M A TE RI A L S CH A RACT ER IZ A TI O N 94 (2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 6– 1 2 5

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/matchar

Interfacial characterization of SLM parts in

multi-material processing: Metallurgical diffusion
between 316L stainless steel and
C18400 copper alloy

Z.H. Liu, D.Q. Zhang, S.L. Sing, C.K. Chua⁎, L.E. Loh
Nanyang Technological University, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, NTU Additive Manufacturing Centre, 50 Nanyang
Avenue, N3-2a-02, 639798, Singapore

AR TIC LE D ATA ABSTR ACT

Article history: Multi-material processing in selective laser melting using a novel approach, by the
Received 22 January 2014 separation of two different materials within a single dispensing coating system was
Received in revised form 1 May 2014 investigated. 316L stainless steel and UNS C18400 Cu alloy multi-material samples were
Accepted 4 May 2014 produced using selective laser melting and their interfacial characteristics were analyzed
Available online 13 May 2014 using focused ion beam, scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectroscopy and
electron back scattered diffraction techniques. A substantial amount of Fe and Cu element
Keywords: diffusion was observed at the bond interface suggesting good metallurgical bonding.
Additive manufacturing Quantitative evidence of good bonding at the interface was also obtained from the tensile
Rapid prototyping tests where the fracture was initiated at the copper region. Nevertheless, the tensile
3D printing strength of steel/Cu SLM parts was evaluated to be 310 ± 18 MPa and the variation in
Multi-material microhardness values was found to be gradual along the bonding interface from the steel
Selective laser melting region (256 ± 7 HV0.1) to the copper region (72 ± 3 HV0.1).
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction properties exceeding that of cast parts and approaching

A variety of additive manufacturing (AM) systems can be used
to process metal, including systems that utilize material
extrusion, sheet lamination, material jetting, binder jetting,
directed energy deposition and powder bed fusion [1]. In
recent years, metal processing by additive manufacturing
(AM) systems has gained traction and popularity. One of the
reasons is that direct AM of metal parts using direct energy
deposition and powder bed fusion can produce parts with
densities close to 100% coupled with good mechanical
those of forged parts [2]. One of the most promising and
popular system that utilizes powder-bed fusion is selective
laser melting (SLM) because of its ability to fabricate high
density metal parts with design configurations that con-
ventional manufacturing methods cannot produce [3]. In
addition, SLM can now have the possibility of processing a
large variety of metals including those with high melting
points due to its high power fiber laser of up to 1 kW [4].
In order to increase the functionality of the direct
manufactured parts, there is a need for multi-material

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 65 6790 5486; fax: + 65 6791 1859.

E-mail addresses: AZHLIU@ntu.edu.sg (Z.H. Liu), ZHANGDQ@ntu.edu.sg (D.Q. Zhang), SING0011@e.ntu.edu.sg (S.L. Sing),
MCKCHUA@ntu.edu.sg (C.K. Chua), LELOH1@e.ntu.edu.sg (L.E. Loh).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2014.05.001
1044-5803/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 M A TE RI A L S C HA RACT ER I ZA TI O N 94 ( 20 1 4 ) 1 1 6– 1 2 5
processing of metal by these methods and they had been
carried out by systems that use directed energy deposition
process such as Optomec's laser engineered near net shape
(LENS) system [5–7] and selective laser sintering (SLS) systems
[8–10]. Unfortunately, there is little prior research done on
multi-material processing of metal via SLM and the properties
of such parts are not fully understood [11]. Using SLM to
produce functionally graded materials has been achieved by
creating different compartments within the hopper to store
different powder material [12]. This however only allows
material to be varied along the x-axis.
This paper aims to prove the concept of multi-material
processing in SLM, while allowing material on the xy-plane to
be varied along the z-axis instead where different layers can
be deposited with different materials. This is achieved using a
novel approach by separating two different materials within
a single dispensing coating system allowing deposition of
different materials in each coating direction. The materials
used in this study were 316L stainless steel and C18400 copper
alloy. This material system was chosen because the strength
and corrosion resistance of stainless steel combined with the
high conductivity of copper makes it ideal for many applica-
tions. Copper–steel bimetallic parts find applications such as
in fusion reactors [13], conformal cooling channels [14–16],
automobile, rail and aviation industries [17], cookware [18]
and wires for specialized purposes used in high field pulsed
magnets [19]. The study further explains the deposition
mechanism in the SLM dispensing coating system and the
interface characteristics of copper–steel dissimilar couple.
2. Experimental Setup
2.1. Multi Material Deposition in SLM
The SLM equipment used in this work is ‘SLM250HL’ from SLM
Solutions. A center separator was designed and introduced
within the recoater so that two different materials can then be
stored and deposited by only allowing each rotating chamber
to dispense the corresponding powder in their respective
coating direction.
Fig. 1 – (a) 316L stainless steel powder; (b) UNS C18400 copper powder.
117
2.2. Powder Material
Gas atomised 316L stainless steel (normally distributed
between 10 μm to 38 μm) and C18400 alloy powders (with
a D99 38 μm particle size distribution) were used in this
study. Fig. 1 shows the morphology of both powders. These
powders were spherical in shape which is an important
powder characteristic for excellent flowability [20]. A good
flowability is necessary for a good powder layer deposition
and also ensures that the powders can be dispensed properly
while the chambers rotate.
2.3. Processing Parameters
The SLM machine is equipped with a Gaussian beam fiber
laser of power up to 400 W with a focal diameter of 80 μm. In
this work, the sectoral (also known as island) scanning
strategy [21,22] is applied in the SLM process where thermal
stresses were found to be minimized. This is especially
important in multi-material processing due to the difference
in material properties [23,24] (such as coefficient of expan-
sion) resulting in high residual stresses [25–28]. The process
parameters for the individual alloys and their resultant
relative densities are shown in Table 1.
2.4. Metallographic Characterization
The SLM samples were prepared by polishing till 0.04 μm and
observed under optical microscopy. These samples were
then ion milled to characterize the copper–steel interface
carried out by different techniques, namely, focused ion
beam imaging (FIB) from FEI Helious 600i, field emission
scanning electron microscopy (FeSEM) JSM7600 from JEOL,
electron dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) from Oxford Instru-
ments X max, and electron back scattered diffraction (EBSD)
from Oxford Instruments Nordlys.
2.5. Mechanical Characterization
Small tensile coupons with a gauge length of 15 mm were
produced using wire-cut electrical discharge machining (EDM)
118 M A TE RI A L S CH A RACT ER IZ A TI O N 94 (2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 6– 1 2 5

Table 1 – SLM process parameters for the alloys and their assisted with diffusion can be seen at the interface. The
resultant relative densities. intermixed region was found to be about 750 μm (Fig. 4) wide
316L stainless Copper which indicated significant dilution between stainless and
steel C18400 copper. Cracks were occasionally observed on the stainless
side close to the interface, as shown in Fig. 3b. The bulk of
Laser power (W) 125 300
Laser scan speed (mm/s) 150 400 stainless steel was free from porosity or any other defects
Layer thickness (μm) 50 50 (Fig. 3c). However, significant amount of porosity was ob-
Hatch spacing (mm) 0.15 0.15 served on the copper side because of inadequate melting
Remelting No Yes due to high reflectivity and thermal conductivity of copper
Island length (mm) 5x5 4x4 (Fig. 3d). Since copper and stainless steel etch differently,
Island overlap (mm) 1 1
getting microstructural features at the interface using optical
Relative density (%) 99.9 92.9
imaging was difficult and challenging. Hence other charac-
terization methods were used to reveal the features at the
interface.
from the individual tensile stainless steel, C18400 copper
blocks and the steel/Cu laminate produced using SLM. An 3.1.2. Focused Ion Beam Imaging
Instron Static Tester Series 5569, 50 kN machine was used and FIB imaging was used to observe the steel/copper bonding
a strain rate of 1 mm/min was applied to all the three material interface. FIB is chosen to take advantage of the very high
systems. The microhardness of the steel/Cu sample was grain contrast obtained when imaging with ions. Fig. 4
carried out using Vickers hardness test where a load of 100 g shows an image of the steel/copper interface which clearly
and a loading time of 15 s were used. demonstrates the diffusion zone. The intermixed region was
estimated to be about 750 μm. Highly refined microstructure
of stainless steel and copper could clearly be visible in the
3. Experimental Results intermixed region. The grain sizes were estimated to range
from as small as 1 μm to 10 μm. This fine grained structure
Copper–steel bi-metallic parts fabricated using SLM is shown could be attributed to the faster cooling rates in SLM.
in Fig. 2. The macroscopic view of the samples shows that the However, the unmixed stainless steel and copper sections
copper/steel interface was intact. To get a detailed under- are not as fine compared relatively to the intermixed zone.
standing of the interfacial characteristics, metallographic and This was expected because grain growth occurs in the
mechanical characterizations were carried out. unmixed sections due to the multiple thermal excursions
(layer upon layer) during the SLM process.
3.1. Interfacial Characteristics
3.1.3. Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy
3.1.1. Optical Microscopy In order to identify the extent of diffusion between steel and
The as-polished cross-sectional optical image (Fig. 3a) copper at the intermixed region, an overall EDS mapping was
shows a continuous and well adherent interface between the carried out at the interface of the steel/Cu sample. The
stainless steel and the copper layers. An intermixed region elemental mapping showed a good mixture of Fe and Cu as

Fig. 2 – (a) Lattice steel/Cu SLM parts; (b) steel/Cu tensile blocks; (c) side profile of tensile blocks showing no delamination;
(d) tensile coupons produced from the tensile blocks.
 M A TE RI A L S C HA RACT ER I ZA TI O N 94 ( 20 1 4 ) 1 1 6– 1 2 5 119

Fig. 3 – As-polished cross-sectional image of steel/Cu laminate. (a) Interface; (b) cracks at the steel side; (c) steel bulk; (d) copper
bulk.

Fig. 4 – (a) Focused ion beam imaging of the steel/Cu interface; (b) close up of the interface; (c) higher magnification of the boxed
region.
120 M A TE RI A L S CH A RACT ER IZ A TI O N 94 (2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 6– 1 2 5

Fig. 5 – EDS mapping of the steel/Cu interface.

shown in Fig. 5. The EDS result also indicated the diffusion of
both copper and steel to either side.
A higher magnification EDS mapping performed at the
fusion zone near to the copper layer (Fig. 6) showed the
distribution of large spherical steel particles in the copper
matrix. This indicated that the elemental composition in the
intermixed zone mainly comprised of copper. Within the large
spherical steel particles some finer particles of copper were
embedded.
3.1.4. Electron Back Scattered Diffraction
EBSD was carried out to capture the actual grain size at the
steel/Cu interface. The color-coded inverse pole figure, where
points on the sample with a <111 > axis parallel to the surface

Fig. 6 – EDS mapping at higher magnification of steel/Cu mixture interface.

 M A TE RI A L S C HA RACT ER I ZA TI O N 94 ( 20 1 4 ) 1 1 6– 1 2 5
Fig. 7 – EBSD results. (A) 316L stainless steel region; (B) C18400 copper region; (C) steel/Cu interface.
normal are blue, < 101 > green, and < 001 > red (see legend in
Fig. 7) and intermediate orientations have intermediate colors
[29–31]. The noise reduction process of raw EBSD data was
carried out using the CHANNEL 5 Data Manager software from
Oxford Instruments. The wild spikes in the EBSD mapping
were removed and followed by refinement of the zero solution
points, both by extrapolation method. The orientation maps
have noise filters applied based on 4 neighbors. Fig. 7 shows
three different zones in the interfacial region. Zone A
corresponds to a region close to the stainless steel, zone B
corresponds to the intermixed region and zone C corresponds
to the region close to copper. Zone A comprises of both
ultrafine grains and coarse elongated grains. At zone B the
microstructure was predominantly a mixture of ultrafine
stainless steel and feathery copper. A complete feathery
microstructure can be observed at zone C which was on the
copper side. An enlarged view of zone B (Fig. 8) shows a
random orientation of the grains and hence not associated
with any preferred orientations.
121
3.2. Tensile Properties
The fractured coupons are shown in Fig. 9 where Ultimate
Tensile Strength (UTS) of 310 ± 18 MPa, 726 ± 2 MPa and
49 ± 10 MPa was measured for steel/Cu, 316L SS and C18400
copper SLM parts respectively. Macroscopic analysis of the
fracture surface of steel/Cu laminates showed that the
failure occurred mostly on the copper side (Fig. 10). This
meant that the interfacial bond strength between steel and
Cu was higher than the weakest member among the couple.
The tensile test results corroborated well with the interfa-
cial microstructural examination where it was found that
the interface was dense and continuous. However, when
compared to the tensile strength of steel monolithic part,
the tensile strength of steel/Cu laminate is 60% less. In
addition, the slight difference in relative thicknesses of 316L
stainless steel and copper sections in the different tensile
specimens could explain the larger spread on the UTS
results.
122 M A TE RI A L S CH A RACT ER IZ A TI O N 94 (2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 6– 1 2 5

Fig. 8 – EBSD within zone B.

3.2.1. Fracture Characteristics 3.3. Microhardness

Fig. 11 shows the fracture surface of steel/Cu laminates after
tensile testing. A detailed observation of the tensile fracture
surface of steel/Cu laminate depicted a mixed mode of brittle
and ductile fracture where the ductile fracture was observed to
be more dominant. At the steel region, smooth, flat ridges, high
fracture plane and sharp edges were observed from the fracture
surface. In addition, distinctive gradual ridges suggested tearing
of metal and manifesting significant plastic deformation corre-
sponding to ductile fracture. At the copper region on the other
hand, numerous unmelted particles and several porous voids
were observed. The fracture surface also hardly manifested any
significant characteristics of a typical tensile fracture. This
suggested that the bonding of each copper layer was inferior as
a result of the insufficient melting during SLM process.
Vicker's microhardness measurement was carried out
across the interfacial region to understand the gradation
on microhardness. The microhardness was measured from
the steel region (1 mm away from the interface) to the
copper region (1 mm away from the interface). A maximum
microhardness of 259 ± 7 HV and a minimum microhard-
ness of 74 ± 5 HV were measured at the steel region and
copper region respectively. Interestingly, the measured
microhardness of the interface was found to decrease
gradually and somewhat linearly from 256 HV in the steel
region to 82 HV in the copper region. The microhardness
variation across the interface from the steel to copper region
is shown in Fig. 12.

Fig. 9 – Fractured coupons of SLM parts. (a) steel/Cu; (b) 316L stainless steel; (c) C18400 Cu.
 M A TE RI A L S C HA RACT ER I ZA TI O N 94 ( 20 1 4 ) 1 1 6– 1 2 5
Fig. 10 – Fractured steel/Cu tensile coupons.
4. Discussion
Multi-material processing of metals in the fusion route often
poses problems due to their metallurgical incompatibility.
This will be more prominent with materials such as iron
and copper, having wide difference in physical properties. In
this work, bi-metallic steel/copper laminates were produced
using a powder bed based process utilizing laser power. The
absorbance of powder bed to laser energy is higher than its
solid bulk material while its thermal conductivity is much
lower than that of the solid bulk because of porous struc-
ture [32]. This is very critical for the processing of materials
with high thermal conductivity such as copper. In terms of
materials, laser interacts quite differently between stainless
steel and copper. The stainless steel absorbs more energy
when compared to copper. Therefore complete melting is
possible in steel whereas, due to high reflectivity and thermal
conductivity, copper absorbs less energy and hence results in
poor melting. These accounted for the dense microstructure
of the steel and the porous microstructure of the copper.
Nevertheless, the density of copper can be further improved
by working on important parameters such as lowering the
layer thickness to 30 μm, increasing the preheating tempera-
ture, reducing scan speed, increasing laser power and
reducing the hatch spacing. These will lead to a higher energy
input which may compensate the energy loss due to large
amount of reflection and conduction.
Fig. 11 – Fracture characteristics of steel/Cu SLM part.
123
Fig. 12 – Microhardness variation along the steel/Cu
interface.
The interface region between the steel and the copper was
very dense. As compared to the thickness of each layer
deposited during SLM, which was set at 50 μm, the width of
intermixed region was large at 750 μm. This was due to the
dilution effect, a phenomenon normally observed in cladding
[33]. Multiple depositions of copper layer on top of steel in SLM
are similar to a cladding operation. When a layer of copper
powder is melted over the stainless steel surface, the top
surface of stainless steel also undergoes melting and gets
mixed with copper. Therefore in the first layer of copper melt,
there will be a high percentage of stainless steel. This repeats
in the subsequent layers but the percentage of steel decreased
as number of copper layers increased. Once the percentage of
stainless steel becomes zero (which was observed to be after
750 μm), copper powder alone undergoes melting.
The cracks observed at the interface between the
intermixing zone and the stainless steel could be due to
two reasons, physical property mismatch and infiltration of
copper to the austenitic grain boundaries in steel. Firstly, a
thermal mismatch between copper and stainless steel could
produce microcracks during the laser melting. The tendency
of microcrack formation depends on the amount of copper in
the melt pool. If there is a lesser amount of copper in the melt,
it forms a dilute solution with iron and does not significantly
affect the stress state in the fusion zone. Hence the tendency
of crack formation will decrease [34]. In this study however,
copper is directly melted on top of stainless steel during the
124 M A TE RI A L S CH A RACT ER IZ A TI O N 94 (2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 6– 1 2 5
SLM process. Therefore, a higher amount of copper can be
expected in the melt pool nearer to the copper section which
led to the formation of microcracks in the stainless steel
section. Secondly, copper diffuses into the austenitic grain
boundaries and exerts pressure causing the cracks to form
along the stainless steel grain boundaries [35]. These micro-
cracks may affect the ductility and the fatigue properties of
the part.
According to the results from EDS mapping of elements at
the interface, all the elements from steel and copper were
diffused into the fusion zone. The diffusion of elements was
assisted with the thermal conditions and the turbulence due
to convective forces in the laser melt pool. The distribution of
spherical particles observed in the EDS mapping in Fig. 6 could
be explained based on the phenomenon of liquid separation
which was observed in welding of iron–copper couples [34,36].
As the cooling rates are very high in the SLM process, the melt
pool underwent super cooling, which meant that the heat
removal rate exceeded the heat of fusion releasing rate. In the
current study, the cooling rate was further enhanced by high
thermal conductivity of copper. Although iron–copper alloys
were completely miscible in the liquid state, the system
underwent super cooling and entered into a wide miscibility
gap that can be seen from the Fe–Cu binary phase diagram. In
the miscibility gap, the super cooled liquid separated into
liquid iron and liquid copper. The two separated liquids
underwent diffusion within the melt pool. Again, because of
the high cooling rate within the miscibility gap, complete
diffusion could not take place for the primary separated
phases. They were supersaturated and a secondary phase
separation was initiated. Furthermore, both the separated
liquid phases were solidified, one in the form of spheres and
other in the form of matrix. From Fig. 6, it could be deduced
that during the primary liquid separation stage, copper
formed as the matrix and steel formed as spherical balls and
during the secondary separation, steel formed the matrix and
copper formed as spherical balls in a finer scale.
SLM is characterized by rapid solidification that results in
several key structural features, one of which is grain size
refinement [37,38]. The ultrafine grains in the fusion zone
characterized by EBSD are a typical outcome of the rapid
cooling occurring during the SLM process. Since every layer
underwent rapid solidification, the entire part resulted in a
refined microstructure. There could be a possibility of grain
growth in previously built layers due to multiple thermal
excursions as observed from the unmixed sections where the
grains were relatively larger than that of the mixed interface.
Based on the microstructural observations, a higher
tensile strength could be expected for materials processed
in SLM when compared to its wrought annealed or cast
counterparts. This was mainly attributed to the refined
microstructure. Accordingly, the SLM produced 316L part
had a tensile strength 15% higher than that in the wrought
annealed condition. However, the tensile strength of SLM
produced copper was lower than the wrought material. This
was mainly because of high porosity despite using higher
laser energy of 801 J/mm3 during the SLM process.
Tensile strength of steel/Cu laminate indicated good
metallurgical bonding at the interface. The UTS of steel/Cu
laminate lies between the individual tensile strengths of steel
and copper. Further evidence of good metallurgical bonding
between the two materials could be seen from the tensile
fracture location where the fracture initiated at the copper
region. This suggested that the copper did not contribute
much in taking up the tensile load which also explained the
high standard deviation measured from the steel/Cu coupons.
Good metallurgical bonding at the interface of the
laminate was also clear from the microhardness surveyed
across the interface. There was no abrupt change in the
hardness while moving from the steel side to copper side.
The microhardness values were in fact in agreement with
the diffusion observation and the gradual decrease in
hardness from the steel region towards the copper region
matched with the EDS mapping results.
5. Conclusion
The interfacial characteristics of stainless steel/copper
bi-metallic laminates produced by SLM have been investigat-
ed and the results were as follows:
1. A center separator was designed and implemented suc-
cessfully on the powder dispensing system to deliver two
different materials to enable multi material processing in
SLM.
2. Bi-metallic laminates of stainless steel and copper were
successfully fabricated using the newly developed powder
dispensing system.
3. Good metallurgical bonding was obtained at the interface
of steel/copper laminates.
4. Monolith stainless steel part fabricated in SLM had tensile
properties higher than the wrought structure. However,
copper parts fabricated in SLM behaved differently with
inferior tensile properties due to high level of porosity.
5. Highly refined microstructure was obtained due to the
characteristic rapid solidification in SLM.
6. Bi-metallic stainless steel/copper laminates exhibited
tensile strength higher than that of copper and lesser
than that of stainless steel.
REFERENCES
[1] ASTM International. ASTM standard F2792-12a. Standard
terminology for additive manufacturing technologies, 1; 2009
2.
[2] Wohlers Report. Additive manufacturing and 3D printing
state of the industry annual worldwide progress report.
Colorado: Wohlers Associates; 2013.
[3] Osakada K, Shiomi M. Flexible manufacturing of metallic
products by selective laser melting of powder. Int J Mach
Tools Manuf 2006;46:1188–93.
[4] Chua CK, Leong KF. 3D printing and additive manufacturing:
principles and applications. 4th ed. Singapore: World
Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd; 2014.
[5] Weiss LE, Merz R, Prinz FB, Neplotnik G, Padmanabhan P,
Schultz L, et al. Shape deposition manufacturing of
heterogeneous structures. J Manuf Syst 1997;16:239–48.
[6] Bandyopadhyay A, Krishna BV, Xue WC, Bose S. Application
of Laser Engineered Net Shaping (LENS) to manufacture
 M A TE RI A L S C HA RACT ER I ZA TI O N 94 ( 20 1 4 ) 1 1 6– 1 2 5
porous and functionally graded structures for load bearing
implants. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2009;20:29–34.
[7] Obielodan J, Stucker B. Characterization of LENS-fabricated
Ti6Al4V and Ti6Al4V/TiC dual-material transition joints. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 2013;66:2053–61.
[8] Liew CL, Leong KF, Chua CK, Du Z. Dual material rapid
prototyping techniques for the development of biomedical
devices. Part 1: space creation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2001;18:717–23.
[9] Lappo K, Jackson B, Wood K, Bourell DL, Beaman JJ. Discrete
multiple material selective laser sintering (M2SLS):
experimental study of part processing. Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium; 2003 [Austin Texus].
[10] Liew CL, Leong KF, Chua CK, Du Z. Dual material rapid
prototyping techniques for the development of biomedical
devices. Part 2: secondary powder deposition. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 2002;19:679–87.
[11] Al-Jamal OM, Hinduja S, Li L. Characteristics of the bond in
Cu\H13 tool steel parts fabricated using SLM. CIRP Ann
Manuf Technol 2008;57:239–42.
[12] Beal VE, Erasenthiran P, Ahrens CH, Dickens P. Evaluating the
use of functionally graded materials inserts produced by
selective laser melting on the injection moulding of plastics
parts. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 2007;221:945–54.
[13] Leedy KD, Stubbins JF. Copper alloy–stainless steel bonded
laminates for fusion reactor applications: crack growth and
fatigue. Mater Sci Eng A Struct Mater Prop Microstruct Process
2001;297:19–25.
[14] Wang L, Wei QS, Xue PJ, Shi YS. Fabricate mould insert with
conformal cooling channel using selective laser melting. Prog
New Mater Mech Res 2012;502:67–71.
[15] Spierings AB, Levy G, Labhart L, Wegener K. Production of
functional parts using SLM — opportunities and limitations.
Innovative Developments on Virtual and Physical
Prototyping; 2012 785–90.
[16] Dimitrov D, Moammer A, Harms T. Cooling channel config-
uration in injection moulds. Innovative Developments on
Virtual and Physical Prototyping; 2012 355–60.
[17] Yilmaz O, Celik H. Electrical and thermal properties of the
interface at diffusion-bonded and soldered 304 stainless steel
and copper bimetal. J Mater Process Technol 2003;141:67–76.
[18] Wickeder Westfalenstahl GmbH. Retrieved 30 June 2013 2013.
[19] Pantsyrnyi V, Shikov A, Vorobieva A, Khlebova N, Potapenko
I, Silaev A, et al. Cu–Nb and Cu/stainless steel winding
materials for high field pulsed magnets. IEEE Trans Appl
Supercond 2000;10:1263–8.
[20] Averyanova M, Bertrand P, Verquin B. Studying the influence
of initial powder characteristics on the properties of final
parts manufactured by the selective laser melting
technology. Virtual Phys Prototyp 2011;6:215–23.
[21] Yasa E, Deckers J, Kruth JP, Rombouts M, Luyten J.
Investigation of sectoral scanning in selective laser melting.
Biennial ASME Conference on Engineering Systems, Design
and Analysis (ESDA) 2010. Istanbul, Turkey: ASME; 12 to 14
July 2010. p. 695–703.
125
[22] Jhabvala J, Boillat E, Antignac T, Glardon R. On the effect of
scanning strategies in the selective laser melting process.
Virtual Phys Prototyp 2010;5:99–109.
[23] Yasa E, Deckers J, Kruth J-P, Rombouts M, Luyten J. Charpy
impact testing of metallic selective laser melting parts.
Virtual Phys Prototyp 2010;5:89–98.
[24] Delgado J, Ciurana J, Serenó L. Comparison of forming
manufacturing processes and selective laser melting
technology based on the mechanical properties of products.
Virtual Phys Prototyp 2011;6:167–78.
[25] Klingbeil NW, Beuth JL, Chin RK, Amon CH. Residual
stress-induced warping in direct metal solid freeform
fabrication. Int J Mech Sci 2002;44:57–77.
[26] Shiomi M, Osakada K, Nakamura K, Yamashita T, Abe F.
Residual stress within metallic model made by selective laser
melting process. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 2004;53:195–8.
[27] Mercelis P, Kruth JP. Residual stresses in selective laser
sintering and selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp J
2006;12:254–65.
[28] Kruth JP, Deckers J, Yasa E, Wauthle R. Assessing and
comparing influencing factors of residual stresses in selective
laser melting using a novel analysis method. Proc Inst Mech
Eng B J Eng Manuf 2012;226:980–91.
[29] Gourgues-Lorenzon AF. Application of electron backscatter
diffraction to the study of phase transformations. Int Mater
Rev 2007;52:65–128.
[30] Gourgues-Lorenzon AF. Application of electron backscatter
diffraction to the study of phase transformations: present
and possible future. J Microsc 2009;233:460–73.
[31] Randle V. Applications of electron backscatter diffraction to
materials science: status in 2009. J Mater Sci 2009;44:4211–8.
[32] Yan H, Wang AH, Xu KD, Wang WY, Huang ZW.
Microstructure and interfacial evaluation of Co-based alloy
coating on copper by pulsed Nd:YAG multilayer laser
cladding. J Alloys Compd 2010;505:645–53.
[33] Hofman JT, de Lange DF, Pathiraj B, Meijer J. FEM modeling
and experimental verification for dilution control in laser
cladding. J Mater Process Technol 2011;211:187–96.
[34] Chen SH, Huang JH, Xia J, Zhang H, Zhao XK. Microstructural
characteristics of a stainless steel/copper dissimilar joint
made by laser welding. Metall Mater Trans 2013;44A:3690–6.
[35] Magnabosco I, Ferro P, Bonollo F, Arnberg L. An investigation
of fusion zone microstructures in electron beam welding of
copper–stainless steel. Mater Sci 2006;424:163–73.
[36] Phanikumar G, Manjini S, Dutta P, Chattopadhyay K,
Mazumder J. Characterization of a continuous CO2 laser-
welded Fe–Cu dissimilar couple. Metall Mater Trans
2005;36:2137–47.
[37] Otooni MA. Elements of rapid solidification: fundamentals
and applications. Berlin: Springer; 1998.
[38] Liu ZH, Zhang DQ, Chua CK, Leong KF. Crystal structure
analysis of M2 high speed steel parts produced by selective
laser melting. Mater Charact 2013:8472–80.