JOM, Vol. 71, No.

4, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-019-03367-1
Ó 2019 The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING OF COMPOSITES AND COMPLEX MATERIALS

Investigation of the Lithium-Containing Aluminum Copper Alloy

(AA2099) for the Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process [L-PBF]:
Effects of Process Parameters on Cracks, Porosity,
and Microhardness

IRIS RAFFEIS,1,4 FRANK ADJEI-KYEREMEH,1,2 UWE VROOMEN,1

PIYADA SUWANPINIJ,2 SIMON EWALD,3
and ANDREAS BÜHRIG-POLAZCEK1

1.—Foundry Institute, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. 2.—The Sirindhorn

International Thai-German Graduate School of Engineering (TGGS-KMUTNB), North Bangkok,
Thailand. 3.—Digital Additive Production, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
4.—e-mail: I.Raffeis@gi.rwth-aachen.de

In order to widen the alloy spectrum for the laser powder bed fusion process,
apart from the popular Al-Si-based alloys, AlSi10Mg and AlSi12, the precip-
itation-hardenable AA2099 wrought alloy has been considered in this work.
The effect of varied laser power, scanning speed, a preheated base plate
(in situ heat treatment) and post-heat treatments on porosity, cracks and
microhardness was observed. The results indicate a successfully printed
crack-free part with very minimal porosity at 90 W laser power and 550 mm/s
scanning speed with microhardness of 72 HV0,1 at a 520°C preheat treatment
temperature. The influence of added titanium aluminide powder in crack re-
moval and grain refinement is also reported in this work.

beam.6 L-PBF printed parts have unique

INTRODUCTION
The laser powder bed fusion [L-PBF] process,
which is also called selective laser melting,1 is a
relatively new additive manufacturing process
which has in recent times caught the attention of
many researchers in the materials research com-
munity, owing to its advantages over conventional
manufacturing processes such as forming or cast-
ing.2 Increase in lead time as well as high tooling
cost are some of the known challenges of the
conventional manufacturing process.3 The L-PBFs
potential not only stems from its wide degree of
freedom of design but also from its ability to quickly
produce parts of complete densification and complex
geometry with reduced production processes and
efficient material consumption.4 The L-PBF process
is also known to have flexibility in feedstock even
with composite materials of metals, ceramics and
plastics.5 During the L-PBF process, a three-dimen-
sional (3D) computer aided design model is printed
by melting thin powder, layer upon layer, usually
below 150 lm thickness with the help of a laser
microstructures owing to rapid melting and solidi-
fication from highly localized heat.7
Due to their low price, good corrosion resistance,
ductility and formability, as well as its relatively
high specific strength, aluminum alloys are the
preferred lightweight material of choice for aero-
space, aviation and other related industries.8 The
Al-Si alloys have been the most used and the most
popular of all the aluminum-based alloys manufac-
tured using the L-PBF process, among them being
the AlSi10Mg and AlSi12 alloys. It has been sug-
gested that the relative ease in the processing of the
powder of these alloys is due to the minimal
difference in their liquidus and solidus tempera-
tures, their good weldability and their material
flowing behavior compared to the wrought Al
alloys.9–12
However, in order to expand the spectrum of
aluminum-based alloys for the L-PBF process,
researchers such as Ahuja et al.13 fabricated and
characterized wrought aluminum alloys EN
AW2219 (AlCu6Mn) and EN AW2618

(Published online February 12, 2019) 1543

1544 Raffeis, Adjei-Kyeremeh, Vroomen, Suwanpinij, Ewald, and Bührig-Polazcek
(AlCu2Mg1.5Ni), and concluded that micro-sized
powders of these alloys can be formed into fully
dense 3D structures using the L-PBF process. Karg
et al.14 also studied the process conditions on the
mechanical behavior of EN AW2219 using L-PBF
and concluded that it was possible to produce
vertical tensile specimen from EN AW2219 without
cracks and with low porosity. Zhang et al.12 inves-
tigated the processing and microstructure proper-
ties of an Al-Cu-Mg alloy using the L-PBF process
and reported that 99.8% relative density, micro-
hardness of 111 HV0,1, UTS (ultimate tensile
strength) of 402 MPa and a yield stress of
276 MPa were achieved.
The processability potential of EN AW7075 using
L-PBF has also been investigated.15,16 They found
that Si addition produced parts without cracks and
that it was possible to achieve a relative density of
99% with a laser power of more than 300 W. The
AA6061 wrought aluminum alloy was also investi-
gated using the L-PBF process,17 which confirmed
that the laser beam profile has an effect on the
width of the melt.
The third generation AA2099 Al-Cu-Li alloy pro-
mises to be a good candidate for the L-PBF process
due to the reduction of the density of the alloy by 3%
and the increase in elastic modulus by 5% when each
1 wt.% of Li is added, and also for its improved fatigue
and corrosion resistance over the conventional 2xxx
series.18 The AA2099 alloy has been successfully
investigated for its thermal stability and specific
strength at high temperatures.19,20 Zhang et al.21
mentioned in their work that it exhibits superior
stress corrosion cracking resistance, high transverse
ductility, and excellent cryogenic properties with
fewer planar anisotropy when compared to the
AA2090. Others have focused on microstructure
investigations and precipitate characterization.19,22
In spite of all this work carried out on the AA2099
alloy, to the best of our knowledge, no work has been
carried out thus far in investigating it for the L-PBF
process.
METHODS
Materials
The AA2099 alloy powder was obtained from a
pulverized ingot by gas atomization under argon
Table I. Composition of the base alloy (alloy 1), with added Al powder (alloy 2), with added titanium
aluminide powder (alloy 3), and the nominal composition of the titanium aluminide powder
(wt.%) Al Cu Li Zn
Initial AA2099 alloy (alloy 1) Bal 2.5 1.49 0.57 0.25 0.15 0.08 0.03 0.08 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
With Al powder added (alloy 2) Bal 2.11 1.03 0.28 0.17 0.13 0.064 0.29 0.11 0.02
With titanium aluminide powder Bal 2.81 1.35 0.37 0.20 0.17 0.085 0.05 0.10
added (alloy 3)
Titanium aluminide powder 33.65 app. 800 ppm N
atmosphere. The powder was divided into three: the
initial AA2099 base alloy powder (alloy 1), the
second AA2099 powder (alloy 2), with 99.8% alu-
minum powder added (mixing ratio of alloy 1 to
aluminum powder: 4:1), and the third AA2099
powder (alloy 3), with nitrogen-containing titanium
aluminide powder (Ti48Al48Cr2Nb2) added, (mix-
ing ratio of alloy 1 to titanium aluminide powder:
99.2: 0.8) (Table I).
Particle size distribution was measured on the
AA2099 powder and was found to have the largest
particle size range between 10 lm and 62 lm with
an average particle diameter of 35.9 lm. Particle
shape analysis was carried out and average particle
roundness and convexity of 0.935 and 0.995 were
recorded, respectively. The morphology of the gas-
atomized powder and the aluminide powder is
shown in Fig. 1a and b, respectively. The AA2099
alloy powder used in this work was oven-dried for
90°C for 24 h before the L-PBF process.
Characterization
Elemental composition of the argon-atomized
AA2099 powder was performed using inductively
coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy. Gas
atomization was carried out using the patented
NANOVAL process by the Nanoval Company. The
Morphologi G3 instrument was used to perform the
particle size distribution and shape analysis of the
AA2099 powder. Microstructure characterization
was performed using a Zeiss Light Optical Micro-
scope and a Zeiss Gemini Field Emission Gun
Scanning Electron Microscope coupled with Oxford
Instruments Inca X-sight EDS detector. The trans-
mission electron microscope, Zeiss Libra 200FE,
was used for the analysis of the titanium nitride in
the titanium-aluminide powder. The field-emission
electron microprobe analyzer (EPMA), JEOL JXA-
8530F, was used to detect the titanium phases. All
etched samples were carried out with 0.5%
hydrofluoric acid for 15 s. Using IMAGEJ software,
the area fraction of the pores and the circularity of
the pores were determined. The microhardness of
the samples were determined by taking average
measurements at three different positions, top,
middle and bottom, using a Buehler Microhardness
instrument at 0.1 N load [HV0,1].
Mg Mn Zr Si Fe Ti Nb Cr
0.03 < 0.001
0.46 0.04 0.021
58.83 4.56 2.82
Investigation of the Lithium-Containing Aluminum Copper Alloy (AA2099) for the Laser Powder
Bed Fusion Process [L-PBF]: Effects of Process Parameters on Cracks, Porosity, and Microhardness
Fig. 1. (a) Morphology of the initial gas-atomized AA2099 powder. (b) Morpology of the titanium aluminide powder (inset: STEM-ADF image of
titanium nitride in the powder).
The Aconity3D (Aconity MINI lab unit) Laser
Powder Bed Fusion Equipment was used for the
printing of all the samples. The size of the samples
was 10 9 10 9 10 mm3 and 5 9 5 9 10 mm3. The
scanning strategy was an alternating bidirectional
X/Y scanning strategy, which turned about at 90° on
each layer.
Design of L-PBF Experiments
In the first print set, L-PBF samples that were
printed without base plate heating showed many
cracks. This precipitation-hardening aluminum
alloy contains elements whose solid solubility
decreases with falling aluminum temperature.
Rapid cooling leads to a supersaturated solid solu-
tion and results in large residual stress in the as-
printed part,23 which is often relieved through
fracturing when the UTS of the material is locally
exceeded. Since cracks occured in these samples,
three different paths were followed in order to
reduce cracks and to get an insight into the
characteristic melting and solidification behavior
of this alloy during the L-PBF process.
(a) The cooling rates were reduced through in situ
heat treatments with the help of a heated base
plate (in situ heat treatment) to reduce the
oversaturation in the samples and to reduce
the residual stress that causes the material to
crack. Temperatures between 220°C and
520°C were chosen for the heated base plate.
(b) The copper content was reduced through the
addition of aluminum powder to the base alloy
1 in order to reduce the residual stress as well
as to minimize the copper segregation in the
melt lines and at the grain boundaries to
reduce cracking (alloy 2).
(c) The possible effect of grain refinement and
microhardness was investigated through add-
ing titanium aluminide powder as a heteroge-
nous nucleant to lower the necessary
nucleation energy for grain formation (alloy 3).
1545
The overall goal was to achieve crack- and porosity-
free L-PBF-material with a microhardness of about
70 HV0,1, which was achieved in the first print set
without a heating plate and was so far the maxi-
mum microhardness observed.
For the samples of the first print set carried out
without a heating plate (in situ heat treatment),
post-heat treatments (PHT) were applied. With the
help of the ThermoCalc equilibrium and the Scheil–
Gulliver diagrams, heat treatment temperatures for
all the print sets were chosen with the goal of
finding the most effective precipitates in terms of
microhardness (Fig. 2).
The L-PBF Process
The first set of samples was printed from alloy 1
without a heating plate. To improve the microhard-
ness through precipitation strengthening, PHT was
carried out at 6 different PHT temperatures: 80°C,
220°C, 320°C, 410°C, 450°C and 520°C. The Ther-
mocalc simulation at equilibrium (phase diagram in
Fig. 2a) shows the possible precipitates with their
thermal stability, and highlights more than one
type of expected co-existing second phase particles
at the chosen temperatures. The main expected
phases of this multiple phase alloy are as follows:
80°C: AlCuLi (T2), AlLi, Al6Mn
220°C: AlCuLi (T2), Al6Mn
320°C: AlCuLi (T2), Al2CuLi (T1), Al6Mn
410°C: Al2CuLi (T1), Al6Mn
450°C: Al2CuLi (T1), Al6Mn
520°C: Al6Mn
Al2CuLi (T1), which is hexagonal in crystal struc-
ture and has a plate-like morphology, is known to be
the major contributor to the strengthening of the
alloy.24 Other strengthening phases, such as icosa-
hedral T2 plates and the tetragonal AlLi phase, both
precipitate at high-angle grain boundaries.25 T2 has
also reportedly been used for controlling toughness
in the alloy.26 Dispersoids such as orthorhombic
1546 Raffeis, Adjei-Kyeremeh, Vroomen, Suwanpinij, Ewald, and Bührig-Polazcek
Fig. 2. ThermoCalc Simulation: (a) equilibrium phase diagram simulation of the AA2099 alloy composition. (b) Scheil–Gulliver phase diagram
showing the metastable phases present.
Al6Mn are known for inhibiting recrystallization
and also for grain size and texture control.27 They
are normally too small to be resolved with light
optical micrographs (LOM).
The next four printsets, consisting of 16 samples
each, underwent in situ heat treatments at three
different temperatures. In all sets, the layer thick-
ness of 30 lm and the hatching distance of 150 lm
were constant while the scanning speed and the
laser power were varied.
Alloy 1 underwent in situ heat treatment at 220°C
and at 520°C. The temperature of 520°C was chosen
from the Scheil–Gulliver diagram (Fig. 2b) as the
start temperature of the T1 phase formation.
Alloys 2 and 3 underwent in situ heat treatments
at 320°C. In alloy 2, aluminum powder was added to
the initial AA2099 base powder (alloy 1). Titanium
aluminide powder was added to alloy 3, as shown in
Table I.
Correlations with the microhardness of all the
sets of the samples were investigated.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Microhardness of Post Heat Treated (PHT)
L-PBF Samples
For exemplary temperatures, LOM and scanning
electron microscope (SEM) images of the 80°C,
450°C and 520°C PHT samples are compared in
Fig. 3. For the 80°C PHT sample, cracks, meltlines
and precipitates are shown in Fig. 3a. In the 450°C
PHT sample (Fig. 3b and e), two different kind of
coarser precipitates are seen at the grain bound-
aries (GB) and within the grains. In the 520°C PHT
sample (Fig. 3c), they seem to have almost
completely dissolved. Again, at least two differently
shaped precipitates, sticklike and partly dissolved,
are seen in the SEM micrograph (Fig. 3f).
The highest microhardness of 70.7 HV0,1 recorded at
80°C PHT temperature constantly decreased with
increasing PHT temperature to 58.8 HV0,1 at 520°C.
The decreasing microhardness is believed to be a
result of the growing precipitates and the dissolution
of some of them. Since the kind, size, distribution and
amount of the precipitates did not improve the micro-
hardness, and the goal of improving the hardness
beyond 70 HV0,1 was not met, no further investiga-
tions were carried out to identify the precipitates.
Cracks and Porosity of In Situ Heat-Treated L-
PBF Samples
Several reasons can be attributed to the formation
of hot or cold cracks in L-PBF printed parts. There
is more than one theory for the cracking discussed
in the literature.23,28–31 All of the described mech-
anisms can lead to stress relief through fracturing
when the tensile strength of the material exceeds its
local UTS.30 For the prevention of cold cracking,
preheated base plates at various temperatures were
used in order to reduce the thermal gradient, the
cooling rate and oversaturation.
Low melting phases which form films on grain
boundaries and meltlines can lead to hot cracks.32
The chemical composition of the alloy was altered in
order to reduce the segregation of the low melting
phases (see ‘‘Design of L-PBF Experiments’’ sec-
tion). One method of hot crack prevention which has
been extensively investigated is grain refinement.
Tang31 gives an overview of physical theories. With
Investigation of the Lithium-Containing Aluminum Copper Alloy (AA2099) for the Laser Powder 1547
Bed Fusion Process [L-PBF]: Effects of Process Parameters on Cracks, Porosity, and Microhardness

Fig. 3. LOM micrographs: (a) 80°C PHT precipitates not only at melt lines; (b) 450°C PHT sample showing coarsened precipitates at GB; (c)
520°C PHT sample showing most precipitates have gone into solution; SEM micrographs of (d) 80°C PHT sample showing precipitate growth
which also recorded the highest microhardness; (e) coarsened precipitates in the 450°C PHT sample led to a decline in the microhardness; and
(f) 520°C PHT sample indicating that most precipitates had gone into solution and recording the lowest microhardness.

decreasing grain sizes, the grain boundary count In Situ Heat-Treated L-PBF Samples, Laser
per volume increases. The overall strain can be Parameters
distributed on many grain boundaries and
As shown in Fig. 4, samples from alloy 1 in situ
decreases the possibility of cracking.33 Also, crack
heat-treated at 220°C had both cracks and small
growth will be hindered through a curved crack
spherical gas-induced pores. The cracks are believed
path.
to be hot cracks, as high Cu content was detected at
Porosity formation in the L-PBF process is gen-
the crack locations. Both the gas-induced pores and
erally attributed to several reasons. The small
the hot cracks contributed to making the 220°C
spherical pores may be gas-induced emanating from
samples less dense. Using the image analysis soft-
gas entrapment during melting and rapid solidifi-
ware, IMAGEJ, the least recorded percentage
cation, or from evaporation of the materials/selected
porosity among the 220°C in situ heat-treated
elements during the L-PBF process and carried over
samples was 8.3%, which was printed at a laser
to the as-printed part.34,35 Larger spherical pores
power of 190 W using 550 mm/s scanning speed.
originate from the instability of the molten pool
The highest percentage porosity of 15.8% was
owing to keyhole collapse, while irregular porosity
recorded in the 220°C sample printed using a
usually stems from unmelted powder or when the
scanning speed of 650 mm/s and a laser power of
overlap between the scan tracks is not sufficient.35
190 W.
The unmelted powder from incomplete melting or
When alloy 1 was in situ heat-treated at 520°C,
lack of fusion occurs when there is insufficient
along with varied laser power and scanning speed,
energy from the heat source to melt the powder.36
no cracks were observed and a minimum porosity of
From the volumetric energy density (Ev) equa-
1.2% was achieved. The laser power was also lower
tion, with constant parameters such as the layer
compared to the 220°C in situ heat-treated samples.
thickness (Ds) and the hatching distance (Dys), the
This means that the volumetric energy density (Ev)
interplay between the laser power (pL) and the
was higher during the printing of the 220°C samples
scanning speed (vs) must be adjusted in a suit-
than in the 520°C samples. In Fig. 5a, it was
able manner to achieve the optimum laser power to
observed that, as the intensity of the laser power
minimize pores and lack of fusion:
increased from 110 W and upwards, the pore sizes
pL became spherical and larger. These larger spherical
Ev ¼ ðJ/mm3 Þ ð1Þ
Ds  vs  Dys pores are keyholes resulting from the collapse of an
1548 Raffeis, Adjei-Kyeremeh, Vroomen, Suwanpinij, Ewald, and Bührig-Polazcek

Fig. 4. Alloy 1: 220°C in situ heat-treated samples of alloy 1 showing cracks and pores in all the samples.

unstable melt pool due to high linear energy density
(LED), which means that the input power per unit
speed increases with increasing laser power, result-
ing in an increase in the melt pool.35
Irregular pores owing to incomplete melting were
observed from a scanning speed of 550–850 mm/s at
70 W laser power, which usually happens when
there is insufficient laser power to cause complete
melting. This gives an indication that, even if the
scanning speed were to increase up to 850 mm/s,
with a laser power at 70 W, there will still not be
sufficient energy for complete melting.
The dense as-fabricated part with percentage
porosity of 1.2% was achieved at 550 mm/s scanning
speed and 90 W laser power, as seen in Fig. 5a. It
was possible to achieve minimal porosity and no
cracks in the 520°C in situ heat-treated sample. The
following explanation seems plausible: at a low
scanning speed (550 mm/s), the energy density was
sufficient to cause an increase in the temperature of
the melt pool. This led to a resultant increase in
wettability, reduced viscosity and surface tension,
which aided the liquid metal to have adequate
fluidity to bond between the layers and also for the
liquid phase to flow between the spaces as well as to
back-fill shrinkages.12 In Fig. 5b, the SEM micro-
graph shows the uniform distribution of plate-like
precipitates within the matrix and copper-rich
Investigation of the Lithium-Containing Aluminum Copper Alloy (AA2099) for the Laser Powder 1549
Bed Fusion Process [L-PBF]: Effects of Process Parameters on Cracks, Porosity, and Microhardness

Fig. 5. (a) LOM micrographs of in situ heat-treated samples of alloy 1 at 520°C; least porosity at 550 mm/s scanning speed at 90 W laser power.
(b) SEM micrograph of the sample with least porosity. (c) EBSD image: grain structure and orientation; average grain size in equivalent diameter
of 25 lm.

phases at the grain boundaries. The copper content
was determined by EDS analysis with values
between 13 wt.% and 20 wt.% Cu. From the elec-
tron backscattered diffraction (EBSD) image of the
grain structure and orientation (Fig. 5c), grain
count analysis indicated an average grain size in
the equivalent circle diameter of 25 lm.
The 320°C in situ heat-treated samples were
printed from both alloy 2 and alloy 3 with 16
different laser parameters. As indicated earlier, the
1550 Raffeis, Adjei-Kyeremeh, Vroomen, Suwanpinij, Ewald, and Bührig-Polazcek

significant difference between the two 320°C alloy
compositions was the fact that alloy 2 had added Al
powder for the purposes of minimizing Cu segrega-
tion, while alloy 3 was modified with titanium
aluminide powder for the purposes of grain
refinement and increasing the hardness. As in the
220°C samples, the alloy 2 in situ heat-treated
samples showed cracks and pores (Fig. 6a). The
least percentage porosity recorded was 11.3% which
was printed at 550 mm/s scanning speed and 125 W

Fig. 6. (a) LOM micrographs: 320°C in situ heat-treated samples from alloy 2. (b) LOM micrographs: 320°C in situ heat-treated samples from
alloy 3. (c) SEM micrograph: 320°C in situ heat-treated sample from alloy 2. (d) SEM micrograph: 320°C in situ heat-treated sample from alloy 3
showing a refined grain structure sample. (e) EBSD image: 320°C alloy 2 sample with average grain size of 256.81 lm2 and ECD of 18.08 lm. (f)
EBSD image: 320°C alloy 3 sample showing a refined and equiaxed grain structure compared to alloy 2 sample with average grain size of
1.49 lm2 and ECD of 1.28 lm. EPMA analysis images: (g) aluminum matrix with TiAl3 particle; (h) Ti detection in the TiAl3 particle.
Investigation of the Lithium-Containing Aluminum Copper Alloy (AA2099) for the Laser Powder
Bed Fusion Process [L-PBF]: Effects of Process Parameters on Cracks, Porosity, and Microhardness
laser power, while the highest recorded percentage
porosity was 22.5%, printed at 950 mm/s scanning
speed and 200 W laser power. In contrast, main-
taining the same L-PBF parameters as well as the
320°C in situ heat-treatment temperature, samples
printed from alloy 3 were crack-free and with less
porosity (Fig. 6b). The least and the highest per-
centage porosity, which were recorded was 2.3% and
14.03%, were printed at 450 mm/s and 750 mm/s
scanning speeds with 125 W and 200 W laser
power, respectively. A closer look at the grain
structure of the two samples from both 320°C alloys
using SEM and EBSD shows a completely different
grain structure (Fig. 6). An average grain size (GS)
and average grain size in equivalent circle diameter
(ECD) of 256.81 lm2 and 18.08 lm, respectively,
were recorded in the 320°C alloy 2 sample while
1.49 lm2 (GS) and 1.38 lm (ECD) were recorded in
the 320°C alloy 3 sample.
The choice of the 320°C in situ heat-treatment
temperature and the lowering of the copper content
was not sufficient to eliminate cracks in alloy 2. It can
be concluded that the titanium aluminide powder
added to alloy 3 was responsible for the grain size
reduction as well as its transformation into an
equiaxed grain structure, as highlighted by the
EBSD in Fig. 6f. The refined grains contributed to
the elimination of hot cracks, as grain refinement has
been reported to decrease the hot crack tendency.37
Films on the grain boundaries (Fig. 6) are copper-
rich phases. The smaller grains offered a higher
volume of grain boundary surface so that effective
distribution of the copper segregations was possible
and oversaturation by alloying elements was
reduced, which led to stress reduction inside the
grains. Also, complete stress was distributed on
more grain boundaries, so that the probability of
cracking decreased.31
The titanium aluminide powder had a grain
refining effect, although EPMA investigations
showed that TiN-particles did not play a major role
in the grain-altering effect and the process of
heterogenous nucleation, because very few TiN-
particles were found in the matrix. Figure 6g and h
shows an Al3Ti-particle with 76.7 at.% aluminum
and 22.5 at.% titanium. Detailed investigations will
follow.
Microhardness of In Situ Heat-Treated (Pre-
heated) Samples
The microhardness recorded in the 220°C in situ
heat-treated samples was 53.2 HV0,1. Compared to
the 520°C in situ heat-treated samples, the hard-
ness was lower. From the 520°C in situ heat-treated
samples, the almost completely dense sample
printed at 550 mm/s and 90 W laser power, with
no cracks and the least porosity, recorded a micro-
hardness of 72 HV0,1.
The equilibrium phase T1 (Al2CuLi) is responsible
for strength and hardness in most pre-deformed
1551
conventionally processed Al-Cu-Li-alloys.26,38,39 In
conventionally processed material, the nucleation is
difficult because of the high stacking fault energy of
the aluminium matrix, so that T1 nucleates via
stacking fault mechanism at dissociated disloca-
tions.38 Therefore, the plate-like T1 phase can only
grow in 5-atom layers, which leads to the stick-like
appearance.40 Gao et al.41 summarized three differ-
ent theories of nucleation mechanisms for the T1
phase. In addition, depending on the alloy composi-
tion, other phases, like the metastable phase Al2Cu
or Al3Li, can precipitate42 and compete with the T1
phase. The effects of T1 precipitation-promoting
elements and the Cu/Li quotient are well described
by Decreus et al.43 The actual Cu/Li-quotient of 1.7,
the analysis of the ThermoCalc simulations as an
orientation, the Scheil–Gulliver-diagram, the evalu-
ation of a ternary equilibrium diagram,44 and the
appearance of the needle shaped precipitates, all lead
to the expected main T1 phase in the material. The
formation temperature of the T1 phase in a ternary
system is given by > 635°C, but the exact tempera-
ture is not known.44 In this investigated technical
alloy, the ThermoCalc Scheil-diagram, the starting
temperature is about 520°C. Once the T1 phase is
formed, it grows rapidly to very large dimensions
which is explained by a low lattice mismatch of the
interface layer with the {111}Al planes.43
The 520°C in situ heat treatment was more
effective than the 220°C in situ heat treatment with
respect to nucleating and growing the T1 phase, as
seen by the size, amount and distribution of this
phase. The dislocation density of L-PBF-parts lead
to good conditions for nucleating the T1 phase.
Among the 320°C in situ heat-treated samples
printed from the modified alloys, alloy 2 showed the
lowest microhardness, of 33.4 HV0,1. The 320°C
in situ heat-treated alloy 3 samples had appreciable
microhardness of 58.4 HV0,1; higher than both the
220°C and the 320°C alloy 2 printed samples but
lower than the 520°C in situ heat-treated samples.
Figure 7 shows the compared microhardness graphs
of both PHT samples and all the preheat-treated
samples, indicating an increase in microhardness
from the 220°C in situ heat-treated samples to the
highest recorded microhardness with the 520°C
in situ heat-treated samples. The microhardness
increased from 53.2 HV0,1 at 220°C to 58.4 HV0,1
with the alloy 3 samples at 320°C, although, at the
same 320°C in situ heat-treatment temperature, the
microhardness declined to 33.4 HV0,1 for the alloy 2
printed samples, while 78.2 HV0,1 was the highest
microhardness recorded at the 520°C in situ heat
temperature (Fig. 7).
As was expected, the decline in the microhardness
in the 320°C in situ heat-treated alloy 2 samples
was due to the reduced copper content in the matrix
which led to reduced concentrations of solute atoms
to cause solid solution strengthening or to form
precipitates for precipitation strengthening. As a
result of the increased in situ heat-treatment
1552 Raffeis, Adjei-Kyeremeh, Vroomen, Suwanpinij, Ewald, and Bührig-Polazcek
Fig. 7. Microhardness graphs of PHT and in situ heat treated samples compared: PHT sample microhardness decreasing with increasing heat-
treatment temperature. In situ heat-treated sample microhardness increased with increasing heat-treatment temperature except for alloy 2
samples which recorded very low microhardness.
temperature of 520°C, uniformly distributed and
effective precipitates led to the increased micro-
hardness. This heat-treatment temperature caused
good conditions for the precipitation kinetics for the
nucleation and growth of the T1 phase, even without
prior deformation. In the in situ heat-treated sam-
ples at 220°C and 320°C, fewer and smaller needles
were found, which contributed less to the hardness.
CONCLUSION
The development of this alloy, which is a new
application for additive manufacturing, took place
under several different aspects. From the beginning,
it was clear that this multi-precipitation system is a
challenge to work with in the field of the generative
manufacturing, because, until now, only traditional
manufacturing processes were performed on this
kind of alloy and no other investigation results are
known. After having ensured that the production of
this lithium-containing aluminum alloy in an induc-
tion oven and the powder production was possible
and also led to satisfactory results, it was necessary
to obtain a broad overview about the properties,
limitations and opportunities of this alloy.
Samples which were produced without in situ
heat treatments showed copper-rich phases on the
meltlines, almost no precipitates in the grains, and
cracks in the matrix. Since cracks can be reduced
through lowering the cooling speed, through grain
refinement, and through adjustment of the chemical
composition, or a combination of all of them, the
object of investigations was to study the effects of
1. post-heat treatment temperatures on hardness
values
2. in situ heat-treatment temperatures on poros-
ity, cracks and hardness
3. chemical adjustments, which were chosen with
the goal to lower the crack susceptibility and the
in situ heat- treatment temperature without loss
of hardness.
To obtain information about temperature ranges
of anticipated precipitates, an equilibrium phase
diagram was simulated for this particular alloy.
The heat-treatment temperatures were chosen
based on the equilibrium diagram, knowing very
well that this could only be a slight clue, because
of the non-equilibrium conditions. For two differ-
ent in situ temperatures (220°C and 520°C), the
L-PBF-parameters were investigated and con-
trolled in order to produce crack-free samples
with low porosity. From the good results of the
520°C in situ treatment, two major questions were
derived:
1. Is it possible to reduce the copper content in
order to reduce cracking without loss of hard-
ness?
2. If this is not the case, is it possible to reduce the
in situ temperature and keep the hardness
values with the help of chemical adjustments?
The results so far achieved in this work are as
follows:
The alloy AA2099 has successfully been pre-
sented as an alternative alloy for the L-PBF
process. After varying the laser parameters while
maintaining a constant layer thickness of 30 lm
and a hatching distance of 150 lm, a crack-free
dense L-PBF part was produced with minimal
porosity at 520°C in situ heat-treatment temper-
ature using a scanning speed of 550 mm/s and
90 W laser power.
Investigation of the Lithium-Containing Aluminum Copper Alloy (AA2099) for the Laser Powder
Bed Fusion Process [L-PBF]: Effects of Process Parameters on Cracks, Porosity, and Microhardness
In situ heat treatment at 520°C yielded parts with
higher microhardness values compared to those
without preheat treatment and post-heat treat-
ment. The highest microhardness recorded with
the preheat-treated samples was 72.8 HV0,1 at
520°C in situ heat-treatment temperature whereas
that of the PHT samples was 70.7 HV0,1 at 80°C
post-heat-treated temperature. This means that
using the L-PBF process with in situ heat treatment
of this alloy at a certain temperature, crack-free
samples with a good microhardess can be achieved
without the need of a post-heat treatment.
Reduction of copper as major phase forming ele-
ment could not prevent cracking and reduced the
hardness.
Grain refinement which resulted in crack elimi-
nation by the addition of titanium-aluminide pow-
der has also been successfully presented. However,
further adjustment of the process parameters and
in situ heat treatment is still needed to eliminate
porosity and also boost hardness.
The post-heat-treated samples showed a loss of
microhardness with increasing temperatures.
Further work is still needed to optimize the in situ
preheat-treatment temperature, the AA2099 pow-
der and its chemical composition, and the L-PBF
parameters.
The results presented here indicate that this work
is far from complete; however, a first step has been
taken. This alloying system with its multiple sec-
ondary phases of high thermal stability offers many
opportunities to optimize the effect of particle
strengthening. Detailed investigations will follow.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank ACCESS e.V. for their support
in the analytics. The authors would like to thank the
German Research Foundation DFG for the kind
support within the Cluster of Excellence ‘‘Integrative
Production Technology for High-Wage Countries’’.
REFERENCES
1. J. Trapp, A.M. Rubinchik, G. Guss, and M.J. Mathews,
Mater. Today 9, 341 (2017).
2. J. Suryawanshi, K.G. Prashanth, S. Scudino, J. Ekert, O.
Prakash, and U. Ramamurty, Acta Mater. 115, 285 (2016).
3. L. Ruidi, M. Wang, T. Yuan, B. Song, C. Chen, K. Zhou, and
P. Cao, Power Technol. 319, 117 (2017).
4. X. Mujian, D. Gu, G. Yu, D. Dai, H. Chen, and Q. Shi, Int. J.
Mach. Tool Manuf. 109, 147 (2016).
5. P.G. Prashanth, S. Scudino, H.J. Klauss, K.B. Surreddi, L.
Lobber, Z. Wang, A.K. Chaubey, U. Kuhn, and J. Eckert,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 590, 153 (2014).
6. W. Christian, D. Buchbinder, N. Pirch, W. Meiners, K.
Wissenbach, and R. Poprawe, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
221, 112 (2015).
7. L. Zheng, Y. Lui, S. Sun, and H. Zhang, Chin. J. Aeronaut.
28, 564 (2015).
8. L. Zhu, N. Li, and P.R.N. Childs, J. Propul. Power 7, 103
(2018).
9. E.R. Christopher, D. Bourell, T. Watt, and J. Cohen, Phys.
Procedia 83, 909 (2016).
10. D. Koutny, D. Palousek, L. Pantelejev, C. Hoeller, R. Pich-
ler, L. Tesicky, and J. Kaiser, Materials 11, 298 (2018).
1553
11. B. Konrad, S. Ullrich, T. Frick, and M. Schmidt, Phys. Proc.
12A, 393 (2011).
12. H. Zhang, H. Zhu, T. Qi, Z. Hu, and X. Zeng, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 656, 47 (2016).
13. B. Ahuja, M. Karg, K. Yu, Nagulin, and M. Schmidt, Phys.
Procedia 56, 135 (2014).
14. M.C.H. Karg, B. Ahuja, S. Wiesenmeyer, S.V. Kuryntsev,
and M. Schmidt, Micromachines 8, 23 (2017).
15. M.L. Montero Sistiaga, R. Mertens, B. Vrancken, X. Wang,
B.V. Hoorweder, J.-P. Kruth, and J.V. Humbeeck, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 238, 437 (2016).
16. N. Kaufman, M. Imran, T.M. Wischeropp, C. Emmelmann,
S. Siddique, and F. Walther, Phys. Procedia 83, 918 (2016).
17. L.E. Loh, Z.H. Lui, D.G. Zhang, M. Mapar, S.L. Sing, and
C.K. Chua, Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 9, 11 (2014).
18. Y. Wu, X. Wang, J. Li, and Z. Feng, Mater. Sci. Forum. 850,
575 (2016).
19. E. Balducci, L. Ceschini, S. Messieri, S. Wenner, and
R. Holmestad, Mater. Des. 119, 54 (2017).
20. E. Balducci, L. Ceschini, and S. Messieri, JOM (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-018-3006-x.
21. F. Zhang, J. Shen, X.D. Yan, J.L. Sun, X.L. Sun, and Y.
Yang, Rare Met. 33, 28 (2014).
22. S. Mishraa, V. Kumar Beura, A. Singha, M. Yadava, and N.
Nayan, JOM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/02670836.2018.
1510074.
23. B. Zhang, Y. Li, and Q. Bai, Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 30, 515 (2017).
24. V. Araullo-Peters, B. Gault, F. De Geuser, A. Deschamps,
and J.M. Cairney, Acta Mater. 66, 208 (2014).
25. K.S. Prasad, A.A. Gokhale, A.K. Mukhopadhyay, D. Ban-
erjee, and D.B. Goel, Mater. Sci. Forum 1048, 337 (2000).
26. R.J. Rioja and J. Lui, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 43A, 3337
(2012).
27. D. Tsivoulas and P.B. Prangnell, Acta Mater. 77, 16 (2014).
28. N.J. Harrison, I. Todd, and K. Mumtaz, Acta Mater. 94, 68
(2015).
29. P. Mercelis and J.P. Kruth, Rapid Prototyp. J. 12, 265
(2006).
30. M. Zhong, H. Sun, W. Liu, X. Zhu, and J. He, Scr. Mater. 53,
164 (2005).
31. Z. Tang, Heißrissvermeidung beim Schweißen von Alu-
miniumlegierungen mit einem Scheibenlaser, Band 53
(Bremen: Strahltechnik BIAS, 2014), pp. 4–15.
32. G. Schulze, Metallugie des Schweißens, 3rd ed. (New York:
Springer), pp. 276–277, 296–299.
33. J.A. Spittle and A.A. Cushway, Met. Technol. 6, 13 (1983).
34. W.J. Sames, F.A. List, S. Pannala, R.R. Dehoff, and S.S.
Babu, Int. Mater. Rev. 61, 315 (2016).
35. K. Kempen, L. Thijs, J. Van Humbeeck, and J.-P. Kruth,
Mater. Sci. Technol. 31, 917 (2015).
36. M. Brandt, S. Sun, M. Leary, S. Feih, J. Elambasseril, and
Q. Liu, Adv. Mater. Res. 633, 147 (2013).
37. M.A. Easton, M. Qian, A. Prasad, and D.H. StJohn, Curr.
Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 20, 13 (2015).
38. E. Gumbmann, W. Lefebvre, F. De Geuser, and C. Sigli,
Acta Mater. 115, 114 (2016).
39. C. Wang, G. Min, Q. Lu, and Z. Lu, Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 17,
266 (2014).
40. W. Cassada, G. Shiflet, and E. Starke Jr, J. Phys. C3, 397
(1987).
41. Z. Gao, J.Z. Liu, J.H. Chen, S.Y. Duan, Z.R. Lui, W.Q. Ming,
and C.L. Wu, J. Alloys Compd. 624, 26 (2015).
42. J. Huang and A. Ardell, Acta Mater. 115, 114 (2016).
43. B. Decreus, A. Deschamps, F. De Geuser, P. Donnadieu, C.
Sigli, and M. Weyland, Acta Mater. 61, 2218 (2013).
44. A.B. Nikolay, G.E. Dmitry, and A.A. Aksenkov, Multicom-
ponent Phase Diagram, Applications for Commercial Alu-
minium Alloys, 1st ed. (Moscow: Elsevier, 2005), pp. 257–260.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with re-
gard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.