4.5 Article

Structural performance of additive manufactured metallic material and cross-sections

Journal

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIONAL STEEL RESEARCH
Volume 136, Issue -, Pages 35-48

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.05.002

Keywords

Additive manufacturing; Experiments; Metallic materials; Powder bed fusion; Stainless steel; Testing

Funding

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
  2. Outokumpu Research Foundation
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [1855798] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Additive manufacturing, a common example of which is 3D printing, has become more prevalent in recent years with it now being possible to form metallic structural elements in this way. There are, however, limited available experimental data on the material behaviour of powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufactured metallic structural elements and no existing data at the cross-section level; this is addressed in the present paper through a series of tests on additive manufactured stainless steel material and cross-sections. Tensile and compressive coupon tests were used to assess anisotropy, symmetry of stress-strain behaviour and the influence of building direction on the material properties. The yield and ultimate tensile strengths were seen to generally decrease in magnitude with increasing build angle, while a reduction in ductility was observed in some building orientations, and the Young's moduli were typically insensitive to the build angle. The structural behaviour of PBF additive manufactured cross-sections was investigated through a series of square hollow section (SHS) stub column tests, and the results compared with conventionally produced stainless steel SHS. The generated test results have been used to evaluate the applicability of existing design guidance for conventionally produced sections to additive manufactured sections.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available