Page 67 - MSAM-3-1
P. 67

Materials Science in Additive Manufacturing                      Customized scans and dwell time on AM 316L




                         A                                   C















                              B                              D











            Figure 9. Scanning electron microscopy micrographs of tensile fractography section of S1 (unidirectional) sample (A and B) and S4 (bidirectional) sample
            (C and D). Magnification: (A and C): ×21; (B and D): ×3500.

            Table 5. Tensile test results of printed samples   4.2. Effect of dwell time between layers on print
                                                               properties
            Samples   Yield strength   Ultimate tensile   Elongation
                        (MPa)      strength (MPa)   (%)        The LENS-based DED AM process facilitates controlling
            S1           360           583          38.21      the inter-layer print duration “dwell time” that can aid in
            S2           379           579          30.39      controlling thermal gradient and inter-layer cooling rate.
            S3           367           562          32.00        Longer dwell time between successive print layers
            S4           325           583          50.27      results in a higher cooling rate and a low-temperature
            S5           295           521          38.56      gradient, which contribute to the production of a finer
            S6           320           501          33.26      microstructure with relatively lower S , as evidenced
                                                                                                a
                                                               by the numerical depiction of surface roughness of a
            whereas bidirectional printing results in a more uniform   series of specimens given in Table 2. Despite achieving
            microstructure. The consistent toolpath in unidirectional   a finer microstructure, the tradeoff is that the increase
            printing,  without  abrupt  changes  in  direction,    in dwell time and increased porosity,  i.e., lack-of-
                                                         17
            likely contributes to slightly lower surface roughness   fusion  (Table  4),  likely yielded inferior mechanical
            (S ) compared to bidirectional printed samples, as   properties shown in Table 5. In contrast to the findings
             a
                                                                                21
            characterized in Table 2. Unidirectional printed specimens   by Denlinger  et  al.,  we did not observe any major
            also show lower porosity, owing to better control over the   distortion on printed specimens upon increasing the
            layering process and enhanced fusion between successive   interlayer dwell time.
            layers. This reduction in porosity in unidirectional prints
            minimizes the risk of voids or porosity in the deposition   5. Conclusion
            direction.                                         The role of customized scan pattern and interlayer dwell
              The lower porosity in unidirectional printed specimens   time on the microstructure and properties of 316L
            has a notable influence on the mechanical properties,   SS fabricated using a LENS-based DED process was
            resulting in slightly improved tensile properties and   investigated in this study. The resulting product after
            hardness, as outlined in Table 4. These findings underscore   the DED process was a heterogeneous microstructure
            the  importance  of  customized  scan  patterns  in  tailoring   consisting of both columnar and equiaxed cellular
            microstructural features and properties of parts fabricated   substructure with minor inter-grain chemical segregation.
            by metal AM.                                       Two-dimensional XRD results confirmed the presence of a


            Volume 3 Issue 1 (2024)                         8                       https://doi.org/10.36922/msam.2676
   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72