Comparative study on the properties of 17-4 PH stainless steel parts made by metal fused filament fabrication process and atomic diffusion additive manufacturing

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to provide a comparison between the mechanical performance and microstructural aspects of stainless steel 17-4 PH processed using, respectively, two technologies: atomic diffusion additive manufacturing (ADAM) and metal fused filament fabrication (MFFF). Design/methodology/approach Different tensile specimens have been printed using an industrial system and a consumer three-dimensional (3D) printer, varying two main 3D printing parameters. Mechanical and microstructural tests are executed to make a comparison between these two technologies and two different feedstock material, to identify the main differences. Findings These 3D printing processes make parts with different surface quality, mechanical and microstructural properties. The parts, printed by the industrial system (ADAM), showed lower values of roughness, respect those produced using the 3D consumer printer (MFFF). The different sintering process parameters and the two debinding methods (catalytic or solvent based) affect the parts properties such as porosity, microstructure, grain size and amount of δ-ferrite. These proprieties are responsible for dissimilar tensile strength and hardness values. With the aim to compare the performances among traditional metal additive technology, MFFF and ADAM, a basic analysis of times and costs has been done. Originality/value The application of two metal extrusion techniques could be an alternative to other metal additive manufacturing technologies based on laser or electron beam. The low cost and printing simplicity are the main drivers of the replacements of these technologies in not extreme application fields.

Case Study of Additively Manufactured Mountain Bike Stem

“…Specifically, no other thermal or chemical processes are needed to make the material solid. For instance, metal fused filament fabrication needs chemical debinding, followed by metal sintering [ 25 ]. A similar process must be applied in the case of Metal Binder Jetting [ 26 ].…”

A Comparative Investigation of Properties of Metallic Parts Additively Manufactured through MEX and PBF-LB/M Technologies

“…Additive Manufacturing is an increasingly utilized technology for producing a wide diversity of components [ 1 ]. Although initially used solely for prototyping purposes, with polymers being the most commonly used materials, it is now increasingly employed for manufacturing functional parts applied in demanding branches of industry such as aviation, automotive, energy, bioengineering, and medicine [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. The expansion of additive manufacturing technologies is associated with the advantages it offers in comparison to conventional manufacturing methods [ 6 ].…”

Indirect Induction Sintering of Metal Parts Produced through Material Extrusion Additive Manufacturing

“…The subsequent sintering step decomposes the backbone from the debinded geometry and causes the metal particles to fuse, resulting in a densified solid mass (step 3). Representative alloys that have been successfully shaped using FFF and subsequently sintered include stainless steel 17-4 PH [ 31 ], inconel super alloy IN 718 [ 32 ], titanium Ti6Al4V [ 33 ], and copper Cu [ 34 ]. However, conventional sintering is carried out in sophisticated furnaces that can maintain a tailored neutral atmosphere, being out of reach for most users.…”