PSI - Issue 14

Anigani Sudarshan Reddy et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 449–466 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

461 13

Fig. 13. Schematic showing Tensile specimens after failure of monolithic DMLS samples in the as printed and heat treated condition (a) IN718, (b) CoCrMo, (c) Maraging steel (d) SS316L and (e)Ti6Al4V

Table 6: Comparison of mechanical properties of DMLS alloys - small scale tensile samples vs Regular tensile samples both in the as printed and heat treated conditions

Mechanical Properties

0.2% YS (MPa)

UTS (MPa)

% Elongation

S.No

Material

Condition

Small scale

Regular

Small scale

Regular

Small scale

Regular

As printed

627±22

628.5±37

902±13

989±9.89

31.9±2

29.06±1

1

IN718

Heat treated

1187±60

1152±20

1390±44

1364±20

17.±2

15±2

As printed

744±24 590±15 1015±6

739±20 600±50 1000±12 1914±20

1184±48 1130±23 1065±13 1977±72

1200±30

37.9±4

18.47±3

2

CoCrMo

Heat treated As printed Heat treated

1100±100 1096±10

41±2

42

10.9±1

14.6±1

Maraging steel

3

1914±135

2009±6

6±1

4.6±1

As printed

444±16

413±13

500±22

516±18

58.6±1

68.4

4

SS316L

Heat treated

-

As printed

1041±24

1135±3

1116±24

1226.5±2

9.6±1

11.15

5

Ti6Al4V

Heat treated

864±38

1000±60

1115±7

1100±40

16.5±1

14.5±2