Materials Letters 238 (2019) 241–244

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Letters
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mlblue

Selective electron beam melting of an aluminum bronze: Microstructure

and mechanical properties
Torsten Wolf a,⇑, Zongwen Fu a, Carolin Körner a,b
a
Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Joint Institute of Advanced Materials and Processes, Dr.-Mack-Straße 81, 90762 Fürth, Germany
b
Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Department of Materials Science, Chair of Materials Science and Technology for Metals, Martensstrasse 5, 91058
Erlangen, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this work, periodic macro-cellular structures with dense struts are successfully fabricated from an alu-
Received 4 October 2018 minum brass by selective electron beam melting (SEBM). The process window for the SEBM of the Cu–Al
Received in revised form 20 November 2018 alloy is developed. The microstructure and the mechanical properties of the Cu–Al samples are studied.
Accepted 21 November 2018
Ó 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Available online 10 December 2018

Keywords:
Additive manufacturing
Selective electron beam melting
Aluminum brass
Cellular structure

1. Introduction
Since the early 20th century, there has been intensified research
in the field of copper bronzes with their main addition being alu-
minum [1,2], owing to the excellent corrosion resistance caused
by the formation of a dense and stable passive Al2O3-layer. The cor-
rosion resistance is dependent on the amount of aluminum in the
alloy [3]. Those bronzes also show high strength, wear/cavitation
erosion and fatigue resistance [4–6]. For up to 17 atom percent
(at%) of aluminum, tensile strength and fracture elongation
increase [6]. This compositional range allows for casting/forging
approaches and intensive machining, making it attractive for appli-
cations like ship propellers or pump housings [6–8]. However,
alloys with an aluminum content above 17 at% experience a steep
drop in both tensile strength and fracture elongation [6]. This Al-
content dependent embrittlement is based on the formation of
tough intermetallic phases (e.g. Cu9Al4) and can be reduced by
rapid cooling of the alloy [3]. Although this embrittlement
improves the wear resistance, it implies a lower lifetime of the
used machining tools and decreased plastic deformability [9,10].
One application demanding high aluminum brasses are Raney
catalysts [11,12]. These alloys, also containing a more noble ele-
ment, are rapidly solidified and post treated in an aqueous leaching
solution converting the bulk material into a nanoporous volume of
the noble element (Raney-Copper/Nickel) [12,13]. This makes
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: torsten.wolf@fau.de (T. Wolf).
these alloys tough to machine and ultimately only allows simple
geometries [11,14]. That is why in this work, a highly alloyed alu-
minum brass was processed using additive manufacturing (AM).
Allowing for complex near-net-shape geometries fabricated from
an alloy, which is usually unattractive for established machining
methods, possibly makes way for Raney-Alloys to be transformed
into e.g. cellular structured reactors, combining the alloys with
the periodic unit cell approaches benefits [11,20–22]. 21.5 at% alu-
minum with a base of copper was chosen according to percolation
theory, evaporation studies and availability [17,22].
The process used is selective electron beam melting (SEBM).
Similar to selective laser melting (SLM), SEBM belongs to the pow-
der bed AM methods [22,23]. SEBM, which uses an electron beam as
heat source, shows significant advantages over SLM [23,24]. Espe-
cially for processing copper-based alloys, owing to the poor energy
absorption during SLM, SEBM is considered to be the optimal AM
method for the fabrication of dense copper-based components
[23,24]. In this work, a process window for SEBM of dense Cu–Al
parts was developed. Moreover, the microstructure and mechanical
properties of SEBM fabricated Cu–Al samples were analyzed.
2. Experimental procedures
Gas atomized Cu–Al alloy powder composed of 78.5 at% copper
and 21.5 at% aluminum (Ecka Granules GmbH, Fürth, Germany)
with a particle size between 45 mm and 105 mm was used. To inves-
tigate the process window for SEBM of dense Cu–Al parts, cuboid-
shaped specimens with dimensions of 15  15  10 mm3

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2018.12.015
0167-577X/Ó 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
242 T. Wolf et al. / Materials Letters 238 (2019) 241–244

(x  y  z; z represents the build direction) were built. All samples
were fabricated using an Arcam Q10 system (Arcam AB, Mölndal,
Sweden) in a helium atmosphere (0.2 Pa). The process temperature
was held constant at 700 °C; the snake hatch method was applied
[25]; the line offset and the layer thickness were set to 100 mm and
50 mm, respectively. For the investigation of mechanical properties,
tensile testing was performed on specimens with a standard geom-
etry (DIN 50125-B) derived by electrical discharge machining of
SEBM-processed cuboids [25]. In order to evaluate the anisotropic
mechanical properties of the SEBM processed Cu–Al alloy, samples
fabricated perpendicular and parallel to the build direction during
SEBM were tested. For these a pretension of 12 MPa was applied.
Furthermore, periodic cellular structures for a chemical reactor
with struts parallel, perpendicular and tilted at an angle of 45° with
respect to the build direction were manufactured via SEBM. This
was done to verify, if alternate use cases demanding filigree and
continuously interconnected struts are viable for this alloy [18–
21]. The strut thicknesses in the as-built state were analyzed by
scanning electron microscopy (SEM, Quanta 450, FEI Ltd). Average
strut thicknesses were calculated from eight measurements each
of the 45°-tilted struts. Phase analysis was performed by energy
dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS).
3. Results and discussion
Fig. 1(a) shows the process map for the SEBM of dense Cu–Al
(with a relative density greater than 99.5%) with smooth and even
surface using different process parameters. With increasing beam
power and decreasing scan speed, samples with wavy surfaces
were fabricated due to material transport [15,23].
In contrast, by elevating the scan velocity and reducing the
beam power, porosity was observed in the cuboids (Fig. 1(b)). Fol-
lowing the parameters for dense cuboid samples, which are
marked in grey in Fig. 1(a), periodic cellular structures with dense
struts were built (Fig. 1(d)). The thickness of the struts (marked by
red dashed line in Fig. 1(d)), which are aligned at an angle of 45°
with respect to the build direction, were measured by image anal-
ysis (Fig. 1(c)). Using a beam power of 180 W and a scan speed of
1 m/s resulted in the lowest strut thicknesses (466 ± 20 mm) (Fig. 1
(c)).
According to microstructural and EDS analysis of the cuboid
samples and the struts in the cellular structures, different phases
were detected (Fig. 2): large copper solid solution crystals (Cu-SS
with 19 at% aluminum), metastable b-phase (25 at% Al) and eutec-
toid areas comprised of c1-phase (30 at% Al) and copper-lamellae
(19 at% Al). It was considered, that the formation of the eutectoid
area was caused by the solidification of the molten alloy (21.5 at
% Al) into large primary Cu-SS crystals and b-phase, followed by
a eutectoid transformation of the high temperature b-phase at
567 °C into smaller copper grains and c1-phase, which exhibited
higher thermal dynamic stability at room temperature [16,17]. In
Fig. 2 it is noticeable that the light grey phase (Cu-SS) is sur-
rounded by the continuous or discontinuous dark grey phase (b-
phase). This phenomenon is intimately connected with the so-
called complete and incomplete wetting of grain boundaries by
the liquid [26] or second solid phase [27] at elevated temperatures,

Fig. 1. (a) Process window for SEBM of dense Cu–Al samples. (b) SEBM fabricated Cu–Al cuboids using different parameters: ① even cuboids (relative density <99.5%), ②
even samples (relative density >99.5%), ③ uneven and ④ wavy cuboids. (c) Strut thickness of cellular structures as a function of different process parameters. (d) SEBM
fabricated cellular structures with the analyzed samples marked. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)
 T. Wolf et al. / Materials Letters 238 (2019) 241–244 243

Fig. 2. (a), (c) SEM-micrographs of a single strut in the Cu–Al cellular structure. (b), (d) SEM-micrographs of a SEBM manufactured cuboid sample. The numbers denote
different phases: ① primary Cu (19 at% Al), ② b-phase (25 at% Al), ③ eutectoidly formed secondary Cu crystals and ④ c1-phase (30 at% Al).

induced by the melting process. It is noticeable that a higher

amount of residual metastable b-phase is observed in the cuboid
sample (Fig. 2(b) and (d)) than in the strut (Fig. 2(c)). Cooling down
a single layer after melting, in the cellular structures with a strut
thickness of 500 mm, heat is conducted away from the melted
material only by loosely packed support particles and a small strut
cross-section. For the cuboid samples the freshly melted area can
be cooled down more quickly due to the bigger cross-section of
the sample. Therefore, a shorter time span occurs for which the
eutectoid transformation from the metastable b-phase into Cu-SS
and c1-phase can take place leading to a bigger fraction of residual
b-phase in cuboid specimens.
Table 1 shows the mechanical properties of the SEBM processed
samples printed parallel and perpendicular to the build direction.
The Young’s modulus and the ultimate tensile strength are signif-
icantly dependent on the fabrication direction, while the sample
Fig. 3. Representative stress–strain curves for the tensile test of the samples
yield strength and fracture strain do not show such a dependence. oriented parallel and perpendicularly to the built direction during SEBM.
Furthermore, representative strain–stress curves for the tensile
test of the samples fabricated in different directions are shown in
Fig. 3. Despite the high amount of brittle intermetallic phases, all for the SEBM of dense Cu–Al samples was developed. Based on
Cu–Al samples showed a plastic regime after the linear elastic the SEBM process map, cellular structures with complex geome-
zone. tries and dense struts for a catalytic reactor application were gen-
erated. The mechanical properties of the SEBM processed Cu–Al
4. Conclusion components were slightly dependent on the fabrication direction
during SEBM. The samples aligned parallel to the build direction
In this work, a copper-based alloy containing 21.5 at% alu- showed higher Young’s modulus and tensile strength than those
minum was successfully processed by SEBM. A process window measured in the specimens built in the perpendicular direction.

Table 1
Tensile test results of the SEBM fabricated samples aligned parallel and perpendicular to the build direction.

Sample orientation during SEBM Young’s modulus, E [GPa] Yield strength, Rp0.2 [MPa] Tensile strength, Rm [MPa] Fracture elongation, e [%]
Parallel to build direction 109.1 ± 8.0 253.9 ± 1.2 450.7 ± 4.3 3.0 ± 0.3
Perpendicular to build direction 129.0 ± 7.3 255.8 ± 4.9 486.5 ± 6.7 3.2 ± 0.4
244 T. Wolf et al. / Materials Letters 238 (2019) 241–244

According to the microstructural investigation, different phases [8] J.R. Davis, Copper and Copper Alloys, ASM Specialty Handbook, 2001.
[9] S. Kuyucak, Can. Metall. Quart. 35 (1) (1996) 1–15.
with an aluminum content ranging from 19 at% to 30 at% were
[10] C. Vilarinho et al., J. Mater. Process. Tech. 170 (1–2) (2005) 441–447.
observed in the SEBM derived Cu–Al parts, indicating potential [11] J. Erlebacher et al., MRS Bull. 34 (08) (2009) 561–568.
for chemical leaching to derive nanoporous copper. [12] M. Raney, Ind. Eng. Chem. (1940) 1199–1203.
[13] Q. Chen et al., J. Electrochem. Soc. 160 (6) (2013) 226–231.
[14] T. Aburada et al., Corros. Sci. 53 (5) (2011) 1627–1632.
Acknowledgments [15] M. Markl et al., Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 46 (2016) 93–123.
[16] J.L. Murray, The aluminium–copper system, Int. Mater. Rev. 30 (1) (1985) 211–
Financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 234.
[17] A. Klassen et al., Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 25 (2) (2017) 25003.
(DFG LO 2030/1-1) and the Exzellenzcluster ‘‘Engineering of [18] H.E. Curry-Hyde et al., Appl. Catal. 29 (1987) 31–41.
Advanced Materials” are gratefully acknowledged. [19] C. Busse et al., Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intens. 124 (2018) 199–214.
[20] M. Lämmermann et al., Catal. Today 273 (2016) 161–171.
[21] D. Stauffer, Introduction to Percolation Theory, revised second ed., CRC Press,
References 2014.
[22] K.V. Wong, A. Hernandez, ISRN Mech. Eng. 4 (2012) 1–10.
[1] US1076973A, 1913. [23] C. Körner, Int. Mater. Rev. 61 (2016) 361–377.
[2] US1718502A, 1929. [24] P. Becker, Selektives Laserschmelzen von Kupfer und Kupferlegierungen,
[3] E. Franke, Werkstoffe und Korrosion 8 (1951) 298–307. Apprimus Verlag, 2014.
[4] US5080056A, 1992. [25] R. Guschlbauer et al., Mater. Charact. 143 (2018) 163–170.
[5] Y. Li et al., Wear 197 (1–2) (1996) 130–136. [26] B.B. Straumal et al., Phys. Rev. B 78 (5) (2018) 189.
[6] H. Meigh, Cast and Wrought Aluminium Bronzes: Properties, Processes and [27] B.B. Straumal et al., JETP Lett. 100 (8) (2014) 535–539.
Structure, CRC Press, 2018.
[7] US3097093A, 1963.