This paper focuses on the machinability of additively manufactured steel alloys (316L stainless steel and 18Ni300 Maraging steel) by reference to their conventional metallurgical conditions. The machinability of both metallurgical conditions has been evaluated by longitudinal turning tests under laboratory conditions using two different cutting tool geometries (flat rake face and chip-breaker geometry) and covering different cutting speeds, depths of cut and feed values. Cutting forces, chip morphology and surface roughness were investigated as machinability indicators. The influence of chip-breaker on process performance was also analysed. For a comprehensive discussion of the results, microstructure, chemical composition, surface roughness and mechanical strength of both metallurgical conditions were studied. The paper quantitatively demonstrates that despite the higher mechanical strength of additively manufactured alloys, no significant power requirements were verified for the finishing cutting of tested alloys, when compared with conventional materials. Also noteworthy, is the surface quality improvement of the printed samples due to the most favourable conditions for chip formation. The usage of a chip breaker insert had higher impact on reducing required cutting energy than on controlling chip geometry.
FerreiraIMadureiraRVillaS, et al.Machinability of PA12 and short fibre-reinforced PA12 materials produced by fused filament fabrication. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2020;
107: 885–903.
2.
WangX., et al.
Topological design and additive manufacturing of porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants: a review.Biomaterials2016;
83: 127–141.
3.
Najmon JL, et al. Review of additive manufacturing technologies and applications in the aerospace industry. In: Froes FH and Boyer R (eds) Additive manufacturing for the aerospace industry. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019, pp. 7–31.
4.
MengL, et al.
From topology optimization design to additive manufacturing: today's success and tomorrow's roadmap. Arch Computat Methods Eng2020;
27: 805–830.
5.
RannarL, et al. Efficient cooling with tool inserts manufactured by electron beam melting. Rapid Prototyp J2007;
13: 128–135.
6.
Wohlers. Wohlers report 2018. In: 3D printing and additive manufacturing state of the industry, Annual Worldwide Progress Report. USA: Wohlers Associates, 2018.
7.
CallejaAUrbikainGGonzálezH, et al.
Inconel®718 superalloy machinability evaluation after laser cladding additive manufacturing process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2018;
97: 2873–2885.
8.
LeçaTSilvaTJesusA de, et al.Influence of multiple scan fields on the processing of 316L stainless steel using laser powder bed fusion. Proc IMechE, Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications2021;
235(1): 19–41.
9.
CasalinoG, et al.
Experimental investigation and statistical optimisation of the selective laser melting process of a maraging steel. Opt Laser Technol2015;
65: 151–158.
10.
WangD, et al.
Theoretical and experimental study on surface roughness of 316L stainless steel metal parts obtained through selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp J2017;
22: 706–716.
11.
AlexanderI, et al.
Machining of thin-walled parts produced by additive manufacturing technologies. Proc CIRP2016;
41: 1023–1026.
12.
DangJ, et al.
Experimental investigation on machinability of DMLS Ti6Al4V under dry drilling process.Mater Manuf Process2019;
34: 749–758.
13.
KaynakY, et al.
The effect of post-processing operations on surface characteristics of 316L stainless steel produced by selective laser melting. Addit Manuf2019;
26: 84–93.
14.
GuoP, et al.
Study on microstructure mechanical properties and machinability of efficiently additive manufactured AISI316L stainless steel by high powder direct laser deposition. J Mater Process Technol2017;
240: 12–22.
15.
FortunatoA, et al.
Milling of maraging steel components produced by selective laser melting. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2018;
94: 1895–1902.
16.
BaiY, et al.
Investigation on the microstructure and machinability of ASTM A131 steel manufactured by directed energy deposition. Int J Mater Process Technol2020;
276: 116410.
17.
BertoliniR, et al.
On the surface integrity of electron beam melted Ti6Al4V after machining. Proc CIRP2019;
82: 361–331.
18.
MingW, et al.
Dynamic mechanical properties and machinability characteristics of selective laser melted and forged Ti6Al4V. Int J Mater Process Technol2019;
271: 284–292.
19.
FadidaR, et al.
Dynamic mechanical behaviour of additively manufactured Ti6Al4V with controlled voids. J Appl Mech2015;
82: 041004.
20.
ZimmermannM, et al.
Analysis of the machinability when milling AlSi10Mg additively manufactured via laser-based powder bed fusion. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2021;
112: 989–1005.
21.
StepanG, et al.
Identification of cutting force characteristics based on chatter experiments. CIRP Ann2011;
60: 113–116.
22.
DebRoyT, et al.
Additive manufacturing of metallic components – process, structure and properties. Progr Mater Sci2018;
92: 112–224.
23.
TurkC., et al.
Advances in maraging steels for additive manufacturing.BHM Berg-und Huttenmannische Monatshefte2019;
164: 112–116.
24.
ASTM International. ASTM A276/A276M - 17: standard specification for stainless steel bars for shapes. West Conshohocken, PA: Author, 2017.
25.
U.S. Department of Defense. MIL-S-46850D – steel: bar, plate, sheet, strip, forgings, and extrusions, 18 Percent Nickel Alloy, Maraging, 200 KSI, 250 KSI, 300 KSI, and 350 KSI, high quality, 1991.
26.
ZhangB, et al.
The study of the laser parameters and environment variables effect on mechanical properties of high compact parts elaborated by selective laser melting 316L powder. Mater Sci Eng A2013;
584: 21–31.
27.
KurzynowskiT, et al.
Correlation between process parameters, microstructure and properties of 316L stainless steel processed by selective laser melting. Mater Sci Eng A2013;
718: 64–73.
28.
LiveraniE, et al.
Effect of selective laser melting (SLM) process parameters on microstructure and mechanical properties of 316L austenitic stainless steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2017;
249: 255–263.
29.
ShifengW, et al.
Effect of molten pool boundaries on the mechanical properties of selective laser melting parts. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2014;
214: 2660–2667.
30.
YokotaM, et al.
Toughness of lath versus plate martensites. Metall Mater Trans A1975;
6: 1832–1835.
31.
KellyP, et al.
The martensite structure transformation in carbon steels. Proc R Soc London1961;
259: 45–58.
32.
MowerT, et al.
Mechanical behavior of additive manufactured, powder-bed laser-fused materials. Mater Sci Eng A2016;
651:198–213.
33.
YasaE, et al.
Microstructure and mechanical properties of maraging steel 300 after selective laser melting. Solid Freeform Fabr Symp Proc2010; 383–396. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=pt-PT&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Microstructure+and+mechanical+properties+of+maraging+steel+300+after+selective+laser+melting.+Solid+Freeform+Fabr+Symp+Proc+2010%3B+383%E2%80%93396.&btnG=
ToenshoffHKDenkenaB. Basics of cutting and abrasive processes. In: Lecture notes in production engineering. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.
36.
Monroy VazquezKPGiardiniCCerettiE. Cutting force modeling. In: Laperrière L and Reinhart G (eds) CIRP encyclopedia of production engineering (The International Academy for Production Engineering). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2014. https://link-springer-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-642-20617-7_6399
37.
RosaPARMartinsPAFAtkinsAG.Revisiting the fundamentals of metal cutting by means of finite elements and ductile fracture mechanics. Int J Mach Tools Manuf2007;
47: 607–617.
38.
ZhangD.ZhangX.XuW., andDingH.Stress field analysis in orthogonal cutting process using digital image correlation technique. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng2017;
139: 031001.
39.
ChengWOuteiroJCostesJP, et al.Optimization-based procedure for the determination of the constitutive model coefficients used in machining simulations. Proc CIRP2007;
82: 374–378.
40.
StruzikiewiczGZebalaWMatrasA, et al.Turning research of additive laser molten stainless steel 316L obtained by 3D printing. Materials2019;
12: 182.
41.
PérezHVizánAHernandezJC, et al.Estimation of cutting forces in micromilling through the determination of specific cutting pressures. J Mater Process Technol2007;
190: 18–22.
42.
ZhangXZhangJZhaoW.A new method for cutting force prediction in peripheral milling of complex curved surface. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2016;
86: 117–128.
43.
ShawMC.The size effect in metal cutting. Sadhana2003;
28: 875–896.
44.
TaniguchiN.The state of the art of nanotechnology for the processing of ultraprecision and ultrafine products. Precision Eng1994;
16: 5–24.
45.
SoaresRMB.Estudos de Maquinabilidade da LigaAlSi9Cu3 Recorrendo a Ferramentas PCD com Quebra-Aparas. MSc Thesis, FEUP, 2016.
46.
Mitsubishi Materials. Turning tools 2020-2021. In Technical Catalogue C009B2020.
47.
SilvaTEF.Machinability of maraging steel manufactured bylaser powder bed fusion. PhD Thesis, FEUP, 2021.
48.
WuHToS.Serrated chip formation and their adiabatic analysis by using the constitutive model of titanium alloy in high speed cutting. J Alloys Compounds2015;
629: 368–373.
49.
PrietoJRCarbonellJMCanteJC, et al.Generation of segmental chips in metal cutting modeled with the PFEM. Comput Mech2018;
61: 639–655.
50.
GrooverMP.Fundamentals of modern manufacturing: materials, processes, and systems.
Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
51.
TonshoHKDenkenaB. Surface and subsurface properties. In: Basics of cutting and abrasive processes. Lecture notes in production engineering. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2013. https://link-springer-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-33257-9_16
