Research Papers

Mechanical Anisotropy and Strain Rate Dependency Behavior of Ti6Al4V Produced Using E-Beam Additive Fabrication

[+] Author and Article Information
Leila Ladani

Mechanical Engineering Department,
University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT 06269
e-mail: lladani@engr.uconn.edu

Jafar Razmi

Mechanical Engineering Department,
University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT 06269
e-mail: razmi@engr.uconn.edu

Soud Farhan Choudhury

Mechanical Engineering Department,
University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT 06269
e-mail: soud.choudhury@uconn.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received October 8, 2013; final manuscript received May 19, 2014; published online June 5, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Ashraf Bastawros.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 136(3), 031006 (Jun 05, 2014) (7 pages) Paper No: MATS-13-1186; doi: 10.1115/1.4027729 History: Received October 08, 2013; Revised May 19, 2014

Anisotropic mechanical behavior is an inherent characteristic of parts produced using additive manufacturing (AM) techniques in which parts are built layer by layer. It is expected that in-plane and out-of-plane properties be different in these parts. E-beam fabrication is not an exception to this. It is, however, desirable to keep this degree of anisotropy to a minimum level and be able to produce parts with comparable mechanical strength in both in-plane and out-of-plane directions. In this manuscript, this degree of anisotropy is investigated for Ti6Al4V parts produced using this technique through tensile testing of parts built in different orientations. Mechanical characteristics such as Young's modulus, yield strength (YS), ultimate tensile strength (UTS), and ductility are evaluated. The strain rate effect on mechanical behavior, namely, strength and ductility, is also investigated by testing the material at a range of strain rates from 10−2 to 10−4 s−1. Local mechanical properties were extracted using nanoindentation technique and compared against global values (average values obtained by tensile tests). Although the properties obtained in this experiment were comparable with literature findings, test results showed that in-plane properties, elastic modulus, YS, and UTS are significantly higher than out-of-plane properties. This could be an indication of defects in between layers or imperfect bonding of the layers. Strong positive strain rate sensitivity was observed in out-of-plane direction. The strain rate sensitivity evaluation did not show strain rate dependency for in-plane directions. Local mechanical properties obtained through nanoindentation confirmed the findings of tensile test and also showed variation of properties caused by geometry.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Murr, L., Esquivel, E., Quinones, S., Gaytan, S., Lopez, M., Martinez, E., Medina, F., Hernandez, D., Martinez, E., Martinez, J., Stafford, S., Brown, D., Hoppe, T., Meyers, W., Lindhe, U., and Wicker, R., 2009, “Microstructures and Mechanical Properties of Electron Beam-Rapid Manufactured Ti-6Al-4V Biomedical Prototypes Compared to Wrought Ti-6Al-4V,” Mater. Charact., 60(2), pp. 96–105. [CrossRef]
Murr, L., Gaytan, S., Medina, F., Martinez, E., Hernandez, D., Martinez, L., Lopez, M., Wicker, R., and Collins, S., 2009, “Effect of Build Parameters and Build Geometries on Residual Microstructures and Mechanical Properties of Ti-6Al-4V Components Built by Electron Beam Melting (EBM),” 20th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, August 3-5, pp. 374–397.
Murr, L., Quinones, S., Gaytan, S., Lopez, M., Rodela, A., Martinez, E., Hernandez, D., Martinez, E., Medina, F., and Wicker, R., 2009, “Microstructure and Mechanical Behavior of Ti-6Al-4V Produced by Rapid-Layer Manufacturing, for Biomedical Applications,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 2(1), pp. 20–32. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gaytan, S., Murr, L., Medina, F., Martinez, E., Lopez, M., and Wicker, R., 2009, “Advanced Metal Powder Based Manufacturing of Complex Components by Electron Beam Melting,” Mater. Technol., 24(3), pp. 180–190. [CrossRef]
Murr, L., Martinez, E., Gaytan, S., Ramirez, D., Machado, B., Shindo, P., Martinez, J., Medina, F., Wooten, J., Ciscel, D., Ackelid, U., and Wicker, R., 2011, “Microstructural Architecture, Microstructures, and Mechanical Properties for a Nickel-Base Superalloy Fabricated by Electron Beam Melting,” Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 42(11), pp. 3491–3508. [CrossRef]
Christensen, A., Kircher, R., and Lippencott, A., 2008, “Qualification of Electron Beam Melted (EBM) Ti6Al4V-ELI for Orthopedic Applications,” Materials & Processes for Medical Devices Conference (MDM IV), Palm Desert, CA, September 23-25, pp. 48-53.
Harrysson, O., Deaton, B., Bardin, J., West, H., Cansizoglu, O., Cormier, D., and Marcellin-Little, D., 2005, “Evaluation of Titanium Implant Components Directly Fabricated Through Electron Beam Melting Technology,” Materials and Processes for Medical Devices Conference (MDM III), Boston, MA, November 14-16, pp. 15–20.
Svensson, M., and Ackelid, U., 2010, “Titanium Alloys Manufactured With Electron Beam Melting Mechanical and Chemical Properties,” Materials and Processes for Medical Devices Conference (MDM V), Minneapolis, MN, August 10-12, pp. 189–194.
Arcam, 2008, “Ti6Al4V Titanium Alloy,” Arcam AB, Mölndal, Sweden, http://www.arcam.com/wp-content/uploads/Arcam-Ti6Al4V-Titanium-Alloy.pdf
Larsson, M., Lindhe, U., and Harrysson, O., 2003, “Rapid Manufacturing With Electron Beam Melting (EBM)—A Manufacturing Revolution?,” Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, August 4-6, pp. 433–438.
Koike, M., and Okabe, T., 2010, “Titanium Fabricated by Electron Beam Melting for Dental Applications,” J. Jpn. Soc. Dent. Mater. Devices, 28(5), p. 208.
Schroeder, J., 2006, “Advanced Manufacturing Technology Changes the Way Implants are Designed and Produced,” BoneZone5(3), pp. 17–20.
Thundal, S., 2006, “Rapid Manufacturing of Orthopedic Implants,” Adv. Mater. Process, 166(10), pp. 60–62.
Al-Bermani, S., Blackmore, M., Zhang, W., and Todd, I., 2010, “The Origin of Microstructural Diversity, Texture, and Mechanical Properties in Electron Beam Melted Ti-6Al-4V,” Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 41(13), pp. 3422–3434. [CrossRef]
Koike, M., Martinez, K., Guo, L., Chahine, G., Kovacevic, R., and Okabe, T., 2011, “Evaluation of Titanium Alloy Fabricated Using Electron Beam Melting System for Dental Applications,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 211(8), pp. 1400–1408. [CrossRef]
Donachie, M., 2000, “Titanium: A Technical Guide,” ASM International, Materials Park, OH.
Maier, V., Durst, K., Mueller, J., Backes, B., Höppel, H., and Göken, M., 2011, “Nanoindentation Strain-Rate Jump Tests for Determining the Local Strain-Rate Sensitivity in Nanocrystalline Ni and Ultrafine-Grained Al,” J. Mater. Res., 26(11), pp. 1421–1430. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Top view of the flat-built sample and (b) side view of the side-built sample

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Dog-bone samples fabricated using the Arcam machine in three different orientations with respect to the build table. The schematic of the gage cross sections is also provided.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

True stress–strain curves extracted through tensile testing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of stress–strain data for different build orientations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Location of indentation point on (a) side-built, (b) top-built, (c) flat-built samples, and (d) indentation matrix and direction of movement of the tip

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Average value of elastic modulus obtained for different build orientations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Hardness obtained through nanoindentation for side build samples

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Hardness obtained through nanoindentation for flat-built samples

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Hardness obtained through nanoindentation for top-built location on the grip section of samples

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Average value of hardness obtained for different build orientation in comparison to literature

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of (a) yield strength, (b) ultimate tensile strength, and (c) elastic modulus in different build orientation with literature values

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of UTS in different strain rates in different sample build directions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of yield strength at different strain rates in different build orientations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

SEM images of fracture surfaces of (a) flat build, (b) side build, and (c) top build specimens





Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In