4.5 Article

Direct Laser Metal Deposition of AISI H13 Cladding on Copper-Beryllium Alloy Substrate Through a Stainless-Steel Buffer Layer Strategy

期刊

STEEL RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 94, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/srin.202200387

关键词

additive manufacturing; molding injection; simulation; steel properties; tools

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the AISI H13 cladding is directly deposited on a copper-beryllium alloy substrate using laser metal deposition with a buffer layer strategy. The use of a buffer material successfully reduces the risk of cracking. The multi-layer system shows defects such as porosity and cracking, and the five-layer system has better load-bearing capability but performs poorly under high loads due to the low strength of the heat-affected zone.
AISI H13 cladding is deposited on the copper-beryllium (CuBe) alloy substrate by direct laser metal deposition via a buffer layer strategy. The SS316L austenite stainless steel is used as the buffer material attempting to reduce the risk of cracking. Single- and multi-layer samples are deposited, including single-layer SS316L, 1-layer SS316L + 1-layer H13, 2-layers SS316L + 1-layer H13, and 1-layer SS316L + 4-layers H13. The defect-free single-layer SS316L cladding is successfully deposited after the parameter pre-optimization. Two types of defects including porosity and cracking are observed in all multi-layer systems. The cladding microhardness of the 2-layer system is rather low (400HV). A 50% increase in the cladding microhardness is observed when depositing on the five-layer system. The five-layer system shows a better load-bearing capability (LBC) compared with the CuBe substrate in the low loading range. As load increases above 10 kN, the five-layer cladding system shows the worse LBC compared to CuBe due to the low strength of the heat-affected zone. A 2.7% cladding to substrate thickness ratio allows keeping more than 80% of the original thermal conductivity of the CuBe substrate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据