See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320444448

Laser-based Powder Bed Fusion Of 3D-Multi-Material-Parts Of Copper-

Chrome-Zirconia And Tool Steel

Conference Paper · October 2017

CITATIONS READS

3 1,138

1 author:

Christine Anstaett
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.
22 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multimaterialzentrum Augsburg View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christine Anstaett on 17 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Euro PM2017 – AM - Beam Based Technologies

Manuscript refereed by Dr Diego Manfredi (Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Italy)

Laser-based Powder Bed Fusion Of 3D-Multi-Material-Parts Of Copper-Chrome-

Zirconia And Tool Steel

Anstaett, Christine (Fraunhofer IGCV, Beim Glaspalast 5 86153 Augsburg, Germany)

christine.anstaett@igcv.fraunhofer.de ; Schafnitzel, Mario (Fraunhofer IGCV, Beim Glaspalast 5 86153
Augsburg, Germany) mario,schafnitzel@igcv.fraunhofer.de; Dr-Ing. Seidel, Christian (Fraunhofer
IGCV, Beim Glaspalast 5 86153 Augsburg, Germany) christian.seidel@igcv.fraunhofer.de; Prof. Dr.-
Ing. Reinhart, Gunther (Fraunhofer IGCV, Beim Glaspalast 5 86153 Augsburg, Germany)
gunther.reinhart@igcv.fraunhofer.de

Abstract

Laser-based powder bed fusion of metals, also referred to as laser beam melting (LBM), is an additive
manufacturing method using powder as raw material and a laser for providing the energy to fuse the
powder. In this way, parts with a high freedom of design can be produced. The powder delivery sys-
tem and the general setup used in industrial standard LBM machines today limits the production pos-
sibilities to process only one metal alloy per build job, which is referred to as mono-material pro-
cessing. At Fraunhofer IGCV, a new method was developed to produce parts within one build job that
consist out of two materials, also within single powder layers. Therefore, the conventional delivery de-
vice was adopted and a suction module was developed and implemented into the machine, to avoid a
cross-contamination of powders. In this paper, first results of the 3D-multi-material-process using a
copper-chrome-zirconia alloy and tool steel are shown.

1. Introduction

Additive manufacturing and especially laser powder bed fusion, also referred to as laser beam melting
(LBM), is increasingly applied as production technology within different branches. As all of them have
the need for specific materials, the LBM process is already qualified for a wide material range, e.g.
different kind of steels, Al-alloys or nickel-based alloys. [1] Research on the manufacturing process,
including effects occurring during the process, is already on a high level. [2–4]
A promising field for further research is to use powder bed-based additive manufacturing technologies
to build parts consisting out of more than one material with an arbitrary but application-focused distri-
bution of the applied alloys. This means not only a change of material in the building direction but with-
in single layers (Figure 1).
1D (M ono-m at erial part ) 2D (Hybrid part ) 3D (M ult i-m at erial part )

No change of mat erial One mat erial per layer Arbit rary change of mat erial

Figure 1 1D Mono-material and 2D- and 3D-Multi-material part [5]

Therefore, the delivery device needs to be adopted and the influence of at least a second material on
the process needs to be derived. This makes it possible to design and manufacture complex parts with
defined areas for each material so that the properties of every material can be used sufficiently.
In the next section, some delivery concepts and their influence on the process-chain are presented.
Afterwards the process itself is discussed and the influence of cooper-chrome-zirconium and tool steel
in a 3D-mutli-material process are considered.

2. Multi-material delivery concepts

During the last years, multi-material-processing by means of additive manufacturing has been in the
focus of different research groups. The first task, which had to be solved, was the allocation of a sec-
ond material within the build chamber. Here different approaches such as nozzles [6–8], coater-
concept [9–11] or photoconductor [12,13] have been investigated. Depending on the used concept,
different process-chains have to be realized, which can be seen in Figure 2. For detailed information
on the functionality of these approaches please see the mentioned references.
Euro PM2017 – AM - Beam Based Technologies

Legend:
CAD-Model
Mono-Material

Pre-Process
Layered Model Multi-Material

Process-Step

Building date

a) b) c)

Applying first Applying first Applying first

Material by Material by Material by
nozzle coater photoconductor

Consolidate first Consolidate first

Material Material

Remove un-
In-Process

solidified
Material by
suction module

Applying second Applying second Applying second

Material by Material by Material by
coater coater photoconductor

Consolidate Consolidate Consolidate

Second Material Second Material both Materials

powder part
Post-Process

Powder Remove
Separation Support
Structures

Powder Sieving Heat Treatment

Figure 2 Process chain of multi-material part production via LBM. Powder delivery via a) nozzle b)
coater concept c) photoconductor
It shows that by all concepts both a multi-material process and a mono-material process is possible.
Furthermore, the pre-process – e.g. data preparation – is the same for all concepts. Variations occur
during the In-process, which represents the building-process itself, and the powder recycling as part of
the post-process. [9]
For the In-Process there are different options which are based on conventional coating system:
a) nozzle and b) coater concept. In both cases, this concept is used to deliver the second powder.
This powder will remain in the building chamber to guarantee the support for the next powder layers.
Differences are in the way of delivering the first material. So, if a nozzle is used powder is just allocat-
ed where it is needed. After solidifying this powder the coater can be used for the second material.
However, it is important to solidify the first applied powder bevor delivering the second material to pre-
vent cross-contamination and smeared lines.
If a coater (cf. b in Figure 2) is used and the provision of at least two powders can be realized, it is
necessary to remove the part of the first powder with a suction module, which should not remain in the
building chamber. So, the whole layer can be re-covered with a second material.
The third possibility is a photoconductor. By this concept, it is possible to solidify all materials at one
time. The allocation of the different powder materials is performed one after the other by using electro-
static forces.
Further adoptions are necessary for the post-process. This process step includes all manufacturing
steps to recycle unsolidified powder and to bring the built part to product level. In this process step, a
separation of the mixed powders has to be integrated to ensure a reusability of the powders. This is
only given, if the powder can be separated single original.

3. Process development for laser-based powder bed fusion of Multi-Material parts

3.1 Experimental setup

For this study, a SLM 250HL machine from SLM Solutions was used. It is equipped with a fiber laser
with a maximal power of 400 W and focal diameter of 100 μm. Furthermore, the following gas atom-
ized powder materials were utilized: Tool steel 1.2709 (X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5) with a normal distribution
between 10 and 45 μm, and 2.1293 (CuCr1Zr), with a normal distribution between 20 and 45 μm. Both
materials have spherical shape. Every sample was built with a layer thickness of 30 μm. The speci-
Euro PM2017 – AM - Beam Based Technologies

mens were examined under light microscope Nikon SMZ 1000 and laser microscope Keyence VK-
9710. Hardness testing device was a Zwickl Roell Z1, on which 14 or 24 measuring steps with a dis-
tance of 0,25 mm were made. Density for mono-material was tested with two different methods. At first
Archimedes method was used, because in this way the whole specimen is considered. Additionally,
the porosity of polished samples was examined by microscopic analysis to get a comparability for the
multi-material parts, which cannot be tested by Archimedes method because of their unknown ratio of
different materials.[14,15]

3.2 Mono-material

At the beginning, the qualification of both mono-materials on SLM 250HL was started to get optimized
process parameters for the following multi-material trial. In case of tool steel 1.2709, manufacturer’s
specifications as well as publications were used for orientation. [6] In the experimental design hatch
spacing, scan speed and laser power were varied for optimized density results. For copper alloy
2.1293, the approach was the same, especially based on Becker (2014).[16] In consequence of the
limited maximum laser power of 400 W, laser re-melting was used to achieve higher density. This ap-
proach has already been applied in different studies about copper alloys.[17–19] Tool steel specimen
exhibited nearly 100 % relative density and copper alloy exceeded the value of 99 % density if the op-
timized parameters are used (Table 1).

Table 1 Optimized parameters with density results of Archimedes method

Material Hatch spacing Scan speed Laser Power Remelting Relative Density
(mm) (mm/s) (W) (%)
1.2709 0,105 600 200 No 100,00 ± 0,22
2.1293 0,125 600 400 Yes 99,28 ± 0,25
3.3 2D multi-material

Using the optimized parameters, different 2D multi-material parts were built using the parameters rep-
resented in Table 2

Table 2 2D multi-material samples

No. a, Starting material b, Process interruption c, number of transitions d, total height (mm)
1 Steel first Yes 1 6
2 Steel first No 1 6
3 Steel first Yes 2 9
4 Steel first No 2 9
5 Copper first Yes 1 6
6 Copper first No 1 6
7 Copper first Yes 2 9
8 Copper first No 2 9
All of the manufactured 2D specimens have relative densities greater than 99,5 % in microscope anal-
ysis. In Figure 3, effects of 2D multi-material on a sample built with steel first, three material sections
and process interruption between different materials usage are shown.

1.2709
Building direction

CCZ

500 μm
1.2709
Figure 3 Light microscope pictures of a 2D multi-material part 4 (left polished, right etched). Red ar-
rows: heat affected zone, yellow arrows: cracks
There is a region in the copper segment close to the 1.2709 material boundary, which has a different
structure, resulting from the low heat conductivity of steel (red arrows). As a result of the high energy
input in the copper alloy part, which can only be less conducted by steel, a kind of heat treatment was
applied on the lower copper layers.
Euro PM2017 – AM - Beam Based Technologies

The hardness test of the 2D multi-material samples confirms the heat treatment assumption, especial-
ly on interfaces with copper on top and steel below (Figure 4). Instead of a clear distinction between
both materials, measurements which started on the copper part (1.5 mm above the interface) show a
significant and steady increase of hardness. After they reach about 200 HV1 at the interface, also
1.2709 shows higher hardness values (up to ~ 450 HV1) than measured on mono-material specimen
(367 ± 6 HV1) or on tool steel sections which are placed on top of copper alloy. In contrast, at inter-
faces with 1.2709 on top of 2.1293 there are quite the same hardness values per material with only
one intermediate result at the interface. This difference based on exposure order has to be considered
in 3D multi-material scan strategies. If CuCr1Zr is for example used for cooling channels, thermal con-
ductivity is also affected by heat treatments.[20]

500
1.2709
Vickers hardness

400
300
(HV1)

200
100
CCZ
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Measuring point
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

Figure 4 Hardness test of 2D multi-material samples. Samples with only two material sections (6mm
height) were measured at 14 points, those with three material sections (9 mm) with 24 points. Point 1
is the first measurement on top and 14/24 the lowest measuring

1.2709 CCZ

z z

x CCZ 100 μm x 1.2709 100 μm

Figure 5 Interface sections of 2D multi-material with a rather discrete (left) and a more graded connec-
tion (right), laser and light microscopy imaging

Another consequence of the multi-material build-up are multiple cracks on the steel part at interface
regions (Figure 3, yellow arrows). At interfaces with tool steel at the bottom and copper alloy on top,
there are fewer cracks than vice versa. This could relate to the more graded interface, which is a result
of the higher energy input during the melting of copper. This leads to a gradient-like change between
steel and copper alloy (Figure 4 and Figure 5), where the more ductile copper can compensate the
internal stresses and therefor reduces cracks. Furthermore, the high thermal conductivity of copper
minimizes the cooling rate of the steel melted on top of copper, which reduces the duration of melting
and mixing of both alloys. One reason for the cracks could be the thermal expansion mismatch be-
tween tool steel and copper alloy.[18,21] The fact that there are less cracks when there is a graded
interface with copper melted on top of tool steel suggests that dilution leads to a fluent passage in
which thermal expansion changes to a lesser extent. As a result, different scanning strategies to get
graded interfaces have to be tested on their effect on crack formation. Cracks could be caused by
copper infiltration between grain boundaries of steel.[21] By the fast cooling rate of laser melting, a
sufficient diffusion cannot take place. This would also explain the difference between copper-on-steel
and steel-on-copper interfaces, because steel conducts the high energy input lesser than copper, en-
abling a diffusion process in which copper is solved in steel grains.

3.4 3D multi-material

There have already been built first samples of 3D-Multi-material parts realized by using the coating
concept mentioned in section 2. The considered factors are: (a) if a remelting of the interface area
(0,6 mm width) takes place, (b) if there is an overlap of 0,2 mm between tool steel and copper alloy
Euro PM2017 – AM - Beam Based Technologies

laser exposure and (c) if the copper beam is placed in the middle of the workpiece (0° pitch angle) or
has a 45° pitch angle within the sample (s. Table 3).
Table 3 First results of 3D multi-material samples
No. a, Exposure or- b, Interface re- c, Overlap (mm) d, Pitch angle (°) Abort while
der melting (mm) d
printing

Building direction
A C B

1 Steel first 0,6 0,2 45 No

2 Steel first 0 0 45 Yes
3 Steel first 0,6 0,2 0 No
4 Steel first 0 0,2 0 No

As a result of a missing overlap or interface remelting, build-up of sample no. 2 interrupted because
there was no adequate bonding between the copper alloy and steel parts (Figure 6). The part bended
up and damaged the coater lip. Moreover, there were some difficulties to adjust the developed vacu-
um module to get a full removal of the powder layer. Therefore, the first layers and some in between
show a mixture of 1.2709 and 2.1293 (Figure 7). Even on the top layer a mixture of steel and copper
alloy can be seen in Figure 6. Thus, the machine was modified to decrease the mixing of the metal
powders by lowering the platform to reduce wiping when the coater moves above the platform.

2
3
1

4
Figure 6 3D multi-material samples (left) and zoomed view on the best sample no. 4 (right) with mixed
areas of both materials (e.g. yellow arrow).

1.2709 CCZ
1.2709
direction
Building

1000 μm

Figure 7 Polish of cross-section in building direction of sample no. 4 with clearly visible mixed layers
and cracks.

4. Conclusion

Within this contribution, several methods and corresponding process chains to produce multi-material
parts by means of laser-based powder bed fusion of metals (laser beam melting) were introduced. In
this context, “multi-material” refers to parts consisting out of two metal alloys that can be distributed
arbitrarily within the parts volume, according to the desired application (cf. Figure 1). In contrast, the
whole volume of a “mono-material part” consists out of one specific metal alloy.
Within this paper, first the mono-materials (copper-based alloy, tool steel) were qualified for the pro-
cess. Afterwards the determined optimized process-parameters were used to build 2D-multi-material
parts. Depending on the building order, a significant influence on crack development could be ob-
served because of different thermal expansions and heat transfer conditions as well as mixture of the
two materials.
To apply the developed approaches for powder bed-based multi material processing, finally first 3D
multi-material samples were build using the developed coater-concept. They test specimen also exhib-
it cracks, especially in regions with less mixed layers. Future work will address both an analysis of
possible cause-and-effect relations and process parameter optimizations to improve material proper-
ties in connection zones.
 Euro PM2017 – AM - Beam Based Technologies

Acknowledgments

The research and development is supported by the Bavarian Research Foundation within the project
ForNextGen.

References

[1] D. Bourell, J. P. Kruth, M. Leu et al., “Materials for additive manufacturing,” CIRP Annals - Manu-
facturing Technology, 2017.
[2] J. Bräunig, T. Töppel, B. Müller et al., “Advanced Material Studies for Additive Manufacturing in
terms of Future Gear Application,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 741083,
2014.
[3] V. E. Beal, P. Erasenthiran, N. Hopkinson et al., “The effect of scanning strategy on laser fusion
of functionally graded H13/Cu materials,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, vol. 30, 9-10, pp. 844–852, 2006.
[4] B. Cheng, S. Shrestha, and K. Chou, “Stress and deformation evaluations of scanning strategy
effect in selective laser melting,” Additive Manufacturing, vol. 12, pp. 240–251, 2016.
[5] C. Anstaett and C. Seidel, “Multi-Material Processing,” Laser Technik Journal, vol. 13, no. 4,
pp. 28–31, 2016.
[6] M. Ott, Multimaterialverarbeitung bei der additiven strahl- und pulverbettbasierten Fertigung,
Herbert Utz Verlag, München, 2012.
[7] P. Kumar, E. Beck, and S. Das, “Preliminary Investigations on the Deposition of fine Powders
through Miniature Hopper-Nozzles Applied to Multi-Material Solid Freeform Fabrication,” SFF-
Symposium, 2003.
[8] S. Yang and J. Evans, “Metering and dispensing of powder; the quest for new solid freeforming
techniques,” Powder Technology, vol. 178, no. 1, pp. 56–72, 2007.
[9] C. Anstaett, C. Seidel, and G. Reinhart, “Mutli-Material Processing Laser Beam Melting,” Fraun-
hofer Direct Digital Manufacturing Conference, 2016.
[10] C. Anstaett and C. Seidel, “Multi-Material Processing: Next step in laser-based powder bed fu-
sion,” Laser Technik Journal, no. 4, 2016.
[11] Y. Chivel, “New Approach to Multi-material Processing in Selective Laser Melting,” Physics Pro-
cedia, vol. 83, pp. 891–898, 2016.
[12] C. van der Eijk, Mugaas, T., Asebo, O., O. Kolnes et al., “Metal Printing Process-Development of
a New Rapid Manufacturing Process for Metal Parts,” Procedings of the World PM, 2004.
[13] A. V. Kumar, A. Dutta, and J. E. Fay, “Electrophotographic printing of part and binder powders,”
Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 7–13, 2004.
[14] A. B. Spierings, M. Schneider, and R. Eggenberger, “Comparison of density measurement tech-
niques for additive manufactured metallic parts,” Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol. 17, no. 5,
pp. 380–386, 2011.
[15] W. W. Wits, S. Carmignato, F. Zanini et al., “Porosity testing methods for the quality assessment
of selective laser melted parts,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, vol. 65, no. 1,
pp. 201–204, 2016.
[16] D. Becker, Selektives Laserschmelzen von Kupfer und Kupferlegierungen, Apprimus-Verl.,
Aachen, 2014.
[17] E. Yasa, J. Deckers, and J. Kruth, “The investigation of the influence of laser re‐melting on densi-
ty, surface quality and microstructure of selective laser melting parts,” Rapid Prototyping Journal,
vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 312–327, 2011.
[18] Z. H. Liu, D. Q. Zhang, S. L. Sing et al., “Interfacial characterization of SLM parts in multi-material
processing: Metallurgical diffusion between 316L stainless steel and C18400 copper alloy,” Mate-
rials Characterization, vol. 94, pp. 116–125, 2014.
[19] S. L. Sing, L. P. Lam, D. Q. Zhang et al., “Interfacial characterization of SLM parts in multi-
material processing: Intermetallic phase formation between AlSi10Mg and C18400 copper alloy,”
Materials Characterization, vol. 107, pp. 220–227, 2015.
[20] M. Merola, A. Orsini, E. Visca et al., “Influence of the manufacturing heat cycles on the CuCrZr
properties,” Journal of Nuclear Materials, 307-311, pp. 677–680, 2002.
[21] S. Chen, J. Huang, J. Xia et al., “Microstructural Characteristics of a Stainless Steel/Copper Dis-
similar Joint Made by Laser Welding,” Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A, vol. 44, no. 8,
pp. 3690–3696, 2013.

View publication stats