Solid-State Metal Additive Manufacturing E-Book
133,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Wiley-VCH GmbH
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024
Provides a detailed and in-depth discussion on the different Solid-State Metal Additive Manufacturing processes and applications.
Das E-Book Solid-State Metal Additive Manufacturing wird angeboten von Wiley-VCH GmbH und wurde mit folgenden Begriffen kategorisiert:
Chemical Engineering, Chemische Verfahrenstechnik, Festkörpermechanik, Maschinenbau, Materials Processing, Materials Science, Materialverarbeitung, Materialwissenschaften, Mechanical Engineering, Process Development, Solid Mechanics, Verfahrensentwicklung
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 733
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Preface
Part I: Introduction
1 Introduction and Overview
1.1 Overview and History of Metal Additive Manufacturing
1.2 Liquid‐State Bonding Versus Solid‐State Bonding
1.3 Nonbeam‐Based, Solid‐State Metal Additive Manufacturing
1.4 Additive Manufacturing Categorization Based on the Relationship Between Shape Forming and Consolidation
1.5 Organization of the Book
References
Part II: Cold Spray Additive Manufacturing
2 Impact‐Induced Bonding: Physical Processes and Bonding Mechanisms
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Fundamentals of Impact Bonding
2.3 Bonding Mechanisms in Cold Spray
References
3 Microstructures and Microstructural Evolution in Cold‐Sprayed Materials
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Defect Structures
3.3 Microstructural Evolution of Thermally Treated Cold‐Sprayed Materials
3.4 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
4 Mechanical Properties of Cold Spray Deposits
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Mechanical Properties
References
5 Cold Spray in Practical and Potential Applications
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Materials
5.3 Perspective and Challenges
References
Part III: Additive Friction Stir Deposition
6 Process Fundamentals of Additive Friction Stir Deposition
6.1 Additive Friction Stir Deposition – Macroscopic Process Overview
6.2 Thermo‐Mechanical Processing Evolution
6.3 Heat Generation and Heat Transfer
6.4 Material Flow and Deformation
References
7 Dynamic Microstructure Evolution in Additive Friction Stir Deposition
7.1 Introduction to Microstructure Evolution in Additive Friction Stir Deposition
7.2 Dynamic Microstructure Evolution in Single‐Phase Materials
7.3 Dynamic Microstructure Evolution in Multiple‐Phase Materials
7.4 Effects of Material Transport on Microstructure Evolution
7.5 The Study of Microstructure Evolution in Additive Friction Stir Deposition
Acknowledgement
References
8 Mechanical Properties of Additive Friction Stir Deposits
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Magnesium‐Based Alloys
8.3 Aluminum‐Based Alloys
8.4 Other Alloys Systems
8.5 Repair
8.6 Summary and Future Perspectives
References
9 Potential Industrial Applications of Additive Friction Stir Deposition
9.1 Large‐Scale Metal Additive Manufacturing
9.2 Selective Area Cladding
9.3 Recycling and Upcycling
9.4 Structural Repair
9.5 Underwater Deposition
Acknowledgment
References
Part IV: Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing
10 Process Fundamentals of Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing
10.1 Process Overview
10.2 Temperature Rise and Thermal Modeling
10.3 Feedstock Bonding Mechanisms
10.4 Dissimilar Metal Consolidation
10.5 Acoustic Softening and Strain Normality
10.6 Summary
Acknowledgments
References
11 Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing: Microstructural and Mechanical Characterization
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Microstructure Analysis of UAM Builds
11.3 Hardness Analysis of UAM Builds
11.4 Mechanical Characterization of UAM Builds
11.5 Conclusions
References
12 Industrial Applications of Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing
12.1 Early Years
12.2 Increased Power → Increased Capability
12.3 Modern Applications
12.4 Future Applications
References
Part V: Sintering‐Based Processes
13 Principles of Solid‐State Sintering
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Basic Terminology
13.3 Sintering Stress
13.4 Mass Transport Mechanisms
13.5 Sintering Stages
13.6 Sintering Simulation
13.7 Concluding Remarks, Challenges, and Future Works
References
14 Material Extrusion Additive Manufacturing
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Hierarchy of MEAM Parts and Feedstock Behavior
14.3 Feedstock Attributes
14.4 Extrusion Control
14.5 Toolpathing: Strength and Quality
14.6 Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
Note
15 Binder Jetting‐based Metal Printing
15.1 Introduction to Binder Jetting
15.2 Printing Phase
15.3 Thermal Treatments
15.4 Future Developments
15.5 Conclusion
References
16 Sintering‐based Metal Additive Manufacturing Methods for Magnetic Materials
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Background
16.3 Additive Manufacturing Methods
16.4 Applications
16.5 Summary
Acknowledgments
References
17 Future Perspectives
17.1 Enhancing the Understanding of Process Fundamentals
17.2 Expanding the Printable Material Library
17.3 Embracing Artificial Intelligence for Quality Control and Process Prediction
References
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1 A summary of processing details, bonding mechanisms, resulting mi...
Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Jetting criteria.
Table 2.2 Material behavior regimes under impact.
Chapter 4
Table 4.1 Comparing the effect of different substrate surface preparation o...
Chapter 5
Table 5.1 General current and potential applications for cold‐sprayed mater...
Chapter 8
Table 8.1 WE43 mechanical properties.
Table 8.2 AZ31 mechanical properties.
Table 8.3 AA5083 Mechanical Properties.
Table 8.4 AA2219 mechanical properties.
Chapter 11
Table 11.1 Shear strength of bulk Al 6061 T6.
Table 11.2 Shear damage properties used for modeling Al 6061 T6.
Table 11.3 Process parameters used to weld Al 6061 H18 and carbon steel 413...
Table 11.4 Shear test results for UAM Al 6061 H18.
Table 11.5 Shear test results for UAM 4130.
Chapter 14
Table 14.1 Physical properties for MEAM and poly(lactic acid) (PLA) feedsto...
Chapter 16
Table 16.1 Partial list of material commodities, ranked in order of critica...
Table 16.2 Magnetic properties of BJT magnets versus those made via convent...
Table 16.3 Magnetic properties of BJT SMs versus those made via conventiona...
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 A brief history of metal additive manufacturing development over ...
Figure 1.2 Different regions in two solid metal pieces close to contact: (1)...
Figure 1.3 Illustration of the cold spray process, which uses powder as feed...
Figure 1.4 Illustration of additive friction stir deposition, which uses sol...
Figure 1.5 Illustration of ultrasonic additive manufacturing, which uses met...
Figure 1.6 Illustration of (a) binder jetting and (b) pore evolution during ...
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 Schematic diagrams of cold spray deposition and the physical proc...
Figure 2.2 (a) 1D plate impact configuration. (b) Contrary to a deformation ...
Figure 2.3 (a) Explosive welding geometry. The flyer plate impacts the base ...
Figure 2.4 (a) Critical angle calculated for several flyer/base materials in...
Figure 2.5 Weldability window in collision angle–collision velocity space....
Figure 2.6 (a) Laser impact welding (LIW) configuration. Step (i): a laser p...
Figure 2.7 Hypothetical collision angle versus collision velocity scenarios ...
Figure 2.8 (a, b)
In situ
observations of aluminum particles impacting an al...
Figure 2.9 Lower bound estimates of the threshold melting velocity
V
ml
are h...
Figure 2.10 Multiframe sequences with 5‐ns exposure times showing 10‐μm tin ...
Figure 2.11 Stress–strain response of metals under different loading conditi...
Figure 2.12 Map of the critical shear strain for adiabatic shear instability...
Figure 2.13 Calculated temporal evolution (a) plastic strain (b) temperature...
Figure 2.14 Schematic representation of jetting in cold spray: Stage I: impa...
Figure 2.15 Predictive map for impact regimes of similar and dissimilar mate...
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 (a) Backscattered micrograph and (b) inverse pole figure orientat...
Figure 3.2 Back‐scattered electron micrograph of cold‐sprayed Al‐Cu coating ...
Figure 3.3 Dislocation density of Al‐Cu powders and Al‐Cu coatings determine...
Figure 3.4 Dislocation density as a function of depth and the corresponding ...
Figure 3.5 Electron microscopy from single particles impacts of Al‐Cu onto s...
Figure 3.6 Pole figures measured by EBSD from (a) Al‐2 wt% Cu and (b) commer...
Figure 3.7 STEM‐HAADF images of Al‐5Cu coating at (a) prior particle center ...
Figure 3.8 STEM‐HAADF images from AA7075 powder (a, c) and cold‐sprayed mate...
Figure 3.9 Backscatter electron micrographs showing different two types of p...
Figure 3.10 STEM (a and c) and TEM (b and d) images showing the microstructu...
Figure 3.11 Summary of microstructural evolution of cold‐sprayed 316L coatin...
Figure 3.12 EBSD inverse pole figure maps showing the high‐pressure cold spr...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 Schematic illustration of the test methods used to assess the adh...
Figure 4.2 (a) Macro and (b) micro flat dog‐bone specimens extracted from co...
Figure 4.3 Static tensile strength of as‐sprayed, heat‐treated, and HIPed co...
Figure 4.4 SEM micrographs of Al alloy 7075 (a) microcrystalline powder part...
Figure 4.5 (a) Fatigue specimens: specimen after (top) and before cold spray...
Figure 4.6 (a) Optical microscopy images indicating microstructural heteroge...
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Schematic of a typical setup of a cold spray system.
Figure 5.2 Cold‐sprayed Cu coatings for nuclear fuel storage.
Figure 5.3 Cold spray copper‐coated portable hospital table.
Figure 5.4 Percent MRSA surviving after two hours of exposure to different c...
Figure 5.5 Fracture morphology of the sample before (a) and after repair by ...
Figure 5.6 Mg helicopter gear box repaired by cold spray.
Figure 5.7 Schematic of the cold spray deposition process for surface restor...
Figure 5.8 Manufacturing of the fully CS Ti6Al4V plate deposited on Al 5083‐...
Figure 5.9 (a) Three sheathed thermocouples embedded within a cold‐sprayed t...
Figure 5.10 Setup for the grinding wheel blank for the cold spray process,...
Figure 5.11 (a) A trimetallic coupon consisting of aluminum, copper, and tit...
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 An illustration showing (a) an overview of the additive friction ...
Figure 6.2 Schematic representations of the different stages of additive fri...
Figure 6.3 (a) A plot showing the typical actuator force, spindle torque, an...
Figure 6.4 A plot showing the temperature and time variation based on thermo...
Figure 6.5 Schematics describing the heating and cooling mechanisms in addit...
Figure 6.6 Plots showing the peak temperature measured during deposition of ...
Figure 6.7 Fitting of a power–law relationship to the homologous peak temper...
Figure 6.8 Pictures and schematics of the material flow features and contact...
Figure 6.9 Strain caused by extrusion and torsion during initial material fe...
Figure 6.10 Visualization of the AA2024 tracer distribution after additive f...
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 Cross section of a stirred feed rod showing the variability in th...
Figure 7.2 Common engineering alloy crystal structures with their primary sl...
Figure 7.3 Diagram of the progressive transformations that occur during GDRX...
Figure 7.4 Example evidence of GDRX and progressive lattice rotation occurri...
Figure 7.5 Iterative progression of microstructure evolution during disconti...
Figure 7.6 Heterogeneity in copper processed via additive friction stir depo...
Figure 7.7 Thermal profile within a typical additive friction stir depositio...
Figure 7.8 Micrograph showing broken up and distributed iron‐rich (bright) a...
Figure 7.9 Second‐phase particle behavior during additive friction stir depo...
Figure 7.10 Formation of copper‐rich precipitates at grain boundaries observ...
Figure 7.11 Mechanisms of secondary phase interactions with thermomechanical...
Figure 7.12 (a) Representative trend of secondary phase dissolution rate wit...
Figure 7.13 Aluminum cerium composite showing even distribution of secondary...
Figure 7.14 Additive friction stir deposition of aluminum–matrix composites ...
Figure 7.15 A hollow feed rod (a) is packed loosely with silicon carbide pow...
Figure 7.16 Electron backscatter diffraction analysis.
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Process–structure–property considerations.
Figure 8.2 (a) WE43 data compiled from results in [16–19] (b) S‐N plot norma...
Figure 8.3 AZ31 data compiled from results in [21–24].
Figure 8.4 AA5083 data compiled from results in [25–27, 29].
Figure 8.5 (a) AA6061 data compiled from results in [33–37] (b) Strain ampli...
Figure 8.6 (a) AA7075 data compiled from results in [46–48]. Note that the r...
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 Illustration of the large metal 3D printer being constructed at R...
Figure 9.2 The print head geometry and the consequential cladding quality at...
Figure 9.3 Characterization of the interface between the AA6061 cladding and...
Figure 9.4 Depiction of the application of additive friction stir deposition...
Figure 9.5 Al upcycling using additive friction stir deposition, showing the...
Figure 9.6 (a) The tensile response of the as‐printed material utilizing mac...
Figure 9.7 Contrasting the microstructure and phases between the original Al...
Figure 9.8 Comparison of the inverse pole figure maps between (a) as‐receive...
Figure 9.9 Procedure of an additive friction stir deposition‐enabled repair ...
Figure 9.10 Repair techniques categorized based on whether melting is involv...
Figure 9.11 Additive friction stir deposition facilitates the following repa...
Figure 9.12 Cross‐sectional images of filled grooves in the 6061‐T651 plate ...
Figure 9.13 Snapshots showing the underwater additive friction stir depositi...
Figure 9.14 A comparison of the microstructure between the feed material and...
Figure 9.15 SEM and EDS images that highlight the small oxide dispersoid for...
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1 Ultrasonic additive manufacturing of net‐shaped components from ...
Figure 10.2 Temperature field underneath the sonotrode during the deposition...
Figure 10.3 Calculated temperature profiles for various sonotrode travel vel...
Figure 10.4 Progression of the interfacial structure during ultrasonic addit...
Figure 10.5 Contours of normalized real contact area calculated using Eq. (1...
Figure 10.6 Inverse pole figure showing the grain structure of an ultrasonic...
Figure 10.7 (a) High‐angle annular dark field STEM image showing the Al–Cu i...
Figure 10.8 Process diagram for depositing commercially pure Cu and Al 6061 ...
Figure 10.9 A drop in the observed flow stress of an Al 6063 tensile specime...
Figure 10.10 Representative yield surfaces for a porous interface at three d...
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1 The backscattered electron micrographs of UAM interfaces for SS ...
Figure 11.2 EBSD micrographs of the following are presented: (a) bonded area...
Figure 11.3 The pole figures reveal an identical alpha fiber texture, indica...
Figure 11.4 (a) Optical micrograph across the width of the Yttria‐stabilized...
Figure 11.5 Optical image of (a) welding interface of as‐welded UAM 4130 wit...
Figure 11.6 SEM images of the welding interface of as‐welded UAM 4130 with N...
Figure 11.7 EBSD of the interface of (a) as‐welded UAM 4130 with Ni interlay...
Figure 11.8 SEM images of the UAM Ni‐steel welding interfaces after heat tre...
Figure 11.9 (a) Hardness maps obtained through nanoindentation were generate...
Figure 11.10 Shear test design including (a) conceptual schematic of shear f...
Figure 11.11 Schematics of (a) cuboid sample and (b) stepped sample. The des...
Figure 11.12 Individual stress versus displacement curves of full‐sized cubo...
Figure 11.13 Boundary conditions and mesh details of (a) cuboid sample and (...
Figure 11.14 Stress distribution map of (a) cuboid sample and (b) stepped sa...
Figure 11.15 Comparison of shear test results between experiments and FE sim...
Figure 11.16 Schematic of (a) short height, (b) middle height, and (c) tall ...
Figure 11.17 Machined shear samples of UAM Al 6061 H18 with (a) short, (b) m...
Chapter 12
Figure 12.1 Early rapid prototyping molds made with conformal cooling by Sol...
Figure 12.2 Multi‐metal laminate armor produced using ultrasonic additive ma...
Figure 12.3 Solidica commercialized several health monitoring applications b...
Figure 12.4 Metal stampings welded together with high‐speed ultrasonic weldi...
Figure 12.5 Flexible busbars are welded at each end, but the foil feedstock ...
Figure 12.6 Dissimilar metal combinations are a strength of ultrasonic addit...
Figure 12.7 Dissimilar metal combinations can be used to engineer material p...
Figure 12.8 Various heat exchangers made using UAM. By removing thermal inte...
Figure 12.9 As a hybrid process, UAM can create complex internal structures ...
Figure 12.10 Under high power ultrasonic fields, metal flows easily. Combine...
Figure 12.11 UAM has been leveraged to embed sensors into the build plates o...
Figure 12.12 Numerous applications can be found for sensors embedded into th...
Chapter 13
Figure 13.1 Unit cell representation for simple (a) cubic, (b) bcc, and (c) ...
Figure 13.2 Wetting angle and dihedral angle.
Figure 13.3 Schematic showing geometric representation of two sphere model: ...
Figure 13.4 Schematic showing slice of the neck region between two spheres....
Figure 13.5 Schematic showing the densification process enhancement with sin...
Chapter 14
Figure 14.1 (a) Schematic illustration of an extrusion apparatus or hotend d...
Figure 14.2 Position of the MEAM process considering deposition, debind (pri...
Figure 14.3 (a) Rendered image of the part to be fabricated, (b) Sliced repr...
Figure 14.4 (a) Schematic illustration of a receiving cross‐section of heigh...
Figure 14.5 (a) Schematic diagram showing various mechanical properties as a...
Figure 14.6 SEM micrographs of various water and gas atomized 17‐4 stainless...
Figure 14.7 (a) Mixtures of monodisperse spherical particles with a 1 : 5 si...
Figure 14.8 (a) Schematic diagram of phase behavior as a function of mixing ...
Figure 14.9 Three‐dimensional colormap of molten feedstock pressure within t...
Figure 14.10 (a) System model for a rod‐style extruder. (b) Command profile ...
Figure 14.11 (a) Schematic illustration of toolpaths tested. (b) Mechanical ...
Figure 14.12 (a) Isolated cross‐section highlighting multiple toolpath strat...
Chapter 15
Figure 15.1 Scheme of the binder jetting process, comprising the printing an...
Figure 15.2 (a) Water‐atomized; (b) gas‐atomized particles of IN625.(c) ...
Figure 15.3 Schemes of feedstock feeding systems: powder hopper on the left,...
Figure 15.4 An example of C and O residue on powder particles of binder jett...
Figure 15.5 Schematic showing the densification process enhancement with sin...
Figure 15.6 (a) Schematic illustration of densification via sintering and (b...
Figure 15.7 (a) Schematic illustration of infiltration process. (b) Binder j...
Figure 15.8 Examples of (left) sintered nickel alloy at 1320 °C for 4 h with...
Chapter 16
Figure 16.1 Magnetic hysteresis curves of soft and hard magnets.
Figure 16.2 Magnetization hysteresis curve (Left); magnetic induction hyster...
Figure 16.3 Schematic representation of the press and sinter conventional ma...
Figure 16.4 Schematic representation of the bonded conventional magnetic man...
Figure 16.5 Binder jetting process.
Figure 16.6 Sintering of a BJT silicon steel soft magnet.
Figure 16.7 BJT magnets (one inch square or one inch circular) coated with p...
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Preface
Begin Reading
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
iii
iv
xiii
xiv
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
295
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
Solid-State Metal Additive Manufacturing
Physics, Processes, Mechanical Properties, and Applications
Edited by Hang Z. Yu, Nihan Tuncer, and Zhili Feng
Editors
Prof. Hang Z. YuVirginia Tech445 Old Turner StreetBlacksburgVA, USA, 24061
Dr. Nihan TuncerDesktop Metal Inc.63 Third Ave.BurlingtonMA, USA, 01803
Dr. Zhili FengOak Ridge National Lab1 Bethel Valley RoadOak RidgeTN, USA, 37830
Cover Image: © Mark Pandol & Luke Hagedorn, Virginia Tech
All books published by WILEY‐VCH are carefully produced. Nevertheless, authors, editors, and publisher do not warrant the information contained in these books, including this book, to be free of errors. Readers are advised to keep in mind that statements, data, illustrations, procedural details or other items may inadvertently be inaccurate.
Library of Congress Card No.: applied for
British Library Cataloguing‐in‐Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche NationalbibliothekThe Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at <http://dnb.d-nb.de>.
© 2024 WILEY‐VCH GmbH, Boschstraße 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany
All rights reserved (including those of translation into other languages). No part of this book may be reproduced in any form – by photoprinting, microfilm, or any other means – nor transmitted or translated into a machine language without written permission from the publishers.
Registered names, trademarks, etc. used in this book, even when not specifically marked as such, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
Print ISBN: 978‐3‐527‐35093‐3ePDF ISBN: 978‐3‐527‐83933‐9ePub ISBN: 978‐3‐527‐83934‐6oBook ISBN: 978‐3‐527‐83935‐3
Cover Design Wiley
Preface
This book aims to offer a timely overview of the science and engineering of solid‐state metal additive manufacturing. In contrast to mainstream fusion‐based metal additive processes that hinge on melting and rapid solidification, the focal point here is on alternative processes such as cold spray, additive friction stir deposition, ultrasonic additive manufacturing, material extrusion additive manufacturing, and binder jetting, which involve deformation or sintering‐based material bonding. The departure from melting results in salient advantages in energy consumption and environmental impact, while addressing common issues like hot cracking, high residual stresses, and undesirable intermetallic phase formation. Although these non‐beam‐based additive processes are currently in the minority within the additive manufacturing community, they are garnering significant attention across diverse sectors, such as aerospace, automotive, defense, and infrastructure. The timing is opportune to consolidate our understanding and delineate limitations surrounding these processes, from which we hope to accelerate their widespread adoption.
We represent a collaborative team from three critical pillars in technology development: academia, industry, and national laboratories. By interweaving insights from these diverse realms, we aim to construct a narrative that not only presents state‐of‐the‐art solid‐state additive manufacturing technologies and applications but also delves into the physics and materials science that underlie them, covering the bonding mechanisms and microstructure evolution phenomena. The latter, i.e. the fundamental aspect, is sometimes overlooked in the research and development of additive manufacturing, which is often unfortunately emphasized with empiricism. However, we believe that only by delving into the core concepts and fundamentals can we equip readers with the tools necessary to adapt to the ever‐changing landscape of solid‐state metal additive manufacturing. Striking a balance between the practical and theoretical aspects, we envision the content of this book to bridge the macroscopic properties and applications to the microscopic phenomena, such as dislocation creation and motion, subgrain rotation, grain boundary migration, and surface diffusion.
We are fortunate to have esteemed pioneers and leaders contributing to this book, who are globally recognized experts actively engaged in the forefront of solid‐state metal additive manufacturing. Much like the editorial team, these authors provide a well‐balanced representation, encompassing academia (Cornell University, Stanford University, University of Alabama, Politecnico di Milano, University of Toronto, Virginia Tech, Penn State University, University of North Texas, the Ohio State University, and Illinois Institute of Technology), industry (Fabrisonic, Desktop Metal, and MELD), and national laboratories (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory). The collective expertise of the authors ensures that the content of the book is not only comprehensive but also enriched with unique insights, which hopefully will establish it as a key resource for those interested in solid‐state metal additive manufacturing. Looking ahead, we also hope that the book will serve as a catalyst for further exploration and innovation in this dynamic field, where new solid‐state additive technologies will be developed, and more talents will be engaged in the exciting research and development journey of these transformative technologies.
December 2023
Hang Z. Yu, Blacksburg, VANihan Tuncer, Burlington, MAZhili Feng, Oak Ridge, TN
Part IIntroduction
1Introduction and Overview
Hang Z. Yu1, Nihan Tuncer2, and Zhili Feng3
1Virginia Tech, 445 Old Turner Street, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA
2Desktop Metal Inc., 63 3rd Ave, Burlington, MA, 01803, USA
3Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1 Bethel Valley Rd, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831, USA
Additive manufacturing generally denotes scalable fabrication (printing) of 3D components and structures for industrial production. Employing a layer‐by‐layer or voxel‐by‐voxel approach, additive manufacturing has started to shift the manufacturing paradigm and revolutionize the way components are produced. It not only offers unparalleled design freedom and efficiency for creating complex geometries, but also opens the door to the production of lighter, stronger, multifunctional, and multimaterial parts [1]. Its versatility knows almost no bounds; nearly all types of materials can be transformed into intricate 3D components through additive manufacturing, including polymers, ceramics, metals, composites, and even natural materials. With the vast global market of metal component production and the extensive use of metallic materials in diverse industrial sectors, there has been a surge in interest of metal additive manufacturing particularly over the past decade [2–4].
Metal additive manufacturing approaches can come in two key forms: fusion‐based (i.e., beam‐based) and solid‐state (i.e., nonbeam‐based) methods, both with their distinctive advantages. The former fundamentally relies on selective melting and rapid solidification to progressively build a structure, while the latter harnesses a high strain rate, extensive plastic deformation, or thermally induced atomic diffusion to metallurgically bond the material to build a structure. Fusion‐based approaches, including powder bed fusion (e.g., selective laser melting [SLM] and e‐beam melting [EBM]) and directed energy deposition (DED) (e.g., laser engineered net shaping [LENS] and wire arc additive manufacturing [WAAM]) have been the primary focus of industry and academia at the time of writing. This is not surprising, as much of the processes and equipment are based on similar fusion‐based welding processes widely applied in the industry for decades. Similar to casting [5] and fusion welding [6], both of which are bulk‐scale melting–solidification manufacturing processes, fusion‐based additive manufacturing is challenged by porosity, residual stress, and hot cracking [7]. Compared to casting, the additive nature exacerbates these issues because of the small molten pool size, large thermal gradient, and rapid cooling rates. Additionally, epitaxial solidification leads to the natural formation of textured, columnar grain structures along the build direction, presenting a hurdle for microstructure and isotropy control [8]. These issues also limit melt‐based methods to weldable alloys.
These critical issues stem from the melting and solidification nature of fusion‐based additive manufacturing and can be avoided if melting is not present in the process. This motivates the development of a series of emerging nonbeam‐based, solid‐state processes for metal additive manufacturing – which is the focus of this book. The cutting‐edge solid‐state technologies explored in this book encompass cold spray additive manufacturing (CSAM), additive friction stir deposition (AFSD), ultrasonic additive manufacturing (UAM), and sintering‐based processes like binder jetting additive manufacturing (BJAM) and material extrusion‐enabled metal additive manufacturing (MEAM).
This relatively new field of manufacturing technologies is continuing to develop at a fast pace along with a growing wealth of research articles and white papers. The aim of this book is to present the principles and effects of the physical phenomena that each solid‐state additive manufacturing method is built upon, as well as an in‐depth picture of the process fundamentals, the resulting microstructures and properties, and the key industrial applications. Starting with an overview and historical perspective of metal additive manufacturing, this chapter proceeds to offer frameworks for categorizing solid‐state additive manufacturing methods based on bonding mechanisms and relationship between building and consolidation. It then discusses the potential and limitations of nonbeam‐based, solid‐state metal additive manufacturing methods, which are implemented through deformation‐based or sintering‐based approaches. Furthermore, the chapter outlines the structure of the book, providing a glimpse of the topics of all the following chapters.
1.1 Overview and History of Metal Additive Manufacturing
Offering a “disruptive” concept that enables greater design freedom, rapid prototyping, and the production of complex geometries that were previously unachievable, metal additive manufacturing has enormous potential for enhancing performance such as strength and durability, weight and waste reduction, customization, as well as on‐demand production and supply chain risk reduction. It has found applications in aerospace, space, automotive, defense, healthcare, and many other industries, driving innovation and reshaping the manufacturing landscape. Based on different material feeding and bonding mechanisms, metal additive manufacturing can be implemented by SLM, selective EBM, LENS, WAAM, CSAM, BJAM, UAM, and AFSD. Depending on the process, the feedstock can be in the form of powder, wire, sheet/foil, and solid bar. The first four technologies are based on melting and rapid solidification, and are thus termed “fusion‐based” or “beam‐based.” The last four are based on solid‐state processes without melting; they are the focus of this book.
Figure 1.1 A brief history of metal additive manufacturing development over the last 40 years.
As illustrated in Figure 1.1, the history of metal additive manufacturing dates to the 1980s when additive manufacturing, in general, was in its early stages. Similar to the case with other technologies, different terminologies were invented and used for different additive manufacturing processes as they developed. Selective laser sintering (SLS) was patented by Carl Deckard in 1986 [9], the first 3D printed parts were demonstrated by Manriquez‐Frayre and Bourell in 1990 [10], and Electro Optical Systems (EOS) introduced its initial SLS machine in 1995. On the other hand, the first SLM patent was issued in 1995 by the Fraunhofer Institute Institut für Lasertechnik (ILT) in Germany, eventually leading to SLM Solutions Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH) in the early 2000s [11]. SLM or SLS falls under the category of powder bed fusion additive manufacturing.
Another significant technology within the powder bed fusion category is selective EBM, patented by Larson in 1993 [12]. In 2002, the first commercial EBM machine was launched by Arcam, which was later acquired by General Electric (GE) in 2016. Enabling the fabrication of complex geometries with high spatial resolution, powder bed fusion has emerged as one of the leading metal additive manufacturing technologies today.
LENS represents another important example that leverages high‐energy laser beam for metal additive manufacturing [13]. LENS involves melting and fusing nozzle‐delivered metal powder onto a substrate in a layer‐by‐layer fashion to create intricate 3D components. The technology was patented by Sandia National Laboratories in 1994 and later commercialized by Optomec in the early 2000s. LENS belongs to the category of DED, where the material is fed in powder form.
Another notable technology in this category is WAAM. The roots of WAAM can be traced back to the 1920s when Baker proposed using an electric arc and filler wires to deposit metal ornaments [14]. In the welding industry, arc welding, laser welding, and electron‐beam welding are widely used for cladding of large‐scale structures and rebuild of aircraft turbine rotor tips. They are early on primitive WAAM. In recent years, advancements in robotics, sensors, and control systems have propelled the progress of WAAM technology. Precise control of welding parameters and robotic movement has improved accuracy and repeatability, not to mention the high build rate and excellent scalability offered by WAAM.
Now let us briefly review the history of solid‐state metal additive manufacturing processes, wherein the feedstock is not melted. Our first focus is on cold spray, a technology with a long history dating back to the early twentieth century. The modern “cold spray” phenomenon was discovered by Papyrin and Alkhimov in the 1980s [15, 16]. Subsequently, in 1994, the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences consortium, including companies like Ford Motor Company, GE Aircraft Engines, General Motors Corporation, the Naval Aviation Depot, and Pratt and Whitney, began extensive research on cold spray. In 2008, the US Department of Defense published the Military Standard (MIL‐STD‐3021), establishing cold spray standardization and best practices. A series of cold spray companies have been formed since then for technological commercialization, such as SPEE3D and Impact Innovations GmbH.
Initially called “3D printing”, binder jetting works by selectively depositing a liquid binding agent onto a powder bed to bind the particles together layer by layer to create a 3D object, followed by sintering or hot isostatic pressing for densification. This technology was invented in 1993 by Sachs, Cima, Bredt, and coworkers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [17], later resulting in a spin‐off company, Z Corporation (ultimately acquired by 3D Systems in 2012). Extrude Hone obtained an exclusive license from MIT in 1996 and launched the industry's first commercial direct metal 3D printing machine using binder jetting in 1998. As a spin‐off from Extrude Hone Corporation, ExOne was founded in 2005 and quickly became a prominent player in the additive manufacturing industry, particularly in the field of binder jetting technology provider. In 2021, ExOne was acquired by Desktop Metal, which was founded by seven cofounders (including four MIT professors) in Lexington, Massachusetts, in October 2015 and went public in December 2020.
The process of material extrusion, which is commonly referred to as fused filament fabrication (FFF) or fused deposition modeling (FDM), was originally developed by Stratasys in 1989 [18]. It is based on the extrusion of a thermoplastic polymer through a heated nozzle with a fine orifice onto a substrate and the building of a free‐form 3D structure layer by layer. The combination of FDM with another well‐known manufacturing method, metal injection molding (MIM), where metal or ceramic powders bound with polymeric binder are pushed into a mold, constitutes the basic principle of the MEAM [19]. Desktop Metal and Markforged (founded in 2013 in Cambridge, MA) are the two leading companies that provide 3D metal printers based on material extrusion.
UAM, initially known as ultrasonic consolidation, is a hybrid technology based on ultrasonic bonding and computer numerical control (CNC) machining. This technology was invented and patented by White in 1999 [20], who founded Solidica Inc. with the aim of commercializing UAM equipment. In 2007, a collaboration was initiated between the Edison Welding Institute (EWI) and Solidica to redesign the weld tooling, facilitating high bond quality, and accommodating very high‐power machines. Over a four‐year development program, the team successfully enhanced the ultrasonic horn's power delivery levels, increasing it from 2 to over 9 kW. As a result of this progress, Fabrisonic LLC was founded in 2011, aiming to further advance and commercialize the improved UAM process.
AFSD is a relatively young technology in the additive manufacturing family. It originated from the friction surfacing process [21]. Based on the principle of friction stir bonding, the feedstock in the form of a solid bar is stirred against the substrate, forming deposition tracks as it goes through severe plastic deformation at elevated temperatures under a rotating tool. Around 2008, the foundation of this technology was laid by Schultz and Creehan [22], who were previously research professors at Virginia Tech before establishing Schultz‐Creehan Holdings Inc. This company later merged with Aeroprobe Corporation. The initial prototype machine was constructed by Schultz and the team at Aeroprobe Corporation in 2011 [23]. The first peer reviewed paper was published by Kandasamy in 2013 [24]. In 2018, Manufacturing of Electronically Linked Devices (MELD) Manufacturing Corporation, a separate entity from Aeroprobe Corporation, brought this technology to market under the brand name “MELD Technology.”
1.2 Liquid‐State Bonding Versus Solid‐State Bonding
Metal additive manufacturing technologies are all based on two critical steps: material feeding and material bonding. The capabilities, challenges, and resulting material properties of each additive manufacturing technology largely depend upon the method of layer bonding and consolidation mechanism [25]. Metals can be bonded in liquid phase or solid phase. Liquid‐state bonding is the mechanism for fusion‐based additive manufacturing technologies, such as SLM, EBM, LENS, and WAAM. Solid‐state bonding is the mechanism for CSAM, AFSD, UAM, and sintering‐based processes like BJAM.
1.2.1 Liquid‐State Bonding
As demonstrated through fusion welding, the formation of molten pools across the interface followed by solidification can lead to good metallurgical bonding of two metal pieces. The solidification process typically happens at the liquid–solid interface via heterogeneous nucleation, resulting in epitaxial grain growth from the solid phase into the liquid. Depending on the thermal gradient and solidification rate, which govern the undercooling, there is also a possibility of nucleation inside the molten pool, especially in the presence of nucleation agents. As the transformation from liquid to solid progresses, effective heat dissipation generated by the transformation becomes essential. This process is typically facilitated through conduction within the solid, directing heat away from the advancing solidification front. Most pure metals and alloys undergo a negative volume change when they solidify. This solidification “shrinkage” phenomenon can impart stresses upon the as‐solidified structure that may lead to solidification cracking [26].
In solidification of alloys other than pure metals, the local temperature profile leads to solute redistribution and segregation of alloying and/or impurity elements. This can result in continuous alteration in composition between the liquid and solid in contact at the solidification front. If the solid phase does not have adequate time to reach its equilibrium composition, which is common in fusion‐based additive processes, such redistribution results in localized variations in the composition within the solidified structure. This can lead to spatially dependent liquidus temperatures and significant constitutional supercooling, even if the liquid is hotter than the solid [27].
1.2.2 Solid‐State Bonding
Solid‐phase bonding offers notable advantages, such as the absence of hot cracking, prevention of element segregation, and reduction of chemical and microstructural nonhomogeneities, without resolidifying the liquid metal. Additionally, it can reduce residual stress in the case of mass transport via atomic diffusion at elevated temperature, as in sintering.
Under ideal physical conditions, solid‐state metallic bonding readily occurs when two atomically flat and clean metal surfaces come into intimate contact, because their cohesive atomic forces attract each other. Such a phenomenon occurs without necessarily applying pressure or raising temperatures. This is the origin of cold welding found at the nanoscale [28] and self‐healing recently observed during fatigue testing [29]. However, in practical applications, metallic surfaces are seldom perfectly flat and are often covered by surface oxide layers and contaminant films (as illustrated in Figure 1.2). Moreover, microstructural and compositional irregularities can further complicate the joining process. These barriers against bond formation can be overcome by strain and/or heat through a number of mechanisms.
Figure 1.2 Different regions in two solid metal pieces close to contact: (1) base metal; (2) deformation region upon bonding; (3) oxide layer; (4) contaminant film.
The first key mechanism is the creation of intimate contact via collapse of asperities [30]. When the temperature is increased, the yield strength decreases, making it possible for macroscopic mechanical loading to cause surface deformation with high local strains, ultimately resulting in contact of the two metal surfaces. Alternatively, such intimate contact can be created by creep and surface diffusion mechanisms at relatively low forces [31].
The second key mechanism is the removal of the surface oxides and contaminant films to allow atomic bonding [32]. This removal can be implemented by mechanically induced fracture (as seen in CSAM as an example), followed by material removal from the surface or dispersion into the matrix material. If the mechanical loading is inadequate but there is sufficient thermal energy, then the surface oxides may be removed in a reducing and/or low oxygen partial pressure atmosphere. This phenomenon is seen in sintering where bonding then occurs through atomic diffusion.
Another possible mechanism to facilitate solid‐state bonding is the realignment of grain structures. The difference between crystallographic orientations on the two sides of the interface results in a series of high‐angle grain boundaries, which may lead to inadequate joints. For example, in solid‐state welding of Al, it is straightforward to form metallurgical bonds between (111) and (111) planes and between (110) and (110) planes, whereas bonding between (111) and (110) planes is difficult [33]. In terms of surface deformation, the dislocations created in the surface region followed by local recovery or recrystallization may help align the crystallographic planes across the interface.
1.3 Nonbeam‐Based, Solid‐State Metal Additive Manufacturing
The metal additive manufacturing technologies explored in this book are all based on solid‐state bonding, i.e., without utilizing high‐energy beams (e.g., lasers or electron beams) to melt the metals to create metallurgical bonding. Solid‐state bonding mechanisms can further be divided into two subcategories.
The first is based on high‐strain‐rate deformation, where mechanical disruption of the oxide layer is followed by material bonding through severe plastic deformation. This can be induced by ultrasonic scrubbing, friction stirring, or supersonic impact of powder particles onto a substrate or a previous layer of the same material. UAM, AFSD, and CSAM processes fall under this category.
Alternatively, sintering‐based solid‐state additive manufacturing is characterized by consolidation of the 3D printed powder compact via uniform external heating up to a large fraction of melting temperature, i.e., sintering. Material bonding occurs by thermal reduction of the oxide layer on powder surfaces, allowing atomic diffusion between metal powder particles. BJAM and MEAM fall under this category. Sintering‐based additive manufacturing techniques have the advantage of leveraging the mature knowledgebase on powder metallurgy and sintering technology.
1.3.1 Deformation‐Based Metal Additive Manufacturing
Deformation‐based metal additive manufacturing involves the application of shear and pressure to create metallurgical bonds between the newly deposited material and base material. CSAM, AFSD, and UAM are notable examples.
As shown in Figure 1.3, in cold spray, particles undergo acceleration to achieve supersonic velocities. This acceleration is achieved through the expansion of a gas that is both pressurized and heated, which takes place across a specialized convergent/divergent nozzle (i.e., a De Laval nozzle [35]). Following this acceleration, the microparticles experience collision with the base material, leading to the creation of a metallurgical bond. This collision‐induced interaction leverages local deformation, and the basic microstructure of cold sprayed metals is bimodal in nature. Most cold sprayed metals have prior particle centers surrounded by the boundaries between prior particles; the contact regions where one prior particle collides with another display a thoroughly modified microstructure. Cold spray is widely used for corrosion and wear protection coatings, and it has been recently showcased for additive manufacturing purposes.
Figure 1.3 Illustration of the cold spray process, which uses powder as feedstock.
Source: Yu and Mishra [34]/Taylor & Francis.
As shown in Figure 1.4, AFSD is characterized by a global deformation, where all the material voxels in the feedstock undergo severe plastic deformation at elevated temperatures [36]. This typically leads to significant microstructural changes as a result of dynamic recrystallization, characterized by the presence of fine, equiaxed grain structures. Moreover, the surface layers of the substrate or base material coplastically deform, and are mixed with the feed material, resulting in strong interfacial bonding. Thanks to extensive material flow, AFSD can lead to fully dense material in the as‐printed state. Viewed as a forging‐based additive process, the resulting mechanical properties can meet the forging standard. It has found applications in structural repair, selective area cladding, material recycling and upcycling, as well as manufacturing under austere conditions. The primary constraint is from its near‐net‐shaping nature, which requires removing material from the track edges through machining.
Figure 1.4 Illustration of additive friction stir deposition, which uses solid rod or powder as feedstock.
Source: Yu and Mishra [34]/Taylor & Francis.
As shown in Figure 1.5, UAM only involves local deformation close to the interface, while the bulk of the feedstock (in the form of metal foil) remains at a low temperature without notable microstructural changes [37]. The localized and low‐heat nature ensures minimal distortion and preserves the integrity of the original structure, making it suitable for various applications such as electrification, thermal management, and embedded electronics. The capability of bonding dissimilar metals and creating complex geometries further enhances its usage in diverse industries. However, the main limitation of UAM lies in its hybrid nature, which necessitates the use of CNC machining to achieve specific geometric features. Consequently, this hinders its application in scenarios like onsite repair and local remanufacturing.
Figure 1.5 Illustration of ultrasonic additive manufacturing, which uses metal foil as feedstock.
Source: Yu and Mishra [34]/Taylor & Francis.
To compare among these deformation‐based additive processes, CSAM and UAM are relatively low‐temperature processes involving local deformation, whereas AFSD features global plastic deformation at elevated temperatures. Both CSAM and AFSD are free forming processes that allow for location‐specific deposition and repair, whereas UAM is a hybrid process leveraging both ultrasonic consolidation and CNC machining.
1.3.2 Sintering‐Based Metal Additive Manufacturing
Sintering‐based metal additive manufacturing involves an indirect method where a metal–polymer composite is initially crafted. This composite then goes through a series of postprocessing steps to eliminate binders or polymers, ultimately densifying the printed components through sintering (or hot isostatic pressing). One illustrative example within this realm is binder jetting, a process in which binders are precisely placed to glue metal powders together, resulting in a preliminary structure called a “green body,” comprised of both metals and binders [38]. Then, the binders are removed at elevated temperatures, followed by sintering to achieve full density. The printing and postprocessing details are illustrated in Figure 1.6. It is also possible to print metals by utilizing typical polymer‐based printing techniques such as material extrusion (or FDM), material jetting, and stereolithography. This is achieved by integrating metallic micro or nanoparticles with polymers. Following the printing process, a hybrid metal–polymer composite is generated. The subsequent step involves the selective removal of polymers, often through a process like burnout, followed by sintering of the metal component.
Figure 1.6 Illustration of (a) binder jetting and (b) pore evolution during post‐processing.
Sintering‐based approaches in additive manufacturing present notable advantages, including lower energy consumption and the capability to fabricate intricate structures using multiple materials. Nevertheless, certain challenges persist, such as effectively managing shrinkage during the sintering process and ensuring a consistent distribution of density. These challenges continue to be subjects of ongoing research and development.
1.4 Additive Manufacturing Categorization Based on the Relationship Between Shape Forming and Consolidation
Another useful way of categorizing the additive manufacturing methods to understand the capabilities and resulting properties is the relative occurrence of building and consolidation stages described below:
(1)
Techniques where building and consolidation are
coupled
: These methods achieve layer bonding simultaneously as geometry is being built. Bonding can be achieved by using high‐energy power to heat the feedstock until it melts and bonds or just enough to cause bonding through severe mechanical deformation. The heat source can be a laser beam as in SLM or DED, an electron beam as in EBM. The methods that fall under this category and rely on bonding through severe mechanical deformation are CSAM, UAM, and AFSD. Although the physics behind these techniques are very different, the common characteristic of the methods in this category is that the
microstructure forms during building the geometry
. As the microstructure forms during printing in all these methods, the methods that involve high‐energy beam melting suffer from anisotropic solidification microstructure, residual stress due to large thermal gradients, as well as the formation of brittle nonequilibrium phases due to rapid cooling, while CSAM, UAM, and AFSD generally result in fine microstructure and low residual stress.
(2)
Techniques where building and consolidation are
decoupled
:
This category involves the additive manufacturing methods that are based on powder metallurgy and sintering. These methods typically first produce an oversized geometry of the desired part by “gluing” together metal powder particles into a free‐form 3D preform using polymeric binders, followed by a step that cleanly removes the organic binders (generally referred to as debinding), which is followed by the final consolidation of the part through sintering. BJAM and MEAM are among these methods. Although the layer‐forming principle to build an oversized “green” geometry are different, the common characteristic of the methods in this category is that
the microstructure formation is independent of the geometry‐building stage
.
Understanding the utilized bonding mechanisms and the relationship between shape forming and consolidation in various additive manufacturing techniques provides the necessary perspective to view these techniques in a comparative sense. Table 1.1 summarizes the processing details, bonding mechanisms, resulting microstructures, and common examples of processed materials of the solid‐state additive manufacturing methods covered in this book. An extensive comparison of the methods is discussed in [25].
Table 1.1 A summary of processing details, bonding mechanisms, resulting microstructures, and common examples of processed materials of the solid‐state additive manufacturing methods covered in this book. An extensive comparison of the methods is discussed in [25].
Source: Adapted from [25].
Class
Method
Heating mechanism and maximum temperature
Bonding mechanism
Microstructure alteration and homogeneity
Processible materials
Common examples
Sinter‐based AM
BJAM
Uniform ‐ external heating >0.75 Tm
Atomic diffusion (generally following oxide reduction)
Minimal/Grain coarsening Homogeneous, equiaxed in all directions (except for some cases, see the text)
Any powdered material, including ceramics. Hard and brittle materials can be processed.
17‐4PH, 316L, 304SS, Ti6Al4V, Inconel 625 and 718, Cu, Al
2
O
3
, Zr
2
O
3
, WC‐Co
MEAM
Uniform – external heating >0.75 Tm
Atomic diffusion (generally following oxide reduction)
Minimal/Grain coarsening Homogeneous, equiaxed in all directions (except for some cases, see the text)
Any powdered material, including ceramics Hard and brittle materials can be processed
17‐4PH, 316L, H13, A2, D2 tool steels, Inconel 625, Cu, WC‐Co
Deformation‐AM
UAM
Local ‐ interfacial frictional heating 0.2–0.5 Tm
Atomic diffusion; interface coalescence under pressure and temperature, assisted by high‐strain‐rate severe plastic deformation
Dynamic recrystallization, grain refinement and texture Nonhomogeneous, gradient from refined equiaxed grains at the interface to elongated grains with rolling texture of the foil
Mostly soft and ductile metals and alloys
Al alloys, Cu alloys, low carbon steels
CSAM
Local – adiabatic Unknown (typically <Tm)
Severe plastic deformation
Adiabatic shear and dynamic recrystallization Grain refinement Fine grains at the particle interfaces
Mostly ductile metals and alloys that do not shutter or melt at supersonic impact conditions before exhibiting severe plastic deformation
Cu, Al, Mg Inconel 717, 625, Ti, Ti6Al4V, Bronze
AFSD
Local ‐ adiabatic 0.6–0.9 Tm
Severe plastic deformation
Dynamic recrystallization Grain refinement Equiaxed, fine, relatively random in all directions
Low temperature materials; more challenging for high temperature materials due to tooling
Various Al alloys (2xxx, 5xxx, 6xxx, 7xxx), Mg alloys, Cu, Ti6Al4V
1.5 Organization of the Book
The book is organized into 17 chapters, each dedicated to exploring different aspects of solid‐state metal additive manufacturing. With this chapter serving as the introduction, the rest of the chapters progress through the following topics:
Chapters 2
–
5
: Cold spray additive manufacturing.
Chapter 2
focuses on the conditions and mechanisms of impact bonding from a physics and materials perspective.
Chapter 3
describes the microstructures in feedstock powders and their evolution during and after cold spray deposition.
Chapter 4
provides an overview of the basic mechanical characteristics of cold spray deposits, including the interfacial adhesion properties and cohesion strength under both static and cyclic loading.
Chapter 5
focuses on the current and potential applications of cold spray for various material systems, including surface enhancement, additive manufacturing, and surface restoration.
Chapters 6
–
9
: Additive friction stir deposition.
Chapter 6
focuses on the process fundamentals underlying AFSD, including temperature, force, and torque evolution, as well as material flow basics.
Chapter 7
describes the dynamic microstructure evolution during AFSD of metals and metal matrix composites, highlighting various dynamic recrystallization mechanisms.
Chapter 8
summarizes the mechanical behavior of various material systems in the as‐printed state and after heat treatment.
Chapter 9
discusses the niche applications enabled by AFSD, such as large‐scale metal additive manufacturing, structural repair, cladding, as well as recycling and upcycling.
Chapters 10
–
12
: Ultrasonic additive manufacturing.
Chapter 10
overviews key bonding phenomena in ultrasonic consolidation, including oxide breakdown, asperity deformation, frictional heating, microstructural evolution around the weld interface, and interdiffusion during dissimilar metal consolidation.
Chapter 11
presents an overview of the typical microstructural analyses, mechanical characterization methods, and hardness measurements for characterizing parts manufactured using UAM through case studies on Al and steel builds.
Chapter 12
summarizes key industrial applications offered by UAM, including electrification, thermal management, and embedded electronics.
Chapters 13
–
16
: Sintering‐based metal additive manufacturing.
Chapter 13
delves into the principles of solid‐state sintering in metal additive manufacturing.
Chapter 14
describes the fundamental aspects of material extrusion with specific attention to the hierarchy of printed objects, including the various length scales of objects fabricated.
Chapter 15
provides an overview of binder jetting‐based metal printing, including the feedstock, printing phase, and postprocessing treatment.
Chapter 16
focuses on specific applications of printing magnetic materials using binder jetting.
Chapters 17
: Future perspectives.
The last chapter discusses future directions of solid‐state metal additive manufacturing, such as enhanced understanding of process fundamentals, material innovation, and incorporation of artificial intelligence.
References
1
Gibson, I., Rosen, D.W., Stucker, B. et al. (2021).
Additive Manufacturing Technologies
. Springer.
2
Frazier, W.E. (2014). Metal additive manufacturing: a review.
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
23: 1917–1928.
3
Seifi, M., Salem, A., Beuth, J. et al. (2016). Overview of materials qualification needs for metal additive manufacturing.
JOM
68: 747–764.
4
Sames, W.J., List, F., Pannala, S. et al. (2016). The metallurgy and processing science of metal additive manufacturing.
International Materials Reviews
61 (5): 315–360.
5
Davis, J.R., Davis, J., and ASM International (1998).
Metals Handbook
. Handbook Committee.
6
Cornu, J. (2013).
Advanced Welding Systems: 1 Fundamentals of Fusion Welding Technology
. Springer Science & Business Media.
7
Kim, F.H., Kim, F.H., and Moylan, S.P. (2018).
Literature Review of Metal Additive Manufacturing Defects
. US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
8
Basak, A. and Das, S. (2016). Epitaxy and microstructure evolution in metal additive manufacturing.
Annual Review of Materials Research
46: 125–149.
9
Deckard, C.R. (1989). Method and apparatus for producing parts by selective sintering. US Patent 48,635,38A, 17 October 1986. Application filed by University of Texas System. 17 October 1986. Priority to US Patent 06/920,580, 05 September 1989. Application granted.
10
Manriquez‐Frayre, J. and Bourell, D. (1990). Selective laser sintering of binary metallic powder.
1990 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium
, Austin, TX, USA (August 1990). The University of Texas at Austin.
11
Meiners, W., Wissenbach, K., and Gasser, A. (2001). Selective laser sintering at melting temperature. US Patent 621,509,3B1, 27 October 1997. Application filed by Fraunhofer Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Angewandten Forschung eV, 12 July 1999. Assigned to FRAUNHOFER‐GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FOERDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG E.V. 10 April 2001. Application granted.
12
Larson, R. (1998). Method and device for producing three‐dimensional bodies. US Patent 57,865,62A, 11 May 1994. Application filed by Arcam Ltd. 11 July 1997. Assigned to ARCAM LIMITED 28 July 1998. Application granted.
13
Atwood, C., Griffith, M., Harwell, L. et al. (1998). Laser engineered net shaping (LENS™): a tool for direct fabrication of metal parts. In:
International Congress on Applications of Lasers & Electro‐optics
, E1–E7. Orlando, FL, USA: AIP Publishing.
https://publica.fraunhofer.de/entities/event/d435ae56-1677-415e-9ad1-aab548e27ec5/details
.
14
Ralph, B. (1925). Method of making decorative articles. US Patent 15,333,00A, 12 November 1920. Application filed by Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co. 12 November 1920. Priority to US Patent 4,236,47A, 14 April 1925. Application granted.
15
Papyrin, A., Kosarev, V., Klinkov, S. et al. (2006).
Cold Spray Technology
. Elsevier.
16
Alkhimov, A.P., Papyrin, A.N., Kosarev, V.F. et al. (1994). Gas‐dynamic spraying method for applying a coating. US Patent 53,024,14A, 02 February 1992. Application filed by Anatoly Nikiforovich Papyrin, 03 June 1992. Assigned to Anatoly Nikiforovich Papyrin, 12 April 1994. Application granted.
17
Cima, M., Sachs, E., Fan, T. et al. (1995). Three‐dimensional printing techniques. US Patent 53,406,56A, 09 April 1993. Application filed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 09 April 1993. Priority to US Patent 08/045,632, 23 August 1994. Application granted.
18
Crump, S.S. (1989). US Patent 51,213,29A. US Patent 51,213,29A, 30 October 1989. Application filed by Stratasys Inc, 30 October 1989. Priority to US Patent 07/429,012, 09 June 1992. Publication of US Patent 51,213,29A, 09 June 1992. Application granted.
19
German, R.M. (1997). Injection molding of metals and ceramics.
Powder Metallurgy
42: 157–160.
20
White, D. (2003). Ultrasonic object consolidation. US Patent 651,950,0B1, 23 March 2000. Application filed by Solidica Inc., 23 March 2000. Priority to US Patent 09/532,432, 11 February 2003. Publication of US Patent 651,950,0B1, 11 February 2003. Application granted.
21
Klopstock, H. (1941). An improved method of joining or welding metals. Patent specification Ref. 572789. GB5,727,89A, 17 October 1941. Application filed by Individual, 17 October 1941. Priority to G,B13,396,41A, 24 October 1945. Publication of GB5,727,89A.
22
Creehan, K. and Schultz, J. (2008). Friction stir fabrication. US Patent 863,619,4B2, 02 June 2010. Priority to US Patent 12/792,655, 02 June 2010. Application filed by Schultz Creehan Holdings Inc., 11 November 2010. Publication of US Patent 2,010,028,520,7A1, 28 January 2014. Publication of US Patent 863,619,4B2, 28 January 2014. Application granted.
23
Schultz, J.P. and Creehan, K. (2014). System for continuous feeding of filler material for friction stir welding, processing and fabrication. US Patent 2,012,027,944,1A1, 09 April 2012. Priority to US Patent 13/442,201, 09 April 2012. Application filed by Kevin Creehan, Jeffrey Patrick Schultz, 08 November 2012. Publication of US Patent 2,012,027,944,1A1, 04 November 2014. Publication of US Patent 887,597,6B2, 04 November 2014. Application granted.
24
Kandasamy, K., Renaghan, L., Calvert, J., et al. (2013). Solid‐state additive manufacturing of aluminum and magnesium alloys.
Proceedings of the Materials Science and Technology Conference and Exhibition
