Tensile behavior in selective laser melting

Rios, Cesar Ortiz; Amine, Tarak A.; Newkirk, Joseph William

doi:10.1007/s00170-018-1663-0

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They attributed these changes in mechanical properties to variations in densification levels and residual porosity. The effects of build size, build orientation, and part thickness on the tensile properties of 304L stainless steel has also been studied by Ortiz Rios et al [8]. During their study, they observed that the part size had no effects on the mechanical properties, however, part orientation did.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…When 304L stainless steel is used for part production in SLM, the low carbon content minimizes deleterious carbide precipitation, which minimizes the need for solution annealing. Some of the available works on SLM of 304L stainless steel can be found in [8,[13][14][15][16]. SLM manufactured 304L stainless steel exhibits higher mechanical strength (yield and ultimate tensile strength) over conventionally manufactured 304L stainless steel, which makes it applicable for use in salt-water body applications that require high strength.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Test specimens were built with three hatch angles (0 • , 67 • , and 105 • ) in three build orientations (x, y, and z) and tested in quasi-static compression. Build orientation was considered because previous works show that build orientation affects the mechanical properties of the SLM parts [8]. The yield strength and plastic flow stress at 35% plastic strain were evaluated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of SLM Build Parameters on the Compressive Properties of 304L Stainless Steel

Fashanu

Buchely

Spratt

et al. 2019

JMMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selective laser melting (SLM) is well suited for the efficient manufacturing of complex structures because of its manufacturing methodology. The optimized process parameters for each alloy has been a cause for debate in recent years. In this study, the hatch angle and build orientation were investigated. 304L stainless steel samples were manufactured using three hatch angles (0°, 67°, and 105°) in three build orientations (x-, y-, and z-direction) and tested in compression. Analysis of variance and Tukey’s test were used to evaluate the obtained results. Results showed that the measured compressive yield strength and plastic flow stress varied when the hatch angle and build orientation changed. Samples built in the y-direction exhibited the highest yield strength irrespective of the hatch angle; although, samples manufactured using a hatch angle of 0° exhibited the lowest yield strength. Samples manufactured with a hatch angle of 0° flowed at the lowest stress at 35% plastic strain. Samples manufactured with hatch angles of 67° and 105° flowed at statistically the same flow stress at 35% plastic strain. However, samples manufactured with a 67° hatch angle deformed non-uniformly. Therefore, it can be concluded that 304L stainless steel parts manufactured using a hatch angle of 105° in the y-direction exhibited the best overall compressive behavior.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of SLM Build Parameters on the Compressive Properties of 304L Stainless Steel

Fashanu

Buchely

Spratt

et al. 2019

JMMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The other 16 samples had a contour scan strategy/re-melting incorporated into the build where after a layer was built, the outer edge was re-melted using a laser power of 33 W and a scan velocity of 160 mm/s prior to covering it with more powder 98 . The use a contour scan strategy is commonly incorporated into scan strategies and an approach to minimize roughness [98][99][100] . Once the samples were complete, the entire top surface was re-melted using the same scan pattern as the final raster pass.…”

Section: Surface Finish Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How build angle and post-processing impact roughness and corrosion of additively manufactured 316L stainless steel

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additively manufactured austenitic stainless steels exhibit numerous microstructural and morphological differences compared to their wrought counterparts that will influence the metals corrosion resistance. The characteristic as-printed surface roughness of powder bed fusion (PBF) stainless steel parts is one of these morphological differences that increases the parts susceptibility to localized corrosion. This study experimentally determines the average surface roughness and breakdown potential (E b) for PBF 316L in 6 surface finished states: as-printed, ground with SiC paper, tumble polished in abrasive media, electro-polished, chemically passivated, and the application of a contour/re-melt scan strategy. In general, a smaller average surface roughness led to a larger E b. The smoothest surface treatments, ground and electro-polished conditions, led to E b near the materials limit (~+1.0 V Ag/AgCl) while all other surface treatments exhibited significantly lower E b (~+0.3 V Ag/AgCl) The build angle was also shown to impact surface roughness, where surfaces at high angles from the build direction resulted in larger roughness values, hence lower E b .

show abstract

“…Such large irregular grains can result in anisotropic properties [5]. In addition, the layer-by-layer melting of the powder, typically results in residual stresses within the part that may adversely affect the structural integrity of the artefact in service [6]. Again, the sintering process of the MetalX™ should avoid this issue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The properties of stainless steel 17-4PH produced by a low-cost additive manufacturing technique, the Markforged MetalX™

Burgess

Dodd

Radwani

et al. 2022

J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lower capital and running cost of the Markforged Metal X™ platform, in comparison to competing metal additive manufacturing systems, makes it a highly attractive proposition for several industries. The unusual print, then sinter, process also has the potential to avoid many of the metallurgy issues that can arise using more typical additive manufacturing, which relies on melting to bind the material. However, the mechanical properties of the material produced must be well understood. In this paper, the properties of 17-4PH stainless steel samples produced by the Metal X™ are documented following a systematic testing program, involving standard mechanical testing as well as material characterisation techniques. Significant differences were observed between the samples tested in differing orientations. This is thought to be due to the deposition process used to lay the material prior to sintering, which results in voids and surface stress concentrations that reduce the strength of the material. Heat treatments and surface machining were both found to improve the tensile properties of the material.

show abstract

Tensile behavior in selective laser melting

Cited by 9 publications

References 16 publications

Effect of SLM Build Parameters on the Compressive Properties of 304L Stainless Steel

Effect of SLM Build Parameters on the Compressive Properties of 304L Stainless Steel

How build angle and post-processing impact roughness and corrosion of additively manufactured 316L stainless steel

The properties of stainless steel 17-4PH produced by a low-cost additive manufacturing technique, the Markforged MetalX™

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About