Page 35 - MSAM-1-4
P. 35

Materials Science in Additive Manufacturing                       Process optimization of SEBM IN718 via ML


            the reliability of processing window. Although the sample   center, and there were no significant differences between
            manufactured by the optimized processing parameters still   the size and depth of dimples. This is consistent with high
            contain some defects, post-treatment such as HIP could   elongation of P2, while P1 showed low elongation. Brittle
            heal  those  defects,  and  the  original  grain  structure can   fracture was observed at the boundary in Figure 15G, and
            be maintained as much as possible . The formation of   complete and broken powders in P1 were observed, as
                                         [21]
            shrinkage porosity defects in Figure 9A may be ascribed   shown in Figure 15H and I, respectively. The size of complete
            to the existence of some imperfect spherical powders in   powder particle is about 88  μm, which is relatively large
            the pre-alloyed powders, which resulted in low-energy   among pre-alloyed powder. These unmelted powders did
            absorption rate and thermal conductivity, and it prevented   not reduce the relative density of the sample, but retained
            the liquid flowing into the inter-dendritic region to   the original structure of the pre-alloy powder. This, further,
            compensate voids .                                 suggests that the equiaxed grains in Figure 10 may stem from
                          [49]
                                                               the unmelted powder. The unmelted powder also resulted
            4.3. Mechanical properties and fracture mechanisms  in the decrease of plasticity of Inconel 718 sample, because
            Inconel 718  samples, especially samples P1 and P2, with   the smooth surface reduced the intergranular bonding force,
            high relative density (>99.5%) were fabricated by SEBM after   and Laves phase inside powder perpendicular to the tensile
            process  optimization,  which  displayed  different  strength   direction also decreased the strength. The unmelted powder
            and elongation. Samples P1 and P2 had the same energy   in each part of the sample became the breach of fracture.
            density. Although P1 had the highest density in this study, its   Although P3 and P4 had finer columnar grains, the increase
            mechanical properties were the worst. As shown in Figure 10,   in the number of mixed-equiaxed grain reduced its strength
            the difference in mechanical properties may be caused   and plasticity. The large area of mixed-equiaxed grain that
            by different microstructures. According to the analysis of   appeared randomly is  the  reason  for  the  large  variance
                                                                                                [51]
            section 3.4, the unmelted powder resulted in equiaxed grains.   of the elongation in P3 and P4. Sun et al.  fabricated the
            The fracture surfaces of P1 and P2 were analyzed to explore   Inconel 718 by SEBM with similar microstructure to P1,
            the reason, as shown in Figure 15A-F. The samples exhibited   whose strength and plasticity were also poor. Therefore, it is
            dimple fracture, which indicates the ductile fracture mode.   necessary to improve energy input to fully melt the original
            Both of them showed fine  and equiaxed  dimples in  the   pre-alloyed powder. Reducing the particle size distribution is


                          A                        B                       C









                          D                        E                       F










                          G                        H                       I











            Figure 15. SEM images of fracture surface: (A–C) P2; (D–F) P1; (G), (H) and (I) are the corresponding regions in (D).


            Volume 1 Issue 4 (2022)                         12                    https://doi.org/10.18063/msam.v1i4.23
   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40