The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
XCT analysis of the influence of melt strategies on defect population in Ti–6Al–4V components manufactured by Selective Electron Beam Melting
Open accessAbstract
Selective Electron Beam Melting (SEBM) is a promising powder bed Additive Manufacturing technique for near-net-shape manufacture of high-value titanium components. However without post-manufacture HIPing the fatigue life of SEBM parts is currently dominated by the presence of porosity. In this study, the size, volume fraction, and spatial distribution of the pores in model samples have been characterised in 3D, using X-ray Computed Tomography, and correlated to the process variables. The average volume fraction of the pores (< 0.2%) was measured to be lower than that usually observed in competing processes, such as selective laser melting, but a strong relationship was found with the different beam strategies used to contour, and infill by hatching, a part section. The majority of pores were found to be small spherical gas pores, concentrated in the infill hatched region; this was attributed to the lower energy density and less focused beam used in the infill strategy allowing less opportunity for gas bubbles to escape the melt pool. Overall, increasing the energy density or focus of the beam was found to correlate strongly to a reduction in the level of gas porosity. Rarer irregular shaped pores were mostly located in the contour region and have been attributed to a lack of fusion between powder particles.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review
Frazier, W. E. (2014) · Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance · doi:10.1007/s11665-014-0958-z · Cited by 5,984
Cited by
Additive manufacturing of metallic components – Process, structure and properties
DebRoy, T., Wei, H. L., Zuback, J. S., Mukherjee, T., Elmer, J. W., Milewski, J. O., Beese, A. M., Wilson-Heid, A., De, A., & Zhang, W. (2018) · Progress in Materials Science · doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.001 · Cited by 8,805
Review of in-situ process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing
Everton, S. K., Hirsch, M., Stravroulakis, P., Leach, R. K., & Clare, A. T. (2016) · Materials & Design · doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2016.01.099 · Cited by 1,469
Kok, Y., Tan, X. P., Wang, P., Nai, M. L. S., Loh, N. H., Liu, E., & Tor, S. B. (2018) · Materials & Design · doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2017.11.021 · Cited by 1,447
Process defects and in situ monitoring methods in metal powder bed fusion: a review
Grasso, M., & Colosimo, B. M. (2017) · Measurement Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/1361-6501/aa5c4f · Cited by 833
Chowdhury, S., Yadaiah, N., Prakash, C., Ramakrishna, S., Dixit, S., Gupta, L. R., & Buddhi, D. (2022) · Journal of Materials Research and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.07.121 · Cited by 784
Metadata
- Authors
- Tammas-Williams, S., Zhao, H., Léonard, F., Derguti, F., Todd, I., & Prangnell, P. B.
- Venue
- Materials Characterization
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-04
- Volume
- 102
- Pages
- 47-61
- ISSN
- 1044-5803 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2043225275
- Cited by
- 590
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 55.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: XCT analysis of the influence of melt strategies on defect population in Ti–6Al–4V components manufactured by Selective Electron Beam Melting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.matchar.2015.02.008
- The paper
- Tammas-Williams, S., Zhao, H., Léonard, F., Derguti, F., Todd, I., & Prangnell, P. B. (2015). XCT analysis of the influence of melt strategies on defect population in Ti–6Al–4V components manufactured by Selective Electron Beam Melting. Materials Characterization. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2015.02.008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.