materials

Article
Strain Analysis of Ti6Al4V Titanium Alloy Samples
Using Digital Image Correlation
Karolina Karolewska *, Bogdan Ligaj and Dariusz Boroński
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, UTP University of Science and Technology in Bydgoszcz, al. Prof. S.
Kaliskiego 7, 85-796 Bydgoszcz, Poland; bogdan.ligaj@utp.edu.pl (B.L.); dariusz.boronski@utp.edu.pl (D.B.)
* Correspondence: karolina.karolewska@utp.edu.pl




Received: 29 May 2020; Accepted: 29 July 2020; Published: 31 July 2020


Abstract: Digital image correlation (DIC) is a non-contact optical method that allows measuring
displacements on a plane used to determine the strains caused by external loads of a structural
element (mechanical or thermal). Currently, digital image correlation is a widely used experimental
technique to assess the mechanical behavior of materials, in particular cracking characteristics and
destruction methods of various structural elements. In this paper, the DIC method is applied to
determine local strains of titanium alloy Ti6Al4V specimen. The samples used in the tests were made
with two different technologies: (a) from a drawn bar by machining process; and (b) by the additive
manufacturing method Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS). The aim of the paper is to present the
mechanical properties test results of the Ti6Al4V titanium alloy produced by the DMLS additive
manufacturing under static loads using the digital image correlation method. As a result of the
tests carried out on the drawn bar specimens, it was concluded that the change in the measurement
base affects the difference in the Young’s E modulus value in the range from 89.2 to 103.8 GPa.
However, for samples formed using the DMLS method, the change in the Young’s modulus value
was from 112.9 to 115.3 GPa for the same measurement base.

Keywords: additive manufacturing; DMLS technology; titanium alloy Ti6Al4V; HV10 hardness;
digital image correlation (DIC)

1. Introduction
Additive technologies are increasingly used in the structural elements production due to a
number of advantages, i.e., short production cycle, high efficiency, and production flexibility [1].
Additive manufacturing has contributed to the widespread use of some metal alloys that are difficult
to produce with conventional machining methods. Titanium alloy belongs to this materials group [2,3].
The Ti6Al4V titanium alloy is the most commonly applied material due to its excellent mechanical
properties. In the production of components made using Ti6Al4V alloy powder the following
additive manufacturing technologies are frequently adopted [4,5]: Laser Melting Deposition (LMD),
Selective Laser Melting (SLM), and Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS). These methods use a laser
as an energy source to melt the metal powder. Laser energy, powder movement, and dynamic
interaction between them have a significant impact on the printed material structure and its mechanical
properties [4].
Chang et al. [6] presented the research results of titanium alloy Ti6Al4V samples made by the
means of the SLM additive technology. The annealing treatment, which was performed favorably,
affected the tensile strength (Su = 953 MPa) and the elongation (A = 17.7%).
Bebei et al. [7] presented the static tests results and the microstructure characteristics of the Ti6Al4V
material manufactured by the SLM method. The elements for testing were printed horizontally on the
EOS M290. The printout was characterized by the following parameters: scanning speed 1200 mm/s,

Materials 2020, 13, 3398; doi:10.3390/ma13153398 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2020, 13, 3398 2 of 19

laser power 280 W, and layer thickness 30 µm. The material was subjected to a static tensile test,
which resulted in tensile strength of Su = 1261 MPa and elongation of A = 10.2%. The tensile strength of
the Ti6Al4V alloy parts that were produced by selective laser melting was very similar to the strength of
forged elements from the same alloy, although the elongation was slightly lower. Excellent mechanical
properties in terms of tensile strength and plasticity for parts manufactured by laser melting method
were attributed to almost full density.
Sun et al. [8] gave the results of material print direction impact on strength under static and
variable loads of the titanium alloy Ti6Al4V produced by the SLM method. Specimen print parameters
were: laser power 350W, laser beam diameter 0.08 mm, scanning speed 1000 mm/s, and layer thickness
0.06 mm. The samples were manufactured in three directions: 0◦ , 45◦ , and 90◦ . As-built specimens were
annealed for 5 h at 750–850 °C, and then cooled under argon to room temperature. The material different
mechanical parameters were obtained for each direction. For the 0◦ specimens, the following values
were gained: E = 111.55 GPa, Su = 935 MPa, and Sy = 857 MPa. For the 45◦ samples, E = 113.26 GPa,
Su = 963 MPa, and Sy = 883 MPa. For the 90◦ samples, E = 115.87 GPa, Su = 953 MPa, and Sy = 888 MPa.
Liang et al. [9] presented research results concerning the various heat treatment methods impact
on the material structure of samples produced by the SLM method. The material heat treatment was
carried out at heightened temperature (600, 800, 850, and 900 ◦ C) for 4 h and cooled in air to room
temperature. The material mechanical properties values were obtained for specimens without heat
treatment: Su ≈ 1230 MPa, Sy ≈ 1150 MPa, and A ≈ 8.5%. The following results were obtained for
specimens after heat treatment at 600 ◦ C: Su ≈ 1210 MPa, Sy ≈ 1180 MPa, and A ≈ 8.5%. For samples after
heat treatment at 800 ◦ C, the results were: Su ≈ 1080 MPa, Sy ≈ 990 MPa, and A ≈ 12,1%. For samples after
heat treatment at 850 °C, the results were: Su ≈ 1040 MPa, Sy ≈ 970 MPa, and A ≈ 12.3%. For samples
after heat treatment at 900 ◦ C, the results were: Su ≈ 990 MPa, Sy ≈ 900 MPa, and A ≈ 11.5%.
Karolewska et al. [10] gave the research results of Ti6Al4V titanium alloy according to [11]
standard. The test specimens were made using the DMLS method, and their diameter was 6 mm.
The geometrical dimensions of the samples were adopted according to [12] standard. The printing
process was characterized by the following parameters: laser power 200 W, minimum layer thickness
30 µm, and scanning speed up to 7 m/s. After the manufacturing process, the specimens were annealed.
Based on testing under static load, the following strength parameters were achieved: E = 114.5 GPa,
Su = 1127 MPa, Sy 0.2 = 1052 MPa, and A = 15.5%.
Benedetti et al. [13] presented the static tests results for Ti6Al4V material produced by the
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) method using a 3DSystem ProX 300 printer. Two types of samples were
adopted for testing. The first of these were tested in the as-built state, immediately after the printing
process. The second part was subjected to hot isostatic pressing (HIP) treatment at 920 ◦ C, aimed at
removing pores and obtaining the full density of the material and modifying its microstructure. As-built
specimens show a martensitic microstructure and have a higher yield strength (Sy = 1022 MPa) and
tensile strength (Su = 1092 MPa) than heat-treated samples, but lower elongation in HIP condition
(A = 16.5%). The properties of HIP treated samples were: elongation A = 22.5%, yield strength Sy
HIP = 894.7 MPa, and tensile strength Su HIP = 962.3 MPa. The HIP heat treatment changed the
parameters of the Ti6Al4V material produced by the SLS method.
Benedetti et al. [14] found that mechanical properties are closely related to the material
microstructure. A static tensile test was carried out for printed and untreated samples as well
as for specimens subjected to HIP hot isostatic pressing. The Young’s modulus for both types of
samples assumes similar values of about 110 GPa. However, there is a larger difference in terms of yield
point, strength, and total elongation. Specimens with martensitic microstructure (samples without heat
treatment) show higher yield point and tensile strength, but lower elongation.
Quintana et al. [15] determined the mechanical properties made by the SLM additive method
for two types of Ti6Al4V material: Grades 5 and 23. They examined the impact of a slight increase
in oxygen content on the mechanical properties of SLM Ti6Al4V. The specimens’ microstructure and
mechanical properties after the printing process and after HIP treatment with oxygen content were
Materials 2020, 13, 3398 3 of 19

assessed corresponding to the Ti6Al4V ELI (Grade 5) ranges 0.10–0.11% and 0.16–0.17%. Ti6Al4V
Grade 5 material showed higher yield point and strength than ELI type, in the case of both as-built
samples and after HIP treatment. Grade 5 material after HIP treatment had greater elongation than
Grade 23 type. Conversely, the elongation of the Grade 5 as-built material was lower than that of the
ELI type.
Rafi et al. [16] produced specimens from Ti6Al4V and 15-5 PH materials using SLM. Their tensile
strength was determined. Strength properties were compared in relation to the orientation of the
manufactured element. The samples built horizontally showed relatively better tensile properties
compared to the vertically built specimens. They presented that the tensile strength of Ti6Al4V
produced by SLM is higher than that of hot-machined parts due to the martensitic microstructure.
However, its plasticity was lower. The tensile strength of Ti64 and PH1 samples was found to be
comparable or even better than the forged material. Tensile properties affect the direction of printing.
Horizontal orientation is slightly better than vertical orientation in terms of tensile strength.
The test results presented in [7,13–16] indicate an increase in the tensile strength and yield point of
the material produced by the additive method (in as-built state) compared to the heat-treated material.
A short strength parameter analysis of the material received from additive manufacturing
technology indicates that the results obtained have a large spread in regards to the material’s tensile
strength Su , yield point Sy , and elongation A. Not all researchers determine and analyze changes in
the Young’s modulus value. The change in strength parameters is influenced by a number of factors
related to the material printing process by the additive manufacturing method, as well as to the process
of formed elements heat treatment. The research methods applied to assess strength properties are
the same as those adopted for testing materials produced by metallurgical processes. In the case of
materials created by additive manufacturing methods, we deal with a number of layers connected
together, and the weakest connection determines the entire element strength. On this assumption,
the optical image digital correlation method can be selected to assess the test object’s (specimens)
individual area displacement.
Digital Image Correlation (DIC) is a non-contact optical method that allows measuring
displacements on a plane used to determine the strains caused by external loads of a structural
element (mechanical, thermal) [17]. This method uses digital images in which the pixels are the smallest
observable elements. The measurement consists of taking a series of photos before and after loading the
test object. The object surface being tested must have some random texture (macular structure). One of
the images in the series is selected as the reference image for all subsequent analyses [18]. The reference
image is divided into small rectangular areas, which are called subsets. The algorithm tracks each
subset position from the reference image in all other images of the measurement series. Finding subsets
is done by calculating the mutual correlation coefficient. For each subset, displacement vectors in
the plane (u and v) are calculated; using triangulations, off-plane displacements (w) are determined.
Through the use of interpolation methods, sub-pixel accuracy is achieved. The output is a set of
displacement maps that can then be adopted to calculate strain maps in the plane (εxx , εyy ). In addition,
various material mechanical parameters, including Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, can be
determined on the basis of calculated displacement or deformation fields [19]. Currently, digital image
correlation is a widely used experimental technique to assess the various materials mechanical behavior,
in particular cracking characteristics and destruction methods of different structural elements. Digital
image correlation is also often used to observe welded joints [20].
The material mechanical properties, and above all the Young’s modulus, are of great importance
due to the calculation results under static and variable loads by the means of analytical and numerical
methods [21–23]. The vast majority of structural components are designed for the extent to which
Hooke’s law applies.
The aim of the paper is to present the mechanical properties test results of the Ti6Al4V titanium
alloy produced by the DMLS additive manufacturing under static loads using the digital image
correlation method.
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
Materials 2020, 13, 3398 4 of 19

The study included conducting tests related to the mechanical properties (Sy, Su, A, Z, and E)
and determining the hardness
The study included of thetests
conducting material.
related to the mechanical properties (S , S , A, Z, and E) and
y u
determining the hardness of the material.
2. Experimental Studies
2. Experimental Studies
2.1. Research Object
2.1. Research Object
The study used titanium alloy Ti6Al4V, which belongs to two-phase alloys. The European
The study
standard used[11]
ISO 5832 titanium alloy
specifies Ti6Al4V,
the which
percentage ofbelongs
alloyingtoelements
two-phase alloys. The
contained European
in the standard
alloy (Table 1).
ISO 5832 [11] specifies the percentage of alloying elements contained in the alloy (Table 1).
Table 1. Chemical composition of the Ti6Al4V titanium alloy according to [11].
Table 1. Chemical composition of the Ti6Al4V titanium alloy according to [11].
Main Alloying Elements and Their Content in the Alloy Ti6Al4V, %
Al MainVAlloying Elements
Fe O
and Their ContentNin the Alloy C
Ti6Al4V, % H Ti
5.5 ÷ 6.75 Al 3.5 ÷ 4.5 V ≤0.3 Fe ≤0.2
O ≤0.05
N C ≤0.08 H ≤0.01
Ti rest
5.5 ÷ 6.75 3.5 ÷ 4.5 ≤0.3 ≤0.2 ≤0.05 ≤0.08 ≤0.01 rest
In this research, samples manufactured by two technologies were adopted:
a) as In athis
result of turning
research, a drawn
samples bar with aby
manufactured diameter of 12 mm,were
two technologies the material
adopted:was annealed; and
b) by the use of additive technology (DMLS).
a) as a result of turning a drawn bar with a diameter of 12 mm, the material was annealed; and
Ti6Al4V is a two-phase alloy consisting of α and β phases. Drawn bar (DB) samples were made
b) by the use of additive technology (DMLS).
of 1-m drawn rods with a diameter of 12 mm. The aim of drawing process is to obtain products in
the form of bars
Ti6Al4V is aor wires characterized
two-phase by very
alloy consisting of αprecise
and β cross-sectional
phases. Drawndimensions,
bar (DB) samplesa smooth,
werebright
made
surface, and specific
of 1-m drawn mechanical
rods with a diameterproperties
of 12 mm.that
Thecanaimonly be obtained
of drawing withis this
process production
to obtain products method.
in the
As
forma ofresult
bars orofwires
drawing, the geometric
characterized by very and mechanical
precise properties
cross-sectional of thea smooth,
dimensions, materialbright
change, the
surface,
transverse
and specific dimensions
mechanicalare reduced, that
properties and can
the only
length beincreases,
obtained without
with thischanging
production the method.
volume. As a
result of
of plastic
drawing, deformation in theand
the geometric die,mechanical
the materialproperties
also becomes hardened—the
of the material change,strength properties
the transverse
increase
dimensions andarethereduced,
plastic properties decrease.
and the length Through
increases, the changing
without rolling process, samples
the volume. Aswere obtained
a result as
of plastic
shown in Figure
deformation in the1. die,
Then,
thethey werealso
material subjected
becomes to hardened—the
an annealing process at properties
strength the temperature
increase ofand
840 the
°C
for 1 h and
plastic cooleddecrease.
properties in a furnace to ambient
Through temperature.
the rolling process,The use of
samples annealing
were obtained treatment
as shown is in
to Figure
obtain 1.a
stable structure
Then, they wereof the material.
subjected ◦
to an annealing process at the temperature of 840 C for 1 h and cooled in
The test
a furnace sample geometrical
to ambient temperature.form Thewas
use determined
of annealingon the basisisoftothe
treatment European
obtain standard
a stable structure[24].
of
The specimen dimensions are shown in Figure 1, while the physical form is presented in Figure 2.
the material.

x R8 R8
∅12

∅12
∅6

y z

38 12

88

Figure 1.
Figure Specimen geometric
1. Specimen geometric features
features in
in mm
mm for
for strength tests.

The test
Two sample
types geometrical
of samples form tests
for strength was determined on thephysical
were made. Their basis ofform
the European
is given instandard
Figure 2.[24].
The specimen dimensions are shown in Figure 1, while the physical form is presented in Figure 2.
Two types of samples for strength tests were made. Their physical form is given in Figure 2.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Specimen for strength tests: (a) drawn bar turning; and (b) manufactured by DMLS.
 88

Figure 1. Specimen geometric features in mm for strength tests.

Materials 2020, 13, 3398 5 of 19
Two types of samples for strength tests were made. Their physical form is given in Figure 2.

(a) (b)
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19
Figure 2.
Figure Specimenfor
2. Specimen forstrength
strengthtests:
tests: (a)
(a)drawn
drawnbar
barturning;
turning;and
and(b)
(b)manufactured
manufacturedby
byDMLS.
DMLS.
2.2. Production
2.2. Production of
of Specimens
Specimens by
by the
the Additive
Additive Manufacturing
Manufacturing Method
Method
A common
A commonfeature
feature ofof
each each of the
of the additive
additive technologies
technologies is the is the ability
ability to produce
to produce a structural
a structural element
element of any geometry, for which production using other manufacturing
of any geometry, for which production using other manufacturing techniques would be complicated techniques would be
complicated
or or even Over
even impossible. impossible.
the years, Over the years,
many many
additive additive technologies
technologies have been
have been created andcreated and
developed
developed using various materials types in the printing process—from polymer
using various materials types in the printing process—from polymer materials to metals. One of the materials to metals.
One of the
printing printing technologies
technologies in metal is thein metal
DMLSismethod.
the DMLS method.
It is a selective laser sintering method
It is a selective laser sintering method based based ononmetallic
metallic powder
powder layers sintering
layers by means
sintering by meansof a
laser beam. The samples manufacturing process by DMLS method is presented
of a laser beam. The samples manufacturing process by DMLS method is presented as a scheme as a scheme in Figure
3. A
in detailed
Figure 3. Adescription of the method
detailed description is given
of the method in is
[25]. Most
given inproducers
[25]. Mostofproducers
devices for ofcomponents
devices for
using additive manufacturing introduce their own technology
components using additive manufacturing introduce their own technology designations designations onto the onto
market,
the
reserving the right to use them exclusively. In the case of the EOS company,
market, reserving the right to use them exclusively. In the case of the EOS company, on whose printeron whose printer our
samples
our sampleswere produced,
were produced,describes
describesitsits
technology
technology asasDMLS.
DMLS.As Asthe
thename
namesuggests,
suggests, DMLS produces
DMLS produces
an element by sintering individual layers, while the SLM technology completely melts these layers.
an element by sintering individual layers, while the SLM technology completely melts these layers.
Sintering processes do not fully melt the powder, but warm it up to the point
Sintering processes do not fully melt the powder, but warm it up to the point where its particles where its particles can
can fuse together at the molecular level. With laser melting, we can get fully melt powder into aa
fuse together at the molecular level. With laser melting, we can get fully melt powder into
homogeneous part.
homogeneous part.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Schematic
Figure Schematicpresentation
presentationofofthe
theelement
elementmanufacturing
manufacturing process byby
process thethe
DMLS method
DMLS [25]:
method (a)
[25]:
(a) initial
initial stage;
stage; (b)(b) in the
in the middle
middle of the
of the element
element production;
production; and
and (c)(c) final
final stage.
stage.

Specimens
Specimens for for strength
strength tests
tests were
were made
made using
using the
the EOS
EOS M280
M280 machine
machine (Materialise,
(Materialise, Leuven,
Leuven,
Belgium) with the dimensions of the working platform of 250 mm × 250 mm ×
Belgium) with the dimensions of the working platform of 250 mm × 250 mm × 325 mm. The printing 325 mm. The printing
process
process was
was characterized
characterized by
by the
the following
following parameters:
parameters: laser
laser power
power 200
200 W,
W, minimum
minimum layer
layer thickness
thickness
30 μm, and scanning speed up to 7 m/s. The sample print direction was consistent with the z-axis
30 µm, and scanning speed up to 7 m/s. The sample print direction was consistent with the z-axis
(Figure
(Figure1).
1).Titanium
Titaniumpowder
powder with
withthethe
following parameters
following was used:
parameters graingrain
was used: size: 53–105 µm; grain
size: 53–105 μm;shape:
grain
spherical; grain size distribution: D50 (72 µm); internal ≤ 40 ◦ ; grain sphericity: Φ ≥ 0.95;
shape: spherical; grain size distribution: D50 (72 μm);friction
internalangle:
friction angle: ≤ 40°; grain sphericity:
and
Φ ≥ bulk
0.95; density:
and bulk2.56 g/cm32.56
density: . In [10],
g/cmthe method
3. In formethod
[10], the producingfor samples
producing used in the tests
samples usedisindescribed
the testsin
is
detail. During
described one technological
in detail. process, a specimens
During one technological process, group adopted
a specimens to the
group tests under
adopted to thevarious load
tests under
conditions
various load wasconditions
produced. was
The results
produced. obtained in [10] and
The results included
obtained below
in [10] andwere achieved
included underwere
below the
same conditions.
achieved under the same conditions.

2.3. Measurement Results of Specimens Geometric Features

2.3.1. Offset Radius and Working Part Length Measurement

The measurements of selected geometrical features, i.e. offset radius values and the working
part length, were carried out on a Mitutoyo Formtracer SV-C3200 machine (Mitutoyo Corporation,
Materials 2020, 13, 3398 6 of 19

2.3. Measurement Results of Specimens Geometric Features

2.3.1. Offset Radius and Working Part Length Measurement

The measurements of selected geometrical features, i.e., offset radius values and the working
part length, were carried out on a Mitutoyo Formtracer SV-C3200 machine (Mitutoyo Corporation,
Kanagawa, Japan).
The
Materials test
2020, 13,samples
x FOR PEERwere assessed for accuracy in the scope of the required shape in accordance
REVIEW 6 of 19
with [26] standard. Ten samples were estimated. The measurements concerned the determination of
selected
selectedgeometrical
geometricaldimensions,
dimensions,i.e.
i.e.,the
thevalues
valuesofofthe
theR-I
R-Iand
andR-II
R-IIoffset
offsetradius
radiusand
andthe
theT1
T1 working
working
part
part length,
length, as as well
well as
as the
the gripping
gripping parts
parts distance
distance T2
T2 of
of the sample (Figure 4).

R-I R-II
x

z
T1

T2

Thetest
Figure4.4.The
Figure testspecimen
specimenwith
withmarked
markedgeometrical
geometricaldimensions
dimensionsmeasurement
measurementpoints.
points.

Table 22 gives
Table gives the
the geometric
geometric measurements
measurements results
results for
for the
the DB
DB and
and for
for the
the DMLS
DMLS samples:
samples: offset
offset
radius values
radius values R-I
R-Iand
andR-II,
R-II,measuring
measuring part T1 T1
part andand
T2 length, according
T2 length, to Figure
according 4. The4.obtained
to Figure results
The obtained
were presented in statistical terms using the following parameters: mean value, standard
results were presented in statistical terms using the following parameters: mean value, standard deviation,
minimum minimum
deviation, value, andvalue,
maximum value.
and maximum value.
Table 2. Geometric measurement results of Ti6Al4V samples produced from a drawn bar (DB specimen)
Table 2. Geometric measurement results of Ti6Al4V samples produced from a drawn bar (DB
and by the DMLS method (DMLS specimen).
specimen) and by the DMLS method (DMLS specimen).
SelectedGeometrical
Selected GeometricalParameters
Parameters
GeometryofofTurned
Geometry TurnedDBDBSpecimens
Specimens Geometry
Geometryofofthe
theDMLS
DMLSSpecimens
Specimens
R-IR-I R-II
R-II T1
T1 T2
T2 R-I
R-I R-II
R-II T1
T1 T2T2
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
Mean Value 8.016 8.090 12.834 24.996 8.077 7.941 12.677 24.339
Mean
Standard Value
Deviation 8.016 0.316
0.071 8.090 12.834
0.354 24.996
0.058 8.077
0.183 7.941
0.176 12.677
0.131 24.339
0.103
StandardValue
Minimum Deviation 7.835
0.071 7.933
0.316 0.354
11.957 0.058
24.935 0.183
7.779 0.176
7.643 0.131
12.424 0.103
24.259
Minimum Value 7.835 7.933 11.957 24.935 7.779 7.643 12.424 24.259
Maximum Value 8.069 8.983 13.161 25.099 8.411 8.249 12.915 24.590
Maximum Value 8.069 8.983 13.161 25.099 8.411 8.249 12.915 24.590

The most important dimensions of cylindrical samples are the offset radius values, which
The most
determine important
the value dimensions
of the of cylindrical
stress concentration samples
factor are the
affecting theoffset radius values,
test objects damagewhich form.determine
The lack
thegeometric
of value of features
the stressrepeatability
concentration may factor affecting
affect the value the oftestthe
objects damageTi6Al4V
determined form. The lack of
mechanical
geometric features
parameters. repeatability results
The measurements may affect the value
presented in of the determined
Table 2 were carried Ti6Al4V mechanical
out for 10 samples. parameters.
Samples
The measurements
were results
tested in the same presented
manner that in
wasTable 2 were carried
consistent with their outproduction
for 10 samples. Samples were tested in
method.
the same manner
The offset that was
radius consistent with
measurements their production
of turned DB samplesmethod. indicate that they are characterized by
The offset
dimensional radius measurements
repeatability. The difference of turned
betweenDB thesamples
averageindicate thatradius
R-I and R-II they are characterized
is 0.007 mm, which by
dimensional repeatability. The difference between the average R-I and
should be considered as insignificant. Analyzing the minimum value of R-I and R-II radius, the R-II radius is 0.007 mm,
which should
difference be considered
in value is 0.098asmm, insignificant. Analyzing
which should the minimum
be considered as value of R-I andTaking
insignificant. R-II radius,
into
the difference in value is 0.098 mm, which should be considered as insignificant.
consideration the maximum value of R-I and R-II radius, the difference in value is 0.914 mm, which Taking into
consideration
should the maximum
be considered valuedifference.
a significant of R-I and TheR-II radius, in
difference thethedifference
value of inR-Ivalue is 0.914
(calculated as mm,
the
which should
difference be considered
between the maximum a significant
and minimumdifference.
values)The is difference
0.234 mm, in the the
while value of R-I (calculated
difference in the value as
of the R-II radius is 1.05 mm.
The offset radius measurements of samples produced using the DMLS method indicate that they
are characterized by dimensional repeatability. The difference between the average R-I and R-II
radius is 0.136 mm, which should be considered as insignificant. The difference in minimum value of
R-I and R-II is 0.136 mm, which should be considered as insignificant. Analyzing the maximum value
Materials 2020, 13, 3398 7 of 19

the difference between the maximum and minimum values) is 0.234 mm, while the difference in the
value of the R-II radius is 1.05 mm.
The offset radius measurements of samples produced using the DMLS method indicate that they
are characterized by dimensional repeatability. The difference between the average R-I and R-II radius
is 0.136 mm, which should be considered as insignificant. The difference in minimum value of R-I
and R-II is 0.136 mm, which should be considered as insignificant. Analyzing the maximum value of
R-I and R-II, it can be seen that the difference in value is 0.162 mm, which should be considered as
insignificant. The difference in the value of R-I (calculated as the difference between the maximum
and minimum values) is 0.632 mm, while the difference in the value of the R-II radius is 0.606 mm.
Samples made using the additive method are characterized by repeatability of geometric features,
which
Materialsis2020,
important
13, x FORin the REVIEW
PEER context of repeatability of the strength tests results. 7 of 19

2.3.2.
2.3.2. Working
Working Part
Part Diameter
Diameter Measurement
Measurement
For
For the
the test
test part
part of
of the
the specimen,
specimen, the
the diameter
diameter value
value was
was measured,
measured, and
and the
the roundness
roundness was
was
determined. The measurements were carried out with the Mitutoyo CRYSTA-APEX
determined. The measurements were carried out with the Mitutoyo CRYSTA-APEX S574 device S574 device
(Mitutoyo
(Mitutoyo Corporation,
Corporation, Kanagawa,
Kanagawa, Japan).
Japan).
The
The measurements were carried out
measurements were carried out in
in three
threesections
sectionsin
inaccordance
accordancewith
withFigure
Figure5.5.

A B C
x

H1
H2
H3

Figure
Figure 5. Designation of
5. Designation the cross-sections
of the cross-sections in
in which
which the
the diameter
diameter values
values were
were measured.
measured. The
The distance
distance
of the given cross-section (A, B, C) from the sample base was: H1 = 40 mm, H2 = 43 mm, H3== 46
of the given cross-section (A, B, C) from the sample base was: H1 = 40 mm, H2 = 43 mm, H3 46 mm.
mm.

Table
Table33 presents
presents the
the measuring
measuring results
results of
of the
the diameter
diameter and
and roundness
roundness values
values using
using the
the following
following
statistical parameters: mean value, standard deviation, minimum value, and maximum
statistical parameters: mean value, standard deviation, minimum value, and maximum value. value. The listed
The
parameters were determined on the basis of 10 samples’ test results in three sections.
listed parameters were determined on the basis of 10 samples’ test results in three sections.

Table 3. Measurement results for the roundness and diameter deviations of the specimen measuring part.
Table 3. Measurement results for the roundness and diameter deviations of the specimen measuring
part. The Specimen Measuring Part Geometric Parameters
TheSpecimen DBMeasuring Part Specimen
Specimen GeometricDMLS
Parameters
Specimen
Diameter DB
Roundness Diameter Specimen DMLS
Roundness
Diameter
mm Roundness
mm Diameter
mm Roundness
mm
Mean Value
mm
5.994
mm
0.009
mm
5.949 0.019
mm
Mean Value
Standard Deviation 5.994
0.007 0.009
0.004 5.949
0.004 0.0040.019
Standard Deviation
Minimum Value 0.007
5.984 0.004
0.003 0.004
5.942 0.0130.004
Maximum
Minimum Value Value 6.012
5.984 0.015
0.003 5.958
5.942 0.0270.013
Maximum Value 6.012 0.015 5.958 0.027
The measuring results of the roundness in selected sections (A-A, B-B, and C-C) for a sample
madeThe measuring
using the DMLS results
methodof the
areroundness in selected
shown in Figure 6, andsections (A-A, DB
for a turned B-B,sample
and C-C) for a sample
are presented in
made using the DMLS method are shown in Figure 6, and for a turned DB sample are presented
Figure 7. In Figures 6 and 7, elementary measurements of individual sections are illustrated with black in
Figure 7. In Figures 6 and 7, elementary measurements of individual sections are illustrated
spots. They are in the green field indicating the range of the roundness tolerance field. The blue line with
black spots.the
represents They are in the
specimen green
cross fieldnominal
section indicating
sizethe range
equal to of the roundness tolerance field. The blue
6 mm.
line represents the specimen cross section nominal size equal to 6 mm.
 Maximum Value 6.012 0.015 5.958 0.027

The measuring results of the roundness in selected sections (A-A, B-B, and C-C) for a sample
made using the DMLS method are shown in Figure 6, and for a turned DB sample are presented in
Figure 7. In Figures 6 and 7, elementary measurements of individual sections are illustrated with
Materials 2020, 13, 3398 8 of 19
black spots. They are in the green field indicating the range of the roundness tolerance field. The blue
line represents the specimen cross section nominal size equal to 6 mm.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6. The measurements results example of the roundness of a specimen made using the DMLS
method
Materials 2020, 13, xcross-section:
in cross-section: (a) A-A; (b) B-B; and (c) C-C.
FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7.
7. The
Themeasurements
measurementsresults
results example
example of the
of the roundness
roundness of a turned
of a turned DB specimen
DB specimen in cross-
in cross-section:
section: (a) A-A; (b) B-B; and
(a) A-A; (b) B-B; and (c) C-C. (c) C-C.

The diameter measurements of the working part showed that samples made using the additive
method (DMLS
method (DMLS specimen)
specimen) and
and turned
turned samples
samples from
from aa drawn
drawn bar (DB specimen)
specimen) are within the
(±0.05 mm)
dimensional tolerance (±0.05 mm) established
established according
according toto [27]
[27] standard.
Analysis of the measuring points distribution for DMLS samples’ individual cross-sections
Analysis
measurement indicates
regarding the roundness measurement indicates an
an irregular
irregular shape
shape in
in relation
relation to
to the
the nominal
nominal circle.
circle.
This confirms the distribution of points shown in
distribution points shown Figure Figure 6c. In the case of DB specimen, the roundness
the case of DB specimen, the roundness
measurement results show shape regularity in the examined cross-sections.
cross-sections.

2.3.3. Roughness
2.3.3. Roughness Measurement
Measurement of
of the
the Specimen
Specimen Working
Working Part
Part
Surface roughness
Surface roughnesstests
testsof of
thethe
specimen
specimen measuring
measuringpart were carriedcarried
part were out using
outthe Mahrthe
using MarSurf
Mahr
GD 120 device (GmbH, Göttingen, Germany).
MarSurf GD 120 device (GmbH, Göttingen, Germany).
In accordance
In accordance with
with the
the recommendations
recommendations and and requirements
requirements of of [28]
[28] standard,
standard, the
the following
following
roughness parameters
roughness parameters were
were determined:
determined: R Raa,, R
Rzz,, and
and RRpp.. The
Thetests
testswere
were carried
carried out
out on
on the
the measuring
measuring
part of
part of the
the sample,
sample, as
as shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 8.
8.
Ra specifies the arithmetic mean profile deviations from the average line measured along the
measuring section. Rz is the arithmetic mean value of the absolute heights of the five highest profile
x Ra x Rz x Rp
elevations and the five lowest dimples on the elementary segment. Rp is the height of the highest
profile peak.
z z
The indicated roughness parameters values were determined on the basis of the same measuring
z
(a) (b) (c)
sections. The obtained test results are presented in Table 4.
Figure 8. Specimens with the marking points of roughness measurement for: (a) Ra parameter; (b) Rz
parameter and (c) Rp parameter.

Ra specifies the arithmetic mean profile deviations from the average line measured along the
measuring section. Rz is the arithmetic mean value of the absolute heights of the five highest profile
elevations and the five lowest dimples on the elementary segment. Rp is the height of the highest
profile peak.
2.3.3. Roughness Measurement of the Specimen Working Part
Surface roughness tests of the specimen measuring part were carried out using the Mahr
MarSurf GD 120 device (GmbH, Göttingen, Germany).
In accordance with the recommendations and requirements of [28] standard, the following
Materials
roughness 13, 3398
2020,parameters 9 of 19
were determined: Ra, Rz, and Rp. The tests were carried out on the measuring
part of the sample, as shown in Figure 8.

x Ra x Rz x Rp

z z z
(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 8.
8. Specimens
Specimens with
with the
the marking
marking points
points of roughness measurement for:
for: (a) Raa parameter; (b) Rzz
parameter and (c) R parameter.
parameter and (c) p parameter.
p

Surface
Table 4.the
Ra specifies roughness
arithmetic meanmeasurements results forfrom
profile deviations the measuring part line
the average of the specimen. along the
measured
measuring section. Rz is the arithmetic mean value of the
Specimen absoluteParameters
Roughness heights of the five highest profile
elevations and the five lowest dimples on the elementary segment. Rp is the height of the highest
Specimen DB Specimen DMLS
profile peak.
The indicated roughness parametersRvalues
a Rz Rp
were determined Ra
on theRbasis
z
ofRthe
p
same measuring
µm µm µm
sections. The obtained test results are presented in Table 4. mm µm µm
Mean Value 0.275 1.544 0.805 1.898 11.880 5.585
Standard
Table 4. Surface Deviation
roughness 0.089
measurements 0.385
results 0.181 0.182
for the measuring 1.339 0.633
part of the specimen.
Minimum Value 0.161 1.132 0.617 1.607 9.988 4.593
Maximum Value 0.428 Specimen
2.096 1.120 Roughness Parameters
2.187 13.987 7.132
Specimen DB Specimen DMLS
Ra Rz Rp Ra Rz Rp
The test results analysis indicates
μm that theμm average valueμm of all roughness
mm parameters
μm (i.e.,μm
R a , Rz ,
and Rp ) isMean
higher
Valuefor DMLS specimens
0.275 than 1.544
the values 0.805
obtained for1.898
DB specimens.
11.880 The differences
5.585
result Standard
from the Deviation
fact that the DMLS0.089
samples were not subjected
0.385 0.181 to additional
0.182 mechanical
1.339 treatment0.633after
their production. This form of samples
Minimum Value 0.161 was adopted
1.132 for testing
0.617 because complex construction
1.607 9.988 elements
4.593
Maximum Value 0.428 2.096 1.120 2.187 13.987
made using the DMLS method are not subjected to additional mechanical treatment. The percentages 7.132
difference of the DMLS specimens’ average roughness parameters in relation to DB samples are: for
Ra . 690.2%; for Rz . 769.4%; for Rp . 693.8%. The maximum values analysis of selected roughness
parameters allowed determining their percentage differences: for Ra . 511.0%; for Rz . 667.3%; and for
Rp . 636.8%. Analyzing the minimum values of selected parameters, their percentage differences were
determined as: for Ra . 998.1%; for Rz . 882.3%; and for Rp . 744.4%. The analysis showed that the Rp
parameter best describes the profile shape variability of the specimen measuring part. It results from
the percentage differences of the indicated parameter, which changed within the smallest ranges of
average, minimum, and maximum values.

2.4. Hardness Measurement

The Vickers method was adopted to measure hardness in samples turning from a bar and printed
using the DMLS additive manufacturing technology. This process involves pressing a diamond
pyramid with a square base and an angle between the opposite walls of 136◦ into the metal, under load
F during time t. The hardness parameter is the load ratio to the side surface durable imprint.
The hardness measurement was carried out in accordance with the [29] standard. The test stand
was equipped with a HUATEC Vickers HV-10 hardness tester (Huatec Group Corporation, Beijing,
China). Hardness tests were carried out on three samples.
During the tests, an indenter was used in the form of a four-sided shaped diamond pyramid
with an apex angle of 136◦ . The measuring load was about 98.07 N, which allowed determining the
hardness on the HV10 scale.
Hardness measurements were carried out on metallographic sections taken from broken tensile
specimens made by the DMLS method and from a drawn bar by the turning process. The material
hardness was tested at five points in two planes according to the diagram in Figure 9a,b.
 During the tests, an indenter was used in the form of a four-sided shaped diamond pyramid
with an apex angle of 136°. The measuring load was about 98.07 N, which allowed determining the
hardness on the HV10 scale.
Hardness measurements were carried out on metallographic sections taken from broken tensile
specimens made by the DMLS method and from a drawn bar by the turning process. The material
Materials 2020, 13, 3398 10 of 19
hardness was tested at five points in two planes according to the diagram in Figure 9a,b.

z y
z5
xy

1 2 3 4 5
z4

x
z3

z2

z1

x
(a) (b)

Figure9.
Figure Hardnessmeasurement
9. Hardness measurementmethod:
method:(a)
(a)schematic
schematicdesignation
designationof
ofhardness
hardnessmeasuring
measuringpoints
points
alongthe
along thez-axis;
z-axis;and
and(b)(b) schematic
schematic designation
designation of hardness
of hardness measurement
measurement points
points in shank
in the the shank on
on the
the x–y-plane.
x–y-plane.

Based on the measurements carried out, the following hardness results were obtained (Table 5).
Columns 3 and 4 of Table 5 present the hardness measurements results along the z-axis (Figure 9a) for
the DMLS and DB specimens. Columns 6 and 7 of Table 5 contain the results achieved on the x-plane
of the DMLS and DB samples gripping part (Figure 9b).

Table 5. Vickers hardness measurement results.

Vickers Hardness Measurement Method (HV10)

No.
Along z Axis On the x–y Plane
No Specimen DMLS Specimen DB No Specimen DMLS Specimen DB
1 z1 842 769 xy1 717 715
2 z2 871 785 xy2 697 680
3 z3 869 798 xy3 706 618
4 z4 881 794 xy4 701 677
5 z5 893 778 xy5 719 713

2.5. Material Strength Tests

To determine the mechanical properties of the Ti6Al4V material produced in the turning process
(from a drawn bar) and by the DMLS additive manufacturing technology, a static tensile test was
performed in accordance with the [24] standard.
Material strength tests were carried out on three samples. The stand for determining the strength
parameters was an Instron 8502 hydraulic machine (Instron, Norwood, MA, USA). The control
parameter during the tests was a machine piston displacement of 0.05 mm/s. The loading force and
deformation were recorded during the tests. The tests were accomplished using an extensometer
(Instron, Norwood, MA, USA) with a measuring base of 10 mm and a range of 1 mm.
During the static tensile test, the strain value was measured in two ways. The first method was
based on the use of an extensometer mounted directly on the sample. The second way to measure
sample deformation was the digital image correlation method. This method consisted in measuring
parameters was an Instron 8502 hydraulic machine (Instron, Norwood, MA, USA). The control
parameter during the tests was a machine piston displacement of 0.05 mm/s. The loading force and
deformation were recorded during the tests. The tests were accomplished using an extensometer
(Instron, Norwood, MA, USA) with a measuring base of 10 mm and a range of 1 mm.
During
Materials the
2020, 13, static tensile test, the strain value was measured in two ways. The first method
3398 11 was
of 19
based on the use of an extensometer mounted directly on the sample. The second way to measure
sample deformation was the digital image correlation method. This method consisted in measuring
and
and monitoring
monitoring the the displacements
displacementsof ofthe
thespecimen
specimenobserved
observedfragment,
fragment,whichwhichwas
was in in
thethe
view field
view of
field
the BASLER acA4024-8gm camera (Basler AG, Ahrensburg, Germany)
of the BASLER acA4024-8gm camera (Basler AG, Ahrensburg, Germany) set on a tripod on a solidset on a tripod on a solid surface.
The DIC method measurement consisted of an images series periodically recorded over a specified
surface.
periodThe of DIC
time.method
Usually, the first image
measurement was theofreference
consisted an images image
series[30]. The method
periodically adopted
recorded wasa
over
to photograph the sample during a tensile test with a camera at constant
specified period of time. Usually, the first image was the reference image [30]. The method adopted intervals. The images
recorded during the the
was to photograph research
samplewere subjected
during to displacement
a tensile analysis
test with a camera atusing BASLER’s
constant Pylon
intervals. Thesoftware
images
(version 6.1.0, Basler AG, Ahrensburg, Germany). This program compared
recorded during the research were subjected to displacement analysis using BASLER’s Pylon all the photos recorded
during
software the(version
test to the reference
6.1.0, Basler image. It was basedGermany).
AG, Ahrensburg, on determining the position
This program of a given
compared allpixel on the
the photos
reference image and
recorded during the ascertaining the displacement
test to the reference image. It was of this point
based onon subsequentthe
determining photos.
position of a given
pixelFigures 10 and 11image
on the reference show and
sample photos taken
ascertaining with the BASLER
the displacement of thisacA4024-8gm camera photos.
point on subsequent during a
staticFigures
tensile test for two
10 and typessample
11 show of specimens.
photosFigure
taken 10 shows
with a sample acA4024-8gm
the BASLER produced by DMLS camera technology,
during a
while
static tensile test for two types of specimens. Figure 10 shows a sample produced by images
Figure 11 shows a turned sample from a drawn bar. Figures 10a and 11a are reference DMLS
registered
technology,first during
while the 11
Figure static tensile
shows test. Figures
a turned sample 10bfrom and 11b arebar.
a drawn photos taken10a
Figures just
andbefore
11a the
are
samples
referencewere imagesbroken. Figures
registered 10cduring
first and 11c thearestatic
images of already
tensile broken10b
test. Figures specimens.
and 11b are photos ta

Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 10. Pictures
Pictures of
of aa DMLS
DMLS specimen
specimen taken
taken with
with the
the BASLER
BASLER acA4024-8gm
acA4024-8gm camera
camera during
during aa static
static
tensile
tensile test: (a) before starting the test (reference image); (b) just before the sample breaks
(a) before starting the test (reference image); (b) just before the sample breaks and (c) just
after
after breaking up.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 11. Pictures
Pictures of
of aa DB
DB specimen
specimen produced
produced by by the
the turning
turning method
method taken
taken with
with the BASLER
acA4024-8gm
acA4024-8gm camera
camera during
during a static tensile test: (a)
(a) before
before starting
starting the
the test
test (reference
(reference image);
image); (b)
(b) just
before
before the sample breaks and (c) just after breaking up.

As aaresult
resultof of
the the
staticstatic
tensile test, the
tensile following
test, material mechanical
the following properties were
material mechanical determined:
properties were
tensile strength
determined: tensileS , yield strength
u strength Su, yield S , Young’s modulus E, elongation A, and narrowing
strength Sy0.2, Young’s modulus E, elongation A, and narrowing
y0.2 Z.
Z. Figure 12 schematically shows the area on the sample subject to displacement analysis, which was
divided into12three
Figure ranges. The
schematically selected
shows strength
the area parameter
on the values to
sample subject obtained for DMLS
displacement samples
analysis, are
which
presented in Table 6, while the results for specimens produced of drawn
was divided into three ranges. The selected strength parameter values obtained for DMLS samples bar are given in Table 7.
Tables
are 6 and 7in
presented summarize
Table 6, whilethe values obtained
the results on the basis
for specimens of deformation
produced of drawn measurements
bar are given made with
in Table 7.
an extensometer
Tables and usingthe
6 and 7 summarize digital image
values correlation
obtained on thefor various
basis measuringmeasurements
of deformation ranges. The extensometer
made with
measuring
an range and
extensometer L4 = 10
was using mm, while
digital imagethe measuring
correlation forranges
various formeasuring
the digitalranges.
image correlation method
The extensometer
were: L1 = range
measuring 1.36 mm,wasL2 L4= =2.72
10 mm, and while L3the= 3.49 mm. Figure
measuring ranges13 for
shows
the examples of tensile
digital image charts
correlation
method were: L1 = 1.36 mm, L2 = 2.72 mm, and L3 = 3.49 mm. Figure 13 shows examples of tensile
charts determined using an extensometer and digital image correlation for samples made with DMLS
additive manufacturing technology (Figure 13a) and from a drawn bar by turning (Figure 13b).

z
 Figure 12 schematically shows the area on the sample subject to displacement analysis, which
was divided into three ranges. The selected strength parameter values obtained for DMLS samples
are presented in Table 6, while the results for specimens produced of drawn bar are given in Table 7.
Tables 6 and 7 summarize the values obtained on the basis of deformation measurements made with
an extensometer
Materials and using digital image correlation for various measuring ranges. The extensometer
2020, 13, 3398 12 of 19
measuring range was L4 = 10 mm, while the measuring ranges for the digital image correlation
method were: L1 = 1.36 mm, L2 = 2.72 mm, and L3 = 3.49 mm. Figure 13 shows examples of tensile
determined
charts using an
determined extensometer
using and digital
an extensometer image correlation
and digital for samples
image correlation made with
for samples DMLS
made withadditive
DMLS
manufacturing technology (Figure 13a) and from a drawn bar by turning (Figure
additive manufacturing technology (Figure 13a) and from a drawn bar by turning (Figure 13b).13b).

L4
L2 L3
L1

Figure
Figure12.
12. Schematic
Schematicpresentation
presentationof
ofthe
theareas
areasanalyzed
analyzedusing
usingthe
thedigital
digitalimage
imagecorrelation
correlationmethod,
method,
for
forwhich
whichthethe measuring
measuring ranges
ranges were: L1 ==1.36
were: L1 1.36mm,
mm,L2L2 ==2.72
2.72mm,
mm,L3L3==3.49
3.49mm,
mm,and
andL4L4 ==10
10mm
mm
(measured with an extensometer).
(measured with an extensometer).

Table 6. Selected strength parameters list of the Ti6Al4V titanium alloy manufactured by the DMLS
Table 6. Selected strength parameters list of the Ti6Al4V titanium alloy manufactured by the DMLS
method under static tensile loads.
method under static tensile loads.
Selected Strength
Selected Parameters
Strength ParametersAverage Values
Average Values
Measurement
Measurement
Range Range Sy0.2Sy0.2 Su Su E E AA Z Z
MPa MPa MPa MPa MPaMPa % % %%
DIC Range 1 L1 = 1.36 mm 1089 ± 40 1140 ± 20 115,300 ± 2037 23.5 ± 3.3 19.2 ± 3.5
DIC Range 1 L1 = 1.36 mm 1089 ± 40 1140 ± 20 115,300 ± 2037 23.5 ± 3.3 19.2 ± 3.5
DIC Range 2 L2 = 2.72 mm 1091 ± 35 1140 ± 31 115,020 ± 2805 23.3 ± 2.9 19.2 ± 3.5
DIC Range 2 L2 = 2.72 mm 1091 ± 35 1140 ± 31 115,020 ± 2805 23.3 ± 2.9 19.2 ± 3.5
DIC Range 3 L3 = 3.49 mm 1096 ± 42 1140 ± 24 112,950 ± 2350 21.2 ± 3.5 19.2 ± 3.5
DIC Range 3 L3 = 3.49 mm 1096 ± 42 1140 ± 24 112,950 ± 2350 21.2 ± 3.5 19.2 ± 3.5
Extensometer
Extensometer L4== 10
L4 10 mm
mm 1086 ± 28 1121
1086 ± 28 1121 ± 42 ± 42 119,610 ± 1254
119,610 ± 1254 16.9 ± 4.3 19.219.2
16.9 ± 4.3 ± 3.5
± 3.5

Table 7. Selected strength parameters list of the Ti6Al4V titanium alloy in the drawn bar form under
static tensile loads.

Selected Strength Parameters Average Values

Measurement
Range Sy0.2 Su E A Z
MPa MPa MPa % %
DIC Range 1 L1 = 1.36 mm 1006 ± 55 1044 ± 48 103,880 ± 4709 38.2 ± 0.9 47.3 ± 6.2
DIC Range 2 L2 = 2.72 mm 1008 ± 47 1044 ± 29 95,316 ± 3897 39.4 ± 1.3 47.3 ± 6.2
DIC Range 3 L3 = 3.49 mm 1008 ± 31 1044 ± 46 89,234 ± 3564 35.4 ± 1.8 47.3 ± 6.2
Extensometer L4 = 10 mm 1004 ± 34 1042 ± 37 106,940 ± 4375 28.3 ± 2.2 47.3 ± 6.2

The data obtained present that the strength parameters, such as yield point Sy0.2 , tensile strength
Su , and elongation, achieved for the extensometer have lower values compared to the digital image
correlation method results. The tensile tests using the extensometer for DMLS and DB samples showed
a difference in Young’s modulus values. They result from different material production technologies.
Comparing the results of the Young’s module for DMLS samples, the values obtained for different
measurement bases of the DIC method are similar. This indicates an even deformation of the layers that
resulted from the element production by the DMLS method. The differences in the yield point values
are small and within the limits of measurement uncertainty. For DB samples, significant differences
were observed in the Young’s modulus values for different measurement bases of the DIC method. It is
presumed that the results achieved are related to locally changing properties of the sample. It is also
assumed that the DIC measurement method may have influenced the results of the Young’s module
determined for DB samples. This method is based on images of the sample’s surface. The small surface
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
Materials 2020, 13, 3398 13 of 19
Table 7. Selected strength parameters list of the Ti6Al4V titanium alloy in the drawn bar form under
static tensile loads.
roughness could affect the readings of the displacement values, which contributed to obtaining specific
Selected Strength Parameters Average Values
test results. The modulus
Measurementof elasticity E obtains the highest value for the extensometer. Based on the
Sy0.2 Su E A Z
results, the followingRange
relationship is observed: the larger is the measurement area, the greater are the
MPa MPa MPa % %
Young’s modulus E and elongation A, while the lower is the yield point Sy0.2 . The yield point Sy0.2
DIC Range 1 L1 = 1.36 mm 1006 ± 55 1044 ± 48 103,880 ± 4709 38.2 ± 0.9 47.3 ± 6.2
value is close to the
DIC Range 2
value obtained
L2 = 2.72 mm
for the extensometer.
1008 ± 47 1044 ± 29
The results obtained
95,316 ± 3897
for turned47.3
39.4 ± 1.3
samples
± 6.2
behave in a3similar
DIC Range L3way,
= 3.49asmm
given in1008
Table 7 and 1044
± 31 Figure
± 4613b. The only± difference
89,234 3564 is that
35.4 ± 1.8for range
47.3 ±26.2
the
highest value
Extensometer of elongation
L4 = 10 mm A was obtained.
1004 ± 34 1042 ± 37 106,940 ± 4375 28.3 ± 2.2 47.3 ± 6.2

1200 1200

1000 1000

800 800
Stress σ, MPa

Stress σ, MPa
600 DIC range 1 600 DIC range 1
DIC range 2
DIC range 2
400 400
DIC range 3
DIC range 3
200 Extensometer 200
Extensometer

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25
Strain ε, % Strain ε, %
(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 13. An example
example of
ofthe
thestretching
stretchinggraph
graphS=
S f(ε)
= f(ε) Ti6Al4V
Ti6Al4V titanium
titanium alloy:
alloy: (a) DMLS
(a) DMLS specimen
specimen and
and (b)specimen.
(b) DB DB specimen.

The data
The strength tests present
obtained showedthat
thatthe
thestrength
samplesparameters,
produced with
suchthe DMLS
as yield additive
point manufacturing
Sy0.2, tensile strength
technology are characterized by higher tensile strength
Su, and elongation, achieved for the extensometer have lower Su and yield point S
values comparedy0.2 to the digital turned
compared to image
DB specimens.
correlation Similar
method values
results. Theoftensile
Young’s modulus
tests were
using the achieved for
extensometer forboth
DMLS sample
and technologies.
DB samples
The elongation
showed A average
a difference value reaches
in Young’s modulusalmost two They
values. times result
higher from
valuedifferent
for specimens
materialmade of drawn
production
bar in the turning
technologies. process.the results of the Young’s module for DMLS samples, the values obtained
Comparing
for different measurement bases of the DIC method are similar. This indicates an even deformation
3. Analysis of Test Results
of the layers that resulted from the element production by the DMLS method. The differences in the
yield point values
3.1. Analysis of SampleareGeometric
small and within the limits of measurement uncertainty. For DB samples,
Features
significant differences were observed in the Young’s modulus values for different measurement bases
of theAnalyzing
DIC method. roughness measurements,
It is presumed that theitresults
can be achieved
seen that samples
are related made using the
to locally DMLS technology
changing properties
of the sample. It is also assumed that the DIC measurement method may have influenced theItresults
immediately after the printing process do not meet the requirements of the [27] standard. gives
thethe
of parameter
Young’s Ra valuedetermined
module of the specimenfor DB working
samples. part
Thisequal to 0.32
method µm. Due
is based to the performance
on images of the sample’s of
tests under static loads, the surface roughness value is not a factor that significantly
surface. The small surface roughness could affect the readings of the displacement values, which affects the test
results. Considering
contributed to obtainingthe specific
results of specimens’
test results. Thegeometric
modulusmeasurements, it should
of elasticity E obtains thebe noted value
highest that they
for
do not all meet normative assumptions in as-built state. The surface roughness
the extensometer. Based on the results, the following relationship is observed: the larger is the Ra average value of the
measuring part for the tested samples is higher than that given in the standard.
measurement area, the greater are the Young’s modulus E and elongation A, while the lower is the On the other hand,
the diameters
yield and
point Sy0.2 roundness
. The yield pointdeviations of the
Sy0.2 value working
is close partvalue
to the meet obtained
the normative conditions.
for the To ensure
extensometer. The
compliance of geometric dimensions, shape, and surface roughness, additional
results obtained for turned samples behave in a similar way, as given in Table 7 and Figure 13b. The mechanical treatment
should
only be carried
difference out. for range 2 the highest value of elongation A was obtained.
is that
The strength tests showed that the samples produced with the DMLS additive manufacturing
3.2. Hardness Test Results Comparison
technology are characterized by higher tensile strength Su and yield point Sy0.2 compared to turned
On the basis
DB specimens. of the
Similar hardness
values tests, amodulus
of Young’s difference in the
were resultsforobtained
achieved for samples
both sample produced
technologies. The
from a drawn bar and made using the additive manufacturing method
elongation A average value reaches almost two times higher value for specimens made of drawn bar was found. According to
Figure
in hardness measurements of DMLS and DB specimens were made along the z-axis.
9a, fiveprocess.
the turning
Analyzing the achieved hardness values presented in Figure 14a, it can be seen that, for the DMLS
specimen, the hardness along the z-axis is higher than the hardness for the DB sample. For the DMLS
specimen, the hardness results are in the range 842–893 HV10, while the hardness for the DB specimen
Materials 2020, 13, 3398 14 of 19

varies between 769 and 798 HV10. According to the measurement implementation scheme (Figure 9b),
the first measuring point is located in the sample gripping area, while the last measuring point is
located closest to the edge of the sample crack. For the DMLS sample, it can be considered that the
hardness on the z-axis increases with the approach to the crack site. The highest hardness values for
the DMLS specimen (893 HV10) were obtained near the fracture site of the sample, while, for the DB
specimen, the highest hardness (798 HV10) was achieved at the transition point between the shank and
measuring part. The hardness at the first point located in the gripping part for the DMLS specimen is
842 HV10 and for the DB specimen 769 HV10. The increase in hardness at the DMLS fracture site may
be related to the deformations occurring in this area caused by the static tensile test. The increase in
hardness at the DMLS fracture site may be related to the deformations occurring in this area caused
by the static tensile test. This is due to the change in the sample geometry, which affects the change
in stress/strain values in specific sections. The highest hardness occurs in the area where the crack
occurred. This is where the highest deformations occurred, which were close to 16.9%. In the case of a
sample made of drawn bar, the change in the hardness value along the z-axis is related to the higher
ductility of this material compared to the DMLS sample. In the gripping part of the sample, the rising
of deformations caused by the static tensile test increases the hardness of the material. This is due to
the change in the value of the sample cross-sections. On the other hand, a significant increase in these
deformations in the measuring part of the sample causes significant changes in the structure of the
material contributing to a decrease in its hardness. In addition, Figure 14a presents the measurement
results as a polynomial function whose equation was determined for two types of samples. In each
case, the determination coefficient value was R2 > 0.95, which indicates a good fit of the polynomial
function with the experimental research results.
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

(a) (b)

Figure 14.
Figure 14. HV10
HV10 hardness
hardness distribution:
distribution: (a)
(a) along
along the
the z-axis;
z-axis; and
and (b)
(b) in
in the
the shank
shank on
on the
the x–y-plane.
x–y-plane.

Figure 14b shows

shows the the hardness
hardnessmeasuring
measuringresults
resultsofofthe
theDMLS
DMLSand andDB
DBsamples taken
samples onon
taken thethe
x–
y-plane according
x–y-plane accordingtotothe
thediagram
diagramininFigure
Figure9b.
9b.The
Thehardness
hardnessresults
resultsfor
forboth
bothDMLS
DMLS and DB specimens
specimens
were lower
were lower than
than those
those achieved
achieved along
along the
the z-axis.
z-axis. On the x-plane, higher hardness values were
were gained
gained
for the
for the DMLS
DMLS specimen,
specimen, which
which were
were in
in the
the range
range of
of 697–719
697–719 HV10.
HV10. On the other hand, the DB sample
had aa hardness
hardness of
of 618–715
618–715 HV10.
HV10. The DB sample was characterized by the highest hardness around around
the section
the section edge
edge Point
Point 1,
1, 715
715 HV10;
HV10; Point
Point 5,
5, 713
713 HV10).
HV10). As the DB sample axis approaches, a decrease
decrease
hardness can
in hardness can be
be seen
seen (Point
(Point 3,
3, 618
618 HV10).
HV10). Such hardness distribution may be affected by the the
deformations value resulting from the stretching of the material outer layers. It is known that a rod
with a round section loaded with tensile force has a variable distribution of deformations in the cross
section. Therefore, in each of the analyzed cases, the hardness outside the sample is the highest. In
the case of DB samples, this difference may be due to the producing method of the bar, i.e. pulling
process. The obtained results were described by the polynomial equation shown in Figure 14b, which
Materials 2020, 13, 3398 15 of 19

deformations value resulting from the stretching of the material outer layers. It is known that a rod
with a round section loaded with tensile force has a variable distribution of deformations in the cross
section. Therefore, in each of the analyzed cases, the hardness outside the sample is the highest. In the
case of DB samples, this difference may be due to the producing method of the bar, i.e., pulling process.
The obtained results were described by the polynomial equation shown in Figure 14b, which does not
describe their variability very accurately, as evidenced by the determination coefficient R2 = 0.8024.
In the case of results for DMLS specimen, the highest values were around the section edge (Point 1,
717 HV10; Point 5, 719 HV10). As with the DB sample, the hardness value was the highest on the outer
layers of the sample. It can also be affected by deformations occurring in the material resulting from
the stretching of the outer layers. Differences in hardness values in the printed sample were lower due
to the layered manufacturing process. The difference between the highest and lowest hardness values
for the DMLS sample was 22 HV10. The obtained test results were described by a polynomial equation
(Figure 14b). The value of the coefficient of determination is R2 = 0.7568.

3.3. Analysis of Static Tension Test Results

The tests carried out on titanium alloy Ti6Al4V allowed determining the yield point value Sy0.2
and tensile strength Su for DB and DMLS specimens. The indicated parameters have higher values
for DMLS samples (Su = 1140 MPa) in relation to DB samples (Su = 1044 MPa). In the case of DB
samples for the measuring ranges variable value, the quotient was Sy0.2 /Su ≈ 1.04, while for DMLS
specimen its value was Sy0.2 /Su = 1.03 ± 1.05. Analyzing the Young’s modulus values as a function
of the variable measuring range value, it was found that, in the case of DB specimens, the lowest
module values E = 89,234 MPa were obtained for the range L3 = 3.49 mm, while the highest module
values E = 106,940 MPa for the range L4 = 10 mm. The difference in values is ∆E = 17,706 MPa
(Figure 15a). In the case of DMLS samples, the lowest module values E = 112,950 MPa were gained for
the range L3 = 3.49 mm, while the highest module values E = 119,610 MPa for the range L4 = 10 mm.
The difference in values is ∆E = 6660 MPa (Figure 15b). The DIC method is ideal for determining
local mechanical properties that may be used, e.g., in numerical calculations of construction elements.
Based on the tests carried out, it can be stated that, for a Young’s modulus, the difference in the
parameter E value depends on the measurement base: for samples made of drawn rod, it was about
14%, while, for samples made by the additive method, it was about 2%.
In the case of DMLS samples:

• for measuring base L1 = 1.36 mm, module E = 115,300 MPa;

• for measuring base L2 = 2.72 mm, module E = 115,020 MPa; and
• for measuring bases L3 = 3.49 mm, module E = 112,950 MPa.

Similar Young’s modulus values for DMLS samples result from sample-making technology.
The specimen was made along the z-axis, which indicates that the subsequent layers’ connections of the
element were tested. A small measurement base adoption reduced the number of analyzed material
layers, and thus the material defects number occurring in the analyzed volume. Material defects may
result from: no melting of the powder, occurring microporosity, material defects, etc.
Young’s modulus is a material constant, thus its value should be the same for each of the
measurement methods. Changes in the values of Young’s modulus for individual measuring ranges in
the DMLS sample may be related to local changes in material properties. The individual measurement
bases include small fragments of the sample in the area of the greatest deformation and subsequent
cracking. As a result, the greatest local changes in material properties occur in this area. The difference
in the Young’s modulus values resulted from the inaccuracy of the digital image correlation method.
Analyzing the test results, it can be concluded that the DIC method is not reliable compared to the
standard method using an extensometer used in engineering research. In the case of both DB and DMLS
samples, the value of Young’s modulus E decreased with the increase of the L area under analysis.
This may result from poor lighting of the sample during the tests (too dark or overexposed photos),
Materials 2020, 13, 3398 16 of 19

which translates into “losing” points by the program during the analysis. The differences between
Young’s modulus obtained for the measurement ranges L1, L2, and L3 for the DMLS sample are smaller
than for the DB sample. The surface of the DMLS sample was rougher and dull, which favored taking
higher quality photos, while the turned DB sample had a shiny surface, which reflected the light,
causing the photos to be overexposed. As a result of the conducted research, it can be concluded that
the DIC method depends on many factors, i.e., the surface of the tested element and its preparation,
appropriate lighting, and the size of the analyzed area. It was found that the DIC method can be
reliable for small measurement areas. Comparing the results obtained using the DIC method and the
results achieved
Materials using
2020, 13, x FOR anREVIEW
PEER extensometer, it was found that they differ in the range of about 5%.16 of 19

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 15.
15. Change
Change of
of Young’s modulus value
Young’s modulus value depending
depending on
on changes
changes in
in the
the measurement
measurement base
base value
value
for: (a) DB specimen; and (b) DMLS specimen.
for: (a) DB specimen; and (b) DMLS specimen.

The changes results in elongation A for the adopted measuring ranges show that the lowest values
were achieved for both types of samples for L4 = 10 mm (Figure 16). The smaller the measurement
range, the greater the strain value. The smallest measuring range included a fragment of the sample in
which there was a crack resulting from the occurrence of tensile forces. There was stress concentration
at the crack site and a simultaneous increase in the deformation of the material layers. The average
deformation value in areas L2 and L3 was lower than in the case of the L1 measurement range.
The largest measuring range L4, obtained for the extensometer, was characterized by the lowest
deformation value. Higher elongation values were obtained for DB specimens that range from 28.3%
to 39.4%, while for DMLS samples from 16.9% to 23.5%.

(a) (b)

Figure 16. Change in the samples elongation depending on changes in the value of the measurement
base for: (a) DB specimen; and (b) DMLS specimen.

4. Conclusions
DIC is an optical method that allows measuring displacements that can be used to determine
 (a) (b)

Figure
Materials 2020,15.
13,Change
3398 of Young’s modulus value depending on changes in the measurement base value17 of 19
for: (a) DB specimen; and (b) DMLS specimen.

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 16.
16. Change
Changeininthe
thesamples
sampleselongation
elongation depending
depending on
on changes
changes in
in the
the value
value of
of the
the measurement
measurement
base for: (a) DB specimen; and (b) DMLS specimen.
base for: (a) DB specimen; and (b) DMLS specimen.

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
DIC is
DIC is an
an optical
optical method
method that
that allows
allows measuring
measuring displacements
displacements that that can
can be
be used
used to to determine
determine
strains caused by external loads. In the case of material produced by the additive
strains caused by external loads. In the case of material produced by the additive method, based method, based on
on
sintering of metallic powder layers, its strength is determined by the strength of the
sintering of metallic powder layers, its strength is determined by the strength of the individual layerindividual layer
connections. The
connections. TheDIC
DICmethod
methodisisideal
idealfor
fordetermining
determininglocal
localmechanical
mechanicalproperties
propertiesthat
thatmaymaybebeused,
used,
e.g., in numerical calculations of construction elements. Based on the tests carried out, it
e.g., in numerical calculations of construction elements. Based on the tests carried out, it can be stated can be stated
that, for
that, for aa Young’s
Young’s modulus,
modulus, the
the difference
difference in in the
the parameter
parameter E E value
value depends
depends onon the
the measurement
measurement
base: for samples made of drawn rod, it is about 14%, while, for samples made
base: for samples made of drawn rod, it is about 14%, while, for samples made by the additive by the additive method,
it is about 2%.
method, it is about 2%.
Analysis of changes in the Young’s modulus value showed that the highest values were obtained
for the measuring range L4 = 10 mm for both types of specimens. Young’s modulus for DMLS samples
was 11.8% larger than module E for DB samples. The variability of the module E value for the adopted
measuring ranges was much lower for DMLS specimens. It is related to the technology of sample
preparation by the DMLS additive manufacturing method consisting in sintering material layers.
Therefore, the structural element strength is determined by the strength of a single joint of the material
in two layers.
Ti6Al4V titanium alloy produced from a powder by the DMLS additive manufacturing method
showed higher values of Young’s modulus E in relation to the results achieved for the drawn
bar material.
The assumed strain measuring ranges importantly influenced the value of Young’s modulus for
specimens made of drawn bar (∆E = 17,706 MPa), while, in the case of DMLS samples, this impact
was significantly smaller (∆E = 6660 MPa). The experimentally determined Young’s modulus value is
important for calculations performed using numerical methods.
The hardness of specimens produced using the DMLS method was higher than in the case
of samples made from a drawn bar by turning. This applied to hardness along the z-axis and on
the x–y-plane.
Producing samples using the DMLS additive technology allowed obtaining surface roughness
characterized by average values: Ra = 1.898 mm, Rz = 11.880 mm, and Rp = 5.585 mm.
Materials 2020, 13, 3398 18 of 19

Comparison of the obtained results with those presented in [6–10] indicates that they are consistent
with the results achieved for the annealed Ti6Al4V material. High results compliance was obtained
with the results presented in this work for all analyzed parameters, i.e., Sy , Su , E, and A.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.L; methodology, K.K., B.L. and D.B.; software, D.B.; validation, K.K.,
B.L. and D.B.; formal analysis, K.K. and B.L.; investigation, K.K. and B.L.; data curation, K.K., B.L. and D.B.;
writing—original draft preparation, K.K. and B.L.; writing—review and editing, K.K and B.L.; visualization, B.L.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ford, S.L.N. Additive Manufacturing Technology: Potential Implications for U.S. Manufacturing
Competitiveness. J. Int. Commer. Econ. 2014, 6, 40.
2. Kobryn, P.A.; Semiatin, S.L. The Laser Additive Manufacture of Ti-6Al-4V. JOM 2001, 53, 40–42. [CrossRef]
3. Liu, S.; Shin, Y.C. Additive Manufacturing of Ti6Al4V Alloy: A Review. Mater. Des. 2019, 164, 107552.
[CrossRef]
4. Liu, Q.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, H.; Tang, K.; Ding, L.; Li, H.; Gong, S. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of
LMD-SLM Hybrid Forming Ti6Al4V Alloy. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2016, 660, 24–33. [CrossRef]
5. Mierzejewska, A. Effect of Laser Energy Density, Internal Porosity and Heat Treatment on Mechanical
Behavior of Biomedical Ti6Al4V Alloy Obtained with DMLS Technology. Materials 2019, 12, 2331. [CrossRef]
6. Chang, K.; Liang, E.; Huang, W.; Zhang, X.; Chen, Y.; Dong, J.; Zhang, R. Microstructural feature and
mechanical property in different building directions of additive manufactured Ti6Al4V alloy. Mater. Lett.
2020, 267, 127516. [CrossRef]
7. Beibei, H.; Wenheng, W.; Liang, Z.; Lin, L.; Qiyun, Y.; Qianeli, L.; Kun, C.H. Microstructural characteristic
and mechanical property of Ti6Al4V alloy fabricated by selective laser melting. Vacuum 2018, 150, 79–83.
[CrossRef]
8. Sun, W.; Ma, Y.; Huang, W.; Zhang, W.; Qian, X. Effects of build direction on tensile and fatigue performance
of selective laser melting Ti6Al4V titanium alloy. Int. J. Fatigue 2020, 130, 10526. [CrossRef]
9. Liang, Z.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, W.; Wu, S.; Chang, H. The effect of heat treatment on microstructure evolution and
tensile properties of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V alloy. J. Alloys Compd. 2019, 782, 1041–1048. [CrossRef]
10. Karolewska, K.; Ligaj, B.; Wirwicki, M.; Szala, G. Strength analysis of Ti6Al4V titanium alloy produced by the
use of additive manufacturing method under static load conditions. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 1365–1379.
[CrossRef]
11. EN ISO 5832. Implants for Surgery—Metallic Materials—Part 2: Unalloyed Titanium; International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
12. PN-74/H-04327. Badanie metali na zm˛eczenie. Próba Osiowego RozciaGania
˛ – ściskania przy StałYm Cyklu ObciażE
˛ ń
Zewn˛eTrznych; Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny: Warsaw, Poland, 1974.
13. Benedetti, M.; Cazzolli, M.; Fontanari, V.; Leoni, M. Fatigue limit of Ti6 Al4 V alloy produced by Selective
Laser Sintering, Procedia structural integrity, organizer. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2016, 2, 3158–3167. [CrossRef]
14. Benedetti, M.; Torresani, E.; Leoni, M.; Fontanari, V.; Bandini, M.; Pederzolli, C.; Potrich, C. 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. 2017, 71, 295–306. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Quintana, O.; Tong, W. Effects of oxygen content on tensile and fatigue performance of Ti-6Al-4V manufactured
by Selective Laser Melting. J. Miner. Met. Mater. Soc. 2017, 69, 2693–2697. [CrossRef]
16. Rafi, H.; Starr, T.; Stucker, B. 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. 2013, 69, 1299–1309.
[CrossRef]
17. Bahrami, B.; Ayatollahi, M.R.; Torabi, A.R. Application of digital image correlation method for determination
of mixed mode stress intensity factors in sharp notches. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2019, 124, 105830. [CrossRef]
Materials 2020, 13, 3398 19 of 19

18. Boniotti, L.; Beretta, S.; Patriarca, L.; Rigoni, L.; Foletti, L. Experimental and numerical investigation
on compressive fatigue strength of lattice structures of AlSi7Mg manufactured by SLM. Int. J. Fatigue
2019, 128, 10518. [CrossRef]
19. Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, W.; Karnati, S.; Liou, F.; Newkirk, J.W. Microstructure and properties of functionally
graded materials Ti6Al4V/TiC fabricated by direct laser deposition. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2018, 24, 677–687.
[CrossRef]
20. Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Ao, S.; Luo, Z. Effects of melting-mixing ratio on the interfacial microstructure
and tensile properties of austenitic–ferritic stainless steel joints. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2019, 8, 2649–2661.
[CrossRef]
21. Wiriwcki, M.; Pejkowski, L.; Topolinski, T. Fatigue testing of titanium alloy Ti6Al4V used in medical devices.
Solid State Phenom. 2016, 250, 250–254. [CrossRef]
22. Karolewska, K.; Ligaj, B. Comparison Analysis of Titanium Alloy Ti6Al4V Produced by Metallurgical and
3D Printing Method. Book Ser. AIP Conf. Proc. 2019, 2077. [CrossRef]
23. Ligaj, B.; Sołtysiak, R. Problems of equivalent load amplitude in fatigue life calculations. Pol. Marit. Res.
2016, 23, 85–92. [CrossRef]
24. ISO 6892-1:2020. Metallic Materials—Tensile Testing—Part 1: Method of Test at Room Temperature; International
Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
25. 3D Hubs Home Page. Available online: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/introduction-metal-3d-
printing (accessed on 30 July 2020).
26. PN-84/H-04334. Badania Niskocyklowego Zm˛eCzenia Metali; Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny: Warsaw, Poland, 1984.
27. ASTM E606 / E606M-19e1. Standard Test Method for Strain-Controlled Fatigue Testing; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019.
28. EN ISO 4287:1999. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)—Surface Texture: Profile Method — Terms, Definitions and
Surface Texture Parameters; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.
29. EN ISO 6507-1: 2018. Metallic Materials—Vickers Hardness Test—Part 1: Test Method; International Organization
for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.
30. Marciniak, T.; Lutowski, Z.; Bujnowski, S.; Boronski, D.; Giesko, T. Application of Digital image Correlation
in Fatigue Crack Analysis, Fatigue Failure and Fracture Mechanics, Edited by: D. Skibicki. Book Ser. Mater.
Sci. Forum 2012, 726, 218. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).