Abstract

Additive manufacturing (AM) has been extensively investigated in recent years to explore its application in a wide range of engineering functionalities, such as mechanical, acoustic, thermal, and electrical properties. A data-driven approach is proposed to investigate the influence of major fabrication parameters in the laser-based additively manufactured Ti–6Al–4V. Two separate laser-based powder bed fusion techniques, i.e., selective laser melting (SLM) and direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), have been investigated and several data regarding the tensile properties of Ti–6Al–4V alloy with their corresponding fabrication parameters are collected from open literature. Statistical data analysis is performed for four fabrication parameters (scanning speed, laser power, hatch spacing, and powder layer thickness) and three postfabrication parameters (heating temperature, heating time, and hot isostatically pressed or not) which are major influencing factors and have been investigated by several researchers to identify their behavior on the static mechanical properties (i.e., yielding strength, ultimate tensile strength, and elongation). To identify the behavior of the relationship between the input and output parameters, both linear regression analysis and artificial neural network (ANN) models are developed using 53 and 100 datasets for SLM and DMLS processes, respectively. The linear regression model resulted in an average R squared value of 0.351 and 0.507 compared to 0.908 and 0.833 in the case of nonlinear ANN modeling for SLM and DMLS based modeling, respectively. Both local and global sensitivity analyses are carried out to identify the important factors for future optimal design. Based on the current study, local sensitivity analysis (SA) suggests that SLM is most sensitive to laser power, scanning speed, and heat treatment temperature while DMLS is most sensitive to heat treatment temperature, hatch spacing, and laser power. In the case of DMLS fabricated Ti–6Al–4V alloy, laser power, and scan speed are found to be the most impactful input parameters for tensile properties of the alloy while heating time turned out to be the least affecting parameter. The global sensitivity analysis results can be used to tailor the alloy's static properties as per the requirement while results from local sensitivity analysis could be useful to optimize the already tailored design properties. Sobol's global sensitivity analysis implicates laser power, heating temperature, and hatch spacing to be the most influential parameters for alloy strength while powder layer thickness followed by scanning speed to be the prominent parameters for elongation for SLM fabricated Ti–6Al–4V alloy. Future work would still be needed to eradicate some of the limitations of this study related to limited dataset availability.

1 Introduction

A different path from conventional subtractive manufacturing was first commercialized in the mid-1980 s known as rapid manufacturing or rapid prototyping [1,2]. More than 30 different procedures have been developed since then for both metals and plastics, which are now classified under a more generalized terminology of additive manufacturing (AM). Additive manufacturing uses a layer-on-layer fabrication technique wherein the material to be deposited is melted by a focused heat source such as laser power or electron beam, unlike its counterpart where the material is removed to develop the desired shape [3,4]. Computer-aided design (CAD) modeling allows an efficient fabrication of complex shapes and designs of any metal material as long as it can be deposited on the substrate by either fusion at the bed (powder bed fusion (PBF)) or depositing the fused material directly on the substrate (direct energy deposition (DED)) [5,6]. Table 1 illustrates several major categories of AM techniques for additively manufacturing metals and their alloys from existing open literature.

Table 1

Major AM techniques for AM of metals and their alloys

AM typeProcess conceptTechnology
PBFSelective sinteringSelective laser sintering [7,8]
Direct metal laser sintering [9]
Selective meltingSelective laser melting [10]
Electron beam melting [11]
Direct energy depositionBlown powderLaser engineering net shaping [12]
Direct metal deposition [13]
Wire feedWire and arc additive manufacturing [14]
AM typeProcess conceptTechnology
PBFSelective sinteringSelective laser sintering [7,8]
Direct metal laser sintering [9]
Selective meltingSelective laser melting [10]
Electron beam melting [11]
Direct energy depositionBlown powderLaser engineering net shaping [12]
Direct metal deposition [13]
Wire feedWire and arc additive manufacturing [14]

Selective laser melting (SLM) and direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) are the two PBF techniques that follow quite similar conceptual procedures, but they have a fundamental difference as the metal powder is sintered for DMLS while melted for SLM, which is a result of the working temperature of the respective lasers [1517]. Sintering is generally carried at a temperature lower than the melting temperature (called sintering temperature) where the grain viscosity drops with temperature causing an interfacial kitting of the grains without fully melting them. Both DMLS and SLM processes begin with fixing up the base plate on which the rest of the build is being carried on. Inert gas is filled in the closed chamber. Then, a thin layer of spherical powder is optimally distributed and leveled to a predetermined thickness. The high-energy power source is used to scan the powder selectively melting or sintering the powder to fill in the design provided by the CAD data. After the first layer has attained the required shape, the next layer of powder is spread, and the process is repeated. Since the penetration power of the laser beam is deeper than one layer, each new layer gets welded to the previous layer. At the end of the process, the unused powder can be reused again or mixed with a new powder stack for another manufacturing unit [10,18].

Certain process parameters will affect the fabrication quality, such as the laser scanning speed, powder layer thickness, laser beam power, spot size, hatch spacing, and scanning strategy, which are schematically shown in Fig. 1 [19,20]. The parts fabricated by these laser-based processes tend to result in a high theoretical density, poor surface finish, and inherent residual stresses. Therefore, most of the fabrications undergo postfabrication processes where heat treatment and machining are performed. The heat treatment drastically changes the mechanical properties of the fabrication and thus becomes an important criterion for discussion.

Fig. 1
Fabrication parameters for a PBF process
Fig. 1
Fabrication parameters for a PBF process
Close modal

From the past few decades, additively manufactured Ti–6Al–4V is one of the most investigated titanium alloys in diverse fields of engineering owing to its high strength, low density, low coefficient of thermal expansion, outstanding corrosion resistance, high cycle fatigue resistance, and biocompatibility. These characteristics of titanium alloys help in taking a decisive role in applications that warrant high reliability and end use of the products such as in surgery and medicine, aerospace, automotive, chemical plant, power generation, oil and gas extraction, sports, and other major industries. SLM, DMLS, electron beam melting (EBM), laser engineering net shaping, or any other technique, Ti–6Al–4V alloy captures more than half of the titanium alloy fabrication market [21,22].

Several experiments have been conducted over the years to efficiently fabricate a high-strength and high-ductility Ti–6Al–4V alloy part by varying the different process parameters in each of the SLM and DMLS techniques [2327]. Other types of studies focused on understanding the cooling rate-dependent microstructural variation of AM fabrications. Alloy's tensile properties for both heat-treated and as-fabricated conditions have also been explored [2833]. Experimental studies were done by Mierzejewska et al. [34] and Mierzejewska [35] aiming to find the effect of laser power, speed, and heat treatments on the mechanical behavior of DMLS fabricated Ti–6Al–4V alloy. Most existing studies focused on the data from an individual lab using a unique set of manufacturing parameters. Various studies have been conducted to develop a data-driven framework to optimize the AM manufacturing process. Wang et al. [36] developed a framework for EBM manufactured Ti–6Al–4V to develop equiaxial grains. Melt pool-based scan strategy predictive model has been attempted to attain an optimized melt pool for powder-based fusion AM techniques [37]. Process–structure–property relationships were studied for AM processes obtaining a data-driven multiscale multiphysics modeling approach [38]. This study explores a data-driven approach to estimate the tensile properties of Ti–6Al–4V alloy fabricated by either SLM or DMLS processes. For this purpose, data is collected from open literature for each of the SLM and DMLS fabricated Ti–6Al–4V alloys. These data are used to develop numerical models to identify any linear or nonlinear relationship between the process parameters and the tensile properties of Ti–6Al–4V alloy. The developed models are then subjected to both local and global sensitivity analysis (SA). Several conclusions and future work are identified based on the proposed study.

2 Methodology

The experimental data available in the open literature are collected and the influential processing parameters are determined based on the sufficiency of data and the researches carried out by various authors. The linear regression model and the nonlinear artificial neural network (ANN) model based on Bayesian regularization are developed based on the data collected. These models take four major processing parameters, namely, “scanning speed,” “hatch spacing,” “powder layer thickness,” and “beam power” along with some postfabrication processing treatments represented by “heating time,” “heating temperature,” and “hot isostatically pressed (HIPed) or not” as the input parameters and achieve the tensile properties, namely, “ultimate tensile strength (UTS),” “yield strength (YS),” and “elongation (El)” of the Ti–6Al–4V alloy as the output parameters. A total of 53 out of 89 and 100 out of 114 datasets of useful data for SLM and DMLS, respectively, were screened out such that the modeling requirements are met. This study deals with only the vertical build direction of the fabrication process. The data collection for each of the processes can be seen in Appendices  A and  B. The schematic illustration can be seen in Fig. 2. The data collected here have been focused on a common minimum data availability methodology where commonly reported data are used to develop the models and ignoring the various additional data reported by several authors. Additional data could be understood as fabrication equipment, powder size, fabrication environment, beam diameter, spot size, and scan strategy, etc. which could not be added to the model because of the unavailability of sufficient reported information or being non-numeric data. Some of this additional information as reported by various authors is referenced in Appendix  C.

Fig. 2
Inputs and outputs for model
Fig. 2
Inputs and outputs for model
Close modal

2.1 Modeling.

The linear regression model and the ANN model are explored to describe the relationship between the manufacturing parameters and mechanical properties. A typical representation of a linear-regression analysis is expressed as
Y=β1*X1+β2*X2+β3*X3+.+βn*Xn+ε
(1)

where X1, X2, X3 … Xn are the independent variables (i.e., manufacturing parameters in this case) and β1, β2, β3 … βn are their corresponding coefficients for estimating the dependent variable Y (e.g., mechanical properties in this case) by minimizing the sum of the squared deviations. ε is the error term. Since the relationship is unknown and may have a strong nonlinearity, a flexible nonlinear model based on ANN is also explored. ANN is a widely used machine learning approach and is well documented in the literature. Thus, no details are given here. In this study, the ANN models developed are based on the multi-layer-perceptron class of feedforward ANN modeling [39]. The ANN-based model has the input layer consisting of seven neurons connected to two hidden layers of 16 and 64 neurons, respectively, which is then connected to the output layer. “Trainbr” Bayesian regularization provided by matlab utilizing the gradient descent with momentum weight and bias learning (learngdm) is used as an adaptation learning function while the performance or loss function is mean squared error (MSE) based. It should be noted that the ANN might have an overfitting issue with the small data size, although the used Bayesian regularization algorithm can mitigate the overfitting possibility. Detailed investigation using other alternative regression methods and validation are required to further improve the sensitivity analysis accuracy and robustness. Both linear regression and ANN models are widely documented in the open literature and no details are given here.

2.2 Sensitivity Analysis and Parametric Study.

To understand the behavior of different parameters, SA is performed after the linear and nonlinear models are obtained. Both local and global SAs have been performed and discussion and assessment have been attempted for each.

A localized sensitivity analysis is based on understanding the behavior of output parameters developed against a small perturbation near the input parameters at a localized reference point [40]. A derivative-based localized sensitivity analysis is performed for each of the models where the median values of all input data are kept as the reference point. Since the minimum to maximum range for each input parameter is very different, z-score normalization is done to achieve a common comparable scale.

A global sensitivity analysis varies all input parameters in predefined regions to quantify their individual and interactive importance [41]. The Sobol method is one of the commonly used global SA methods and is used in this paper. It is a method based on variance decomposition. In the Sobol method, the total variance of the model output is composed of the variance from individual parameters, and the variances from interactive parameters. The proportion of variance resulting from individual and interactive parameters to the total variance corresponds to the first-order and interactive sensitivity indices, respectively [42]. The detailed calculation of Sobol sensitivity indices can be seen in Ref. [43].

Sobol's sensitivity method is a variance-based method that uses a variance ratio to estimate the importance of independent inputs [44]. The analysis of variance decomposition is expressed as
V(y)=i=1mVi+i=1mj=i+1mVij++V12m
(1)
where m is the total number of model inputs, V(y) is the total variance of output, Vi is the variance due to the effect of the input xi, Vij is the variance due to the interactive effect of input xi and xj, and so on. By dividing both sides of Eq. (1), the sensitivity indices can be written as
1=i=1mSi+i=1mj=i+1mSij++S12m
(2)
where Si is the first-order sensitivity index, Sij is the second-order sensitivity index, and so on. The first-order sensitivity index Si denotes the sensitivity that results from the main effect of input xi. The second-order sensitivity index Sij defines the sensitivity that results from the interaction of parameters xi and xj, and so on [41]. Another sensitivity index is the total order sensitivity index STi for a single input xi. It is defined as the summation of the first-order sensitivity index and its interactions up to mth order of analysis [45]. The mathematical expression is
STi=Si+jiSij++S12m
(3)

The total order sensitivity index measures the overall effect of input on the output including both its main effect and its interactions with the remaining inputs. The difference between total order sensitivity index STi and first-order sensitivity index Si calculates how much the parameter xi interacts with other parameters, i.e., the joint effect of the parameters [44]. To calculate the sensitivity indices, the Monte Carlo algorithm provides a feasible method using values of model outputs only [43,46]. Saltelli sampler method, based on Monte Carlo, is adopted in this work for generating efficient estimations of model outputs [44]. Fourteen thousand samples are generated with Saltelli's sampler.

3 Results

3.1 Data Collection.

All the data are collected from the open literature. Data for tensile testing of Ti–6Al–4V alloy are available for three different build directions, namely, flat, edge, and vertical. The data collected and the model built in this study consider only the build direction that is “vertical” or “parallel to the worktable movement.”

SLM tensile data available from the literature included variations with scan speed, laser power, powder layer thickness, heating temperature, heating time, and if the process was HIPed or not. Detailed raw data and associated references are listed in Appendix  A. Similarly, detailed raw data and associated references for DMLS are listed in Appendix  B.

One typical challenge for the data collection from literature is due to the “missing data.” Some papers did not include everything either because the authors did not perform or did not report. Sometimes, only descriptive language is used in the context and no quantitative data is reported. Thus, data augmentation and preprocessing are necessary in order to make the data analysis feasible. For example, some experimental data are for an as-fabricated Ti–6Al–4V alloy that undergoes no heat-treatment process after fabrication. In order to use these data for regression, we augmented these data with a “dummy” heat treatment of room temperature (30 °C) for 3 h. Another case is for HIPed AM specimen. HIPed is a postfabrication heat treatment process where the sample is externally pressurized while heating, aiming to achieve a 100% theoretical density. The data collection included several HIPed samples heated at different heat temperatures higher than 920 °C but nearly the same external pressure of about 100 MPa. Many other data do not include HIPed and there are not enough data for a reliable continuous representation of HIPed. Thus, we treated HIPed as a binary variable. HIPed is either 1 to be set as a “yes” or 0 as “no.”

Another challenge is due to the diversity of testing design. Since all collected data are not from a single lab and are not designed coordinately, the distribution of input manufacturing parameters and output properties may be skewed, which is due to the different design of experiment (DOE) rules used by different researchers for various objectives. Readers need to pay more attention to the collected data range and its distribution for proper interpretation of the results. Thus, detailed empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) together with the best-fitted distribution functions can be seen in Figs. 3 and 4 for the output parameters, UTS, YS, and El. The corrected Akaike Information Criterion (AICc), a version of AIC that considers small sample correction to determine the fitting criteria, is used to identify the data distributions for output parameters in this study [47].

Fig. 3
Distribution function for (a) strength and (b) elongation for SLM collected data
Fig. 3
Distribution function for (a) strength and (b) elongation for SLM collected data
Close modal
Fig. 4
Distribution function for (a) strength and (b) elongation for DMLS collected data
Fig. 4
Distribution function for (a) strength and (b) elongation for DMLS collected data
Close modal

Tables 2 and 3 show distribution details for the output parameters data for SLM and DMLS, respectively. The input parameters show clustered behavior due to DOE from collected papers, which makes it difficult to be fit into distribution functions. Thus, only basic statistical interpretation of input parameter data is represented in Table 4 while the attempted probability distribution functions for SLM and DMLS-based collected input parameters can be referenced to Appendices D and E, respectively.

Table 2

Output parameters distribution details for SLM collected data

Ultimate tensile strengthYield strengthElongation
DistributionWeibullWeibullRayleigh
Mean1094.081000.469.47143
Variance18162.415223.524.5118
Ultimate tensile strengthYield strengthElongation
DistributionWeibullWeibullRayleigh
Mean1094.081000.469.47143
Variance18162.415223.524.5118
ParameterABABB
Estimate1151.269.753391052.89.7417.55711
Standard error17.79021.1173216.27411.129290.539794
ParameterABABB
Estimate1151.269.753391052.89.7417.55711
Standard error17.79021.1173216.27411.129290.539794
Table 3

Output parameters distribution details for DMLS collected data

Ultimate tensile strengthYield strengthElongation
DistributionGammaGammaGamma
Mean1002.32928.116.2651
Variance26505.129048.58.44763
Ultimate tensile strengthYield strengthElongation
DistributionGammaGammaGamma
Mean1002.32928.116.2651
Variance26505.129048.58.44763
Parameterababab
Estimate37.903826.443829.653431.29864.646891.3483
Standard error5.3373.748074.170264.438990.6349870.194569
Parameterababab
Estimate37.903826.443829.653431.29864.646891.3483
Standard error5.3373.748074.170264.438990.6349870.194569
Table 4

Statistical interpretation of input parameters for SLM and DMLS collected data

MeanMedianModeVarianceMinMax
Selective laser meltingScanning speed (mm/s)1025.183612001600220716.4441251600
Power (W)200.387752002505603.4506890400
Hatch spacing (μm)99.38775510060996.49234650180
Layer thickness (μm)34.285714303078.1252560
Heat temp (°C)528.3673465030150185.737301025
Heat time (h)2.8367346332.3061220.58
Direct metal laser sinteringScanning speed (mm/s)812.5900300118251.2623001300
Power (W)171.81701701271.47474130340
Hatch spacing (μm)100.21001004100120
Layer thickness (μm)30.3303093060
Heat temp (°C)597.175030125226.85830950
Heat time (h)2.33220.5263636428
MeanMedianModeVarianceMinMax
Selective laser meltingScanning speed (mm/s)1025.183612001600220716.4441251600
Power (W)200.387752002505603.4506890400
Hatch spacing (μm)99.38775510060996.49234650180
Layer thickness (μm)34.285714303078.1252560
Heat temp (°C)528.3673465030150185.737301025
Heat time (h)2.8367346332.3061220.58
Direct metal laser sinteringScanning speed (mm/s)812.5900300118251.2623001300
Power (W)171.81701701271.47474130340
Hatch spacing (μm)100.21001004100120
Layer thickness (μm)30.3303093060
Heat temp (°C)597.175030125226.85830950
Heat time (h)2.33220.5263636428

It should be noted that Figs. 3 and 4 show the cumulative probability distribution (CDF) of the output parameters for SLM and DMLS collected data, respectively, while Tables 2 and 3 represent the details for the best fit distribution for the CDFs. These details also serve as the information on the sources of uncertainties associated with the study. The main source of uncertainties in the current study includes multiple types: variability across different labs, intrinsic AM process uncertainties, and data collection uncertainty. The first type of uncertainty comes from the machine setup, procedure, and raw materials used at different labs. Since the data are collected from open literature, there is no control of the labs' setting. The variability among labs will cause uncertainties in the reported data. The second category of uncertainty includes natural variation in powder absorptivity, fluctuation in temperature boundary, uncertainty in powder particle properties, and many others [48]. This represents the intrinsic randomness of AM materials even there are made in a single lab with the same nominal settings. The last type of uncertainty comes from the data collection itself. Since we collect data from open literature, not all data are reported in tabular format and some data are missing. Thus, the data collection procedure itself (e.g., digitization from a graph and data imputation for missing data) will cause additional uncertainties.

Thus, Table 4 shows the range and statistics of all the above-mentioned uncertainties. Table 4 also can be viewed as the design space of all collected data from various labs, which represents the tendency in the open literature for AM process design. It will be best to separate the uncertainties from different labs versus from different AM processing parameters. For example, the intrinsic uncertainty quantification of operator-specified laser power (e.g., mean value of 200 W with a standard deviation of 5 W) will be very valuable to investigate the material property variation with respect to the uncertainties of AM process parameters. Unfortunately, most collected data do not contain this information and we are not able to separate different sources of uncertainties. This is a great future research direction for uncertainty reduction. The current investigation did not separate the uncertainties from different labs with the intrinsic uncertainties within the AM process. This is partially due to the missing description for individual lab settings, equipment parameters, and raw material properties. Future study is suggested to have that information reported/collected to reduce the uncertainties in the model predictions.

3.2 Regression Results.

The analysis has subsequently been carried out through two regression models described above with 53 and 100 datasets for SLM and DMLS, respectively. R-square value is presented in Table 5 for the two models. It is observed that the ANN has a much higher R-squared value compared to that of linear regression, which indicates the nonlinear relationship of the mechanical properties with respect to manufacturing parameters. This is also confirmed by the parametric studies shown later.

Table 5

R-squared values from model estimations for varied AM processes

R-squared value
MultiregressionArtificial neural network
AM processUltimate tensile strengthYield strengthElongationUltimate tensile strengthYield strengthElongation
Selective laser melting0.54320.25810.2510.93350.93530.8554
Direct metal laser sintering0.64890.70590.1690.92160.96830.6099
R-squared value
MultiregressionArtificial neural network
AM processUltimate tensile strengthYield strengthElongationUltimate tensile strengthYield strengthElongation
Selective laser melting0.54320.25810.2510.93350.93530.8554
Direct metal laser sintering0.64890.70590.1690.92160.96830.6099

It is also observed that the correlation result for elongation (especially for DMLS) is not as good as strength results. Thus, further study for the ductility of AM material is required. It should be noted that the high R-square value does not indicate a good prediction capability of the ANN model and it only indicates a good correlation of properties within the investigated parameter range. The current ANN is deterministic. We used the ANN as a surrogate model to predict the outputs (material properties in this case) giving a random input variable vector (AM process in this case). Detailed model uncertainty investigation is suggested to use a stochastic model, especially when the model uncertainties are not stationary with respect to different AM process parameters. In the current investigation, we ignore the model uncertainty. However, since ANN shows a much better correlation, the following parametric study is based on the ANN model.

The training and test performance of the Bayesian regularized ANN for SLM and DMLS can be seen in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b), respectively. Out of a total of 53 input datasets for SLM, 42 are used for training the model while 11 are used to test it. In the case of DMLS, out of a total of 100 data sets, 80 were used as training datasets while 20 were used for testing the model.

Fig. 5
Training and test data modeling stages for (a) SLM and (b) DMLS
Fig. 5
Training and test data modeling stages for (a) SLM and (b) DMLS
Close modal
The training and test results show R values close to 1 but the coefficient of determination (R2) or the coefficient of correlation (R) does not alone determine whether the model is a good fit or not. Therefore, additional statistical analysis calculating the model errors has been performed. Normalized root-mean-squared error (nRMSE), root-mean-squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) are the error computations considered for each of the models. The MAE, MAPE, and RMSE are absolute errors that incur a scale dependency drawback. The nRMSE value calculated based on Eq. (4) is used as a reference to compare the model accuracy when different scale output variables are considered as model outputs [49]. It must be noted that nRMSE is comparatively higher for elongation than the strength parameters, which is in agreement with the R-square value as well, see Table 6 
nRMSE=1Y1ni=1n(ytarget_iypredicted_i)2
(4)

where nisthenumberofdatasets,Y(normalizingfactor)istheypredicted_maxor(ypredicted_maxypredicted_min), ytarget_iistheithvalueofthetargetoutputparameter,andypredicted_iistheithvalueofthepredictedoutputparameter

Table 6

Error statistics for SLM and DMLS models

Selective laser meltingDirect metal laser sintering
AM processUltimate tensile strengthYield strengthElongationUltimate tensile strengthYield strengthElongation
Coefficient of determination (R2)0.93350.93530.85540.92160.96830.6099
Normalized RMSEa0.019410.023940.048050.035740.024180.11622
Root-mean-squared error25.607827.94721.0181646.457230.3661.8594
Mean absolute error5.533825.410890.6286615.642512.06011.4188
Mean absolute percentage error0.527870.568208.942841.613921.3312127.1873
Selective laser meltingDirect metal laser sintering
AM processUltimate tensile strengthYield strengthElongationUltimate tensile strengthYield strengthElongation
Coefficient of determination (R2)0.93350.93530.85540.92160.96830.6099
Normalized RMSEa0.019410.023940.048050.035740.024180.11622
Root-mean-squared error25.607827.94721.0181646.457230.3661.8594
Mean absolute error5.533825.410890.6286615.642512.06011.4188
Mean absolute percentage error0.527870.568208.942841.613921.3312127.1873
a

Normalizing factor used in this study is Y=ypredicted_max.

3.3 Parametric Study.

This study aims to understand how each fabrication parameter influences the final AM build and its tensile properties. The results for the parametric study are conducted in two folds, one is the local sensitivity analysis where derivative-based analysis is performed by keeping all but one fabrication parameters constant and analyzing the behavior of that one parameter against the tensile properties and global sensitivity analysis following Sobol's approach where the overall impact of the parameters individually or along with their corresponding parametric interactions is discussed over the whole parametric range.

The data collected for each of the processes are from various sources which do not account for similar fabrication density and hence there could be variable porosities in the fabricated sample which are unknown at this stage because of the absence of proper porosity profiles and micro-CT images. Any inherent defects in the fabricated sample could distort the final results and the model does not account for such variability. Another aspect to look at is that the microstructure of Ti–6Al–4V AM fabrications is different than the traditional subtractive manufacturing fabrications because different grain profiles can be generated upon varying the solidification rate and the thermal gradient. This study does not focus on the microstructural changes which would be occurring during the fabrication or after subsequent heat treatment but an estimate of what might happen to the microstructure can surely be made after analyzing the results from the model alongside proper sample imaging.

It should also be noted that HIPed (yes or no) is a discrete input value and we used values 1 and 0 to represent these two conditions in the regression analysis, respectively. Since they are discrete variables, we did not perform local sensitivity analysis as there are no derivatives defined. Also, most data sets do not have HIPed procedures and we focus on these datasets and the global sensitivity analysis does not include HIPed either.

3.3.1 Local Sensitivity Analysis

3.3.1.1 Selective laser melting

The median values of all collected data are used for the SLM Model are considered as the local reference point for performing the local sensitivity analysis and parametric study, see Table 7. A small perturbation in the input parameters (1%) is used to estimate the sensitivity [40]. Each of the parameters is varied once keeping the others constant to understand the impact of that parameter at the median values (Fig. 22).

Table 7

Median values of the data used for developing the SLM model

Scanning speed (mm/s)Power (W)Hatch spacing (μm)Layer thickness (μm)Heat temp (° C)Heat time (h)Ultimate tensile strength (MPa)Yield strength (MPa)Elongation (%)
12002001003065031244.191142.274.952
Scanning speed (mm/s)Power (W)Hatch spacing (μm)Layer thickness (μm)Heat temp (° C)Heat time (h)Ultimate tensile strength (MPa)Yield strength (MPa)Elongation (%)
12002001003065031244.191142.274.952

The sensitivity result for SLM can be seen in Fig. 6, which shows that the scan speed and laser power have opposite sensitivity to each other. An increase in the scan speed leads to a decrease in the strength compensated by an increase in the elongation and the opposite is the case for laser power. At the median values as the local point, the powder layer thickness behaves opposite to the hatch spacing however is more impactful than the latter. The observed trend for heat temperature and heat time agrees with the reported behavior in the literature [31]. It is also observed that scan speed and laser power show a similar trend with that of heat temperature and heat time, respectively. The results shown in Fig. 6 correspond to a single reference point (median of the data) and a parametric study is used to investigate the sensitivity change with respect to the change of manufacturing parameters in the entire range of the collected data. Details are shown below:

Fig. 6
Sensitivity analysis for +1% variation from median values for SLM model
Fig. 6
Sensitivity analysis for +1% variation from median values for SLM model
Close modal
  • Material properties versus scan speed

    The parametric studies for scan speed are shown in Fig. 7. It is observed that the small to medium scan speed has a small effect on the strength. An increase in scan speed beyond a certain range leads to a rapid decrease in strength. This might be because, at a very high scanning speed, subsequent melt pools do not overlap enough thus generating lack of fusion porosity, in turn, resulting in a decreased strength. The loss of strength is compensated by an increase in elongation. The nonmonotonicity of the elongation trend is reflective of the inflection point in the strength profile.

  • Material properties versus laser power

    Laser power has a direct relation with the strength, which is due to the fact that an increase in laser power ensures an efficient melt pool leading to minimal porosity. This behavior can also be observed from the model output where at lower power values, the strength of Ti64 is lower than the strength at higher power values as can be seen in Fig. 8. Once the power is sufficiently high, the strength does not change very much.

    Following the general trend, elongation behaved inversely to the behavior of strength. However, it should be noted that a very high-power laser alone or a medium laser power at a low scanning speed could develop keyhole pores defect, which leads to reduced strength. The data analysis for SLM did not show such behavior which might be due to the combined effect of median scanning speed and other parameters for this localized parametric study.

  • Material properties versus hatch spacing

    Figure 9 shows that the strength starts to decrease as the hatch spacing is increased beyond a certain value while the elongation was observed to have a nonmonotonic behavior. The hatch spacing determines how far the new round of scan begins from the previous round in the same layer. This spacing is advisable to have around half the size of the beam spot diameter because an efficient overlap between consecutive scans leads to a stable and efficient melt pool. Such a melt pool leads to lower cooling rates developing longer grains at solidification which in turn imparts higher strength to the build. However, an increase in the hatch spacing beyond a certain value leads to an improper fusion of the powder in consecutive scans, i.e., the developed melt pools are spread further apart and generates the lack of fusion defects within the fabrication, therefore, leading to increased porosity causing a reduction in the strength. Elongation profile behaves in a compensating manner to the strength as the initial increase of strength caused by increasing hatch spacing leads to a decline in the elongation, however, at high hatch spacing values where strength declined rapidly, elongation increased nearly at the same rate.

  • Material properties versus powder layer thickness

    Figure 10 shows that the strength decreases as the powder layer thickness increases. Powder layer thickness plays an inverse relation to the overall energy being imparted to the melt pool. An increased powder layer thickness demands more power input to perform the proper melting of the layer in each scan. For the same power, increasing the layer thickness would cause improper melting of the powder leading to a porous fabrication after solidification, which would have a lower strength. Elongation showed a decline for declining strengths at lower powder layer thickness values; however, at higher values of powder layer thickness, elongation showed compensating trends to the strength. Possible reasoning for such a behavior is the absence of appropriate continuous data for powder layer thickness.

  • Material properties versus heat temperature

    Figure 11 shows that the strength generally decreases with the increase in the heat treatment temperature. A rapid transition happens between 650 and 900 deg. The strength does not change much below 600 deg and above 900 deg. The elongation variation also supports this transition zone and is observed to increase at high heat treatment temperatures. This is likely due to the microstructure change as it is well known that heat treatments are used to develop variations in the microstructures where grain sizes elongate, and the alloy loses its resistivity to the plastic flow.

  • Material properties versus heat time

Fig. 7
Tensile behavior prediction versus scan speed by model for SLM
Fig. 7
Tensile behavior prediction versus scan speed by model for SLM
Close modal
Fig. 8
Tensile behavior prediction versus laser power by model for SLM
Fig. 8
Tensile behavior prediction versus laser power by model for SLM
Close modal
Fig. 9
Tensile behavior prediction versus hatch spacing by model for SLM
Fig. 9
Tensile behavior prediction versus hatch spacing by model for SLM
Close modal
Fig. 10
Tensile behavior prediction versus powder layer thickness by model for SLM
Fig. 10
Tensile behavior prediction versus powder layer thickness by model for SLM
Close modal
Fig. 11
Tensile behavior prediction versus heat temperature by Model for SLM
Fig. 11
Tensile behavior prediction versus heat temperature by Model for SLM
Close modal

The model developed plots for a positive variation of heat time leading to a decline in both the strength and the elongation of the alloy can be seen in Fig. 12. Keeping in mind the median values for this analysis takes 650 °C as the median temperature where usually the stress-relieving process for Ti–6Al–4V is operated. The relationship presented here cannot be explained at this stage as it could either be a result of a microstructural variation or a model-generated anomaly. The dummy data added to the original data earlier to fit the as-fabricated samples in the same bracket as the heat-treated samples could have been one of the promising reasons for such an anomaly.

Fig. 12
Tensile behavior prediction versus heat time by Model for SLM
Fig. 12
Tensile behavior prediction versus heat time by Model for SLM
Close modal
3.3.1.2 Direct metal laser sintering.

Similar to the analysis presented for the SLM model, localized sensitivity analysis as a parametric study is performed where 1% perturbation in individual parameters are analyzed against the remaining kept constant at the median values for the DMLS model. The median values for the DMLS data used to build the model can be seen in Table 8 and the sensitivity results are shown in Fig. 13.

Fig. 13
Sensitivity analysis for +1% variation from median values for DMLS model
Fig. 13
Sensitivity analysis for +1% variation from median values for DMLS model
Close modal
Table 8

Median values of the data used for developing the DMLS model

Scanning speed (mm/s)Power (W)Hatch spacing (μm)Layer thicknesss (μm)Heat temperature (°C)Heat time (h)Ultimate tensile strength (MPa)Yield strength (MPa)Elongation (%)
900170100307502923.645812.1775.369
Scanning speed (mm/s)Power (W)Hatch spacing (μm)Layer thicknesss (μm)Heat temperature (°C)Heat time (h)Ultimate tensile strength (MPa)Yield strength (MPa)Elongation (%)
900170100307502923.645812.1775.369

At the median value of the collected data, scan speed and laser power again have completely opposite behavior to each other. An increase in the scan speed leads to a decrease in the strength and elongation, whereas an inverse behavior is the case for laser power. Hatch spacing and heat temperature have a large and similar impact behavior on the output properties. An increase in either leads to a decrease in strength compensating the elongation considering the localized median point. Powder layer thickness also reflects a similar behavior but with a much lower influence. Heat time seems to have an almost negligible effect on mechanical properties (Fig. 23).

  1. Material properties versus scan speed

    The strength attains a maximum value for medium-range scan speeds from 500 to 600 mm/s. At very low scan speeds, the strength is somewhat smaller which could be explained by the formation of keyhole defects due to excess melting of powder leading to rounded porosities. For higher scan speeds, the strength drops below 900 MPa as a suspected result of the unmelted powder contributing to the lack of fusion defects leading to irregular porosities as can be seen from Fig. 14.

    The elongation plot presented behaves differently than the usual elongation trend of generating a positive variation in elongation for a decline in strength. The reasons for this behavior are not clear. One hypothesis is that the increased speed will introduce a lack of fusion defect and both strength and ductility will reduce due to increased defect density while the other hypothesis is that since DMLS does not offer proper melting and works around sintering of the alloy powder; this might be the actual case how strength and elongation profile behave for the process. However, these hypotheses cannot be validated using the collected data and need detailed microstructure imaging observations.

  2. Material properties versus laser power

    Figure 15 shows that the maximum strength was obtained in the power range of 210–240 W when the remaining median parameters were kept constant. This behavior is supported by the general physics for melting using the laser. At very low power values, the powder material gets insufficient heat input and is unable to completely melt the material which leads to a high porosity fabrication, in turn, resulting in a decline in the strength. However, increasing the power too much also leads to a decline in the strength of the alloy which is caused by the development of extra internal stress concentration sites in the form of keyhole pores due to excessive energy being imparted to melt the powder.

    The behavior of elongation with power variation presented in Fig. 14 also suggests that the defect mechanism is dominating in the strength and ductility trend. It is well known that the strength increase will usually accompany with ductility loss. This is in general agreement with the grain structure characteristics. For example, increased grain size during the heat treatment will cause the strength to decrease with an increased ductility. If both strength and ductility show the same trend, it indicates the major mechanism is the defect. If defect density increases/decreases, both strength, and ductility will decrease/increase.

  3. Material properties versus hatch spacing

    Strength reduces with an increase in the hatch space and the elongation was compensated for the decrease in the strength which agrees with the general physics of hatch spacing, see Fig. 16. However, this plot behavior cannot be considered as the ideal behavior of the strength and elongation for the DMLS process with the hatch spacing because the model is built on 90% hatch spacing values of 100 μm and a few 120 μm values. It can essentially be said that the increment in hatch spacing results in an increment in elongation and a decrement of the strength.

  4. Material properties versus powder layer thickness

    Similar to hatch spacing, the strength and elongation profiles for the powder layer thickness showed a decline in strength for an increased powder layer thickness getting compensated by the increase in elongation as shown in Fig. 17. Again, similar to the case for the hatch spacing, the model is mostly built on a powder layer thickness of 30 μm and a few cases of 60 μm; therefore, valuable information for the trend of powder layer thickness with the strength and elongation is still missing but an increase in the layer thickness reduces the strength and increases the elongation of the fabrication.

  5. Material properties versus heat temperature

    Heat treatment alters the already generated microstructure during the fabrication process, which is determined by the melt solidification rate. The new microstructure is determined by the temperature at which the alloy is heated and the cooling rate at which it comes back to room temperature. The model generated heat temperature behavior can be seen in Fig. 18 where an increased heating temperature resulted in a reduction of the alloy strength and an increase in the elongation. The data for DMLS consisted of an annealing process where slow cooling is performed after heat treatment and after the heat treatment, the alloy is observed to show higher ductility but lower strength which supports the results from the model.

  6. Material properties versus heat time

    Following a similar behavior as in the heat temperature, increasing heating time reduced the alloy strength and increased the elongation, see Fig. 19. However, this behavior cannot be confirmed just by data analysis because of the introduction of the dummy data discussed previously. More data and experimentation would be necessary to reach a definite conclusion regarding the impact of heat time on the tensile properties of the alloy.

Fig. 14
Tensile behavior prediction versus scan speed by model for DMLS
Fig. 14
Tensile behavior prediction versus scan speed by model for DMLS
Close modal
Fig. 15
Tensile behavior prediction versus laser power by model for DMLS
Fig. 15
Tensile behavior prediction versus laser power by model for DMLS
Close modal
Fig. 16
Tensile behavior prediction versus hatch spacing by model for DMLS
Fig. 16
Tensile behavior prediction versus hatch spacing by model for DMLS
Close modal
Fig. 17
Tensile behavior prediction versus powder layer thickness by model for DMLS
Fig. 17
Tensile behavior prediction versus powder layer thickness by model for DMLS
Close modal
Fig. 18
Tensile behavior prediction versus heat temperature by model for DMLS
Fig. 18
Tensile behavior prediction versus heat temperature by model for DMLS
Close modal
Fig. 19
Tensile behavior prediction versus heat time by Model for DMLS
Fig. 19
Tensile behavior prediction versus heat time by Model for DMLS
Close modal
Fig. 20
(a) First and (b) total order Sobol's indices for SLM fabricated Ti–6Al–4V alloy
Fig. 20
(a) First and (b) total order Sobol's indices for SLM fabricated Ti–6Al–4V alloy
Close modal
Fig. 21
(a) First and (b) total order Sobol's indices for DMLS fabricated Ti–6Al–4V alloy
Fig. 21
(a) First and (b) total order Sobol's indices for DMLS fabricated Ti–6Al–4V alloy
Close modal

3.3.2 Global Sensitivity Analysis.

Sobol's indices are used for global sensitivity analysis, which includes first-order indices (S1), second-order indices (S2), and total order indices (ST). S1 represents the individual fractional contribution of the input parameters while S2 represents the fractional contribution of parameter interactions in determining the output parameters globally over the range considered for building the model. ST sums up the overall impact of parameters considering the first, second, and other higher order indices. To perform Sobol's analysis, 14,000 Saltelli samples are generated using the python library “SALib.” These Saltelli inputs are put through the developed matlab model and the outputs are recorded. These outputs along with the inputs are used in another python code to obtain the sensitivity indices. Despite being less influential, S2 indices are also calculated for each of the SLM and DMLS models and are presented in Appendices F and G, respectively.

3.3.2.1 Selective laser melting.

Figures 20(a) and 20(b) show the respective S1 and ST values for the SLM based ANN model. First, discussing the S1 indices for the study, individually, laser power is the most dominant parameter on the UTS, YS, and elongation for SLM fabricated Ti–6Al–4V alloy indicating that a variation in laser power alone would drastically impact the tensile properties of the alloy. Heating temperature and hatch spacing influence the ultimate tensile followed by the laser power the most while heat time, layer thickness, and scan speed have minimal impact. Similarly, hatch spacing follows the laser power for influence on the YS while scan speed, heat time, heat temperature, and layer thickness have minimal impact. In the case of elongation, heat temperature and heat time are the stronger influencers after the laser power while scan speed, layer thickness, and hatch spacing are the weaker influencers.

The differences in ST and S1 values suggest that there are interactions between the considered parameters and the influence of these interactions can be seen in the Appendix  F. Impact of the interactions can be noticed in the ST values of the Sobol's analysis where scan speed and layer thickness registering negligible impact individually contribute considerably when all the interactions are considered. Now we discuss the ST indices obtained from the study. The influence order for UTS and YS stays the same as was observed in the S1 indices however, in the case of elongation, layer thickness, and scan speed become the most influential parameters while the remainder contributes nearly equally to any variation in the output.

In a nutshell, alloy's UTS is most dependent on laser power, hatch spacing, and heating temperature. Similarly, laser power, hatch spacing, and scan speed should be carefully considered for YS variations and in the case of elongation, scan speed and layer thickness would be the major deciders; however, the remaining parameters would also be considerably influential here.

3.3.2.2 Direct metal laser sintering.

S1 and ST results obtained from Sobol's analysis on DMLS data are presented in Figs. 21(a) and 21(b), respectively. A major variation compared to the SLM results can be noticed here. Firstly, discussing the S1 indices obtained. Clearly, laser power is the only major influencer for the UTS while layer thickness followed by scan speed impacts the YS majorly. Laser power followed by scan speed and heat temperature equally impacts the elongation characteristics of the alloy. All the other parameters are almost negligibly impactful when compared to the up stated parameters.

Again, a clear contract is visible in S1 and ST values suggesting interactions between the parameters and these interaction influences can be seen in Appendix  G providing the S2 indices.

After considering the interactions between the input parameters, laser power, and scan speed turn out to be the major influencers for each of the output parameters while the remainder accounts for negligible influence except for heat temperature which has somewhat impact on the elongation of the alloy. Therefore, based on this study, it can be said that the laser power and scan speed alone would be the deciding factors for the tensile properties of the alloy in a DMLS process.

The local sensitivity calculates partial derivatives of the output functions with respect to the input variables. The input parameters vary within a small interval of variation around a reference point. However, the main drawbacks of local sensitivity analysis are that derivatives provide information only at the base point, where they are computed; therefore, they do not provide an exploration of the whole space of the input [50]. In contrast to the local sensitivity, global sensitivity analysis provides an understanding of how the model outputs respond to changes in the inputs by taking a sampling approach from probability density functions (PDFs). Furthermore, all the model parameters are varied simultaneously, and the sensitivities are calculated over the entire range of each of the input parameters [51]. However, more number of simulations is required to get a valuable sensitivity index estimation compared with the local method [52]. The knowledge accumulated in this study could be used to tailor the overall tensile properties of the alloy in general, i.e., without specific value for a component design. Results obtained from Sobol's analysis indicate which parameters should be worked around carefully to get the optimal tensile properties. If the specific design values are known for a component/structure, the trends suggested by the local sensitivity analysis could be used to vary one or two input variables such that a certain required variation about the mean design values in the output variables could be obtained.

4 Conclusion and Future Work

Data-driven analysis of two major laser-based PBF AM techniques, namely, SLM and DMLS are performed for the fabrication of Ti–6Al–4V alloy. Several data relating the fabrication parameters to the tensile properties of the alloy are collected for each of the processes and later used as input parameters to develop both linear regression and nonlinear ANN models.

Major conclusions drawn from the above study are summarized as follows:

  1. The ANN model is found to deliver higher R-square values than the linear regression model and therefore, further data analytics are performed using the ANN model.

  2. Localized sensitivity analysis executed at the median data of each process suggests that the SLM fabricated alloy is most sensitive to laser power, scanning speed, and heat treatment temperature while the heat treatment temperature, hatch spacing, and laser power are the prominent parameters for influencing the DMLS fabricated alloy.

  3. Sobol's global sensitivity analysis suggests that SLM-fabricated alloy is most sensitive to laser power followed by heating temperature and hatch spacing as far as strength is concerned and powder layer thickness followed by scanning speed prominently impacts the elongation properties of the build. On the other hand, laser power, and scan speed are found to be the most impactful input parameters for tensile properties of the alloy while heating time turned out to be the least affecting parameter for DMLS fabricated Ti–6Al–4V alloy.

  4. Sobol's first-order indices and total indices are different for the investigated dataset and manufacturing process, which indicate the interaction between the process parameters.

Some limitations and future work are listed below. First, despite the accumulation of nearly mostly published data for SLM and DMLS AM processes for Ti–6Al–4V alloy discussing the fabrication parameters and tensile behavior, one of the drawbacks of the current model developments is the small sample data, especially due to the missing data. Sample data comprise seven input parameters and three output parameters. If one of those parameters is not published, the whole dataset becomes invalid and not utilized. Therefore, additional statistical analysis, such as missing data imputation, could help to improve the data collection efficiency. The heat treatment data needed to be adjusted in the model because of the limited data availability and there could be some model generated errors induced because of the dummy data added externally. A situation-specific alternative regression method would be needed to rectify this limitation where text-based information could be incorporated along with the other input parameters. In addition, the current study only focuses on the static mechanical properties; time-dependent fatigue properties are also critical for AM design and should be investigated. Some sensitivity trends are being interpreted based on principles and rigorous model verification and validation will need extensive imaging analysis to support the hypotheses. Unfortunately, the most existing study did not perform/report the complete imaging results, especially 3D microstructure imaging. Thus, synchronized mechanical testing and 3D imaging (e.g., using Micro-CT) will be very valuable.

Funding Data

  • Naval Air Systems Command, NAVAIR through Technical Data Analysis, Inc. (Contract No. N68335-20-C-0477, Funder ID: 10.13039/100010464).

Appendix A: Data Collection of SLM Fabricated Ti–6Al–4V Alloy

Table
Scanning speed (mm/s)Laser power (W)Hatch spacing (μm)Powder layer thickness (μm)Heat temperature (°C)Heat time (h)HIPed or notUltimate tensile strength (MPa)Yield strength (MPa)Elongation (%)Ref.
125020080308201.5No104510108[53]
160025060306504No1170112410.1[54]
710175120308002NoNANANA[55]
710175120309202YesNANANA
20020018050As-fabricatedNo10359103.3[56]
96012010030As-fabricatedNo123710988.8[57]
54012010030As-fabricatedNo125711508
40012010030As-fabricatedNo114810665.4
126012010030As-fabricatedNo11129326.6
150012010030As-fabricatedNo9788133.7
10002005050As-fabricatedNo1243115321.5
100020050509302Yes92285316[25]
125020012040NANAYes97388519
1250170100306503NoNANANA[58]
125020012040As-fabricatedNo105173611.9
1250200120407001No1115105111.3
1250200120409002No9889089.5
1250200120409002Yes97388519
1250170100306503NoNANANA[59]
1250170100306504No121911434.89
NANANA30As-fabricatedNo1314.912534[24]
NANANA308002No1228.112118[60]
NANANA3010502No986.489213.8
NANANA309202No1088.5107513.8
NANANA3010502No1006.889213.5
NANANA308004No936.9862.411.4[61]
NANANA608004No910.1835.47.2
NANANA609002No9288629.6
NA40050607401.5No1082.11NA14.9[29]
NA400506012001.5No941.6NA11.9
NA40050609001.5No1090.7NA17.9
NA500NA306705No1090101510[28]
NA500NA309202No96085014
NANANA603502No1153.581049.78.91[62]
NANANA604202No1257.221159.4611.47
NANANANA6705No1090101510[63]
NANANANA9205No95088011
NA40032.5608502No912847.54.5[64]
NA200NA306502No11401070NA[65]
1000400160507001No10529513.5[66]
1200280140307041No1093.021050.5115.27[67]
71017512030NANANo115010549[68]
68637512090NANANo114111351
1029375120604002No1250116811.4
60020075256502No117410378.4[26]
60020075259204Yes99892015.6
16002506030As-fabricatedNo127111157.3[54]
225195NA50As-fabricatedNo10959908.1[69]
16002506030As-fabricatedNo126711107.28[31]
160025060305405No122311185.36
160025060308502No100495512.84
160025060308505No9659092
1600250603010150.5No87480113.45
1600250603010202No84076014.06
160025060307053No108210269.04
160025060309401No94889913.59
1600250603010150.5No90282212.74
225157100507302No10529379.6[23]
22515710050As-fabricatedNo11179678.9
600100105307258No9599509.4[32]
600100105309748No91290210.09
600100105308274No9119069.51
6001001053010254No80477514.1
60010010530As-fabricatedNo1170.41101.687.98
710175120306404No125611523.9[70]
71017512030As-fabricatedNo132111662
37510013030As-fabricatedNo118110377[71]
10001507030As-fabricatedNo122110886.9[72]
NANANA306504No115611328[73]
NANANA308902No9989646
NANANA30As-fabricatedNo121611256
71017512030As-fabricatedNoNA10962.5[74]
50011035–9550As-fabricatedNo124611501.4[75]
1200280140309200.5No1079102911[76]
1200340120609200.5No97488113
1200280140306503No123711617.6[77]
1200340120606503No122211519.8
125025012530As-fabricatedNo1250116310.3[30]
1250250125307302No1134105413
1250250125309002No104688919.2
37510013030As-fabricatedNo12201120NA[78]
1259013030As-fabricatedNo125011256[79]
12590130307502No100092012
37510013030As-fabricatedNo12201120NA[80]
58423050As-fabricatedNo11179678.9[81]
Scanning speed (mm/s)Laser power (W)Hatch spacing (μm)Powder layer thickness (μm)Heat temperature (°C)Heat time (h)HIPed or notUltimate tensile strength (MPa)Yield strength (MPa)Elongation (%)Ref.
125020080308201.5No104510108[53]
160025060306504No1170112410.1[54]
710175120308002NoNANANA[55]
710175120309202YesNANANA
20020018050As-fabricatedNo10359103.3[56]
96012010030As-fabricatedNo123710988.8[57]
54012010030As-fabricatedNo125711508
40012010030As-fabricatedNo114810665.4
126012010030As-fabricatedNo11129326.6
150012010030As-fabricatedNo9788133.7
10002005050As-fabricatedNo1243115321.5
100020050509302Yes92285316[25]
125020012040NANAYes97388519
1250170100306503NoNANANA[58]
125020012040As-fabricatedNo105173611.9
1250200120407001No1115105111.3
1250200120409002No9889089.5
1250200120409002Yes97388519
1250170100306503NoNANANA[59]
1250170100306504No121911434.89
NANANA30As-fabricatedNo1314.912534[24]
NANANA308002No1228.112118[60]
NANANA3010502No986.489213.8
NANANA309202No1088.5107513.8
NANANA3010502No1006.889213.5
NANANA308004No936.9862.411.4[61]
NANANA608004No910.1835.47.2
NANANA609002No9288629.6
NA40050607401.5No1082.11NA14.9[29]
NA400506012001.5No941.6NA11.9
NA40050609001.5No1090.7NA17.9
NA500NA306705No1090101510[28]
NA500NA309202No96085014
NANANA603502No1153.581049.78.91[62]
NANANA604202No1257.221159.4611.47
NANANANA6705No1090101510[63]
NANANANA9205No95088011
NA40032.5608502No912847.54.5[64]
NA200NA306502No11401070NA[65]
1000400160507001No10529513.5[66]
1200280140307041No1093.021050.5115.27[67]
71017512030NANANo115010549[68]
68637512090NANANo114111351
1029375120604002No1250116811.4
60020075256502No117410378.4[26]
60020075259204Yes99892015.6
16002506030As-fabricatedNo127111157.3[54]
225195NA50As-fabricatedNo10959908.1[69]
16002506030As-fabricatedNo126711107.28[31]
160025060305405No122311185.36
160025060308502No100495512.84
160025060308505No9659092
1600250603010150.5No87480113.45
1600250603010202No84076014.06
160025060307053No108210269.04
160025060309401No94889913.59
1600250603010150.5No90282212.74
225157100507302No10529379.6[23]
22515710050As-fabricatedNo11179678.9
600100105307258No9599509.4[32]
600100105309748No91290210.09
600100105308274No9119069.51
6001001053010254No80477514.1
60010010530As-fabricatedNo1170.41101.687.98
710175120306404No125611523.9[70]
71017512030As-fabricatedNo132111662
37510013030As-fabricatedNo118110377[71]
10001507030As-fabricatedNo122110886.9[72]
NANANA306504No115611328[73]
NANANA308902No9989646
NANANA30As-fabricatedNo121611256
71017512030As-fabricatedNoNA10962.5[74]
50011035–9550As-fabricatedNo124611501.4[75]
1200280140309200.5No1079102911[76]
1200340120609200.5No97488113
1200280140306503No123711617.6[77]
1200340120606503No122211519.8
125025012530As-fabricatedNo1250116310.3[30]
1250250125307302No1134105413
1250250125309002No104688919.2
37510013030As-fabricatedNo12201120NA[78]
1259013030As-fabricatedNo125011256[79]
12590130307502No100092012
37510013030As-fabricatedNo12201120NA[80]
58423050As-fabricatedNo11179678.9[81]

Appendix B: Data Collection of DMLS Fabricated Ti–6Al–4V Alloy

Table 1a
Scanning speed (mm/s)Laser power (W)Hatch spacing (μm)Powder layer thickness (μm)Heat temperature (°C)Heat time (h)HIPed or notUltimate tensile strength (MPa)Yield strength (MPa)Elongation (%)References
30013010030As-fabricatedNo123811776.7[35]
50013010030As-fabricatedNo125712116.2
70013010030As-fabricatedNo9899733.4
90013010030As-fabricatedNo9609362.5
110013010030As-fabricatedNo9148932.2
130013010030As-fabricatedNo9028771.81
30017010030As-fabricatedNo119811555.34
50017010030As-fabricatedNo130012506.26
70017010030As-fabricatedNo124712066.07
90017010030As-fabricatedNo10049673.5
110017010030As-fabricatedNo96710102.91
130017010030As-fabricatedNo9449182.43
30021010030As-fabricatedNo114511274.37
50021010030As-fabricatedNo124411655.85
70021010030As-fabricatedNo128212416.18
90021010030As-fabricatedNo125012066.11
110021010030As-fabricatedNo10109783.48
130021010030As-fabricatedNo9849573
300130100306502No119711095.84
500130100306502No121011476.13
700130100306502No9439093.45
900130100306502No9148752.58
1100130100306502No8688202.33
1300130100306502No8478091.91
300170100306502No115110875.39
500170100306502No124311806.21
700170100306502No119211346.07
900170100306502No9589123.48
1100170100306502No9148802.97
1300170100306502No8978602.49
300210100306502No109910524.4
500210100306502No120111035.42
700210100306502No123311776.18
900210100306502No119711366.12
1100210100306502No9579243.58
1300210100306502No9258973.02
300130100307502No113210257.75
500130100307502No112410328.39
700130100307502No9118044.39
900130100307502No8697673.51
1100130100307502No8287243.26
1300130100307502No8017122.97
300170100307502No109510017.29
500170100307502No117110878.28
700170100307502No111310328.22
900170100307502No9308154.53
1100170100307502No9047784.11
1300170100307502No8757493.38
300210100307502No10489476.24
500210100307502No114510287.34
700210100307502No116010698.17
900210100307502No112710388.22
1100210100307502No9318094.53
1300210100307502No9037833.85
300130100308502No103892610.45
500130100308502No103093411.59
700130100308502No8237007
900130100308502No7846696.27
1100130100308502No7426465.11
1300130100308502No7196195.01
300170100308502No99690210.34
500170100308502No107997612.77
700170100308502No102992211.42
900170100308502No8397327.05
1100170100308502No8146996.49
1300170100308502No7776745.82
300210100308502No9648709.29
500210100308502No103892710.86
700210100308502No105996012.54
900210100308502No103094411.54
1100210100308502No8417397.5
1300210100308502No8047116.6
300130100309502No9278909.05
500130100309502No94087911.12
700130100309502No8036916.31
900130100309502No7596675.52
1100130100309502No7156434.67
1300130100309502No6966194.55
300170100309502No9088498.8
500170100309502No97391812.4
700170100309502No93885610.8
900170100309502No7877336.37
1100170100309502No7777205.75
1300170100309502No7506735.05
300210100309502No8928228.7
500210100309502No93489210.87
700210100309502No95090712.09
900210100309502No93186811.08
1100210100309502No8257405.77
1300210100309502No7817145.5
1250200NA30As-fabricatedNo132512134.5[27]
30017010030As-fabricatedNo119911543.94[34]
50017010030As-fabricatedNo129612563.04
70017010030As-fabricatedNo124812073.2
90017010030As-fabricatedNo114010874.65
110017010030As-fabricatedNo110510525
130017010030As-fabricatedNo108410355.45
30017010030825NoNo95484313.3
500170100308254No103491511.85
700170100308254No97886712.28
900170100308254No90078215.25
1100170100308254No87375015.58
1300170100308254No84171915.98
NA200NA30As-fabricatedNo11401070NA[65]
NA200NA306502No1189107613.6
NA200NA30As-fabricatedYes102290717.7
125034012060As-fabricatedYes119610567[82]
1250340120607994No96990211.6
Scanning speed (mm/s)Laser power (W)Hatch spacing (μm)Powder layer thickness (μm)Heat temperature (°C)Heat time (h)HIPed or notUltimate tensile strength (MPa)Yield strength (MPa)Elongation (%)References
30013010030As-fabricatedNo123811776.7[35]
50013010030As-fabricatedNo125712116.2
70013010030As-fabricatedNo9899733.4
90013010030As-fabricatedNo9609362.5
110013010030As-fabricatedNo9148932.2
130013010030As-fabricatedNo9028771.81
30017010030As-fabricatedNo119811555.34
50017010030As-fabricatedNo130012506.26
70017010030As-fabricatedNo124712066.07
90017010030As-fabricatedNo10049673.5
110017010030As-fabricatedNo96710102.91
130017010030As-fabricatedNo9449182.43
30021010030As-fabricatedNo114511274.37
50021010030As-fabricatedNo124411655.85
70021010030As-fabricatedNo128212416.18
90021010030As-fabricatedNo125012066.11
110021010030As-fabricatedNo10109783.48
130021010030As-fabricatedNo9849573
300130100306502No119711095.84
500130100306502No121011476.13
700130100306502No9439093.45
900130100306502No9148752.58
1100130100306502No8688202.33
1300130100306502No8478091.91
300170100306502No115110875.39
500170100306502No124311806.21
700170100306502No119211346.07
900170100306502No9589123.48
1100170100306502No9148802.97
1300170100306502No8978602.49
300210100306502No109910524.4
500210100306502No120111035.42
700210100306502No123311776.18
900210100306502No119711366.12
1100210100306502No9579243.58
1300210100306502No9258973.02
300130100307502No113210257.75
500130100307502No112410328.39
700130100307502No9118044.39
900130100307502No8697673.51
1100130100307502No8287243.26
1300130100307502No8017122.97
300170100307502No109510017.29
500170100307502No117110878.28
700170100307502No111310328.22
900170100307502No9308154.53
1100170100307502No9047784.11
1300170100307502No8757493.38
300210100307502No10489476.24
500210100307502No114510287.34
700210100307502No116010698.17
900210100307502No112710388.22
1100210100307502No9318094.53
1300210100307502No9037833.85
300130100308502No103892610.45
500130100308502No103093411.59
700130100308502No8237007
900130100308502No7846696.27
1100130100308502No7426465.11
1300130100308502No7196195.01
300170100308502No99690210.34
500170100308502No107997612.77
700170100308502No102992211.42
900170100308502No8397327.05
1100170100308502No8146996.49
1300170100308502No7776745.82
300210100308502No9648709.29
500210100308502No103892710.86
700210100308502No105996012.54
900210100308502No103094411.54
1100210100308502No8417397.5
1300210100308502No8047116.6
300130100309502No9278909.05
500130100309502No94087911.12
700130100309502No8036916.31
900130100309502No7596675.52
1100130100309502No7156434.67
1300130100309502No6966194.55
300170100309502No9088498.8
500170100309502No97391812.4
700170100309502No93885610.8
900170100309502No7877336.37
1100170100309502No7777205.75
1300170100309502No7506735.05
300210100309502No8928228.7
500210100309502No93489210.87
700210100309502No95090712.09
900210100309502No93186811.08
1100210100309502No8257405.77
1300210100309502No7817145.5
1250200NA30As-fabricatedNo132512134.5[27]
30017010030As-fabricatedNo119911543.94[34]
50017010030As-fabricatedNo129612563.04
70017010030As-fabricatedNo124812073.2
90017010030As-fabricatedNo114010874.65
110017010030As-fabricatedNo110510525
130017010030As-fabricatedNo108410355.45
30017010030825NoNo95484313.3
500170100308254No103491511.85
700170100308254No97886712.28
900170100308254No90078215.25
1100170100308254No87375015.58
1300170100308254No84171915.98
NA200NA30As-fabricatedNo11401070NA[65]
NA200NA306502No1189107613.6
NA200NA30As-fabricatedYes102290717.7
125034012060As-fabricatedYes119610567[82]
1250340120607994No96990211.6

Appendix C: Additional Details from The Collected Data

Table 1b
Data no.ReferencesFabrication equipment/laserPowder detailsNumber of specimensFabrication environmentSpot size/scan strategy
1[23]Renishaw AM250/200 W ytterbium fiber laserSpherical, fully dense, α′ phase22Protective argon and nitrogen environment70 μm/parallel alternating scan rotated by 67 deg
2[24]EOS M270/200 W ytterbium fiber laserSpherical powder with average particle size of 38 μm35 mbar argon environmentParallel alternating scan rotated to 180 deg
3[25]Realizer SLM 100Spherical powder with average particle size of 35 μmHigh purity argon environment until <220 ppm Oxygen content reachedStrip based parallel alternating scan rotated by 90 deg
4[26]EOS M270Average particle size of 36 μm
5[27]EOSINT M270/200 W ytterbium fiber laserAverage particle size between 24 and 53 μm
6[28]3D systems ProX 300 printer/500 W fiber laser, 1070 nm wavelengthSpherical powder with average particle diameter of 9 μmProtective argon environment
7[29]EOS M290/400 W laserAverage particle size between 15 45 μmArgon atmosphere100 μm/contour and core strategy
8[30]EOSINT M280/200-300 WAverage particle size between 15 and 53 μmScan rotated by 67 deg between each layer
9[31]LM-Q-SLM/300 YAG laserEquiaxed, hot forged and mill annealed12Vacuum environment better than 10–6 mbar52 μm/zig-zag scan rotated by 90 deg
10[32]M2 CusingAverage particle size between 25 and 55 μmArgon environmentZig-zag scan at 45 deg to base plate rotated by 90 deg
11[34]EOSINT M280/400 W ytterbium fiber laserAverage particle size between 10 and 400 μm6 groups of test samplesHigh vacuum with high purity Argon environment until 0.1% oxygen content reached100 μm/scan rotated by 90 deg between each layer
12[35]Average particle size of 39.81 μm30100 μm/cross scan pattern
13[53]M2 CusingSpherical powder with average particle size of 30 μm3Protective argon environment200 μm/island scan strategy
14[54]Protective argon environmentZig-zag scan rotated by 90 deg
15[55]SLM 250HL/400 W fiber laserAverage particle size between 20 and 60 μmArgon environment
16[56]MTT 250/200 W fiber laserSpherical powder with average particle size of 30 μm5High purity argon environmentMultidirectional scan rotated by 90 deg
17[57]EOS M270Average particle size of 30 μm
18[58]M2 CusingSpherical powder with average particle size of 35 μm5Argon environment
19[59]EOS M270xtScan at 45 deg to base plate
20[60]SLM 250HL/400 W fiber laserAverage particle size of 40 μm5
21[61]EOSINT M 280/400 W ytterbium fiber laser9
22[62]SLM 250HL/400 WAverage particle size between 25 and 45 μmHigh purity argon environment until <100 ppm oxygen content reached
23[63]3D systems ProX 300Average particle size of 9 μm
24[64]Renishaw AM400Average particle size of 9 μm65 μm/meander
25[65]200 W laserArgon environmentParallel alternating scan rotated to 90 deg
26[66]Renishaw AM250Average particle size between 15 and 45 μmHatch rotation of 67 deg for new layer
27[67]EOS M290Average particle size between 15 and 45 μm, recycled and new4Argon environmentHatch rotation of 67 deg for new layer
28[68]SLM 250HL/400 WAverage particle size between 25 and 45 μm9High purity argon environment until <100 ppm oxygen content reached
29[69]EOSINT M270Spherical powder with average particle size <50 μmBatches of 5–6 samplesProtective argon environment
30[70]MTT SLM 250Average particle size between 25 and 50 μmProtective argon environment
31[71]Spherical powder with average particle size between 25 and 45 μm3Preheated 200 °C argon environment until 0.1% oxygen content reachedStrip pattern rotated by 79 deg for new layer
32[72]LM -Q-SLM/ND-YAG laserAverage particle size between 25 and 34 μm20Argon atmosphereZig-zag scan rotated by 90 deg
33[73]Average particle size between 15 and 45 μm9Zig-zag scan rotated by 90 deg
34[74]SLM 250HL/400 W480 μm
35[75]Realizer SLM50/120 WSpherical powder with average particle size between 45 and 75 μm25Argon environment30–250 μm
36[76]EOSINT M280/Yb: YAG fiber laserArgon environment until 0.1% oxygen content reachedScan rotated by 67 and 90 deg
37[77]EOSINT M280/Yb: YAG fiber laserArgon environment until 0.1% oxygen content reachedScan rotated by 67 and 90 deg
38[78]SLM 250HL
39[79]M3 Linear machine/ND: YAG laserAverage particle size of 37 μm9Argon environment until 0.1% oxygen content reached200 μm
40[80]SLM 250HL
41[82]EOSINT M280/Yb fiber laser5Multidirectional
Data no.ReferencesFabrication equipment/laserPowder detailsNumber of specimensFabrication environmentSpot size/scan strategy
1[23]Renishaw AM250/200 W ytterbium fiber laserSpherical, fully dense, α′ phase22Protective argon and nitrogen environment70 μm/parallel alternating scan rotated by 67 deg
2[24]EOS M270/200 W ytterbium fiber laserSpherical powder with average particle size of 38 μm35 mbar argon environmentParallel alternating scan rotated to 180 deg
3[25]Realizer SLM 100Spherical powder with average particle size of 35 μmHigh purity argon environment until <220 ppm Oxygen content reachedStrip based parallel alternating scan rotated by 90 deg
4[26]EOS M270Average particle size of 36 μm
5[27]EOSINT M270/200 W ytterbium fiber laserAverage particle size between 24 and 53 μm
6[28]3D systems ProX 300 printer/500 W fiber laser, 1070 nm wavelengthSpherical powder with average particle diameter of 9 μmProtective argon environment
7[29]EOS M290/400 W laserAverage particle size between 15 45 μmArgon atmosphere100 μm/contour and core strategy
8[30]EOSINT M280/200-300 WAverage particle size between 15 and 53 μmScan rotated by 67 deg between each layer
9[31]LM-Q-SLM/300 YAG laserEquiaxed, hot forged and mill annealed12Vacuum environment better than 10–6 mbar52 μm/zig-zag scan rotated by 90 deg
10[32]M2 CusingAverage particle size between 25 and 55 μmArgon environmentZig-zag scan at 45 deg to base plate rotated by 90 deg
11[34]EOSINT M280/400 W ytterbium fiber laserAverage particle size between 10 and 400 μm6 groups of test samplesHigh vacuum with high purity Argon environment until 0.1% oxygen content reached100 μm/scan rotated by 90 deg between each layer
12[35]Average particle size of 39.81 μm30100 μm/cross scan pattern
13[53]M2 CusingSpherical powder with average particle size of 30 μm3Protective argon environment200 μm/island scan strategy
14[54]Protective argon environmentZig-zag scan rotated by 90 deg
15[55]SLM 250HL/400 W fiber laserAverage particle size between 20 and 60 μmArgon environment
16[56]MTT 250/200 W fiber laserSpherical powder with average particle size of 30 μm5High purity argon environmentMultidirectional scan rotated by 90 deg
17[57]EOS M270Average particle size of 30 μm
18[58]M2 CusingSpherical powder with average particle size of 35 μm5Argon environment
19[59]EOS M270xtScan at 45 deg to base plate
20[60]SLM 250HL/400 W fiber laserAverage particle size of 40 μm5
21[61]EOSINT M 280/400 W ytterbium fiber laser9
22[62]SLM 250HL/400 WAverage particle size between 25 and 45 μmHigh purity argon environment until <100 ppm oxygen content reached
23[63]3D systems ProX 300Average particle size of 9 μm
24[64]Renishaw AM400Average particle size of 9 μm65 μm/meander
25[65]200 W laserArgon environmentParallel alternating scan rotated to 90 deg
26[66]Renishaw AM250Average particle size between 15 and 45 μmHatch rotation of 67 deg for new layer
27[67]EOS M290Average particle size between 15 and 45 μm, recycled and new4Argon environmentHatch rotation of 67 deg for new layer
28[68]SLM 250HL/400 WAverage particle size between 25 and 45 μm9High purity argon environment until <100 ppm oxygen content reached
29[69]EOSINT M270Spherical powder with average particle size <50 μmBatches of 5–6 samplesProtective argon environment
30[70]MTT SLM 250Average particle size between 25 and 50 μmProtective argon environment
31[71]Spherical powder with average particle size between 25 and 45 μm3Preheated 200 °C argon environment until 0.1% oxygen content reachedStrip pattern rotated by 79 deg for new layer
32[72]LM -Q-SLM/ND-YAG laserAverage particle size between 25 and 34 μm20Argon atmosphereZig-zag scan rotated by 90 deg
33[73]Average particle size between 15 and 45 μm9Zig-zag scan rotated by 90 deg
34[74]SLM 250HL/400 W480 μm
35[75]Realizer SLM50/120 WSpherical powder with average particle size between 45 and 75 μm25Argon environment30–250 μm
36[76]EOSINT M280/Yb: YAG fiber laserArgon environment until 0.1% oxygen content reachedScan rotated by 67 and 90 deg
37[77]EOSINT M280/Yb: YAG fiber laserArgon environment until 0.1% oxygen content reachedScan rotated by 67 and 90 deg
38[78]SLM 250HL
39[79]M3 Linear machine/ND: YAG laserAverage particle size of 37 μm9Argon environment until 0.1% oxygen content reached200 μm
40[80]SLM 250HL
41[82]EOSINT M280/Yb fiber laser5Multidirectional

Appendix D: Probability Density Functions for SLM Input Parameters

Table 1c
PDF parameters
Input parameterDistributionEstimate ± standard errorEstimate ± standard error
Scanning speedRicianS = 852.23 ± 103.408Sigma = 520.057 ± 69.6651
PowerGammaa = 6.92939 ± 1.36757b = 28.9185 ± 5.91916
Hatch spacingWeibullA = 110.592 ± 4.7115B = 3.53802 ± 0.393775
Layer thicknessLognormalmu = 3.50808 ± 0.0317054Sigma = 0.221937 ± 0.0227703
Heating temperatureGammaA = 0.798681 ± 0.139198B = 661.55 ± 156.45
Heating timeRayleighB = 2.27004 ± 0.162145
PDF parameters
Input parameterDistributionEstimate ± standard errorEstimate ± standard error
Scanning speedRicianS = 852.23 ± 103.408Sigma = 520.057 ± 69.6651
PowerGammaa = 6.92939 ± 1.36757b = 28.9185 ± 5.91916
Hatch spacingWeibullA = 110.592 ± 4.7115B = 3.53802 ± 0.393775
Layer thicknessLognormalmu = 3.50808 ± 0.0317054Sigma = 0.221937 ± 0.0227703
Heating temperatureGammaA = 0.798681 ± 0.139198B = 661.55 ± 156.45
Heating timeRayleighB = 2.27004 ± 0.162145

Appendix E: Probability Density Functions for DMLS Input Parameters

Table 1d
Parameters
Input parameterDistributionEstimate ± standard errorEstimate ± standard error
Scanning speedWeibullA = 917.282 ± 36.6832B = 2.62949 ± 0.216759
PowerLognormalmu = 5.12602 ± 0.0201296Sigma = 0.201296 ± 0.0143417
Hatch spacingLognormalmu = 4.60699 ± 0.00182322Sigma = 0.0182322 ± 0.00129899
Layer thicknessLognormalmu = 3.40813 ± 0.00693147Sigma = 0.0693147 ± 0.00493847
Heating temperatureWeibullA = 621.12 ± 54.8158B = 1.17173 ± 0.109693
Heating timeLognormalmu = 0.816486 ± 0.0221095Sigma = 0.221095 ± 0.0157524
Parameters
Input parameterDistributionEstimate ± standard errorEstimate ± standard error
Scanning speedWeibullA = 917.282 ± 36.6832B = 2.62949 ± 0.216759
PowerLognormalmu = 5.12602 ± 0.0201296Sigma = 0.201296 ± 0.0143417
Hatch spacingLognormalmu = 4.60699 ± 0.00182322Sigma = 0.0182322 ± 0.00129899
Layer thicknessLognormalmu = 3.40813 ± 0.00693147Sigma = 0.0693147 ± 0.00493847
Heating temperatureWeibullA = 621.12 ± 54.8158B = 1.17173 ± 0.109693
Heating timeLognormalmu = 0.816486 ± 0.0221095Sigma = 0.221095 ± 0.0157524

Appendix F: Sobol's Second-Order Indices for Global Sensitivity Analysis for SLM

Table 1e
ParametersScan speedBeam powerHatch spacingLayer thicknessHeating temperatureHeating time
Ultimate tensile strengthScan speed10.0268790.0052690.024320.0348660.03736
Beam power0.026881–0.01463–0.0110.00634–0.0054
Hatch spacing0.00527–0.0146310.001590.012456–0.0241
Layer thickness0.02432–0.011040.0015921–0.014170.01263
Heating temperature0.034870.006340.012456–0.01421–0.0091
Heating time0.03736–0.00535–0.024090.01263–0.009151
Yield strengthScan speed10.0398080.0140150.02340.022760.03585
Beam power0.0398110.0338650.016060.0560150.04811
Hatch spacing0.014020.03386510.00321–0.02593–0.0401
Layer thickness0.02340.0160620.0032111–0.010980.00639
Heating temperature0.022760.056015–0.02593–0.01110.00217
Heating time0.035850.048114–0.040130.006390.0021711
ElongationScan speed1–0.052150.0009580.08186–0.03095–0.0275
Beam power–0.052210.008553–0.01520.0021590.03354
Hatch spacing0.000960.00855310.03354–0.02121–0.0246
Layer thickness0.08186–0.015180.03354410.008269–0.0296
Heating temperature–0.0310.002159–0.021210.008271–0.0056
Heating time–0.02750.033544–0.02464–0.0296–0.00561
ParametersScan speedBeam powerHatch spacingLayer thicknessHeating temperatureHeating time
Ultimate tensile strengthScan speed10.0268790.0052690.024320.0348660.03736
Beam power0.026881–0.01463–0.0110.00634–0.0054
Hatch spacing0.00527–0.0146310.001590.012456–0.0241
Layer thickness0.02432–0.011040.0015921–0.014170.01263
Heating temperature0.034870.006340.012456–0.01421–0.0091
Heating time0.03736–0.00535–0.024090.01263–0.009151
Yield strengthScan speed10.0398080.0140150.02340.022760.03585
Beam power0.0398110.0338650.016060.0560150.04811
Hatch spacing0.014020.03386510.00321–0.02593–0.0401
Layer thickness0.02340.0160620.0032111–0.010980.00639
Heating temperature0.022760.056015–0.02593–0.01110.00217
Heating time0.035850.048114–0.040130.006390.0021711
ElongationScan speed1–0.052150.0009580.08186–0.03095–0.0275
Beam power–0.052210.008553–0.01520.0021590.03354
Hatch spacing0.000960.00855310.03354–0.02121–0.0246
Layer thickness0.08186–0.015180.03354410.008269–0.0296
Heating temperature–0.0310.002159–0.021210.008271–0.0056
Heating time–0.02750.033544–0.02464–0.0296–0.00561
Fig. 22
Probability distribution functions based on AICc fitting criteria for SLM based model input parameters (a) scanning speed, (b) laser power, (c) hatch spacing, (d) powder layer thickness, (e) heating temperature, and (f) heating time
Fig. 22
Probability distribution functions based on AICc fitting criteria for SLM based model input parameters (a) scanning speed, (b) laser power, (c) hatch spacing, (d) powder layer thickness, (e) heating temperature, and (f) heating time
Close modal

Appendix G: Sobol's Second-Order Indices for Global Sensitivity Analysis for DMLS

Table 1f
ParametersScan speedBeam powerHatch spacingLayer thicknessHeating temperatureHeating time
Ultimate tensile strengthScan speed10.3391260.002677–0.0183–0.009580.02199
Beam power0.3391310.0008060.008290.016263–0.0121
Hatch spacing0.002680.00080610.003430.010145–0.007
Layer thickness–0.01830.0082890.00342810.010299–0.0045
Heating temp–0.00960.0162630.0101450.01031–0.0068
Heating time0.02199–0.01208–0.00701–0.0045–0.006791
Yield StrengthScan speed10.5689780.003853–0.0127–0.00681–0.0047
Beam power0.568981–0.01911–0.022–0.00394–0.0134
Hatch spacing0.00385–0.019111–0.0039–0.00855–0.0126
Layer thickness–0.0127–0.022–0.00391–0.00037–0.0067
Heating temperature–0.0068–0.00394–0.00855–0.00041–0.0104
Heating time–0.0047–0.01344–0.01255–0.0067–0.010441
ElongationScan speed10.18745–0.01066–0.0155–0.00773–0.0107
Beam power0.1874510.0033160.008940.0126640.00894
Hatch spacing–0.01070.0033161–0.0047–0.000013–0.0051
Layer thickness–0.01550.008944–0.0046810.0046070.00112
Heating temperature–0.00770.012664– 0.0000130.0046110.00465
Heating time–0.01070.008944–0.005140.001120.0046481
ParametersScan speedBeam powerHatch spacingLayer thicknessHeating temperatureHeating time
Ultimate tensile strengthScan speed10.3391260.002677–0.0183–0.009580.02199
Beam power0.3391310.0008060.008290.016263–0.0121
Hatch spacing0.002680.00080610.003430.010145–0.007
Layer thickness–0.01830.0082890.00342810.010299–0.0045
Heating temp–0.00960.0162630.0101450.01031–0.0068
Heating time0.02199–0.01208–0.00701–0.0045–0.006791
Yield StrengthScan speed10.5689780.003853–0.0127–0.00681–0.0047
Beam power0.568981–0.01911–0.022–0.00394–0.0134
Hatch spacing0.00385–0.019111–0.0039–0.00855–0.0126
Layer thickness–0.0127–0.022–0.00391–0.00037–0.0067
Heating temperature–0.0068–0.00394–0.00855–0.00041–0.0104
Heating time–0.0047–0.01344–0.01255–0.0067–0.010441
ElongationScan speed10.18745–0.01066–0.0155–0.00773–0.0107
Beam power0.1874510.0033160.008940.0126640.00894
Hatch spacing–0.01070.0033161–0.0047–0.000013–0.0051
Layer thickness–0.01550.008944–0.0046810.0046070.00112
Heating temperature–0.00770.012664– 0.0000130.0046110.00465
Heating time–0.01070.008944–0.005140.001120.0046481
Fig. 23
Probability distribution functions based on AICc fitting criteria for DMLS based model input parameters (a) scanning speed, (b) laser power, (c) hatch spacing, (d) powder layer thickness, (e) heating temperature, and (f) heating time
Fig. 23
Probability distribution functions based on AICc fitting criteria for DMLS based model input parameters (a) scanning speed, (b) laser power, (c) hatch spacing, (d) powder layer thickness, (e) heating temperature, and (f) heating time
Close modal

References

1.
Rosochowski
,
A.
, and
Matuszak
,
A.
,
2000
, “
Rapid Tooling: The State of the Art
,”
J. Mater. Process. Technol.
,
106
(
1–3
), pp.
191
198
.10.1016/S0924-0136(00)00613-0
2.
Hague
,
R.
,
Mansour
,
S.
,
Saleh
,
N.
, and
Harris
,
R.
,
2004
, “
Materials Analysis of Stereolithography Resins for Use in Rapid Manufacturing
,”
J. Mater. Sci.
,
39
(
7
), pp.
2457
2464
.10.1023/B:JMSC.0000020010.73768.4a
3.
Sing
,
S. L.
,
An
,
J.
,
Yeong
,
W. Y.
, and
Wiria
,
F. E.
,
2016
, “
Laser and Electron-Beam Powder-Bed Additive Manufacturing of Metallic Implants: A Review on Processes, Materials and Designs
,”
J. Orthop. Res.
,
34
(
3
), pp.
369
385
.10.1002/jor.23075
4.
Levy
,
G. N.
,
Schindel
,
R.
, and
Kruth
,
J. P.
,
2003
, “
Rapid Manufacturing and Rapid Tooling With Layer Manufacturing (LM) Technologies, State of the Art and Future Perspectives
,”
CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol.
,
52
(
2
), pp.
589
609
.10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60206-6
5.
Tapia
,
G.
, and
Elwany
,
A.
,
2014
, “
A Review on Process Monitoring and Control in Metal-Based Additive Manufacturing
,”
ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.
,
136
(
6
), p. 060801.10.1115/1.4028540
6.
Gibson
,
I.
,
Rosen
,
D. W.
, and Stucker, B.,
2019
,
Additive Manufacturing Technologies
,
Springer
, New York.
7.
Kumar
,
S.
,
2003
, “
Selective Laser Sintering: A Qualitative and Objective Approach
,”
JOM
,
55
(
10
), pp.
43
47
.10.1007/s11837-003-0175-y
8.
Wang
,
X.
, and
Laoui
,
T.
,
2006
, “
Lasers and Materials in Selective Laser Sintering
,”
Assem. Autom.,
23
(
4
), pp.
357
371
.
9.
Roberto
,
A.
, and
Bineli
,
R.
,
2011
, “
Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS): Technology for Design and Construction of Microreactors
,”
6th Brazilian Conference on Manufacturing Engineering
, Caxias do Sul, RS, Brazil, Apr.
11
15
.https://docplayer.net/48458772-Direct-metal-laser-sintering-dmls-technology-fordesign-and-construction-of-microreactors.html
10.
Yap
,
C. Y.
,
Chua
,
C. K.
,
Dong
,
Z. L.
,
Liu
,
Z. H.
,
Zhang
,
D. Q.
,
Loh
,
L. E.
, and
Sing
,
S. L.
,
2015
, “
Review of Selective Laser Melting: Materials and Applications
,”
Appl. Phys. Rev.
,
2
(
4
), p.
041101
.10.1063/1.4935926
11.
Zhang
,
L. C.
,
Liu
,
Y.
,
Li
,
S.
, and
Hao
,
Y.
,
2018
, “
Additive Manufacturing of Titanium Alloys by Electron Beam Melting: A Review
,”
Adv. Eng. Mater.
,
20
(
5
), p.
1700842
.10.1002/adem.201700842
12.
Atwood
,
C.
,
Griffith
,
M.
,
Harwell
,
L.
,
Schlienger
,
E.
,
Ensz
,
M.
,
Smugeresky
,
J.
,
Romero
,
T.
,
Greene
,
D.
, and
Reckaway
,
D.
,
2018
, “
Laser Engineered Net Shaping (LENSTM): A Tool for Direct Fabrication of Metal Parts
,”
International Congr. Appl. Lasers Electro-Optics,
1
(
1998
), pp.
E1
E7
.10.2351/1.5059147
13.
Dutta
,
B.
,
Palaniswamy
,
S.
,
Choi
,
J.
,
Song
,
L. J.
, and
Mazumder
,
J.
,
2011
, “
Additive Manufacturing by Direct Metal Deposition
,”
Adv. Mater. Process
,
169
(
5
), pp.
33
36
.https://www.asminternational.org/documents/10192/1895560/amp16905p33.pdf/d5669e78-19ec-4fbd-b1ab-90298c62a0c7
14.
Rodrigues
,
T. A.
,
Duarte
,
V.
,
Miranda
,
R. M.
,
Santos
,
T. G.
, and
Oliveira
,
J. P.
,
2019
, “
Current Status and Perspectives on Wire and Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM)
,”
Materials (Basel)
,
12
(
7
), p.
1121
.10.3390/ma12071121
15.
Sola
,
A.
, and
Nouri
,
A.
,
2019
, “
Microstructural Porosity in Additive Manufacturing: The Formation and Detection of Pores in Metal Parts Fabricated by Powder Bed Fusion
,”
J. Adv. Manuf. Process
,
1
(
3
), pp.
1
21
.10.1002/amp2.10021
16.
Konečná
,
R.
,
Nicoletto
,
G.
,
Bača
,
A.
, and
Kunz
,
L.
,
2015
, “
Microstructure, Defects and Fractoghaphy of Ti6Al4V Alloys Produced by SLM and DMLS
,”
Powder Metall. Prog.
,
15
(
86
), pp.
86
93
.http://www.imr.saske.sk/pmp/issue/ss_2015/PMP_Vol15_ss_p_086-093.pdf
17.
Delgado
,
J.
,
Ciurana
,
J.
, and
Rodríguez
,
C. A.
,
2012
, “
Influence of Process Parameters on Part Quality and Mechanical Properties for DMLS and SLM With Iron-Based Materials
,”
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
,
60
(
5–8
), pp.
601
610
.10.1007/s00170-011-3643-5
18.
Grünberger
,
T.
, and
Domröse
,
R.
,
2015
, “
Direct Metal Laser Sintering: Identification of Process Phenomena by Optical In-Process Monitoring
,”
Laser Tech. J.
,
12
(
1
), pp.
45
48
.10.1002/latj.201500007
19.
Luo
,
Z.
, and
Zhao
,
Y.
,
2018
, “
A Survey of Finite Element Analysis of Temperature and Thermal Stress Fields in Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing
,”
Addit. Manuf.
,
21
, pp.
318
332
.10.1016/j.addma.2018.03.022
20.
Marrey
,
M.
,
Malekipour
,
E.
,
El-Mounayri
,
H.
, and
Faierson
,
E. J.
,
2019
, “
A Framework for Optimizing Process Parameters in Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) Process Using Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
,”
Procedia Manuf.
,
34
, pp.
505
515
.10.1016/j.promfg.2019.06.214
21.
Lütjering
,
G.
, and
Williams
,
J. C.
,
2007
,
Titanium
, 2nd ed.,
Springer
, Berlin.10.1016/B978-0-12-386454-3.00942-8
22.
Donachie
,
M. J.
,
2015
, “Heat Treating,”
Titanium: A Technical Guide
, 2nd ed., ASM International, Novelty, OH, pp.
54
67
.
23.
Simonelli
,
M.
,
Tse
,
Y. Y.
, and
Tuck
,
C.
,
2014
, “
Effect of the Build Orientation on the Mechanical Properties and Fracture Modes of SLM Ti–6Al–4V
,”
Mater. Sci. Eng. A
,
616
, pp.
1
11
.10.1016/j.msea.2014.07.086
24.
Rafi
,
H. K.
,
Starr
,
T. L.
, and
Stucker
,
B. E.
,
2013
, “
A Comparison of the Tensile, Fatigue, and Fracture Behavior of Ti–6Al–4V and 15-5 PH Stainless Steel Parts Made by Selective Laser Melting
,”
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
,
69
(
5–8
), pp.
1299
1309
.10.1007/s00170-013-5106-7
25.
Zhao
,
X.
,
Li
,
S.
,
Zhang
,
M.
,
Liu
,
Y.
,
Sercombe
,
T. B.
,
Wang
,
S.
,
Hao
,
Y.
,
Yang
,
R.
, and
Murr
,
L. E.
,
2016
, “
Comparison of the Microstructures and Mechanical Properties of Ti–6Al–4V Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting and Electron Beam Melting
,”
Mater. Des.
,
95
, pp.
21
31
.10.1016/j.matdes.2015.12.135
26.
Rafi
,
H. K.
,
Karthik
,
N. V.
,
Gong
,
H.
,
Starr
,
T. L.
, and
Stucker
,
B. E.
,
2013
, “
Microstructures and Mechanical Properties of Ti6Al4V Parts Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting and Electron Beam Melting
,”
J. Mater. Eng. Perform.
,
22
(
12
), pp.
3872
3883
.10.1007/s11665-013-0658-0
27.
Nicoletto
,
G.
,
2017
, “
Anisotropic High Cycle Fatigue Behavior of Ti–6Al–4V Obtained by Powder Bed Laser Fusion
,”
Int. J. Fatigue
,
94
, pp.
255
262
.10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.04.032
28.
Benedetti
,
M.
,
Torresani
,
E.
,
Leoni
,
M.
,
Fontanari
,
V.
,
Bandini
,
M.
,
Pederzolli
,
C.
, and
Potrich
,
C.
,
2017
, “
The Effect of Post-Sintering Treatments on the Fatigue and Biological Behavior of Ti–6Al–4V ELI Parts Made by Selective Laser Melting
,”
J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater.
,
71
, pp.
295
306
.10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.03.024
29.
Nicoletto
,
G.
,
Maisano
,
S.
,
Antolotti
,
M.
, and
Dall'aglio
,
F.
,
2017
, “
Influence of Post Fabrication Heat Treatments on the Fatigue Behavior of Ti–6Al–4V Produced by Selective Laser Melting
,”
Procedia Struct. Integr.
,
7
, pp.
133
140
.10.1016/j.prostr.2017.11.070
30.
Zhang
,
D.
,
Wang
,
L.
,
Zhang
,
H.
,
Maldar
,
A.
,
Zhu
,
G.
,
Chen
,
W.
,
Park
,
J. S.
,
Wang
,
J.
, and
Zeng
,
X.
,
2020
, “
Effect of Heat Treatment on the Tensile Behavior of Selective Laser Melted Ti–6Al–4V by in Situ X-Ray Characterization
,”
Acta Mater.
,
189
, pp.
93
104
.10.1016/j.actamat.2020.03.003
31.
Vrancken
,
B.
,
Thijs
,
L.
,
Kruth
,
J. P.
, and
Van Humbeeck
,
J.
,
2012
, “
Heat Treatment of Ti6Al4V Produced by Selective Laser Melting: Microstructure and Mechanical Properties
,”
J. Alloys Compd.
,
541
, pp.
177
185
.10.1016/j.jallcom.2012.07.022
32.
ter Haar
,
G. M.
,
Becker
,
T. H.
, and
Blaine
,
D. C.
,
2016
, “
Influence of Heat Treatments on the Microstructure and Tensile Behaviour of Selective Laser Melting-Produced TI–6AL–4V Parts
,”
South Afr. J. Ind. Eng.
,
27
(
3
), pp.
174
183
.10.7166/27-3-1663
33.
Vilaro
,
T.
,
Colin
,
C.
, and
Bartout
,
J. D.
,
2011
, “
As-Fabricated and Heat-Treated Microstructures of the Ti–6Al–4V Alloy Processed by Selective Laser Melting
,”
Metall. Mater. Trans. A Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci.
,
42
(
10
), pp.
3190
3199
.10.1007/s11661-011-0731-y
34.
Mierzejewska
,
Z. A.
,
Hudák
,
R.
, and
Sidun
,
J.
,
2019
, “
Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of DMLS Ti6Al4V Alloy Dedicated to Biomedical Applications
,”
Materials (Basel)
,
12
(
1
), p.
176
.10.3390/ma12010176
35.
Mierzejewska
,
Z. A.
,
2019
, “
Effect of Laser Energy Density, Internal Porosity and Heat Treatment on Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical TI6AL4V Alloy Obtained With DMLS Technology
,”
Materials (Basel)
,
12
(
18
), p.
2928
.10.3390/ma12182928
36.
Wang
,
Z.
,
Liu
,
P.
,
Xiao
,
Y.
,
Cui
,
X.
,
Hu
,
Z.
, and
Chen
,
L.
,
2019
, “
A Data-Driven Approach for Process Optimization of Metallic Additive Manufacturing Under Uncertainty
,”
ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.
,
141
(
8
), p.
081004
.10.1115/1.4043798
37.
Yeung
,
H.
,
Yang
,
Z.
, and
Yan
,
L.
,
2020
, “
A Meltpool Prediction Based Scan Strategy for Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing
,”
Addit. Manuf.
,
35
, p.
101383
.10.1016/j.addma.2020.101383
38.
Yan
,
W.
,
Lin
,
S.
,
Kafka
,
O. L.
,
Lian
,
Y.
,
Yu
,
C.
,
Liu
,
Z.
,
Yan
,
J.
,
Wolf
,
S.
,
Wu
,
H.
,
Ndip-Agbor
,
E.
,
Mozaffar
,
M.
,
Ehmann
,
K.
,
Cao
,
J.
,
Wagner
,
G. J.
, and
Liu
,
W. K.
,
2018
, “
Data-Driven Multi-Scale Multi-Physics Models to Derive Process–Structure–Property Relationships for Additive Manufacturing
,”
Comput. Mech.
,
61
(
5
), pp.
521
541
.10.1007/s00466-018-1539-z
39.
Zurada
,
J. M.
,
1992
,
Introduction to Artificial Neural Systems
, 1st ed, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN.
40.
Zi
,
Z.
,
2011
, “
Sensitivity Analysis Approaches Applied to Systems Biology Models
,”
IET Syst. Biol.
,
5
(
6
), pp.
336
346
.10.1049/iet-syb.2011.0015
41.
Tang
,
Y.
,
Reed
,
P.
,
Wagener
,
T.
, and
Van Werkhoven
,
K.
,
2007
, “
Comparing Sensitivity Analysis Methods to Advance Lumped Watershed Model Identification and Evaluation
,”
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
,
11
(
2
), pp.
793
817
.10.5194/hess-11-793-2007
42.
Wan
,
H.
,
Xia
,
J.
,
Zhang
,
L.
,
She
,
D.
,
Xiao
,
Y.
, and
Zou
,
L.
,
2015
, “
Sensitivity and Interaction Analysis Based on Sobol' Method and Its Application in a Distributed Flood Forecasting Model
,”
Water (Switzerland)
,
7
(
12
), pp.
2924
2951
.10.3390/w7062924
43.
Sobol
,
I. M.
,
2001
, “
Global Sensitivity Indices for Nonlinear Mathematical Models and Their Monte Carlo Estimates
,”
Math. Comput. Simul.
,
55
(
1–3
), pp.
271
280
.10.1016/S0378-4754(00)00270-6
44.
Hamdia
,
K. M.
,
Ghasemi
,
H.
,
Zhuang
,
X.
,
Alajlan
,
N.
, and
Rabczuk
,
T.
,
2018
, “
Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis for Flexoelectric Nanostructures
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
337
, pp.
95
109
.10.1016/j.cma.2018.03.016
45.
Kumar
,
D.
,
Singh
,
A.
,
Kumar
,
P.
,
Jha
,
R. K.
,
Sahoo
,
S. K.
, and
Jha
,
V.
,
2020
, “
Sobol Sensitivity Analysis for Risk Assessment of Uranium in Groundwater
,”
Environ. Geochem. Health
,
42
(
6
), pp.
1789
1801
.10.1007/s10653-020-00522-5
46.
Shein
,
I. R.
, and
Ivanovskii
,
A. L.
,
2015
, “
All Russian Mathematical Portal
,”
Pis'ma v Zh. Èksper. Teoret. Fiz.
,
8
(
2
), pp.
33
165
.
47.
Emiliano
,
P. C.
,
Vivanco
,
M. J. F.
, and
De Menezes
,
F. S.
,
2014
, “
Information Criteria: How Do They Behave in Different Models
,”
Comput. Stat. Data Anal.
,
69
, pp.
141
153
.10.1016/j.csda.2013.07.032
48.
Wang
,
Z.
,
Jiang
,
C.
,
Liu
,
P.
,
Yang
,
W.
,
Zhao
,
Y.
,
Horstemeyer
,
M. F.
,
Chen
,
L. Q.
,
Hu
,
Z.
, and
Chen
,
L.
,
2020
, “
Uncertainty Quantification and Reduction in Metal Additive Manufacturing
,”
NPJ Comput. Mater.
,
6
(
1
), p.
175
.10.1038/s41524-020-00444-x
49.
Shcherbakov
,
M. V.
,
Brebels
,
A.
,
Shcherbakova
,
N. L.
,
Tyukov
,
A. P.
,
Janovsky
,
T. A.
, and
Evich Kamaev
,
V. A.
,
2013
, “
A Survey of Forecast Error Measures
,”
World Appl. Sci. J.
,
24
(
24
), pp.
171
176
.10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.24.itmies.80032
50.
López-Cruz
,
I. L.
,
Rojano-Aguilar
,
A.
,
Salazar-Moreno
,
R.
,
Ruiz-García
,
A.
, and
Goddard
,
J.
,
2012
, “
A Comparison of Local and Global Sensitivity Analyses for Greenhouse Crop Models
,”
Acta Hortic.
,
957
(
957
), pp.
267
273
.10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.957.30
51.
Saltelli
,
A.
Chan
,
K.
, and
Scott
,
E. M.
,
2000
,
Sensitivity Analysis
,
John and Wiley & Sons
,
New York
.
52.
Morio
,
J.
,
2011
, “
Global and Local Sensitivity Analysis Methods for a Physical System
,”
Eur. J. Phys.
,
32
(
6
), pp.
1577
1583
.10.1088/0143-0807/32/6/011
53.
Fousová
,
M.
,
Vojtěch
,
D.
,
Doubrava
,
K.
,
Daniel
,
M.
, and
Lin
,
C. F.
,
2018
, “
Influence of Inherent Surface and Internal Defects on Mechanical Properties of Additively Manufactured Ti6Al4V Alloy: Comparison Between Selective Laser Melting and Electron Beam Melting
,”
Materials (Basel)
,
11
(
4
), p.
537
.10.3390/ma11040537
54.
Van Hooreweder
,
B.
,
Boonen
,
R.
,
Moens
,
D.
, and
Kruth
,
J. P.
, and Sas, P.,
2012
, “
On the Determination of Fatigue Properties of Ti6Al4V Produced by Selective Laser Melting
,”
53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Honolulu, HI
, Apr. 23–26, pp. 1–9.10.2514/6.2012-1733
55.
Günther
,
J.
,
Krewerth
,
D.
,
Lippmann
,
T.
,
Leuders
,
S.
,
Tröster
,
T.
,
Weidner
,
A.
,
Biermann
,
H.
, and
Niendorf
,
T.
,
2017
, “
Fatigue Life of Additively Manufactured Ti–6Al–4V in the Very High Cycle Fatigue Regime
,”
Int. J. Fatigue
,
94
, pp.
236
245
.10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.05.018
56.
Edwards
,
P.
, and
Ramulu
,
M.
,
2014
, “
Fatigue Performance Evaluation of Selective Laser Melted Ti–6Al–4V
,”
Mater. Sci. Eng. A
,
598
, pp.
327
337
.10.1016/j.msea.2014.01.041
57.
Gong
,
H.
,
Rafi
,
K.
,
Gu
,
H.
,
Janaki Ram
,
G. D.
,
Starr
,
T.
, and
Stucker
,
B.
,
2015
, “
Influence of Defects on Mechanical Properties of Ti–6Al–4V Components Produced by Selective Laser Melting and Electron Beam Melting
,”
Mater. Des.
,
86
, pp.
545
554
.10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.147
58.
Kasperovich
,
G.
, and
Hausmann
,
J.
,
2015
, “
Improvement of Fatigue Resistance and Ductility of TiAl6V4 Processed by Selective Laser Melting
,”
J. Mater. Process. Technol.
,
220
, pp.
202
214
.10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.01.025
59.
Eric
,
W.
,
Claus
,
E.
,
Shafaqat
,
S.
, and
Frank
,
W.
,
2013
, “
High Cycle Fatigue (HCF) Performance of Ti–6Al–4V Alloy Processed by Selective Laser Melting
,”
Adv. Mater. Res.
,
816–817
, pp.
134
139
.10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.816-817.134
60.
Leuders
,
S.
,
Lieneke
,
T.
,
Lammers
,
S.
,
Tröster
,
T.
, and
Niendorf
,
T.
,
2014
, “
On the Fatigue Properties of Metals Manufactured by Selective Laser melting – The Role of Ductility
,”
J. Mater. Res.
,
29
(
17
), pp.
1911
1919
.10.1557/jmr.2014.157
61.
Rekedal
,
K. D.
, and
Liu
,
D.
,
2015
, “
Fatigue Life of Selective Laser Melted and Hot Isostatically Pressed Ti–6Al–4V Absent of Surface Machining
,”
6th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
, Kissimmee, FL, Jan. 5–9, pp.
1
9
.10.2514/6.2015-0894
62.
Xu
,
W.
,
Sun
,
S.
,
Elambasseril
,
J.
,
Liu
,
Q.
,
Brandt
,
M.
, and
Qian
,
M.
,
2015
, “
Ti–6Al–4V Additively Manufactured by Selective Laser Melting With Superior Mechanical Properties
,”
JOM
,
67
(
3
), pp.
668
673
.10.1007/s11837-015-1297-8
63.
Benedetti
,
M.
,
Fontanari
,
V.
,
Bandini
,
M.
,
Zanini
,
F.
, and
Carmignato
,
S.
,
2018
, “
Low- and High-Cycle Fatigue Resistance of Ti–6Al–4V ELI Additively Manufactured Via Selective Laser Melting: Mean Stress and Defect Sensitivity
,”
Int. J. Fatigue
,
107
, pp.
96
109
.10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.10.021
64.
Tridello
,
A.
,
Fiocchi
,
J.
,
Biffi
,
C. A.
,
Chiandussi
,
G.
,
Rossetto
,
M.
,
Tuissi
,
A.
, and
Paolino
,
D. S.
,
2019
, “
VHCF Response of Heat-Treated SLM Ti6Al4V Gaussian Specimens With Large Loaded Volume
,”
Procedia Struct. Integr.
,
18
, pp.
314
321
.10.1016/j.prostr.2019.08.171
65.
Wycisk
,
E.
,
Solbach
,
A.
,
Siddique
,
S.
,
Herzog
,
D.
,
Walther
,
F.
, and
Emmelmann
,
C.
,
2014
, “
Effects of Defects in Laser Additive Manufactured Ti–6Al–4V on Fatigue Properties
,”
Phys. Procedia
,
56
(
C
), pp.
371
378
.10.1016/j.phpro.2014.08.120
66.
Fatemi
,
A.
,
Molaei
,
R.
,
Sharifimehr
,
S.
,
Phan
,
N.
, and
Shamsaei
,
N.
,
2017
, “
Multiaxial Fatigue Behavior of Wrought and Additive Manufactured Ti–6Al–4V Including Surface Finish Effect
,”
Int. J. Fatigue
,
100
, pp.
347
366
.10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.03.044
67.
Carrion
,
P. E.
,
Soltani-Tehrani
,
A.
,
Thompson
,
S. M.
, and
Shamsaei
,
N.
,
2018
, “
Effect of Powder Degradation on the Fatigue Behavior of Additively Manufactured as-Built Ti–6Al–4V
,”
Solid Freeform Fabrication 2018: Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium - An Additive Manufacturing Conference
, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, pp.
1366
1372
.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328876142_Effect_of_Powder_Degradation_on_the_Fatigue_Behavior_of_Additively_Manufactured_As-Built_Ti-6Al-4V
68.
Xu
,
W.
,
Brandt
,
M.
,
Sun
,
S.
,
Elambasseril
,
J.
,
Liu
,
Q.
,
Latham
,
K.
,
Xia
,
K.
, and
Qian
,
M.
,
2015
, “
Additive Manufacturing of Strong and Ductile Ti–6Al–4V by Selective Laser Melting Via in Situ Martensite Decomposition
,”
Acta Mater.
,
85
, pp.
74
84
.10.1016/j.actamat.2014.11.028
69.
Facchini
,
L.
,
Magalini
,
E.
,
Robotti
,
P.
,
Molinari
,
A.
,
Höges
,
S.
, and
Wissenbach
,
K.
,
2010
, “
Ductility of a Ti–6Al–4V Alloy Produced by Selective Laser Melting of Prealloyed Powders
,”
Rapid Prototyp. J.
,
16
(
6
), pp.
450
459
.10.1108/13552541011083371
70.
Mertens
,
A.
,
Reginster
,
S.
,
Paydas
,
H.
,
Contrepois
,
Q.
,
Dormal
,
T.
,
Lemaire
,
O.
, and
Lecomte-Beckers
,
J.
,
2014
, “
Mechanical Properties of Alloy Ti–6Al–4V and of Stainless Steel 316 L Processed by Selective Laser Melting: Influence of Out-of-Equilibrium Microstructures
,”
Powder Metall.
,
57
(
3
), pp.
184
189
.10.1179/1743290114Y.0000000092
71.
Agius
,
D.
,
Kourousis
,
K. I.
,
Wallbrink
,
C.
, and
Song
,
T.
,
2017
, “
Cyclic Plasticity and Microstructure of as-Built SLM Ti–6Al–4V: The Effect of Build Orientation
,”
Mater. Sci. Eng. A
,
701
, pp.
85
100
.10.1016/j.msea.2017.06.069
72.
Vrancken
,
B.
,
Buls
,
S.
,
Kruth
,
J.-P.
, and
Van Humbeeck
,
J.
,
2016
, “
Preheating of Selective Laser Melted Ti6Al4V: Microstructure and Mechanical Properties
,”
Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Titanium
, San Diego, CL, Aug. 16–20, pp.
1269
1277
.10.1002/9781119296126.ch215
73.
Cain
,
V.
,
Thijs
,
L.
,
Van Humbeeck
,
J.
,
Van Hooreweder
,
B.
, and
Knutsen
,
R.
,
2015
, “
Crack Propagation and Fracture Toughness of Ti6Al4V Alloy Produced by Selective Laser Melting
,”
Addit. Manuf.
,
5
, pp.
68
76
.10.1016/j.addma.2014.12.006
74.
Kourousis
,
K. I.
,
Agius
,
D.
,
Wang
,
C.
, and
Subic
,
A.
,
2016
, “
Constitutive Modeling of Additive Manufactured Ti–6Al–4V Cyclic Elastoplastic Behaviour
,”
Tech. Mech.
,
36
(
1–2
), pp.
57
72
.10.24352/ub.ovgu-2017-010
75.
Wysocki
,
B.
,
Maj
,
P.
,
Sitek
,
R.
,
Buhagiar
,
J.
,
Kurzydłowski
,
K.
, and
Święszkowski
,
W.
,
2017
, “
Laser and Electron Beam Additive Manufacturing Methods of Fabricating Titanium Bone Implants
,”
Appl. Sci.
,
7
(
7
), pp.
657
20
.10.3390/app7070657
76.
Kumar
,
P.
, and
Ramamurty
,
U.
,
2019
, “
Microstructural Optimization Through Heat Treatment for Enhancing the Fracture Toughness and Fatigue Crack Growth Resistance of Selective Laser Melted Ti–6Al–4V Alloy
,”
Acta Mater.
,
169
, pp.
45
59
.10.1016/j.actamat.2019.03.003
77.
Kumar
,
P.
,
Prakash
,
O.
, and
Ramamurty
,
U.
,
2018
, “
Micro-and Meso-Structures and Their Influence on Mechanical Properties of Selectively Laser Melted Ti–6Al–4V
,”
Acta Mater.
,
154
, pp.
246
260
.10.1016/j.actamat.2018.05.044
78.
Agius
,
D.
,
Kourousis
,
K. I.
, and
Wallbrink
,
C.
,
2018
, “
Elastoplastic Response of as-Built SLM and Wrought Ti–6Al–4V Under Symmetric and Asymmetric Strain-Controlled Cyclic Loading
,”
Rapid Prototyp. J.
,
24
(
9
), pp.
1409
1420
.10.1108/RPJ-05-2017-0105
79.
Vandenbroucke
,
B.
, and
Kruth
,
J. P.
,
2007
, “
Selective Laser Melting of Biocompatible Metals for Rapid Manufacturing of Medical Parts
,”
Rapid Prototyp. J.
,
13
(
4
), pp.
196
203
.10.1108/13552540710776142
80.
Kourousis
,
K. I.
,
Agius
,
D.
, Wallbrink, C., Brandt, M., and Wang, C. H.,
2017
, “
Uniaxial Cyclic Stress-Strain Behaviour of Ti–6Al–4V Additively Manufactured by Selective Laser Melt
,” 20th International ESAFORM Conference on Material Forming, Dublin, Ireland, Apr.
26
28
.
81.
Bikas
,
H.
,
Stavropoulos
,
P.
, and
Chryssolouris
,
G.
,
2015
, “
Additive Manufacturing Methods and Modelling Approaches: A Critical Review
,”
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
, 83(1–4), pp.
389
405
.10.1007/s00170-015-7576-2
82.
Becker
,
T. H.
,
Beck
,
M.
, and
Scheffer
,
C.
,
2015
, “
Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Direct Metal Laser Sintered Ti–6Al–4V
,”
South Afr. J. Ind. Eng.
,
26
(
1
), pp.
1
10
.10.7166/26-1-1022