Comparative study of microstructures and mechanical properties of in situ Ti–TiB composites produced by selective laser melting, powder metallurgy, and casting technologies | Zendy

Hooyar Attar | Zendy; Matthias Bönisch | Zendy; Mariana Calin | Zendy; LaiChang Zhang | Zendy; Ksenia Zhuravleva | Zendy; Alexander Funk | Zendy; S. Scudino | Zendy; Chao Yang | Zendy; J. Eckert | Zendy

Open Access

Comparative study of microstructures and mechanical properties of in situ Ti–TiB composites produced by selective laser melting, powder metallurgy, and casting technologies

Author(s) -

Hooyar Attar,

Matthias Bönisch,

Mariana Calin,

LaiChang Zhang,

Ksenia Zhuravleva,

Alexander Funk,

S. Scudino,

Chao Yang,

J. Eckert

Publication year - 2014

Publication title -

journal of materials research/pratt's guide to venture capital sources

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.788

H-Index - 148

eISSN - 0884-2914

pISSN - 0884-1616

DOI - 10.1557/jmr.2014.122

Subject(s) - materials science , microstructure , selective laser melting , powder metallurgy , casting , in situ , metallurgy , composite material , physics , meteorology

This study presents results of selective laser melting (SLM), powder metallurgy (PM), and casting technologies applied for producing Ti-TiB composites from Ti-TiB2 powder. Diffraction patterns and microstructural investigations reveal that chemical reaction occurred between Ti and TiB2 during all the three processes, leading to the formation of Ti-TiB composites. The ultimate compressive strength of SLM-processed and cast samples are 1421 and 1434 MPa, respectively, whereas the ultimate compressive strengths of PM-processed 25%, 29%, and 36% porous samples are 510, 414, and 310 MPa, respectively. The Young\u27s moduli of porous composite samples are 70, 45, and 23 GPa for 25%, 29%, and 36% porosity levels, respectively, and are lower than those of SLM-processed (145 GPa) and cast (142 GPa) samples. Fracture analysis of the SLM-processed and cast samples shows shear fracture and microcracks across the samples, whereas failure of porous samples occurs due to porosities and weak bonds among particles

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research