Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102201

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Additive Manufacturing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/addma

Research Paper

Effects of laser power on texture evolution and mechanical properties of

laser-arc hybrid additive manufacturing
Mengcheng Gong , Shuai Zhang , Yang Lu , Dengzhi Wang *, Ming Gao *
Wuhan National Laboratory for Optoelectronics (WNLO), Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The effects of laser power on the formation, texture evolution, and mechanical properties of 316L stainless steel
Additive manufacturing fabricated by laser-arc hybrid additive manufacturing were studied. The results showed that the surface accuracy
Laser power was first improved and then degraded with increasing laser power, because the stability of the molten pool first
Heat accumulation
rose and then fell with the rising laser power. Additionally, the microhardness decreased with the increase in
Texture evolution
deposition height, but the trend became weaker with further heat accumulation. When the laser power was
Tensile property
amplified from 500 to 2000 W, the molten pool gradually changed from the conduction to keyhole mode (KM),
and the cube texture content increased from 0% to 65.5%. A 5.5% Goss texture was generated in the KM at 2000
W, because the migration of the solid–liquid interface gradually deviated to the <011> direction. Furthermore,
the KM expanded the range of the remelted zone, the number of bonding layers, and the content of grains with
low misorientation angle significantly. Therefore, the ultimate tensile strength of the part produced in the KM
was able to reach 600 MPa, higher than that of the conduction mode part (520–530 MPa) fabricated at a lower
laser power.

1. Introduction
Austenitic stainless steel (ASS) has been widely used in pressure
vessels, boilers, and nuclear reactors owing to its excellent corrosion
resistance and processability [1]. However, its application to some
special conditions is restricted, because some excessively large parts
cannot be formed at one time using traditional processes. The wire arc
additive manufacturing (WAAM) process has an inestimable advantage
for the fabrication of large parts owing to its ability of integrated
forming, low cost and high efficiency [2]. Still, the key challenge for
WAAM is its poor surface accuracy.
Currently, although the low-heat-input arc method [3] and the 3D
welding/milling hybrid method [4] can be adopted to improve the
surface accuracy of parts created using WAAM, employing laser-arc
hybrid additive manufacturing (LHAM) has attracted more attention
for its ability to maintain the balance between deposition efficiency and
surface accuracy. In comparison with WAAM, LHAM has more potential
because of smaller pool dimension and lower temperature gradient
under the same deposition rate. It results in finer microstructure and
higher mechanical properties [5]. The deposition speed of WAAM needs
to be restricted to less than 0.6 m/min in order to avoid the humping
defect [5], while that of LHAM easily reaches 1.2 m/min or higher [6],
indicating a stronger ability to improve the productivity and decrease
the surface roughness. For example, Näsström et al. [7] studied the effect
of laser on ASS molten pools using a one-direction deposition strategy,
and found that the laser can keep the thin wall surface profile and reduce
the average fluctuation by more than 35%. Zhang et al. [8] found that
the effective utilization rate of aluminum alloy increased from 80% for
WAAM to over 90% for LHAM. Pardal et al. [9] verified that the laser in
conduction mode (CM) can be used to stabilize the arc column, improve
the morphology of multilayer deposits, and increase the deposition rate
of the LHAM Ti-6Al-4V sample from 1.7 kg/h to 2.0 kg/h.
However, the above-mentioned studies only proved the potential of
LHAM to improve the appearance; the microstructure and mechanical
properties, which are closely related to the different processing pa­
rameters and defects, were ignored. For example, Liu et al. [10]
observed that the strength and elongation of 2219 aluminum alloy can
be improved simultaneously using the LHAM process with T6 heat
treatment. Miao et al. [11] found that the ultimate tensile strength (UTS)
increased from 151.91 to 163.39 MPa during the LHAM of Al–Si alloy
when the laser power increased from 0 to 350 W. Lu et al. [12] found
that the heat accumulation along the building direction would form a

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: dzwang@hust.edu.cn (D. Wang), mgao@mail.hust.edu.cn (M. Gao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.102201
Received 9 February 2021; Received in revised form 17 July 2021; Accepted 19 July 2021
Available online 26 July 2021
2214-8604/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Gong et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102201

transition zone, resulting in the instability of the molten pool. Wu et al. Table 1
[13] revealed that the molten pool modes played an important role in Chemical composition of ER316L wire (wt%).
the mechanical properties of selective laser melted AlSi10Mg parts, Elements C Cr Ni Mo Si Mn Fe
which was closely related to the laser power and deposition speed, but Contents 0.018 19.53 12.78 3.09 0.35 2.28 Bal.
its influence on the LHAM samples is still uncertain.
It is clear that the processing parameters would greatly influence the
LHAM parts, but relevant studies have been limited, to date. In this Table 2
study, 316L ASS parts were manufactured by LHAM with different laser Main deposition parameters.
powers, and the effects of molten pool mode on the texture evolution
Sample No. #1 #2 #3 #4
and mechanical properties were investigated.
Laser power, P, W 500 1000 1500 2000
Arc current, A 147 147 147 147
2. Experimental procedure Arc voltage, V 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2
Deposition speed, m/min 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
As shown in Fig. 1(a), the LHAM system was composed of a 6 kW IPG Vertical displacement per layer of heat 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.1
fiber laser, a TPS 4000 Fronius welder, and a Fanuc M–710ic robot. The source, mm
Heat input, J/mm 259 309 359 409
laser beam was transmitted from the fiber to the collimator, and focused
by a lens to irradiate the substrate with a focal diameter of 0.4 mm. The
angle of the laser beam with respect to the horizontal was 90◦ , and that diamond grinding paste. They were then chemically etched with
of the arc torch was 55◦ . A cold metal transfer (CMT) arc was employed chloroazotic acid for 3–5 s. The microstructures were observed using a
to reduce heat input. The defocused distance of the laser beam was 5 FEI Sirion 200 scanning electron microscope (SEM). For electron back­
mm. As depicted in Fig. 1(b), A Phantom V710 high-speed camera was scatter diffraction (EBSD) analysis, samples of the YOZ plane were first
used to capture the melt flow. The acquisition frame rate was 5000 fps, cut from the thin wall, and the non-flat surfaces of the two sides were
the exposure time was 8 μs, and the filter was 650 ± 5 nm. scraped using wire-electrode cutting. After grinding, the EBSD samples
A commercial 1.0 mm ER316L wire was deposited on the polished were electro-polished with a solution of 10 vol% perchloric acid and
15 mm-thick Q235 substrate, layer by layer, using an alternate deposi­ 90 vol% alcohol under a voltage of 20 V for 30 s with a step size of
tion strategy. The chemical composition of the ER316L wire is listed in 6.5 µm. Vickers microhardness was measured in the medium (middle)
Table 1. The average dimensions of the stable thin wall were 160 mm × section of the XOZ plane, from the bottom up at an interval of 1 mm with
(8− 12) mm × 80 mm. A mixture of 97.5% Ar and 2.5% CO2 at a flow a load of 1.96 N for 15 s. Tensile tests were performed at a loading rate
rate of 25 L/min was used as the shielding gas. The process parameters of 2 mm/min. The results were the average of three samples. Fracture
were listed in Table 2. features were observed using SEM after the tensile tests.
After deposition, the thin wall was cut from the substrate using
wire–cut electric discharge machining. The surface roughness (R) and 3. Results
the minimum processing margin of the sidewall (dmin) were calculated
according to Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively. 3.1. Single-pass bead
∑n
R= di /n (1)
i=1 As shown in Fig. 3(a), the penetration depth increases with the laser
power, while the width reaches the maximum value when the laser
dmin = max(di)-min(di) (2) power is 1500 W, after which it decreases. A single pass of the LHAM
where di is the distance of the point on the sidewall contour to the process is the same as that of laser–arc hybrid welding (LAHW) with
baseline, n is the test number, and the baseline is calculated by linear partial penetration. As reported by Katayama et al. [14] and Wang et al.
fitting the contour curve using the least-squares method. [15], the melt flow, laser-arc synergistic effect, and energy transfer vary
The metallographic and tensile specimens were prepared according with the increase in laser power. Here, laser-arc synergistic effect sta­
to the position and dimensions shown in Fig. 2. The metallographic bilizes the arc burning and smoothens the droplet transfer because of
samples of the XOZ plane were ground using a series of silicon carbide two reasons. Firstly, the arc root is fixed by laser keyhole rather than is
abrasive papers (up to 2000 grit) and polished with W2.5 polycrystalline wandering as usual at high speed. Secondly, plenty of charged particles
are transferred from laser plasma plume to arc column. It stabilizes the

Fig. 1. Schematic of LHAM; (a) experimental set-up, (b) melt flow capture system.

2
M. Gong et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102201

Fig. 2. Test sample, (a) cutting positions, (b) dimensions of tensile sample, (c) cutaway view of A-A plane.

Fig. 3. (a) Penetration depth and width of single–pass bead, (b) aspect ratio of molten pool.

arc by increasing the ionization degree.
The results of all these changes are represented by the morphological
changes in the deposited layer. The laser power density calculations
show that no keyhole forms when the laser power is less than 2000 W,
because the laser power density is lower than the threshold. The laser
energy is transmitted only by heat conduction, and cannot introduce the
arc energy into the lower part of the layer. Therefore, the heat mainly
stays in the upper part of the layer, resulting in a wide deposition layer.
However, a keyhole forms when the laser power is 2000 W or higher.
Strong Marangoni convection occurs along the keyhole and drives the
heat and the liquid metal deeper into the molten pool. This deepens and
narrows the deposition layer. Moreover, a higher laser power induces a
stronger laser-arc synergistic effect and compresses the arc column. This
further decreases the dimensions of the deposition layer. Consequently,
the change in the deposition layer is one of the most obvious phenomena
of mode transformation with increasing laser power.
It should be pointed out that the width of the single pass bead
(5.7–8.5 mm), which is corresponding to the first deposition layer, is
smaller than the average width of the upper stable layers of thin-wall
(8–12 mm) because the bad heat-dispersed condition and serious heat
accumulation of upper layers widens the bead [16]. Based on the above
view and the results proposed by Hann et al. [17], the molten pool
changes from CM to keyhole mode (KM) when the penetration depth to
width ratio (aspect ratio) is larger than 0.5. As shown in Fig. 3(b), the

3
M. Gong et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102201

mode transformation occurs when the laser power is higher than

1500 W.

3.2. Multiple–layer thin wall

As shown in Fig. 4, a stable deposition location (more than 10 layers

above) in the middle of the YOZ plane was selected. For a thin wall,
because the boundary of the molten pool exhibits nonlinear time-
varying characteristics due to the change in heat accumulation in the
deposition location, the sidewall surface is characterized by the wavi­
ness with peaks and valleys. When the laser power is lower than 1500 W,
the waviness decreases from 1.28 to 0.78 mm with increasing laser
power, showing a smooth surface. However, it increases to 1.49 mm
when the laser power increases to 2000 W (sample #4), showing a rough
surface caused by the overflow at the edge of molten pool. This phe­
nomenon suggests that the molten pool becomes unstable when the laser
power is too high.
As shown in Fig. 5, R and dmin decrease synchronously when the laser Fig. 5. Surface accuracy of thin wall.
power increases from 500 to 1500 W, and reach the minimum values of
78 and 360 µm, respectively, when the laser power is 1500 W. The molten pool (εm) directly, but it can be deduced based on the micro­
surface accuracy deteriorates at 2000 W, where R and dmin are 138 and structure. For the ASS, the relationship between DAS (μm) and εm (K/s)
692 µm, respectively. The results show that a suitable laser power is can be expressed by Eq. (3) [18]:
essential to ensuring surface accuracy.
DAS = 80⋅ε–0.33
m (3)
3.3. Microstructures
After calculation, the εm values of samples #1–4 in the melted zone
are 293, 290, 286, and 279 K/s, respectively, while those of the remelted
As shown in Fig. 6, a clear boundary divides the deposited layers into
zone are 1631, 1345, 871, and 508 K/s, respectively.
two zones, which are the melted zone with coarse grains and the
remelted zone with fine grains. All the samples exhibit epitaxial growth
characteristics. For the melted zone, the δ-ferrite microstructure is 3.4. Textures
characterized by dissipating worm-like or semi-continuous reticular
shapes. The average dendrite arm space (DAS) in the melted zone of Fig. 7 shows the EBSD results of as-deposited samples. The different
samples #1–4 increases from 30 to 31.5, 34.5, and 44.2 µm, because of colors correspond to orientation of austenitic grains with respect to
the increase in heat accumulation caused by the increase in laser power. crystal lattice. The red, purple, and green color corresponds to the
For the remelted zone, the ferrite microstructure is characterized by <001>, <111> and <101> orientation, respectively. As shown in Fig. 7
granular or elongated strips, growing upward and perpendicular to the (a)–(d), most grains grow along the <100> direction, while a few grains
boundary. Here, the average DAS of samples #1–4 increases from 7.4 to grow along the <101> direction. As shown in Fig. 7(e)–(h), the content
8, 9.7, and 13.2 µm with increasing laser power. of the {001} <100> cube texture increases from 0% to 1.1%, 5.4%, and
Usually, it is extremely difficult to measure the cooling rate of the 65.5% with the increase in laser power, while a 5.5% {110} <100> Goss

Fig. 4. Sidewall morphologies of samples (a) #1, (b) #2, (c) #3, and (d) #4.

4
M. Gong et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102201

Fig. 6. Microstructure of samples. (a) Schematic of a characteristic area. Melted zone of (b) #1, (c) #2, (d) #3, and (e) #4, remelted zone of (f) #1, (g) #2, (h) #3,
and (i) #4, boundary of (j) #1, (k) #2, (l) #3, and (m) #4.

Fig. 7. EBSD results. Inverse pole figures (IPFs) of samples (a) #1, (b) #2, (c) #3, and (d) #4, texture composition and content of samples (e) #1, (f) #2, (g) #3, (h)
#4, grain size of samples (i) #1, (j) #2, (k) #3, (l) #4.

texture is generated when the laser power is 2000 W. As shown in Fig. 7 3.5. Mechanical properties
(i)–(l), the grain size increases from 59.57 to 60.24, 63.61, and 69.32 µm
with the increase in laser power. As shown in Fig. 8, the LHAM sample along the building direction

5
M. Gong et al.
Fig. 8. Microhardness measurement. Schematic of testing position (a) and microhardness vs. distance from substrate for samples (b) #1, (c) #2, (d) #3, and (e) #4.
exhibits a slightly lower microhardness (180–225 HV) than that of
ASTM–recommended cast 316L ASS (230 HV). In detail, the average
microhardness of samples #1–4 is 200, 199, 197 and 196 HV, respec­
tively. The standard deviation of them is 12, 10, 9, and 8 HV, respec­
tively. The linear fitting indicates that the microhardness reduces with
the increase of deposition height, but the decreasing tendency slows
down with the increase in laser power. It demonstrates that the micro­
hardness distribution is stabilized by boosting laser power, which is well
corresponding to the microstructure characterization.
Upon analyzing the horizontal tensile properties, the UTSs are
approximately 520–530 MPa when the laser power is less than 2000 W,
while the elongations (ELs) are approximately 33–36%, as shown in
Fig. 9(a). However, the UTS increases to 598 MPa, and the EL decreases
to 31% when the laser power is raised to 2000 W. Regarding vertical
tensile properties, as shown in Fig. 9(b), the UTSs are approximately
530–550 MPa when the laser power is less than 2000 W, and the ELs are
approximately 38–43%. The UTS and EL are 595 MPa and 35%,
respectively, when the laser power is 2000 W. These results suggest that
the laser power has little influence on the tensile properties below
2000 W. As shown in Fig. 9(c), an obvious anisotropy appears in the
mechanical properties. The EL and UTS anisotropies decrease with an
increase in laser power. Overall, the tensile properties of the LHAM
samples obtained in this study meet the ASTM A479 standard [19].
As shown in Fig. 10, all samples are characterized by ductile fracture
with many small dimples within larger dimples. Only some micro-pores
6
Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102201
with the largest size of 7 µm appear in the vertical fracture surface of
sample #1. The porosity is only 0.7%, lower than the porosity threshold
(1%) that would deteriorate the mechanical properties [20]. So, the
micro-pores have no influence on the mechanical properties. For the
horizontal fracture, the average dimple diameter decreases from 3.1 µm
at 500 W to 2.0 µm at 1000 W, 1.7 µm at 1500 W, and 1.6 µm at
2000 W. For the vertical fracture, the average dimple diameter de­
creases from 3.6 µm at 500 W to 3.1 µm at 1000 W, 2.8 µm at 1500 W,
and 2.2 µm at 2000 W.
4. Discussion
4.1. Relationship between the laser–arc synergistic effect and surface
accuracy
For LAHW, the cross–section of the laser–leading mode is wide and
shallow, while that of the arc–leading mode is narrow and deep. That is,
the surface accuracy of the thin wall is mainly determined by the laser-
leading-deposited layer, because of its larger width. As shown in Fig. 11,
the melt flow of the laser–leading LHAM process is driven by the arc
force and the droplet impact force. The liquid metal moves towards the
keyhole first, and then flows to the tail because of the Marangoni force.
This flow phenomenon causes the metal accumulation in the molten
pool.
As shown in Fig. 12, the driving forces of the molten pool include
M. Gong et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102201

Fig. 9. Tensile properties: UTS and EL in the (a) horizontal and (b) vertical directions. (c) UTS and EL anisotropy, where τx and τy are the horizontal and vertical
tensile properties, respectively.

Fig. 10. SEM images of fractography, horizontal direction of samples (a) #1, (b) #2, (c) #3, and (d) #4, and vertical direction of samples (e) #1, (f) #2, (g) #3, and
(h) #4.

electromagnetic force (E), Marangoni force (M), aerodynamic resistance
(A), and buoyancy force (B) [21]. Here, A is negligible for an arc current
below 300 A because it acts only near the molten pool surface [22]. If
the shielding gas applied for the ASS welding contains oxygen, the
Marangoni convection in the molten pool shows an inward direction
(M+) [23]. Therefore, the main forces in the molten pool are E, M, and
B.
The magnetic Reynolds number (Rm), Marangoni number (Ma), and
Grasshof number (Gr) can be used to characterize the relative magnitude
of B, E, and M in the molten pool [24]. All three numbers can be

7
M. Gong et al. Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102201

Fig. 11. Time series snapshots of pool evolution during laser–leading LHAM: (a) #1, (b) #2, (c) #3, and (d) #4, where i, ii, iii, and iv indicate different stages of one
pulling period of wire.

(9.8 m s− 2), β is the thermal expansivity (5.85 × 10–5 K–1), and LB is

the molten pool buoyancy characteristic length, which is taken as 1/8 of
the molten pool radius.
Taking the above data into account, Eqs. (4)–(6) can be simplified as.

Rm = 6.12 × I2 (7)

Ma = 3.07 × 10 × LR6
(8)

Gr = 3.03 × 1010 × L3B (9)

The results indicate that Gr is two orders of magnitude smaller than

Rm and Ma; that is, the effect of B is negligible, and the melt flow is
mainly influenced by E and M. Since the experiment employed the same
current, the Rm is the same for each sample. That is, in current study, the
Marangoni force is the only variable affecting melt flow. Taking the half
width of the deposited layer as LR, the Ma for each sample, #1–4, is
Fig. 12. The melt flow inside the molten pool [21]. 1.18 × 104, 1.26 × 104, 1.30 × 104, and 8.76 × 103, respectively.
In general, the laser attracts and compresses the arc column when
calculated using the following equations: they meet. Increasing the laser power enhances the directivity and
thermal concentration of the arc column, and improves the wettability
Rm =
ρμm I 2
(4) of subsequent deposition [25]. However, the heat accumulation, which
4π2 μ2 is closely related to the Ma value, disorders the keyhole stirring effect
and makes the edge become more unstable because of more intense
ρLR ΔT|dγ/dT| fluctuation at the edge. Therefore, the surface accuracy of LHAM is
Ma = (5)
μ2 dependent on the combined effects of the above two phenomena.
The above calculation shows that the Ma value increases with the
gβL3B ΔT ρ2
Gr = (6) laser power when the laser power is less than 2000 W. This means that
μ2 the laser-arc synergistic effect is stronger than that of the heat accu­
mulation, allowing the metal accumulation near the pool edge to be
where ρ is the density of the molten metal (6900 kg/m3), μm is the
easily controlled because of the intense inward Marangoni flow.
permeance factor (1.26 × 10− 6 N A− 2), I is the arc current, μ is the
Therefore, the issue of the stability of the molten pool edge is avoided at
dynamic viscosity (6 × 10–3 kg m–1 s–1), LR is the molten pool char­
this stage, and the surface accuracy is improved. When the laser power
acteristic length, ΔT is the difference between the liquidus and solidus
increases to 2000 W, the temperature of the substrate or deposited layer
temperatures (1733–1693 = 40 K), dγ/dT is the surface tension
increases, and the Ma value decreases. A small Ma corresponds to a
gradient (− 0.4 × 10–3 N m–1 K–1), g is the acceleration due to gravity
feeble inward Marangoni flow, and a laser–arc interaction weaker than

8
M. Gong et al.
the heat accumulation. Consequently, the stability and accuracy of the
surface are decreased because of the reduced thermal diffusion and
uncontrollable deposition edge.
4.2. Evolution of microstructure
Peng et al. [26] demonstrated that a fully austenitic microstructure is
obtained with laser additive manufacturing (LAM) at an extremely high
εm (~104 K/s), because the solute redistribution is inhibited. However,
solute redistribution occurs easily as the εm of LHAM (102–103 K/s) is at
least one order of magnitude smaller than that of LAM. Thus, the ferrite
is precipitated when the layer deposits to a certain height. Similar
phenomena have been reported by Melia et al. [27] and Chakkravarthy
et al. [28]. The columnar grains with identical or similar chemical
composition can epitaxially grow from the polycrystal substrate [29],
but only the grains aligned along the building direction that have the
maximum temperature gradient are the easiest to grow, and can
compress the growth of other oriented grains [30]. Therefore, the final
stage of microstructure is characterized by columnar grains with
epitaxial growth oriented along the building direction.
As shown in Fig. 13, the grains of the melted zone are coarser than
those in the remelted zone because their εm are only 18–55% of those of
the remelted zone. The low εm (~102 K/s) is beneficial to the aggrega­
tion of ferritizing elements (Cr, Mo, etc.) and the depletion of austeni­
tizing elements (Ni and C, etc.). The worm-like or semi-continuous
network ferrite forms at the unstable local austenitization area and is
maintained at room temperature. However, the εm of the lower depos­
ited layer is high because of the weaker solute segregation, the heat
dissipation through conduction to the substrate or the entity, and the
previously formed metastable granular ferrite. For these reasons, the
granular ferrite in the melted zone gradually grows along the negative
maximum heat flow direction, changes into the strip form, precipitates
the secondary dendrites, and finally connects with the surrounding
ferrites.
4.3. Formation mechanism of texture
Usually, the direction of maximum temperature gradient is always
perpendicular to the molten pool boundary, and the grains always grow
from two sides towards the middle along the maximum heat flow di­
rection [29]. However, this observation is only accurate for a single
track. During LHAM, on the one hand, the energy concentrates in the
middle of molten pool because the laser beam locating at the pool center
attracts and compresses the arc column. On the other hand, the texture
formation is governed by epitaxial crystal growth, which occurs only if
the heat flow is directed favorably to the <100> crystal [31]. Under the
epitaxial growth mechanism and zigzag deposition strategy, the heat
flow direction is almost parallel to the building direction. It means that
only the grains around the centerline have their <100> orientation
parallel to the building direction. Therefore, in this study, we only
discuss the case where the maximum heat extraction locates at the
Fig. 13. Schematic of microstructure evolution, (a) solidification stage, (b) final stage.
9
Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102201
solid/liquid interface of the pool bottom.
It is a fact that the cubic crystal symmetry <100> has six equivalent
crystal orientations ([100], [010], [001], [-100], [0-10], and [00-1]). As
shown in Fig. 14(a),(b), giving from the front view about the grain
growth in the building direction, if the [100] axis is fixed parallel to the
deposition direction, the other equivalent crystal orientations ([010],
[001], [0-10], and [00-1]) can rotate within the deposition direction
about the fixed [100] axis under radial thermal dissipation [32,33]. In
this situation, most of the grains can have their [001] orientation along
the building direction, because the <001> axis involving the least atoms
grow fastest during solidification [34]. That is, many grains with the
same orientation lead to the formation of the <001> texture. Moreover,
the high heat input can promote the formation of preferred orientation
even in some directions where grain growth is difficult. In the current
study, the growth of the <110> direction is the slowest for FCC, because
the number of atoms in this direction is the most. Therefore, when the
laser power is 2000 W, some grains can have their [011] orientation
along the building direction and lead to the formation of <011> texture.
While some grains growing between the [001] and [011] directions do
not form a preferred orientation in the front view, so they do not form
the texture.
As shown in Fig. 14(c),(d), the molten pool shape has a great influ­
ence on the texture formation because it determines the thermal
gradient direction. The penetration depth is shallow when the laser
power is less than 2000 W, resulting in a near-parabolic molten pool
with a small curvature. The solid-liquid interface migrates towards the
building direction as solidification proceeds, and the grains are easily
inherited through epitaxial growth [34]. In contrast, the penetration
depth is deep when the laser power reaches 2000 W, resulting in a
molten pool with a near-nail shape and large curvature. Additionally,
the solid-liquid interface gradually deviates from the <100> direction
as solidification proceeds [35]. Thus, both the temperature gradient and
the solid-liquid interface migration directions tend to be parallel to the
building direction as laser power increases. The more the grains grow
along the <100> direction, the higher the content of the {001} <100>
cube texture. However, when the laser power is increased to 2000 W,
the solid-liquid interface deviates from the <100> direction to the
<011> direction. This causes the formation of some {110} <100> Goss
texture, when the angle between the growth direction and heat flow
direction of these grains is ±45◦ .
4.4. Influence of laser power on mechanical properties
The different εm values between the melted and remelted zones lead
to fluctuations in the microhardness of each layer. By developing a finite
element simulation method to predict the heat dissipation in WAAM
tubes, Xiong et al. [36] found that the thermal diffusion conditions
deteriorated with the increase in deposition height, and the number of
thermal cycles conducted on the previous layer decreased. For this
reason, the microhardness decreases owing to the lower tempering effect
of the latter layer on the previous layer. In addition, the microhardness
M. Gong et al.
Fig. 14. Schematics of grain growth orientations, (a) <100>, (b) <011>, (c) longitudinal/cross-section plane of CM, and (d) longitudinal/cross-section plane of KM.
also depends on the microstructure uniformity and the phase composi­
tion [37]. The statistical results of Fig. 6 show that the average austenite
contents of samples #1–4 are 91.9%, 92.8%, 93.4%, and 95.2%,
respectively. As the content of ferrite, with higher microhardness, de­
creases with the increase in laser power, the sample microhardness
gradually decreases.
It has been confirmed that the grain size, microstructure, defects [6],
and molten pool mode [13] play a significant role in the mechanical
properties. Therefore, the difference in the tensile properties can be
discussed in relation to these four factors. The first factor is fine-grain
strengthening. The smaller the grain size is, the higher the strength is.
However, this factor alone cannot explain the sudden UTS improvement
of sample #4, which has the coarsest grains but the highest UTS. The
second factor is the phase composition of microstructure. Mirshekari
et al. [38] found that 5–10% content of ferrite is a secure range that
prevents thermal cracks and improves ductility. In our study, the ferrite
content of all the specimens are within the range so that samples #1–4
all have a good ductility. However, in terms of the specific data, the
lower the ferrite content is, the worse the ductility is. This explains the
changes in toughness well, but cannot explain the changes in UTS. The
third factor is defects. Although the pores are detrimental to the tensile
strength, the effect of the dispersed micropores observed in the current
study on the tensile strength is negligible [20]. Therefore, the fourth
factor, molten pool mode, must be the key factor in the abrupt change in
UTS.
As shown in Fig. 15(a), when the laser power is less than 2000 W, the
Fig. 15. Schematic of strengthening mechanism. Metallurgical bonding of (a) CM and (b) KM, (c) misorientation of samples #1–4.
10
Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102201
deposited layers during the CM are connected by the arc molten metal
because the penetration depth of the laser beam is shallow and within
one layer. At this stage, the sample is mostly composed of a melted zone
with coarse grains. No or less fine-grain strengthening causes a lower
UTS and a fracture at the bonding area between layers. As shown in
Fig. 15(b), when the laser power is 2000 W, the KM increases the range
of the remelted zone and the number of bonding layers (at least 3 layers,
deduced from Fig. 3 and Table 2). Moreover, as shown in Fig. 15(c), over
80% of grains in the KM are found with low misorientation angles
(< 15◦ ), while that of the CM are less than 70%. Low misorientation
angle is an indication of sub-grain boundary, where dislocations are
easily accumulated. The dislocations can exert a crucial obstacle effect
and enhance resistance to deformations, which is beneficial to the me­
chanical properties [11,39]. Therefore, although the grain size of sample
#4 is the coarsest, the larger range of remelted zone with fine grains, the
more number of metallurgical bonding layers, and higher content of
grains with low misorientation angle can compensate for the adverse
effect of coarse grains, and the UTS is improved. The relationship be­
tween the processing parameters and molten pool mode of hybrid heat
sources is our future works, which can help to choose suitable processing
parameters for different application scenarios during LHAM.
The anisotropy is more related to the texture and fracture mode of
the grain boundary, which has been explained in a previous study [6].
And according to fracture theories [40], the larger the dimple size is, the
higher the toughness value is. Similar results are obtained in the current
study; that is, the toughness decreases with the reduction of dimple size
M. Gong et al.
when the laser power increases from 500 to 2000 W.
5. Conclusions
(1) During laser-arc hybrid additive manufacturing, the laser-arc
synergistic effect was gradually eliminated by heat accumula­
tion with increasing laser power, which decreased the surface
accuracy. The minimum values of the surface roughness and
processing margin of the sidewall, 78 and 360 µm, respectively,
were obtained at a laser power of 1500 W. Then the values
increased to 38 and 692 µm at 2000 W.
(2) A different cooling rate of the molten pool appeared in the upper
and lower part of each deposited layer. This led to a melted zone
with coarse worm-like ferrite and a remelted zone with elongated
strip ferrite.
(3) The content of cube texture increased from 0% to 65.5% when the
laser power was intensified from 500 to 2000 W. Moreover, a
5.5% Goss texture was formed in the keyhole mode (KM) at
2000 W, because the solid-liquid interface deviated from the
<100> direction to the <011> direction.
(4) The microhardness diminished with the rising deposition height
and soft phase content, but the trend became weaker with
increasing laser power.
(5) The laser KM at higher laser power values increased the range of
the remelted zone, the number of bonding layers, and the content
of grains with low misorientation angle. At a laser power of
2000 W, the KM improved the ultimate tensile strength to near
600 MPa, compared with 520–530 MPa for the conduction mode
at 1500 W, and had the smallest anisotropy of 0.5%.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mengcheng Gong: Substantial contributions to the conception,
Methodology, The acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for
the work, Writing – original draft. Shuai Zhang: Resources, Supervision.
Yang Lu: Visualization, Project administration. Dengzhi Wang: Editing
& Proofreading, Discussed the results and approved the final version of
the manuscript. Ming Gao: Validation, Funding acquisition, Equipment
provided, Writing assistance.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This research is financially supported by the National Natural Sci­
ence Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51775206 and 51805182).
References
[1] A.A. Paolini, S. Kollmannsberger, E. Rank, Additive manufacturing in construction:
a review on processes, applications, and digital planning methods, 100894-
100894, Addit. Manuf. 30 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100894.
[2] K.P. Karunakaran, S. Suryakumar, V. Pushpa, S. Akula, Low cost integration of
additive and subtractive processes for hybrid layered manufacturing, Robot.
Comput. Integr. Manuf. 26 (5) (2010) 490–499, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rcim.2010.03.008.
[3] J. Ge, J. Lin, Y. Chen, Y. Lei, H. Fu, Characterization of wire arc additive
manufacturing 2Cr13 part: process stability, microstructural evolution, and tensile
properties, J. Alloy. Compd. 748 (5) (2018) 911–921, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jallcom.2018.03.222.
[4] W. Du, Q. Bai, B. Zhang, A novel method for additive/subtractive hybrid
manufacturing of metallic parts, Procedia Manuf. 5 (2016) 1018–1030, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.promfg.2016.08.067.
[5] K.S. Derekar, A review of wire arc additive manufacturing and advances in wire arc
additive manufacturing of aluminium, Mater. Sci. Technol. 34 (2018) 895–916,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02670836.2018.1455012.
11
Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102201
[6] M. Gong, Y. Meng, S. Zhang, Y. Zhang, X. Zeng, M. Gao, Laser–arc hybrid additive
manufacturing of stainless steel with beam oscillation, Addit. Manuf. 33 (2020),
101180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101180.
[7] J. Näsström, F. Brückner, A.F.H. Kaplan, Measuring the effects of a laser beam on
melt po ol fluctuation in arc additive manufacturing, Rapid Prototyp. J. 25 (2019)
488–495, https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2018-0033.
[8] Z. Zhang, C. Sun, X. Xu, L. Liu, Surface quality and forming characteristics of
thin–wall aluminium alloy parts manufactured by laser assisted MIG arc additive
manufacturing, Int. J. Lightweight Mater. Manuf. 1 (2) (2018) 89–95, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijlmm.2018.03.005.
[9] G. Pardal, F. Martina, S. Williams, Laser stabilization of GMAW additive
manufacturing of Ti-6Al-4V components, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 272 (2019)
1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.04.036.
[10] D.H. Liu, D.J. Wu, G.Y. Ma, C.L. Zhong, F.Y. Niu, A. Gasser, J.H. Schleifenbaum, G.
J. Bi, Effect of post–deposition heat treatment on laser–TIG hybrid additive
manufactured Al–Cu alloy, Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 15 (4) (2020) 445–459, https://
doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2020.1818021.
[11] Q. Miao, D. Wu, D. Chai, Y. Zhan, G. Bi, F. Niu, G. Ma, Comparative study of
microstructure evaluation and mechanical properties of 4043 aluminum alloy
fabricated by wire-based additive manufacturing, Mater. Des. 186 (15) (2020),
108205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108205.
[12] X. Lu, Y.F. Zhou, X.L. Xing, L.Y. Shao, Q.X. Yang, S.Y. Gao, Open–source wire and
arc additive manufacturing system: formability, microstructures, and mechanical
properties, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 93 (2017) 2145–2154, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00170-017-0636-z.
[13] H. Wu, Y.J. Ren, J.Y. Ren, A.H. Cai, M. Song, Y. Liu, X.L. Wu, Q.X. Li, W.D. Huang,
X.T. Wang, I. Baker, Effect of melting modes on microstructure and tribological
properties of selective laser melted AlSi10Mg alloy, Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 15 (S1)
(2020) 570–582, https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2020.1811932.
[14] S. Katayama, S. Uchiumi, M. Mizutani, J. Wang, K. Fujii, Penetration and porosity
prevention mechanism in YAG laser–MIG hybrid welding, Weld. Int. 21 (1) (2007)
25–31, https://doi.org/10.1533/wint.2007.3680.
[15] Y.F. Meng, K. Kang, M. Gao, X.Y. Zeng, Relationship between corrosion resistance
and miscrostructure characteristic of single–pass laser–arc hybrid welded stainless
clad steel plate, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 50A (2019) 2817–2825, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11661-019-05215-y.
[16] J. Xiong, G. Zhang, Z. Qiu, Y. Li, Vision-sensing and bead width control of a single-
bead multi-layer part material and energy savings in GMAW-based rapid
manufacturing, J. Clean. Prod. 41 (2013) 82–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.10.009.
[17] D. Hann, J. Iammi, J. Folkes, A simple methodology for predicting laser–weld
properties from material and laser parameters, J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 44 (44)
(2011), 445401, https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/44/44/445401.
[18] J.W. Fu, Y.S. Yang, J.J. Guo, W.H. Tong, Effect of cooling rate on solidification
microstructures in AISI 304 stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Technol. 24 (2008) 941–944,
https://doi.org/10.1179/174328408×295962.
[19] ASTM International, Standard Specification for Stainless Steel Bars and Shapes for
Use in Boilers and Other Pressure Vessels, 2019.
[20] R. Ashton, F.R.P. Wesley, C.R. Dixon, The effect of porosity on 5086–H116
aluminum alloy welds, Weld. Res. Suppl. 54 (03) (1975) 96–98.
[21] G. Li, Fundamental Research of Narrow Gap Laser-Arc Hybrid Welding, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.7666/d.D01078690.
[22] Y. Wang, H.L. Tsai, Impingement of filler droplets and weld pool dynamics during
gas metal arc welding process, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 44 (11) (2001) 2067–2080,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0017-9310(00)00252-0.
[23] L. Zhao, S. Tsukamoto, G. Arakane, T. Sugino, T. DebRoy, Influence of oxygen on
weld geometry in fibre laser and fibre laser–GMA hybrid welding, Sci. Technol.
Weld. Join. 16 (2) (2011) 166–173, https://doi.org/10.1179/
1362171810Y.00000000 10.
[24] T. Mukherjee, V. Manvatkar, A. De, T. DebRoy, Dimensionless numbers in additive
manufacturing, J. Appl. Phys. 121 (6) (2017), 064904, https://doi.org/10.1063/
1.4976006.
[25] C.L. Jenney, Welding Handbook–II Part I, American Welding Society, 1991.
[26] G. Peng, B. Zou, C. Huang, H. Gao, Study on microstructure, mechanical properties
and machinability of efficiently additive manufactured AISI 316L stainless steel by
high–power direct laser deposition, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 240 (2017) 12–22,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2016.09.005.
[27] M.A. Melia, H. Nguyen, J.M. Rodelas, E.J. Schindelholz, Corrosion properties of
304L stainless steel made by directed energy deposition additive manufacturing,
Corros. Sci. 152 (2019) 20–30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2019.02.029.
[28] V. Chakkravarthy, S. Jerome, Printability of multiwalled SS 316L by wire arc
additive manufacturing route with tunable texture, Mater. Lett. 260 (2020),
126981, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2019.126981.
[29] R.W. Messler Jr, Principles of Welding: Processes, Physics, Chemistry, and
Metallurgy, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, 2004, https://doi.
org/10.1002/9783527617487.
[30] T. Ishimoto, K. Hagihara, K. Hisamoto, S.H. Sun, T. Nakano, Crystallographic
texture control of beta-type Ti-15Mo-5Zr-3Al alloy by selective laser melting for
the development of novel implants with a biocompatible low Young’s modulus,
Scr. Mater. 132 (2017) 34–38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2016.12.038.
[31] L. Thijs, F. Verhaeghe, T. Craeghs, J.V. Humbeeck, J.P. Kruth, A study of the
microstructural evolution during selective laser melting of Ti–6Al–4V, Acta Mater.
58 (2010) 3303–3312, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2010.02.004.
[32] X. Zhou, K. Li, D. Zhang, X. Liu, J. Ma, W. Liu, Z. Shen, Textures formed in a
CoCrMo alloy by selective laser melting, J. Alloy. Compd. 631 (2015) 153–164,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2015.01.096.
M. Gong et al.
[33] O. Zinovieva, A. Zinoviev, V. Romanova, R. Balokhonov, Three-dimensional
analysis of grain structure and texture of additively manufactured 316L austenitic
stainless steel, Addit. Manuf. 36 (2020), 101521, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2020.101521.
[34] A. Olivier, K. Imade, P. Patrice, P. Jean–Daniel, S. Nicolas, P. Etienne, D.T. Thibaut,
D. Corinne, B. Thierry, Texture control of 316L parts by modulation of the melt
pool morphology in selective laser melting, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 264 (2019)
21–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.08.049.
[35] H.L. Wei, J.W. Elmer, T. DebRoy, Origin of grain orientation during solidification
of an aluminum alloy, Acta Mater. 115 (15) (2016) 123–131, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.actamat.2016.05.057.
[36] J. Xiong, R. Li, Y. Lei, H. Chen, Heat propagation of circular thin–walled parts
fabricated in additive manufacturing using gas metal arc welding, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 251 (2018) 12–19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmatprotec.2017.08.007.
12
Additive Manufacturing 46 (2021) 102201
[37] N.T. Aboulkhair, I. Maskery, C. Tuck, I. Ashcroft, N. Everitt, On the formation of
AlSi10Mg single tracks and layers in selective laser melting: microstructure and
nano–mechanical properties, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 230 (2016) 88–98,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.11.016.
[38] G.R. Mirshekari, E. Tavakoli, M. Atapour, B. Sadeghian, Microstructure and
corrosion behavior of multipass gas tungsten arc welded 304L stainless steel,
Mater. Des. 55 (2014) 905–911, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.10.064.
[39] J. Gu, J. Ding, S.W. Williams, H. Gu, B. Jing, Y. Zhai, P. Ma, The strengthening
effect of inter-layer cold working and post-deposition heat treatment on the
additively manufactured Al-6.3Cu alloy, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 651 (2016) 18–26,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2015.10.101.
[40] L. Wang, J. Xue, Q. Wang, Correlation between arc mode, microstructure, and
mechanical properties during wire arc additive manufacturing of 316L stainless
steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 751 (28) (2019) 183–190, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
msea.2019.02.078.