Journal of Materials Processing Tech.

259 (2018) 206–215

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Processing Tech.

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmatprotec

The double-wire feed and plasma arc additive manufacturing process for T
deposition in Cr-Ni stainless steel
⁎
Yuehai Feng , Bin Zhan, Jie He, Kehong Wang
School of Materials Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, PR China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper proposes an innovative and high efficiency process to fabricate Cr-Ni stainless steel components using
Double-Wire feed a double-wire feed and plasma arc additive manufacturing process (DWF-PAM). The superior characteristics
Plasma arc additive manufacturing exhibited by DWF-PAM processing in terms of the bead appearance, microstructure, and mechanical properties
Microstructure of all the test components, were investigated. The results show that, at the same process parameters, in contrast
Mechanical properties
to the single-wire feed and plasma additive manufacturing (SWF-PAM) process, the deposition rate in the DWF-
PAM process increased by 1.06 times on an average. A large number of complete grown equiaxed ferrite (CGEF)
grains were found in the interface area close to the next layer of the DWF-PAM-processed sample; while for the
SWF-PAM-processed samples, incomplete grown equiaxed ferrite grains were observed in same area. The CGEF
grains provided a significant improvement to the ultimate tensile strengths and elongation rates of the DWF-
PAM-processed samples. The ultimate tensile strength increased by 10.2% on an average, while the maximal
increment of the elongation rate reached 176%. In view of these results, components manufactured by the DWF
process can have a finer-grained microstructure and superior mechanical properties compared to those manu-
factured by the SWF process. Moreover, a higher deposition rate can also be achieved with the DWF-PAM
process.

1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing processes employ an advanced ‘bottom-up’
material manufacturing method, which adopts layer-by-layer accumu-
lation in a near-net-shape process, as described by Wang et al. (2013).
Compared with traditional subtractive manufacturing processes which
have multi-channel processing procedures, additive manufacturing
processes save materials and energy, and shorten the processing cycle
of parts, according to Ding et al. (2015). Through three-dimensional
program design, it can precisely manufacture complex parts and surpass
the limits of traditional processes. Dutta et al. (2011) described a direct
metal deposition technology used to manufacture new components.
Metal-based material manufacturing processes can be divided into
powder-based additive manufacturing and wire-based additive manu-
facturing. According to Sing et al. (2016), the powder-based additive
manufacturing process mainly adopts an electron beam and laser as the
heat source, forming parts with high precision that require less follow-
up processing; however, this process has limitations due to high costs
and a low efficiency. Jerby et al. (2015) also described microwave
energy is also proven a low cost heat source for metal powder additive
manufacturing, however, its efficiency is still lower. Compared with the
powder-based manufacturing process, the wire and arc additive man-
ufacturing (WAAM) process has the advantages of low manufacturing
costs, high forming efficiencies, and the ability to manufacture all-dense
components, as described in Syed et al. (2005). However, it has been
challenging to substantially increase the deposition rate in WAAM.
Stainless steel has excellent mechanical properties and corrosion
resistance, and is used in all aspects of life for a wide range of appli-
cations, especially for pressure vessels in nuclear experimental reactors.
Research on stainless-steel additive manufacturing processes is more
thorough. Luecke and Slotwinski (2014) used uniaxial tensile tests and
micro hardness tests to demonstrate the anisotropy of the mechanical
properties for additive-manufactured austenitic stainless steels, which
was superior than that obtained by the conventional forging technique.
Zhong et al. (2017) described how the mechanical properties and mi-
crostructure of 316 L components for nuclear pressure vessels are af-
fected by the electron beam melting process. Skiba et al. (2009) in-
vestigated the microstructure and mechanical properties of a 308
stainless-steel wire using a gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW)-based
shape metal deposition process. Although there have been many studies
on additive-manufactured stainless steels, it is still challenging to im-
prove the deposition rate of this process.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fyh@njust.edu.cn (Y. Feng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.04.040
Received 10 August 2017; Received in revised form 23 April 2018; Accepted 24 April 2018
Available online 25 April 2018
0924-0136/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Y. Feng et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 259 (2018) 206–215

Fig. 1. The plasma arc additive manufacturing process system.

Table 1 Table 2
Chemical compositions of the wire and substrate (wt. %). Process parameters of deposited walls in multi-layer single-bead.
Cr Ni C Si Mn S P N Fe Process Number Deposited Deposited Deposited Wire feed
current/A Voltage/V speed/cm/ speed/m/
Wire 20.0 10.0 0.03 0.60 1.80 0.008 0.015 – Bal. min mindinesh
Substrate 19.0 9.0 ≤0.08 ≤1.0 ≤2.0 ≤0.03 ≤0.035 ≤0.1 Bal.
SWF-PAM 1 130 27.3 30 1.5
2 130 27.2 50 1.5
3 130 27.6 60 1.5
In comparison with GTAW-based additive manufacturing and Gas DWF-PAM 4 130 27.8 30 1.5 1.5
5 130 27.5 50 1.5 1.5
Metal arc welding (GMAW)-base additive manufacturing, the plasma 6 130 27.4 60 1.5 1.5
arc welding (PAW)-base additive manufacturing process has the ad-
vantages of a concentrated arc, higher energy density, and higher
forming precision. The plasma arc additive manufacturing process is
considered as a better method for manufacturing high-quality

207
Y. Feng et al.
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the sampling position.
Fig. 3. Dimensions of tensile samples.
Fig. 4. Photographs of deposited walls: a), b), and c) present the DWF-PAM
samples processed at speeds of 30 cm/min, 50 cm/min, and 60 cm/min, re-
spectively; d), e), and f) present the SWF-PAM samples processed at speeds of
30 cm/min, 50 cm/min, and 60 cm/min, respectively.
Fig. 5. Sketch of deposited wall section.
components, especially for large-scale complex shape parts, and much
research has been carried out on this process. Sánchez-Tovar et al.
(2011) explained the dependence of the properties and microstructure
of AISI 316 L stainless steels in heavy LiBr brines on the micro-plasma
arc welding process. Jhavar et al. (2014) described the fabrication of
208
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 259 (2018) 206–215
P20 tool steel components by using the micro-plasma transferred arc
deposition process. Martina et al. (2012) described the use of a self-built
plasma arc deposition system to fabricate Ti-6Al-4V alloys; this work
included a regression model for calculating the effective wall width,
layer height, and the most appropriate process parameters. Xu et al.
(2012) investigated the effect of the parameters of the pulsed plasma
arc process on the shaping accuracy of thin-walled components. All
these plasma arc additive manufacturing experiments adopted a single
wire-feed pattern, in which the deposition rate is restricted to the wire
feeder speed.
This paper introduces the novel concept of a double-wire feed and
plasma arc additive manufacturing (DWF-PAM) process to improve the
deposition rate. Arc additive manufacturing with two wires has been
used to achieve hybrid deposition of dissimilar metals. Shen et al.
(2015) used a GTAW-based deposition system to fabricate steel parts
rich in Fe-Al intermetallic compounds. Shen et al. (2016) fabricated Fe-
Al functionally graded materials with Al compositions ranging from 0%
to over 50% using the wire-based additive manufacturing process. Abe
and Sasahara (2016) used different materials (YS308L and Ni6082) to
fabricate a single component using a GMAW-based WAAM technique,
and found that its mechanical properties were comparable to the sub-
strate material. These scholars all have carried out in-depth studies on
composites materials and functionally graded materials using the
newly-proposed concept of a double-wire feed process. However, little
research has focused on the improvement of the deposition rate in this
process and the performance of its additive components. Therefore, the
plasma arc additive manufacturing method with a double-wire feed and
two homogeneous H00Cr21Ni10 stainless steel wires was further stu-
died.
The deposition rate and deposition quality of the DWF-PAM and the
single-wire feed and plasma additive manufacturing (SWF-PAM) pro-
cesses were comprehensively evaluated and studied. Three groups of
deposited walls each were prepared by the SWF-PAM and DWF-PAM
processes. By analysing the bead appearance, metallography, grain size,
fractography and mechanical properties, the unique characteristics of
the DWF-PAM process were determined.
2. Experimental
A robotic plasma arc additive manufacturing system, as described in
Fig. 1(a), was used to fabricate the components. It consists of a 400 A
GTAW power source (Fronius MagicWave3000), a water-cooled plasma
welding torch mounted on a 6-axis industrial robot (Yaskawa MO-
TOMAN MH6), a self-developed plasma arc generation device, and two
automatic constant-wire feeder equipment to ensure consistent plasma
transferred arc deposition. The experiment setup is shown in Fig. 1(b).
A H00Cr21Ni10 stainless steel wire with a diameter of 1.0 mm was
used as the experimental material; the nominal compositions of the
wire and the substrate are listed in Table 1. A wrought 08Cr19Ni9
stainless steel base plate was used as the substrate for the deposits. Pure
argon (99.99%) was used as a shielding gas and plasma generation gas
at a constant flow rate of 18 L/min and 0.8 L/min, respectively. The
surface of the substrate was polished by a grinding machine to remove
the oxide layer, and the organic matter was cleaned by acetone. De-
position layers were then built by moving the plasma welding torch and
feeding wire into the molten pool. A ‘back-and-forth’ deposition
method, that the next deposition layer starting location is same place as
the end of the front layer, was used in this experiment. During the
deposition process, a stand-off distance of 8 mm was found to be sui-
table for double-wire feeding to the melt pool. The additive-manu-
factured multi-layer wall samples were approximately 200 mm long.
Each experimental sample comprised of 70 deposited layers.
To study the effects of the deposited speed on the bead appearance,
microstructures, and mechanical properties of the stainless steels, three
groups of deposition experiments each for the DWF-PAM and SWF-PAM
processes, were implemented. These process parameters are listed in
Y. Feng et al.
Fig. 6. SWF-PAM and DWF-PAM deposited walls macroscopic：(a) average height；(b) average width.
Fig. 7. The cross-section microstructure (a) and three regions of the deposited layer microstructures (b).
Table 2.
Metallographic samples were prepared by a super computerized
numerical control (CNC) wire electrical discharge machine. An
OLYMPUS (GX71) optical microscope was used to observe the micro-
structure of the deposited walls. Three groups each of horizontal and
vertical tensile specimens were prepared for each deposited wall. The
extract position and sequence for the specimen manufacturing proce-
dure are presented in Fig. 2. The dimensions of the tensile samples are
shown in Fig. 3. These samples were exanimated at room temperature
using an electronic universal testing machine (model AGS-X10KN) at a
strain rate of 2 mm/min. The fracture morphology was observed using a
FEI Quanta 260 F scanning electron microscope.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Macroscope
As seen in the photographs of the deposited wall in Fig. 4, the
surfaces of six groups of deposited walls are well formed, with no ap-
parent cracks, pores, or inclusions. For the same deposition current of
130 A with a deposition speed ranging from 30 cm/min to 60 cm/min,
the height of the deposited walls visibly decreases, while its surface-
209
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 259 (2018) 206–215
forming and waviness characteristics improve. Both processes exhibit
similar trends. On the other hand, for the same deposition current and
deposition speed, the surface-forming and waviness of the SWF-pro-
cessed samples were slightly better than those of the DWF-PAM-pro-
cessed samples, mainly due to the height and width of each deposition
layer in the DWF-PAM-processed samples being greater than those of
the SWF-PAM-processed samples.
To determine the actual amounts deposited in the two processes, the
areas of cross section of the deposited walls were calculated for the
same wall length. As illustrated in Fig. 5, the cross section of these
deposited walls can be calculated by the following equation:
S = ab (1)
Where S is the section area of the deposited wall, a is the average de-
posited height, and b is the average deposited width.
The average height and average width are expressed by Eqs. (2) and
(3), respectively.
(a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 )
a=
5 (2)
Y. Feng et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 259 (2018) 206–215

Fig. 8. Microstructures of the adjacent area in the middle section.

Fig. 9. Statistical chart of the average grain diameter.

(b1 + b2 + b3 + b4 + b5 ) of the cross-sectional areas of the DWF-PAM sample to the SWF-PAM

b=
5 (3)
Where a1, a2, a3, a4 and a5 is the measured height of the same deposited
wall respectively; similarly, b1, b2, b3 b4 and b5 is the measured width of
that. The average deposited heights and deposited widths are itemized
in Fig. 6. With the increase in the deposited speed from 30 cm/min to
60 cm/min, the deposited width has the same change tendency as the
deposited height for the two processes. According to Eq. (1), the ratios
sample were 1.99:1, 2.16:1, and 2.04:1, respectively. The average ratio
was 2.06:1, which implies that the deposition rate of the DWF process
increased by 1.06 times that of the SWF process.
3.2. Microstructure
The number of heating cycles and the heating state are different at
different locations of the deposited wall; therefore, an inconsistent solid

210
Y. Feng et al.
Fig. 10. Influence of the deposited speed for the SWF-PAM and DWF-PAM processes on: (a) ultimate tensile strength; (b) elongation rate.
phase transformation occurs, resulting in differences in the micro-
structure. The microstructures of the deposited samples present three
typical sections: a top section, middle section, and bottom section, as
observed in Fig. 7 (a). Of all three sections, the deposited quality and
mechanical properties of the middle section are most crucial for fabri-
cating components. The microstructure in a DWF-PAM-processed
sample are presented in Fig. 7(b). It is characterised by the existence of
the ferrite (δ−Fe) phase on the finer austenite matrix. From the bottom
to the top in each layer, the fine grain region growing along the in-
terface of the front layer, the columnar grain region growing gradually,
and the equiaxed grain region adjacent to the next layer, are distributed
in turn. These structures are also visible in the SWF-PAM-processed
sample.
The micrographs in Fig. 8 show the influence of the deposited speed
and the two processes on the microstructure in the adjacent area be-
tween the 35th layer and 36th layer of these fabricated walls. As seen in
Fig. 8(b), (d), and (f), a large number of complete grown equiaxed
ferrite (CGEF) grains can be observed in the interface adjacent to the
next layer of the DWF-PAM-processed samples. Moreover, with an in-
crease in the deposited speed from 30 cm/min to 60 cm/min, the
quantity of the CGEF grains visibly increases. In contrast, for the SWF-
PAM-processed samples, a number of incomplete grown equiaxed fer-
rite (IGEF) grains can be observed in Fig. 8(a), (c), and (e), while only a
few CGEF grains can be found in Fig. 8(e). In addition, with an increase
in the deposited speed from 30 cm/min to 50 cm/min, the amount of
IGEF grains clearly increases. However, when the deposited speed is up
to 60 cm/min, the amount of IGEF grains decreases, and only a few
CGEF grains can be observed. Ye et al. (2013) showed that CGEF grains
considerably enhance the mechanical properties. This effect can be
attributed to the two wires melting in the same melt pool, augmenting
the cooling rate to form a finer CGEF structure. Another reason is that
the increased deposited speed also brings about a more rapid
quenching, leading to better grain structures.
The sizes of the twenty, randomly selected ferrite grains were
measured, and a statistical curve of their average grain diameters is
displayed Fig. 9. It should be noted that, for the same deposited speed,
the grain diameters of the DWF-PAM-processed samples are sig-
nificantly smaller than those of the SWF-PAM-processed samples.
Moreover, for the DWF-PAM-processed samples, at deposition speeds of
30 cm/min, 50 cm/min, and 70 cm/min, the average grain diameter is
11.67 μm, 9.52 μm, and 8.96 μm, respectively; this is significantly
smaller than the average grain diameters (20.93 μm, 15.18 μm and
11.14 μm) of the SWF-PAM-processed samples of the same deposited
211
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 259 (2018) 206–215
speed. The microstructures were finer in the DWF-PAM-processed
samples than in the SWF-PAM-processed ones.
3.3. Tensile test
Fig. 10(a) exhibits the relationship between the ultimate tensile
strength and deposited speed for the SWF-PAM process and DWF-PAM
process. The ultimate tensile strengths of the deposition wall, were
measured along both the vertical and horizontal directions: 30v, 50v,
and 60v for 30 cm/min, 50 cm/min and 60 cm/min in the vertical di-
rection, respectively, and 30h, 50h, and 60h for 30 cm/min, 50 cm/min,
and 60 cm/min in the horizontal direction, respectively. The following
figures use the same expressions. The DWF-PAM specimens appear to
have a higher ultimate strength than the SWF-PAM specimens, as
shown in Fig. 10(a). Their ultimate strength increased by 10.2% on an
average, approximately by 52.98 MPa. The evident improvement in the
ultimate tensile strength can be explained by the fact that the CGEF
grains prevail in the interface area adjacent to next layer. It also can be
concluded that, the ultimate tensile strength increased for both the
DWF-PAM and SWF-PAM processes, for deposition speeds ranging from
30 cm/min to 60 cm/min. Fig. 10(a) shows that the ultimate tensile
strengths for the same samples in the vertical and horizontal directions
are similar.
The DWF-PAM process provided elongation rates of 44.7%–58.7%,
while the SWF-PWM process provided elongation rates between 20.5%
and 35.4%, as shown in Fig. 10(b). The maximum increase in the
elongation rate of the DWF-PWM sample was found to reach 176%, and
even the maximum increase in elongation rate also reaches 39%. Thus,
there is a significant increment in elongation for all the DWF-PWM
samples. The manifold increase in the elongation rates can also be ex-
plained by the fact that CGEF grains are distributed in the interface area
adjacent to the next layer of the DWF-PWM sample; the finer the CGEF
grains, the higher the elongation rates of the deposited wall.
The microscopic fracture morphologies of these deposited samples
analysed by SEM are displayed in Fig. 11. Numerous dimples can be
seen in all the samples, and the morphology is dominated by ductile
fracture. The dimples in the SWF-PAM-processed samples along the
vertical direction become smaller with the increase in the deposited
speed, as illustrated in Fig. 11(a), (e) and (j); those along the horizontal
direction also show a similar trend. As compared to the SWF-PAM-
processed samples, for the same deposited speed and along the same
direction, the dimples are visibly smaller and greater in number in the
DWF-PAM-processed samples. The number of second-phase spherical
Y. Feng et al.
particles and the amount of dimples formed are also more in these
samples than in SWF-PAM-processed samples, as indicated in Fig. 12.
These results indicate that the toughness of a DWF-PAM-processed
sample is better than that of a SWF-PAM-processed sample, for the
corresponding elongation rates.
3.4. Hardness distribution
Fig. 13 displays the micro-Vickers hardness distributions of the
SWF-PAM- and DWF-PAM-processed samples for different deposition
speeds. Fig. 13(a) shows a maximum measured hardness of 233.3 HV in
the first layer for the SWF-PAM process, 221.5 HV in the second layer
for the DWF-PAM process. The maximal hardness values are generally
Fig. 11. Fracture morphologies of deposited walls: the left is the SWF-PAM process; the right is the DWF-PAM process.
212
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 259 (2018) 206–215
found in the first three layers, as seen in Fig. 13(a), (b), and (c). After
the 10th layer, the fluctuation range of micro-hardness for all samples
tends to stable, and ranges from 170 HV to 210 HV, as seen in Fig. 13.
Similar hardness distributions were measured for the other deposited
speeds. The mean hardness values for each of the SWF-PAM-processed
samples at three deposition speeds were as follows: 194.01 HV at
30 cm/min, 190.37 HV at 50 cm/min, and 194.20 HV at 70 cm/min.
The mean hardness values of the SWF-PAM-processed samples at the
same speeds were 185.17 HV, 186.35 HV, and 188.66 HV, respectively.
The mean hardness values thus show no significant difference for both
processes. The reason for this is that the interlayer stand-by times for
both processes were set to two minutes; hence, the interlayer tem-
peratures also tend to be similar.
Y. Feng et al.
Fig. 11. (continued)
4. Conclusions
This study revealed the fundamental characteristics of a novel DWF-
PAM process. The deposition efficiency, microstructure, and mechan-
ical properties of the DWF-PAM-processed samples were systematically
investigated. From the experimental results, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
(1) The DWF-PAM process is a more efficient process for fabricating Cr-
Ni stainless steel components. At the same process parameter, its
deposition rate increased by 1.06 times on an average compared
with the SWF-PAW process.
(2) For the same depositing conditions, fine CGEF grains could be ob-
served in the area adjacent to the next layer of the DWF-PAM-
processed samples at all the deposited speeds, while IGEF grains
were observed in the same area. These fine CG grains could
213
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 259 (2018) 206–215
significantly enhance the mechanical properties of Cr-Ni stainless
steel components.
(3) Compared with the SWF-PAM process, finer grains could be found
in the DWF-PAM-processed samples. The average grain diameters
approached 11.67 μm, 9.52 μm, and 8.96 μm, respectively, for the
different deposition speeds; this is significantly smaller than the
average grain diameters (20.93 μm, 15.18 μm, and 11.14 μm) of the
SWF-PAM-processed samples.
(4) The ultimate tensile strengths of the DWF-PAM-processed samples
improved by 10.2% on an average, approximately by 52.98 MPa, as
compared to those prepared by the SWF-PAM process; its elonga-
tion increment was more apparent, achieving a maximum increase
of 176%. The fracture micromorphologies of the two processes in-
dicate that it is a typical ductile fracture, and the dimple density
and number of second-phase particles are also significantly greater
than those of the SWF-PAM-processed samples.
Y. Feng et al. Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 259 (2018) 206–215

Fig. 12. Second phase spherical particles of: (a) SWF-PAM process sample and (b) DWF-PAM process sample.

Fig. 13. Micro hardness distributions of the SWF-PAM- and DWF-PAM-pro-

cessed samples at deposition speeds of (a) 30 cm/min, (b) 50 cm/min and (c)
60 cm/min.

214
Y. Feng et al.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to express sincere gratitude to all researchers
from the Nanjing University of Science and Technology who provided
valuable inputs on this article. This work is supported by the National
Defense Scientific Research Project and the Priority Academic Program
Development (PAPD) of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions project.
References
Abe, T., Sasahara, H., 2016. Dissimilar metal deposition with a stainless steel and nickel-
based alloy using wire and arc-based additive manufacturing. Precis. Eng. 45,
387–395.
Ding, D., Pan, Z., Cuiuri, D., Li, H., 2015. A multi-bead overlapping model for robotic wire
and arc additive manufacturing (WAAM). Rob. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 31 (C),
101–110.
Dutta, B., Palaniswamy, S., Choi, J., Song, L., Mazumder, J., 2011. Additive manu-
facturing by direct metal deposition. Adv. Mater. Processes. 169 (5), 33–36.
Jerby, E., Meir, Y., Salzberg, A., Aharoni, E., Levy, A., Torralba, J., Cavallini, B., 2015.
Incremental metal-powder solidification by localized microwave-heating and its po-
tential for additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 6 (6), 53–66.
Jhavar, S., Jain, N.K., Paul, C.P., 2014. Development of micro-plasma transferred arc (μ-
PTA) wire deposition process for additive layer manufacturing applications. J. Mater.
Process. Process 214 (5), 1102–1110.
Luecke, W.E., Slotwinski, J.A., 2014. Mechanical properties of austenitic stainless steel
made by additive manufacturing. J. Res. Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol. 119 (5), 398–418.
Martina, F., Mehnen, J., Williams, S.W., Colegrove, P., Wang, F., 2012. Investigation of
the benefits of plasma deposition for the additive layer manufacture of Ti–6Al–4V. J.
215
Journal of Materials Processing Tech. 259 (2018) 206–215
Biol. Chem. 212 (6), 1377–1386.
Sánchez-Tovar, R., Montañés, M.T., García-Antón, J., 2011. Effect of the micro-plasma arc
welding process on the microstructure and pitting corrosion of AISI 316L stainless
steels in heavy LiBr brines. Corros. Sci. 53 (8), 2598–2610.
Shen, C., Pan, Z., Ma, Y., Ma, Y., Cyuyri, D., Li, H., 2015. Fabrication of iron-rich Fe–Al
intermetallics using the wire-arc additive manufacturing process. Addit. Manuf. 7,
20–26.
Shen, C., Pan, Z., Cuiuri, D., Roberts, J., Li, H., 2016. Fabrication of Fe-FeAl functionally
graded material using the wire-arc additive manufacturing process. Metall. Mater.
Trans. B. 47 (1), 1–10.
Skiba, T., Baufeld, B., Biest, O.V.D., 2009. Microstructure and mechanical properties of
stainless steel component manufactured by shaped metal deposition. ISIJ Int. 49 (10),
1588–1591.
Syed, W.U.H., Pinkerton, A.J., Li, L., 2005. A comparative study of wire feeding and
powder feeding in direct diode laser deposition for rapid prototyping. Appl. Surf. Sci.
247, 268–276.
Sing, S.L., An, J., Yeong, W.Y., Wiria, F.E., 2016. Laser and electron-beam powder-bed
additive manufacturing of metallic implants: a review on processes, materials and
designs. J. Orthopaed. Res. 34 (3), 369–385.
Wang, F., Williams, S.W., Colegrove, P., Antonysamy, A.A., 2013. Microstructure and
mechanical properties of wire and arc additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V. Metall.
Mater. Trans. A. 44 (2), 968–977.
Xu, F., Lu, Y., Xu, B., Liu, Y., Shu, F., He, P., 2012. Study on process of rapid prototyping
based on pulsed plasma arc welding. Mater. Sci. Process. 20 (3), 89–93.
Ye, J., Dong, J., Zhang, M., 2013. Cold deformation of GH738 alloy and its re-
crystallization behavior during intermediate annealing. Rare Metal Mater. Eng. 42
(7), 1423–1428.
Zhong, Y., Rännar, L., Liu, L., Koptyug, A., Wikman, S., Olsen, J., Cui, D., Shen, Z., 2017.
Additive manufacturing of 316L stainless steel by electron beam melting for nuclear
fusion applications. J. Nucl. Mater. 486, 234–245.