4.7 Article

Evaluation of the mechanical and wear properties of titanium produced by three different additive manufacturing methods for biomedical application

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2019.06.024

Keywords

Additive manufacturing; Titanium; Mechanical properties; Wear resistance; Microstructure

Funding

  1. Queensland Centre for Advanced Materials Processing and Manufacturing (AMPAM)
  2. Australian Research Council (ARC) Hub of transforming Australian industry through Additive Manufacturing [IH130100008]
  3. Australian Research Council [DE160100260]
  4. Australian Research Council [DE160100260] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Commercially pure titanium, as a widely used metallic biomaterial, was fabricated using dissimilar additive manufacturing (AM) methods, namely selective laser melting (SLM), laser engineered net shaping (LENS) and wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM). Microstructures as well as mechanical and wear properties of the produced titanium samples were studied. Diverse microstructural features were related to the different linear energy densities and cooling rates induced by each AM method. Tensile testing evaluation indicated the highest yield and ultimate tensile strengths as well as elastic energy for titanium produced by SLM. However, the maximum ductility was obtained in the WAAM-fabricated titanium due to its larger grain size and slightly higher densification. All the mechanical properties obtained were either superior or comparable to those of cast and powder metallurgy produced titanium. Fracture surface analysis showed the presence of mainly coarse and fine dimples for WAAM and SLM-produced samples, respectively. This was consistent with the grain size of each sample. Wear performances and mechanisms were also examined and the results were in agreement with the values obtained from the hardness to elastic modulus ratios (H/E and H-3/E-2).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available