The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mechanical behavior of additive manufactured, powder-bed laser-fused materials
Open accessAbstract
Mechanical behavior of four metallic alloys fabricated with layered, laser-heated methods of additive manufacturing (AM) was compared to that of similar alloys produced with conventional methods (wrought and machined). AM materials were produced by a leading commercial service provider, as opposed to incorporating material specimens produced by unique or specially-adapted equipment. The elastic moduli were measured in flexure, stress–strain characteristics were measured in tensile deformation, and fatigue strengths were measured in fully reversed bending. The effects of fabrication orientation, surface polishing, and hot isostatic pressing upon mechanical behavior were studied. The fatigue strengths exhibited by SLM AlSi10Mg and DMLS Ti6Al4V in the as-fabricated condition proved to be significantly inferior to that of conventional material. These lower fatigue strengths are a consequence of multiple fatigue cracks initiating at surface defects, internal voids and microcracks, and growing simultaneously during cyclic loading. Measured fatigue strengths of DMLS 316L and 17-4PH approached those of corresponding wrought materials when subjected to principal stresses aligned with the build planes. When cyclic stresses were applied across the build planes of the DMLS stainless steels, fatigue fractures often developed prematurely by separation of material. Post-processing the DMLS Ti6Al4V and SS316L with hot isostatic pressure elevated the fatigue strength significantly. Measurements of surface roughness with an optical profilometer, examinations of the material microstructures, and fractography contribute to an understanding of the mechanical behavior of the additive materials.
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
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
SLM lattice structures: Properties, performance, applications and challenges
Maconachie, T., Leary, M., Lozanovski, B., Zhang, X., Qian, M., Faruque, O., & Brandt, M. (2019) · Materials & Design · doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108137 · Cited by 1,497
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
Benedetti, M., du Plessis, A., Ritchie, R. O., Dallago, M., Razavi, N., & Berto, F. (2021) · Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports · doi:10.1016/j.mser.2021.100606 · Cited by 788
From Topology Optimization Design to Additive Manufacturing: Today’s Success and Tomorrow’s Roadmap
Meng, L., Zhang, W., Quan, D., Shi, G., Tang, L., Hou, Y., Breitkopf, P., Zhu, J., & Gao, T. (2020) · Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering · doi:10.1007/s11831-019-09331-1 · Cited by 402
Metadata
- Authors
- Mower, T. M., & Long, M. J.
- Venue
- Materials Science and Engineering: A
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 651
- Pages
- 198-213
- ISSN
- 0921-5093 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2200477759
- Cited by
- 1,001
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 52.96
- 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: Mechanical behavior of additive manufactured, powder-bed laser-fused materials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.msea.2015.10.068
- The paper
- Mower, T. M., & Long, M. J. (2016). Mechanical behavior of additive manufactured, powder-bed laser-fused materials. Materials Science and Engineering: A. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2015.10.068
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.