Comparison of the microstructures and mechanical properties of Ti–6Al–4V fabricated by selective laser melting and electron beam melting

• Published in: Materials & design Vol. 95; pp. 21 - 31
• Main Authors: Zhao, Xiaoli, Li, Shujun, Zhang, Man, Liu, Yandong, Sercombe, Timothy B., Wang, Shaogang, Hao, Yulin, Yang, Rui, Murr, Lawrence E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 05-04-2016
• Subjects: Comparison; Defects; Ductility; EBM; Electron beam melting; Hot isostatic pressing; Mechanical properties; Microstructure; Porosity; SLM; Titanium base alloys; Ti–6Al–4V; Mechanical properties; EBM; Ti–6Al–4V; Microstructure; SLM; Comparison
• ISSN: 0264-1275; 1873-4197
• DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.12.135

The microstructure and mechanical properties of SLM and EBM Ti–6Al–4V samples have been compared. The effect of part size and orientation on the defects, microstructure and their contribution to the tensile and fatigue properties were elucidated. As-fabricated SLM and EBM samples mainly consisted of α′ and α+β phases, respectively. Pores were the main defects in SLM and EBM samples, and closely related to scanning strategies and energy input. The porosity of SLM samples was higher compared to EBM samples. The part size had an obvious influence on the microstructure and mechanical properties of EBM samples but less so for SLM samples. Both SLM and EBM samples possessed higher strength and better ductility in the vertical orientation than those in the horizontal orientation. The tensile strength of SLM samples was significantly greater than that of EBM samples whereas the ductility was much lower. Due to the pores contained in samples, fatigue strength of both EBM and SLM samples was lower than those of cast and annealed alloys. However, hot isostatic pressing (HIP) significantly increased the fatigue limits of both SLM and EBM samples to above 550MPa by closing of the pores.
[Display omitted]
•Formation of porosity during EBM and SLM is closely related to scanning strategies and energy input.•The α/α′ thickness increases with part size significantly more in EBM samples than SLM.•The part size has an obvious influence on the mechanical properties of EBM samples, but less so for SLM.•Fatigue strength can be improved via hot isostatic pressing (HIP) treatment by closing of the pores.