Interfacial Characteristics and Mechanical Behavior of Hybrid Manufactured AlSi10Mg-Al6061 Bimetal via Selective Laser Melting and Forging

doi:10.1007/s40195-021-01349-4

Abstract

Abstract:

Hybrid manufacturing (HM) uses additive manufacturing (AM) techniques to prepare complex or fine structures on traditional processing parts, which can fully utilize the advantages of AM to form complex parts, and the high efficiency and low cost of conventional processing methods in manufacturing regular components. A bimetal material was produced by selective laser melting (SLM) of AlSi10Mg on the deformed Al6061 alloy substrate in this study. Firstly, the interface characteristics of the two alloys were studied. The results show that a metallurgical interface with a thickness of 100-200 μm was formed as the result of the Marangoni convection during SLM preparation. In detail, the circular flow in the melt pool at the interface led to the dilution of alloying elements and the change of microstructure. Moreover, a suitable first-layer thickness can effectively suppress the hot cracks at the interfacial region. Based on the optimized results, the hybrid manufactured samples with different SLM processed volume ratios (SLM-part) to the substrate were prepared to study the mechanical properties and the deformation behavior of hybrid parts. The results show that the volume ratio of the SLM-part to the substrate had an influence on the strength and the elasto-plastic behavior by affecting the distribution of plastic deformation.

Key words: Hybrid manufacturing, Selective laser melting, Forging, Aluminum alloys, Interface, Mechanical behavior

Haoxiang Wang, Xin Lin, Nan Kang, Zehao Qin, Shuoqing Shi, Jiacong Li, Weidong Huang. Interfacial Characteristics and Mechanical Behavior of Hybrid Manufactured AlSi10Mg-Al6061 Bimetal via Selective Laser Melting and Forging[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2022, 35(3): 375-388.

Figures/Tables 17

Table 1 Chemical composition (wt.%) of the materials used in the current study

Materials	Si	Mg	Mn	Fe	Zn	Cu	Al
AlSi10Mg powder	9.67	0.41	< 0.01	0.08	< 0.01	0.01	Bal.
Substrate Al6061	0.66	0.90	0.41	0.45	0.15	0.23	Bal.

Fig. 1 a SEM image of AlSi10Mg powder, b hybrid manufactured AlSi10Mg-Al6061 bimetals

Table 2 SLM Process parameters

Process parameters	Value
Laser power (W)	340
Scanning speed (mm/s)	1600
The thickness of the first layer (μm)	0/30
The thickness of the subsequent layers (μm)	30
Hatch space (mm)	0.1
Scanning strategy	Strip type/interlayer angle 67 degree
Preheating temperature (°C)	150

Table 3 Ar-ion milling parameters

Procedure	1	2	3
Voltage (kV)	4	6	4
Milling angle (°)	10.5	4.5	4.5
Milling time (min)	20	120	30
Rotation speed (rpm)	1.5	1.5	1.5
Milling area (Φ, mm)	10	10	10

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of a tensile specimens and b nanoindentation test positionwhere $A_{0}$ is the initial cross-sectional area of the tensile specimens of the hybrid parts, $\varepsilon_{i}$ is the local true strain obtained by the DIC approach, $A_{i}$ is the cross-sectional area of the tensile specimens corresponding to $\varepsilon_{i}$, and $F_{i}$ is the tensile force applied in tensile tests.

Fig. 3 OM micrographs of interfacial defects of the hybrid part: a, b NLT sample, c, d FLT samples

Fig. 4 SEM-EDS results of interfacial crack-defects

Fig. 5 Alloying element distributions across the interface of the hybrid part

Fig. 6 a OM micrograph of the interfacial bonding zone of the hybrid part, b SEM microstructure of the interfacial bonding zone of the hybrid part, c enlarged image of area c (dilution zone) in Fig. 6b, d SEM microstructure of the melt pool of SLM-AlSi10Mg far away from the interface, e and f enlarged images of area e (the center of the melt pool), f (the boundary of the melt pool) in Fig. 6d

Fig. 7 EBSD IPF map of the interface of the hybrid part and EBSD pole figures of a columnar grains of SLM AlSi10Mg, b equiaxed grains of SLM AlSi10Mg, c first deposited layer, d substrate alloyFull size image

Fig. 8 Microhardness value of the hybrid part: a Vickers microhardness (HV) variation, b nanoindentation at the interface

Fig. 9 Room-temperature tensile properties of the hybrid parts: a engineering stress-engineering strain curves and fracture positions (the red line in the inset indicating the position of the interface), b histogram of tensile properties

Table 4 Tensile properties of the hybrid parts (samples 1-5), the substrate Al6061 alloy (sample 0) and the SLM-AlSi10Mg (sample 6)

Sample No.	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
YS (MPa)	313 ± 3	272 ± 5	279 ± 4	272 ± 5	275 ± 3	272 ± 6	243 ± 6
UTS (MPa)	345 ± 3	334 ± 12	338 ± 1	337 ± 4	353 ± 5	362 ± 12	467 ± 12
Elongation (%)	9.5 ± 1.5	5.6 ± 1.9	4.1 ± 0.1	4.0 ± 0.9	4.4 ± 0.1	3.5 ± 0.8	8.6 ± 0.9
YS (UTS)	0.91	0.81	0.83	0.81	0.78	0.75	0.52

Fig. 10 SEM images of the fracture morphologies: a-c substrate Al6061 alloy, d-f hybrid part broken in the substrate area, g-i hybrid part broken in the interface area, j-l SLM-AlSi10Mg

Fig. 11 DIC strain contour maps in a different time of a sample 1, b sample 3, c sample 5

Fig. 12 a-c True stress-true strain curves of different regions in sample 1, sample 3, and sample 5, respectively, d and e true stress-true strain curves and the corresponding strain hardening rate-true strain curves of the three groups of samples in the interface region and the substrate region, respectively

Table 5 Constitutive properties of various regions of the hybrid parts

Sample No.	Region	$K$	$n$	$\sigma_{\text{u}}$
Sample 1	SLM-part	897.999	0.2472	635.678
	Interface	500.121	0.11315	390.837
	Substrate	492.767	0.10625	383.819
Sample 3	SLM-part	987.888	0.25108	698.253
	Interface	478.032	0.10169	378.885
	Substrate	491.099	0.09278	393.885
Sample 5	SLM-part	1025.965	0.29172	716.23
	Interface	492.059	0.09924	391.245
	Substrate	497.579	0.0828	395.634

References 41

[1]	A. Poznak, D. Freiberg, P. Sanders, Fundamentals of Aluminium Metallurgy\|\|automotive Wrought Aluminium Alloys (Elsevier Ltd, 2018)
[2]	J. Hirsch, T. Al-Samman, Acta Mater. 61, 818 (2013) DOI URL
[3]	P. Sadeesh, K.M. Venkatesh, V. Rajkumar, P. Avinash, N. Arivazhagan, R.K. Devendranath, S. Narayanan, Procedia Eng. 75, 145 (2014) DOI URL
[4]	R. Ma, K. Fang, J.G. Yang, X.S. Liu, H.Y. Fang, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 214, 1131 (2014) DOI URL
[5]	N.T. Aboulkhair, M. Simonelli, L. Parry, I. Ashcroft, C. Tuck, R. Hague, Prog. Mater. Sci. 106, 100578(2019)
[6]	W. Huang, X. Lin, Sci. Sin. Inform. 45, 1111 (2015)
[7]	X. Lin, W. Huang, Mater. China 34, 684 (2015)
[8]	L. Thijs, K. Kempen, J.P. Kruth, J. Van Humbeeck, Acta Mater. 61, 1809 (2013) DOI URL
[9]	X. Liu, C. Zhao, X. Zhou, Z. Shen, W. Liu, Mater. Des. 168, 107677(2019)
[10]	J. Chen, W. Hou, X. Wang, S. Chu, Z. Yang, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 33, 2043 (2020) DOI URL
[11]	Z. Wang, X. Lin, N. Kang, Y. Hu, J. Chen, W. Huang, Addit. Manuf. 34, 101260(2020)
[12]	H. Zhang, H. Zhu, X. Nie, J. Yin, Z. Hu, X. Zeng, Scr. Mater. 134, 6 (2017) DOI URL
[13]	L.E. Loh, C.K. Chua, W.Y. Yeong, J. Song, M. Mapar, S.L. Sing, Z.H. Liu, D.Q. Zhang, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 80, 288 (2015) DOI URL
[14]	M.L.M. Sistiaga, R. Mertens, B. Vrancken, X. Wang, B. Van Hooreweder, J.P. Kruth, J. Van Humbeeck, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 238, 437 (2016) DOI URL
[15]	J.H. Martin, B.D. Yahata, J.M. Hundley, J.A. Mayer, T.A. Schaedler, T.M. Pollock, Nature 549, 365 (2017)
[16]	S.Z. Uddin, L.E. Murr, C.A. Terrazas, P. Morton, D.A. Roberson, R.B. Wicker, Addit. Manuf. 22, 405 (2018)
[17]	H. Azizi, R. Ghiaasiaan, R. Prager, M.H. Ghoncheh, K.A. Samk, A. Lausic, W. Byleveld, A.B. Phillion, Addit. Manuf. 27, 389 (2019) DOI
[18]	T. DebRoy, H.L. Wei, J.S. Zuback, T. Mukherjee, J.W. Elmer, J.O. Milewski, A.M. Beese, A. Wilson-Heid, A. De, W. Zhang, Prog. Mater. Sci. 92, 112 (2018) DOI URL
[19]	P. Wang, C.S. Lao, Z.W. Chen, Y.K. Liu, H. Wang, H. Wendrock, J. Eckert, S. Scudino, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 36, 18 (2020) DOI
[20]	Y. Zhu, J. Li, X. Tian, H. Wang, D. Liu, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 607, 427 (2014)
[21]	C. Tan, K. Zhou, W. Ma, L. Min, Mater. Des. 155, 77 (2018) DOI URL
[22]	S. Shakerin, A. Hadadzadeh, B.S. Amirkhiz, S. Shamsdini, J. Li, M. Mohammadi, Addit. Manuf. 29, 100797(2019)
[23]	M.H. Ghoncheh, M. Sanjari, E. Cyr, J. Kelly, H. Pirgazi, S. Shakerin, A. Hadadzadeh, B.S. Amirkhiz, L.A.I. Kestens, M. Mohammadi, Int. J. Plast. 133, 102840(2020)
[24]	K. Sindo, Welding Metallurgy, 2nd edn. (Wiley,New York, 2003)
[25]	R. Li, M. Wang, Z. Li, P. Cao, T. Yuan, H. Zhu, Acta Mater. 193, 83 (2020) DOI URL
[26]	C. Leitão, I. Galvão, R.M. Leal, D.M. Rodrigues, Mater. Des. 33, 69 (2012) DOI URL
[27]	M. Rappaz, J.M. Drezet, M. Gremaud, Metall. Mater. Trans. A Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci. 30, 449 (1999) DOI URL
[28]	Y. Qi, H. Zhang, X. Nie, Z. Hu, H. Zhu, X. Zeng, Addit. Manuf. 35, 101346(2020)
[29]	S.G. Shabestari, M.H. Ghoncheh, H. Momeni, Thermochim. Acta 589, 174 (2014)
[30]	M.H. Ghoncheh, S.G. Shabestari, M.H. Abbasi, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 117, 1253 (2014) DOI URL
[31]	A. Hadadzadeh, B.S. Amirkhiz, S. Shakerin, J. Kelly, J. Li, M. Mohammadi, Addit. Manuf. 31, 100937(2020)
[32]	Z. Li, Z. Li, Z. Tan, D.B. Xiong, Q. Guo, Int. J. Plast. 127, 102640(2020)
[33]	H. Chen, Y. Lu, D. Luo, J. Lai, D. Liu, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 285, 116782(2020)
[34]	D. Walton, B. Chalmers, Trans. AIME. 215, 447 (1959)
[35]	N. Hansen, Scr. Mater. 51, 801 (2004) DOI URL
[36]	Q. Yan, B. Song, Y. Shi, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 41, 199 (2020) DOI URL
[37]	B. Chen, S.K. Moon, X. Yao, G. Bi, J. Shen, J. Umeda, K. Kondoh, Scr. Mater. 141, 45 (2017) DOI URL
[38]	J. Wu, X.Q. Wang, W. Wang, M.M. Attallah, M.H. Loretto, Acta Mater. 117, 311 (2016) DOI URL
[39]	H. Suthar, A. Bhattacharya, S.K. Paul, CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 30, 12 (2020) DOI URL
[40]	I. Rosenthal, A. Stern, N. Frage, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 682, 509 (2017)
[41]	Y. Peng, C. Wu, J. Gan, J. Dong, Constr. Build. Mater. 171, 485 (2018) DOI URL