (6) (2014) 1917 – 1928. URL http://libproxy.mit.edu/login?url=https:// search-ebscohost-com.libproxy.mit.edu:9443/login.aspx? direct=true&AuthType=cookie,sso,ip,uid&db=aci&AN...

    2014

  6. [15]

    Seifi, A

    M. Seifi, A. Salem, J. Beuth, O. Harrysson, J. Lewandowski, Overview of materials qualification needs for metal additive manufacturing., JOM: The Journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS) 68 (3) (2016) 747 – 764. URL http://libproxy.mit.edu/login?url=https:// s...

    2016

  7. [16]

    Oliveira, A

    J. Oliveira, A. LaLonde, J. Ma, Processing parameters in laser powder bed fusion metal additive manufacturing, Materials & Design 193 (2020) 108762. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108762. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0264127520302963

    2020

  8. [17]

    C. Chua, Y . Liu, R. J. Williams, C. K. Chua, S. L. Sing, In-process and post-process strategies for part quality assessment in metal powder bed fusion: A review, Journal of Manufacturing Systems 73 (2024) 75–105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2024.01.004. URL https://www...

    2024 doi

  9. [18]

    S. K. Everton, M. Hirsch, P. Stravroulakis, R. K. Leach, A. T. Clare, Review of in-situ process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing, Materials & Design 95 (2016) 431 – 445. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.01.099. URL http://www.science...

    2016 doi

  10. [19]

    Grasso, V

    M. Grasso, V . Laguzza, Q. Semeraro, B. M. Colosimo, In-Process Moni- toring of Selective Laser Melting: Spatial Detection of Defects Via Image Data Analysis, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 139 (5) (11 2016)

    2016

  11. [20]

    McCann, M

    R. McCann, M. A. Obeidi, C. Hughes, ´Eanna McCarthy, D. S. Egan, R. K. Vijayaraghavan, A. M. Joshi, V . Acinas Garzon, D. P. Dowling, P. J. McNally, D. Brabazon, In-situ sensing, process monitoring and machine control in laser powder bed fusion: A review, Additive Manufacturin...

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    R. W. Penny, Z. Kutsche, A. J. Hart, High-fidelity optical monitoring of laser powder bed fusion via aperture division multiplexing, In Review 00 (00) (2024) 00–00. doi:00

    2024

  13. [22]

    Rodriguez, J

    E. Rodriguez, J. Mireles, C. A. Terrazas, D. Espalin, M. A. Perez, R. B. Wicker, Approximation of absolute surface temperature measurements of powder bed fusion additive manufacturing technology using in situ infrared thermography., Additive Manufacturing 5 (2015) 31 – 39. URL...

    2015

  14. [23]

    Planck, Uber eine verbesserung der wien’schen spectralgleichung, Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft (1900)

    M. Planck, Uber eine verbesserung der wien’schen spectralgleichung, Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft (1900)

    1900

  15. [24]

    Planck, Zur theorie des gesetzes der energieverteilung im normalspec- trum, Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft (1900)

    M. Planck, Zur theorie des gesetzes der energieverteilung im normalspec- trum, Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft (1900)

    1900

  16. [25]

    Planck, Ueber das gesetz der energieverteilung im nor- malspectrum, Annalen der Physik 309 (3) (1901) 553–563

    M. Planck, Ueber das gesetz der energieverteilung im nor- malspectrum, Annalen der Physik 309 (3) (1901) 553–563. arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ andp.19013090310, doi:10.1002/andp.19013090310. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ andp.19...

    1901 doi

  17. [26]

    Touloukian, D

    Y . Touloukian, D. DeWitt, Thermophysical properties of matter - The TPRC data series. V olume 7. Thermal radiative properties - Metallic ele- ments and alloys, Tech. rep., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, IN Thermophysical and Electronic Properties Information Center (1970)

    1970

  18. [27]

    Zhirnov, I

    I. Zhirnov, I. Yadroitsava, I. Yadroitsev, Optical monitoring and numerical simulation of temperature distribution at selective laser melting of ti6al4v alloy, Materials Science Forum 828-829 (2015) 474 – 481. URL http://libproxy.mit.edu/login?url=http://search. ebscohost.com/...

    2015

  19. [28]

    J. L. Bartlett, F. M. Heim, Y . V . Murty, X. Li, In situ de- fect detection in selective laser melting via full-field infrared thermography, Additive Manufacturing 24 (2018) 595 – 605. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.045. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a...

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    G. Mohr, S. J. Altenburg, A. Ulbricht, P. Heinrich, D. Baum, C. Maierhofer, K. Hilgenberg, In-situ defect detection in laser powder bed fusion by using thermography and optical tomography—comparison to computed tomography, Metals 10 (1) (2020). doi:10.3390/met10010103. URL htt...

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    Chivel, I

    Y . Chivel, I. Smurov, Temperature monitoring and overhang lay- ers problem, Physics Procedia 12 (2011) 691 – 696, lasers in Manufacturing 2011 - Proceedings of the Sixth International WLT Conference on Lasers in Manufacturing. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2011.03.086....

    2011 doi

  22. [31]

    B. Lane, S. Moylan, E. P. Whitenton, L. Ma, Thermographic measure- ments of the commercial laser powder bed fusion process at NIST, Rapid Prototyping Journal 22 (5) (2016) 778–787

    2016

  23. [32]

    M. A. Doubenskaia, I. V . Zhirnov, V . I. Teleshevskiy, P. Bertrand, I. Y . Smurov, Determination of true temperature in selective laser melting of metal powder using infrared camera, Materials Science Forum 834 (2015) 93–102. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.834.93

    2015 doi

  24. [33]

    R. J. Williams, A. Piglione, T. Rønneberg, C. Jones, M.-S. Pham, C. M. Davies, P. A. Hooper, In situ thermography for laser powder bed fusion: Effects of layer temperature on porosity, microstructure and mechani- cal properties, Additive Manufacturing 30 (2019) 100880. doi:htt...

    2019

  25. [34]

    Heigel, B

    J. Heigel, B. Lane, L. Levine, In Situ Measurements of Melt-Pool Length and Cooling Rate During 3D Builds of the Metal AM-Bench Artifacts, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation (2020-02-20 2020). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-020-00170-8

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    Wien, On the division of energy in the emission-spectrum of a black body, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Maga- zine and Journal of Science 43 (262) (1897) 214–220

    W. Wien, On the division of energy in the emission-spectrum of a black body, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Maga- zine and Journal of Science 43 (262) (1897) 214–220. doi:10.1080/ 14786449708620983

  27. [36]

    Monier, F

    R. Monier, F. Thumerel, J. Chapuis, F. Soulie, C. Bordreuil, Liquid metals surface temperature fields measurements with a two-colour pyrometer, Measurement 101 (2017) 72 – 80. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.12.031. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic...

    2017 doi

  28. [37]

    P. A. Hooper, Melt pool temperature and cooling rates in laser powder bed fusion, Additive Manufacturing 22 (2018) 548–559. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.05.032. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S221486041830188X

    2018 doi

  29. [38]

    Vecchiato, H

    F. Vecchiato, H. de Winton, P. Hooper, M. Wenman, Melt pool mi- crostructure and morphology from single exposures in laser powder bed fusion of 316l stainless steel, Additive Manufacturing 36 (2020) 101401. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101401. URL https://www.scien...

    2020

  30. [39]

    J. A. Mitchell, T. A. Ivano ff, D. Dagel, J. D. Madison, B. Jared, Link- ing pyrometry to porosity in additively manufactured metals, Additive Manufacturing 31 (2020) 100946. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. addma.2019.100946. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi...

    2020

  31. [40]

    Watson, Two-temperature method for measuring emissivity, Remote Sensing of Environment 42 (2) (1992) 117 – 121

    K. Watson, Two-temperature method for measuring emissivity, Remote Sensing of Environment 42 (2) (1992) 117 – 121. doi:http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0034-4257(92)90095-2

    1992 doi

  32. [41]

    P. Li, D. Warner, J. Pegues, M. Roach, N. Shamsaei, N. Phan, Investi- gation of the mechanisms by which hot isostatic pressing improves the fatigue performance of powder bed fused Ti-6Al-4V, International Journal of Fatigue 120 (2019) 342–352. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ij...

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    H. J. Kramer, Observation of the earth and its environment: survey of missions and sensors, 4th Edition, Springer, Berlin, 2002

    2002

  34. [43]

    Chandrasekhar, Radiative transfer, Dover Publications, New York, New York, 1960

    S. Chandrasekhar, Radiative transfer, Dover Publications, New York, New York, 1960

    1960

  35. [44]

    Penny, Advanced Instrumentation for Metal Additive Manufacturing, Ph.D

    R. Penny, Advanced Instrumentation for Metal Additive Manufacturing, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (September 2024)

    2024

  36. [45]

    Z. W. Kutschke, Design and commissioning of a hybrid additive manufac- turing system combining inkjet deposition and laser powder bed fusion, Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2023)

    2023

  37. [46]

    S. P. Baker, Design and fabrication of an open-architecture selective laser melting system, Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA (2017)

    2017

  38. [47]

    J. S. Gibbs, Testbeds for quality and porosity control in metal additive manufacturing by selective laser melting, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA (2018)

    2018

  39. [48]

    D. A. Griggs, Design and validation of a high-pressure laser melting system, Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA (2021)

    2021

  40. [49]

    R. W. Penny, A. J. Hart, Additive manufacturing via optical aperture division multiplexing, US Patent No. 11325299 (2022)

    2022

  41. [50]

    Watson, Spectral ratio method for measuring emissivity, Remote Sens- ing of Environment 42 (2) (1992) 113–116

    K. Watson, Spectral ratio method for measuring emissivity, Remote Sens- ing of Environment 42 (2) (1992) 113–116. doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/0034-4257(92)90094-Z . URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 003442579290094Z

    1992

  42. [51]

    Borel, Surface emissivity and temperature retrieval for a hyperspec- tral sensor, in: IGARSS ’98

    C. Borel, Surface emissivity and temperature retrieval for a hyperspec- tral sensor, in: IGARSS ’98. Sensing and Managing the Environment. 1998 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing. Symposium Proceedings. (Cat. No.98CH36174), V ol. 1, 1998, pp. 546–549 vol.1. doi:1...

    1998

  43. [52]

    Gillespie, S

    A. Gillespie, S. Rokugawa, T. Matsunaga, J. Cothern, S. Hook, A. Kahle, A temperature and emissivity separation algorithm for Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) images, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 36 (4) (1998) 1113–11...

    1998 doi

  44. [53]

    Z.-L. Li, F. Becker, M. Stoll, Z. Wan, Evaluation of six methods for extracting relative emissivity spectra from thermal infrared images, Re- mote Sensing of Environment 69 (3) (1999) 197–214. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(99)00049-8 . URL https://www.sciencedirect.c...

    1999 doi

  45. [54]

    C. C. Borel, Artemiss–an algorithm to retrieve temperature and emissivity from hyper-spectral thermal image data, in: 28th Annual GOMACTech Conference, Hyperspectral Imaging Session, V ol. 31, 2003, pp. 1–4

    2003

  46. [55]

    Boonmee, J

    M. Boonmee, J. R. Schott, D. W. Messinger, Land surface temperature and emissivity retrieval from thermal infrared hyperspectral imagery, in: S. S. Shen, P. E. Lewis (Eds.), Algorithms and Technologies for Multispectral, Hyperspectral, and Ultraspectral Imagery XII, V ol. 6233...

    2006 doi

  47. [56]

    J. M. Bioucas-Dias, A. Plaza, N. Dobigeon, M. Parente, Q. Du, P. Gader, J. Chanussot, Hyperspectral unmixing overview: Geometrical, statistical, and sparse regression-based approaches, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 5 (2) (2012...

    2012

  48. [57]

    M. Xu, B. Du, L. Zhang, Spatial-spectral information based abundance- constrained endmember extraction methods, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 7 (6) (2013) 15 2004–2015

    2013

  49. [58]

    Y . Qian, N. Wang, L. Ma, C. Mengshuo, H. Wu, L. Liu, Q. Han, C. Gao, J. Yuanyuan, L. Tang, C. Li, Evaluation of temperature and emissivity retrieval using spectral smoothness method for low-emissivity materials, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations an...

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    Peres, C

    L. Peres, C. DaCamara, Improving two-temperature method retrievals based on a nonlinear optimization approach, IEEE Geoscience and Re- mote Sensing Letters 3 (2) (2006) 232–236. doi:10.1109/LGRS.2005. 862274

    2006 doi

  51. [60]

    Barducci, D

    A. Barducci, D. Guzzi, P. Marcoionni, I. Pippi, A new algorithm for temperature and spectral emissivity retrieval over active fires in the TIR spectral range, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 42 (7) (2004) 1521–1529. doi:10.1109/TGRS.2004.826785

    2004

  52. [61]

    Barducci, I

    A. Barducci, I. Pippi, Temperature and emissivity retrieval from re- motely sensed images using the ”grey body emissivity” method, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 34 (3) (1996) 681–695. doi:10.1109/36.499748

    1996 doi

  53. [62]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cour- napeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey,˙I. Polat, Y . Fe...

    2020

  54. [63]

    J. J. Valencia, P. N. Quested, Thermophysical Properties, in: Cast- ing, ASM International, 2008, pp. 468 – 481. arXiv:https: //dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/book/chapter-pdf/ 501627/a0005240.pdf, doi:10.31399/asm.hb.v15.a0005240. URL https://doi.org/10.31399/asm.hb.v15.a0005240

    2008 doi

  55. [64]

    Dyson, Unit magnification optical system without seidel aberrations, J

    J. Dyson, Unit magnification optical system without seidel aberrations, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 49 (7) (1959) 713–716. doi:10.1364/JOSA.49.000713. URL https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?URI= josa-49-7-713

    1959 doi

  56. [65]

    Offner, New concepts in projection mask aligners, Optical Engineering 14 (2) (1975) 130–132

    A. Offner, New concepts in projection mask aligners, Optical Engineering 14 (2) (1975) 130–132

    1975

  57. [66]

    J. M. Cobb, L. E. Comstock, P. G. Dewa, M. M. Dunn, S. D. Flint, In- novative manufacturing and test technologies for imaging hyperspectral spectrometers, in: S. S. Shen, P. E. Lewis (Eds.), Algorithms and Tech- nologies for Multispectral, Hyperspectral, and Ultraspectral Imag...

    2006 doi

  58. [67]

    D. R. Lobb, Imaging spectrometers using concentric optics, in: M. R. Descour, S. S. Shen (Eds.), Imaging Spectrometry III, V ol. 3118, Inter- national Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 1997, pp. 339 – 347. doi:10.1117/12.283838. URL https://doi.org/10.1117/12.283838

    1997 doi

  59. [68]

    Mouroulis, R

    P. Mouroulis, R. O. Green, Review of high fidelity imaging spectrometer design for remote sensing, Optical Engineering 57 (4) (2018) 040901. doi:10.1117/1.OE.57.4.040901. URL https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.57.4.040901

    2018 doi

  60. [69]

    Schwarzschild, Theory of mirror telescopes, Astron

    K. Schwarzschild, Theory of mirror telescopes, Astron. Notes R. Stardom G¨ott 10 (1905) 3–28

    1905

  61. [70]

    M. D. Mouriz, E. L. Lago, X. Prieto-Blanco, H. G.-N. nez, R. de la Fuente, Schwarzschild spectrometer, Appl. Opt. 50 (16) (2011) 2418–2424. doi:10.1364/AO.50.002418. URL https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI= ao-50-16-2418

    2011 doi

  62. [71]

    J. B. Adams, A. R. Gillespie, Remote sensing of landscapes with spec- tral images: a physical modeling approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006

    2006

  63. [72]

    Acito, M

    N. Acito, M. Diani, G. Corsini, Subspace-Based Temperature and Emis- sivity Separation Algorithms in LWIR Hyperspectral Data, IEEE Trans- actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 57 (3) (2019) 1523–1537. doi:10.1109/TGRS.2018.2867278

    2019

  64. [73]

    Nascimento, J

    J. Nascimento, J. Dias, Vertex component analysis: a fast algorithm to unmix hyperspectral data, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 43 (4) (2005) 898–910. doi:10.1109/TGRS.2005.844293

    2005

  65. [74]

    Barberis, G

    A. Barberis, G. Danese, F. Leporati, A. Plaza, E. Torti, Real-Time Im- plementation of the Vertex Component Analysis Algorithm on GPUs, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 10 (2) (2013) 251–255. doi:10.1109/LGRS.2012.2200452

    2013

  66. [75]

    J. H. Gruninger, A. J. Ratkowski, M. L. Hoke, The sequential maximum angle convex cone (SMACC) endmember model, in: Algorithms and technologies for multispectral, hyperspectral, and ultraspectral imagery X, V ol. 5425, SPIE, 2004, pp. 1–14

    2004

  67. [76]

    Palmer, E

    C. Palmer, E. Loewen, Diffraction Grating Handbook, Newport Corpora- tion, New York, 2005

    2005

  68. [78]

    and A.J.H

    Author Contributions R.W.P. and A.J.H. conceptualized ADM, designed the ex- periments, and drafted the manuscript. R.W.P designed and constructed the imaging spectrometer, performed the experi- ments, and analyzed the results. A.J.H. supervised the project, including guiding d...

  69. [414]

    URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0921509315305347

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2015.10.073. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0921509315305347

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.