metals

Article
Effect of Process Parameters on Residual Stresses,
Distortions, and Porosity in Selective Laser Melting
of Maraging Steel 300
Lameck Mugwagwa 1,2 , Igor Yadroitsev 1, * and Stephen Matope 2
1 Centre for Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing, Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering,
Central University of Technology, Free State, 20 President Brand Street, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa;
[email protected]
2 Laboratory for Advanced Manufacturing, Department of Industrial Engineering, Stellenbosch University,
Corner Joubert and Banghoek Street, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 23 August 2019; Accepted: 11 September 2019; Published: 25 September 2019


Abstract: Selective laser melting (SLM) is one of the most well-known additive manufacturing
methods available for the fabrication of functional parts from metal powders. Although SLM is now
an established metal additive manufacturing technique, its widespread application in industry is
still hindered by inherent phenomena, one of which is high residual stresses. Some of the effects of
residual stresses–such as warping and thermal stress-related cracking–cannot be corrected by post
processing. Therefore, establishing input process parameter combinations that result in the least
residual stress magnitudes and related distortions and/or cracking is critical. This paper presents the
influence of laser power, scanning speed, and layer thickness on residual stresses, distortions and
achievable density for maraging steel 300 steel parts in order to establish the most optimum input
parameter combinations. An analysis of the interdependence between process outcomes shows that
high residual stress magnitudes lead to high dimensional distortions in the finished parts, whilst
porous parts suffer relatively lower residual stresses and associated distortions.

Keywords: selective laser melting; residual stresses; distortions; porosity

1. Introduction
Selective laser melting (SLM) is a layer-wise additive manufacturing process in which a high-energy
laser beam is used to selectively melt a thin layer of metal powder according to an input CAD model.
SLM has recorded immense progress with regard to manufacturing capabilities for complex geometries,
thin walls and minute geometric features. Despite this progress, inherent process challenges persist,
and these should be overcome in order to increase the commercial uptake of the technology. Presently,
residual stresses pose a major setback to the success of SLM. As the name suggests, these stresses remain
in a component once the material has come to equilibrium with the environment [1]. These stresses can
be classified as micro and macro residual stresses. The difference within the microstructure of a material
due to presence of different phases or constituents in that material gives rise to micro stresses. On the
other hand, macro stresses extend over ranges that are much larger compared to the grain size [2,3].
The mechanisms of residual stresses in SLM are well explained in [4]. The major effects of residual
stresses include form and dimensional deviations [5], delamination, stress-induced cracking [6,7]
and accelerated crack growth, which leads to early fatigue failure [8,9]. Warping distortions and
cracking are irreversible by post-processing techniques such as stress relief heat treatment. Residual
stress-induced warping that occurs during the build process can impede the smooth movement of
the coater blade, often leading to the premature termination of the process. Therefore, it becomes

Metals 2019, 9, 1042; doi:10.3390/met9101042 www.mdpi.com/journal/metals

Metals 2019, 9, 1042 2 of 16

critical to understand the effect of different input parameters on residual stresses and distortions in
order to effectively mitigate the negative impact of these stresses. Optimizing process parameters
is critical in maintaining acceptable finished part quality as well as reducing manufacturing and
post-processing costs.
Some of the factors that influence residual stresses include scanning patterns [10,11], scan vector
lengths [10,12], scan vector angles [7], rotation angles between layers [12], part geometry [13], material
type [14], support types [10], and preheating conditions [6,15]. Manipulating one or more of the above
factors can significantly reduce residual stresses and their negative effects. For example, baseplate
preheating is an effective method for managing residual stresses. Unfortunately, many SLM machines
in use cannot integrally accommodate baseplate preheating. In most of the previous studies, high
tensile residual stresses near the surface have been reported for parts built using SLM, for example in
the SLM of titanium alloys [8], stainless steels [16], aluminum alloys, etc. However, some studies for
tool steel alloys have reported compressive stress near the surface of the specimens. Yan et al. [17]
studied residual stresses and microstructure in the SLM of H13 tool steel. The as-built samples exhibited
high compressive stresses in the range of 940 to 1420 MPa. In another study of residual stresses in parts
produced by SLM, compressive XRD residual stress of 263 MPa was recorded for 18Ni(300) maraging
steel [14]. Although residual stresses in SLM have been widely studied, a deeper insight into the
correlation between input parameters and residual stresses is still required. A previous study indicates
that the most important parameters in SLM are laser power, layer thickness, and scanning speed [18].
Hanzl et al. [19] also observed that the laser power and scanning speed have the most significant
effect on the physical and mechanical properties of SLM manufactured parts. Investigations of the
effect of processing parameters in selective laser melting have been studied by Campanelli et al. [20],
Thijs et al. [21], Gu et al. [22], and Delgado et al. [23], among others. Wu et al. [12] carried out an
investigation of the effect of laser parameters on residual stress-related distortions. However, in all the
studies relating to the effect of these process parameters, their influence on porosity, residual stresses,
and distortions has not been studied simultaneously. It has been suggested in the literature that pores
have a relaxing effect on residual stresses [7,12,24]. Therefore, understanding the interdependencies
between process outcomes is critical for process planning. Thus, this paper presents an analysis
of the effect of process parameters on residual stresses, distortions, and porosity, as well as the
interdependencies between the process outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

An experimental study was conducted to understand the influence of process parameters–that is
laser power, scanning speed, and layer thickness–as these have been identified to have a critical effect
on the values of residual stresses [18,19]. The experimental design allows for an investigation of the
influence of input parameters on the process response as well as an analysis of the interrelationships
between the responses. A full factorial design of experiments was used to investigate the influence
of laser power, scanning speed, and layer thickness on porosity, residual stresses, and distortions.
Gas-atomized maraging steel 300 powder from Praxair Surface Technologies, Indianapolis, USA, was
used to build the specimens. The specimens were manufactured under a nitrogen gas environment
on the M2 Laser Cusing (Concept Laser GmbH, Lichtenfels, Germany) as well as the EOSINT M280
(EOS GmbH, Krailling, Germany) machines. The M2 Laser Cusing system employs the island scanning
strategy with 5 × 5 mm sub-divisions. In line with the operating ranges of the M2 Laser Cusing system
primarily used, laser power ranging between 80–180 W was investigated in steps of 20 W, whilst nine
levels of scanning speed between 200–1000 mm/s were studied in steps of 100 mm/s. The powder
layer thickness was varied from 30 µm to 45 µm, with a constant hatch spacing of 105 µm for all the
various parameter combinations. The focal spot size was maintained at 110 µm. On the other hand,
the EOSINT M280 system utilizes a stripe hatch strategy with a spot size of 100 µm. The hatch distance
was also set to 100 µm. All the other manufacturing parameters used for the EOSINT M280 system
were the same as those for the M2 Laser Cusing machine.
Metals 2019, 9,
Metals 2019, 9, 1042
1042 33 of
of 16
16
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 3 of 16
Cube samples with 10-mm sides were built for residual stress and porosity investigation. This
Cube
Cube samples
sampleswith with10-mm
10-mm sides were
sides were built
builtforfor
residual
residualstress andand
stress porosity investigation.
porosity This size
investigation.
size of the samples, which was also used by Vrancken [25], is convenient for both residual stress This
and
of the samples,
size of the which
samples, which was also
was used by Vrancken
also used byX-ray [25],
Vrancken is convenient
[25], isand for
convenient both residual stress
for both residual and density
density measurement using, respectively, diffraction the Archimedes density stress
methods,and
measurement
density using, respectively,
measurement using, X-ray diffraction
respectively, X-ray and the Archimedes
diffraction and the density methods,
Archimedes densitywhich were
methods,
which were selected for this study. For distortion analysis, single-arm cantilevers with geometry
selected
which in for this
were study. for
selected Forthis
distortion
study.analysis,
For easily single-arm
distortion cantilevers
analysis, with geometry
single-arm cantilevers shown
withingeometry
Figure 1
shown Figure 1 were built. Cantilevers deform in the presence of residual stresses, and have
were
shown built. Cantilevers
in Figure easily deform in the presence of residual stresses, and have been widely
and used
been widely used1 in
were
thebuilt. Cantilevers
literature easily deform
for distortion in the presence
investigation in selectiveof residual stresses,
laser melting have
[5,10,24,26–
in the literature
beenBesides for
widely cantilever distortion investigation
used in thegeometries,
literature for in selective
distortion laser
investigation melting [5,10,24,26–28]. Besides cantilever
28]. thin metal sheets can alsoinbe selective
used sincelaser they
melting [5,10,24,26–
easily deform,
geometries,
28]. Besides thin metal sheets
cantilever can also thin
geometries, be used since
metal they easily
sheets can deform,
also be allowing
used since the deformation
they easily to be
deform,
allowing the deformation to be conveniently measured [29,30]. Preliminary findings on porosity and
conveniently
allowing thehave measured
deformation [29,30].
to be Preliminary
conveniently findings on porosity and distortions have been published
distortions been published elsewhere measured
by the authors [29,30].[31].
Preliminary
In this findings
research,on porosity
samples and
were
elsewhere by
distortionsfrom the authors
havemaraging [31].
been published In this research,
elsewhere samples were fabricated from maraging steel 300,
fabricated steel 300, which isbyalso thecommonly
authors [31]. In this research,
designated as 18Ni(300) samples were
or 1.2709.
which is also
fabricated commonly
from maraging designated
steel 300,aswhich
18Ni(300) is or 1.2709.
also commonly Maraging steel 300
designated as has excellent
18Ni(300) or fracture
1.2709.
Maraging steel 300 has excellent fracture toughness and is widely applied for hot work tooling
toughness
Maraging and steelis widely
hasapplied forfracture
hot worktoughness
tooling applications such as the manufacture of injection
applications such300as the excellent
manufacture of injection molding andinserts
is widely
and hotapplied
sheetfor hot work
metal-forming tooling
tools.
molding inserts
applications suchandashot
the sheet metal-forming
manufacture of tools.
injection The
molding yield strength
inserts and of as-built
hot sheet maraging
metal-formingsteel 300 is
tools.
The yield strength of as-built maraging steel 300 is 950 MPa [32].
950 MPa [32].
The yield strength of as-built maraging steel 300 is 950 MPa [32].

Figure 1. Cantilever geometry used for distortion study (dimensions in mm).

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Cantilever
Cantilever geometry
geometry used
used for
for distortion
distortion study
study (dimensions
(dimensions in
in mm).
mm).
The Archimedes method was used to calculate the relative densities of the specimens
TheArchimedes
The
manufactured Archimedes themethod
under method was was
various used to
processused to calculate
calculate
parameters. the relative
Then, the relative
densities
porosity ofdensities
was the specimens
determined of the specimens
manufactured
by computing
manufactured
under
the the various
difference under
between the
processthevarious process
parameters.
theoretical parameters.
Then,
and theporosity
measured Then,
was porosity
determined
relative was bydetermined
densities. computing
The Archimedes by
thecomputing
difference
density
the difference
between the between
theoretical the
and theoretical
the measured and the
relativemeasured
densities.relative
The densities.
Archimedes
test method is well described in [33]. The samples were weighed in air as well as distilled water The Archimedes
density test density
methodat 20is
testtemperature
method is in
well described inpressure
[33]. Thewithsamples inwere weighed as in air as well ◦
well
°C described [33].
and The samples
standard were weighed the aid airofasa well
precision distilled
scale. The as
water atdistilled water
20 C temperature
theoretical density at of
20
°C
and temperature
standard and
pressure standard
with thepressure
aid of awith the
precision aid of
scale. a precision
The scale.
theoretical
maraging steel 300 was taken as 8.1 g/cm which is in line with related literature [9,34]. An important
3 The
densitytheoretical
of maragingdensity
steelof
maraging
300 was steel
taken 300
as 8.1was
g/cm 3 which
taken as 8.1
is g/cm
in line3 which
with is in
related line with
literature related
[9,34].literature
An [9,34].
important An important
consideration
consideration when measuring density using this method is to ensure that no open pores exist that
consideration
when
would measuring
allow the when measuring
density
penetrationusing density
ofthis
watermethod using
into is tothis
the method
ensure
specimens that is
notoOpen
[35]. ensure
open poresthat
pores no easily
exist
can open pores
that would exist that
allow
be detected the
by
would allow
penetration ofthe penetration
water into the of water
specimens into the
[35]. specimens
Open pores [35].
can Open
easily
observation of air bubbles during immersion of the specimen into the water, and such samples must pores
be can
detected easily
by be detected
observation by
of
observation
air bubbles[33].
be sealed of
duringair bubbles
Oneimmersion during
limitation of immersion
the the
with specimen of
Archimedes the specimen
into themethod
water, andinto the
such
is that water,
it samples and such samples
must beinformation
cannot provide must
sealed [33].
be
One sealed [33].
limitation One
with limitation
the Archimedeswith the
methodArchimedes
is that it method
cannot is that
provide
about the size or distribution of internal pores. Therefore, further to the Archimedes density it cannot
information provide
about information
the size2D
tests, or
about the
distribution size
of or distribution
internal pores. of internal
Therefore, pores.
further Therefore,
to the further
Archimedes to the
density
optical microscopy of sectioned and polished specimens was also performed to inspect the internal Archimedes
tests, 2D density
optical tests,
microscopy 2D
optical
of
pores microscopy
sectioned
associated of sectioned
and polished
with thespecimens
differentandwas
polished specimens
also performed
parameter combinations.towas also
inspect performed
The the
cubes wereto
internal inspect
pores the
associated
sectioned internal
along with
the
pores
the associated
different with
parameter
planes shown in Figure 2. the different
combinations. parameter
The cubes combinations.
were sectioned The cubes
along the were
planes sectioned
shown in along
Figure the
2.
planes shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Sectioning
Sectioning planes
planes for optical microscopy.
Figure 2. Sectioning planes for optical microscopy.
Residual stress
stressmeasurement
measurementwas was conducted
conducted using thethe
using X-ray diffraction
X-ray (XRD)
diffraction technique.
(XRD) The XRD
technique. The
XRD Residual
method stress measurement
is non-destructive,
method and is was
is non-destructive, andconducted
widely isused to using
widely usedthetosurface
measure X-ray diffraction
measure stresses in(XRD)
surface technique.
SLM-manufactured
stresses in SLM-The
XRD methodAlthough
components.
manufactured is non-destructive,
in-depth
components. Although and
residual is widely
stress
in-depth usedstress
evaluation
residual istopreferred,
measure
evaluation surface
the cost
is ofstresses theincost
performing
preferred, SLM-
such
of
manufactured
measurements
performing such components.
is usually Although
prohibitive,
measurements in-depth
particularly
is usually residual stress
when evaluating
prohibitive, evaluation
particularly forwhen is
multiple preferred,
parts such
evaluating the
for as cost of
in this
multiple
performing
research.
parts such such
as in measurements
Nevertheless,
this since
research. is usually
the highest stress
Nevertheless, prohibitive,
since theparticularly
magnitudes are usually
highest when evaluating
concentrated
stress magnitudes near for
the multiple
are surfaces
usually
parts
of SLM such as
built in
parts, this research.
analyzing only Nevertheless,
the surface issince the
considered highest stress
adequate. magnitudes
The principle
concentrated near the surfaces of SLM built parts, analyzing only the surface is considered adequate. are
of usually
the XRD
concentrated
method, which
The principle near the
ofrides surfaces
on Bragg’s
the XRD of
method, SLM
law built parts,
of constructive
which analyzing
interference
rides on Bragg’s only the surface is considered
as well as theinterference
law of constructive adequate.
generalizedasHooke’s
well as
The principle of the XRD method, which rides on Bragg’s law of constructive interference
the generalized Hooke’s law, is described in [2,36]. In this study, a ProtoXRD X-ray diffractometer as well as
the generalized Hooke’s law, is described in [2,36]. In this study, a ProtoXRD X-ray diffractometer
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 4 of 16
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 4 of 16

law, is described
(Figure in [2,36].
3) equipped with twoIn this study,was
detectors a ProtoXRD X-ray diffractometer
used to determine the Fe-α {211}(Figure
lattice3)deformations
equipped with at
two
25 kV and 4 mA. The X-ray anode tube used was Cr K-α with a wavelength of 2.291mA.
detectors was used to determine the Fe-α {211} lattice deformations at 25 kV and 4 Therest
Å. The X-ray
of
anode tube used
the diffraction was Cr K-α
parameters arewith a wavelength
shown in Table 1.ofThe
2.291
sinÅ.
2ψ The rest of
method wastheused
diffraction parameters
to calculate are
the stress.
shown in Table 1. The sin 2 ψ method was used to calculate the stress. Details of this method can be
Details of this method can be found in [36]. Each sample was evaluated for residual stress at the center
found in [36].
of the top Each sample was evaluated for residual stress at the center of the top surface.
surface.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. XRD
XRD residual
residual stress
stress measurement.
measurement.

Table 1. XRD
Table 1. XRD parameters
parameters used.
used.
Parameter
Parameter SpecificationSpecification
Aperture diameter
Aperture diameter(focus)
(focus) 1 mm 1 mm
2θ (Bragg
2θ (Bragg angle)
angle) 156.41o 156.41o
ψ-tilt −33o to 33o
ψ-tilt −33o to 33o
Number of steps 9
Number ofSsteps −1.28 × 10−6 MPa−1
9
1
S 1 1 S2 −6
5.72 × 10 MPa −1.28
−1 × 10 −6 MPa−1
2
½S2 5.72 × 10 MPa−1
−6

Distortion measurements were accomplished by taking contour profiles of the cantilevers using
Distortion measurements were accomplished by taking contour profiles of the cantilevers using a
a bridge-type Mitutoyo coordinate measurement machine and comparing the profiles to the original
bridge-type Mitutoyo coordinate measurement machine and comparing the profiles to the original
CAD model. A slow measurement speed of 5 mm/s was chosen in order to minimize the errors and
CAD model. A slow measurement speed of 5 mm/s was chosen in order to minimize the errors and
delays that could arise from collisions. The separation between the supports on the cantilevers is 1
delays that could arise from collisions. The separation between the supports on the cantilevers is
mm; therefore, a probe diameter of more than 1 mm would be necessary, to avoid the probe getting
1 mm; therefore, a probe diameter of more than 1 mm would be necessary, to avoid the probe getting
stuck in the spaces between the supports. For this reason, a 2-mm probe was selected. Cantilever
stuck in the spaces between the supports. For this reason, a 2-mm probe was selected. Cantilever
geometries exhibit significant distortion variation along the geometry’s length rather than across the
geometries exhibit significant distortion variation along the geometry’s length rather than across the
width. Similar measurements by Safronov et al. [37] show this trend. Therefore, the measurement of
width. Similar measurements by Safronov et al. [37] show this trend. Therefore, the measurement of
distortion in this paper was done along the line of symmetry of the cantilevers.
distortion in this paper was done along the line of symmetry of the cantilevers.

3. Results
3. Results and
and Discussion
Discussion

3.1. Influence of Process Parameters on Porosity

The porosity results for samples built on the M2 Laser Cusing system are are illustrated
illustrated in
in Figure
Figure 4.
4.
High values of porosity were recorded for the lowest laser power of 80 W at 300 mm/s and 400 mm/s
respectively. Laser
respectively. Laserpower
powerofof180180
WW yielded
yielded thethe least
least porosity
porosity of 0.39%
of 0.39% for afor a scanning
scanning speedspeed
of 600 of 600
mm/s.
mm/s.
The The general
general trend istrend is that
that the the density
relative relativeincreases
density increases as the speed
as the scanning scanning speed is gradually
is gradually increased
increased
to to some value,
some optimum optimum value,
above whichabovethiswhich this
relative relative
density density
begins begins toThe
to decline. decline. The optimum
optimum scanning
scanning
speed thatspeed that coincides
coincides with the with
least the least porosity
porosity is unique is unique to thepower
to the laser laser power being with
being used, used,other
with
other parameters
parameters such as such
spotassize
spotandsizehatch
and hatch distance
distance held constant.
held constant. For example,
For example, whenwhen
scanningscanning
with
withW,180
180 theW, the optimum
optimum speed
speed that that results
results in the
in the least least porosity
porosity is 600Above
is 600 mm/s. mm/s.orAbove
below orthisbelow this
scanning
scanning
speed, speed,tends
porosity porosity tends to The
to increase. increase. Thein
increase increase
porosityin on
porosity
either onsideeither
of theside of the optimum
optimum scanning
scanning
speed speed
is due to aismismatch
due to abetween
mismatch thebetween the laser
laser power power and
and scanning scanning
speed, which speed,
leads towhich
eitherleads to
balling,
either balling,
insufficient insufficient
melting, melting,
and poor and poor bonding
metallurgical metallurgical bonding
(for higher (for higher
scanning scanning
speeds), speeds), or
or over-heating
over-heating (for lower scanning speeds). These scenarios lead to undesirable porosity, which
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 5 of 16

Metals 2019,
Metals 2019, 9,
9, 1042
1042 55 of
of 16
16
(for lower scanning speeds). These scenarios lead to undesirable porosity, which reduces the part
strength [38,39]. For the tested range, scanning speeds lower than the optimum scanning speed
reduces the part strength [38,39]. For the tested range, scanning speeds lower than the optimum
contribute to significantly higher porosity than those above it (Figure 4).
scanning speed contribute to significantly higher porosity than those above it (Figure 4).

Figure
Figure 4. Variation
Figure 4. Variation of porosity
Variation of porosity with
with scanning
scanning speed
speed and
and laser
laser power
power at
at 30-µm
30-µm layer
layer thickness.
thickness.

microscope images
Optical microscope imageswereweretaken
takenacross
across(XY)
(XY)
andand along
along (XZ)(XZ)
thethe building
building directions
directions of
of the
the cube
cube specimens.
specimens. The concentration
The concentration of pores
of pores (represented
(represented by theby thespots)
dark dark in
spots) in the microscope
the microscope images
shown shown
images in Figure 5 is consistent
in Figure with the
5 is consistent withporosity results
the porosity from from
results the Archimedes
the Archimedestest. test.
In Figure 5, the
In Figure 5,
the concentration
concentration andandsizesize of pores
of pores is higher
is higher forfor
thethe
100100 W/300mm/s
W/300 mm/scompared
comparedtotothethe160
160W/700
W/700 mm/s
and 180
180 W/600
W/600mm/s
mm/sones.
ones.TheThepores
poresfor
forthe 100
the 100W/300
W/300 mm/s
mm/sspecimen
specimen have diameters
have diametersof upofto
up200
to µm,
200
µm, compared
compared to a maximum
to a maximum of only
of only 15 µm15for
µmthefor180
theW/600
180 W/600
mm/smm/s specimen.
specimen.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Optical
Optical images for selected
images for selected process
process parameter
parameter combinations
combinations across
across (XY)
(XY) and
and along
along (XZ)
(XZ) the
the
building direction.
building direction.

Compared totothe
Compared the30-µm
30-µm layer, mostmost
layer, of theofsamples manufactured
the samples using the
manufactured 45-µm
using thelayer
45-µmthickness
layer
thickness did not build well; both the density specimens and the cantilevers. Surface images ofof
did not build well; both the density specimens and the cantilevers. Surface images of some the
some
samples manufactured
of the samples from the
manufactured from45-µm
the layer
45-µmthickness are shown
layer thickness are in Figure
shown in 6. The density
Figure results
6. The density
show porosity of more than 5% for most of these samples. The maximum available
results show porosity of more than 5% for most of these samples. The maximum available power power of the SLM
of
equipment used cannot sufficiently melt this layer thickness, thus the observed
the SLM equipment used cannot sufficiently melt this layer thickness, thus the observed comparatively higher
porosity. The surface
comparatively higherfinish was The
porosity. so poor that finish
surface most of thesosamples
was could
poor that notofbe
most considered
the for residual
samples could not be
considered for residual stress evaluation with XRD. However, both layer thicknesses yielded
comparable relative densities at 180 W and 600 mm/s, that is 99.6% and 99.4% respectively, for 30-
µm and 45-µm layer thicknesses. Likewise, the mean relative densities from the 30-µm and 45-µm
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 6 of 16

stress evaluation with XRD. However, both layer thicknesses yielded comparable relative densities
Metals 2019, 9, 1042
at
6 of 16
180 W and 600 mm/s, that is 99.6% and 99.4% respectively, for 30-µm and 45-µm layer thicknesses.
Likewise, the mean
layer thicknesses relative
were densities
also quite from
similar the 30-µm and
(approximately 45-µm
98.5% layer thicknesses
for both) at 180 W andwere also quite
500 mm/s. The
similar (approximately 98.5% for both) at 180 W and 500 mm/s. The porosity results for both
porosity results for both layer thicknesses at the same levels of laser power and scanning speed are layer
thicknesses
presented inatTable
the same
2. levels of laser power and scanning speed are presented in Table 2.

Figure 6. Poor surface finishes for some of the parts built from
from the
the 45-µm
45-µm layer
layer thickness.
thickness.

Table 2. Porosity
Table 2. Porosity comparison
comparison for
for the
the layer
layer thicknesses
thicknesses studied.
studied.
Laser power
Laser Power (W) Scanning speed
(W) Scanning Speed (mm/s)
(mm/s) Porosity at
Porosity at 30 µm(%)
30 µm (%) Porosityat
Porosity at 45
45 µm
µm (%)
(%)
80 200
200 4.73 ±
4.73 ± 0.52
0.52 10.81 ±± 0.37
10.81 0.37
100
100 300
300 8.41 ±
8.41 ± 0.56
0.56 10.07 ±± 0.35
10.07 0.35
120 300 6.31 ± 0.20 11.61 ± 0.06
120 300 6.31 ± 0.20 11.61 ± 0.06
120 400 3.32 ± 0.15 9.12 ± 0.39
120
140 400
400 3.32 ± 0.06
3.79 ± 0.15 9.12
9.41 ±±0.39
0.40
140
140 400
500 3.79 ± 0.34
3.44 ± 0.06 9.41
3.07 ±±0.40
0.37
160
140 400
500 4.10 ±
3.44 ± 0.51
0.34 4.76 ±±0.37
3.07 0.31
160
160 500
400 3.32 ±
4.10 ± 0.10
0.51 4.69 ±±0.31
4.76 0.19
180 400 3.40 ± 0.28 6.82 ± 0.80
160 500 3.32 ± 0.10 4.69 ± 0.19
180 500 1.55 ± 0.17 1.52 ± 0.00
180
180 400
600 3.40 ± 0.03
0.39 ± 0.28 6.82
0.65 ±±0.80
0.15
180 500 1.55 ± 0.17 1.52 ± 0.00
180 600 0.39 ± 0.03 0.65 ± 0.15
3.2. Influence of Process Parameters on Residual Stresses
All the samples
3.2. Influence built
of Process from the on
Parameters 30-µm layerStresses
Residual thickness were evaluated for residual stresses. However,
only seven specimens from 45-µm layer were considered for residual stress evaluation, because the
All the samples built from the 30-µm layer thickness were evaluated for residual stresses.
rest had a very poor surface finish that would impact on the accuracy of residual stress measurements.
However, only seven specimens from 45-µm layer were considered for residual stress evaluation,
Such specimens would require deeper grinding or machining, which is not recommended in XRD
because the rest had a very poor surface finish that would impact on the accuracy of residual stress
stress evaluation, as this can alter the residual stress state of the specimen [36]. The residual stress was
measurements. Such specimens would require deeper grinding or machining, which is not
compressive at the surface for all the evaluated process parameter combinations. In other publications
recommended in XRD stress evaluation, as this can alter the residual stress state of the specimen [36].
such as [14,17,40,41], the same material (maraging steel) has been found to exhibit compressive surface
The residual stress was compressive at the surface for all the evaluated process parameter
stresses as well. The compressive state of the stresses is due to the martensitic transformation and
combinations. In other publications such as [14,17,40,41], the same material (maraging steel) has been
contraction that occurs during SLM of tool steel. However, the existence of compressive residual
found to exhibit compressive surface stresses as well. The compressive state of the stresses is due to
stresses does not mean an absence of tensile stresses in these specimens. In fact, the concept of residual
the martensitic transformation and contraction that occurs during SLM of tool steel. However, the
stress is a “balancing act” in which tensile stresses are compensated by compressive stresses somewhere
existence of compressive residual stresses does not mean an absence of tensile stresses in these
within the component [37]. Neutron diffraction investigations done elsewhere by the authors revealed
specimens. In fact, the concept of residual stress is a “balancing act” in which tensile stresses are
that there existed tensile stress magnitudes just below 2 mm of the surface for this material [42].
compensated by compressive stresses somewhere within the component [37]. Neutron diffraction
Compressive residual stresses between 14–322 MPa were recorded for the various process parameter
investigations done elsewhere by the authors revealed that there existed tensile stress magnitudes
combinations studied.
just below 2 mm of the surface for this material [42]. Compressive residual stresses between 14–322
The lowest residual stress magnitudes were measured for specimens fabricated using low laser
MPa were recorded for the various process parameter combinations studied.
power and low scanning speeds, that is, 80–100 W and 200–400 mm/s. The stresses increase in
The lowest residual stress magnitudes were measured for specimens fabricated using low laser
magnitude as both laser power and scanning speed are increased into the intermediate and higher
power and low scanning speeds, that is, 80–100 W and 200–400 mm/s. The stresses increase in
ranges, as shown in Figure 7 for the 30-µm layer. High laser power contributes to steep thermal
magnitude as both laser power and scanning speed are increased into the intermediate and higher
gradients, and high scanning speed increases the cooling rate–both scenarios lead to high thermal
ranges, as shown in Figure 7 for the 30-µm layer. High laser power contributes to steep thermal
gradients, and high scanning speed increases the cooling rate – both scenarios lead to high thermal
stresses. However, the effect of both extremes (too low or too high laser power or scanning speed) on
porosity and, effectively, residual stresses, cannot be ignored, since porosity might lead to stress
relaxation. The lowest combination of laser power and scanning speed (80 W/200 mm/s) yielded a
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 7 of 16

stresses. However, the effect of both extremes (too low or too high laser power or scanning speed)
on porosity and, effectively, residual stresses, cannot be ignored, since porosity might lead to stress
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 7 of 16
relaxation. The lowest combination of laser power and scanning speed (80 W/200 mm/s) yielded a
compressive
compressive residual
residual stress
stress magnitude
magnitude of of 77
77 MPa,
MPa, while
while the
the highest
highest laser
laser power
power andand scanning
scanning speed
speed
(180
(180 W/1000 mm/s) resulted in a much higher stress magnitude of 221 MPa. For 160 W, the
W/1000 mm/s) resulted in a much higher stress magnitude of 221 MPa. For 160 W, the residual
residual
stresses
stressesincrease
increasesteadily
steadilyfrom
from 158 MPa
158 to 227
MPa MPa
to 227 MPawhen the scanning
when speed
the scanning is increased
speed from 400
is increased frommm/s
400
to 800 mm/s. For 180 W, residual stresses increase from 179 MPa at 400 mm/s
mm/s to 800 mm/s. For 180 W, residual stresses increase from 179 MPa at 400 mm/s to a maximumto a maximum value of
322 MPa
value of at
322 600MPamm/s before
at 600 steadily
mm/s declining
before steadilytodeclining
221 MPa towhen
221 the
MPascanning
when the speed is increased
scanning speed to is
1000 mm/s. Samples built from the 45-µm powder layer had generally lower residual
increased to 1000 mm/s. Samples built from the 45-µm powder layer had generally lower residual stress magnitudes
compared to the 30-µm
stress magnitudes layer samples.
compared The highest
to the 30-µm residualThe
layer samples. stress magnitude
highest residualfound for magnitude
stress the 45-µm
layer
foundthickness was 256
for the 45-µm MPa,
layer corresponding
thickness was 256 to 180 corresponding
MPa, W and 600 mm/s. to 180 W and 600 mm/s.

Figure 7. Variation
Figure 7. of residual
Variation of residual stress
stress magnitude
magnitude with
with laser
laser power
power and
and scanning
scanning speed
speed (30-µm
(30-µm layer).
layer).

A comparative
A comparative summary
summary of the residual
residual stresses
stresses for samples manufactured
manufactured using
using identical
identical laser
power and scanning
power and scanning speed values for the two layer thicknesses considered is given in Table 3, from
from
whichaageneral
which general decrease
decrease of residual
of residual stressstress magnitude
magnitude is observed
is observed when thewhen
layerthe layer thickness
thickness is increasedis
increased from 30 to 45 µm. The general decline in residual stress magnitudes
from 30 to 45 µm. The general decline in residual stress magnitudes can be attributed to reducedcan be attributed to
reduced
power powerfor
density density for thelayer.
the 45-µm 45-µmAlayer.
studyAby study byal.
Ali et Ali[43]
et al. [43] shows
shows that thicker
that thicker layerslayers
reduce reduce
both
both temperature
temperature gradients
gradients and cooling
and cooling rates, resulting
rates, resulting in an accompanying
in an accompanying reduction reduction
in residualin residual
stresses.
stresses.
Table 3. Comparison of residual stress magnitudes for the layer thicknesses studied.
Table 3. Comparison of residual stress magnitudes for the layer thicknesses studied.
Residual Stress Magnitude Residual Stress Magnitude
Laser Power (W) Scanning Speed (mm/s)
Laser Scanning speed Residual stress magnitude at Residualatstress
at 30 µm (MPa) 45 µm (MPa)
magnitude at
power (W) 140 (mm/s) 500 30 µm (MPa) 187 ± 18 172 ±(MPa)
45 µm 57
160 400 158 ± 25 173 ± 22
140 160 500 500 187 ± 18198 ± 29 172
129 ±±31
57
160 180 400 400 158 ± 25179 ± 26 173
122 ±±14
22
160 180 500 500 198 ± 29270 ± 54 195 ±±30
129 31
180 600 322 ± 23 256 ± 21
180 400 179 ± 26 122 ± 14
180 500 270 ± 54 195 ± 30
To confirm the residual
180 600 stress results for the two
322 powder layer thicknesses 256
± 23 studied,
± 21 more cube
specimens were built from the same laser power, scanning speed, and hatch distance
To confirm the residual stress results for the two powder layer thicknesses studied, settings,
morebut at
cube
two different layer thicknesses–that is, 30 µm and 45 µm. For this verification exercise,
specimens were built from the same laser power, scanning speed, and hatch distance settings, but atfour samples
for
twoeach layerlayer
different thickness were built
thicknesses onis,
– that an30EOSINT
µm andM280
45 µm.machine. Laser powerexercise,
For this verification and scanning speed
four samples
for each layer thickness were built on an EOSINT M280 machine. Laser power and scanning speed
values were set to 180 W and 600 mm/s respectively, since these parameters resulted in the highest
relative density for both layer thicknesses for the M2 Laser Cusing system experiments. Achievement
of near full density is one of the key goals of SLM. Evaluation of the stresses was performed before
the specimens were separated from the baseplates in order to avoid any possible relaxation and/or
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 8 of 16

values were set to 180 W and 600 mm/s respectively, since these parameters resulted in the highest
relative density for both layer thicknesses for the M2 Laser Cusing system experiments. Achievement
of near full density is one of the key goals of SLM. Evaluation of the stresses was performed before
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 8 of 16
the specimens were separated from the baseplates in order to avoid any possible relaxation and/or
redistribution of residual stress upon wire cutting. From the results given in Figure 8, the mean residual
redistribution of residual stress upon wire cutting. From the results given in Figure 8, the mean
stress magnitude decreases from 376 MPa to 226 MPa when the layer thickness is increased from 30 to
residual stress magnitude decreases from 376 MPa to 226 MPa when the layer thickness is increased
45 µm at the same settings of laser power (180 W) and scanning speed (600 mm/s). These results show
from 30 to 45 µm at the same settings of laser power (180 W) and scanning speed (600 mm/s). These
a similar trend to those found for samples built on the M2 Laser Cusing machine. This demonstrates
results show a similar trend to those found for samples built on the M2 Laser Cusing machine. This
that increasing the layer thickness from 30 to 45 µm reduces the residual stress magnitudes in maraging
demonstrates that increasing the layer thickness from 30 to 45 µm reduces the residual stress
steel 300 manufactured through SLM. This decline in the stress magnitude is also expected to result in
magnitudes in maraging steel 300 manufactured through SLM. This decline in the stress magnitude
a reduction of stress-related distortions in SLM parts.
is also expected to result in a reduction of stress-related distortions in SLM parts.

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Residual
Residual stress
stress magnitude
magnitude comparison
comparison for
for 30-µm
30-µm and
and 45-µm
45-µmlayer
layer thicknesses
thicknessesat
at180
180 W
W and
and
600 mm/s
600 mm/sforforsamples
samplesmanufactured
manufacturedononthe
theEOSINT
EOSINTM280
M280machine.
machine.

3.3.
3.3. Influence
Influence of
of Process
Process Parameters
Parameters on
on Distortions
Distortions
The
Thebuilt
builtcantilevers
cantileversremained
remainedattached
attachedtoto the
thebaseplate
baseplate without
without deforming,
deforming, as shown
as shown in Figure 9a.
in Figure
However, upon separating the cantilevers from the baseplate, most of the cantilevers
9a. However, upon separating the cantilevers from the baseplate, most of the cantilevers underwent underwent
noticeable
noticeable warping
warping distortion,
distortion, which
which increased
increased with
with distance
distance from
from the
the “rigid”
“rigid” base
base of
of the cantilevers.
the cantilevers.
The
The actual
actual distortion
distortion was
was measured
measured based
based onon the
the deviation
deviation of of the
the profile
profile of
of the
the bottom
bottom (cut)
(cut) surface
surface
of
of the cantilevers in order to negate the effects of the surface roughness of the top surface on
the cantilevers in order to negate the effects of the surface roughness of the top surface on the
the
measurement
measurementaccuracy.
accuracy.However,
However, onlyonly
the maximum
the maximum distortion values were
distortion valuesconsidered. As expected,
were considered. As
these maximum distortions occurred at the “free” end of the cantilevers. The profile
expected, these maximum distortions occurred at the “free” end of the cantilevers. The profile of the of the cantilever
suggests
cantilevera tensile stress
suggests rather than
a tensile stresstherather
compressive
than the stress reported for
compressive the surface.
stress reportedHowever, it must
for the surface.
be emphasized
However, that
it must bethe compressive
emphasized that stress found on the
the compressive surface
stress foundofon the cubes
the for of
surface corresponding
the cubes for
process parameters as those used for cantilevers is not responsible for the observed
corresponding process parameters as those used for cantilevers is not responsible for the observed distortion. Rather,
the profile suggests that a net tensile stress exists in the specimens.
distortion. Rather, the profile suggests that a net tensile stress exists in the specimens.
The influence of laser power and scanning speed on distortions is shown in Figure 10. Generally,
distortions initially increase to a maximum before steadily declining as the scanning speed and laser
power are increased. The two input parameters directly influence the localized temperature gradients.
At 180 W and 30 µm, the distortion increases from 0.4 mm at 400 mm/s to 1.2 mm at 800 mm/s.
This trend can be attributed to the decrease in porosity that tends to increase residual stresses as the
scanning speed is increased for this range of parameters. Similar behavior is observed for the other
laser power/scanning speed combinations, except where the laser power was 100 W, possibly because
this power level was only investigated with a maximum scanning speed of 500 mm/s. It is expected
that scanning speeds higher than 500 mm/s would have resulted in diminishing distortion.

Figure 9. (a) Undistorted parts before separation from baseplate, and (b) distortion of parts relative
to each other after separation from the baseplate.
measurement accuracy. However, only the maximum distortion values were considered. As
expected, these maximum distortions occurred at the “free” end of the cantilevers. The profile of the
cantilever suggests a tensile stress rather than the compressive stress reported for the surface.
However, it must be emphasized that the compressive stress found on the surface of the cubes for
corresponding
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 process parameters as those used for cantilevers is not responsible for the observed
9 of 16
distortion. Rather, the profile suggests that a net tensile stress exists in the specimens.

Metals 2019, 9, 1042 9 of 16

power are increased. The two input parameters directly influence the localized temperature
gradients. At 180 W and 30 µm, the distortion increases from 0.4 mm at 400 mm/s to 1.2 mm at 800
mm/s. This trend can be attributed to the decrease in porosity that tends to increase residual stresses
as the scanning speed is increased for this range of parameters. Similar behavior is observed for the
other laser power/scanning speed combinations, except where the laser power was 100 W, possibly
because this power level was only investigated with a maximum scanning speed of 500 mm/s. It is
Figure 9.
9. (a) Undistorted
Undistorted parts
partsbefore
beforeseparation
separationfrom
frombaseplate,
baseplate,and
and(b)(b) distortion
distortion of of parts
parts relative
relative to
expected that scanning speeds higher than 500 mm/s would have resulted in diminishing distortion.
to each
each other
other after
after separation
separation from
from thethe baseplate.
baseplate.

The influence of laser power and scanning speed on distortions is shown in Figure 10. Generally,
distortions initially increase to a maximum before steadily declining as the scanning speed and laser

Figure10.
Figure Effectof
10. Effect ofscanning
scanningspeed
speed and
and laser
laser power
power on
on distortions
distortions at
at 30-µm
30-µm layer
layer thickness.

If the
If the scanning
scanning speedspeed is is continually
continually increased,
increased, the the period
period of of interaction
interaction of
of the
the laser
laser beam
beam andand
powder bed is reduced, thus hindering the full melting of the metal powders.
powder bed is reduced, thus hindering the full melting of the metal powders. In turn, this yields an In turn, this yields an
increase in
increase inporosity,
porosity, which
which alsoalso
contributes to residual
contributes stress relaxation
to residual and an accompanying
stress relaxation and an accompanyingreduction
of distortion. The interdependency between porosity and residual stresses
reduction of distortion. The interdependency between porosity and residual stresses and distortionsand distortions is discussed
later
is in Section
discussed later3.5. For every
in Section 3.5.level of laser
For every power,
level there
of laser exists
power, an accompanying
there optimumoptimum
exists an accompanying scanning
speed thatspeed
scanning resultsthatin the highest
results in density. Unfortunately,
the highest parameters that
density. Unfortunately, lead to thethat
parameters achievement
lead to the of
high density also contribute to higher magnitudes of residual stresses. The
achievement of high density also contribute to higher magnitudes of residual stresses. The trend of trend of results for the
30-µm and
results 45-µm
for the 30-µm powder
and 45-µmlayer experiments
powder layer is experiments
quite similar.isFor cantilevers
quite builtcantilevers
similar. For from the 45-µm layer
built from
thickness, the distortion increases from 0.07 mm to 0.58 mm when the scanning
the 45-µm layer thickness, the distortion increases from 0.07 mm to 0.58 mm when the scanning speed speed is increased from
400 mm/s to 600 mm/s at 180 W. A comparative summary of the distortions
is increased from 400 mm/s to 600 mm/s at 180 W. A comparative summary of the distortions experienced by cantilevers
manufactured
experienced byatcantilevers
similar laser power and scanning
manufactured at similar speed
laservalues
power forand
thescanning
layer thicknesses considered
speed values for the is
given in Table 4. As seen from this summary, much lower distortions were
layer thicknesses considered is given in Table 4. As seen from this summary, much lower distortions measured for cantilevers
built measured
were from the 45-µm layer.
for cantilevers built from the 45-µm layer.
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 10 of 16

Table 4. Distortion comparison for the layer thicknesses studied.

Laser Power (W) Scanning Speed (mm/s) Distortion at 30 µm (mm) Distortion at 45 µm (mm)
80 200 0.20 ± 0.03 0.04 ± 0.00
100 300 0.23 ± 0.01 0.06 ± 0.05
120 300 0.38 ± 0.00 0.09 ± 0.06
120 400 0.55 ± 0.13 0.09 ± 0.03
140 400 0.38 ± 0.05 0.22 ± 0.07
140 500 0.92 ± 0.07 0.25 ± 0.02
160 400 0.65 ± 0.06 0.06 ± 0.04
160 500 0.86 ± 0.03 0.19 ± 0.06
180 400 0.43 ± 0.07 0.07 ± 0.02
180 500 0.96 ± 0.02 0.37 ± 0.03
180 600 1.07 ± 0.07 0.58 ± 0.02

3.4. Summary of Influence of Layer Thickness on Process Outcomes

Increasing the layer thickness from 30 µm to 45 µm drastically reduces distortions to almost 0 mm
for most of the investigated cases, as shown in Table 4. However, this is accompanied by very high
porosity of more than 5% for the bulk of the parameter combinations considered. Despite the generally
high porosity that is associated with the 45-µm layer, an optimum point was found at 180 W and
600 mm/s, at which the 45-µm layer thickness yields a relative density of 99.4%, which is comparable
to that obtained using the 30-µm powder layer thickness (99.6%). At this point (180 W and 600 mm/s),
the average distortion decreased to 0.58 mm for the 45-µm layer compared to 1.07 mm for the 30-µm
layer. This presents an opportunity for the faster fabrication of tool steel parts on the SLM equipment
used by shifting to a thicker powder layer (45 µm) from the default 30 µm, whilst, better still, reducing
both residual stresses and distortion. The reduced building time further results in manufacturing cost
reduction without compromising on the product quality with respect to residual stresses, porosity,
and distortion. Shifting from 30-µm to 45-µm layer thickness reduces the number of slices by 33.3%,
and a corresponding reduction in production time can be estimated in line with the production time
and cost models found in Rickenbacher et al. [44], Schröder et al. [45], and Fera et al. [46].

3.5. Interdependence between Process Responses

Process parameters that contributed to high density also contributed to the high cantilever
distortions. It is also readily clear that porous parts suffer lower residual stresses compared to their
less porous counterparts. To understand the correlations existing between these responses (porosity,
residual stresses, and distortions), three further interrelationships between the process outcomes were
investigated namely: porosity versus residual stresses, porosity versus distortions, and residual stresses versus
distortions. The scatter plot in Figure 11a shows that pores indeed have the effect of relaxing residual
stresses. The highest residual stress magnitude of 322 MPa corresponds to the lowest porosity of 0.39%,
whereas the highest porosity (10.42%) is associated with the lowest residual stress of 23 MPa. The R2
value of 0.85 shows closeness between the data and fitted regression. The residual stress relaxation
effect of pores in turn results in diminished distortion. The higher the porosity, the less distortion
the cantilevers experience. The influence of porosity on distortion is shown in Figure 11b. Process
parameters that yielded low residual stresses resulted in very little cantilever distortions, whereas
parameters that contributed to higher residual stresses also, generally, contributed to higher cantilever
distortions, as shown in Figure 11c. Within the 0.95 confidence interval, a very strong statistical
correlation of 0.91 exists between residual stress and distortion magnitudes.
 finished parts. Whereas residual stresses can be reduced by post-process heat treatment, distortions
that occur during the process cannot. An alternative could be to adopt process parameters that yield
slightly porous, distortion-free and residual stress-free parts whose density would have to be
increased by appropriate heat treatment. The optimization of one or more of these process outcomes
should be approached with care, bearing in mind the effect that such optimization could have on the
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 11 of 16
other process responses.

Figure
Figure SLM interdependencies:
11.11. SLM interdependencies: (a) porosity–residual
(a) porosity–residual stresses,stresses, (b) porosity–distortions,
(b) porosity–distortions, and (c)
andresidual
(c) residual stresses–distortions at
stresses–distortions at 30 µm. 30 µm.

AsInfluence
3.6. discussed earlier,Density
of Energy parameters
in SLMthat lead to high porosity result in lower residual stresses and
distortions. The main factor in determining residual stresses remains thermal gradients. However, it is
Energy density can be computed from Equation 1, where P is the laser power, v is the scanning
alsospeed,
evident that porosity
h represents relaxes
the hatch these stresses.
distance However,
and t represents thethe targetlayer
powder of SLM is to produce
thickness. non-porous
In this paper, the
parts,
hatch spacing was held constant; therefore, only the laser power, scanning speed, and layer thickness of
except in some cases where some porosity may be required, especially in the manufacture
biomedical implants.
contributed The reduction
to the energy density. Whenof residual stresses
parameters in situ,
are varied without compromising
simultaneously, on the part
there is no observable
density,
influence of energy density on any of the responses (porosity, residual stresses, and distortions),during
remains a challenge up to this day. Process conditions that minimize residual stresses as
the shown
SLM process also
in Figure 12.minimize the warping
Thus, energy distortion
density cannot of the
be used finishedorparts.
to explain Whereas
account for the residual
differencesstresses
in
can the
be observed
reduced process
by post-process heatalso
outcomes. This treatment, distortions
shows that laser power that
andoccur during
scanning speedthe
doprocess
not havecannot.
the
An same weighted
alternative couldeffect
be on
to the process.
adopt Similar
process observations
parameters that were
yieldmade by Prashanth
slightly et al. [47], whoand
porous, distortion-free
suggested that the energy density equation might need modification.
residual stress-free parts whose density would have to be increased by appropriate heat treatment.
The optimization of one or more of these process outcomes 𝑃 should be approached with care, bearing in
𝐸= (1)
mind the effect that such optimization could have on 𝑣. the
ℎ. 𝑡 other process responses.

3.6. Influence of Energy Density in SLM

Energy density can be computed from Equation (1), where P is the laser power, v is the scanning
speed, h represents the hatch distance and t represents the powder layer thickness. In this paper,
the hatch spacing was held constant; therefore, only the laser power, scanning speed, and layer thickness
contributed to the energy density. When parameters are varied simultaneously, there is no observable
influence of energy density on any of the responses (porosity, residual stresses, and distortions),
as shown in Figure 12. Thus, energy density cannot be used to explain or account for the differences in
the observed process outcomes. This also shows that laser power and scanning speed do not have the
same weighted effect on the process. Similar observations were made by Prashanth et al. [47], who
suggested that the energy density equation might need modification.

P
E= (1)
v.h.t
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 12 of 16
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 12 of 16

Figure 12.Scatter
Figure12. Scatterplots
plotsof
ofthe
theeffect
effectof
ofenergy
energydensity
densityon
on(a)
(a)porosity,
porosity,(b)
(b)residual
residualstress
stressmagnitude,
magnitude,
and
and(c)
(c)distortions
distortionsfor
forthe
thelayer
layerthicknesses
thicknessesstudied.
studied.

Statistical
Statisticalanalysis
analysisof of
all all
thethe
experimental
experimentalresults presented
results earlierearlier
presented in Figure 12 shows
in Figure 12that,
showsindeed,
that,
the
indeed, the energy density quantity does not have a significant influence on the process outcomes,in
energy density quantity does not have a significant influence on the process outcomes, as shown as
the summary
shown in the in Table 5. in
summary Even
Table though
5. Eventhethough
p-value
theshows a statistical
p-value significance
shows a statistical of energyofdensity
significance energy
on distortion
density (p = 0.001),
on distortion (pthe R-squared
= 0.001), values are too
the R-squared weak,
values areshowing
too weak, thatshowing
the observed variation
that the in
observed
distortions cannot be confidently attributed to energy density.
variation in distortions cannot be confidently attributed to energy density.

Table5.5.Statistical
Table Statisticalanalysis
analysisofofthe
theeffect
effectofofenergy
energydensity
densityon
onSLM
SLMoutcomes.
outcomes.
Response Multiple 2
R R(%) Adjusted 2R (%) 2
R (%)R2 (%) p-Value
Response Multiple 2 (%) Adjusted R2 (%) Predicted
Predicted p-value
Porosity
Porosity 5.05.0 1.1 1.1 0.000 0.000 0.271 0.271
Residual stresses
Residual stresses 11.5
11.5 7.8 7.8 0.000 0.000 0.090 0.090
Distortion 35.6 32.9 25.7 0.001
Distortion 35.6 32.9 25.7 0.001
However, the energy density has a clear effect on process outcome when only one parameter is
However,
varied whilst the the others
energyare density has a clear
held constant, foreffect on process
example varying outcome whenatonly
laser speed onelaser
a fixed parameter
powerisof
varied
180 Wwhilst
and layer the thickness
others areofheld30 µm.constant,
The effectfor example
of energyvarying
density laser speed at
on porosity forathis
fixed laser power
scenario of
is shown
180 W and layer thickness of 30 µm. The effect of energy density on porosity
in Figure 13. For energy density of 57 J/mm , a corresponding porosity value of 1.02% is observed.
3 for this scenario is shown
inThe
Figure 13. For energydecreases
density ofto57 J/mm0.43% 3 , a corresponding porosity value of 1.02% is observed.
porosity gradually 0.72%, and 0.39% when the energy density is increased to
The porosity
71 J/mm 3, 82gradually
J/mm3 anddecreases
95 J/mm3to 0.72%, 0.43%
respectively. The and 0.39% when
optimum energythedensity
energylevel density is increased
for laser power 180to
71 J/mm 3 , 82 J/mm3 and 95 J/mm 3 respectively. The optimum energy density level for laser power
W is around 95 J/mm because when this value is exceeded, porosity increases significantly to 1.55%
3

180
andW3.40%
is around
for 114 J/mm3 3and
95J/mm because
143 J/mmwhen this value
3 energy is exceeded,
density porosity increases
values, respectively. At lowsignificantly
energy density, to
1.55% 3 3
there and 3.40% for energy
is insufficient 114 J/mm andthe
to melt 143powder;
J/mm energy hence, density values,
the porosity respectively.
is higher than whenAt low theenergy
energy
density, there is insufficient energy to melt the powder; hence, the
density is increased to an optimum value. Beyond the optimum value, the energy density becomes porosity is higher than when the
energy density
excessive, leadingis increased to an optimum
to overheating. value. Beyond
This, ultimately, the optimum
promotes porosity. value, the energy
Considering a density
scenario
becomes excessive, leading to overheating. This, ultimately, promotes porosity.
whereby only the scanning speed is varied whilst all other parameters are held constant, residual Considering a scenario
whereby only the on
stresses decrease scanning speed
either side is varied
of the optimum whilst all other
energy density parameters
(95 J/mm3are held constant,
) coinciding residual
with maximum
stresses decrease on density.
either side 3
achievable relative Asof the optimum
shown in Figureenergy 13, thedensity
maximum (95 J/mm
residual) coinciding
stress value with is maximum
322 MPa at
achievable relative density. As shown in Figure 13, the maximum
95 J/mm . The lowest energy density value (57 J/mm ) contributes to 221 MPa, whereas
3 3 residual stress value is 322forMPathe
95 J/mm3energy
atmaximum . The lowest energy density value (57 J/mm 3 ) contributes to 221 MPa, whereas for the
density of 143 J/mm , 179 MPa residual stress value is observed. The reduction of
3

maximum energy density 3 , 179 MPa residual stress value is observed. The reduction of
the residual stresses whenofenergy
143 J/mm density is either too low or too high is attributed to the associated
porosity, which has the effect of relaxing residual stresses.
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 13 of 16

the residual stresses when energy density is either too low or too high is attributed to the associated
Metals 2019, which
porosity, 9, 1042
has the effect of relaxing residual stresses. 13 of 16

Figure13.
Figure Effectofofenergy
13.Effect energydensity
densityon
on(a)
(a)porosity
porosityand
and(b)
(b)residual
residualstresses.
stresses.

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
The influence of process parameters on porosity, residual stresses, and distortion has been studied.
The influence of process parameters on porosity, residual stresses, and distortion has been
Furthermore, the interdependence of the process outcomes has been investigated and the following
studied. Furthermore, the interdependence of the process outcomes has been investigated and the
conclusions can be drawn:
following conclusions can be drawn:
•• Increasing
Increasinglaser
laserpower
powerand andscanning
scanningspeed
speedgives
givesrise
risetotosteep
steepthermal
thermalgradients
gradientswhich,
which,ininturn,
turn,
lead
leadtotoincrease
increase inin residual
residual stress
stress magnitudes
magnitudes and and the
the corresponding
corresponding distortions.
•• HighHighporosity
porosityin inSLM
SLMparts
partscan
canoccur
occurdue
dueto tooverheating
overheatingor orinsufficient
insufficient heating.
heating. Excessive
Excessiveheat
heat
can lead to over-melting, whereas insufficient heat leads to poor interlayer
can lead to over-melting, whereas insufficient heat leads to poor interlayer bonding. bonding.
•• Strong
Stronginterrelationships
interrelationshipsexistexistbetween
betweenthe theprocess
processoutcomes,
outcomes,that thatis,is,porosity,
porosity,residual
residualstresses,
stresses,
and distortions. Therefore, the optimization of one or more of these process
and distortions. Therefore, the optimization of one or more of these process outcomes should outcomes should be
approached with care, bearing in mind the effect that such optimization could
be approached with care, bearing in mind the effect that such optimization could have on the have on the other
responses.
other responses.
•• Increasing the layer
Increasing the layerthickness
thickness results
results in aindecline
a decline
in bothin residual
both residual
stressesstresses and distortions,
and distortions, although
although an accompanying increase in unwanted porosity is also observed.
an accompanying increase in unwanted porosity is also observed. The decrease in residual The decrease in
stress
residual
magnitude stress
canmagnitude cantobeaattributed
be attributed to a reduced
reduced thermal energythermal
input and energy input
cooling and cooling rate.
rate.
• If parameters vary simultaneously, energy density has no bearing at all on all process outcomes,
• If parameters vary simultaneously, energy density has no bearing at all on all process outcomes,
and cannot be used as a predictor of the outcome. However, the findings also show a clear
and cannot be used as a predictor of the outcome. However, the findings also show a clear
correlation between energy density and the process responses if only one parameter is varied at
correlation between energy density and the process responses if only one parameter is varied
a time.
at a time.
To fully understand the nature and distribution of residual stresses in tooling steels, future work
To fully
will focus on understand
investigating thethe
nature
effectand
of distribution
microstructure of residual stresses
on residual in tooling
stress steels,
evolution future
in the SLM work
of
will focussteel
maraging on investigating
300. This has the thepotential
effect of to
microstructure
provide deeper oninsight
residual
intostress evolution instress
the compressive the SLM
natureof
maraging
of steelof
the surfaces 300. This hassteel
maraging the potential
parts made to provide
by SLM.deeper insight into the compressive stress nature
of the surfaces of maraging steel parts made by SLM.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.M.; methodology, L.M., I.Y., and S.M., software, L.M and I.Y.;
validation, L.M., I.Y., and S.M.; formal analysis, L.M., I.Y., and S.M.; investigation, L.M., I.Y., and S.M; resources,
I.Y. and S.M.; data curation, L.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.M.; writing—review and editing, L.M,
I.Y., and S.M.; visualization, L.M.; supervision, I.Y. and S.M.; project administration, I.Y. and S.M.; funding
acquisition, I.Y.

Funding: This research was funded by the Department of Science and Technology and National Research
Foundation of South Africa (Grant No. 97994).
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 14 of 16

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.M.; methodology, L.M., I.Y., and S.M., software, L.M. and I.Y.;
validation, L.M., I.Y., and S.M.; formal analysis, L.M., I.Y., and S.M.; investigation, L.M., I.Y., and S.M.; resources,
I.Y. and S.M.; data curation, L.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.M.; writing—review and editing, L.M., I.Y.,
and S.M.; visualization, L.M.; supervision, I.Y. and S.M.; project administration, I.Y. and S.M.; funding acquisition, I.Y.
Funding: This research was funded by the Department of Science and Technology and National Research
Foundation of South Africa (Grant No. 97994).
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science
and Technology and National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant No. 97994). Also, the authors
express gratitude to the staff at Nelson Mandela University (NMU) for their assistance with XRD residual
stress measurement.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Papadakis, L.; Loizou, A.; Risse, J.; Bremen, S.; Schrage, J. A computational reduction model for appraising
structural effects in selective laser melting manufacturing. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2014, 9, 17–25. [CrossRef]
2. Kandil, F.A.; Lord, J.D.; Fry, A.T.; Grant, P.V. A Review of Residual Stress Measurement Methods-A Guide to
Technical Selection; Report MATC (A) 4; NPL: Teddington, UK, 2001.
3. Cheng, X.; Prask, H.J.; Gnaeupel-Herold, T.; Luzin, V.; Fisher, J.W. Neutron diffraction measurements for
residual stresses in AL-6XN stainless steel welded beams. In Neutron Diffraction; Khidirov, I., Ed.; IntechOpen:
Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; pp. 25–48.
4. Mercelis, P.; Kruth, J. Residual stresses in selective laser sintering and selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp. J.
2006, 12, 254–265. [CrossRef]
5. Zaeh, M.F.; Branner, G. Investigations on residual stresses and deformations in selective laser melting.
Prod. Eng. 2010, 4, 35–45. [CrossRef]
6. Kempen, K.; Thijs, L.; Vrancken, B.; Buls, S.; Van Humbeek, J.; Kruth, J.-P. Lowering thermal gradients
in selective laser melting by pre-heating the baseplate. In Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, Austin, TX, USA, 12–14 August 2013.
7. Kruth, J.-P.; Deckers, J.; Yasa, E.; Wauthle, R. Assessing and comparing influencing factors of residual stresses
in selective laser melting using a novel analysis method. Proc. Inst. Mech Eng. Part. B J. Eng. Manuf. 2012,
226, 980–991. [CrossRef]
8. Leuders, S.; Thöne, M.; Riemer, A.; Niendorf, T.; Tröster, T.; Richard, H.A.; Maier, H.J. On the mechanical
behaviour of titanium alloy TiAl6V4 manufactured by selective laser melting: Fatigue resistance and crack
growth performance. Int. J. Fatigue 2013, 48, 300–307. [CrossRef]
9. Becker, T.; Dimitrov, D. The achievable mechanical properties of SLM produced maraging steel
300 components. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2016, 22, 487–494. [CrossRef]
10. Töppel, T.; Müller, B.; Hoeren, K.P.J.; Witt, G. Eigenspannungen und verzug bei der additiven fertigung
durch laserstrahlschmelzen. Schweiss. und Schneid. 2016, 68, 176–186.
11. Jhabvala, J.; Boillat, E.; Antignac, T.; Glardon, R. On the effect of scanning strategies in the selective laser
melting process. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2010, 5, 99–109. [CrossRef]
12. Wu, A.S.; Brown, D.W.; Kumar, M.; Gallegos, G.F.; King, W.E. An experimental investigation into additive
manufacturing-induced residual stresses in 316L stainless steel. Metall. Mater. Trans. A Phys. Metall Mater. Sci.
2014, 45, 6260–6270. [CrossRef]
13. Casavola, C.; Campanelli, S.L.; Pappalettere, C. Preliminary investigation on distribution of residual stress
generated by the selective laser melting process. J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 2009, 44, 93–104. [CrossRef]
14. Vrancken, B.; Wauthle, R.; Kruth, J.-P.; Van Humbeeck, J. Study of the influence of material properties on
residual stress in selective laser melting. In Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium,
Austin, TX, USA, 12–14 August 2013; pp. 393–407.
15. Roberts, I.A. Investigation of residual stresses in the laser melting of metal powders in additive layer
manufacturing. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK, 2012.
16. Yadroitsev, I.; Yadroitsava, I. Evaluation of residual stress in stainless steel 316L and Ti6Al4V samples
produced by selective laser melting. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2015, 10, 67–76. [CrossRef]
17. Yan, J.J.; Zheng, D.L.; Li, H.X.; Jia, X.; Sun, J.F.; Li, Y.L.; Qian, M.; Yan, M. Selective laser melting of H13:
Microstructure and residual stress. J. Mater. Sci. 2017, 12476–12485. [CrossRef]
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 15 of 16

18. Yadroitsev, I.; Yadroitsava, I.; Bertrand, P.; Smurov, I. Factor analysis of selective laser melting process
parameters and geometrical characteristics of synthesized single tracks. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2012, 18, 201–208.
[CrossRef]
19. Hanzl, P.; Zetek, M.; Bakša, T.; Kroupa, T. The influence of processing parameters on the mechanical properties
of SLM parts. Procedia Eng. 2015, 100, 1405–1413. [CrossRef]
20. Campanelli, S.L.; Contuzzi, N.; Angelastro, A.; Ludovico, A.D. Capabilities and performances of the selective
laser melting process. New Trends Technol. Devices Comput. Commun. Ind. Syst. 2010, 233–252. [CrossRef]
21. Thijs, L.; Verhaeghe, F.; Craeghs, T.; Van Humbeeck, J.; Kruth, J.-P. A study of the microstructural evolution
during selective laser melting of Ti-6Al-4V. Acta Mater. 2010, 58, 3303–3312. [CrossRef]
22. Gu, H.; Gong, H.; Pal, D.; Rafi, K.; Starr, T.; Stucker, B. Influences of energy density on porosity and
microstructure of selective laser melted 17- 4PH stainless steel. In Proceedings of the Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, USA, 12–14 August 2013; pp. 474–479. [CrossRef]
23. Delgado, J.; Ciurana, J.; Rodríguez, C.A. Influence of process parameters on part quality and mechanical
properties for DMLS and SLM with iron-based materials. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2012, 60, 601–610.
[CrossRef]
24. Yadroitsava, I.; Yadroitsev, I. Residual stress in metal specimens produced by direct metal laser sintering.
In Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, USA, 12–14 August 2015;
pp. 614–625. [CrossRef]
25. Vrancken, B. Study of residual stresses in selective laser melting. Ph.D. Thesis, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium,
2016.
26. Buchbinder, D.; Meiners, W.; Pirch, N.; Schrage, K.W. Investigation on reducing distortion by preheating
during manufacture of aluminum components using selective laser melting. J. Laser Appl. 2014, 26, 012004.
[CrossRef]
27. Papadakis, L.; Loizou, A.; Risse, J.; Schrage, J. Numerical computation of component shape distortion
manufactured by Selective Laser Melting. Procedia CIRP 2014, 18, 90–95. [CrossRef]
28. Neugebauer, F.; Keller, N.; Ploshikhin, V.; Feuerhahn, F.; Köhler, H. Multi scale FEM simulation for distortion
calculation in additive manufacturing of hardening stainless steel. In Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Thermal Forming and Welding Distortion, Bremen, Germany, 9–10 April 2014; Volume 104.
29. Li, C.; Fu, C.H.; Guo, Y.B.; Fang, F.Z. A multiscale modeling approach for fast prediction of part distortion in
selective laser melting. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2016, 229, 703–712. [CrossRef]
30. Mugwagwa, L.; Dimitrov, D.; Matope, S.; Yadroitsev, I. Evaluation of the impact of scanning strategies on
residual stresses in selective laser melting. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 102, 2441–2450. [CrossRef]
31. Mugwagwa, L.; Dimitrov, D.; Matope, S.; Yadroitsev, I. Influence of process parameters on residual stress
related distortions in selective laser melting. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 21, 92–99. [CrossRef]
32. Concept Laser. Heat Treatment CL50WS; Version 3; Concept Laser GmbH: Lichtenfels, Germany, 2010.
33. Spierings, A.B.; Schneider, M.; Eggenberger, R. Comparison of density measurement techniques for additive
manufactured metallic parts. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2011, 17, 380–386. [CrossRef]
34. Yasa, E.; Kempen, K.; Kruth, J. Microstructure and mechanical properties of Maraging Steel 300 after selective
laser melting. In Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, USA, 12–14 August
2010; pp. 383–396.
35. Slotwinski, J.A.; Garboczi, E.J.; Hebenstreit, K.M. Porosity measurements and analysis for metal additive
manufacturing process control. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 2014, 119, 494. [CrossRef]
36. Fitzpatrick, M.E.; Fry, A.T.; Holdway, P.; Kandil, F.A.; Shackleton, J.; Suominen, L. Determination of residual
stresses by X-ray diffraction. Meas. Good Pract. Guid. 2005, 52, 1–68.
37. Safronov, V.A.; Khmyrov, R.S.; Kotoban, D.V.; Gusarov, A.V. Distortions and residual stresses at layer-by-layer
additive manufacturing by fusion. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2016, 139, 031017. [CrossRef]
38. Mazur, M.; Brincat, P.; Leary, M.; Brandt, M. Numerical and experimental evaluation of a conformally cooled
H13 steel injection mould manufactured with selective laser melting. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 93,
881–900. [CrossRef]
39. Kruth, J.-P.; Froyen, L.; Van Vaerenbergh, J.; Mercelis, P.; Rombouts, M.; Lauwers, B. Selective laser melting of
iron-based powder. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2004, 149, 616–622. [CrossRef]
40. Cottam, R.; Wang, J.; Luzin, V. Characterization of microstructure and residual stress in a 3D H13 tool steel
component produced by additive manufacturing. J. Mater. Res. 2014, 29, 1978–1986. [CrossRef]
Metals 2019, 9, 1042 16 of 16

41. Mertens, R.; Vrancken, B.; Holmstock, N.; Kinds, Y.; Kruth, J.-P.; Van Humbeeck, J. Influence of powder bed
preheating on microstructure and mechanical properties of H13 tool steel SLM parts. Phys. Procedia 2016, 83,
882–890. [CrossRef]
42. Mugwagwa, L.; Dimitrov, D.; Matope, S.; Venter, A.M. Residual stress distributions within components
manufactured using selective laser melting. In Proceedings of the 18th International RAPDASA Conference,
Durban, South Arica, 8–10 November 2017; pp. 153–164.
43. Ali, H.; Ghadbeigi, H.; Mumtaz, K. Processing parameter effects on residual stress and mechanical properties
of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2018, 27, 4059–4068. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Rickenbacher, L.; Spierings, A.; Wegener, K. An integrated cost-model for selective laser melting (SLM).
Rapid Prototyp. J. 2013, 19, 208–214. [CrossRef]
45. Schröder, M.; Falk, B.; Schmitt, R. Evaluation of cost structures of additive manufacturing processes using a
new business model. Procedia CIRP 2015, 30, 311–316. [CrossRef]
46. Fera, M.; Fruggiero, F.; Costabile, G.; Lambiase, A.; Pham, D.T. A new mixed production cost allocation model
for additive manufacturing (MiProCAMAM). Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 92, 4275–4291. [CrossRef]
47. Prashanth, K.G.; Scudino, S.; Maity, T.; Das, J.; Eckert, J. Is the energy density a reliable parameter for
materials synthesis by selective laser melting? Mater. Res. Lett. 2017, 5, 386–390. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).