Materials Science & Engineering A 751 (2019) 183–190

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science & Engineering A

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

Correlation between arc mode, microstructure, and mechanical properties T

during wire arc additive manufacturing of 316L stainless steel
⁎
Leilei Wanga, , Jiaxiang Xuea, Qiang Wangb
a
School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China
b
Hubei Dayun Automobile Co., Ltd., Shiyan 442500, China

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

Keywords: Wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) features advantages such as low cost and high disposition rate, and
Wire arc additive manufacturing thus WAAM is a feasible additive manufacturing process. Although some characteristics of WAAM have been
Stainless steel documented in the literature, the process stability, structural integrity, component morphology, microstructure,
Quality assessment and mechanical properties during WAAM under different arc modes are not comprehensively demonstrated and
Microstructural characterization
understood. Here, we performed WAAM experiments with 316L stainless steel under different arc modes and a
Mechanical properties
constant deposition rate, and then we discussed the mechanism and impact of the arc mode on the manu-
facturing process stability, structural integrity, microstructures, and mechanical properties. The results indicate
that the SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manufacturing processes are relatively stable, significantly efficient,
and structurally sound. Although the deposition rate and scanning speed of SpeedPulse WAAM and SpeedArc
WAAM are the same, SpeedArc WAAM has a lower heat input and a higher cooling rate. Therefore, SpeedArc
WAAM produces a finer solidification structure than SpeedPulse WAAM. The ultimate tensile strengths of the
SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manufactured specimens along the horizontal direction are greater than
540 MPa and slightly greater than previously reported results. Due to the lower heat input and finer solidifi-
cation structure, a component produced by SpeedArc WAAM has greater tensile strength and hardness than a
component produced by SpeedPulse WAAM.

1. Introduction and electron beams in the manufacture of large-scale metallic compo-

Additive manufacturing transforms the fabrication of a structurally
complicated three-dimensional (3D) component into stepwise additions
of thin material layers guided by a digital model [1,2]. Additive man-
ufacturing enables the fabrication of structurally complex components
without using a mold, which significantly improves production effi-
ciency and manufacturing flexibility [3,4]. Laser beams, electron
beams, and electric arcs are commonly used heat sources during ad-
ditive manufacturing of metallic components [5–7]. When laser beams
or electron beams are selected as the heat source, the energy control is
accurate, and the component shape is relatively precise [8,9]. There-
fore, investigations regarding additive manufacturing based on laser
and electron beams are thorough [10–12]. Direct energy deposition and
power bed fusion are the general additive manufacturing processes used
when laser beams or electron beams are selected as the heat source
[13,14]. However, both of these processes adopt metal powder as the
feedstock material, and thus the production efficiency is limited and the
production cost is high, which restricts the applications of laser beams
nents.
Wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) adopts an arc as the heat
source and metal wire as the feedstock material. Generally, the primary
cost of the metal wire is approximately 10% of the same weight of metal
powder. During the WAAM process, the metal wire is heated, melted,
and then transferred to the melt pool and then solidifies at the melt pool
boundary and forms digitally designed components [15,16]. WAAM is a
kind of droplet-based additive manufacturing process, which is very
promising for the direct fabrication of complex thin-walled parts
[17,18]. WAAM features a high deposition rate, which is suitable for
fabricating large-scale components [19,20]. Furthermore, WAAM fea-
tures advantages such as low cost and low wastage rate, and thus
WAAM is an advantageous alternative additive manufacturing process
to other methods based on laser and electron beams [21,22].
The dominant factor that affects the component morphology, mi-
crostructure, and mechanical properties during WAAM is the heat
input. However, differences in heat input exist when different arc
modes are adopted even if the wire feeding rate is held constant.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lleiwang@scut.edu.cn (L. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2019.02.078
Received 14 February 2019; Received in revised form 20 February 2019; Accepted 22 February 2019
Available online 23 February 2019
0921-5093/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
L. Wang, et al.
Another particular phenomenon found in WAAM is the transfer of li-
quid droplets across the arc from the wire electrode to the melt pool
[23,24]. The liquid droplet temperature is higher than the solidus
temperature, and part of heat is transferred to the melt pool by the
liquid droplet [25]. However, differences in liquid droplet transfer exist
when different metal transfer modes are adopted even if the wire
feeding rate is held constant. Therefore, what is essential but seldom
reported in the literature is to reveal what and how the metal transfer
mode affects the component morphology, microstructure, and me-
chanical properties during WAAM. Cong et al. [26] systematically in-
vestigated the effects of different metal transfer modes during the cold
metal transfer (CMT) process on the porosity characteristics of addi-
tively manufactured Al-6.3%Cu alloys, and their results indicated that
heat input is one of the critical factors that enables the CMT pulse ad-
vanced (CMT-PADV) process to control the porosity rate. Luo et al. [27]
conducted WAAM on aluminum alloys using pulsed arcs and nonpulsed
arcs, and their results indicated that pulsed arcs can achieve higher
droplet transfer frequencies and that the size of the droplet in the
pulsed arc approach is smaller than that in the nonpulsed arc approach.
Although some characteristics of WAAM under various arc modes
have been documented in the literature, the component morphology,
integrity, microstructure, and mechanical properties are not compre-
hensively demonstrated or understood. Stainless steel 316L is a kind of
austenitic stainless steel that is widely used in marine and offshore
equipment, automobiles, and nuclear reactors due to its outstanding
corrosion resistance, high strength, high ductility, and relatively low
cost [28,29]. Here, we established an experimental platform and then
carried out WAAM with 316L stainless steel under different arc modes
but at the same deposition rate. Arc current and arc voltage data were
collected during the additive manufacturing process to evaluate the
manufacturing process stability. X-ray CT tests were conducted on
tensile samples of the component to evaluate the structural integrity of
the manufactured component. The microstructures at different loca-
tions in the components were characterized to reveal the relationship
between the arc modes and microstructures. Tensile tests were con-
ducted on the different locations of the components, and the fracture
morphologies were analyzed to reveal the relationships between the
metal transfer modes and mechanical properties.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Material fabrication
A commercial 316L stainless steel plate with dimensions of
250 × 100 × 5 mm3 was selected as the substrate, and 316L stainless
steel wire with a diameter of 1.2 mm was used to deposit the compo-
nents. Table 1 shows the chemical compositions of the stainless steel
plate and wire [30].
Arc additive manufacturing experiments with two different arc
modes were performed by using a Lorch power source integrated with a
6-axis FANUC robot. SpeedPulse and SpeedArc modes are the two kinds
of representative arc modes proposed by Lorch Schweißtechnik GmbH.
The actual current and voltage waveform during WAAM were collected
and are shown in Fig. 1.
The SpeedPulse mode involves a modified I-I-I-controlled, non-
short-circuiting pulse welding process that operates at a constant fre-
quency and combines the characteristics of a classic pulse arc with
those of a classic spray arc to achieve high process reliability. The
primary metal transfer mode during SpeedPulse WAAM is a projected
Table 1
Chemical compositions of 316L substrate and filler wire.
Element Cr Ni Mo Mn Si C P S N
wt% 17.09 10.61 2.38 1.17 0.59 0.013 0.011 0.011 0.09
Materials Science & Engineering A 751 (2019) 183–190
spray transfer mode. SpeedArc WAAM is distinguished from the con-
ventional GMAW process by a short and particularly forceful arc in the
spray arc range and therefore features exceptional directional stability
and high energy density. The primary metal transfer mode during
SpeedArc WAAM is the short-circuited transfer mode.
Argon with a 99.99% purity was used as the shielding gas. The
length of one single layer is 150 mm. The scanning path was scanned
back and forth, which means that the scanning direction in the current
layer is opposite to that in the previous layer. The standstill time during
the transition to the next adjacent layer is 20 s. The process parameters
are shown in Table 2.
2.2. Microstructural characterization
After deposition, two samples were extracted near the middle of the
component using a wire-electrode cutting machine to reveal the
transverse cross-section. The metallography sample locations are shown
in Fig. 2(a), "A" and "B" represent the metallography sample location of
the bottom layer and upper layer, respectively. Then, the metallography
samples were cleaned, mounted and ground with a series of silicon
carbide papers up to 2000 grit. Metallographic polishing was conducted
with a series of 3 mm and 1 mm polycrystalline diamond suspensions
followed by a final polishing with 0.05 mm colloidal silica to obtain a
mirror finish.
The 316L samples were etched by immersion for approximately
1 min using a hydrochloric acid: nitric acid: glycerol solution mixed at
20:10:20 to reveal the grain boundaries and subgrain structure.
Metallography was performed using a Leica DMI3000M optical micro-
scope.
2.3. Mechanical property tests
After deposition, horizontal-direction tensile specimens were cut
from the additive manufactured components; the tensile specimen lo-
cations are shown in Fig. 2(b). Then, the tensile samples were ground to
a thickness of 2 mm with water cooling. An AG-IC 50 kN universal
testing machine was used for the tensile tests; the displacement rate was
set at 2 mm/min, and the average value of four tensile tests was cal-
culated to guarantee accuracy. A Nova Nano SEM 430 was used to in-
spect the microstructures and fracture morphologies of the components;
the instrument was operated at a voltage of 20 kV.
Microhardness measurements were conducted using a Shimadzu
HMV-2T microhardness tester equipped with an optical microscope. A
500 g load with a dwell time of 10 s was applied for all indentations.
Hardness traces were recorded at 2 mm intervals along the vertical
direction from the bottom layer to the top layer of the component.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Process stability and component quality
The distribution map of the arc current and arc voltage of the
SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manufacturing processes are shown
in Fig. 3. During SpeedPulse additive manufacturing, short-circuits do
not occur because the arc voltage is always greater than 15 V and the
arc does not extinguish because the arc current is always greater than
40 A. The arc current and arc voltage repeats well in every cycle during
SpeedPulse additive manufacturing, which suggests that the droplet
transfer and process stability of SpeedPulse additive manufacturing are
favorable. SpeedArc additive manufacturing also features exceptional
directional stability because the arc current remains almost constant at
140 A. Therefore, both SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manu-
facturing are stable additive manufacturing processes.
Fe
Fig. 4 shows a multilayer component produced by SpeedArc ad-
Bal. ditive manufacturing, and the corresponding process parameters are
shown in case 2 of Table 2. The height of the component is relatively
184
L. Wang, et al. Materials Science & Engineering A 751 (2019) 183–190

Fig. 1. Arc current and voltage waveform of SpeedPulse and SpeedArc modes.

Table 2
Process parameters during arc additive manufacturing.
Arc mode
Mean current I /A
Mean voltage U /V
Arc power P /W
Layer n
Scanning speed v1/(mm s−1)
Wire feeding rate v2/(m min−1)
Gas flow rate Q/(L min−1)
Layer thickness δ/(mm)
Defects such as macroporosity and cracking are not found on the pre-
sented surfaces. The SpeedPulse additive manufactured component has
SpeedPulse WAAM SpeedArc WAAM
a larger average width than the SpeedArc additive manufactured
component when the wire feeding rate is the same. The overall height
22.1 19.5 of the SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manufactured components are
135 140 37 mm and 44 mm, respectively.
2984 2730
Consequently, the layer thickness of the SpeedPulse and SpeedArc
30 30
10 10 additive manufactured components are 1.23 mm and 1.47 mm, re-
4.5 4.5 spectively. During SpeedPulse additive manufacturing, the peak current
25 25 reaches as high as 220 A, and the metal transfer mode is projected spray
1.5 1.8
transfer. The filler wire is rapidly melted, and a droplet is generated in
this short time interval when the peak current is applied. The over-
heated droplet is accelerated by the electromagnetic force and then
impinges into the melt pool at a high speed [32]. Therefore, heat is
introduced to the interior zone of the melt pool, and the SpeedPulse
additive manufactured component features a smaller layer thickness
and a larger layer width.
X-ray CT tests were conducted on every four tensile samples for both
of the additive manufacturing processes. Fig. 6 demonstrates typical X-
ray CT photographs of the tensile specimens from the SpeedPulse and
SpeedArc additive manufactured components. Macroporosity and
cracking in the X-ray CT photograph appear white in tensile specimens.
However, no white zones are observed in the X-ray CT photographs,
which indicates that defects such as macroporosity and cracking do not
exist in the tensile samples. Therefore, SpeedPulse and SpeedArc ad-
ditive manufacturing are structurally sound additive manufacturing
processes.

3.2. Microstructures

Fig. 2. (a) Metallography sample locations. (b) Tensile sample dimensions.

equal, which proves that the distortion is acceptable. However, the
lateral surface of the component exhibits a slightly corrugated mor-
phology due to layer-by-layer deposition. A smooth surface can be
achieved by further machining if necessary. The part is well fabricated,
and the width is relatively uniform; rare defects can be found on the
surface of the component.
The scanning speed and wire feeding rate of the WAAM process are
10 mm/s and 75 mm/s, respectively. The calculated deposition rates of
the SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manufacturing processes are
2.4 kg/h, which are obviously higher than the deposition rates of ty-
pical powder bed fusion-laser, powder bed fusion-electron beam and
direct energy deposition-powder feed additive manufacturing ap-
proaches [31]. Therefore, SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manu-
facturing are significantly efficient additive manufacturing processes.
The cross-sectional morphologies of components fabricated by
SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manufacturing are shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 7 displays an electron backscattered diffraction (EBSD) map of a
component produced by SpeedArc WAAM. The EBSD map is vertical to
the scanning direction, and the deposition direction is marked. The
various colors correspond to the orientation of grains with respect to
the crystal lattice, and each color corresponds to a unique combination
of Euler angles. The grain growth orientation map along the vertical
direction is shown in Fig. 7(a); almost the whole map shows red and
yellow colors. The results indicate that most grain orientations are
along the 001 direction, which is the same as the vertical direction. The
austenite (γ) distribution map is shown in Fig. 7(b), and the results
indicate that the primary phase of the WAAM component is austenite.
Fig. 8 shows the optical micrographs along the transverse section of
a specific layer of the wire arc additive manufactured component.
Ferrite (δ), which is shown in gray, distributes within the austenite (γ)
matrix, which is shown in white [33]. Fig. 8(b) and (c) show higher-
magnification micrographs of the top and bottom locations of the spe-
cific layer. The grains grow nearly along the vertical direction, which
shows good agreement with Fig. 7. Cellular structures were observed
adjacent to the fusion line, as shown in Fig. 8(c). Then, the cellular

185
L. Wang, et al.
Fig. 3. Distribution map of the arc current and arc voltage of SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manufacturing.
Fig. 4. Full appearance of a multilayer component by SpeedArc WAAM.
Fig. 5. Cross-sectional morphology of multilayer components produced by (a)
SpeedPulse WAAM and (b) SpeedArc WAAM.
Fig. 6. X-ray CT photographs of the tensile specimens produced by (a)
SpeedPulse WAAM and (b) SpeedArc WAAM.
structures develop into fine columnar structures far away from the fu-
sion line. Finally, the fine columnar structures develop into coarse co-
lumnar structures, and secondary dendrites can be clearly observed
farther away from the fusion line, as shown in Fig. 8(b). For the next
layer, the grains grow in the same manner.
Fig. 9 shows the microstructures from the central transverse sections
of the components produced by SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive
manufacturing with different layers. To reveal the effect of the metal
transfer mode on the microstructure of the additive manufactured
186
Materials Science & Engineering A 751 (2019) 183–190
component, the microstructures were obtained from the same layer of
the component to make a meaningful comparison. Secondary dendrite
arm spacing (SDAS) is an essential index in the evaluation of arc ad-
ditive manufactured components. The mechanical properties are im-
proved when the SDAS is smaller.
The measured SDAS of the components produced by SpeedPulse
WAAM and SpeedArc WAAM are shown in Table 3. From the com-
parison of the SDAS of the bottom layer and SDAS of the top layer, a
conclusion can be made that the SDAS of the top layer is larger than
that of the bottom layer. The results show good agreement with the
previously observed results reported by Hofmeister [34].
The two reasons responsible for this phenomenon are as follows.
First, the deposit starts although the previous layer does not cool to
room temperature. As a result, the initial temperature of both the
component and substrate increases at higher layers. Second, heat can be
lost by both the component and substrate at the bottom layer, while less
heat can be lost by the substrate at higher layers. In other words, the
effective surface area for heat loss decreases at higher layers [35].
When the initial temperature increases and the effective surface area for
heat loss decreases at higher layers, the cooling process becomes longer,
and the cooling rate becomes lower. Note that the scale of the solidi-
fication structure is significantly affected by the cooling rate. The re-
lation between the SDAS (λ2 ) and cooling rate (GR ) is given as follows
[36,37]:
λ2 = 50(GR)−0.4 (1)
where GR is the cooling rate in K/s. Eq. (1) indicates that the SDAS
increases as the cooling rate decreases. Therefore, the solidification
structure becomes coarser at higher layers because of the lower cooling
rate.
From the comparison of the SDAS of the SpeedPulse WAAM with the
SDAS of the SpeedArc WAAM, a conclusion can be made that the SDAS
produced by SpeedArc WAAM is smaller than that produced by
SpeedPulse WAAM at both the bottom layer and top layer. Although the
deposition rates of SpeedArc WAAM and SpeedPulse WAAM are the
same, SpeedArc WAAM has a lower heat input. Therefore, SpeedPulse
WAAM has a larger melt pool, wider layer width, and a lower cooling
rate. According to Eq. (1), SpeedArc WAAM produces a finer solidifi-
cation structure in both the bottom layer and higher layer due to the
higher cooling rate.
3.3. Mechanical property
Fig. 10 displays the Vickers hardness values of the SpeedPulse and
SpeedArc additive manufactured components. The hardness measure-
ment were performed at 2 mm intervals from the bottom layer to the
top layer. The Vickers hardness values of the SpeedPulse and SpeedArc
L. Wang, et al. Materials Science & Engineering A 751 (2019) 183–190

Fig. 7. EBSD map of a component produced by SpeedArc WAAM: (a) grain growth orientation map and (b) austenite (γ) distribution map.

additive manufactured components are greater than 175 HV. The heat
input of SpeedArc WAAM is slightly lower than that of SpeedPulse
WAAM, and the substrate acts as a good heat sink during the deposition
of the bottom layer. Therefore, there is no significant difference in SDAS
between the SpeedArc and SpeedPulse WAAM at the bottom layer.
Furthermore, no significant difference in Vickers hardness is observed
between the SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manufactured compo-
nents in the bottom layer.
Although the heat input of SpeedArc WAAM is slightly lower than
that of SpeedPulse WAAM, the heat dissipation path and heat dissipa-
tion effect become worse during the deposition of the top layer.
Therefore, the SDAS of SpeedArc WAAM is smaller than the SDAS of
SpeedPulse WAAM at the bottom layer. According to the Hall-Petch
relationship, the Vickers hardness at the bottom layer of the component
produced by SpeedArc WAAM is higher than that of the component
produced by SpeedPulse WAAM.

Fig. 8. (a) Optical micrographs along the transverse section of a specific layer of a component produced by WAAM. Figures (b) and (c) show higher-magnification
micrographs of the top and bottom locations of the specific layer.

187
L. Wang, et al. Materials Science & Engineering A 751 (2019) 183–190

Fig. 9. Optical metallurgy graphs at the transverse cross-sections of the wire arc additive manufactured 316L components: (a) bottom layer of the component
produced by SpeedPulse WAAM, (b) bottom layer of the component produced by SpeedArc WAAM, (c) top layer of the component produced by SpeedPulse WAAM,
and (d) top layer of the component produced by SpeedArc WAAM.

Table 3
Measured SDAS values of the components produced by SpeedPulse WAAM and
SpeedArc WAAM.
Arc mode SpeedPulse WAAM SpeedArc WAAM

SDAS of the bottom layer 10.40 ± 0.43 µm 9.60 ± 0.92 µm

SDAS of the top layer 12.02 ± 1.69 µm 10.74 ± 0.38 µm

Fig. 11. Stress-strain curves of the SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manu-
factured tensile specimens along the horizontal direction.

Fig. 11 displays the stress-strain curves of the SpeedPulse and

SpeedArc additive manufactured tensile specimens along the horizontal
direction. The samples were cut from the middle layer of the additive
manufactured component. All samples experienced elastic deformation
and plastic deformation prior to fracture. It is clear that the ultimate
tensile strengths of all samples were greater than 540 MPa.
Fig. 10. Vickers hardness of the SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manu-
Experimentally measured and previously reported tensile properties
factured components.
of additive manufactured 316L stainless steel are shown in Table 4. The
tensile strength and elongation of the SpeedArc additive manufactured
component along the horizontal direction is higher than that of the

188
L. Wang, et al. Materials Science & Engineering A 751 (2019) 183–190

Table 4
Experimentally measured and previously reported tensile properties of additive
manufactured 316L stainless steel.
Metal transfer mode UTS/MPa YS/MPa

SpeedPulse WAAM 550 ± 6 418.0

SpeedArc WAAM 553 ± 2 417.9
Cold metal transfer-based WAAM [38] 533 ± 23 235 ± 6
Wrought [39] 525–623 255–310

SpeedPulse additive manufactured component. Microstructural refine-

ment is known to have a significant influence on the strengths of metals
and alloys. Some literature has described the effect of grain size on yield
strength in the recognized Hall-Petch relation [40,41]:

ky
σy = σ0 +
d (2)

where d is the grain size, σy is the yield strength, and σ0 and k y are
material constant properties of materials that represent the yield stress
of a grain-free material and the strengthening coefficient, respectively.
According to the Hall-Petch equation, a finer microstructure indicates a
higher tensile strength. Therefore, the SpeedArc additive manufactured
component features higher tensile strength due to its finer solidification
structure.
Another conclusion that can be drawn is that the experimentally
measured ultimate tensile strengths of the components produced by
SpeedPulse and SpeedArc WAAM are higher than previously reported
tensile strength by cold metal transfer-based WAAM. The commercial
criterion for the tensile strength of wrought 316L stainless steel is
525–623 MPa. Therefore, the ultimate tensile strengths of the compo-
nents produced by SpeedPulse and SpeedArc WAAM lie in this range,
which indicates that the tensile strengths of the components produced
by SpeedPulse and SpeedArc WAAM are up to standard.
Fig. 12 shows representative SEM images of the fracture morphol-
ogies of the components produced by SpeedPulse WAAM and SpeedArc
WAAM. Enormous dimples with a relatively uniform distribution are
observed on the fracture surface, which proves that the fracture mode is
a ductile fracture and that the as-formed materials feature good
toughness [39,42]. However, apparent differences regarding the dimple
dimensions and depths can be observed between the components pro-
duced by SpeedPulse and SpeedArc WAAM. The dimple dimensions and
depths of the component produced by SpeedArc WAAM are slightly
greater than those produced by the SpeedPulse WAAM, which indicates
Fig. 13. Energy-dispersive spectroscopy results of the particle elements in the
dimples of the components produced by (a) SpeedPulse WAAM and (b)
SpeedArc WAAM.
that the component fabricated by SpeedArc WAAM has better ductility.
The inference agrees reasonably with the experimental test results, as
shown in Table 4.
Some particles located at the bottom of the dimples are observed in
Fig. 12. Energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) is used to identify the
elements of the particles. Fig. 13 shows the EDS results of the particle
elements in the dimples of the components produced by (a) SpeedPulse
WAAM and (b) SpeedArc WAAM. According to the EDS results, the
atomic percentage of oxygen reaches 42.93% for SpeedPulse WAAM
and 37.85% for SpeedArc WAAM. The EDS results indicate that the
particles in the dimples are oxidizing impurities. Oxidizing impurities
commonly act as a brittleness phase and ultimately become the initia-
tion points of cracks. Therefore, the oxidation on the substrate should
be removed entirely prior to the deposit, and the manufacturing process
should be absolutely protected against oxidative invasion.

Fig. 12. Representative scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of the fracture morphologies of the components produced by (a) SpeedPulse WAAM and (b)
SpeedArc WAAM.

189
L. Wang, et al.
4. Conclusions
1. SpeedPulse and SpeedArc additive manufacturing processes are re-
latively stable, significantly efficient, and structurally sound.
2. The secondary dendrite arm spacing (SDAS) of the top layer is larger
than that of the bottom layer. Although the deposition rates and
scanning speeds of SpeedPulse WAAM and SpeedArc WAAM are the
same, SpeedArc WAAM has a lower heat input and a higher cooling
rate. Therefore, SpeedArc WAAM produces finer solidification
structures in both the bottom layer and higher layer.
3. The ultimate tensile strengths of the SpeedPulse and SpeedArc ad-
ditive manufactured specimens along the horizontal direction are
greater than 540 MPa and slightly higher than previously reported
results. Enormous dimples with relatively uniform distributions are
observed on the fracture surfaces, which proves that the fracture
modes are ductile fractures and the as-formed materials feature fa-
vorable toughness values. The tensile strengths and hardness values
of the components produced by SpeedArc WAAM are higher than
those of components produced by SpeedPulse WAAM due to the
finer solidification structure provided by SpeedArc WAAM.
Acknowledgments
This project is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant no. 51875213).
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the
publication of this paper.
References
[1] J.R. Tumbleston, D. Shirvanyants, N. Ermoshkin, R. Janusziewicz, A.R. Johnson,
D. Kelly, K. Chen, R. Pinschmidt, J.P. Rolland, A. Ermoshkin, E.T. Samulski,
J.M. DeSimone, Continuous liquid interface production of 3D objects, Science 347
(2015) 1349–1352.
[2] D.L. Bourell, Perspectives on additive manufacturing, Ann. Rev. Mater. Res. 46
(2016) 1–18.
[3] R.L. Truby, J.A. Lewis, Printing soft matter in three dimensions, Nature 540 (2016)
371–378.
[4] J.H. Martin, B.D. Yahata, J.M. Hundley, J.A. Mayer, T.A. Schaedler, T.M. Pollock,
3D printing of high-strength aluminium alloys, Nature 549 (2017) 365–369.
[5] Z. Gan, G. Yu, X. He, S. Li, Numerical simulation of thermal behavior and multi-
component mass transfer in direct laser deposition of Co-base alloy on steel, Int. J.
Heat. Mass Transf. 104 (2017) 28–38.
[6] Y.S. Lee, M.M. Kirka, R.B. Dinwiddie, N. Raghavan, J. Turner, R.R. Dehoff,
S.S. Babu, Role of scan strategies on thermal gradient and solidification rate in
electron beam powder bed fusion, Addit. Manuf. 22 (2018) 516–527.
[7] W. Ou, T. Mukherjee, G.L. Knapp, Y. Wei, T. DebRoy, Fusion zone geometries,
cooling rates and solidification parameters during wire arc additive manufacturing,
Int. J. Heat. Mass Transf. 127 (2018) 1084–1094.
[8] M. Ziętala, T. Durejko, M. Polański, I. Kunce, T. Płociński, W. Zieliński, M. Łazińska,
W. Stępniowski, T. Czujko, K.J. Kurzydłowski, Z. Bojar, The microstructure, me-
chanical properties and corrosion resistance of 316L stainless steel fabricated using
laser engineered net shaping, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 677 (2016) 1–10.
[9] D.D. Gu, W. Meiners, K. Wissenbach, R. Poprawe, Laser additive manufacturing of
metallic components: materials, processes and mechanisms, Int. Mater. Rev. 57
(2012) 133–164.
[10] T. DebRoy, H.L. Wei, J.S. Zuback, T. Mukherjee, J.W. Elmer, J.O. Milewski,
A.M. Beese, A. Wilson-Heid, A. De, W. Zhang, Additive manufacturing of metallic
components – process, structure and properties, Prog. Mater. Sci. 92 (2018)
112–224.
[11] C. Körner, Additive manufacturing of metallic components by selective electron
beam melting — a review, Int. Mater. Rev. 61 (2016) 361–377.
[12] D. Herzog, V. Seyda, E. Wycisk, C. Emmelmann, Additive manufacturing of metals,
Acta Mater. 117 (2016) 371–392.
[13] G.L. Knapp, T. Mukherjee, J.S. Zuback, H.L. Wei, T.A. Palmer, A. De, T. DebRoy,
Building blocks for a digital twin of additive manufacturing, Acta Mater. 135 (2017)
390–399.
[14] H.J. Willy, X. Li, Z. Chen, T.S. Herng, S. Chang, C.Y.A. Ong, C. Li, J. Ding, Model of
190
Materials Science & Engineering A 751 (2019) 183–190
laser energy absorption adjusted to optical measurements with effective use in finite
element simulation of selective laser melting, Mater. Des. 157 (2018) 24–34.
[15] W.E. Frazier, Metal additive manufacturing: a review, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 23
(2014) 1917–1928.
[16] A. Horgar, H. Fostervoll, B. Nyhus, X. Ren, M. Eriksson, O.M. Akselsen, Additive
manufacturing using WAAM with AA5183 wire, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 259
(2018) 68–74.
[17] H. Yi, L. Qi, J. Luo, N. Li, Hole-defects in soluble core assisted aluminum droplet
printing: metallurgical mechanisms and elimination methods, Appl. Therm. Eng.
148 (2019) 1183–1193.
[18] H. Yi, L. Qi, J. Luo, D. Zhang, H. Li, X. Hou, Effect of the surface morphology of
solidified droplet on remelting between neighboring aluminum droplets, Int. J.
Mach. Tools Manuf. 130–131 (2018) 1–11.
[19] J. Ding, P. Colegrove, F. Martina, S. Williams, R. Wiktorowicz, M.R. Palt,
Development of a laminar flow local shielding device for wire+arc additive man-
ufacture, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 226 (2015) 99–105.
[20] J. Xiong, Y. Lei, H. Chen, G. Zhang, Fabrication of inclined thin-walled parts in
multi-layer single-pass GMAW-based additive manufacturing with flat position
deposition, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 240 (2017) 397–403.
[21] J. Zhang, X. Zhang, X. Wang, J. Ding, Y. Traoré, S. Paddea, S. Williams, Crack path
selection at the interface of wrought and wire+arc additive manufactured
Ti–6Al–4V, Mater. Des. 104 (2016) 365–375.
[22] D. Yang, C. He, G. Zhang, Forming characteristics of thin-wall steel parts by double
electrode GMAW based additive manufacturing, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 227
(2016) 153–160.
[23] A. Scotti, V. Ponomarev, W. Lucas, Interchangeable metal transfer phenomenon in
GMA welding: features, mechanisms, classification, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 214
(2014) 2488–2496.
[24] A. Scotti, V. Ponomarev, W. Lucas, A scientific application oriented classification for
metal transfer modes in GMA welding, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 212 (2012)
1406–1413.
[25] H. Yi, L. Qi, J. Luo, D. Zhang, N. Li, Direct fabrication of metal tubes with high-
quality inner surfaces via droplet deposition over soluble cores, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 264 (2019) 145–154.
[26] B. Cong, J. Ding, S. Williams, Effect of arc mode in cold metal transfer process on
porosity of additively manufactured Al-6.3%Cu alloy, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
76 (2015) 1593–1606.
[27] Y. Luo, J. Li, J. Xu, L. Zhu, J. Han, C. Zhang, Influence of pulsed arc on the metal
droplet deposited by projected transfer mode in wire-arc additive manufacturing, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 259 (2018) 353–360.
[28] C. Wang, X. Tan, E. Liu, S.B. Tor, Process parameter optimization and mechanical
properties for additively manufactured stainless steel 316L parts by selective elec-
tron beam melting, Mater. Des. 147 (2018) 157–166.
[29] Y. Zhong, L.-E. Rännar, L. Liu, A. Koptyug, S. Wikman, J. Olsen, D. Cui, Z. Shen,
Additive manufacturing of 316L stainless steel by electron beam melting for nuclear
fusion applications, J. Nucl. Mater. 486 (2017) 234–245.
[30] T. Kurzynowski, K. Gruber, W. Stopyra, B. Kuźnicka, E. Chlebus, Correlation be-
tween process parameters, microstructure and properties of 316 L stainless steel
processed by selective laser melting, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 718 (2018) 64–73.
[31] W.J. Sames, F.A. List, S. Pannala, R.R. Dehoff, S.S. Babu, The metallurgy and pro-
cessing science of metal additive manufacturing, Int. Mater. Rev. 61 (2016)
315–360.
[32] L.L. Wang, H.L. Wei, J.X. Xue, T. DebRoy, A pathway to microstructural refinement
through double pulsed gas metal arc welding, Scr. Mater. 134 (2017) 61–65.
[33] X. Chen, J. Li, X. Cheng, H. Wang, Z. Huang, Effect of heat treatment on micro-
structure, mechanical and corrosion properties of austenitic stainless steel 316L
using arc additive manufacturing, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 715 (2018) 307–314.
[34] W. Hofmeister, M. Griffith, Solidification in direct metal deposition by LENS pro-
cessing, JOM 53 (2001) 30–34.
[35] M.M. Francois, A. Sun, W.E. King, N.J. Henson, D. Tourret, C.A. Bronkhorst,
N.N. Carlson, C.K. Newman, T. Haut, J. Bakosi, J.W. Gibbs, V. Livescu, S.A. Vander
Wiel, A.J. Clarke, M.W. Schraad, T. Blacker, H. Lim, T. Rodgers, S. Owen,
F. Abdeljawad, J. Madison, A.T. Anderson, J.L. Fattebert, R.M. Ferencz, N.E. Hodge,
S.A. Khairallah, O. Walton, Modeling of additive manufacturing processes for me-
tals: challenges and opportunities, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 21 (2017)
198–206.
[36] S.A. David, J.M. Vitek, Correlation between solidification parameters and weld
microstructures, Int. Mater. Rev. 34 (1989) 213–245.
[37] H. Yin, S.D. Felicelli, Dendrite growth simulation during solidification in the LENS
process, Acta Mater. 58 (2010) 1455–1465.
[38] X. Chen, J. Li, X. Cheng, B. He, H. Wang, Z. Huang, Microstructure and mechanical
properties of the austenitic stainless steel 316L fabricated by gas metal arc additive
manufacturing, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 703 (2017) 567–577.
[39] A. Yadollahi, N. Shamsaei, S.M. Thompson, D.W. Seely, Effects of process time in-
terval and heat treatment on the mechanical and microstructural properties of di-
rect laser deposited 316L stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 644 (2015) 171–183.
[40] N.J. Petch, The fracture of metals, Prog. Metal. Phys. 5 (1954) 1–52.
[41] J.S. Zuback, T. DebRoy, The hardness of additively manufactured alloys, Materials
11 (2018) 2070.
[42] K. Zhang, S. Wang, W. Liu, X. Shang, Characterization of stainless steel parts by
Laser Metal Deposition Shaping, Mater. Des. 55 (2014) 104–119.