Journal of Manufacturing Processes 70 (2021) 46–54

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/manpro

Predictive models for an optimized fabrication of 18Ni300 maraging steel

for moulding and tooling by Selective Laser Melting
Daniel F.S. Ferreira a, b, c, *, G. Miranda c, d, Filipe J. Oliveira c, d, José M. Oliveira a, b, c
a
EMaRT, Emerging Materials and Research Technologies, University of Aveiro, Portugal
b
School of Design, Management and Production Technologies Northern Aveiro, Portugal
c
CICECO, Aveiro Institute of Materials, University of Aveiro, Portugal
d
Department of Materials and Ceramic Engineering, University of Aveiro, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Powder bed fusion (PBF) technologies have gained increased attention in the automotive sector for the
Selective Laser Melting manufacturing of mould tooling and inserts. These technologies can expressively reduce lead time and waste of
Moulding material, while allowing extraordinary freedom to design new geometries.
Tooling
The performance of the produced parts is highly dependent on processing parameters. In this work, 18Ni300
18Ni300 maraging steel
Multi-objective optimization
maraging steel, a widely used material in mould and tooling industries, was selected to be transformed by Se­
lective Laser Melting (SLM) using a previous defined framework of SLM variables, among them laser power (Lp),
point distance (Pd), exposure time (Et) and hatch distance (Hd). The experimental results demonstrated that these
parameters have vital importance to produce fully dense and micro-hardness improved parts. Furthermore, re­
sults showed that the energy density per se does not explain the final properties of 18Ni300 produced by SLM.
Maximized density (99.99%) was achieved using (Lp, Pd, Et, Hd) (275.0 W, 60 μm, 65.0 μs, 110 μm), corre­
sponding to 2.71 J/mm2 planar energy density, while maximized micro-hardness (350 HV2) was achieved using
(Lp, Pd, Et, Hd) (337.5 W, 70 μm, 52.5 μs, 95 μm), corresponding to 2.66 J/mm2 planar energy density.
The statistical relationship between SLM parameters and final density and micro-hardness of the parts was
established using the so-called Response Surface Methodology (RSM), resulting in two predictive models, for
density and micro-hardness. The most influential (single and combined factors), for both models, were then
determined using analysis of variance (ANOVA).
The outcomes of the ANOVA analysis revealed a predicted coefficient of determination, R2(pred.), of 93.73%
and 98.98% for density and micro-hardness models, respectively, revealing that the developed models have high
accuracy for the prediction of both properties on 18Ni300 steel parts produced by SLM.

1. Introduction fabricate complex structural metallic parts by melting successive layers

PBF technologies are transforming our manufacturing horizons, and
they can be key to solving some problems in mould industry [1,2].
Regarding the injection moulding process, the need for most efficient
cooling systems (for example parts with internal cooling channels)
forced engineers to move from traditional subtractive to PBF processes
due to their great flexibility and product's customization [3,4]. This
freedom to design complex parts with internal channels led to a revo­
lution in mould's manufacturing industry, being an important contri­
bution towards the reduction of the process cycle time [2].
SLM is a viable PBF technology widely used in mould industry to
of powder, using a powerful laser beam. The process is finished when the
component is fully constructed, being then the remaining powder
removed and parts cleaned. This technology has the potential to achieve
minimum waste thanks to the reusability of the materials [5,6].
Different powdered materials can be processed by this technique,
such as titanium and its alloys, steels and other iron-based alloys,
inconel and nickel-based alloys, aluminum alloys and magnesium [7].
One of the most promising materials to manufacture moulding tools
with internal cooling channels is the iron-based alloy, 18Ni300, a mar­
aging steel. These low carbon (less than 0.03 wt%) martensitic steels
achieve their superior performance due to the precipitation of nano-

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dfferreira@ua.pt (D.F.S. Ferreira).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.07.066
Received 19 February 2021; Received in revised form 16 July 2021; Accepted 20 July 2021
Available online 25 August 2021
1526-6125/© 2021 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.F.S. Ferreira et al.
sized intermetallic precipitates (such as Ni3(Mo, Ti) and Fe2Mo) in the
hard martensitic matrix, during an ageing treatment for several hours
under temperatures around 500 ◦ C [8–10]. Different studies on marag­
ing steels are available in the literature, either focusing on mechanical
properties or part density or even residual stress arising from the process
[8,11–14]. Targeting the mould industry, a study by Bai et al. [8]
recently reported the fabrication of maraging steel tools with internal
cooling channels by SLM.
The mechanical performance of the manufactured part, dimensional
accuracy and surface roughness are directly related to the complex
phenomena involved in the processes of heat absorption/transmission
and in the fusion/consolidation of powders [15-17]. Mechanical per­
formance is strongly affected by residual porosity, and thus should be
minimized.
SLM can be extremely complex due to the multiple process variables
that need to be defined as well as to the aforementioned physical and
chemical phenomena. Depending on the final application of the manu­
factured parts, it is essential to choose the appropriate powders and
machine building parameters. There are nearly 100 variable parameters
describing SLM, but a literature review suggested that some of them are
crucial for the process, being widely explored by different researchers.
Among them laser power, scanning speed (given by point distance and
exposure time), hatch distance, layer thickness (Lt) and laser scan
strategy. Many researchers have studied the correlation between these
parameters and the obtained microstructure and mechanical properties.
According, Sun et al. [18] different parameters have different levels of
importance in SLM process. For obtaining high-performance parts, ac­
cording to these authors, the most influential parameters, from highest
to lowest importance, can be ranked as following: layer thickness, laser
power or scanning speed and hatch distance.
Scanning speed (SS) can be defined as the speed at which the laser
scans the powder bed, being this parameter correlated with point dis­
tance, exposure time and jump delay (Jd), according to Eqs. (1) and (2),
for continuous wave (CW) and pulsed wave (PW), respectively.
SS = Pd /Et
SS = Pd /(Et + Jd )
The selection of the above-mentioned parameters can be made by
calculating the corresponding energy density (Ed). Generally, three
different energy density definitions can be considered: linear (1DEd),
planar (2DEd) and volumetric (3DEd) (Eqs. (3)–(5) for SLM fabrication of
a single track and multiple tracks) [19].
( )/
1DEd = Lp ⋅Et Pd (3)
( )/
2DEd = Lp ⋅Et (Hd ⋅Pd )
( )/
3DEd = Lp ⋅Et (Hd ⋅Pd ⋅Lt )
Fig. 1. a) Spherical morphology of the 18Ni300 maraging steel powder and b) Gaussian unimodal distribution of maraging steel particle size.
Journal of Manufacturing Processes 70 (2021) 46–54
The applied energy density is generally related with the final
microstructure, porosity levels, and, therefore, the mechanical perfor­
mance of produced parts [20]. However, the final properties of the SLM
produced parts are also dictated by the complex physical, metallurgical,
and thermal involved phenomena (that can dictate the heating or
cooling dynamic), such as: successive melting of the previous layers,
energy absorption, heat conduction, radiation or convection, surface
tension, laser multi-reflection, among others [20–22]. Over the time,
different authors have reported the contribution of these phenomena in
the overall quality of the parts, by investigating the pore formation.
Cheng et al. [22] performed a computational simulation of melt pool
dynamics, reporting a linear trend between the melt pool front wall
angle and the applied energy density. They also found that the pore
formation occurs more frequently in higher energy densities.
However, the pore formation can also occur when lower energy
densities are applied. In fact, if the energy density is insufficient, a poor
particle bonding (caused by an inadequate melting) will originate high
levels of porosity, severely degrading the mechanical properties of the
final parts. Too much energy density can cause metal boiling and
vaporization, also affecting mechanical properties [20].
Wang et al. [23] explored the influence of 1D energy density to assess
the best melting conditions for Inconel 625, establishing a promising
range of 1 to 1.5 J/m. Campanelli et al. [24] investigated the effect of
energy density on melt pool. As energy density increases, they found
significant changes in the dynamic of the molten material, observing
significant changes in width and depth of the melt pool. Casalino et al.
[13] studied the adequate processing window for maximizing the me­
chanical behaviour of 18Ni300 maraging steel. Almost fully dense parts
(>99%) with good mechanical properties were obtained using 2.78 J/
mm2 energy density.
Although being commonly used, the energy density approach may
not be enough to explain the obtained microstructure and physical
properties of the parts [25]. Yap et al. [26] correlated different SLM
volumetric energy densities for processing different alloys with the
theoretically required. They stated that, frequently, the released energy
(1)
by the laser to the powder bed is nearly fourfold the required in theory.
For the processing of 316 L steel powders, different combinations of
(2)
parameters were reported, corresponding to volumetric energy densities
between 100 and 1000 J/mm3.
Bertoli et al. [27] suggested that the volumetric energy density is not
an adequate criterion to understand the dynamic of the melt pool (e.g.
depth) as well as the threshold between conduction and keyhole.
In SLM, the calculated energy density is a result of several other
parameters, as Eqs. (3)–(5) computes. Therefore, through the combi­
nation of different parameters, a similar value of energy density can be
achieved. However, the microstructure and mechanical properties of
(4)
parts produced with both values of energy density is not comparable
[25].
(5)
Few studies were conducted to evaluate the reliability of energy
47
D.F.S. Ferreira et al. Journal of Manufacturing Processes 70 (2021) 46–54

Table 2
RSM defined levels and input parameters for the experiments.
Input parameters Input

− 2 − 1 0 1 2

A Laser power [W] 150.0 212.5 275.0 337.5 400.0

B Point distance [μm] 40 50 60 70 80
C Exposure time [μs] 40.0 52.5 65.0 77.5 90.0
D Hatch distance [μm] 50 65 80 95 110

surface to access the density and micro-hardness measurements.

2.2. SLM machinery setup and processing apparatus

The experimental part of this study was performed using a Renishaw

AM 500Q machine (Renishaw Ltd., UK), equipped with four ytterbium
fibre lasers, with a build volume of 250 × 250 × 350 mm3. Table 1
depicts its specifications, parameters range and maximum values. Dur­
Fig. 2. Sample produced by SLM.
ing the preparation stage, the chamber was evacuated to 950 mbar,
being then flooded with Argon until a 15 mbar is reached. During the
Table 1 SLM manufacturing process, the oxygen inside the building chamber
Machine specifications and parameters range or maximum values. was minimized for constant values lower than 1000 ppm through the use
of a continuous stream of argon.
Property Value

Laser focus diameter [μm] 80

Maximum laser power [W] 4 × 500
2.3. Density measurements
Maximum scanning speed [mm/s] 10
Layer thickness [μm] 20–100 To perform density (D) measurements, sections of the samples were
Advised maximum build rate [cm3/h] 150 ground with sandpapers and polished with diamond suspensions with
minimum particle size of 1 μm to avoid possible risks and surface de­
density as the sole predictor of final properties, by analysing the influ­ fects. Using an optical microscope (Nikon, Japan), images were ac­
ence of each individual parameter. Bartolomeu et al. [25] and Deng et al. quired, being the density (in %) calculated by Eq. (6), using ImageJ
[28] reported the influence of laser power, scanning speed and hatch software to estimate the area of pores.
[∑ ]
distance in the manufacturing of 316 L stainless steel. Li et al. [29] Apores
investigated the influence of the same parameters in the manufacturing D(%) = × 100 (6)
Asample
of Ti6Al4V. Gajera et al. [30] reported the influence of laser power,
∑
scanning speed, hatch distance and layer thickness in the resulting where Apores is the total area of pores and Asample is the total area of the
hardness of 18Ni300 maraging steel. All of these studies analysed considered cross-section.
scanning speed as a single parameter, and not as a contribution of point
distance and exposure time. This paper seeks to investigate the contri­ 2.4. Micro-hardness measurements
bution of each individual parameter, namely laser power, point dis­
tance, exposure time and hatch distance, and their interaction on both Vickers micro-hardness (HV) was measured at room temperature in
final density and micro-hardness of 18Ni300 maraging steel by using the sections of 1cm3 cuboid polished samples, according to ASTM E92-
RSM. The outcomes of Alfaify et al. [31], suggest similar interaction 17, using a micro-hardness tester Duramin (Struers, Denmark) using a
trends between variables (laser power, point distance, exposure time load of 2 kgf. This load was constantly applied during 15s, being the
and hatch distance) for different layer thicknesses, thus a fixed layer process repeated until 6 indentations are recording.
thickness was adopted in the present study, considering the particle size
distribution (PSD) of a commercial used powder, thus minimizing the
2.5. Statistical optimization
number of experiments to run.
Mathematical models of SLM parameters and final density and
RSM was employed to optimize SLM parameters for better micro-
micro-hardness are proposed. Resulting models can be used as predic­
hardness and density (the goal is to maximize both). This statistical
tive strategies to access the final mechanical behaviour of manufactured
tool is used to express the influences of multiple factors on the output
parts, according to input machine parameters, once these properties can
response, R (micro-hardness and density, respectively), through the
be extrapolated to other mechanical specifications, such as tensile
construction of a polynomial mathematical relationship. The second-
performance.
order relationship is as follows:
2. Materials and methods ∑
k ∑
k ∑
k
R = a0 + ai xi + aii xi2 + aij xi xj + e (7)
2.1. Raw material and produced specimens
i=1 i=1 i<j

where a0 is the average value, ai, aii, aij are unknown terms, and e is the
The as-received feedstock 18Ni300 maraging steel (Renishaw Ltd.,
error. For the experimental design, the procedure using RSM consists in
UK) was supplied in the form of powders with spherical morphology
identifying the important parameters, their upper and lower limit, and
(Fig. 1a)) with D50 and D90 35 μm and 48 μm, respectively (Fig. 1b)).
the corresponding output response. Afterwards, an experimental matrix
Cuboid samples with 1cm3 were produced with these raw materials
is designed and the experiments carried out, recording the output re­
(Fig. 2) to study the different combinations of SLM parameters. The
sponses. Finally, a mathematical relationship is obtained [32].
samples were then grounded with sandpapers and polished in the top
The experimental matrix, containing 31 combinations of SLM

48
D.F.S. Ferreira et al. Journal of Manufacturing Processes 70 (2021) 46–54

Table 3 3. Results and discussion

Experimental matrix for sample production.
NO A B C D 3.1. Visual inspection of the SLM process and obtained parts
Laser power Point distance Exposure time Hatch distance
[W] [μm] [μs] [μm] The appearance of the melting process can give information about
the quality of the produced parts. The visual inspection was carried out
1 337.5 50 52.5 95
2 275.0 80 65 80
during SLM process for the different groups. Fig. 3 shows the sparks
3 337.5 50 77.5 65 irradiated during SLM of 18Ni300 maraging steel using different
4 337.5 70 52.5 95 parameters.
5 275.0 60 65.0 80 Fig. 4 illustrates the macroscopic aspect of the parts after production.
6 337.5 50 77.5 95
It is visible that changes in parameters significantly affect the quality of
7 212.5 50 77.5 95
8 275.0 60 65.0 80 the parts: for example, sample NO.3 suffered deformation. In general,
9 275.0 40 65.0 80 increasing laser power enlarges the melting area, but too large laser
10 212.5 50 52.5 95 power can lead to over melting. On the other hand, increasing scan
11 275.0 60 40.0 80 speed has improved the surface quality. Some combinations of the input
12 275.0 60 65.0 80
13 150.0 60 65.0 80
parameters led to an expanded spark and melting pool which can be
14 337.5 70 77.5 65 attributed to an excessive energy deliver that causes a showering of
15 337.5 50 52.5 65 spattering particles.
16 275.0 60 65.0 110
17 212.5 50 52.5 65
3.2. Energy density influence on density and micro-hardness
18 337.5 70 77.5 95
19 337.5 70 52.5 65
20 212.5 70 52.5 95 It was noticed that the higher density and micro-hardness in the
21 275.0 60 65.0 80 manufactured samples were achieved with the parameter combination
22 212.5 50 77.5 65 NO.16 (275.0 W, 60 μm, 65.0 μm, 110 μm) and NO.4 (337.5 W, 70 μm,
23 212.5 70 52.5 65
24 400.0 60 65.0 80
52.5 μm, 95 μm), respectively. The density and micro-hardness results
25 275.0 60 65.0 50 were plotted in Fig. 5, against planar energy density (estimated ac­
26 212.5 70 77.5 65 cording to Eq. (4) for each combination of parameters, summarized in
27 275.0 60 90.0 80 Table 3), being difficult to establish a trend on the evolution of density
28 212.5 70 77.5 95
and micro-hardness. There are different combinations of parameters
29 275.0 60 65.0 80
30 275.0 60 65.0 80 with similar energy density but with expressive differences in terms of
31 275.0 60 65.0 80 density and micro-hardness (for example, combination NO.1 and NO.29
(Table 3) having 3.73 and 3.72 J/mm2 energy density, respectively).
Comparing the density and micro-hardness of these two groups some
differences are evident: 99.90 and 99.98% density, respectively, and 294
and 336 HV2 micro-hardness, respectively, corresponding to a 12.5%
difference in micro-hardness for the same energy density. Regarding the
parameter combination NO.4 and NO.16 (Table 3), with 2.66 and 2.71
J/mm2 energy density, respectively, the same conclusion can be noticed,
where 99.90 and 99.99% density and 319 and 350 HV2 are observed.
These results prove that energy density as an isolated factor (through the
combination of random parameters), does not provide much informa­
tion, nor leads to optimized points.

3.3. Statistical results

Statistical analysis was performed using Minitab software using the

Fig. 3. SLM process in action for fabrication of 18Ni300 specimens.
parameters, was constructed used Minitab software, according to the
levels summarized in Table 2. Afterwards, the density and micro-
hardness were measured in the cross-section of each sample built with
each combination of parameters, summarized in Table 3. Experimental
data was inserted in the same software and the results were analysed,
being established the corresponding mathematical models for density
and micro-hardness. ANOVA was then applied to the developed models
for 95% confidence interval in order to investigate the reliability of the
results, namely the contribution of each individual and combined
parameter in the final response.
collected data of density and micro-hardness. Two second-order
regression models were developed using the mentioned software. The
significance of each individual and combined variable in the output
properties (density and micro-hardness) was examined using ANOVA. It
was found that the interaction between variables plays a crucial role and
therefore a single parameter analysis is not enough to justify differences
in both properties. These observations prove that SLM is a complex
process governed by the interaction of multiple variables.
3.4. Density and micro-hardness models
Knowing that SLM is a multi-variate complex process, relationship
mathematical models are crucial to understand the process and the
implications on final manufactured parts. Therefore, two statistical
mathematical models were proposed, as plotted by Eqs. (8) and (9). The
obtained model coefficients are summarized (a0 to a10). These reflect the
main effects of the process parameters and their interactions are sum­
marized in Table 4. Density and micro-hardness were examined using
ANOVA, being established the relative contribution of each parameter as
well as the combination among them under 95% confidence, for the final

49
D.F.S. Ferreira et al. Journal of Manufacturing Processes 70 (2021) 46–54

Fig. 4. 18Ni300 maraging steel specimens after production: a) before powder removal; b) after powder removal.

Fig. 5. a) Density and b) micro-hardness experimental results as a function of planar energy density.

Table 4
Response surface model coefficients for density and micro-hardness models.
Coefficient Density model Micro-hardness model

a0 Independent 95.259 Independent 86.7

a1 Laser power (A) 2.42 × 10− 3
Laser power (A) − 1.015 Table 5
a2 Point distance − 8.10 × Point distance − 1.03 Analysis of variance for micro-hardness.
(B) 10− 3 (B)
Model terms DOF Sum of squares Mean square F-value P-value
a3 Exposure time 5.292 × Exposure time 5.868
(C) 10− 2 (C) Model 10 3286.62 328.66 777.93 <0.001
a4 Hatch distance 57.77 Hatch distance 5742 A 1 4.64 4.64 10.99 0.021
(D) (D) B 1 6.45 6.45 15.26 0.011
5
a5 AA − 1.8 × 10− BB − 1.83 × C 1 132.11 132.11 312.70 <0.001
10− 2 D 1 0.49 0.49 1.15 0.332
a6 BB − 4.92 × DD − 6739 BB 1 34.52 34.52 81.71 <0.001
10− 4 DD 1 14.19 14.19 33.60 0.002
4
a7 AB 1.79 × 10− AB 1.3526 × AB 1 496.22 496.22 1174.53 <0.001
10− 2 AD 1 39.03 39.03 92.38 <0.001
− 5
a8 AC − 3.8 × 10 AD 2.706 BD 1 5.68 5.68 13.46 0.014
a9 BC 4.11 × 10− 4 BD − 7.380 CD 1 1168.83 1168.83 2766.58 <0.001
a10 CD − 8.416 × CD − 76.73 Error 9 0.00979 0.00109
10− 1 Lack-of-fit 12 510.39 42.53 0.32 0.899
Pure error 1 133.93
Total 22 5860.82
response.
The suitability of the developed micro-hardness model as well as the
significance of linear and second-order terms are presented in Table 5, Table 6
Model summary for micro-hardness.
while the summary of the model is presented in Table 6. The P-values of
A, B, and C in the micro-hardness model are all less than 0.05, indicating S R2 R2 (adj.) R2 (pred.)
that these factors in the regression model are extremely significant. 0.650 99.94% 99.81% 98.98%

50
D.F.S. Ferreira et al. Journal of Manufacturing Processes 70 (2021) 46–54

Fig. 6. a) Plot of normal distribution of residuals and b) plot of residuals against fitted value for micro-hardness data.

Table 7 HV = a0 + a1 (A) + a2 (B) + a3 (C) + a4 (D) + a5 (BB) + a6 (DD) + a7 (AB)

Analysis of variance for density. + a8 (AD) + a9 (BD) + a10 (CD)
Model terms DOF Sum of squares Mean square F-value P-value (8)
Model 10 0.695 0.695 63.90 <0.001
A 1 0.0304 0.0304 27.98 0.001 D = a0 + a1 (A) + a2 (B) + a3 (C) + a4 (D) + a5 (AA) + a6 (BB) + a7 (AB)
B 1 0.122 0.122 112.25 <0.001
+ a8 (AC) + a9 (BC) + a10 (CD)
C 1 0.000015 0.000015 0.01 0.908
D 1 0.0324 0.0324 29.76 <0.001 (9)
AA 1 0.0567 0.0567 52.12 <0.001
BB 1 0.0545 0.0545 50.09 <0.001
Table 7 presents the ANOVA results for the density model. The P-
AB 1 0.132 0.132 121.48 <0.001 values of A, B, and D in the density model are all minor than 0.05,
AC 1 0.00923 0.00923 8.49 0.017 suggesting that these factors in the regression model are vital. A check
BC 1 0.0227 0.0227 20.85 0.001 on the interaction factors reveals that AA, BB, AC, BC and CD are the
CD 1 0.223 0.223 205.36
significant terms for this model, being that their P-value is less than 0.05.
<0.001
Error 9 0.00979 0.00109
Lack-of-fit 8 0.00586 0.000732 0.19 0.951 Similarly to the micro-hardness model, the F-value is high (63.90) and
Pure error 1 0.00393 0.00393 the lack-of-fit has a P-value of 0.951 (greater than 0.05), meaning that it
Total 19 0.705 is not significant. The coefficients of determination for the density,
summarized in Table 8, reveal that R2 is 98.61%, adjusted, R2(adj.), is
97.07% and predicted, R2(pred.), is 93.79%. It can be concluded that the
Regarding the interactions, DD, AB, AD, BD and CD are the significant
suggested model for density is reasonably good for the prediction of
terms for this model, once their P-value is above 0.05. The lack-of-fit is
density values with a confidence interval of 95% (Fig. 7).
not significant once its P-value is 0.899.
Additionally, the coefficient of determination for the regression is
3.5. Parameters effect on density and micro-hardness
approximately 100 (R2 = 98.98%) which implies that the data fits the
model very properly. The adjusted coefficient, R2(adj.), is 99.81%, and
The two proposed models suggested that laser power and point dis­
the predicted coefficient, R2(pred.), is 98.98%, suggesting that this
tance have a significant effect on both density and micro-hardness
model is adequate for the prediction of the micro-hardness values within
properties (P-value <0.05). Regarding the density model, the hatch
a confidence interval of 95%. Additionally, a high F-value (777,93) in­
distance also has a significant effect (P-value <0.05), while in the micro-
dicates that the proposed mathematical model is significant. The resid­
hardness model, the exposure time is also significant (P-value <0.05).
ual plots in Fig. 6a) and b) fall on a linear trend.
Fig. 8 shows several 3D response surface plots, allowing to conclude on
the main effects of the laser power, point distance and exposure time on
both density and micro-hardness.

Table 8 3.5.1. Laser power vs point distance

Model summary for density. During the SLM process, when decreasing point distance, more en­
S R2 R2 (adj.) R2 (pred.) ergy per unit area and time is delivered onto the powder bed, and the
same is valid when increasing laser power. For this reason, the balance
0.0330 98.61% 97.07% 93.79%
between these two parameters is crucial due to the need of a balanced

Fig. 7. a) Plot of normal distribution of residuals and b) plot of residuals against fitted value for density data.

51
D.F.S. Ferreira et al.
Fig. 8. Contour plots for density and micro-hardness models, holding: laser power: 275 W, point distance: >50 μm, exposure time: 80 μs and hatch distance: 75 μm.
energy delivery. Insufficient energy will lead to lack-of-fusion, while an
excess of energy will give rise to metal vaporization and creation of gas
bubbles that can be trapped due to keyhole instability, generating round
macroscopic pores [33]. Different governing phenomena are identified
when using either excessively low or high laser power, however both
scenarios compromise density and mechanical properties. Regarding
laser power vs point distance, similar interactions can be found on both
density and micro-hardness outputs, as proven by the corresponding
plots shown in Fig. 8a) and b), respectively. The obtained results show
that the effect of point distance is opposite when using lower or higher
laser power. When analysing the lowest power values, it was found that
when increasing point distance, lower density and micro-hardness are
52
Journal of Manufacturing Processes 70 (2021) 46–54
obtained. In fact, when using low laser power, the lack of energy is
obvious, especially when combined with the highest point distance, as
reported by Karimi et al. [34] studies on alloy 718, where high point
distances led to lack-of-fusion and ensuing increased porosity levels. The
images in Fig. 8a) prove this outcome, by demonstrating significant
differences in porosity levels between specimens produced using 150 W
and 40 and 80 μm point distance. For highest laser power, an increase in
point distance resulted in higher density and micro-hardness values, as
shown in Fig. 8a) and b). When using high power and low point distance
simultaneously, an excess of energy is released, giving rise to a balling
effect. The combination of higher laser power and high point distance
can be beneficial by avoiding these detrimental phenomena, as reported
D.F.S. Ferreira et al.
by Bartolomeu et al. [25] that showed that by increasing point distance a
progressive elimination of balling effect is attained, resulting in higher
performance.
3.5.2. Laser power vs exposure time
Comparing Fig. 8c) and d), similar trends are found, regarding the
influence of laser power and exposure time on both density and micro-
hardness. On these two models, by increasing exposure time, both
density and micro-hardness are raised, for any laser power (low, inter­
mediate, and high). Still, for higher laser powers this increase is not so
expressive. Although some authors reported that sometimes higher
levels of porosity are achieved for longer laser exposure times [34], in
the present study the tested range of exposure time (40 to 90 μs) did not
reveal this outcome. This can indicate that the selected combination
range may be on an optimized area.
3.5.3. Laser power vs hatch distance
Hatch distance is the distance between adjacent scanning tracks,
being a vital parameter governing the energy released per unit area and
time. Similarly to point distance, shorten hatch distance causes an extra
heat accumulation and consequently a large overlap rate of the two
adjacent tracks. Enlarging hatch distance can lead to poor bonding be­
tween adjacent tracks. Regarding hatch distance interaction with laser
power, as seen in Fig. 8e) and f), their effect on both density and micro-
hardness is generally similar. For both models, on the studied domain it
is visible that by increasing hatch distance both density and micro-
hardness are decreased, especially when using lower laser power.
Combining low laser power with high hatch distance causes an expres­
sive reduction in the available energy to efficiently melt the powder
particles, giving rise to lack-of-fusion. For higher laser power the in­
fluence of hatch distance is lower, since by increasing hatch distance one
can compensate some excessive energy delivered during the process,
thus avoiding problems like vaporization and consequent pores forma­
tion. However, this latter strategy led to properties decreased, as also
stated by Dong et al. [35], that reported for 316 L stainless steel that
when increasing the hatch distance, higher porosity was observed, due
to a reduction on the maximum temperature and heat accumulation on
the melt pool, stressing the importance of selecting an appropriate hatch
distance for fabricating fully dense parts.
3.5.4. Point distance vs exposure time
Scanning speed is a commonly analysed SLM parameter, that can be
calculated dividing point distance by exposure time, as computed by
Eqs. (1) and (2). Several authors have reported that scanning speed
dictates final mechanical and physical properties [36,37]. Previous
studies have shown that to avoid micro segregation, the maximum
possible scanning speed should be used, on condition that lack-of-fusion
defects are avoided. Still, high scanning speed requires high laser power,
on condition that key-hole porosity is avoided in this high-power
regime. Conversely, lower solidification velocities can lead to a planar
solidification regime and built with low quality [33]. Regarding point
distance vs exposure time interaction (Fig. 8g) and h)), a similar trend on
the effects on both density and micro-hardness outputs can be estab­
lished. It is proven that density and micro-hardness are maximized for
intermediate point distance values. Knowing that point distance and
scanning speed are directly proportional, these intermediate point dis­
tances correspond to intermediate scanning speeds. A low scanning
speed leads to an excess energy released per unit time, giving rise to
vaporization, consequent formation of macroscopic pores, degrading
both density and micro-hardness. An excessive scanning speed can cause
lack-of-fusion, compromising density and micro-hardness. Previous
studies performed by Wei et al. [38] reported the same conclusions
regarding the role of laser scanning speed on final the density of
AlSi10Mg alloy. These authors stated that lower scanning speeds leads
to an extreme Marangoni convection due to the extra-heat accumulation
caused by lower scanning speeds, causing an increase in surface tension
53
Journal of Manufacturing Processes 70 (2021) 46–54
and therefore leading to an unstable solid–liquid interface. At a very
high scanning speed these authors observed an interrupted scan track,
resulting in the so-called balling phenomena, being the pores formed
due to an insufficient wettability.
4. Conclusion
The main goal of this study was to evaluate the importance of several
relevant SLM parameters, namely laser power, point distance, exposure
time and hatch distance on final micro-hardness and density of 18Ni300
maraging steel. Predictive models have been carried out with the aim of
studying the correlation between these parameters on resulting micro-
hardness and density properties.
Despite the existence of an effective energy density window for
manufacturing 18Ni300 maraging steel, it was shown that the energy
density cannot be analysed as an isolated parameter to predict the
micro-hardness and density in SLM manufacturing. It was demonstrated
that some combinations of different parameters, although leading to the
same energy density, can result in rather distinct properties. In this
sense, an optimized fabrication requires a deeper analysis of the pro­
cessing parameters, with experimentally deduced predictive models
being of practical interest.
Maximized density (99.99%) was achieved using (Lp, Pd, Et, Hd)
(275.0 W, 60 μm, 65.0 μs, 110 μm), corresponding to 2.71 J/mm2 planar
energy density, while maximized micro-hardness (350 HV2) was ach­
ieved using (Lp, Pd, Et, Hd) (337.5 W, 70 μm, 52.5 μs, 95 μm), corre­
sponding to 2.66 J/mm2 planar energy density.
Analysing the 3D response surface plots, complex non-linear in­
teractions between the processing parameters were observed. The pre­
dictive models presented high coefficients of determination, thus being
suitable to predict micro-hardness and density of 18Ni300 maraging
steel parts manufactured by SLM.
Formatting of funding sources
This work was developed within the scope of the project CICECO-
Aveiro Institute of Materials, UIDB/50011/2020 & UIDP/50011/2020,
financed by national funds through the FCT/MEC and co-financed by
FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement, through POCI-01-
0247-FEDER-039842.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We thank Simoldes Aços SA (Oliveira de Azeméis, Portugal) for
assistance with SLM sample's production.
References
[1] Ansell TY, Ricks JP, Park C, Tipper CS, Luhrs CC. Mechanical properties of 3D-
printed maraging steel induced by environmental exposure. Metals 2020;10(2):
218. https://doi.org/10.3390/met10020218.
[2] Mazur M, Leary M, McMillan M, Elambasseril J, Brandt M. SLM additive
manufacture of H13 tool steel with conformal cooling and structural lattices. Rapid
Prototyp J 2016. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-06-2014-0075.
[3] Kitayama S, Miyakawa H, Takano M, Aiba S. Multi-objective optimization of
injection molding process parameters for short cycle time and warpage reduction
using conformal cooling channel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2017;88(5–8):1735–44.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8904-x.
[4] Mazur M, Brincat P, Leary M, Brandt M. Numerical and experimental evaluation of
a conformally cooled H13 steel injection mould manufactured with selective laser
melting. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2017;93(1–4):881–900. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00170-017-0426-7.
D.F.S. Ferreira et al.
[5] Yap CY, Chua CK, Dong ZL, Liu ZH, Zhang DQ, Loh LE, et al. Review of selective
laser melting: materials and applications. Appl Phys Rev 2015;2(4):041101.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4935926.
[6] Tanzi MC, Farè S, Candiani G. Foundations of Biomaterials Engineering. Academic
Press; 2019 (ISBN: 9780081010341}.
[7] Ng C, Savalani M, Man H, Gibson I. Layer manufacturing of magnesium and its
alloy structures for future applications. Virtual and physical prototyping 2010;5(1):
13–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452751003718629.
[8] Bai Y, Yang Y, Xiao Z, Wang D. Selective laser melting of maraging steel:
mechanical properties development and its application in mold. Rapid Prototyp J
2018. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-05-2017-0104.
[9] Jägle EA, Choi P-P, Humbeeck J Van, Raabe D. Precipitation and austenite
reversion behavior of a maraging steel produced by selective laser melting. J Mater
Res 2014;29(17):2072. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2014.204.
[10] Turk C, Zunko H, Aumayr C, Leitner H, Kapp M. Advances in maraging steels for
additive manufacturing. BHM Berg-und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte 2019;164
(3):112–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-019-0835-z.
[11] J.-g. Chen, J.-f. Zhang, F.-s. Lu, J.-l. Zhang, J.-s. Zhan. Outline of strengthening
ways in 18Ni maraging steel. Metallic Functional Materials 2009;4:16.
[12] Kempen K, Yasa E, Thijs L, Kruth J-P, Humbeeck J Van. Microstructure and
mechanical properties of selective laser melted 18Ni-300 steel. Phys Procedia
2011;12:255–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2011.03.033.
[13] Casalino G, Campanelli S, Contuzzi N, Ludovico A. Experimental investigation and
statistical optimization of the selective laser melting process of a maraging steel.
Opt Laser Technol 2015;65:151–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
optlastec.2014.07.021.
[14] Croccolo D, Agostinis M De, Fini S, Olmi G, Vranic A, Ciric-Kostic S. Influence of
the build orientation on the fatigue strength of EOS maraging steel produced by
additive metal machine. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2016;39(5):637–47.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12395.
[15] Kruth J-P, Levy G, Klocke F, Childs T. Consolidation phenomena in laser and
powder-bed based layered manufacturing. CIRP Ann 2007;56(2):730–59. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2007.10.004.
[16] Dewidar M, Dalgarno K, Wright C. Processing conditions and mechanical
properties of high-speed steel parts fabricated using direct selective laser sintering.
Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 2003;217(12):1651–63. https://doi.org/
10.1243/095440503772680587.
[17] Kurzynowski T, Chlebus E, Kuźnicka B, Reiner J. Parameters in selective laser
melting for processing metallic powders. In: High Power Laser Materials
Processing: Lasers, Beam Delivery, Diagnostics, and Applications. 8239.
International Society for Optics and Photonics; 2012. p. 823914. https://doi.org/
10.1117/12.907292.
[18] Sun Jianfeng, Yang Yongqiang, Wang Di. Parametric optimization of selective laser
melting for forming Ti6Al4V samples by Taguchi method. Opt Laser Technol 2013;
49:118–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2012.12.002.
[19] Peng T, Chen C. Influence of energy density on energy demand and porosity of 316l
stainless steel fabricated by selective laser melting. International Journal of
Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology 2018;5(1):55–62.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40684-018-0006-9.
[20] Bai Y, Yang Y, Wang D, Zhang M. Influence mechanism of parameters process and
mechanical properties evolution mechanism of maraging steel 300 by selective
laser melting. Mater Sci Eng A 2017;703:116–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
msea.2017.06.033.
[21] Chen Z, Xiang Y, Wei Z, Wei P, Lu B, Zhang L, et al. Thermal dynamic behavior
during selective laser melting of K418 superalloy: numerical simulation and
experimental verification. Applied Physics A 2018;124(4):1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00339-018-1737-8.
[22] Cheng B, Loeber L, Willeck H, Hartel U, Tuffile C. Computational investigation of
melt Pool process dynamics and pore formation in laser powder bed fusion. J Mater
Eng Perform 2019;28(11):6565–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-019-04435-
y.
54
Journal of Manufacturing Processes 70 (2021) 46–54
[23] Wang L, Wei QS, Shi YS, Liu JH, He WT. Experimental investigation into the single-
track of selective laser melting of in625. In: Advanced Materials Research. vol. 233.
Trans Tech Publ; 2011. p. 2844–8. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/
AMR.233-235.2844.
[24] Campanelli SL, Casalino G, Contuzzi N, Angelastro A, Ludovico AD. Analysis of the
molten/solidified zone in selective laser melted parts. In: High-Power Laser
Materials Processing: Lasers, Beam Delivery, Diagnostics, and Applications III.
8963. International Society for Optics and Photonics; 2014. https://doi.org/
10.1117/12.2042170. 896311.
[25] Bartolomeu F, Faria S, Carvalho O, Pinto E, Alves N, Silva FS, et al. Predictive
models for physical and mechanical properties of Ti6Al4V produced by selective
laser melting. Mater Sci Eng A 2016;663:181–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
msea.2016.03.113.
[26] Yap C, Chua C, Dong Z. An effective analytical model of selective laser melting.
Virtual and Physical Prototyping 2016;11(1):21–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17452759.2015.1133217.
[27] Bertoli US, Wolfer AJ, Matthews MJ, Delplanque J-PR, Schoenung JM. On the
limitations of volumetric energy density as a design parameter for selective laser
melting. Mater Des 2017;113:331–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2016.10.037.
[28] Deng Y, Mao Z, Yang N, Niu X, Lu X. Collaborative optimization of density and
surface roughness of 316L stainless steel in selective laser melting. Materials 2020;
13(7):1601. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13071601.
[29] Li Z, Kucukkoc I, Zhang DZ, Liu F. Optimising the process parameters of selective
laser melting for the fabrication of Ti6Al4V alloy. Rapid Prototyp J 2018. https://
doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-03-2016-0045.
[30] Gajera HM, Dave KG, Darji VP, Abhishek K. Optimization of process parameters of
direct metal laser sintering process using fuzzy-based desirability function
approach. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 2019;41(3):124. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40430-019-1621-2.
[31] Alfaify AY, Hughes J, Ridgway K. Critical evaluation of the pulsed selective laser
melting process when fabricating Ti64 parts using a range of particle size
distributions. Addit Manuf 2018;19:197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2017.12.003.
[32] Read N, Wang W, Essa K, Attallah MM. Selective laser melting of AlSi10Mg alloy:
process optimization and mechanical properties development. Mater Des 2015;65:
417–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.09.044. 1980–2015.
[33] Oliveira JP, LaLonde A, Ma J. Processing parameters in laser powder bed fusion
metal additive manufacturing. Mater Des 2020;193:108762. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108762.
[34] Karimi P, Raza T, Andersson J, Svensson L-E. Influence of laser exposure time and
point distance on 75-μm-thick layer of selective laser melted alloy 718. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2018;94(5–8):2199–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-
1019-1.
[35] Dong Z, Liu Y, Wen W, Ge J, Liang J. Effect of hatch spacing on melt pool and as-
built quality during selective laser melting of stainless steel: modeling and
experimental approaches. Materials 2019;12(1):50. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma12010050.
[36] Spierings AB, Dawson K, Uggowitzer PJ, Wegener K. Influence of SLM scan-speed
on microstructure, precipitation of Al3Sc particles and mechanical properties in Sc-
and Zr-modified Al-Mg alloys. Mater Des 2018;140:134–43. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2017.11.053.
[37] Liu J, Song Y, Chen C, Wang X, Li H, Wang J, et al. Effect of scanning speed on the
microstructure and mechanical behavior of 316L stainless steel fabricated by
selective laser melting. Mater Des 2020;186:108355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2019.108355.
[38] Wei P, Wei Z, Chen Z, He Y, Du J. Thermal behavior in single track during selective
laser melting of AlSi10Mg powder. Applied Physics A 2017;123(9):604. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00339-017-1194-9.