PSI - Issue 24

Claudia Barile et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 24 (2019) 636–650 C. B rile et l./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

646

11

Fig 10. CWT results of the AE signals recorded in Specimen 45

Fig 11. WPT results of the AE signals recorded in Specimen 45

4. Discussions

The mechanical results for all the three specimens do not vary widely between each other, although T Y specimen has a slightly lower peak load in comparison with the other specimens. The Young’s modulus ( E ) and the yield strength ( ) of the specimens built along X, Y and 45° orientation are comparable with the previous works done on the same material. The variation of the E and of the three specimens is 1.16 GPa and 6.23 MPa, respectively. Moreover, the average values of E and are also comparable with the previous literature works by Kempen et. al (2012) and Tradowsky et. al (2016). However, the elongation at break ( ε ) and ultimate tensile strength ( ) differ from the works by Kempen et. al (2012) and Tradowsky et. al (2016). The elongation at break from the previous literature works were reported to be between 3.5% to 5% Kempen et. al (2012) and Tradowsky et. al (2016), Wang et. al (2019) and Ch et. al. (2019), however, in our presented results it is between 10.7% to 12.6%. The post-processing of the SLM components such as hot isostatic compression or post heating treatment will reduce porosity of the final