journal article·2015-11

Influence of the Scanning Strategy on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties in Selective Electron Beam Melting of Ti–6Al–4V

Thorsten Scharowsky, Vera Juechter, Robert F. Singer, Carolin Körner

Advanced Engineering Materials· Volume 17· Issue 11
Publisher page

Abstract

Selective electron beam melting (SEBM) is perhaps the fastest production process for additive manufacturing techniques from powder beds. In the present investigation, scan speeds of 10 m s−1 have been used successfully for the melting. Nevertheless, the beam power has to be adjusted to guarantee a density of more than 99.5% for the build samples. The aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of the scan speed and beam power on the microstructure and the mechanical properties of Ti‐6Al‐4V. Therefore, a process map with a window for samples with a density higher than 99.5% and a good geometrical accuracy was developed. But, there are strong differences in microstructure and the resulting mechanical properties. These differences result from changes in the total energy input. In the presented work, strength is found to increase somewhat with decreasing volume energy (60–30 J mm−3) at a scan speed of 4 m s−1 as the cooling rate increases. This causes a change in microstructure, as the α platelet size varies in the range between 400 nm and 1.3 μm. Thus, an increase in ultimate tensile strength of 5% could be realized by adjusted energy input.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Titanium Alloys Microstructure and Properties

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Chair of Metals Science and Technology Martensstr. 5 Erlangen 91058 Germany

References (27)

Show source-provided references
1. Ackelid U. · MS&T Conference and Exhibition · 2009 · 2009 · 4
2. 10.1002/adem.20070002510.1002/adem.200700025 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.03.01310.1016/j.actbio.2008.03.013 ↗
4. 10.1002/adem.20080013710.1002/adem.200800137 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.msea.2009.11.01510.1016/j.msea.2009.11.015 ↗
6. 10.1007/s11740-009-0157-110.1007/s11740-009-0157-1 ↗
7. 10.1016/S0921-5093(97)00802-210.1016/S0921-5093(97)00802-2 ↗
8. 10.1016/S0921-5093(02)00784-010.1016/S0921-5093(02)00784-0 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.actamat.2004.07.03410.1016/j.actamat.2004.07.034 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.msea.2013.02.06510.1016/j.msea.2013.02.065 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2008.05.00410.1016/j.jmbbm.2008.05.004 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.actamat.2014.11.02810.1016/j.actamat.2014.11.028 ↗
13. 10.1007/s11837-015-1297-810.1007/s11837-015-1297-8 ↗
14. DIN German Institute for Standardization. 77.120.50 (DIN 17851) Beuth Verlag GmbH1990; 1990‐11‐00.
15. Donachie M. J. · ASM International · 1988 · 31
16. 10.1007/s11661-010-0397-x10.1007/s11661-010-0397-x ↗
17. DIN German Institute for Standardization. 77.040.10(DIN 50125) Beuth Verlag GmbH2009; 2009‐07‐00.
18. 10.1007/978-1-4899-3051-410.1007/978-1-4899-3051-4 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.matdes.2003.09.00910.1016/j.matdes.2003.09.009 ↗
20. DIN German Institute for Standardization. DIN 1786 Beuth Verlag GmbH1992.
21. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2011.03.01310.1016/j.jmatprotec.2011.03.013 ↗
22. Thomsen P. · J. Biomed. Mater. Res.‐Part B Appl. Biomater. · 2009 · 90 · 3510.1002/jbm.b.31250 ↗
23. Puebla K. · Mater. Sci. Appl. · 2012 · 3 · 259
24. 10.1088/0370-1301/64/9/30310.1088/0370-1301/64/9/303 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.actamat.2007.02.02110.1016/j.actamat.2007.02.021 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.matchar.2008.07.00610.1016/j.matchar.2008.07.006 ↗
27. Lütjering G. · 2007 · 224