Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Gas Turbine India Conference

GTINDIA2017
December 7-8, 2017, Bangalore, India

GTINDIA2017-4614

Study of Process Parameter and Powder Variability on the Properties and Recrystallization
Behavior of Direct Metal Laser Sintered CoCrMo

1,3 1,4 1
Santhosh Kumar Rao Chandrasekara , Anigani Sudarshan Reddy , Dheepa Srinivasan , Durga
2
Ananthanarayanan

1 GE Power, Bangalore, India

2 GE Global Research, Bangalore, India
3 PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, India
4 SASTRA University, Tirumalaisamudram, India

ABSTRACT A number of process parameters such as laser power, scan

Additive manufacturing via the direct metal laser sintering
(DMLS) route is an attractive technology for repair and
refurbishment of gas turbine components. This paper presents
the study of the role of various process parameters such as laser
power, scan speed, layer thickness and powder variability in
obtaining dense, pore-free parts of CoCrMo using the DMLS
route. The variation in surface roughness of the built samples
and the effect of powder variability on the part density were
brought out via a systematic design of experiments (DOE).
Different solution heat treatments were carried out to establish
the recrystallization behavior of DMLS CoCrMo. The variation
in microstructure and properties were evaluated between
powders from two different sources, EOS and Praxair, as an
important aspect towards practical applicability of the process
for components.
Key words: Additive manufacturing, DMLS, CoCrMo,
Roughness, Porosity
INTRODUCTION
Direct Metal Laser Sintering is an additive manufacturing
process by which part is built layer-by-layer from the digital 3D
design given as input [1-4]. In the recent years, this process is
used as a productive tool for fabrication and repair development
in various fields like aerospace, industrial gas turbines, medical
and many other industries owing to the superior design
capabilities that this manufacturing route offers towards
enabling net shape parts. A faster production capability,
reduction in the material wastage, ability to obtain light weight
structures, reduced manufacturing costs, superior design and
material properties are some of the overriding advantages in
using laser additive manufacturing as compared with
conventional methodologies [5-6].
speed, layer thickness etc. play an important role in obtaining
dense parts with the required microstructure and adequate
mechanical properties [7-10]. The energy density 𝐸𝐴 is defined
as shown in Equation 1. Therefore, it is paramount to optimize
the process parameters to obtain consistent dense parts via the
DMLS process.
𝑃
𝐸𝐴 = 𝐸𝑞. 1
ℎ∗𝑆∗𝑡
Here, EA is energy density, P is laser power, S is scan
speed, t is layer thickness and h is hatch spacing.
The quality of the powder used varies from source to
source and has an influence on mechanical properties [11]. It
also influences the build-to-build consistency, reproducibility
and the production of defect-free components [12]. The
chemical composition of the powders influences the melting
temperature, weldability and thermal properties. The particle
size distribution influences many aspects like flowability and
powder bed density. The shape of particles like irregular
powder shape, satellites and hollow powder, with open or
closed porosity also influences the properties [12].
Cobalt-based alloys are widely used in several high
temperature structural applications for their superior oxidation
and hot corrosion resistance as well as high temperature
strength. [13-14]. They are widely used in gas turbines, engine
components as well many other industrial/mechanical
components. More recently, DMLS CoCrMo has been made
popular in its use for medical implants as well as an aero engine
fuel nozzle application [15]. In order to achieve the properties
for these critical applications, the DMLS processed materials
are typically hot isostatically pressed (HIP) to densify the part.

1 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 This study deals with the parameter optimization of DMLS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CoCrMo alloy with the aim of developing highly dense part
without having to densify the part after the DMLS process, by (A) Chemical Composition
an analysis of the microstructure and room temperature The chemical compositions of the powders are tabulated in
mechanical properties. It also includes a comparison of the Table 3. The EOS powders conform to the nominal CoCrMo
variability in the properties and microstructure with two chemistry while the Praxair powders appear with minor
different powder sources and considers the role of powder amounts of tungsten (W), Titanium (Ti). Owing to this slight
variability in influencing the properties and recrystallization chemistry difference in the starting powders, in particular the
behavior of the DMLS CoCrMo alloy. presence of W in the Praxair powders, two slightly varying
etchants had to be used for the metallography.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
CoCrMo coupons were built using the EOS M280, at Table 3: Chemical composition of DMLS CoCrMo powders
INTECH, DMLS, Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore, India. The design of Nominal EOS Praxair
experiments (DOE) used in this study is listed in Table 1. Three
key parameters, a. laser power, b. scan speed, c. layer thickness Elements Composition Weight Weight
were varied, keeping laser spot size (80 µm) and hatch spacing
(110 µm) as fixed parameters in this DOE. CoCrMo alloy Weight (%) (%) (%)
powders were obtained from two different suppliers (EOS and
Praxair). The effect of powder variability was studied using the Cobalt(Co) 60-65 64 64.9
DOE shown in Table 2. In going from Table 1 to Table 2, the
energy density was kept constant at 67.47J/mm3. A hatch angle Chromium(Cr) 26-30 29 29.2
of 67° was used after every layer to minimize the residual
stresses. Coupons of dimensions 25x25x25mm were built. The Molybdenum(Mo) 5-7 5.9 5.16
surface roughness was evaluated in the as-printed condition
using a Zeiss Surfcom profilometer 600D, both along the build Nickel(Ni) ≤0.1 0.06 0.093
direction and transverse to build direction. The porosity in as-
printed samples were evaluated using the optical microscope Iron(Fe) ≤0.75 0.04 0.037
Nikon MA200 having a Clemex image analysis system after
metallographic sample preparation for the porosity. The Manganese(Mn) ≤1.0 0.4 0.023
microstructures were examined after etching using 5% HCl, 6V
Electrolytic treatment (EOS) and 5% phosphoric acid, 6V Silicon(Si) ≤1.0 0.4 0.30
(Praxair). Microhardness measurements were done using
Shimadzu Micro Hardness Tester with 300 gm load and 10 sec Carbon(C) ≤0.16 0.1 0.060
dwell time. Room temperature tensile tests were carried out on
micro tensile samples having sample dimensions 6 mm gauge
Aluminum(Al) - - 0.05
length, 2 mm gauge width, 0.5 mm thickness and 20 mm
overall sample length. The samples were subject to solution
Boron(B) - - 0.004
heat treatment at three temperatures, 950°C, 1050°C and
1150°C, for 4 hours in a vacuum furnace to study the effect of
Phosphorous(P) - - <0.001
recrystallization behavior of DMLS CoCrMo. The powders as
well as the as-printed and heat treated specimens were
Sulphur(S) - - <0.001
evaluated for their chemistry and microstructure using the
SEM-EDS (EVO-18 with an Oxford Link system).
Titanium(Ti) - - 0.012
Table 1: Design of experiments – Parameter study
Laser power 285 W, 220 W Tungsten(W) - - 0.011
Scan Speed 820 mm/s, 960 mm/s
Layer Thickness 20, 40, 50 µm
(B) Powder particle size and distribution
Table 2: Design of experiments – Powder Variability Figure 1 (a-b) is a representative scanning electron
Laser Power 220 W, 285 W micrograph (SEM) revealing a spherical morphology for both
Scan Speed 741 mm/s, 960 mm/s, EOS and Praxair powders, respectively, having a particle size
Layer Thickness 20, 40 µm distribution between 7-50 µm for EOS (Figure 2a) with average
size of 20 µm and 10- 70 µm for Praxair with average size of
26 µm (Figure 2b).

2 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 A (C) Surface Roughness
The surface roughness for all the coupons were found to be
in the range of 6-8 µm Ra, when measured along the sides of
the coupons (Figure 3). The surface roughness did not vary
significantly with different process parameters and it appeared
that the laser power, scan speed and layer thickness, did not
have any significant effect on the surface roughness. There was
no significant difference in the roughness between EOS and
Praxair powders as a function of different process parameters,
as shown in Figure 4.

20 µm

B A

Figure 3: Surface roughness Ra (µm) of the as-printed DMLS

20 µm CoCrMo
Figure 1: SEM micrograph of the CoCrMo powders (A) EOS,
(B) Praxair

Figure 4: Comparison of the Surface roughness of DMLS

CoCrMo using EOS and Praxair powders

B (D) Porosity
Porosity in the part is primarily the result of powder
packing characteristics, the process or gas entrapment or
combination of both. In gas porosity, the pores are spherical in
morphology, whereas in process-induced porosity the pores are
of irregular shape. Process-induced porosity can be controlled
by varying the process parameters. Figure 5 (a-c) shows
representative optical micrographs along the build direction for
285 W, 960 mm/s, 20/40/50 µm respectively. The porosity
ranges between 0.01 to 0.2%, with an average porosity of
0.07±0.03 for the EOS coupons in the as-printed condition. The
20 µm layer thickness appeared to have a more uniform
Figure 2: CoCrMo particle size distribution of (A) EOS, (B) distribution of porosity as compared to the 40 µm and 50 µm
Praxair layer thicknesses. Wider distribution of powder particles

3 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 provides good interdiffusion and hence greater the density of
the part.
A 0.012%
100 µm
B 0.021%
100 µm
C
0.03%
100 µm
Figure 5: Representative optical micrographs showing the
porosity with different parameters : (A) 285 W, 960 mm/s, 20
µm, (B) 285 W, 960 mm/s, 40 µm, (C) 285 W, 960 mm/s, 50
µm.
(D.1) Effect of layer thickness on porosity
The porosity of the part is compared by varying the layer
thickness and keeping laser power, scan speed and hatch
distance constant. Figure 6 is a histogram indicating the effect
of layer thickness on the porosity. With the laser power of 285
W, scan speed of 960 mm/s and layer thickness 20/40/50 µm,
the porosity is found to be <0.03% indicating that the parts built
with these parameters are likely to be dense without having the
need to HIP. The porosity is generally seen to increase upon
increase in the layer thickness, except for 285 W, 820 mm/s, as
seen from Figure 6. This differing trend in variation of porosity
4 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
with respect to layer thickness is probably because of the
condition with 20 m layer thickness having the highest energy
density (nearly 158 W/mm3, as shown circled in Figure 7). The
parameters that resulted in a < 0.05% porosity were a. 220 W,
820 mm/s, 40 µm, b. 220 W, 960 mm/s, 20 µm, and c. 285 W,
820mm/s, 40/50 µm.
Figure 6 : Effect of layer thickness on porosity for DMLS
CoCrMo
(D.2) Effect of Energy Density on porosity
The overall energy density is an important factor that
determines the density of the part. Figure 7 represents the
variation of porosity with respect to energy density. It can be
seen that too low and too high energy density resulted in higher
porosity. Energy density in the range of 53-104 J/mm3 has a
porosity <0.05%.
Figure 7: Effect of Energy density on porosity for DMLS
CoCrMo
(D.3) Variation in porosity with same energy density
Keeping the energy density constant at 67.47 J/mm3,
coupons with 20, 40 and 50 µm layer thicknesses were studied
as shown in Table 4. Figure 8 shows the variation in porosity at
constant energy density. Even with the same energy density that
results in less pores with lower scan speeds (for 285 W, 960
mm/s, as shown in Figure 9 A), with an increase in the scan
speed to 1482 mm/s, the porosity was seen to be drastically
 higher. For this processing condition, irregularly shaped pores
are clearly visible (as shown in Figure 9 B), along with regions
showing a complete lack of fusion. These irregular shaped
pores are a matter of serious concern as they indicate faulty
powder deposition, or abrupt change in powder environment or
scanning conditions. Higher scan speed resulted in more
porosity as the part gets solidified at faster rate and there is not
sufficient time to fuse the subsequent layers. Higher scan speed
also leads to high thermal stresses which results in thermal
induced cracks thereby decreasing the strength of the part.
There was no lack of fusion (LOF) observed at the lower scan
speeds.
melt pool structure can be observed having a width of 115-130
m and a depth of 70-80 m. The weld pool dimensions for all
the layer thicknesses are tabulated in Table 5. There is no
significant difference in the as-printed microstructure between
different parameters. Sporadic occurrence of microcracks can
be observed in all the cases, mostly occurring perpendicular to
the weld pool, as shown in Figure 11b. Microcracks are the
result of faster solidification, which is a result of high rate of
heat dissipation into previously formed layers due to smaller
width and depth of the weld pool. Remelting of previous layers
is essential to obtain good bonding between the individual
layers.

Table 4: Design of Experiments for constant energy density A

Energy Layer
Laser Power Scan Speed
Density Thickness
W mm/s
J/mm3 µm
67.47 220 1482 20
67.74 285 960 40
67.74 220 741 40
67.47 285 768 50

1.2 1.195 100 µm

1 B LOF

0.8
% Porosity

0.6

0.4

0.2
0.012 0.025 0.0175 100 µm
0

Figure 9: Porosity of DMLS CoCrMo : (A) 285 W, 960 mm/s,

40 µm, (B) 220 W, 1482 mm/s, 20 µm
Process Parameters

Figure 8: Variation in porosity at constant energy density for

DMLS CoCrMo

(D.4) Variation in porosity with different powders

The porosity in EOS coupon appears to be marginally
lower as compared to those using the Praxair powders as shown
in the histogram in Figure 10. However, these were still well
below 0.1%, implying a dense part, in the as-printed condition.

(E) As-Printed Microstructure

Figure 11 (a-b) and Figure 12 (a-b) show the optical
micrographs for transverse and longitudinal direction in as-
printed condition (285 W, 960 mm/s, 40 m). A layer-by-layer Figure 10: Role of powder variability on porosity of DMLS
CoCrMo with different process parameters

5 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The scan path is designed to have 67º between two scans.
A This scan path optimizes the residual stresses forming in the
part as it is built and for decreasing the overall part porosity.
The laser beam has maximum intensity in the center which
generally decreases towards the edge of beam due to Gaussian
67º energy distribution; this resulted in the formation of an arc-
6 shaped melt pool in longitudinal direction and due to heat
dissipation, the laser beam melts the powder more than its
width in the transverse direction. The average width of the bead
is ~90-100 µm which is higher than the laser beam diameter of
100
80 µm. Moreover, the melt pool depth is much smaller at
µm higher scanning speed due to lower energy density.
Table 5: Melt pool width and depth for various layer thickness
B (285 W, 960 mm/s)
Layer thickness Width of melt pool Depth of melt pool
A) 67°
~90µm B) (µm) (µm)
~110µm
20 µm ~105 ~48

40 µm ~120 ~80

100 µm 50 µm ~130 ~90

Figure 11: (A) Transverse section of DMLS CoCrMo coupon Variation in energy density does not show considerable
in the as printed condition at 100X, (B) at 400X showing the difference in microstructure in the as-printed coupons.
hatch spacing (280 W, 960 mms, 40 m) However, parts built with same energy density having varied
process parameters and with layer thickness 20, 40, 50µm,
revealed no significant difference in microstructures. Only with
A
very high scan speeds (1482 mm/s), there was a large variation
in the porosity levels, such as what is shown in Figure 13 (a-b).
These are observed in between the two adjacent layers in
longitudinal direction and between the weld beads in the
transverse direction. Lack of fusion is likely to occur owing to
A) rapid solidification of layers with not sufficient time for time
for melting of previous layers. The rapid solidification also
leads to high thermal stress that build up in the process and this
is likely to cause thermally induced cracks, thereby decreasing
100 µm the strength of the part.

(F) Heat Treated Microstructure

B Representative optical micrographs of the solution treated
coupons after exposure at 950°C, 1050°C and 1150°C are
shown in Figure 14 (a-c) and Figure 15 (a-c), for EOS and
Praxair, respectively. While the onset of recrystallization can be
observed at 950°C (Figure. 14a and 15a), there is only partial
recrystallization taking place in both EOS and Praxair samples.
At 1050°C (Figure 14b and 15b) fine elongated recrystallized
grains can be seen in both EOS and Praxair coupons. At 1150°C
(Figure 15c and 16c), both the coupons show uniform equiaxed
Micro cracks 100 µm grains indicating a complete recrystallization at this
temperature. There was a uniform microstructure at this stage
Figure 12 Longitudinal section of coupon in as printed representing an average grain size of 37-42 µm in both EOS
condition (A) at 200X, (B) at 400X, (280 W, 960 mms, 40 m) and Praxair coupons. At this temperature, there is no longer any

6 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 prior melt pool boundaries visible, thereby resulting in a
completely homogenized equiaxed microstructure for laser scan
speed of 960 mm/s, as shown in Figure 16a. However, at the B 1050°C
higher scanning speed of 1482 mm/s, interspersed between the
uniform equiaxed structure are irregular shaped pores that
appear even after solution heat treatment, remnant from the as
printed condition (Figure 16b). The solution heat treatment at
1150C has thus not been able to bridge these pores.

100 µm

C 1150°C

100 µm

100 µm

Figure 14: Optical micrographs from EOS CoCrMo showing

the recrystallization behavior at (A) 950°C, (B) 1050°C, (C)
1150°C

A 950°C

100 µm

Figure 13: Optical micrograph of DMLS CoCrMo with high

scan speed of 1482 mm/s (A) Transverse (B) Longitudinal

A 950°C

100 µm

B 1050°C

100 µm

100 µm

7 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 C 1150°C
B LOF

100 µm

Figure 15: Optical micrographs from Praxair CoCrMo powders

100 µm
showing the recrystallization behavior at, (A) 950°C, (B)
1050°C, (C) 1150°C
Figure 16: Optical micrographs from EOS CoCrMo showing
(G) Hardness
the equiaxed grains after solution heat treatment at 1150°C (A)
The hardness of all the as-printed EOS coupons is around
960 mm/s, (B) 1482 mm/s.
466±10 HV and the hardness of all Praxair coupons is 445±9
HV, as shown in the comparative plot in Figure 17a. There does
not appear to be any significant variation in the hardness
between the various parameters in the as-printed condition. A
This is also not to be expected since the microhardness
measures an average of only 20-25 m as the diagonal indent
width. Given that the layer thicknesses range between 80-100
m, it is very unlikely to be able to spot much of a difference in
the hardness between different parameters used in the DMLS
process. Changes in hardness are expected only if there is a
change in the chemistry of the powders or if there are extensive
porosity variations as a result of the process parameters in the
as-printed condition. Therefore, it is not very surprising to
notice the microhardness is nearly the same for all the process
parameters.
After solution heat treatment at 1150°C, there is a 15-17%
drop in the hardness as compared to the as-printed condition. B
However, there is little or no variation in the hardness as a
function of the different process parameters and neither is there
any significant variation between the EOS and Praxair powders,
with the average hardness measuring around 370±8 HV. This is
shown in the comparative histogram in Figure 17b.

Figure 17: Hardness variation EOS and Praxair samples, (A) As

printed condition, and (B) After Solution heat treatment at
1150°C
(H) Tensile Properties
In both the as-printed and solution treated condition, the
100 µm
EOS samples have a slightly higher yield strength (~100 MPa)
as compared to Praxair coupons, as shown in Figure 18.

8 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Decreasing the laser power and scan speed results in increase in
yield strength by 10-20%. Figure 19 shows the average room
temperature yield strength after solution heat treatment at
1150°C for both EOS and Praxair coupons. There was no
significant effect of powder variation on the tensile properties.
Figure 18: Comparison of 0.2%Yield strength between EOS
and Praxair powders, in as printed condition DMLS CoCrMo
Figure 19: Comparison of the 0.2% yield strength at room
temperature between EOS and Praxair powders for DMLS
CoCrMo.
CONCLUSION
With the aim of studying the effect of process parameters
and powder from different sources (EOS and Praxair) on the
final part quality of CoCrMo DMLS-processed material, a
detailed DOE was performed by varying the laser power, scan
speed, and layer thickness. The density for all the coupons
except the one made with 220 W, 1482 mm/s and 20 µm layer
thickness were >99.9%, while EOS coupons resulted in slightly
lower porosity compared to Praxair coupons. This showed that
HIP is not always necessary after DMLS process in order to
achieve dense parts. The parameters were optimized to result in
a fairly low surface roughness between 6-8 m Ra for all the
process conditions. Overall, within the range of 220 W and 285
W with 820 mm/s and 960 mm/s and 20, 40, 50 µm, the surface
roughness, density, hardness and yield strength were within the
acceptable limits for both EOS and Praxair coupons analyzed in
this study. There is complete recrystallization seen after the
9 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
1150°C solution temperature in both EOS and Praxair. The
tensile strength in the as printed condition is higher than the
solution heat treated condition by 100 MPa. With
reproducibility of part quality and mechanical properties being
an important metric for wide acceptability of DMLS as a
standard practice for production and repair of critical industrial
components, this study has shown that there exists a wide range
of process parameters suitable for producing CoCrMo
components and it is less sensitive to minor variations in
composition and particle size distribution arising from different
powder sources. Such a systematic study is a minimum
requirement for new alloys and new machines to be qualified
for DMLS.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was performed under funding from GE
Power, Repair Technology Center of Excellence. The authors
would like to thank INTECH, DMLS, Pvt. Ltd., for providing
all the DMLS samples. Two of the authors would like to thank
their respective colleges, PSG College of Technology,
Coimbatore and SASTRA University, Tirumalaisamudram, for
their support to their internship in GE, Power, Bangalore.
REFERENCE:
(1) Thomas Grunberger and Robert Domrose, “Direct
Metal Laser Sintering”. Laser Technique Journal
Volume 12, Issue 1, pages 45–48, January 2015
(2) C.E. Santos, M. Shiomi, K. Osakada, “Rapid
manufacturing of metal component by laser forming”,
Int.J. Mach.ToolsManuf.46(2006)1459–1468.
(3) F. Abe, K. Osakada, M. Shiomi, M. Matsumoto, “The
manufacturing of hard tools from metallic powders by
selective laser melting”, J. Mater. Process.
Technol.111(2001)210–213.
(4) P. L. Blackwell, A. Wisbey, “Laser-aided
manufacturing technologies; their application to the
near-net shape forming of a high-strength titanium
alloy”, J. Mater.Process.Technol.170(2005)268–276.
(5) Guijun Bi and Chen-Nan Sun, “Microstructure and
tensile properties of superalloy IN100 fabricated by
micro-laser aided additive manufacturing” Materials
and Design 60 (2014) 401–408.
(6) K. Monroy, J. Delgado and J. Ciurana, “Study of the
pore formation on CoCrMo alloys by selective laser
melting manufacturing process” Procedia Engineering
63 (2013) 361 – 369.
(7) Krishnan, “On the effect of process parameters on
properties of AlSi10Mg parts produced by DMLS”,
Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol.20, 2014.
(8) H. Gong, K. Rafi, H. Gu, G.D. Janaki Ram, T. Starr,
B. Stucker, “Influence of defects on mechanical
properties of Ti–6Al–4V components produced by
selective laser melting and electron beam melting”,
2015. Mater. Des. 86 545–554
 (9) Q.S. Wei, X. Zhao, L. Wang, R.D. Li, J. Liu, Y.S. Shi,
“Effects of the processing parameters on the forming
quality of stainless steel parts by selective laser
melting”, 2011. Adv.Mater. Res. 189–193 3668–3671.
(10) B. Zhang, L. Dembinski, C. Coddet, “The study of the
laser parameters and environment variables effect on
mechanical properties of high compact parts
elaborated by selective laser melting 316L powder”,
2013. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 584 21–31.
(11) By Jason Dawes, Robert Bowerman, “Introduction to
the Additive Manufacturing Powder Metallurgy
Supply Chain” Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015,
59, (3), 243–256.
(12) Ralf Carlstrom, Hoganas AB, “Introduction to additive
manufacturing technology”, pp. 3-10. May 2013.

(13) J. R. Davis and A. S. M. I. H. Committee, Nickel,

Cobalt, and Their Alloys. 2000
(14) Kedar Mallik Mantrala, “Additive manufacturing of
Co-Cr-Mo alloy: influence of heat treatment on
microstructure, tribological, and electrochemical
properties”, Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering,
vol.1, march 2015
(15) E. Girardin and G. Barucca, “Biomedical Co-Cr-Mo
components produced by Direct Metal Laser
Sintering” Materials Today: Proceedings 3 (2016) 889
– 897

10 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/06/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use