The Ti–6Al–4V (Ti64) alloy is a well-established material to be processed via laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). Recently, other α+β titanium alloys are receiving attention, such as Ti–6Al–2Sn–4Zr–6Mo (Ti6246). Their typical industrial felds of application (aerospace, automotive), often require critical design choices, such as low wall thicknesses and hollow channels. Thus, a comparative analysis between these two competitor alloys in terms of processability was conducted in this work. To do so, specifc sample designs were developed. The specimens were analyzed in terms of geometrical compliance with the initial design, porosity, and microstructure. A correlation between the width of the specimens and their porosity, microstructure and hardness was found. Overall, both the alloys proved to be well processable, even for very low wall thickness (300 μm) and channel diameter (1 mm) values. Nevertheless, the Ti6246 alloy seemed to behave better in specifc scenarios. For instance, some Ti64 specimens provided delamination. The hollow channels proved to be challenging for both materials, mainly due to the high amount of residual powder particles adhered to the upper part of the holes. This works aims at giving a materials perspective on process-related issues, considering the LPBF-induced defectology and microstructural variations in these Ti alloys.

(2023). Investigating Complex Geometrical Features in LPBF-Produced Parts: A Material-Based Comparison Between Different Titanium Alloys [journal article - articolo]. In METALS AND MATERIALS INTERNATIONAL. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10446/244931

Investigating Complex Geometrical Features in LPBF-Produced Parts: A Material-Based Comparison Between Different Titanium Alloys

Carrozza, A.;
2023-01-01

Abstract

The Ti–6Al–4V (Ti64) alloy is a well-established material to be processed via laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). Recently, other α+β titanium alloys are receiving attention, such as Ti–6Al–2Sn–4Zr–6Mo (Ti6246). Their typical industrial felds of application (aerospace, automotive), often require critical design choices, such as low wall thicknesses and hollow channels. Thus, a comparative analysis between these two competitor alloys in terms of processability was conducted in this work. To do so, specifc sample designs were developed. The specimens were analyzed in terms of geometrical compliance with the initial design, porosity, and microstructure. A correlation between the width of the specimens and their porosity, microstructure and hardness was found. Overall, both the alloys proved to be well processable, even for very low wall thickness (300 μm) and channel diameter (1 mm) values. Nevertheless, the Ti6246 alloy seemed to behave better in specifc scenarios. For instance, some Ti64 specimens provided delamination. The hollow channels proved to be challenging for both materials, mainly due to the high amount of residual powder particles adhered to the upper part of the holes. This works aims at giving a materials perspective on process-related issues, considering the LPBF-induced defectology and microstructural variations in these Ti alloys.
articolo
2023
Carrozza, Alessandro; Bircher, B. A.; Aversa, A.; Biamino, S.
(2023). Investigating Complex Geometrical Features in LPBF-Produced Parts: A Material-Based Comparison Between Different Titanium Alloys [journal article - articolo]. In METALS AND MATERIALS INTERNATIONAL. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10446/244931
File allegato/i alla scheda:
File Dimensione del file Formato  
Carrozza_et_al-2023-Metals_and_Materials_International.pdf

accesso aperto

Versione: publisher's version - versione editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione del file 4.38 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
4.38 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Aisberg ©2008 Servizi bibliotecari, Università degli studi di Bergamo | Terms of use/Condizioni di utilizzo

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10446/244931
Citazioni
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact