Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Structural
Available
Available Integrity
online
online at atProcedia 00 (2018) 000–000
www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia Structural
Structural IntegrityIntegrity
Procedia1400(2019)
(2016)449–466
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

2nd International Conference on Structural Integrity and Exhibition 2018

2nd International Conference on Structural Integrity and Exhibition 2018
Small Scale Mechanical Testing for Additively Manufactured
SmallMetal
(Direct ScaleLaser
Mechanical
Sintered) Testing for Additively
Monolithic and Hybrid Manufactured
Test Samples
(Direct Metal Laser Sintered) Monolithic and Hybrid Testde Samples
XV Portuguese Conference on Fracture, PCF 2016, 10-12 February 2016, Paço Arcos, Portugal
Anigani Sudarshan Reddy, Dheepa Srinivasan
Anigani Sudarshan Reddy, Dheepa Srinivasan
Thermo-mechanical modeling
INTECH of aBangalore-560058,
DMLS Pvt.Ltd, Peenya, high pressure India. turbine blade of an
INTECH DMLS Pvt.Ltd, Peenya, Bangalore-560058, India.
airplane gas turbine engine
Abstract
Abstract
P. Brandãoa, V. Infanteb, A.M. Deusc*
Additive manufacturing using the laser based, powder bed fusion process (Direct metal laser sintering – DMLS) has been studied
Additive manufacturing
for roomaDepartment
temperature using theEngineering,
mechanical
of Mechanical laser based,properties
(tensile) powderSuperior
Instituto bed fusion
using smallprocess
Técnico, scale (Direct metal
test specimens.
Universidade laserFive
de Lisboa, sintering
Av. –Pais,
different
Rovisco DMLS)
DMLS has been
alloys,
1, 1049-001 studied
IN718,
Lisboa,
for room temperature
CoCrMo, Maraging steel, mechanical
SS316L (tensile) properties
and Ti6Al4V alongusing small
with two scale alloys
hybrid
Portugal test specimens.
(DMLS CoCrMo Five different
on CastDMLS FSX414 alloys,
and IN718,
DMLS
b
CoCrMo,
SS316L IDMEC, Department
onMaraging
forged of Mechanical
steel,
X20Cr13 SS316L
steel) haveEngineering,
and Ti6Al4V
been testedInstituto
along
using Superior
with twoTécnico,
micro Universidade
hybridspecimens
tensile alloys (DMLS de mm
(0.5 Lisboa,
CoCrMo Av. Rovisco
on Cast
thickness, Pais,
2 mm 1, 1049-001
FSX414
gauge Lisboa,
and DMLS
width and 6
SS316L X20Cr13 steel) have been tested using microPortugal
mmc gauge length). The specimens were machined out of DMLS blocks and tested in the as printed and heat treated condition.and
on forged tensile specimens (0.5 mm thickness, 2 mm gauge width This6
CeFEMA, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
mm
studygauge length).the
establishes The specimens
premise were scale
for small machined
testingoutasofa DMLS blocks andintested
viablePortugal
technique laser in the as printed
additive and heat(DMLS),
manufacturing treated condition.
especiallyThis
for
study establishesinthe
its applicability premisehybrid
building for small
partsscale testing
on to as a viablemanufactured
conventionally technique in laser
partsadditive
as well manufacturing
as to serve as a(DMLS), especially
quality control for
option
its applicability
during scaling upinofbuilding
AM parts,hybrid partscontributing
thereby on to conventionally manufactured
to productivity partsparts.
of production as well as to serve as a quality control option
during scaling up of AM parts, thereby contributing to productivity of production parts.
Abstract
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
©
© 2019
2018 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Publishedby Elsevier B.V. B.V.
by Elsevier
This is an
During open
their access article
operation, under
modern the CC BY-NC-ND
aircraft license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
engine components are subjected to increasingly demanding operating conditions,
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an and
Selection
especially open
the access
high article
peer-review
pressure under
under turbinethe(HPT)
CC BY-NC-ND
responsibility of
blades. Suchlicense
Peer-review (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
under
conditions responsibility
causeofthese of the
parts to SICE
undergo 2018 organizers.
different types of time-dependent
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Peer-review under responsibility the SICE 2018 organizers.
Selection and peer-review
degradation, one of which under responsibility
is creep. A model of Peer-review
using the finiteunder
elementresponsibility
method (FEM) of the
wasSICE 2018 organizers.
developed, in order to be able to predict
the creep
Keywords: DMLS behaviour
; Tensileof HPT; Small
testing blades. Flight
scale data records
test specimens (FDR); Hybrid
; Monolithic for a ;specific aircraft,; Maraging
IN718, CoCrMo providedSteel
by ;aSS316L
commercial aviation
; Ti6Al4V
company,
Keywords: DMLS were; Tensile
used totesting
obtain thermal
; Small scaleand mechanical
test specimens data for ;three
; Monolithic Hybriddifferent
; IN718, flight
CoCrMo cycles. In order
; Maraging Steel to create ;the
; SS316L 3D model
Ti6Al4V
needed for the FEM analysis, a HPT blade scrap was scanned, and its chemical composition and material properties were
1. obtained.
Introduction The data that was gathered was fed into the FEM model and different simulations were run, first with a simplified 3D
1. rectangular
Introduction block shape, in order to better establish the model, and then with the real 3D mesh obtained from the blade scrap. The
overall expected behaviour in terms of displacement was observed, in particular at the trailing edge of the blade. Therefore such a
Lasercan
model Additive
be usefulManufacturing (LAM) also
in the goal of predicting turbinecalled
blade3D life,printing, hasofgained
given a set FDR data. a lot of popularity in the recent years,
Laser
owing Additive
to its Manufacturing
great potential (LAM)
in enabling also calledproduction
customizable 3D printing, has users
for end gainedwithout
a lot ofmultiple
popularity in the
supply recent
chain years,
by Herzog
owing
et © to
al.2016 its
(2016). great
The The potential
process
Authors. in enabling
involves
Published customizable
layer byB.V.
by Elsevier production for end users without multiple supply chain
layer (20-100 µm layer) deposition to produce three dimensional near net by Herzog
et al. (2016).
shape parts orThe
Peer-review underprocess
components, involves layer
thatofcould
responsibility the by layer (20-100
revolutionize
Scientific µm
the of
Committee way layer)
PCF deposition
components
2016. to produceinthree
are designed dimensional
achieving near net
light weighted
shape parts or components, that could revolutionize the way components are designed in
parts, combining several parts into one, ability to manufacture complex designs that have superior performance, achieving light weighted
parts,
reducingcombining
Keywords: High
part several
Pressure
inventory parts
Turbine
and intoCreep;
Blade;
thereby one, ability
Finite
in enhancing tothe
Elementmanufacture
Method; complex
overall3Dproductivity
Model; designs
Moonthat
Simulation.
by have
et al. superior
(2014) performance,
or Grigoriev et al.
reducing part inventory and thereby in enhancing the overall productivity by Moon et al. (2014)
(2011) or Cooper et al. (2012). In this method, the parts are being built to net shape or near net shape, which helps or Grigoriev et al.
to
(2011) or Cooper et al. (2012). In this method, the parts are being built to net shape or near
improve material and resource efficiency by Kobry et al. (2001). All these attributes have made LAM as a unique net shape, which helps to
improve material and resource efficiency by Kobry et al. (2001). All these attributes have made LAM as a unique

2452-3216 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an ©
2452-3216 open
2018access article under
The Authors. theby
Published CCElsevier
BY-NC-ND
B.V. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection
This is an and
openpeer-review under
access article responsibility
under of Peer-review
the CC BY-NC-ND licenseunder responsibility of the SICE 2018 organizers.
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer-review
* Corresponding under
author. Tel.: +351responsibility
218419991. of Peer-review under responsibility of the SICE 2018 organizers.
E-mail address: amd@tecnico.ulisboa.pt

2452-3216 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
2452-3216  2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Peer-review under responsibility of the SICE 2018 organizers.
10.1016/j.prostr.2019.05.055
450 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466
2 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

advantage in design and manufacturing, in both industrial as well as academic sectors by Michael Schmidt et al. (2017)
or Erwin Rauch et al. (2018).
Direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) is one of the popular LAM techniques in which 3D parts produced from
powders by the selective application of laser energy to powder beds by Thomas Grunberger et al. (2015). In this
process, a series of complex process parameters like laser power, scan speed, layer thickness and hatch distance are
optimized to produce dense parts having complex geometries by Pavel Hanzl et al. (2015) or Robert Mines et al.
(2010) or Santhosh Kumar Rao Chandrasekara et al. (2017). Starting with serving as an ideal prototype generator, this
technology is now capable of being suitable for full-fledged batch production of parts to cater to the demands of the
aerospace, power, healthcare, tool and die and other general engineering applications by Eleonora Atzeni et al. (2012).
Testing and characterization of each build plate is mandatory for establishing repeatability and consistency of
mechanical properties during scaled up production. The mechanical properties are typically characterized for each
build plate via standard ASTM test specimens having dimensions measuring 100 mm length and 6 mm diameter. A
minimum of six specimens is needed in each build plate, to test the mechanical properties along and transverse to the
build direction, for establishing the basic room temperature mechanical properties, during production. If the part is
one that sees high temperature, then additional samples are needed to be built for corresponding high temperature
mechanical testing (along both longitudinal and transverse directions). These are time consuming and expensive.
Very few studies have established the feasibility of using small scale test specimens for LAM, in a systematic
manner. Some of them refer to directly printing small scale test specimens during the build process by Van Zyl et al.
(2016), however, while this is attractive in terms of building the test specimens directly without having to further
machine into dogbone test specimens, the LAM process does not always ensure that such small scale specimens with
thickness < 1 mm and overall dimensions within 25 mm, can be obtained without any distortion or microstructural
change during buildup of such thin tensile specimen geometries. Moreover, further post processing such as removal
of supports as well as removal from the build plate may not be able to guarantee a specimen that is distortion free.
Secondly, while the DMLS technology is seen very attractive for building complex parts, it is most suited in
applications requiring hybrid components, especially during repair and refurbishment, or as a functionally gradient
material, added on to a conventionally manufactured part by Mary Kathryn Thompson et al. (2016) or Vanekar et al.
(2017) or Ruth Jiang et al. (2017) or Vayre, B et al. (2012) or Tammas Williams et al. (2017) or Simon Ford et al.
(2016) or Germain Sossou et al. (2018). Although these parts may not be more than a few millimeters in size added
on to a conventional cast or wrought part, the current process of having these qualified comprises making use of
standard ASTM test specimens. In order to optimize the process parameters to obtain dense parts and to validate build
to build consistency in terms of mechanical properties as well as strength of the joint in hybrid component having an
LAM part built on a conventionally manufactured part, a number of test samples have to be printed and tested as per
the ASTM standards, adding to the time and cost. Thirdly, while optimizing the process parameters for any new alloy
or part geometry and mandatory validation of each chemistry or process via mechanical properties, having a small
scale testing capability will enable a faster cycle time for the optimization trials as well as lead to a higher productivity.
In order to reduce the time and costs involved in testing as well as to enable testing for hybrid parts, this study
comprises a systematic evaluation of the suitability of small scale tensile specimens for laser additive manufacturing
DMLS process in five different alloys representative of the all the materials that are currently being used for part
production using the powder bed fusion process. Nickel (IN718), Cobalt (CoCrMo), Steels (maraging steel and
SS316L) and Titanium (Ti6Al4V) alloys, were evaluated for their room temperature tensile behavior using small scale
test specimens, in the as printed as well as heat treated condition. The test specimens used in this study were machined
out of DMLS blocks and comparisons were made with standard ASTM test specimens to establish the small scale test
specimens as being suitable for AM alloys.

2. Experimental details

DMLS alloys processed as standalone specimens will be referred to as “monolithic” specimens in this study. DMLS
alloys deposited or welded on to conventionally manufactured materials will be referred to as “hybrid” on a
“substrate”. Table 1 is a list of samples used in this study, as a monolithic DMLS and as a hybrid DMLS, (DMLS
 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466 451
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 3

CoCrMo on Cast FSX414 and DMLS SS316L on forged X20Cr13). FSX414 is a cobalt based superalloy and X20Cr13
is a martensitic steel. The substrates FSX414 and X20Cr13 were procured from GE Power, Bangalore. The hybrids
were chosen to represent a combination of DMLS material on a cast and a forged substrate, respectively. In both cases
of hybrid builds, the substrate and the DMLS build materials were dissimilar in terms of chemical composition. All
the samples were fabricated using an EOS M280 machine, at INTECH, DMLS, Pvt Ltd. Bangalore, India by DMLS
process. The nominal composition of the all the materials used in this study is listed in the Table 2 were taken from
EOS material data sheets for monolithic DMLS samples, Kaustubh Krishna Bawane et al. (2018) for FSX414 and
Springler Handbook of condensed matter for X20Cr13. The range of process parameters used for building the different
specimens are listed in Table 3. The DMLS processing parameters for all the alloys were optimized to ensure a nearly
dense (>99.5%) sample, with each alloy having a specific combination of parameters from amongst this range.
Specimens of dimensions 25mm (length) X 8mm (width) X 25mm (height) were built for all the five monolithic
samples as shown in the Figure 1(a). The hybrid (DMLS SS316L on forged X20Cr13 was built by depositing a height
of 25.4 mm on the substrate dimensions 25.4mm (height) X 5mm (width) and 10mm (length) as shown in the Figure
1(b) and the hybrid of (DMLS CoCrMo on Cast FSX414) was built by welding of DMLS CoCrMo on Cast FSX414
using Nozzaloy weld filler wire ( 1mm thick) via Tungsten inert gas welding (TIG) technique, as shown in the
schematic in Figure 1(c). The combination of hybrids were chosen to represent direct build up using the DMLS process
on top of a conventional substrates and by means of welding a DMLS alloy with a conventionally manufactured
substrate, respectively. A suitable fixture assembly was fabricated to position the hybrid parts in the DMLS machine
such that there was no distortion of the DMLS build when deposited on top of the substrate. For each alloy, the DMLS
build plate included 3 cylindrical specimens in order to evaluate regular ASTM tensile specimen geometry, for
comparison with small scale test specimens, as shown in the Figure 1(d). An average of three tests specimens was
taken to represent the mechanical properties for both small scale as well as regular specimens. The alloys were heat
treated as per the conditions listed in Table 4, respectively. The heat treatment of DMLS SS316L was carried out only
in hybrid of (DMLS SS316L on X20Cr13). Heat treatments for IN718, CoCrMo, Ti6Al4V and hybrid of (DMLS
CoCrMo on Cast FSX414) were carried out in a vacuum furnace (Delta power controls, using an argon gas quenching
facility, at Materials engineering department, IISc, Bangalore) while the steels, Maraging steel and hybrid of (DMLS
SS316L on X20Cr13) were heat treated in air, using a Nabertherm furnace. The heat treatments cycles represented
stress relieving heat treatment for (CoCrMo, SS316L, and Ti6Al4V) and precipitation hardening in (IN718 and
Maraging steel), respectively.
The starting powder characterization was done using FEI Quanta200 (Thermo Fisher EDS) Scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) and particle size distribution (PSD) by Malvern 3000 for all the materials. Optical microscopy was
carried out using a Zeiss Axiocam with Axiovision software to measure the porosity and the as printed and heat treated
microstructures. The porosity was quantified using an Image J software. The microstructures were examined after
etching in both the as printed and heat treated condition. Table 5 is a summary of the etchants used for the DMLS
alloys. Microhardness measurements were taken using Future Tech FM 800 Tester after applying a load of 300 gms
and 10 sec dwell time. The small scale tensile specimens were machined out of the monolithic blocks as well as the
hybrid samples using EDM wire cutting (as shown in Figure 2a and 2b, respectively). All the specimens used in this
study were oriented with the tensile axis along the DMLS build direction. Figure 2c, shows the dimensions of the
small scale tensile test specimen having a 6 mm gauge length, 2 mm width, 0.5 mm thickness and 20 mm sample
length. The regular specimens were machined as per the dimensions of ASTM E8/E8M as shown in the Figure 3d.
All the small scale tests were carried out using an Instron 5987, with 0.006 mm/sec strain rate at room temperature, at
the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. All the regular specimens were tested using Fuel Instruments and Engineers
(FIE) UTM at Geological and Metallurgical Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore. An average of three tests were recorded for
each sample and test condition. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was carried out using a FEI Quanta200 to
analyse the fractographs of the samples both in as printed and heat treated conditions.
452 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466
4 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

Table 1: List of materials used in this study

S.No Monolithic materials Hybrid materials

1 DMLS IN718 DMLS CoCrMo on Cast FSX-414

2 DMLS CoCrMo DMLS SS316L on Forged X20Cr13

3 DMLS Maraging steel

4 DMSL SS316L

5 DMLS Ti6Al4V

Table 2: Nominal composition of the materials used in this study

Nominal composition (weight %)

Manufacturing
(→)
method
DMLS Casting Forging

Material (→) Maraging

IN718 CoCrMo SS316L Ti6Al4V FSX414 X20Cr13
Elements(↓) steel

Fe Bal ≤0.75 Bal Bal <3000 ppm - Bal

Cr 17-21 26-30 - 17-19 - 28.5-30.5 12.0-14

Ni 50-55 ≤0.10 17-19 13-15 - 9.5-11.5 -
Mo 2.8-3.3 05.0-7 4.5-5.2 2.25-3 - - -
C ≤0.08 ≤0.16 ≤0.03 0.03 <800 ppm 0.2-0.3 -
Mn ≤0.35 ≤1.0 ≤0.01 2 - 0.4-1.0 0-1.5
Cu ≤0.3 C ≤0.5 0.5 - - -
P ≤0.015 Ni ≤0.01 0.025 - - 0.04
S ≤0.015 - ≤0.1 0.01 - - 0.03
Si ≤0.35 ≤1.0 ≤0.01 0.75 - 0.5-1.0 0-1.0
N - - - 0.1 <500 ppm - -
Co ≤1.0 60-65 8.5-9.5 - - Bal -
Ti 0.65-1.15 - 0.6-0.8 - Bal - -
Al 0.2-0.8 - 0.05-0.15 - 5.5-6.75 - -
V - - - - 3.5-4.5 - -
H - - - - <150 ppm - -

O - - - - <2000 ppm - -

Nb 4.75-5.5 - - - - - -
B ≤0.006 - - - - - -
 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466 453
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 5

Table 3: Range of process parameters used for building DMLS samples

Process parameter Range

Laser power (W) 250-300

Scan speed (mm/sec) 800-1000

Hatch distance (mm) 80-120

Layer thickness (µm) 20-80

Laser spot diameter (µm) 80

Fig. 1. Photographs showing typical samples used in this study for small scale testing, (a) Monolithic DMLS sample (b) Hybrid sample –DMLS
SS316L on X20Cr13 (c) Hybrid sample- DMLS CoCrMo welded on FSX414 (d) Cylindrical DMLS sample

Table 4: Heat Treatment cycles used for DMLS and Hybrid samples

S.No Material Heat treatment cycle

Solution annealing at 1065ºC in vacuum for 1hour
followed by air cooling.
1 Monolithic DMLS IN718 Aging heat treatment at 760ºC for 10 hours and furnace cooling for
620ºC in 2 hours and hold at 620ºC for 8 hour
followed by air cooling.
1150ºC in vacuum for 4 hours
2 Monolithic DMLS CoCrMo
followed by argon gas quenching.
490ºC for 6 hours
3 Monolithic DMLS Maraging steel
followed by furnace cooling.
800ºC in vacuum for 4 hours
4 Monolithic DMLS Ti6Al4V
followed by inert atmosphere cooling.
1150ºC in vacuum for 4 hours
5 Hybrid (CoCrMo on FSX-414)
followed by argon gas quenching.

650ºC for 2 hours 30 minutes

6 Hybrid (SS316L on X20Cr13)
followed by air cooling.
6 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
454 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466

Table 5: List of etchants used for this study

S.No Material Etchant used

1 DMLS IN718 Acetic glyceregia
2 DMLS CoCrMo 5%HCl electrolytic, 5V, 4sec.
3 DMLS Maraging steel 10% HNO3 solution for 10 sec
4 DMLS SS316L Glyceregia
5 DMLS Ti6Al4V Keller’s reagent
6 Cast FSX-414 5%HCl electrolytic, 5V, 4sec.
7 Forged X20Cr13 2% Nital solution

a c Thickness‐0.5 mm

b d

Fig. 2. Schematic showing the orientation of small scale tensile test specimens in (a) Monolithic DMLS samples, (b) Hybrid DMLS sample and
the substrate, (c) Micro tensile specimen dimensions and (d) Regular tensile specimen

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Microstructural characterization of monolithic DMLS Alloys

Figure 3 (a, c, e, g, i) shows representative scanning electron micrographs of the starting powders of the five alloys
IN718, CoCrMo, Maraging steel, SS316L, Ti6Al4V, respectively. A nearly spherical morphology can be seen for all
the alloys, with a particle size distribution and average particle size of 11-84 µm and 34 µm for (IN718), 14-76 µm
and 33 µm for (CoCrMo), 16-76 µm and 37 µm for (Maraging steel), 14-76 µm and 33 µm for (SS316L) and 14-86
µm and 37 µm for (Ti6Al4V), as shown in Figure 3(b, d, f, h, j) respectively. The average powder particle size was
nearly the same in all the cases, between 33-38 µm. The as printed part porosity is a critical parameter for the final
properties and performance of the DMLS alloys. All the samples investigated in present the study were produced with
minimal porosity having a density more than 99.5% without any Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) by using optimized
process parameters. Figure 4 (a-e) shows representative micrographs taken along the build direction. It can be seen
that there is little or no porosity in all the five DMLS alloys.
 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466 455
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 7

Fig. 3. Representative SEM micrographs of DMLS powders along with their corresponding particle size distribution, (a-b) IN718, (c-d) CoCrMo,
(e-f) Maraging steel, (g-h) SS316L, (i-j) Ti6Al4V respectively.

Figure 5 (a-e) represents optical micrographs of polished and etched surfaces for all alloys in the as printed
condition. The microstructures reveal the weld pool with different dimensions (height and width) for all alloys. The
height of the weld pool is a manifestation the layer thickness and energy input given to the powder bed. The as printed
weld pool width is representative of the laser spot diameter. The height of the weld pools is 2 or 3 times the layer
thickness to accommodate proper fusion of present layer with the previous layer. The width and depth of the weld
pools for all the 5 monolithic alloys are represented in Figure 5(a-e). Ti6Al4V shows a typical martensitic structure
456 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466
8 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

comprising mainly -phase laths with little or no  phase present. In this study, all the five alloys show a uniformly
fused weld pools without any regions of unmelted particles or lack of fusion.

a IN718 b CoCrMo c Maraging steel

Porosity-0.045% Porosity-0.016% Porosity-0.4%

100 µm 100 µm 100 µm

d SS316L
e Ti6Al4V
Porosity-0.047% Porosity-0.3%

100 µm 100 µm

Fig. 4. Representative optical micrographs taken from the as printed DMLS samples (along the build direction) (a) IN718, (b) CoCrMo, (c)
Maraging steel, (d) SS316L and (e) Ti6Al4V

a IN718 b CoCrMo c Maraging steel

⁓100 µm
⁓1
10 ⁓120 µm
⁓100
µ ⁓8 µm
⁓70 µm 0
µ

µm200 200 µm 200 µm

d SS316L e Ti6Al4V

⁓80 µm

⁓6
0µ
m

200 µm 200 µm

Fig. 5. Representative optical micrographs taken from as printed DMLS samples after etching (along the build direction) (a) IN718, (b) CoCrMo,
(c) Maraging steel, (d) SS316L and (e) Ti6Al4V
 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466 457
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 9

Figure 6 (a-e) represents the optical micrographs of polished and etched surfaces along the build direction for all
alloys in heat treated condition. Partial recrystallization with elongated grains can be observed after heat treatment in
IN718, as shown in Figure 7(a). After heat treatment at 1150ºC, CoCrMo exhibited an equiaxed microstructure with
grain size of about 37-42 µm Figure 7(b)). Figure 7(c) is a representative micrograph from maraging steel. There
appears to be no significant change to the microstructure as compared to the as printed microstructure after this heat
treatment as seen from the presence of the weld pools (Figure 7c). SS316L shows a columnar grain structure after the
heat treatment as represented in Figure 7(d). DMLS Ti6Al4V shows a characteristic biphasic + phase for Ti6Al4V
after heat treatment as shown in Figure 7(e).

a IN718 b CoCrMo c Maraging steel

100 µm 100 µm 100 µm

d SS316L e Ti6Al4V

100 µm 100

Fig. 6. Representative optical micrographs taken from heat treated DMLS samples after etching (along the build direction) (a) IN718, (b)
CoCrMo, (c) Maraging steel, (d) SS316L, (e) Ti6Al4V

800
Microhardness (HV)

600
400
200
0
IN718 CoCrMo Maraging SS316L Ti6Al4V
steel

As printed Heat treated

Fig. 7. Microhardness of monolithic DMLS alloys in the as printed and heat treated condition

Figure 7 shows a comparison of the microhardness for all the alloys in the as printed and heat treated condition.
For CoCrMo, SS316L and Ti6Al4V there is a drop in hardness after heat treatment by 12%, 12% and 17% respectively.
The drop in hardness may be due to recrystallization with equiaxed grains for CoCrMo, stress relieving which makes
material little softer for SS316L and conversion of -phase laths to biphasic + phase for Ti6Al4V after respective
458 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466
10 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

heat treatment. Maraging steel and IN718 show an increase in hardness by 57% and 32% due to precipitation
hardening.

3.2. Microstructural characterization of monolithic DMLS Alloys

Figure 8 (a-b) shows the representative optical micrographs of hybrid of DMLS (DMLS SS316L on X20Cr13
substrate) in the as printed and heat treated condition. It can be seen that the weld pools of DMLS SS316L penetrated
and fused with X20Cr13 substrate. The weld pool width and depth was 80 µm in the as printed condition similar to
Figure 5(d). After heat treatment columnar grains were seen in the DMLS SS316L, again very similar to Figure 6(d).
There was distinct interface that emerged between the substrate and the DMLS build.

Fig. 8. Representative optical micrographs of the hybrid of DMLS (SS316L on X20Cr13 substrate) in the (a) As printed (b) Heat treated condition

Figure 9 represents the variation in the microhardness before and after heat treatment across the hybrid parts. In the
X20Cr13 substrate, the hardness remains invariant at 265 HV while in the DMLS SS316L there is a gradual decrease
in the hardness from 210 HV in the as printed condition to 185 HV after heat treatment due to relaxation of residual
stress. At the interface hardness was seen in between the two at around 240 HV in both the as printed and heat treated
condition.

Substrate‐Interface‐Deposit
Hardness (HV)

290
HT
270
650C
250
230
210
190
170
150

‐4000 ‐2000 0 2000 4000

Distance from interface (microns)

Fig. 9. Microhardness taken across the hybrid DMLS SS316L on X20Cr13 substrate, in the as printed condition and after heat treatment.
 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466 459
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 11

Figure 10 (a-c) represents the optical micrographs of hybrid (DMLS CoCrMo on FSX414) after post weld heat
treatment at 1150°C for 4 hours in vacuum. The microstructure of DMLS CoCrMo showed equiaxed grains with
average grain size of 40 µm as represented in the Figure 10 (a). Figure 10 (b) represents the microstructure in the joint
region indicating a sound weld between the DMLS CoCrMo and cast FSX414. Figure 10 (c) represents the
microstructure of FSX414 with secondary dendrite arm spacing of 70 µm. The legends shows %porosity and grain
size.

Grain Size = 40 µm % Porosity = 0.0038 Secondary Dendrite

a b c Arm spacing = 70µm
% Porosity = 0.05 % Porosity = 0.6

100 µm 100 µm 100 µm

Fig. 10. Representative optical micrographs of hybrid of DMLS (CoCrMo on FSX-414) sample after heat treatment (a) CoCrMo (b) Welded
region (c) FSX-414

Figure 11 shows the comparison of microhardness of hybrid of DMLS (CoCrMo on FSX414) at the DMLS
CoCrMo, interface and Cast FSX414 regions. The hardness in the DMLS CoCrMo region is 355 HV which is same
as the hardness observed in the monolithic DMLS CoCrMo after heat treatment. The substrate cast FSX414 measures
around 266 HV. The hardness of the joint region is 287 HV, since this is mixed with Nozzalloy filler material.

400
350
Microhardness (HV)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
DMLS CoCrMo Joint region FSX414

Fig. 11. Microhardness of Hybrid DMLS (CoCrMo welded on to FSX-414) after post weld heat treatment

3.3. Tensile properties of monolithic DMLS Alloys

Figure 12 (a-e) shows the representative load vs displacement curves using the small scale test specimens for all
the alloys in both the as printed and heat treated condition. Table 6 is a comparison of the small scale vs the regular
test specimen mechanical properties, for all the monolithic DMLS alloys. It can be seen that all the tensile properties
of the small scale specimens are in close conformance with respect to the regular ASTM test results. The failure in
460 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466
12 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

the case of all the small scale test samples were well within the gauge sections as shown in the insert in Figure 13 (a-
i) in the as printed and heat treated condition. The difference () between the small scale test specimen and the regular
test specimen (small scale – regular) is tabulated for all the three properties, 0.2% YS, UTS and %elongation, as listed
in Table 7. In the Table 7, the magnitude of “minus (-)” indicates that the small scale tested values are lower than the
regular test specimens, while “plus (+)” refers to a higher value in the small scale test data as compared to the regular
specimen data.
The 0.2% YS and UTS of all the monolithic DMLS samples are having a Δ of less than 30 MPa between the small
scale and regular specimens in the as printed condition. Except for Ti6Al4V and UTS of IN718, where a  of 90-100
MPa less is observed, which may be due to residual stress built up is more or due to stresses induced in wire cutting
of small scale specimens. After heat treatment all the monolithic DMLS samples showed Δ of less than 30 MPa
between the small scale and regular specimens which is an indication that the residual stresses induced in the as printed
are relieved. In addition, microstructure tends to dictate properties after heat treatment. The %elongation of all the
monolithic DMLS samples are more or less the same between the small scale and regular test specimens. The standard
deviations of small scale specimens and regular specimens are well within the 40 MPa for 0.2% YS and UTS and 1-
2% for %elongation in both the as printed and heat treated condition. The Δ of small scale and regular specimens are
well within the standard deviations, which establishes that small scale testing is a viable test method for additive
manufacturing.

1200
a As printed
Heat treated
b As printed 2000 c As printed
Heat treated
1200 Heat treated 1800
1000
1600
1000
1400
800
800 1200
Load (N)

Load (N)

600 1000
Load (N)

600 800
400
600
400
400
200
200 200
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Displacement (mm) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
As printed As printed
d 600
e 1200 Heat treated

500 1000

400 800
Load (N)
Load [N]

300
600

400
200

200
100

0
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Dispalcement (mm)
Displacement [mm]

Fig. 12. Schematic showing comparison of Load Vs displacement curves of DMLS alloys both in the as printed and heat treated condition (along
the build direction) (a) IN718, (b) CoCrMo, (c) Maraging steel (d) SS316L and (e)Ti6Al4V
 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466 461
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 13

Fig. 13. Schematic showing Tensile specimens after failure of monolithic DMLS samples in the as printed and heat treated condition (a) IN718,
(b) CoCrMo, (c) Maraging steel (d) SS316L and (e)Ti6Al4V

Table 6: Comparison of mechanical properties of DMLS alloys - small scale tensile samples vs Regular tensile samples both in the as printed and
heat treated conditions

Mechanical Properties

0.2% YS (MPa) UTS (MPa) % Elongation

S.No Material Condition

Small scale Regular Small scale Regular Small scale Regular

As printed 627±22 628.5±37 902±13 989±9.89 31.9±2 29.06±1

1 IN718
Heat treated 1187±60 1152±20 1390±44 1364±20 17.±2 15±2

As printed 744±24 739±20 1184±48 1200±30 37.9±4 18.47±3

2 CoCrMo
Heat treated 590±15 600±50 1130±23 1100±100 41±2 42

Maraging As printed 1015±6 1000±12 1065±13 1096±10 10.9±1 14.6±1

3
steel Heat treated 1914±135 1914±20 1977±72 2009±6 6±1 4.6±1

As printed 444±16 413±13 500±22 516±18 58.6±1 68.4

4 SS316L
Heat treated -

As printed 1041±24 1135±3 1116±24 1226.5±2 9.6±1 11.15

5 Ti6Al4V
Heat treated 864±38 1000±60 1115±7 1100±40 16.5±1 14.5±2
14 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
462 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466

Table 7: Difference between the small scale and the regular test specimen geometry for the DMLS alloys in the as printed and heat treated
conditions

Δ0.2% YS ΔUTS
S.No Material Condition Δ %Elongation
(MPa) (MPa)

As printed -1.5 -87 2

1 IN718
Heat treated 35 26 2.9

As printed 5 -16 19
2 CoCrMo
Heat treated -10 30 -1

As printed 15 -31 4
3 MS
Heat treated 0 -32 1.4
As printed 31 -16 -10
4 SS316L
Heat treated -

As printed -95 -110 -1.5

5 Ti6Al4V
Heat treated -134 15 2

Figure 14(a-j) represents the fracture surfaces of the monolithic DMLS alloys in the as printed and heat treated
condition. It can be seen that by enlarge all the DMLS alloys shows dimples on the fracture surface indicating ductile
fracture in both the as printed and heat treated condition. The depth of the dimples can be indicated as an approximate
measure of the ductility. IN718 shows very fine features in the as printed condition (Figure 14(a)) that nearly match
the as printed layers and after heat treatment, distinct feature that correspond to the microstructural features of NbC /
-Ni3Nb circled as shown in Figure 14(b) corresponding reduced ductility. The ductility of IN718 after heat treatment
is commensurate with that of wrought HSIN718 (Kruegar, D.D (1989)). In the case of CoCrMo, some lamellar tearing
can be seen in the as printed fractograph (Figure 14(c)) corroborating with the presence of the hcp-beta phase in the
as printed microstructure as shown in (Kaustubh Krishna Bawane et al. (2018)). In some sense it appears like a
cleavage fracture in appearance characterized by a well-defined crystallographic appearance in the facets. Upon heat
treatment the occurrence of an equiaxed recrystallized microstructure renders the alloy with a ductile matrix as
indicative of the fractograph in Figure 14d, corresponding to a much higher ductility of 42%. In the case of maraging
steel, the fractographs represents that of flat grooves with very fine dimples and a somewhat structureless region
(Figure 14e). The sharp drop in ductility after heat treatment (5%) is akin to cold worked steels and in this case the
yielding is likely to the strongly localized, as indicated by the fractograph in (Figure 14f). Coarse slip bands are formed
providing the crack path and the brittle fracture propagates either in an intergranular (follows grain boundaries) or
transgranular (through the grains). In the austenitic SS316L, the fractograph resembles a ductile failure except that the
dimples have a characteristic fine feature commensurate with the weld pool width as shown in Figure 14(g). Ti6Al4V
alloy (Figure 14 (h)) reveals an intergranular fracture along the alpha grains in the as printed condition, and does not
show much of a variation after heat treatment (Figure 14 (i)), thereby corroborating with the microstructures (Figures
5(e) and 6(e)).
 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466 463
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 15

As printed Heat treated

a IN718 b

20 µm 20 µm

c CoCrMo d

20 µm 20 µm

e Maraging steel f

20 µm 20 µm

g SS316L

20 µm

h Ti6Al4V i

20 µm 20 µm

Fig. 14. Representative SEM fractographs of all monolithic DMLS alloys in the as printed and heat treated condition (a-b) IN718, (c-d) CoCrMo,
(e-f) Maraging steel, (g) SS316L, (i-j) Ti6Al4V respectively.
464 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466
16 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

3.4. Tensile properties of Hybrid specimens

Figure 15 represents the comparison of mechanical properties (0.2% YS, UTS and % Elongation) between small
scale and regular specimens. It can be seen there is no significant difference in properties in the as printed condition.
Figure 16 represents the small scale and regular tensile specimen of the hybrid (SS316L on X20Cr13) after failure in
as printed condition. In both cases, the failure lies in the DMLS SS316L, having a lower strength as compared to the
martensitic X20Cr13. The interface or the DMLS hybrid joint region being intact in both small scale as well as the
regular specimens. Figure 17 represents the comparison of properties of small scale in the as printed and heat treated
condition. It can be seen that the tensile properties of the hybrid have decreased from 465 MPa to 397 MPa for 0.2%
YS and 544 MPa to 517 MPa for UTS, whereas the % elongation remains same as 33% after heat treatment. However,
there is no significant difference between the small scale and regular specimens, after heat treatment.

800 50
Strength (MPa)

% Elongation
600 40
30
400
20
200 10
0 0
Hybrid_Small Hybrid_Regular
scale

0.2% YS UTS % Elongation

Fig. 15. Comparison of mechanical properties of Small scale and Regular hybrid specimens (DMLS SS316L on X20Cr13 substrate) in the as
printed condition

Interfac

DMLS X20Cr13

Interfac

Fig. 16. Photograph showing the tensile specimens of small scale and regular after failure
600 50
Strength (MPa)

40
% Elongation

400
30
20
200
10
0 0
As printed Heat treated

0.2% YS UTS % Elongation

Fig. 17. Comparison of mechanical properties of hybrid (DMLS SS316L on X20Cr13 substrate) in the as printed and heat treated condition
 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 17
Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466 465

Figure 18 represents 0.2% YS and UTS to be 415 MPa and 630 MPa respectively after failure of hybrid. Figure
19 represents the micro tensile specimen of the hybrid (CoCrMo on FSX414) after failure. It can be seen that the
specimen has failed on the cast FSX414 side indicating a sound weld joint between DMLS CoCrMo and FSX414.

700
600

Strength (MPa)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.2% YS UTS

Fig. 18. Small tensile specimen of hybrid (DMLS CoCrMo on FSX414) after failure.

FSX-414 side

Welded
region

Fig .19. Mechanical properties of Hybrid (DMLS CoCrMo and FSX414) in the heat treated condition

4. Conclusions

This study presents a comparison of mechanical properties of small scale and regular tensile specimens in the as
printed and heat treated condition for monolithic DMLS materials (IN718, CoCrMo, Maraging steel, SS316L,
Ti6Al4V) and hybrids (DMLS SS316L on X20Cr13, DMLS CoCrMo on Cast FSX414) along the build direction. The
starting powders of all alloys shows spherical morphology with average particle size of 33-38 µm and particle size
distribution of 11-86 µm. A dense structure (>99.5%) was produced without any Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) by using
optimized process parameters. The microstructure after heat treatments results in partial recrystallization with
elongated grains for IN718, equiaxed grains with 40 µm grain size for CoCrMo, no changes for Maraging steel,
columnar grains structure for SS316L and characteristic biphasic + phase for Ti6Al4V. The microstructure of
hybrids is similar to monolithic DMLS in the DMLS regions.
The tensile properties of small scale specimens in the as printed condition are in close conformance to their regular
ASTM test results with < 5% difference in all values 0.2% YS, UTS and %elongation for CoCrMo, Maraging steel
and SS316L. Only IN718 and Ti64 recorded a 10% difference with the small scale test specimens recording a lower
value as compared to the regular specimens in the as printed condition. However, after heat treatment, all the alloys
show similar tensile properties with < 2% difference between the small scale and regular specimens. The tensile
466 Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466
18 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

properties of small scale test specimens of hybrid (DMLS SS316L on X20Cr13) are also in close conformance with
regular specimens as per ASTM E8/E8M and the failure happened in the softer DMLS SS316L location. The hybrid
interface between the DMLS SS316L and X20Cr13 is intact. In the welded hybrid, the failure takes place in the softer
Cast FSX414 with the hybrid joint remaining intact. This study successfully demonstrates the feasibility of using small
scale testing as a viable test method for laser additive manufacturing.

Acknowledgements

INTECH DMLS Pvt. Ltd., management and production team is acknowledged for all the monolithic DMLS samples
and the hybrid SS316L samples. The hybrid samples were obtained from GE, Bangalore, during the tenure of the
authors in GE Power, Bangalore, as part of the M.Tech thesis of Mr. Kaustudh Krishna Bawane, Manoj kumar
Chimmat and Anigani Sudarshan Reddy. Mr. S. Sashidhara, Materials engineering department, Indian Institute of
Science is greatfully acknowledged for his untiring help in enabling all the small scale testing of these samples. Ms.
Pooja Srinivas and Mr. Nidhish Sagar, etc. are thanked for their help with the SEM Fractography.

References

Cooper, D.E., Stanford, M., Kibble, K.A., Gibbons, G.J., 2012. “Additive manufacturing for product improvement Red Bull Technology”,
Materials and Design, Volume 149, Pages 194-201.
Eleonora Atzeni., Alessandro Salmi., 2012. “Economics of additive manufacturing for end-usable metal parts”, International Journal Advanced
Manufacturing 62, pp.1147-1155.
Erwin Rauch., Marco Unterhofer., Patrick Dallasega., 2018. “Industry sector analysis for the application of additive manufacturing in smart and
distributed manufacturing systems”, Manufacturing Letters, 15, pp. 126-131.
Germain Sossou., Frederic Demoly., Ghislain Montavon., 2018. “An additive manufacturing oriented design approach to mechanical
assemblies”, Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 5, pp. 3-18.
Grigoriev, S.N., Teleshevskii, V.I., 2011. Measurement problems in technological shaping processes. Meas. Tech. 54 (7), 744–749.
Herzog, D., Seyda, V., Wycisk, E., Emmelmann, C., 2016. “ Additive manufacturing of metals”, Acta Materials, 117, pp 371-392.
Kaustubh Krishna Bawane., Dheepa Srinivasan., 2018. “Microstructural Evolution and Mechanical Properties of Direct Metal Laser Sintered
(DMLS) CoCrMo after heat treatment”, The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society and ASM International 2018.
Kobry, P.A., Semiatin, S.L., 2001. The additive manufacture of Ti6Al4V”. JOM, Volume 53, Issue 9, pp 40-42.
Krueger, D.D., 1989. “The Development of Direct Age 718 for Gas Turbine Engine Disk Applications”. Superalloy 718-Metallurgy and
Applications, edited by C.A. Loria, The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 1989.
Mary Kathryn Thompson., Giovanni Moroni., Tom Vaneker., Georges Fadel., 2016. “Design for Additive Manufacturing: Trends, opportunities,
considerations, and constraints”, CIRP Annals- Manufacturing Technology 65, pp. 737-760.
Michael Schmidt., Marion Merklein., David Bourell., Dimitri Dimitrov., Tino Hausotte., Konrad Wegener., 2017. “Laser based additive
manufacturing in industry and academia”. CIRP Annals- Manufacturing Technology, 66, pp.561-583.
Moon, S. K., Tan, Y. E., Hwang, J., and Yoon, Y.-J., 2014. “Application of 3D Printing Technology for Designing Light-Weight Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle Wing Structures,” Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Tech., Vol. 1, No.3, pp. 223-228.
Pavel Hanzl., Miroslav Zetek., Tomas Baksa., Tomas Kroupa., 2015. “The Influence of processing parameters on the mechanical properties of
SLM parts”, Procedia Engineering 100, pp. 1405-1413.
Robert Mines., Simon Mckown., Wesley Brooks., Chris J. Sutcliffe., 2010. “The Influence of Processing Parameters on the Mechanical
Properties of Selectively Laser Melted Stainless Steel Microlattice Structures” , Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Vol.132.
Ruth Jiang., Robin Kleer., Frank T. Piller., 2017. “Predicting the future of additive manufacturing: A Delphi study on economic and societal
implications of 3D printing for 2030”, Technological Forecasting and Social change 117, pp.84-97.
Santhosh kumar Rao Chandrasekara., Anigani Sudarshan Reddy., Dheepa Srinivasan., 2017. “Study of process parameters and powder variability
on the properties and Recrystallization Behavior of Direct Metal Laser Sintered CoCrMo”, Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Gas Turbine
conference, GTINDIA2017-4614.
Simon Ford., Melanie Despeisse., 2016. “Additive manufacturing and sustainability: an exploratory study of the advantages and challenges”,
Journal of Cleaner Production 137, pp. 1573-1587.
Tammas-Williams, S., Todd, I., 2017. “Design for additive manufacturing with site-specific properties in metals and alloys”, Scripta Materialia
135, pp. 105-110.
Thomas Grunberger., Robert Domrose., 2015. “ Direct Metal Laser Sintering”. Laser Technique Journal, Volume 12, Issue 1, Pp. 45-48.
Vaneker, T.H.J., 2017. “The role of Design for Additive Manufacturing in the successful economical introduction of AM”, Procedia CIRP 60, pp.
181-186.
Van Zyl, I., Moletsane, M., Krakhmalev, P., Yadroitsava, I., 2016. “Validation of Minaturised Tensile Testing on DMLS Ti6Al4V (ELI)
Specimens”, South African Journal of Industrial Enginering, Vol.23(3) special edition, pp. 192-200.
Vayre, B., Vignar, F., Villeneuve, F., 2012. “Designing for Additive Manufacturing”, Procedia CIRP 3, pp. 632-637.