Trans Indian Inst Met
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12666-021-02199-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Challenges in Qualifying Additive Manufacturing for Turbine
Components: A Review
Dheepa Srinivasan1
Received: 23 November 2020 / Accepted: 11 January 2021
Ó The Indian Institute of Metals - IIM 2021
Abstract Gas turbine engine advancements have been
enabled by innovation in materials and manufacturing
technologies. The evolution of additive manufacturing
(AM) has changed the face of direct digital technologies
for the rapid production of models, prototypes, and func-
tional parts including repair and maintenance for turbine
engines. Metal 3D printing is poised to be an enabler for
the next industrial revolution in enabling advancements in
turbine engine performance. While there has been
tremendous efforts on research and development in utiliz-
ing this versatile technology, the number of qualified
metallic parts that are running in the engine has not been
commensurate with the applied research and development
efforts and the benefits that the AM technology offers. This
review addresses some of the key technical issues that are
currently limiting the prolific usage of AM as a successful
vehicle for accelerated progress in gas turbine engines.
Keywords Additive manufacturing
Gas turbine engines

Challenges
Qualified parts
Gas turbine components

Structural integrity
Anisotropy
1 Introduction
Aerospace propulsion innovation has been enabled by
advanced materials and manufacturing technologies for
decades. Directionally solidified and single-crystal turbine
blades, cast and wrought aero engine discs, fracture
& Dheepa Srinivasan
dheepa.srinivasan@prattwhitney.com
1
Pratt & Whitney R&D Center, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore, Bangalore, India
tolerant discs, high modulus blades, integrally bladed
rotors, etc. are some of the major breakthroughs in mate-
rials that have played a key role in powering the state-of-
the-art engine developments [1–4]. Materials continue to
play an enabling role in turbine engine performance and
future engine capabilities that require lightweight struc-
tures and higher temperature capability with greater dura-
bility. The design and manufacture of turbo machinery
components can be accelerated by making use of topology
optimization (TO) and additive manufacturing (AM).
Lightweight structures with improved high temperature
capability can be designed and manufactured by using an
optimized design for additive manufacturing (DFAM)
approach to ensure suitable mechanical performances and
incorporate new system architectures. Additive manufac-
turing (or 3D printing) has the potential to enable engineers
to design components, systems and shapes, once thought
impossible to make. It allows for complex design geome-
tries that can potentially make products that are lighter,
stronger and more efficient. The performance matrices that
AM can possibly offer compared to conventional (or sub-
tractive manufacturing) include: (a) design complexity,
(b) weight reduction, (c) part simplification, (d) inventory
reduction, (e) enhancement of efficiency (durability), and
(f) unitization and via all of the above, can perhaps
accelerate the development cycle for new and improved
designs [5–14] and potentially decrease costs. By defini-
tion, it can transform the design into a near-net shaped
product, by slicing the computer-aided design (CAD) file,
typically a standard triangulation language (STL), STEP,
or Parasolid file, and translated to machine language so that
it can be manufactured in a layer-upon-layer process
(Fig. 1, [15]). AM can open new engineering capabilities to
optimize part and system designs in a way that is less
difficult than traditional manufacturing processes. The
123

Fig. 1 Process of converting
the design part in CAD into STL
files and then slicing the STL
[15]
ultimate goal for AM is to improve material capabilities,
minimize design trade-offs, and facilitate digital vs. analog
control which would improve quality via reduced defect
opportunities as compared to traditional manufacturing.
AM typically simplifies systems by means of an optimized
design and enables more robust designs, by reducing part
counts thru the elimination or decrease of brazed/welded,
riveted/bolted joints and assemblies. The key attribute of
AM that is particularly relevant and attractive for turbine
engines is the potential equal or inverse relationship
between complexity and cost. In other words, as the design
sophistication increases, the manufacturing cost is mar-
ginally affected or actually decreases. This is attractive for
an innovative approach towards a paradigm shift to reduce
fuel burn and noise, by incorporating designs that are
‘‘lighter’’ and ‘‘hotter’’, starting with a design thinking
approach. It removes traditional design and manufacturing
constraints by its ability to create complex designs and
produce lightweight, yet strong structures via TO, or as an
enabler of better conformal cooling, which go to achieve
higher temperature capability in turbo machinery [16–22].
The technology also provides potential supply chain flex-
ibility. In many ways, AM could be a natural fit for
empowering the gas turbine technology development for
improvements to existing engine designs, as well as for
new engine developments. This can also enable a unique
solution in the aftermarket (services) sector related to
sustainability and novel repair capabilities. Some have
even eluded to the potential component life extension for
difficult to weld materials, including directionally solidified
(DS) and single-crystal (SX) blades and vanes, by virtue of
the rapid solidification process [23–29].
123
Trans Indian Inst Met
Several efforts have addressed the technology develop-
ment process in using 3D printing to make lightweight
parts, as well as restore damaged parts on service returned
turbo machinery hardware [30–41]. Starting with the T25
compressor inlet temperature sensor casing by General
Electric (GE), as the first part to be certified by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) for use in a commercial jet
engine, there have been several parts that are running in
several engines. Table 1 lists some of the recent applica-
tions in the Aerospace industry, by Boeing, Airbus, Gen-
eral Electric, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, Liebherr,
etc. However, the rapid translation of the technology
development is still not readily adopted due to various
challenges that arise operationally [15, 18] and technically
[9, 14, 42–44]. As stated previously, this review lists some
of the technical issues that are limiting the full benefits of
metal AM technology to produce gas turbine components.
These observations are mainly based on the practical
experience of the author through several varied AM pro-
duct qualifications, starting with ideation through proto-
typing to production, with an emphasis on products
qualified from India in the last few years.
The article is organized as follows. Section 2 lists the
operational challenges in adopting additively manufactured
components in the aerospace industry and the key technical
challenges that accompany part qualification. Section 3
describes the challenges pertaining to microstructure and
mechanical properties, Sect. 4 includes challenges related
to design and post-processing, and Sect. 5 comprises
inspection and qualification challenges, with a summary in
Sect. 6.
Trans Indian Inst Met

Table 1 Some of the publicly released additive component applications in gas turbines
S. No Company Name Component(s) Process(es) Model(s) References

1 General Electric Aviation Fuel nozzle tip PBF-LB/M GE9X [30, 31]
2 T25 sensor housing PBF-EB/M LEAP
3 Heat exchanger
4 Inducer
5 Stage 5/6 low pressure turbine (LPT) blades
6 Combustor Mixer
8 Pratt & Whitney Compressor Stators PBF-LB/M FT4000 [32]
9 Fuel system components PBF-EB/M PW4000
10 Brackets PW1500G
11 GKN Aerospace Fabricated Fan Case Mount Ring DED-LB/M Wire PW1500G [33]
12 Fan Spacer PW1900G
15 Rolls-Royce 1.5 m diameters titanium structure with 48 aerfoils PBF-EB/M Trent XWB-97 [34] [35]
16 Boeing Structural titanium part DED-PD/M 787 Dreamliner [36–38]
17 MTU Aero Engines Nickel borescope boss PBF-LB/M PW1100G-JM [39–41]

2 Operational and Technical Challenges in AM
Part Qualification
The ASTM F42 committee via ISO/ASTM 52,900 has
defined seven process categories of additive manufactur-
ing. These categories as shown in Table 2 include poly-
mers, metals and multi-materials and the material forms
they use such as powder, wire/filament, or sheet stock [45].
Many alternative nomenclatures are in use for each of the
AM techniques by various equipment manufacturers and
users and some that predate the adoption of the ASTM
terminology. The relative usage of each of these techniques
is illustrated in Fig. 2 which shows that metal AM usage
has increased dramatically in the recent decade and
comprises nearly 40–50% of the overall usage [46]. Metal
AM can be categorized into further sub-categories whose
relative and typical attributes in terms of process speed,
precision, and build volume are listed in Table 3. It should
be noted that there are exceptions to this table for many
applications and specific equipment. To date, cold spray is
not formally recognized by ASTM as an AM category.
This is primarily due to the fact that typically most systems
are ‘‘cladding’’ type systems that do not create a 3D shape
from a CAD file. This may soon change as several systems
are now creating 3D shapes. The table also includes other
near-net shape manufacturing techniques such as metal
injection moulding (MIM) which is truly a powder sinter-
ing and consolidation process. Amongst these, laser

Table 2 Seven process categories of additive manufacturing [45]

AM process Alternative names

Vat photo-polymerization (VP) Stereo lithography (SLA)

Digital light processing (DLP)
Material jetting (MJ) Multi-jet modelling (MJM)
Material extrusion (ME) Fused deposition modelling (FDM)
Powder bed fusion (PBF) Electron beam melting (EBM)
Selective laser sintering (SLS)
Selective heat sintering (SHS)
Direct metal laser sintering (DMLS)
Binder jetting (BJ) Powder bed and inkjet head 3D printing (PBIH)
Plaster-based 3D printing (PP)
Sheet lamination (SL) Laminated object manufacturing (LOM)
Ultrasonic consolidation (UC)
Directed energy deposition (DED) Laser metal deposition (LMD)

123
 Trans Indian Inst Met

Fig. 2 Relative usage of various additive manufacturing processes and Material types [46]

Table 3 Attributes of various metal AM and near-net shape systems

Process Material form Power/heat source Speed Precision Size

Powder bed Laser powder bed fusion Powder Laser Medium High Medium
Electron beam powder bed fusion Powder Electron Beam Medium High Medium
Deposition Directed energy deposition Powder Laser Medium Medium High
Cold spray* Powder Kinetic energy High Medium High
Electron beam melting Wire Electron beam High Low High
Consolidation Metal injection moulding** Powder Binder/Die High Medium Low
Post-consolidation
Binder jet Powder Binder Medium Medium Medium
Post-consolidation

powder bed fusion (PBF-LB/M), directed energy deposi-
tion (DED), and electron beam powder bed fusion (PBF-
EB/M) have been used extensively for turbine engine
components. Table 4 shows a qualitative comparison of the
three processes in terms of the energy source, build vol-
umes, build layers, surface finish, residual stress, and
scanning method. Typically, both the DED and PBF-EB/M
processes tend to be used to produce larger parts such as
turbine blades, hybrid parts for repair and refurbishment,
and possibly large near-net shapes while the PBF-LB/M
technique is used for smaller parts with more complex
geometries such as heat exchangers, turbine blades (with
internal cooling), vanes, shrouds, fuel nozzles, and others
with somewhat intricate geometry requirements. These
attributes vary based on the part geometry and material.

Table 4 Laser-based metal AM vs electron beam powder bed fusion AM

Process PBF-LB/M PBF-EB/M DED

Build envelope 250–500 mm (x/y) * 200 to 300 mm (rect. and round) Typically [ 1 m
Beam size 0.1–0.5 lm 0.2–1 lm Can vary from 2 to 4 lm
Layer thickness 50–100 lm 100 lm 500–1000 lm
Build rate \ 50 cc/h 55–80 cc/h 16–320 cc/h
Surface finish Ra 9–12 lm, Rz 35–40 lm Ra 25/35 lm Ra 20–50 lm, Rz 150–300 lm
Residual stress High Minimal High
Heat treatment Stress relief required HIP preferred Stress relief not required HIP preferred Stress relief required, HIP preferred

123
Trans Indian Inst Met

The operational challenges of AM that hinders wide- and solidification as they are deposited layer upon layer (as
spread quick adoption of this technology can be broadly shown in Fig. 4 [81]) and hence undergo a very complex
categorized as follows: thermal history that could lend to a very heterogeneous
microstructure. Because of the rapid solidification process,
1. Size limitations The current footprint of the AM
with cooling rates of the order of 105 to 106°/s, defects
machines is largely restricted to parts sizes below 500
inherent to the process can appear such as porosity or voids
mm3 volume for PBF-LB/M and PBF-EB/M. A whole
in the atomized powders, un-permissible oxygen in the
new range of machines are being developed by various
powders, gas porosity during laser processing, lack of
new manufacturers to address the size and productivity
fusion, solidification cracking, and unmelted powders
issue including developing hybrid machines, as well as
[81–88]. In all the metal AM techniques, the process could
exploring new technologies such as severe plastic
lend itself to a modified phase equilibrium, as well as,
deformation (cold spray) [61] and using alternate heat
preferential solidification texture, etc. [42]. All these
sources [63]. Table 5 lists some of the recent
microstructural variations will have a direct correlation
developments in metal additive machines [47–65].
with the mechanical properties that could pose a challenge
This is by no means an exhaustive list of all the latest
in developing standards. The next challenge is in design.
AM machine manufacturers.
One of the key performance matrices of AM technology is
2. Repeatability and Quality It is important to assess the
in design optimization to lead to topologically optimized
quality in each build layer via in situ monitoring of the
structures and novel unitization of components [17, 18].
molten pool. Computerized inspection using X-ray
While this is very attractive from being able to obtain very
tomography has proven to be of great benefit; however,
complex and efficient turbine engine parts, the translation
the cost and time involved, as well as, the applicability
to building some of these structures poses several chal-
to specific part geometries, does not enable it as a
lenges. Several of these challenges can be listed in terms of
routine quality control tool for AM parts. Many of the
achieving the dimensional tolerance and accuracy of the
current inspection technologies for metal AM systems
build, being able to avoid too many support structures,
only offer a defect detectability up to 5 lm.
removal of parts from the build plate, and addressing dis-
3. Scalability Inventory reduction is shown as a possible
tortions and warpage due to residual stresses [7]. The fin-
benefit of AM technology by not having to stock up
ished part surface roughness could pose a key challenge,
many spare parts. It is also potentially able to cater to
especially, when concerning internal channels, with very
quick changes in design, being a low-volume produc-
narrow features, where a rough surface could potentially
tion process. However, at present it is not capable of
constrict the gas flow and lead to local hot spots in the
coping with sudden demands in production typically
component. Subsequently, after the part is made success-
due to certification challenges.
fully, it must be taken through an inspection and qualifi-
4. Material availability Although several powder manu-
cation process where several challenges arise. Transferring
facturers are now available, there is still a huge gap in
the knowledge of successful prototyping trials to the scal-
terms of material availability. Getting the new chem-
ability of production parts on a build plate typically poses
istry to be reliable and amenable to the AM involves
several challenges. Challenges involved in inspection of
establishing the structure and properties and optimiz-
the parts, potentially by the way of loss of data in trans-
ing the parameters. This is usually a time-consuming
lating from the native CAD file to the STL file, could end
process and can be a deterrent to AM implementation.
up reflecting in non-conformities in the manufactured part.
In addition, AM is a ‘‘welding’’ process and many of
Inability to inspect curved regions or expensive inspection,
the aerospace alloys are typically difficult to weld.
inspection techniques not being able to detect microscopic
Table 6 lists some of the well-known commercial
defects, etc. contribute to the inability to translate from the
powder manufacturers who are qualified for AM
coupon level to full part qualification.
powders [66–77].
The technical challenges that arise in AM adoption can
be listed under three broad themes: A. Microstructure and 3 Challenges: Microstructure and Mechanical
Mechanical properties, B. Design Optimization and Post- Properties
processing, C. Qualification and Inspection. The complex
process that comprises most additive manufacturing, 3.1 Porosity and Micro-defects:
including managing the laser power/power density, tra-
verse speed, powder flow rate, deposit layer thickness, The starting point of any additive manufacturing process
substrate temperature, inert gas flow rate, etc. as shown in relates to being able to obtain dense ([ 99.5%) samples.
Fig. 3. Metal AM parts are subjected to repeated melting Several studies have documented how parameter

123
 Table 5 Various metal AM machines in use/being developed [47–65]
S. Name of the Company name Process Additional Typical Location Build volume Remarks References
no. product/model process materials

123
mes description

1 M450 Meltio DED Metals Spain 200 9 150 9 450 mm Joint venture between Additec [47]
(Germany/USA)
and Sicnova (Spain) which
are both 3D printer
manufacturers
2 EZ300 Tada Electric PBF-EB/M Japan 250 9 250 9 300 mm [48]
Company
(Mitsubishi
Electric
group)
3 CERES system Exaddon DED in electrolyte bath Innovative Metal Switzerland 100 9 70 9 60 mm Opening new horizons in [49]
and energy source is additive micro- domains such as
electrochemical manufacturing microelectronics, MEMS and
(lAM) surface functionalization
4 LUMEX Avance Matsuura Hybrid PBF-LB/M and Japan 256 9 256 9 185 mm It is the world’s first 3D [50]
25 CNC machining Printing and a hybrid
industrial 3D printer. It can
build parts in 3D at a speed
of 7 cubic cm per hour, for
a maximum part weight of
90 kg
5 LSAM—Large- Thermwood Hybrid material Machines use a Reinforced US 3000 9 1500 9 1500/ Suitable for producing a wide [51]
Scale Additive extrusion and CNC two-step, near- thermoplastic 5100 mm variety of components,
Manufacturing machining net shape composite Thermwood is focusing on
production materials producing industrial tooling,
process. The masters, patterns, moulds,
part is first 3D and production fixtures for a
printed layer variety of industries
by layer, to including aerospace,
slightly larger automotive, foundry, and
than the final boating
size, and then,
it is trimmed to
its exact final
net size and
shape using a
CNC router
Trans Indian Inst Met
 Table 5 continued
S. Name of the Company name Process Additional Typical Location Build volume Remarks References
no. product/model process materials
mes description

6 ATLAS GE Gantry PBF-LB Concept Laser Titanium, US 1.1 9 1.1 9 0.3 m (x, y, Build geometry will be [52]
aluminium z) customizable and scalable for
Trans Indian Inst Met

and other an individual customer’s

metals project. Its feature resolution
and build-rate speeds will
equal or better today’s
additive machines’’
7 DM P2500 Digital Metal Binder jetting High-precision Metals US 170 9 150 9 55 mm With the Digital Metal [53]
binder jetting technology, an average
technology surface quality of Ra 6 lm
can be obtained already
without any post-processing
8 SLM 500 SLM solutions PBF-LB/M Selective laser Metals Germany 500 9 280 9 875 mm First quad-laser metal AM [54]
melting system
9 LightSpee3d Spee3D Cold spray Severe plastic Metals Australia 300 9 300 9 300 mm 500 9 280 9 365 mm [55]
deformation of
meta-powders
through a
nozzle at Mach
speeds
10 Lasertec 125 3D DMG Mori Hybrid DED-LB/P with Directed energy Metals 1250 9 745 mm Flexibly switching between [56]
Hybrid CNC machining deposition laser deposition welding and
with coaxial milling operations in only
powder nozzle one programming set-up
combined with
5-axis milling
and turning
11 ProM IS 500 Anisoprint Material extrusion Patent pending Thermoplastic Luxembourg A4: Different thermoplastic [57]
composite materials 297 9 210 9 140 mm polymers can be reinforced
fibre A3: with continuous fibres,
coextrusion 420 9 297 9 210 mm consolidated and cured
(CFC) within a single-stage fully
technology automated process that does
not require post-processing
or tooling. The two-matrix
(thermoset ? thermoplastic)
approach ensures low
porosity, good adhesion of
fibre to polymer, superior
mechanical properties

123
 Table 5 continued
S. Name of the Company name Process Additional Typical Location Build volume Remarks References
no. product/model process materials

123
mes description

12 COMPOSER Anisoprint Material extrusion Material Composite Luxembourg 297 9 210 9 148 mm The second extruder can print [58]
extrusion 3D carbon fibre composite carbon fibre
printer filament filament (CCF) which
(CCF) enables you to reinforce the
part while printing. This way
you can manufacture load-
bearing structural parts with
high mechanical properties
13 HYBRID multi- Mazak DED (Hot Wire) Hot wire Metals (Repair US It combines additive [59]
tasking Corporation deposition of turbine technology, such as direct
machines and Oak blades and metal laser sintering and
Ridge other high- multi-laser HWD, with
National wear parts) subtractive manufacturing
Laboratory’s operations. The machine’s
(ORNL) hot wire laser incorporates an
automatic wire feeder system
that feeds welding wire to an
argon gas nozzle
14 FS621M Farsoon PBF-LB/M Large-frame laser Metal China 620 9 620 9 1100 mm Single 1000 W laser or four [60]
Technologies beam powder 500 W lasers
bed fusion
machine
15 High speed Essentium Material extrusion TPU, ABS, US 740 9 510 9 650 mm High speed extrusion (HSE) [61]
extrusion PEEK, and Flash Fuse technology
180-S Series ULTEM,
FlashFuse
z-materials
16 NeuBeam Wayland PBF-LB/M with PBF- New powder bed Refractory UK It is a hot part process rather [62]
process Additive EB/M fusion process metals than a hot bed process and
creates parts that are free of
residual stresses
17 Selective LED- Graz University PBF (LED energy Melting of Metals The new technology is quite [63]
based melting of source) powder using similar to SLM (Selective
(SLEDM) Technology LED light Laser Melting) and EBM
sources (Electron Beam Melting),
where the same metal
powder is melted by an
electron beam or a laser and
layered up to create the
desired finished product
Trans Indian Inst Met
 Table 5 continued
S. Name of the Company name Process Additional Typical Location Build volume Remarks References
no. product/model process materials
mes description

18 Duo printer Creative 3D Material extrusion Dual extrusion Abrasive and US 910 9 460 9 675 mm The Duo printer has been [64]
technologies system flexible designed to encompass large
Trans Indian Inst Met

materials format, high-temperature,

precise 3D printing, with the
capability to process abrasive
and flexible materials. It is
equipped with a dual
extrusion system, providing
the ability to simultaneously
print a component and its
mirrored counterpart; an
exact replica of the same
part; or harness two different
colours or materials in the
same part
19 Tera 250 Nanofabrica Vat- Micro-level Polymers Israel Nanofabrica’s AM technology [65]
Photopolymerization resolution combines innovation in
(not verified) technology materials, software, and
hardware to allow the
repeatable mass
manufacturing of micro-parts
and components with
micron-scale features.
Example: we can
manufacture over 10,000
1 mm 9 1 mm 9 1 mm
parts in a single build

123
 Trans Indian Inst Met

Table 6 List of metal AM powder manufactures and class of alloys [66–80]

S. no. Powder manufacturer Location Comments References

1 Sandvik, Osprey Sweden * Specialists in Maraging Steel of all kinds for AM—18Ni300, 13Ni400, HK30, etc. [66]
* Newly added Ti64 manufacturing in 2019
2 Carpenter—LPW USA-UK * Tantalum alloys, All other alloy grades [67]
3 Oerlikon USA-UK * VIGA—Ni, Fe, Co—Nitrogen and Argon [68]
* EIGA Ti grades 5 and 23—only Argon
4 Tosoh USA * EIGA process for new beta Ti chemistries [69]
* Ta-Ti powders—Patented process
5 Praxair USA * All grades [70]
6 Indo MIM India * First AM powder manufacturing from India [71]
7 Hoganas Germany All grades except Al [72]
8 Ametek USA All grades except Al [73]
9 MIMETE Italy All grades except Al [74]
10 Aubery and Duval France * Specialists in Nickel-based superalloy powders [75]
* Partnership with Pyrogenesi (Canada) for Ti powders for AM
11 H. C. Starck Germany All grades [76]
12 Valimet USA * Al alloys speciality [77]
13 Heraeus * Scalmaloy [78]
14 AP & C USA GE Additive company—TiAl [79]
15 6K USA Reclaiming from Subtractive Mfg [80]

Fig. 3 Multivarious parameters

that need to be considered in an
AM process

optimization is done via a design of experiments (DOE),
when starting with a new chemistry, to ensure that coupons
with minimal porosity are obtained [87–101]. The complex
process shown in Fig. 4 is typically translated into an
energy density with the DOE aiming to have a dense
material. The energy density is calculated based on the
formula, Ev = PL/(vs*hs*Ds), where Ev = Volume energy,
PL = Laser power, Ds = Layer thickness, Vs = Scan speed,
Hs = Hatch distance. Figure 5 shows an example of a large
difference in the porosity with different energy densities in

123
Trans Indian Inst Met
Fig. 4 a Layer-by-layer melting and b rapid heat extraction that is
characteristic of metal AM process [88]
PBF-LB/M CoCrMo (Fig. 5a, b) [87] and MM247LC
(Fig. 5c, d) [88]. The lack of fusion and extensive porosity
at low energy densities is due to lack of powder consoli-
dation, while high energy densities can lead to solidifica-
tion cracking. An increase in porosity can also occur with
an increase in layer thickness [87]. While the DOE
approach is the starting step, the challenge comes when the
apparent density is not very sensitive to a range of process
parameters, and the material may show similar results for
more than one set of parameters in the DOE [87, 100].
Porosity has also been found to vary depending on the
build orientation [89]. Secondly, even if the parameters are
optimized for a bulk coupon, the porosity may be very
different when building various contours that define the
part geometry and may result in unacceptable densities
along thin sections or fine cooling holes as found in turbine
airfoil geometry [43]. This is also illustrated in Fig. 5e–f
showing the microstructure of a cube vs. the thin walled
structure of a cranial implant (wall thickness \ 0.8 mm)
revealing a huge difference in their starting porosity in a
Ti6Al4V alloy using the PBF-LB/M technique [99]. The
intrinsic micro-defects that arise in AM are micro-cracking,
delamination, lack of fusion, voids, and the formation of
oxides [9, 42, 87–102]. There are also limitations with
certain alloy chemistries that are prone to solidification
cracking or liquation cracking, as shown in the case of a
MarM247LC alloy [88, 100, 102].
3.2 Microstructure and Heat Treatment
3.2.1 Grain Structure
The vast majority of over 1000s of alloys in use today in
turbo machinery cannot be additively manufactured
because the melting and solidification dynamics during the
printing process lead to intolerable microstructures with
large columnar grains and periodic cracks. It is quite
common to expect a directional structure with elongated or
columnar grains, via the AM route, based on the thermal
gradients during the rapid solidification process. The as-
printed sample will then exhibit a texture along the build
direction. When the design criteria stipulate isotropy of
microstructure with equiaxed grains, the occurrence of
directional grains will lend itself to anisotropic mechanical
properties as seen from the DED process [103–107]. Heat
treatment optimization is known to achieve a transition to
the desired microstructure [106]; however, in some cases
this may not have any effect on obtaining isotropic
microstructure and properties. An attempt to resolve this
issue related to the DED process has been made by intro-
ducing nanoparticles of nucleants that control solidification
during additive manufacturing. Hughes research laborato-
ries (HRL) selected nucleants based on crystallographic
information and assembled them onto 7075 and 6061 series
aluminium alloy powders [108, 109]. After functionaliza-
tion with the nucleants, they found that these high-strength
7000 series aluminium alloys, which were previously
incompatible with additive manufacturing via the PBF-LB/
M, could be processed successfully. However, this recipe
did not work out well for difficult to weld Ni-based, such as
IN738, IN713, MM247, etc. alloys [110].
3.2.2 Phase Transformations
Due to the rapid solidification inherent in the AM process,
many of the alloys form non-equilibrium phases
[111–125]. In DED and PBF-LB/M Ti6Al4V, a martensite
phase with decreased ductility occurs, which does respond
favourably to heat treatments [114]. Process parameter
optimization is known to enable an as-printed PBF-LB/M
Ti6Al4V without martensite. This phase is not so prevalent
via the PBF-EB/M processes which has an intrinsic in situ
stress relieving that takes place due to the preheat of each
layer, and is hence known to be able to avoid the brittle
martensitic phase, and may be able to minimize or elimi-
nate post-processing heat treatments. Heat treatment in
vacuum versus air can also pose a challenge in the AM
material microstructural response, as shown by way of a
decarburization taking place in PBF-LB/M steel [125] and
PBF-LB/M Ti6Al4V which does not show any significant
difference provided the heat treatment is carried out below
the b-transus temperature [99]. In some instances, nickel-
based alloys such as IN718 were found to exhibit a
heterogeneity in phases as a function of build height,
especially while making use of PBF-EB/M or DED pro-
cesses [115].
3.2.3 Hot Isostatic Pressing and Heat Treatment
Turbine engine components manufactured by the conven-
tional processes are typically given a hot isostatic pressing
(HIP) combined with other heat treatments, to help
123
 Trans Indian Inst Met

Fig. 5 DOE to optimize porosity in PBF-LB/M alloys in the ‘‘as-printed’’ condition, a, b CoCrMo [87], c, d MM247LC [88], for low and high
energy density, e, f porosity variations in Ti6Al4, for bulk (e) versus a thin wall implant (f) [99]

eliminate the pores and to prevent micro-crack nucleation
and the formation of a serrated grain boundaries, thereby
enabling better creep strength. This is definitely seen to be
beneficial and the accepted practice for cast and wrought
alloys. However, for materials processed using AM, the
benefits tend to be less definitive and have in certain cases
been found to have a somewhat limited effect [126–138].
In some cases, it was seen to improve the creep behaviour
whereas in several other AM samples, there was a creep
debit. The non-equilibrium processes during the AM pro-
cesses sometimes led to precipitation of unexpected inter-
metallic and carbide phases during HIP process. Not all
alloys subjected to HIP and HT have responded with better
structural integrity in terms of better mechanical properties.
Table 7 lists some of the effects of HIP HT studies in
various alloys towards their mechanical properties as

123
Trans Indian Inst Met

Table 7 Effect of HIP heat treatment on AM alloys

S. Material/ HIP conditions Condition Comment References
no. alloy
HIP HIP HIP
pressure temperature time
(MPa) (°C) (h)

1 IN718 175 1180 4 As HIPed * To homogenize the microstructure [126]

175 1180 4 HIP ? direct * To improve the creep behaviour at 650 °C
aging process
2 Ti6Al4V 820 As HIPed * Effective in removing the pores from the parts [127]
* HIP produced a very uniform Widmanstätten structure,
with a laths’ thickness of around 1–2 lm
3 IN718 100 1160 4 As HIPed * Promoted the formation of d phase and MC carbides along [128]
the grain boundaries
d formed due to c‘‘-phase dissolution in the c matrix, while
MC-type carbides nucleates grew by diffusion of solute
atoms
4 CM247LC 1230 2 HIPed ? solution * Revealing coarse ‘‘raft like’’ c’ structure [129]
treated

Fig. 6 As printed vs heat

treated microstructure revealing
recrystallized grains in LPBF
CoCrMo, and a breakdown of
texture after heat treatment
[81]—original figures copyright
2018 by The Minerals, Metals &
Materials Society and ASM
International. [Used with
permission].

123

Fig. 7 a, b Samples for mechanical testing showing different orientations on the build plate along with small-scale test coupons, c variation in
Vicker’s hardness and d yield strength (room temperature) with build orientation [86]
reported by various researchers. While HIP process can
remediate some of the internal cracks, they are not very
effective in closing some of the sub-surface or surface
cracks [125]. In some alloys, heat treatment of the as-
printed structure results in a recrystallized, fine-grained
microstructure that lead to a poorer creep performance.
Figure 6 shows an example of recrystallized grains and a
loss in preferential texture after heat treatment [87]. The
heat treatment was optimized to result in the breakdown of
the as-printed structure and in an isotropic microstructure
in PBF-LB/M CoCrMo alloy.
3.2.4 Mechanical Properties
The factors contributing to the anisotropy of mechanical
properties of AM materials are: a. build and crystallo-
graphic orientation, b. heterogeneity of microstructure and
micro-defects, c. location specific residual stresses, and d.
preferential texture or orientation. Mechanical properties of
additively built coupons are known to show variations as a
function of build orientation (Fig. 7a [86]). Several reports
have indicated the mechanical property anisotropy for
different turbine engine materials such as Ti6Al4V, IN718,
IN625, Hastealloy X, MM247LC, and AlSi10Mg
[139–156]. The anisotropy can tend to be location specific,
123
Trans Indian Inst Met
based on whether the test specimen is located near the
blower or the recoater, corner or centre, as indicated in
Fig. 7b. Figure 7c, d shows the variation in Vickers micro-
hardness and room temperature tensile strength as a func-
tion of build orientation for a wire arc AM build [86]. Kok
et al [42] have carried out a comprehensive review on the
anisotropy of mechanical properties and heterogeneity of
microstructure for different metal AM technologies. Maroti
et al. [139] studied the anisotropy by using static and
dynamic experiments. The differences in mechanical
properties are attributed to the greater cooling time of the
individual layers along a particular orientation, hetero-
geneity in microstructure and phase formation, crystallo-
graphic orientation and porosity.
Carter et al [91] have documented the effect of aniso-
tropic gliding in different load directions to the build
direction by a detailed analysis of the slip planes in small-
scale testing done using the SEM where it has be observed
that two sliding systems are activated along the build
direction (BD) and at 90° to the BD, whereas only one
sliding system can be seen activated at 45° to the BD.
Saboori et al. [146] have done systematic comparisons of
the mechanical behaviour including high temperature
fatigue and creep strengths of AM Ti6Al4V alloy that is
used extensively in turbine engine compressor components.
Trans Indian Inst Met

Fig. 8 a Small-scale tensile test

specimens in monolithic and
welded PBF-LB/M samples
along with specimen
dimensions for small-scale and
regular tensile specimen [163],
b variation in microstructure
along the specimen build
direction [86]

Particularly in titanium alloys, a key issue is the role of
oxygen and its sensitivity to cooling rates, resulting in
varied microstructure in different locations of the part and
hence mechanical properties, which may become geometry
specific. Understanding the variations in the room tem-
perature mechanical (tensile) properties may not be ade-
quate if the application is for high temperature. For
example, there may be a poor fatigue at elevated temper-
atures or a creep debit or poor notch sensitivity at elevated
temperatures that poses a big challenge to making use of
the technology reliably for hot gas path components.
Another important factor to be considered is the necessity
to evaluate mechanical properties at small length scales
which are comparable to the geometry of the part with
comparable microstructures and phase equilibria. There are
limited reports and practically few standards for testing at
small length scales [88, 157–163]. Figure 8a shows an
example of micro-tensile specimen geometry vs regular
tensile (ASTM E8) [163] which is particularly important to
assess the mechanical behaviour related to heterogeneity in
microstructure along a build, as shown in Fig. 8b [86]. This
is an area of research and development as there are cur-
rently no published, directly applicable standards available
for evaluating small-scale mechanical properties, espe-
cially for fatigue and creep, at elevated temperatures that
can truly represent the AM material behaviour.

123

Fig. 9 a Thermal monitoring of
the melt pool using on-axis
photodiodes, b optical detection
of powder spreading
4 Challenges: Design
4.1 Topology
Additive manufacturing serves as an extremely innovative
manufacturing tool to enable the design and production of
turbine engine components via topology optimization. As
an example, a designer could create the best configuration
of a lightweight static and rotating components via lattice
structures [164–166]. As such, TO is a complex and
powerful design approach to optimize the best material
distribution for a given mechanical design. While AM is
seen as an enabler of achieving a high level of design
complexity, or to simulate the simplicity of biomimicry,
there are several practical difficulties in realizing the true
benefits of TO via AM. To start with, the definition of the
mesh and representation in finite element for the starting
design may sometimes be a challenge in AM. In addition,
defining the support structures that may be needed to
manufacture the lattice optimized structure has also been
challenging. As mentioned previously, during the conver-
sion process from native CAD to STL (or other
portable file types to the machine files), there could likely
be a resultant loss in a geometry and hence a non-confor-
mal part when inspected to the intended component defi-
nition [167–171]. Secondly, designing or addressing
overhangs and fine features is challenging. The inherent
characteristics or algorithms used to design using TO have
only begun to consider build considerations like encapsu-
lated powder and residual stresses especially related to the
thin walled lattice structures. Modelling and validating the
complex microstructure, extreme cooling rates and surface
finish for the TO structures and lattice structures, is chal-
lenging. Therefore, there is typically a manual approxi-
mation that is finally incorporated in the iterative analysis.
Accounting for differences between the bulk and surface
properties is somewhat difficult and/or time-consuming
123
Trans Indian Inst Met
using numerical methods. Therefore, limited empirical data
are typically generated, or bulk density are used to opti-
mize the parameters as discussed previously. This approach
can be risky, as it makes it difficult to predict the fatigue
response, while designing the lightweight TO designs.
4.2 Post-processing: Surface Finish and Residual
Stress
The relative surface roughness (Ra) obtainable using PBF-
LB/M for various IN718, IN625, Ti6Al4V, AlSi10Mg
ranges between 1 and 25 lm Ra and [ 25 lm Ra for DED
and PBF-EB/M techniques, which necessitates post-pro-
cessing machining operations. Therefore, parts having
relatively lower complexity are built using the latter two
AM processes, while the PBF-LB/M process can be uti-
lized to give near-net shape parts with the ability to
incorporate more design complexity. Hence, the challenges
from a relatively rough surface finish are more prominent
for the PBF-LB/M processed parts and many fold
[172–177]. Processing parameters can be optimized to
minimize the surface roughness to some extent, by incor-
porating variations via a skin pass parameter optimization
to yield a smoother surface; however, this may be limited
by the intricacies of design and geometry. In the case of
internal fluid channels, such as manifolds and turbine
blades and vanes, where pressure head losses are relevant,
this becomes very pertinent, in constricting the fluid flow.
Surface finish also plays a major risk in the case of fatigue
debits that is caused by local stress concentration regions
and hence promote crack nucleation and premature failure.
Roughness variations also occur in the underside surfaces
of the additively manufactured part arising from the
effectiveness of the insulating properties of powders. This
roughness is difficult to quantify, especially in inaccessible
geometries and the ability to physically or numerically
represent the roughness accurately.
Trans Indian Inst Met
Fig. 10 a Physics-based defect prediction model, b model validation for defects
Fig. 11 Flowchart for inspection and qualification of AM parts
The layer-upon-layer melting and solidification process
for most AM techniques lead to residual stresses that are
tensile in nature [178–184]. Dimensional accuracy, dis-
tortions, warpage, and shrinkage are some of the factors
affected by residual stresses. Warpage occurs if the ther-
mally induced stresses exceed the substrate yield strength.
Disparities in residual stresses can sometimes cause
microstructural gradients. This becomes important espe-
cially in the layers close to the build plate, where roughness
coupled with residual stresses can lead to delamination at
the bottom surface of the unsupported melt pool making it
difficult for part removal. The curling of unsupported sur-
faces occurs when new layers on a build solidify and
contract upon cooling, warping previously deposited lay-
ers. Residual stress measurements can be carried out using
X-ray diffraction, neutron diffraction, etc.; however, these
are line of sight techniques, and it is a challenge to
experimentally establish the residual stress, in different
locations of the part with precision. Some efforts have been
made to perform transient thermo-mechanical finite
element analysis of the AM process to predict the magni-
tude and distribution of residual stresses in geometries of
interest [180, 181]. Substrate heating is one way to over-
come residual stresses. An accurate understanding and
modelling of thermal stresses and in situ heat transfer can
facilitate optimal processing parameters and placement of
sacrificial heat dissipation supports attached to a compo-
nent. The residual stresses can be significantly minimized
by reducing the layer thickness, as well as, doubling the
heat source; however, this may end up enhancing the part
distortion.
5 Challenges: Inspection and Qualification
Production appropriate inspection technologies for AM
processes are somewhat underdeveloped or costly and is a
key challenge in going from the coupon level, to the part
level, and then full-scale production. In situ process mon-
itoring for layer-wise defects or partwise quality is critical,
123
 Trans Indian Inst Met

Fig. 12 Technical challenges in additive manufacturing adoption for gas turbine components

Table 8 Additive application strategy for turbine engine components

Identify Value-based additive opportunities—lightweight, durability, fuel burn, complexity, cost, other novel functions unable to achieve via
Conventional manufacturing
In repair and refurbishment

Develop Machine, material, processes, including heat treatment, post-processing, inspection, structure–property correlations
Design Utilize the geometrical freedom of topology, post-processing treatments, support generation,
Qualify Establish structure–property correlations, small-scale testing suitable to design requirements, establish specifications, first piece
qualifications, and scaling up
Validate Performance of the new part and engine requirements, coupling with analytics and component testing
Certify Reproducible component level testing and engine level certification

ideally with precise closed-loop feedback systems, to
[185–195] to ensure a quick turnaround time for obtaining
robust quality control. Sensors and advanced analytics are
being developed for anomaly detection. Figure 9a, b shows
an example of thermal monitoring of the melt pool using
on-axis photodiodes, and optical detection of powder
spreading, which are under development. Even small
defects in fabricated parts can have a large impact on
performance and safety, especially in turbine engines. Most
of the current methods involve destructive testing to cap-
ture fine details such as micro-scale cracks, porosity, and
small voids. Not only are these generally time-consuming
and expensive, but may also lack the required resolution,
precision, and accuracy, for expected properties/component
life. The lack of a layer-by-layer inspection process that is
robust and accurate is a challenge. In addition, the lack of a
full understanding of the key process inputs and outputs
drives extraneous and unimportant data to be collected and
possibly mislead outcomes. The information that the cur-
rent methods offer is typically not optimized and may not
have supporting industry adopted specifications. Majumder
[191] developed an in situ smart optical measurement
system (SOMS) to detect inconsistencies in composition,
detect pin holes, tiny cracks, porosity and segregation to
help achieve ‘‘certify as you build’’ to enable corrections
for a better quality. A critical aspect of certification
requires a combination of non-destructive and destructive
evaluation methods that account for process variabilities
that need to be carefully built into the specification for
qualification. Smart optical and thermal measurement
systems are being developed for in situ monitoring of AM
fabrication of 3D structures; however, the resolution of
many of these techniques including micro-computer
tomography is not yet ready to capture the micro-defects or

123
Trans Indian Inst Met
anomalies during the fabrication of the part. The current
methods we have just do not give us enough information
fast enough or cost effectively, to cover the geometric
complexity of AM components and adds significant chal-
lenges to accurate measurement [192–195]. One must not
forget that the final inspection of the part is based on the
part requirements, not necessarily the smallest defect that
can be created. The ability to define the manufacturing
process windows that establish material property design
curves is critical and enabling for part design application
and associated process control requirements. The non-
availability of first principle models to optimize process
parameters accurately to predict the layer-upon-layer
heterogeneity is currently limiting the ability to reach mass
production with ease. Figure 10a, b shows an example of a
physics-based defect prediction model which needs to be
integrated with the processing of the part. Figure 11 dis-
plays a flowchart for inspection and qualification and
potential areas that need development. It is also important
to consider the thermal history of an AM component when
designing for critical applications. For example, if ten
tensile test specimens are fabricated one-by-one sequen-
tially and removed from the machine when complete, the
material properties may be different when all ten speci-
mens are fabricated simultaneously without any post-heat
treatment. In the former case, the component will be built
comparatively quickly and so experience a higher mean
temperature. In the latter case, the time interval between
layers for a given specimen will be greater due to the time
spent melting other specimens, and so, more thermal
energy will dissipate between layers. Batch-wise variability
of poorly controlled or understood processes has been seen
in the actual part performance, which is difficult to detect
via microstructural or porosity variations. Because of many
of the challenges discussed previously and some of the
historic bias created in early application shortcomings,
process-based qualification and certification is yet to be
readily and fully integrated.
6 Summary
Metal additive manufacturing has offered some fascinating
paths to manufacture and realize the next generation
advancements to gas turbine engine designs and enable the
engineering of new alloys with superior performance at
short development cycle times and costs. However, more
can be realized and challenges still exist in controlling the
unique microstructures, defects and properties that are
created through this process to further ensure the delivery
of repeatable and reliable components. Several technical
challenges were discussed as being the key to accelerated
qualification of AM parts and faster adoption of the AM
technology to turbine engine components. All of these need
to be considered as part of the qualification processes for
AM. Figure 12 depicts the list of technical challenges that
were highlighted in this review. Although the challenges
have been grouped under three different themes, the chal-
lenges that relate the processing–structure–properties to the
performance are inter-related and the cross-effects of these
must be considered as an application moves towards part
qualification. Being able to predict some of these via
material and numerical modelling could serve to accelerate
the process. Table 8 lists an additive application strategy
that is essential in order to take the technology from a
concept, to feasibility, through the process development
and maturation stage, and ultimately accelerated adoption
for turbine engine components. This process is comple-
mentary to the industry accepted technology and manu-
facturing readiness planning. Comprehension of the
various challenges beforehand and at every stage of the
development will certainly assist in addressing them in a
scientific manner and accelerate the developmental cycle
and enable faster adoption of AM technology and to enable
3D printed parts to fly.
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Dayananda
Narayana, Pratt & Whitney R&D Center, Bangalore, for several
discussions and help with the references and Jesse Boyer, Pratt &
Whitney, East Hartford, for reviewing the article and providing
valuable inputs.
References
[1] Schafrik R, and Sprague R, Adv. Mater. Proc. 162 (2004).
[2] Roger C R, The Superalloys: Fundamentals and Applications,
Cambridge University Press (2006).
[3] Pollock T, and Tin S, J Prop Power 22 (2006) 361.
[4] Huron E S, Bain K R, Mourer D P, and Gabb T, Superalloys
(2008) 181.
[5] Dutta B, Babu S, and Jared B, Science, Technology and
Applications of Metals in Additive Manufacturing, Elsevier
(2019).
[6] Wimpenny D I, Pandey P M, and Kumar L J, Advances in 3D
Printing and Additive Manufacturing Technologies. Springer
US, (2017).
[7] Milewski J O, Additive Manufacturing of Metals: From Fun-
damental Technology to Rocket Nozzles, Medical Implants,
and Custom Jewelry, Springer, (2017).
[8] Gibson I, Rosen D W, and Stucker B, Development of Additive
Manufacturing Technology, Springer, (2015).
[9] Simpson J, Haley J, Cramer C, Shafer O, Elliot A, and William
P, ORNL/TM-2019/1190 M3CT-19OR06090123, (2019).
[10] Frazier W E, J. Mater. Eng. Perform, 23 (2014) 1917.
[11] Gao W, Zhang Y, Ramanujana D, Ramani K, Chenc Y, Wil-
liams C B , Wang C C L, Shina Y C, Zhang S, and Zavattieri P
D, Computer-Aided Design 69 (2015) 65.
[12] Herzog D, Seyda V, Wycisk E, and Emmelmann C, Acta
Mater. 117 (2016) 371.
123

[13] Ngo T D, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyun T U, and Hui D,
Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials,
methods, applications and challenges 143 (2018) 172.
[14] Gebisa A W, and Lemu H G, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2018, 1.
[15] www.intechopen.com/books
[16] http://www2.deloitte.com
[17] http://www.hindawi.com
[18] researchgate.net/publication/327326826_
[19] https://www.additive-manufacturing-for-the-aircraft-industry-
a-review
[20] Additive Manufacturing: Building the Future’’ http://www.
energy.gov/s
[21] Additive Manufacturing for Repair and Restoration in
Remanufacturing: http://www.mdpi.com
[22] Opportunities, Challenges, and Policy Implications of Additive
Manufacturing’’ https://www.gao.gov
[23] Lange A, Lange J, and Schulze U, MTU Aero Engines Gmbh,
U.S. Patent 7,810,237, 2010.
[24] McBrien J, Castle L K, and Spangler B W, U.S. Patent
Application 15/211,913, 2016.
[25] Islam M U, Xue, L, and McGregor G, National Research
Council of Canada, U.S. Patent 6,269,540, 2001.
[26] Metal Powder Report, 69 (2014), 36–37.
[27] Wilson J. M, Cecil P, Yung S, and Fu Z, J. Cleaner Prod. 80
(2014) 170.
[28] Yilmaz O, Gindy N, and Gao J, Robot Comp. Int. Mfg. 26
(2010) 190.
[29] Petrat T, Graf Bm Gumenyuk A, and Rethnmeier M, Phy.
Procedia 83 (2016) 761.
[30] http://www.compositesworld.com
[31] http://www.ge.com/news
[32] https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/article/
pratt-whitney-additive-parts-engine-040615/
[33] 3dprintingindustry.com/news/gkn-aerospace
[34] cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/171976_en.html
[35] http://www.rolls-royce.com
[36] boeing.mediaroom.com
[37] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-norsk-boeing
[38] http://www.boeing.com
[39] MTU : http://www.longdom.org
[40] http://www.longdom.org/open-access
[41] https://aeroreport.de/en/innovation/additive-manufacturing-in-
engine-production
[42] Kok Y, Tan X P, Wang P, Nai M L S, Loh N H, Liu E, and Tor
S B, Mater Des. 139 (2018) 565.
[43] Kulkarni A, Applied Physics, May 2018.
[44] Karia M C, Popat M A, and Sangani K B, AIP Proc. (2017)
1859.
[45] ASTM, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing
Technologies, ASTM, F2792–12a.
[46] senvol.com/database
[47] Meltio M450: http://www.aniwaa.com/product/3d-printers/
meltio-m450/
[48] tadadenki.jp/english/welding_machines/metal_3d_printer
[49] exaddon.com/
[50] matsuurausa.com/model/lumex-avance
[51] thermwood.com/lsam_home
[52] ge.com/additive
[53] http://www.digitalmetal.tech/printer-line/design-and-function
[54] slm-solutions.com/products-and-solutions/machines/slm-500
[55] https://spee3d.com/product/lightspee3d/
[56] dmgmori.com
[57] DM3D http://www.pomgroup.com
[58] ‘‘Anisoprint COMPOSER’’ https://3dprinting.com/products/
industrial-3d-printer/anisoprint-composer-a4/
123
Trans Indian Inst Met
[59] https://www.metal-am.com/mazak-partners-with-ornl-on-
wire-based-additive-manufacturing-rd/
[60] ‘‘Farsoon Technologies FS621M’’ https://www.metal-am.com/
farsoon-introduces-large-frame-metal-additive-manufacturing-
machine/
[61] https://www.essentium.com/high-speed-extrusion/
[62] ‘‘Wayland Additive NeuBeam process’’ https://www.3dprin
tingmedia.network/wayland-additive-calibur-3-neubeam-
launch-date/
[63] ‘‘Graz University SLEDM’’ https://3dprintingindustry.com/
news/tu-graz-engineers-create-metal-3d-printer-that-uses-led-
instead-of-lasers-or-electron-beams-171609/
[64] https://www.beam-machines.com/
[65] https://www.rrcat.gov.in/technology/laser
[66] ‘‘Sandvik, Osprey’’ http://www.metalpowder.sandvik
[67] ‘‘Carpenter – LPW’’ http://www.carpenteradditive.com
[68] ‘‘Oerlikon’’ mymetco.oerlikon.com
[69] ‘‘Tosoh’’ http://www.tosohsmd.com
[70] ‘‘Praxair’’ https://www.praxairsurfacetechnologies.com
[71] ‘‘Indo MIM’’ http://www.indo-mim.com
[72] ‘‘Hoganas’’ http://www.hoganas.com
[73] ‘‘Ametek’’http://www.powderclad.com
[74] ‘‘MIMETE’’ http://www.mimete.com
[75] ‘‘Aubery and Duval’’ http://www.eramet.com/en/aubert-duval
[76] ‘‘H. C. Starck’’ http://www.hcstarcksolutions.com/additive-
manufacturing/
[77] ‘‘Valimet’’ valimet.com/our-products/am-grades/
[78] ‘‘Heraeus’’ http://www.heraeus.com
[79] ‘‘AP & C’’ http://www.advancedpowders.com
[80] ‘‘6K’’ http://www.6kinc.com
[81] Bawane K K, Srinivasan D, and Banerjee D, Meta Mater Tran
A 49 (2018) 3793.
[82] Sames W J, List F A, Pannala S, Dehoff R R, and Babu S S,
Int. Mater. Rev. 61 (2016) 315. .
[83] Sames W J, Medina F, Peter W H, Babu S S, and Dehoff R R,
8th Int. Symp. Superalloy 718 Deriv. (2014) 409.
[84] Qi H, Azer M, and Ritter, Metall. Mater. Trans. 40 (2009)
2410.
[85] Zhao X, Chen J, Lin X, and Huang W, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 478
(2008) 119.
[86] Hassel T, and Carstensen T, Weld. World 64 (2020) 1921.
[87] Chandrasekara S K R D, Reddy S A, Srinivasan D, and
Ananthanarayanan D, Proc. ASME Gas Turbine India (2017).
[88] Hilal H, Lancaster R J, Jeffs S P, Ednie L, Boswell J, Stapleton
D, and Baxter G, Ubiquity Proc. 1 (2018) 21.
[89] Hartunian P, and Eshraghi M, J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2
(2018) 69.
[90] Sadek A, Ritter G, Drews C, and Ryan D, DE-FE0023974
(2017).
[91] Carter L N, Martin C, Withers P J, and Attallah M M, J. Alloys
Compd 615 (2014) 338.
[92] Jeffs S, Lancaster R, and Davies S, Key Engg. Mater 734
(2017) 128.
[93] Moussaoui K, Rubio W, Mousseigne M, and Sultan T, Mater
Sci Engg. A 735 (2019) 182.
[94] Calignano F, and Minetola P, Mater, 12 (2019) 3178.
[95] Kasperovich G, Haubrich J, Gussone J, and Requena G, Mater
Des. 105 (2016) 160.
[96] Tian Z, Zhang C, Wang D, Liu W, Fang X, Wellmann D, Zhao
Y, and Tian Y, Appl. Sci. 10 (2019) 81.
[97] Perevoshchikova N, Rigaud J, Sha Y, Heilmaier M, Finnin B,
et al. Rapid Proto. Journal, Emerald 23 (2017) 881.
[98] Harrison, Neil J, Univ. of Sheffield (2016).
[99] Srinivasan D, Singh A, Reddy A S, and Chatterjee K, Mater
Tech, Oct (2020).
Trans Indian Inst Met
[100] Srinivas, P, Srinivasan D, Dutta B, and Banerjee D, Unpub-
lished work, Eurosuperalloys 2018.
[101] Harrison N J, Todd I, and Mumtaz K, Acta Mater, 94 (2015)
59.
[102] Carter L N, Essa K, and Attallah M M, Rapid Prototyping
Journal 21 (2015) 1.
[103] Dutta B, and Froes F, The AMMTIAC Quarterly 6 (2011) 5.
[104] Dinda G P, Dasgupta A K, and Mazumder J, Scripta Mater 67
(2012) 503.
[105] Dinda G P, Dasgupta A K, and Mazumder J, Mat Sci Engg. A
509 (2009) 98.
[106] Sames W J, Unocic K A, Dehoff R R, Lolla T, and Babu S S,
J. Mater. Res. 29 (2014) 1920. .
[107] Wei H L, Mazumder J, and DebbRoy T, Nature Sci reports 5
(2015) 16446.
[108] Martin J H, Yahata B D, Hundley J M, and Mayer J A, Nature,
549 (2017) 365.
[109] Tana Q , Zhang J, Suna Q, Fana Z, Li G, Yina Y, Liua Y, and
Zhang M X, Acta Mater. (2020).
[110] Smith T M, Thompson A C, Gabb T P, Bowman C L, and
Kantzos C A, Nature Research Scientific Reports (2020).
[111] Yanyan Z, Xiangjun T, Jia L, and Huaming W, Mater Des 67
(2015) 538.
[112] Awd M, Stern F, Kampmann A, Kotzem D, Tenkamp J, and
Walther F, Metals 8 (2018) 825.
[113] Wilson-Heid A E, Wang Z, McCornac B, and Beese A M,
Mater Sci Eng A 706 (2017) 287.
[114] Carroll B E, Palmer T A, and Beese A M, Acta Mater\ 87
(2015) 309.
[115] Deng D, PhD Thesis, Linköping Univ. (2019).
[116] Amato K N, Gaytan S M, Murr L E, Martinez Em Shindo P
Wm Hernandez J, Collins S, and Medina F, Acta Mater., 60
(2012) 2229.
[117] Karlsson J, Snis A, Engqvist H, and Lausmaa J, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 213 (2013) 2109.
[118] Leuders S, Thone N, Riemer A, Niendorf T, Troster T, Richard
H A, and Maier H J, Int. J. Fatigue 48 (2013) 300
[119] Xu W, Brandt M, Sun S, Elambasseril J, Liu Q, Latham K, Xia
K, and Qian M, Acta Mater. 85 (2015) 74.
[120] Murr L E, Martinez E, Amato K N, Gaytan S M, Hernandez J,
Ramirez D A, Shindo P W, Medina F, and Wicker R B, J.
Mater. Sci. Res. 1 (2012) 3.
[121] Deffley R J, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Sheffield, 2018.
[122] Parimi L L, Ravi G A, Clark D, and Attallah M M, Mater
Charac. 89 (2014) 102.
[123] Pinkerton A J, Karadge M, Syed W U H, and Li L, J Laser
Appl 18 (2006) 216.
[124] Brenne F, Taube A, Pröbstle M, Neumeier S, Schwarze D,
Schaper M, and Niendorf T, Prog in Additive Mfg 1 (2016)
141.
[125] Mathias S, Srinivasan D, Jayaprakash S, Ahmed S, and Ban-
erjee D, Submitted to Trans. INAE.
[126] Kuo Y L, Nagahari T, and Kakehi K, Maters 11 (2018) 996.
[127] Zhang F, Levine L E, Allen A J, Stoudt M R, Lindwall G, Lass
E A, Williams M E, Idell Y, and Campbell C E, Acta Mater.
2018; 152.
[128] Anam Md Ashabul, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Louisville (2018).
[129] Carter L N, Ph D Thesis, Univ. of Birmingham (2013).
[130] Zhang B, Meng W J, Shao S, Phan N and Shamsaei N, Mat
Des Process Comm. (2019).
[131] Benzing J, Hrabe N, Quinn T, White R, Rentz R and Ahlfors
M, Mater Letters 257 (2019).
[132] Qi H, Azer M, and Ritter A, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 40 (2009)
2410.
[133] Wu A, LeBlanc M M, Kumar M, Gallegos G F, Brown D W,
and King W E, TMS annual meeting exhibition (2014).
[134] DebRoy T, Wei H L, Zuback J S, Elmer J W, Milewski J O,
Besse A M, Heid A W, De A, and Zhang W, Prog. Mater. Sci.
92 (2018) 112.
[135] 135. Helmer H E, Körner C, and Singer R F, J. Mater. Res. 29
(2014) 1987.
[136] Elmer J W, Vaja J, Carlton H D, and Pong R, Weld. J. 94
(2015) 313.
[137] Seifi M, Salem A A, Satko D P, Grylls R, and Lewandowski J
J, Proc. 9th Int. Symp. Superalloy 718 & Deriv. (2018) 515.
[138] Seifi M, Salem A A, Satko D P, Ackelid U, Semiatin S L, and
Lewandowski J J, J Alloys Compd 729 (2017) 1118.
[139] Maroti P, Varga P, Abraham H, Falk G, Zsebe T, Meiszterics
Z, Mano S, Csernatony Z, Rendeki S, and Nyitrai M, Mater
Res Express 6 (2019) 035403.
[140] Nia M, Chena C, Wangb X, W P, Lia R, Zhanga X, and Zhoua
K, Mater Sci Eng A 701 (2017) 344.
[141] Tian Z, Zhang C, Wang D, Liu W, Fang X, Wellmann D, Zhao
Y, and Tian Y, Appl Sci, 10 (2020) 81.
[142] Kunze K, Etter T, Grässlin J, and Shklover V, Mater Sci Eng
A, 620 (2014) 213.
[143] Etter T, Kunzer K, Geiger F, and Meidani H, IOP Conf. Series:
Mater Sci Eng A 82 (2015) 012097.
[144] Liu S, and Shin Y C, Mater Des. 164 (2019) 107552.
[145] Wang P, Nai M L S, Tan X, Sin W Jk, Tor S B, and Wei J,
Proc. TMS2016.
[146] Saboori A, Gallo D, Biamino S, Fino P, and Lombardi M, Appl
Sci. 7 (2017) 883.
[147] Carroll B E, Palmer T A, and Beese A M, Sci Dir Acta Mater
87 (2015) 309.
[148] Antonysamy A A, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Manchester (2012).
[149] Tomus D, Tian T, Rometsch P A, Heilmaier M, and Wu X,
Mater Sci. Engg. A 667 (2016) 42.
[150] Kunze K, Etter T, Grasslin J, and Shkloyer V, Mat. Sci. Engg.
A 620 (2015) 213.
[151] Divya V.D., Munroz-Moreno R, Messe O M D M, Barnard J S,
Baker S, Illston T, and Stone H, J Mater Charac. 114 (2016)
62.
[152] Helmer H E, Korner C, and Singer R F, J. Mater. Res. 29
(2014) 1987.
[153] Korner C, Ramsperger M, Meid C, Burger D, Wollgramm P,
Bartsch M, and Eggeler G, Metall. Met Trans A 49 (2018)
3792.
[154] Geiger F, Kunze K, and Etter T, Mater Sci Engg. A 661 (2016)
240.
[155] Muñoz-Moreno R, Divya D, Driver S L, Messe O M D, Illston
T, Baker S, Carpenter M A, and Stone H J, Mater Sci Engg A
674 (2016) 529.
[156] Sames W J, Unocic K A, Dehoff R R, Lolla Tapasvi, and Babu
S S, J. Mater. Res. 29 (2014) 1920.
[157] Howard C B, PhD Thesis, Univ. California, Berkeley (2018).
[158] Haghshenas M, Totuk O, Masoomi M, Thompson S M, and
Shamsaei N, Proc.Solid Freeform Fabrication 2017.
[159] Benson LL, Marshall L A Benson, Weston N S, Mellor I, and
Jackson M, Metall. Mater. Trans A 48 (2017) 5228.
[160] Muhammad M, BS. Thesis, Univ. North Dakota (2018).
[161] Alghamdi1 F, Verma D and Haghshenas M, Proc. Solid
Freeform Fabrication 2017.
[162] Aboulkhair N T, Simonelli M, Parry L, Ashcroft I, Tuck C,
and Hague R, Prog. in Mater Sci 106 (2019) 100578.
[163] Reddy A S, and Srinivasan D, Proceedia Struct Integrity 14
(2019) 449.
[164] Junk S, Klerch B, Nasdala L, and Hochberg U, 28th CIRP Des.
Conf., May 2018, Nantes, France.
[165] Orme M, Madera I, Gschweitl M, and Ferrari M, Designs 2
(2018) 51.
123

[166] Allaire G, Dapogny C, Estevez R, Faure A and Michailidis G,
J. Comput. Phys. 351 (2017) 295.
[167] Hällgrena S, Pejryd L, and Ekengren J, Procedia CIRP 50
(2016 ) 518.
[168] Decker N, and Huang Q, Proc. ASME 2019 14th Int. Mfg.
Sci.Engg. Conf. (2019).
[169] Speranza D, Citro D, Padula F, Moty B, Marcolin F, Calı̀ M,
and Martorelli M, Appl. Bionics and Biomechanics, 2017,
Article ID 9701762.
[170] Klar V, Pere J, Turpeinen T, Kärki P, Orelma H, and Kuos-
manen P, Sci. Rep. 9 (2019) 3822.
[171] Jiménez M, Romero L, Dom-nguez I A, Espinosa M D M, and
Dom-nguez M, Hindawi Complexity, 2019, Article ID
9656938.
[172] Stimpson C, Snyder J, and Thole K A, J Turbo 138 (2016)
051008.
[173] Snyder J, and Thole K A, J Turbo 142 (2020) 051007.
[174] Klein E, Ling J, Aute V C, Hwang Y, and Radermacher R,
Proc.17th Int Ref. and Air Cond. Conf. (2018).
[175] Ghani S A C, Zakaria1 M H, Harun W S W, and Zaulkafilai Z,
MATEC Web of Conferences 90 (2017).
[176] Tan C, Wang D, Ma W, Chen Y, Chen S, Yang Y, and Zhou
K, Mater Des 196 (2020) 109147.
[177] Snyder J C, PhD Thesis, The Pennsylvania State Univ. (2019).
[178] Li C, Liu Z Y, Fang X Y, and Guo Y B, Procedia CIRP 71
(2018) 348.
[179] Mukherjee T, Zhang W, and DebRoy T, Compu Mater Sci 126
(2017) 360.
[180] Ali H, Ghadbeigi H, and Mumtaz K, J Mater Engg Perf 27
(2018) 4059.
123
Trans Indian Inst Met
[181] Pant P, PhD Thesis, Linköping Univ. Sweden (2020).
[182] Chimmat M and Srinivasan D, Procedia Struct Integrity 14
(2019) 746.
[183] Sundaram H, Srinivasan D, and Baummer J, Proc. of the
ASME (2019).
[184] Mercelis P, and Kruth J P, Rapid Prototyping Journal 12
(2006) 254.
[185] Everton SK, Hirsch M, Stavroulakis P I, Leach R K, and Clare
A T, Mater. Des. 95 (2016) 431.
[186] Tapia G, and Elwany A, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 136 2014.
[187] Berumen S, Bechmann F, Lindner S, Kruth J P, and Craeghs T,
Phys. Procedia 5 (2010) 617.
[188] Mani M, Lane B M, Donmez M A, Feng S C, and Moylan S P,
Int. J. Prod. Res. 55 (2017) 1400.
[189] Koester L W, Taheri H, Bigelow T A, Collins P C, and Bond L
J, Mater. Eval. 76 (2018) 386.
[190] DunbarA J, Denlinger E R, Heigel J, Michaleris P, Guerrier P,
Martukanitz R, and Simpson T W, Addit. Manuf. 12 (2016) 25.
[191] Mazumder J, Procedia CIRP 36 (2015 ) 187.
[192] Salehi D, and Brandt M, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 29 (2006)
273.
[193] Davis T A, and Shin Y C, Mach. Vis. Appl. 22 (2011) 129.
[194] Rodriguez E, Mireles J, Terrazas C A, Espalin D, Perez M A,
and Wicker R W, Addit. Manuf. 5 (2015) 3.
[195] Bi G, Sun C N, and Gasser A, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 213
(2013) 463.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.