SCI SINTERING 57 1 2025 07pdf
SCI SINTERING 57 1 2025 07pdf
Page 1 of 150
Darko Kosanovic shared this file. Want to do more with it?
  1. Science of Sintering, 57(2025)87-101_____________________________________________________________________________________________________*)Corresponding author:berkay_ergene@hotmail.comhttps://doi.org/10.2298/SOS240416021HUDK: 676.017.2; 669.018; 546.62An Experimental Investigation on the Mechanical and Wear Responses of Lightweight AlSi10Mg Components Produced by Selective Laser Melting: Effects of Building Direction and Test ForceMustafa Han1, Savaş Kaşıkcıoğlu1, Berkay Ergene1*), Gökmen Atlıhan1, Çağın Bolat21Pamukkale University, Technology Faculty, Mechanical Engineering Department, 20160, Denizli, Turkey.2Samsun University, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Mechanical Engineering Department, 55420, Samsun, Turkey.Abstract:Additive manufacturing (AM) technology is a game-changer that allows one to produce parts with intricate geometry that have high specific strength despite having low weight. In this study, the wear behavior of parts produced with powder bed fusion at different building directions (horizontal, inclined, and vertical) was examined under different test forces (1, 5, and 10 N). Additionally, the mechanical properties of these parts were determined using tensile tests and hardness evaluations. To explore the deformation mechanism, macroscopic and microscopic observations were carried out. The results showed that the horizontal samples exhibited the highest tensile strength, elongation at break, and toughness values. However, these samples also reflected the highest wear when subjected to a 10 N force. The friction coefficient values dropped depending on the rising test forces for all printing angles. Groove-like damage marks stemming from the ploughing style deformation were more remarkable on the sample surfaces as the test force levels went up. Regional severe wear tracks, debris fragments having an abrasive role, and discrete delamination states were ascertained as probable reasons for the lowest wear endurance of the horizontally built samples under the highest test load.Keywords: Selective laser melting; Metal additive manufacturing; AlSi10Mg; Build direction; Wear test.1. IntroductionWith the increasing environmental concerns and energy efficiency targets in the primary industrial applications, traditional manufacturing ways like casting, forging, powder metallurgy, and machining are preferred lesser by reason of the novel developmentsin the non-traditional production methodologies. At this point, particularly in the last decade, additive manufacturing (AM) has become one of the most popular techniques to fabricate the polymeric, metallic, and composite components [1]. By means of its layer-by-layer material accumulation, from small-sized biomedical parts to big-sized construction systems several applications can be realized with AM-based strategies [2, 3]. Besides, AM technologies offer rapid prototyping opportunity to the users and this case can be qualified as critical for some
  2. M. Han et al.,/Science of Sintering, 57(2025)87-101___________________________________________________________________________88design-oriented areas such as automotive, aviation, defense, and biomedical [4, 5]. Thanks to the fast application ability, minimum risk of chemical reaction, compatibility with the different material groups, and integration capacity to the software systems, it is predicted that the total usage amount of AM methods will go up in the near future.When the literature efforts are scrutinized meticulously, it is noticed that lots of sub-methods and special designations for the AM implementations. To act together systematically, researchers usually adopt the international standard of ISO 52900 [6, 7]. In this criterion, the whole AM family is categorized with seven different sub-strategies according to their process variables and printing material types. Fused filament fabrication, vat-photopolymerization, and material jetting techniques are utilized for polymers and polymer composites while binder jetting, powder bed fusion, direct energy deposition, and sheet lamination methods are applied for the metallic, and ceramic objects. Especially for the metal part production, chosen technique is notably significant due to its influence on the physical (gap structure, density, dimensional accuracy, and surface roughness) andmechanical (tensile, compression, flexural, and fatigue) properties of the final parts. For instance, binder/powder ratio is decisive on the precision of the printed parts in the binder jetting [8]. On the other side, big-sized component fabrication or repairing operations can be carried out easily by direct energy deposition whereas high surface quality levels are attained with powder bed fusion method depending on the powder size range and additional installments [9, 10].Aluminum (Al) alloys are considerably attractive for design and material engineers owing to their relatively low density, castability, ductility, formability, strain/age hardening capability, and corrosion resistance [11-13]. Considering this advantageous characteristic, AlSi10Mg grade versions are one of the most frequently tried in metal AM studies because of low density of Mg and fluidity rising effect of Si. In general, microstructural, porosity, mechanical properties and damage modes of the printed samples have been surveyed by unlike research teams until now. Hou et al. [14] used selective laser melting (SLM) technology in the production stage and enounced that building direction was an effective factor on the tensile behaviors of the AlSi10Mg samples due to the existence of mechanical anisotropy. Wou et al. [15] put forth that hybrid laser melting method (powder bed fusion and direct energy deposition) could be conducted with sufficient interfacial bonding to create AlSi10Mg samples and small number of voids were detected in direct energy deposition zones. Silvestri et al. [16] showed the effect of the printing machine on the yield strength and elasticity of the Al samples in case of all process variables were the same. Lehmhus et al. [17] focused on the high temperature features of the additively manufactured AlSi10Mg parts and claimed that the lowest tensile and yield strength values belonged to the samples tested at the highest temperature of 450°C. Liu et al. [18] manufactured AlSi10Mg lattice structures via SLM method and underlined that there were no unwanted apparent voids and cracks on the cell struts. Matjeke et al. [19] alleged that post-heat treatment (4 hours) for stress relieving enhanced ductility of the printed Al samples but caused to drop in strength. Additionally, theintense works on the impacts of process and powder variables (laser power, pulse frequency, pulse duration, powder size, powder morphology, and particle shape) on the mechanical behaviors of the Al components continue in order to elucidate the damage modes in depth [20].Apart from the mechanical responses, the topics of wear and friction are another critical issue to be enlightened in detail considering the failure options of the structural metallic materials made through AM technologies. This investigation area can be described as open for improvement and the numbers of the tribological efforts are still not at desired level despite the presence of certain noteworthy endeavors in the literature. In specific to AlSi10Mg alloy, Girelli et al. [21] stated that additively manufactured samples displayed better cavitation erosion endurance due to the ultra-fine microstructure compared to the parts obtained by other manufacturing processes. Tonolini et al. [22] spent their time on the effect
  3. M. Han et al.,/Science of Sintering, 57(2025)87-101___________________________________________________________________________89of the heat treatment and noted that wear performance of the Al samples formed with laser powder bed fusion dwindled after the heat treatment owing to the hardness diminishment. Similar findings on the negative effect of the heat treatment were also asserted by Kan et al. [23]. Bagherifard et al. [24] showed that post-surface treatments like shot peening and ultrasonic surface modification made a positive impact on the wear resistance of the AlSi10Mg samples due to residual stress creation. Mishra et al. [25] probed the role of the powder condition on the abrasion endurance of the samples and superiority of the fresh powder was underlined against recycled powders. Vishnu et al. [26] tried direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) technique in the fabrication stage and deduced that samples exhibited superior wear response against chrome-steel counterpart when the results were checked up with the alumina counterpart. Ashiq et al. [27] assessed the influence of the laser power on the wear features of the additively produced Al parts and intermediate level of 300 W was the best option to reduce the adhesive wear. Haghshenas et al. [28] drew attention that SLM-based AlSi10Mg parts were subjected to lower wear rates than the parts created through casting in as-fabricated condition and this case was quite opposite in water-quenched state. Wu et al. [29] compared the as-cast specimens with SLM-printed Al-Si alloy and reported that the main mechanism was adhesive wear for as-cast samples while the abrasive wear was dominant for specimens obtained via SLM. Radhakrishnan et al. [30] demonstrated the significance of the surface contact condition for SLM-based metallic parts and asserted that severe damage was present on the surface worn by SiC counter face compared to the results found for steel counterpart. Except from these inspiring efforts, certain project teams have also made material-oriented studies to improve the wear properties of the additively manufactured AlSi10Mg parts by adding a set of reinforcement materials into the metal matrix. Graphene nanoparticles, TiC, and SiC particles are the most preferred additives in the metallic matrix to reach the superior tribological performances [31-33].In this experimental work, different from the previously reported studies, the common influence ofbuilding direction and dry-sliding wear force on mechanical, wear, friction, hardness, surface roughness, and surface damage properties of the AlSi10Mg was addressed by benefiting from the uniaxial tensile tests, and dry sliding pin-on-disc implementation. Furthermore, field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM) analyses were conducted both on the mechanically damaged and worn samples to evaluate the deformation mechanism of the tested parts in detail. From the findings pointed out in this paper, reciprocal interaction between the manufacturing factors and test variables can be examined together, and a broad perspective for the wear behavior of additively manufactured components in contact with other design parts can be drawn.2. Materials and Experimental ProceduresIn this study, tensile and wear test specimens were designed and tested according to ASTM E8 and ASTM 99. Designing procedure was performed in Solidworks 2022 Program and dimensions of the tensile test and wear test samples were shared in Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b respectively. In addition, production of the samples was made from AlSi10Mg powders obtained from EOS Company whose chemical composition was tabulated in Table I[34]. Fig. 2 also shows the views of the AlSi10Mg powders and their distribution. According to Fig. 2, the diameter of the AlSi10Mg powders were found to be 33.34±16.38 μm. The measurement results indicate that the utilized powders are suitable for the SLM process of the parts, as they are predominantly spherical in shape and possess an average size. Microscopic images were taken via FESEM (Zeiss Gemini) and Image J program was used to determine the distribution of the particles. An EOS M290 SLM machine was used for the manufacturing process. The machine has a build volume of 250x250x325 mm, a 400 W Yb fibre laser, a scan speed of up
  4. M. Han et al.,/Science of Sintering, 57(2025)87-101___________________________________________________________________________90to 7 m/s and a focus diameter of 100 μm [35]. The SLM parameters used during the additive manufacturing process are presented in Table IIwith details.Fig. 1.Dimensions of the test samples, a) tensile test, b) wear test.Tab. IChemical composition of the AlSi10Mg particles [34].ElementWeight percentage (%)AlBalanceSi9 -11Fe0.55Cu0.05Mn0.45Mg0.45Ni0.05Zn0.10Pb0.05Sn0.05Ti0.15Fig. 2.Micro view and sizedistribution of the AlSi10Mg powders.Tab. IIUsed SLM parameters for production of AlSi10Mg samples.ParameterValueLaser Power370 WScanning Speed1300 mm/sHatch Distance0.19 mmLayer Thickness30 μmLaser Beam Offset0.02 mmEnergy Density19.932 J/mm3Scanning StrategyX-RotatedHeated PlatformT.35 °C
  5. M. Han et al.,/Science of Sintering, 57(2025)87-101___________________________________________________________________________91Fig. 3 displays the building directions of the samples such as vertical, inclined, and horizontal. No local cracks or undesired warping were observed during macroscopic and microscopic inspections after the manufacturing process. Surface roughness measurements were taken using the Mahr MarSurf PS1 surface roughness tester. Additionally, the hardness of the samples was measured using the HARDWAY DV-1AT-4.3 digital micro-vickers hardness tester under 100g load. Fig. 3.Demonstration of the build directions of the samples.To ensure dimensional accuracy, multiple measurements were taken for each part and the mean value was recorded. Tensile tests were conducted on an MTS 370.10 model test machine with a capacity of 100 kN at a speed of 2 mm/min. The forceand displacement values recorded by TW Elite software and then converted into engineering stress and engineering strain to obtain stress-strain curves. Besides, wear tests were conducted using a dry sliding pin-disc tester (Turkyus Podwt wear tester) withthree different load values (1, 5, and 10N). Moreover, all tests were performed at a speed of 2 m/s for 1.5 minutes, and the friction force data were collected using Esit Data Logger V1.1.8 software. Subsequently, the friction coefficient levels of the samples were obtained from the instant coefficient change curves drawn by the software results. The precision balance (Radwag AS/220/C/2) was used to monitor mass change measurements before and after each test. Eq.1 and Eq.2 were used to calculate volume loss and coefficient of friction values, respectively.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������=������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������(������������)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������(������������)(1)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������(������������������������3)=������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������(������������)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������(������������������������������������3)(2)3. Results and Discussion3.1. Tensile Test Results and Damage AnalysisFig. 4 represents the engineering stress and strain curves of the produced samples based on the building direction. It is seen that test samples created in the flat (horizontal) condition exhibit superior elastic modulus, higher peak stress till the final rupture, and larger strain levels in comparison with the other samples. Among all outcomes, the highest peak stress value of 432 MPa and the largest elongation of % 6.3 were detected for the flat printed samples. On the other side, the tensile properties of the incline-produced and vertical-
  6. M. Han et al.,/Science of Sintering, 57(2025)87-101___________________________________________________________________________92produced samples were pretty close to each other. The lowest peak stress value of 369 MPa and the shortest elongation of% 4.4 belonged to the vertical printed samples. To glance at the detailed numerical results of each measurement, Table IIIcan be monitored. Parallel to these outcomes, Li et al. [36] reported similar findings to our study regarding the influence of builddirection on the tensile strength of AlSi10Mg parts. The horizontally built sample exhibited the highest tensile strength of 449.6 MPa, while the 45° inclined and vertical samples displayed 426.2 MPa and 410.8 MPa, respectively. Fig. 4. Engineering stress and strain curves of the printed samples with different build orientations, a) Horizontal, b) Inclined, c) Vertical.
  7. M. Han et al.,/Science of Sintering, 57(2025)87-101___________________________________________________________________________93Tab. IIITensile properties of 3D-printed samples.Specimen TypeTensile Strength (MPa)Elongation at break (%)Toughness (MJ/m3)Horizontal432±1.36.3±0.092108±47Inclined374±3.74.5±0.051227±25Vertical369±1.74.4±0.071201±28Fig. 5.Macro and FESEM analyses of the damaged samples after tensile tests, a) deformed samples, b) macro view of surface, c) FESEM images.Following the mechanical tests, damaged samples were collected for macro inspections and analyzed on a micro-scale from the point of deformation mechanism. In Fig. 5, macro views of the ruptured cross-sections and FESEM images of related deformation zones can be glanced at. An evident angular style shear deformation is observed for the horizontally produced samples. Compared to the others, fracture surfaces of these samples can be assessed as dull and concave as happened in the regular ductile metals (Fig. 5a). This case is also supported by the presence of small inner voids in the ruptured surfaces, which plays a critical role in the high elongation due to the free void incorporation finalizing with the ductile deformation. Incline-printed sample surfaces show the mixed deformation zones consisting of big-sized pores and bright flat sections (Fig. 5b). That circumstance is a sign of a ductile-dominant hybrid style deformation and brittle sections limit the total elongation capacity of the samples. Besides, aproduction-oriented void gradient might be responsible for this binary failure mechanism. As for the vertical-printed samples in Fig. 5c, there is a flat fracture surface lying perpendicularly to the main loading axis, which stems from the combined effectof the rapid clustering of the micro voids and local notch effect of the printing gaps. Looking at the tensile curves and damage mode analyses together, it can be put forth that horizontal-printed samples have an advantageous position for the applicationsrequiring ductility, larger elongation capability, and toughness. On the other hand, interestingly, even though principle tensile properties of inclined-printed and vertical-printed samples are similar on a large scale, different failure dynamics control their deformation behavior. Relatively big-sized inner pores
  8. M. Han et al.,/Science of Sintering, 57(2025)87-101___________________________________________________________________________94of the inclined samples (Fig. 5b) provide better elongation ability in comparison with the vertical samples, thereby causing superior energy absorption and toughness.3.2.Hardness and Surface Roughness ResultsHardness measurements were conducted on the produced sample surfaces to understand the effect of the building orientation on the indentation and scratching endurance. Also, initial hardness values of the product surfaces not only impact the wear resistance but it also determines the abrasion mechanism of the tested parts. Fig. 6 demonstrates the measured hardness outcomes of the printed samples depending on the building direction. The results point out that there isan escalating trend from the horizontal-printed samples to vertical-printed samples while the medium-level values are recorded for the incline-printed samples. With regards to the numerical data, the highest hardness value of 166 HV was appointed for the vertical-printed samples with 2.5 HV standard deviation whereas the lowest value of 154 HV was ascertained for horizontally built samples with 8.3 HV standard deviation. Similar observations were also reported in other studies in literature too [37]. In their study, Wang et al. [38] analyzed the effect of build direction and heat treatment on the hardness of AlSi10Mg samples produced with SLM. The researchers concluded that hardness was independent of build direction and that the heat treatment process resulted in a decrease in hardness values.Fig. 6.Hardness values of the printed samples depending on the building direction.Surface roughness measurements given in Fig. 7 indicate that incline and horizontal built parts have higher roughness values with relatively inferior quality while the vertically built samples exhibit superior surface quality. Right at this point, the worst surface quality was found for the incline-style produced samples with 10.6 μm (SD: 3.2 μm) and these parts were followed by the horizontally created samples with 10.1 μm (SD: 2 μm) surface roughness. On the other side, the surface roughness of 6.6 μm (SD: 2.6 μm) was calculated as the best quality for the vertically formed samples and it was % 34.6 and % 37.7 lower than the horizontal and inclined samples respectively. Srinivasa et al. [39] conducted a study on the impact of built orientation on the tensile surface roughness of AlSi10Mg parts produced using SLM. In conclusion, it was found that horizontally built samples had higher surface roughness values than vertically built ones, which is consistent with the findings of this study. In their study, Tarakçı et al. [40] investigated the effect of build direction on the surface roughness of additively manufactured AlSi10Mg parts. They varied the build angle from 0° to 75° in 15° increments and found that the samples with a 15° inclination had the highest surface roughness (Ra: 21.397±3.692 μm). As the build angle increased, the surface quality improved. Furthermore, the study found that horizontally built samples had a smooth surface
  9. M. Han et al.,/Science of Sintering, 57(2025)87-101___________________________________________________________________________95of 10.782±2.706 μm, which is comparable to the results of this study (10.1±2 μm). Finally, it is believed that the poor surface quality of the inclined samples may be due to prominent stair-stepping and balling effects, as also noted in Tarakçı et al.'s study. [40].Fig. 7. Surface roughness values of the samples fabricated via SLM process.3.3.Wear Results and Microscopic InspectionsFig. 8 given below represents the volume loss results of printed samples with the increasing test force values and building directions. Depending on the ascending sliding force, the most evident wear sensitiveness was observed for the samples created horizontally. Concordantly, the highest volumeloss value of 32.05 mm3(with the standard deviation of 3.15 mm3) was measured at 10 N for horizontal samples whereas the lowest volume loss of 1.83 mm3(with the standard deviation of 0.15 mm3) was recorded at 1 N for vertically built samples. Incline-style formed samples displayed intermediate behaviors in comparison with the others and the peakest volume loss of 29.06 mm3(with the standard deviation of 2.1 mm3) was read at 10 N for those samples. From Fig. 8, when the deformation force goes up to the level of 10 N, the measured volume loss levels also change apparently in favor of vertically built samples. A similar case can be noticed for the lower test forces but the difference between the samples is slighter. These observations can be attributed to the initial hardness results of the samples that play a decisive role in the adhesion and abrasion endurance (Fig. 6). In addition, it can be expressed that there is no direct rising/decrasing relationship between the building direction and volume loss results based on the shifting test forces. This outcome might be explained by the altering deformation mechanism in the contact surfaces of the abrasive counterface and tested samples.Fig. 8.Volume loss results of the tested samples depending on test force and building direction.
  10. M. Han et al.,/Science of Sintering, 57(2025)87-101___________________________________________________________________________96The friction coefficient of the engineering materials is one of the critical characteristic features and indicates the wear and surface deformation responses of the analyzed components. Fig. 9 depicts the friction coefficient changes of the printed samples regarding with implemented test forces and building direction. At first glance, it can be distinguished that coefficient levels reflect a decremental trend with ascending force levels for all building orientations. This kind ofbehavior may stem from the differing contact surface matchings that emerge from the dynamic process in the sliding deformation mechanisms. Considering the results, the maximum value of 0.858 (SD: 0.091) was found for the samples built vertically at 1 N while the minimum value of 0.669 (SD: 0.078) was noted for the vertical samples at 10 N load. When the observed results were compared with the previous efforts, they can be qualified as medium-high range owing to the combined impact of carbide counterface using and shifting deformation modes during the sliding. In their study, Venettacci et al. [41] investigated the wear behaviors of AlSi10Mg parts produced with SLM and reported that friction coefficient values fluctuated between 0.409 and 0.673 depending on the sliding distance. In addition, Vishnu et al. [26] focused on the tribological properties of additively manufactured AlSi10Mg samples under 5N, 10N and 20N. As a result of their performance, it was expressed that friction coefficient values ranged between 0.45 and 0.85. At lower forces, due to the relatively weak influence of compressive-style deformation, the effectiveness of the initial surface roughness values and shear strength of tested surfaces is more determinant on the high coefficient values. Asopposed to this phenomenon, at higher forces like 10 N, compression-triggered deformation becomes more evident and the plastic deformation on the slip planes is activated, thereby dropping the friction coefficient values.Fig. 9.Friction coefficient values of the tested samples depending on test force and building direction.To comprehend the numerical outcomes collected from the experimental efforts and to evaluate the damage mechanism in depth, additional microscopic inspections were carried out by using FESEM. Deformed contact surfaces can be monitored depending on the increasing test force values in Fig. 10 and the results can be compared with each other.At the lowest force of 1 N, the general outlook of the worn surface possesses the roughest structures with small pits, and flattened local peak zones (Fig. 10a). Besides, as a result of the relatively high friction coefficient, small debris fragments occurring after the abrasive-style failure are present on the deformed surfaces. Emerged debris particles are not only responsible for the deformation of cavities but they also speed up the solid material removal rate on the part surfaces. As the test force escalates (for 5 N and 10 N), the impact of the ploughing force begins to climb on the contact points between the sample surface and counter-face, so wear scars forming in the preferred orientation and characteristic ploughing sections can be distinguished comfortably (Fig. 10b and 10c). Besides, separated particles from the splashing
  11. M. Han et al.,/Science of Sintering, 57(2025)87-101___________________________________________________________________________97points, typically due to the solidification dynamics in the powder melting pool during the SLM process, stimulate additional plastic deformations and material removal on the sliding surfaces.Fig. 10. FESEM images of the worn surfaces of the tested samples; 1 N (a), 5 N (b), and 10 N (c).Fig. 11. FESEM images of the worn surfaces of the tested samples under 10 N; horizontal (a), inclined (b), and vertical (c).Fig. 11 illustrates the deformed sections of the samples manufactured with different building orientations for the highest test load of 10 N. Localized directional wear tracks, small-sized
  12. M. Han et al.,/Science of Sintering, 57(2025)87-101___________________________________________________________________________98debris fragments, and partially delamination zones can be seen on the worn surfaces of the horizontal samples (Fig. 11a). These mechanisms and their discrete impacts play a crucial role in the poorest wear response of the horizontal samples. For the inclined samples, moderate wear damage can be emphasized as a result of volume loss results and micro-damage analyses. This situation can be attributed to the production gaps that form during the additive manufacturing process because these voids decrease the contact surface area between the abrasive counter-face and the samplesurfaces (Fig. 11b). Similar voids were also present on the surfaces of the vertically built samples but the number and distribution of the debris fragments could be counted as lesser than the inclined versions (Fig. 11c).4. ConclusionThis experimental work investigates the effect of build direction (horizontal, inclined and vertical) and test forces (1, 5 and 10N) on the wear performance of AlSi10Mg parts manufactured by SLM. The study also examines the effects of these variables on the mechanical performance, the hardness and the surface quality of the samples produced. The results showed that the specimens produced horizontally gave the best results in terms of tensile strength, elongation at break and toughness, while the specimens produced inclined and vertically exhibited similar results. Vertically built samples had the best surface quality and displayed the highest hardness results. The wear test results indicated that volume losses increased and friction coefficient values decreased as the test force increased. Although the measured volume loss values of samples produced in different build directions fluctuated depending on the test force values, the horizontal sample, which possessed the lowest hardness results, experienced the most apparent wear under the 10N test force, followed by the inclined and vertical samples, respectively. Further, for all types of samples, as the test force levels increased, groove-like structures and secondary debris particles became more noteworthy in the damage analyses. Together with the severe plastic deformation resulting in net wear scars, random delamination and forming of the abrasive debris between the contact surfaces could be considered as the main reasons for the weak performance of the horizontally built samples, in particular at the high loads.AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank members of the ALUTEAM (Aluminum Testing, Training and Research Center) because of their support during additive manufacturing process.ORCID numbers:Mustafa Han,https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2625-3538Savaş Kaşıkcıoğlu,https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7828-4643Berkay Ergene,https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6145-1970Gökmen Atlıhan,https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0599-525XÇağın Bolat,https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4356-46965. References1.Kumar M B, Sathiya P. Methods and materials for additive manufacturing: A critical review on advancements and challenges. Thin-Walled Structures, 2021, 159: 107228.
We use cookies to provide, improve, protect and promote our services. Visit our Privacy Policy and Privacy Policy FAQs to learn more. You can manage your personal preferences, including your ‘Do not sell or share my personal data to third parties’ setting using the “Customize cookies” button below.