Hindawi

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Volume 2020, Article ID 1064870, 17 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1064870

Review Article
Power Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing: Process Parameters,
Microstructure, and Mechanical Properties

Abdullahi K. Gujba and Mamoun Medraj

Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Aerospace Engineering, Concordia University,
1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montreal, H3G 1M8, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada

Correspondence should be addressed to Mamoun Medraj; [email protected]

Received 28 October 2019; Accepted 30 January 2020; Published 28 February 2020

Academic Editor: Zhiping Luo

Copyright © 2020 Abdullahi K. Gujba and Mamoun Medraj. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.

Additive manufacturing (AM) for fabricating 3D metallic parts has recently received considerable attention. Among the emerging
AM technologies is ultrasonic additive manufacturing (UAM) or ultrasonic consolidation (UC), which uses ultrasonic vibrations
to bond similar or dissimilar materials to produce 3D builds. This technology has several competitive advantages over other AM
technologies, which includes fabrication of dissimilar materials and complex shapes, higher deposition rate, and fabrication at
lower temperatures, which results in no material transformation during processing. Although UAM process optimization and
microstructure have been reported in the literature, there is still lack of standardized and satisfactory understanding of the
mechanical properties of UAM builds. This could be attributed to structural defects associated with UAM processing. This article
discusses the effects of UAM process parameters on the resulting microstructure and mechanical properties. Special attention is
given to hardness, shear strength, tensile strength, fatigue, and creep measurements. Also, pull-out, push-out, and push-pin tests
commonly employed to characterize bond quality and strength have been reviewed. Finally, current challenges and drawbacks of
the process and potential applications have been addressed.

1. Introduction Figure 2 demonstrates the steps involved in attaining a

high-strength bond via UAM. The process begins with laying
Historically, ultrasonic welding of metals has been in ex- a metal base plate and pressing a thin metal foil on it [1, 5].
istence since the 1950s for welding battery tabs, and thin foil High-frequency ultrasonic vibrations are applied in order to
for packaging application and for electronic wires [1]. Ul- scrub the mating faces while keeping a constant force [1].
trasonic additive manufacturing (UAM) or ultrasonic The ultrasonic motion causes shearing, which cleans off the
consolidation (UC) process was invented and patented by surface oxides via friction to allow direct metal-metal
Dawn White [2]. In 1999-2000, White founded Solidica Inc. contact. Also, this shearing process leads to generation of
[3] in order to sell commercial UAM machines. UAM or UC dynamic interfacial stresses between the contacting surfaces
is a solid-state technology for joining similar or dissimilar [2]. Plastic deformation and recrystallization at the bond
materials (usually metal foils) near room temperature by interface result in a high-strength metallurgical solid-state
bonding them together layer by layer with ultrasonic vi- bond [1]. Kong et al. [6] suggested that the mechanism of
brations under pressure to form 3D as-built parts [4]. The this solid-state bonding can be classified into two: First is the
working principle of this technology is simple, and Figure 1 volumetric bonding, which is associated with the elastic and
illustrates the UC process and setup components. A typical plastic deformation due to acoustic and thermal softening
UAM system consists of a two ultrasonic transducers [7]. Microstructural analyses have shown that plastic de-
(frequency up to 20 kHz each) which transmit vibrations to a formation plays an important role in facilitating the onset of
disk-shaped sonotrode in order to create solid-sate weld. bonding [8, 9]. Second is the surface bonding, which is
2 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Figure 1: UAM process and components illustration by Fabrisonic© [1].

Heat and pressure

create high
strength bonding

Metal-metal contact Ultrasonic motion at

Localized asperities
constant force causes
yield and collapse
oxide break up
Figure 2: Steps in attaining high-strength bonds via ultrasonic consolidation [1].

associated with interfacial friction and shearing that breaks transformation starting from feedstock to the near-net shape
up the oxide layers [10]. UAM operates at temperatures geometry [3]. This limits the range of materials that can be
much lower than the melting temperatures of the starting deposited. Compared to UAM, layer deposition is achieved
materials, usually 0.3–0.5 Tm. Melting is avoided and voids/ using solid-state bonding. Metallurgical bonds between
defects associated with high temperature are eliminated [11]. layers are achieved ultrasonically without generating molten
With this attribute, bonding of dissimilar materials becomes metal at the interface [3], and this allows for a wide range of
feasible, and the properties of each building martial are similar and dissimilar materials to be deposited. Also, UAM
retained. Similar and dissimilar builds via UAM such as Al- has a higher deposition rate as compared to other AM
Al [10, 12–15], Al-Ti [16], Al-NiTi [17], Al-SiC [18, 19], Al processes because of the lower heat input per deposited
with embedded dielectric materials (inks used in printed volume and faster heat dissipation [3, 25]. Due to the solid-
electronics industry) [20], low carbon steel [21, 22], and Al- state bonding in UAM, residual stresses and distortions are
shape memory alloy (SMA) [23] have been reported in the significantly reduced compared to direct metal deposition,
literature so far. which involves liquid-solid transformation. The high re-
Similar to other additive manufacturing processes, the sidual stresses are as a result of the rapid heating-cooling
UAM process is accompanied with periodic machining in thermal cycle during processing [26]. In an ideal AM
order to obtain the final geometry. However, only a small process, the stress field is much more complicated due to the
amount of machining is required since UAM produces a number and pattern of the heat source and heat transfer. For
near-net shape build. For this reason, UAM is sometimes AM parts, high tensile residual stresses are usually on the
referred to as hybrid additive/substantive manufacturing surface of the metal build, which could affect the mechanical
[24]. Compared with the conventional CNC machining, properties. The effect of these stresses could be mitigated via
only a little waste or scrap is formed because of machining in-process or postprocess methods [26]. In terms of ap-
after UAM. Figure 3 shows the difference between con- plications, complex geometries such as internal channels and
ventional CNC machining, which starts with a large box, and voids can be fabricated using UAM. This has been explored
UAM, which starts with a thin metal sheet and ends up with for applications such as 3D channels for microchannel
little or no scrap. To compare UAM with other AM tech- cooling and cooling channels for molds. Also, during UAM
niques, the next section discusses the competitive advantages processing, the building process can be interrupted and
of UAM over other AM processes. subsequent machining can be performed [24]. This is ex-
tremely difficult while using other manufacturing tech-
2. UAM versus Other AM Technologies niques. Another key contrast between UAM and other
techniques is the embedment of materials such as optical
UAM as a solid-state process commands several advantages fibers into metallic components. For instance, embedding
over other available AM techniques. For instance, most SiC fibers and single-mode (SM) optical fibers into Al3003
AM processes require a certain level of material phase and Al6061 matrices has been successfully reported by Li and
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 3

Traditional machining Material is machined

Desired part Piles of scrap
starts with a large box to the desired shape

Parts can include

A small amount of
Foils are welded internal passages, Little scrap
UAM starts with a thin machining to assure
to “print” near embedded
sheet perfect tolerance and
net shape electronics, and
shape
multiple metals

Figure 3: Difference between conventional CNC and UAM processes [1].

Soar [27]. This is not possible with other AM techniques dynamic stresses are generated which are necessary for oxide
because of the high temperature during processing. It is removal and plastic flow [8]. Friel and Harris [28] stated that
worth noting that achieving these advantages via UAM the higher the pressure, the larger the bonding area, which
requires understanding of different process parameters and translates to a lower void volume. Depending on the ma-
their impact on resulting microstructures and properties. terial, too high pressures will lead to larger levels of de-
The next section highlights some of the important UAM formation and excessive stresses [6, 29]. Consequently, too
process parameters. low pressure will cause insufficient deformation and contact
between the build materials, thus leading to a weak bond.
3. UAM Process Parameters Therefore, an optimum force (pressure) is necessary for
quality bond with no or minimal number of voids.
The formation of high-strength and quality bond during the
UC process is dependent on the process parameters 3.2. Amplitude (μm). Amplitude, which could normally
employed. Among the most influential process parameters range from 10 to 50 μm, is the sonotrode longitudinal os-
are normal force (N), amplitude (μm), speed (mm/s), and cillatory displacement which controls the interface thick-
temperature (°C). An important component that influences ness, density of the bonded area, and the size of the deformed
these process parameters is the sonotrode which comes into area [30]. Powers and Jones [31] stated that the amplitude
direct contact with the materials and provides the necessary dictates the amount of plastic deformation between the
energy for bonding [24]. It provides uniform load and vi- building materials. Also, the higher the amplitude, the
bration to the parts bonded ultrasonically. Sonotrodes are higher the energy generated into the building material in-
usually made of titanium, aluminum, or steel with varying terface [14, 23, 32], which translates to better bonding quality
surface finish intended for different applications. For in- and strength. However, extremely high amplitude results in
stance, sonotrode made of steel has an average surface breaking of already formed bonds due to excessive stresses.
roughness (Ra) of 5.2 μm [20] and is used for low-amplitude
applications where hardness is required. Titanium is the
most used due to the low loss of vibration and high strength, 3.3. Speed (m/s). Speed is the sonotrode motion across the
while aluminum, which is usually coated with chrome or workpiece during processing and could range from 1 mm/s
nickel, is employed to reduce wear [24]. The most important to 100 mm/s [20]. The speed determines the length of time
variable UAM parameters are discussed below. the material under the sonotrode will undergo compression
and oscillation [24]. Also, the energy delivered to the
workpiece is inversely proportional to the speed employed.
3.1. Normal Force (N). Normal force, sometimes referred to For instance, Kong et al. [33] stated that at a given contact
as “pressure,” is the downward force applied by the sono- force and amplitude, decreasing the speed (from 38.8 to
trode onto the mating surfaces and can range from 100 N to 27.8 mm/s) increased the energy to the build material, which
9000 N depending on the build materials. This constant force leads to higher levels of strain hardening. However, in
provides intimate contact between the building materials another work by Kong et al. [34], they showed lack of
during processing and facilitates the plastic flow [8]. With sufficient bonding when the speed was increased from 34.5
the synergy between the force and ultrasonic oscillations, to 43.5 mm/s.
4 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

3.4. Temperature (°C). Substrate temperature is another article, statistical analysis was performed and is discussed
process parameter which could affect the bond quality as below. Relying on the average values, Janaki Ram et al. [5]
reported by various researchers [14, 17, 29, 35, 36]. During attributed changes in % LWD to varying a single parameter,
processing, the temperature of the substrate/part can be such as saying that increasing the amplitude from 10 to
increased from the ambient condition. George and Stucker 16 μm increased the % LWD. However, this cannot be
[37] mentioned that employing a higher temperature during concluded from the data shown in Figures 4(a)–4(d).
processing results in denser and stronger bonds. This Nevertheless, since their work [5] is based on Taguchi DoE,
temperature increase is dependent on the build materials, different information can be obtained from the results as
and careful selection is necessary, especially for dissimilar discussed below.
materials. Table 1 summarizes typical process parameters Using the available data from [43], the percentage
employed for building different materials by various authors. contribution of each process parameter was calculated as
It can be said from Table 1 that the selection of process shown in Figure 4(e). It can be seen that amplitude had the
parameters is dependent on the build material(s). For in- highest contribution followed by temperature. Force had the
stance, a lower substrate temperature is selected when least contribution, which is half the contribution of tem-
building SMA NiTi with aluminum [17], whereas a higher perature. Also, the mean value of signal-to-noise ratio (S/N)
substrate temperature is selected for building similar ma- was evaluated. Since higher % LWD is desirable, larger is
terials such as 4130 steel [21]. As mentioned previously, the better option was selected for this analysis, and the results
energy transferred to the workpiece is controlled by varying are presented in Figure 4(f ). Similar to the percent con-
other process parameters as well. tribution, amplitude showed the highest S/N ratio between
UAM energy applied during processing is related to the 30 and 36 dB (Δ � 6) followed by temperature, which had an
quality of bond formed and can be quantified using S/N ratio between 31 and 36 dB (Δ � 5). Speed had the least S/
the linear weld density (LWD) approach [12, 42]. LWD is the N ratio from 32 to 34 dB (Δ � 2). This means when attrib-
length of a particular interface that appears to be bonded uting the changes in % LWD to any parameter, these average
divided by the total length of the interface inspected [12], as contributions have to be kept in mind. For instance, when
shown in equation (1). Bonded interface length refers to the the authors [5] mentioned that increasing the substrate
actual length, whereas total interface length refers to the temperature increases the LWD, the contribution of am-
apparent length measured. plitude in this increase is much higher than that of tem-
perature. Therefore, it cannot be attributed to the speed only
bonded interface length as presented in [5]. The same goes for the other parameters,
% LWD � × 100. (1)
total interface length even for the effect of amplitude because in this case, the effect
of changing the other parameters contributes around 60% in
In order to have sound bond quality, LWD must be kept varying % LWD.
as high as possible. Typically, UAM parts have LWD ranging As expected, the resulting microstructure and me-
from 45 to 95% [12]. Lower values are associated with lower chanical properties would be affected by the UAM process
UAM energies, which produce weaker bonds [42]. Param- parameters. For this reason, a significant part of the liter-
eters such as speed, amplitude, substrate temperature, and ature on UAM paid more attention to optimization of the
normal force have been associated with LWD [5]. For in- process parameters [29, 34, 40, 44] and microstructural
stance, Janaki Ram et al. [5] studied the effect of process analyses [12, 22, 28, 45, 46] of the as-built part. The mi-
parameters on the bond formation of Al3003 during UC. crostructural analyses provide substantial information about
Using design of experiments (DoE), they [5] obtained an the bonding mechanism, grain refinement, and defects,
optimum combination of parameters based on preliminary which are highlighted in the next section. To date, extensive
experiments, machine setting limits, and available literature and universally accepted mechanical properties and char-
data. Four process parameters, varied at four different levels, acterization procedure of UAM printed parts could not be
were considered, as shown in Table 2. Taguchi L16 or- found in the literature. Even though properties such as
thogonal array shown in Table 3 was employed to determine micro/nano-hardness, strength (shear and tensile), and fa-
the effect of each process parameter, and a total of 16 ex- tigue behavior have been reported, more research is still
perimental runs were carried out. needed in order to fully understand the mechanical prop-
Based on Taguchi DoE, they [5] maintained one factor as erties of UAM builds. This is discussed in more detail in
fixed while varying the other three parameters. For instance, Section 5 of this article.
for each value of amplitude, three sets of the other pa-
rameters (speed, force, and temperature) are used as shown 4. Microstructure
in Tables 2 and 3. However, the % LWD results were pre-
sented in [5] as average of values measured at different Considering the fact that there are no material transfor-
parameters as indicated by the empty-square symbol in mations associated with UAM, one would expect the
Figures 4(a) and 4(b). This unfortunately can be misleading constituent materials to retain their properties and micro-
because average values are not representative of the data structure. For this reason, most part of the literature re-
obtained in these experiments, as can be seen in Figures 4(a) garding microstructure of UAM builds focused on the
through 4(d). In these figures, the actual data for the 16 interface between the bonds. Also, one could argue that
experiments were obtained from Yang et al. [43]. In our inhomogeneity would exist in the microstructure, especially
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 5

Table 1: UAM process parameters used by several authors.

Build material Force (N) Speed (mm/s) Amplitude (μm) Substrate temperature (°C) Refs.
Al2024 2500 46 24 120 [35]
Al3003 O/Al3003-H18 1400 42.3 19 149 [38]
Al3003-H18/Al1050-H14 1600 20 25 — [20]
Al3003/Al3003-H18 1450–1900 28–40 10–19 24–149 [5]
Al3003-H18/Al3003-H14 600–1000 18–26 42–64 149 [14]
Al1100-O/CP Ti 3500 25.4 41.55 200°F [39]
Al3003-H18/CP Ti 1750–2000 10.58–23.70 16–28 300°F [40]
Al6061-H18 5000 85 35 75 [13]
Al3003-H18 5600 35.6 26 — [41]
NiTi/Al6061 6000 84.6 32.76 22 [17]
NiTi SMA/Al3003-H18 138 kPa ≤34.5 8.4–14.3 — [23]
Cu/Al3003-H18 6700 30 36 25 [36]
SiC/Al3003 1400–2000 25–42 10–20 66–177 [29]
Al6061-H18 5000 84.7 35 75 [15]
4130 steel 6000 21 30.87 204 [21]

at the bonds. Thus, to understand the bonding quality and Table 2: Process parameters and levels selected [5].
mechanism of UAM builds, microstructural investigation is Parameter Label Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
paramount. This aids in understanding the fundamental
Amplitude (μm) A 10 13 16 19
processes during UAM. For instance, Fujii et al. [47] ob- Speed (mm/s) B 28 32 36 40
served the microstructures of the unbonded and bonded Force (N) C 1450 1600 1750 1900
interfaces of Al6061 build using bright-field TEM, as shown Temperature (°C) D 24 66 107 149
in Figure 5.
Figure 5(a) shows asperities that are in direct physical
contact between the top and bottom surfaces of the build Table 3: Taguchi L16 experimental matrix [5].
materials. These micro-asperities are compressively de-
#
formed by applying load (force), which consequently leads to Run A B C D % LWD∗
microbond formation as shown in Figure 5(b). During the 1 1 1 1 1 18
microbond formation, the asperities are softened and crushed 2 3 4 2 1 55
under high-strain-rate deformation due to ultrasonic vibra- 3 4 2 3 1 67
tions [47]. With continuous softening and crushing, significant 4 2 3 4 1 25
5 2 4 3 2 32
amounts of microbonds are formed across the interface, as
6 4 1 4 2 76
shown in Figure 5(c). Some amount of oxide films are still 7 1 2 2 2 24
visible but are dispersed around the interface because of friction 8 3 3 1 2 55
and plastic flow. Through the dispersion of oxide films, direct 9 2 1 2 3 60
contact between the mating surfaces is achieved, and full 10 1 3 3 3 50
metallurgical bonds are formed as shown in Figure 5(d). Fi- 11 4 4 1 3 36
nally, they [47] reported that the originally elongated grains 12 3 2 4 3 57
were replaced by the newly developed fine equiaxed grains. 13 4 3 2 4 70
Sriraman et al. [36] also observed formation of equiaxed grains 14 3 1 3 4 90
in the copper build. They [36] showed that the relatively coarse 15 2 2 1 4 60
grain size of 25 μm in the as-received foils is reduced to a finer 16 1 4 4 4 42
∗
and more uniform grain size of 0.3 to 10 μm. The finer grains Average % LWD from [5].
occur due to recrystallization and movement of grain
boundaries across the interface [36]. defects, and point-like defects, which are designated as D1,
The presence of voids at the interface is one of the most D2, and D3 in Figure 7. They [5] linked the presence of these
widely reported features, and this determines a partially or defects to the UAM processing parameters. Line defects were
fully bonded interface. For instance, Hopkins et al. [14] observed in specimens having very low % LWD, deposited
observed voids at the interface of Al3003 build, as shown in using low amplitude and/or normal force. Parabolic defects
Figure 6. They [14] reported that three distinct features were are associated with the medium or medium-to-high weld
observed at the interface: areas with large voids, areas with density levels, while point defects were observed with
small crack-like voids and partial bonding, and areas where specimens with very high weld density levels [5]. Similar
there are no observable voids, which are assumed to be fully observations have been reported on Al6061-H18 [13] and
bonded. 4130 steel/steel parts [21].
Janaki Ram et al. [5] also classified these voids (defects) Generally, the presence of these voids (line, point, and
observed in Al3003 build into three different morphologies, parabolic) is associated with the sonotrode that rolls over
as shown in Figure 7. These are line defects, parabola-like several layers [5, 12, 32, 46]. For instance, the first layer
6 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

90 90 90

LWD (%)
LWD (%)
LWD (%)
70 70 70
50 50 50
30 30 30
10 10 10
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 25 30 35 40 45 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
Amplitude (µm) Speed (mm/s) Normal force (N)

Original data from [43] Original data from [43] Original data from [43]
Average data from [5] Average data from [5] Average data from [5]

(a) (b) (c)

50
Amplitude Speed Normal force Temperature
45 42.5 36
Percent contribution
40

Mean of SN ratios
90 35 35
30 34
LWD (%)

70
25 21.02 33
50 20 32
15 12.81 13.56
10.12 31
30 10
5 30
10 0 29
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Amplitude

Speed

Force

Temperature

Error

10
13
16
19
28
32
36
40
1450
1600
1750
1900
24
66
107
149
Temperature (°C)

Original data from [43]

Average data from [5]
(d) (e) (f )

Figure 4: Effect of (a) amplitude, (b) speed, (c) normal force, and (d) substrate temperature on % LWD of Al3003 build material. ((a–d)
redrawn from [43], (e) and (f ) from this work).

1 μm

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 5: Bright-field TEM images of (a) unbonded region, (b) partially bonded region, (c) bonded region with residual oxide film, and (d)
completely bonded region [47].

300μm 300 μm

(a) (b)

Figure 6: Macrographs of Al3003 build showing voids at the interface [14].

bonded on the substrate usually leaves a roughened surface creates a mismatch between the smooth and rough surfaces
due the sonotrode motion [5]. The next layer to be applied and results in weak bonds with many voids [5]. A similar
has a relatively flat bottom (smooth surface) which comes in explanation was given by Levy et al. [21] where they at-
contact with the roughened surface of the first layer. This tributed the defects to the presence of oxides on the foil
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7

properties of UAM as-built parts is dependent on the ma-

terials, building direction, postprocessing treatment, and
presence of void/defects. As mentioned in Section 4, defects
in UAM as-built parts are usually located at the interface
between the layers. Lack of bonding [12] and fusion [50] are
internal defects that are classified as the most common
imperfections that affect the properties of the build. These
defects have detrimental effects on the mechanical properties
of the finished parts. They reduce the load-bearing capacity
and create stress concentrations in the vicinity of the defect.
Surface finish or roughness, which serves as a prefer-
ential site for crack initiation and propagation [51], affects
Figure 7: Microstructure of Al3003 showing line (D1), parabolic
(D2), and point defects (D3) [5].
the surface properties of the as-built parts significantly.
Obviously, a smooth surface yields better fatigue properties
compared to a rough surface [50, 51]. In additive
surface and the roughened top surface. At this point, one manufacturing, parts usually suffer from poor surface
would imagine that UAM builds are not defect free and more quality (rough surface), which limits their fatigue behavior/
work is needed in order to fabricate defect-free builds or, at performance [52]. Building direction is another factor that
the very least, mitigate the formation of voids. To tackle the significantly influences the mechanical properties of the
issues of voids during processing, postprocessing, such as UAM as-built part. Properties such as hardness and strength
heat treatments using spark plasma sintering (SPS) have been reported along X-, Y-directions or transverse/
[11, 21, 39, 48] and hot isostatic press (HIP) [11, 21], has been longitudinal directions [12] and the Z-direction (building
employed. For instance, Levy et al. [21] employed both SPS direction). For instance, the UAM as-built strength is sig-
and HIP in order to minimize the multiple defects observed nificantly reduced when loaded normal to the Z-direction,
in 4130 steel/steel build. Figure 8 shows the SEM micro- which is attributed to the presence of defects [13, 53]. X- and
graphs of a cross-sectional view of the 4130 steel build before Y-directions have shown relatively similar properties [13],
and after SPS. From Figures 8(a) and 8(b), it can be seen that and sometimes these directions are used interchangeably
as-built condition had discontinuities and large number of [15]. Producing repeatable and robust joints is still a chal-
defects. After SPS treatment (Figures 8(c) and 8(d)), the lenge for UAM [21]. Thus, the need to enhance the me-
specimens showed relatively small discontinuities and small chanical properties of these joints is paramount. Postprocessing
rounded void. The SPS also showed less voids as compared (posttreatment) has been found to enhance the mechanical
to the HIP, which had larger discontinuities. This indicates properties and structural homogeneity [21] of UAM as-
that posttreatments of UAM builds are necessary in order to built parts and has received considerable attention
avoid significant loss of material properties due to the [11, 13, 39, 48, 53]. Postprocessing (treatments) using spark
presence of voids. Using other techniques such as microwave plasma sintering [11, 21, 39, 48], hot isostatic pressing
sintering could produce interesting results, since microwave [11, 21], and solutionizing and aging [13] have been explored
has been used successfully to produce fully dense materials so far. These posttreatments heal the interface defects, im-
similar to SPS [49]. Optimum heat treatment parameters proving the mechanical properties [21]. Properties such as
must be selected carefully in order to avoid grain growth hardness, shear and tensile strength, and fatigue of UAM
near the bonding interface. Also, posttreatment of dissimilar builds are discussed in the following sections.
materials could be a challenge at different temperatures,
especially if each material reacts differently with tempera-
ture. Here, more fundamental studies are needed to address 5.1. Hardness. Hardness is one of the important properties
this challenge. of UAM as-built parts. This property is significantly influ-
enced by the process parameters, postprocessing, and mi-
5. Mechanical Properties crostructure (grain refinement). For instance, it is known
that fine microstructure is usually associated with an in-
Since UAM or UC fabricates 3D products by adding thin crease in hardness. As mentioned earlier, this is due to
layers (as thin as ∼0.125 mm) one on top of the other plastic deformation encountered during the UAM process,
through joining them using ultrasonic vibration, the me- which refines the microstructure across the interface region.
chanical properties of the as-built parts will be influenced by For instance, Schick et al. [12] reported the microhardness of
the quality and characteristics of the interface between the as-built UAM Al3003 which was fabricated using both tape
layers. The interfacial bonding is usually between metal foils/ (H18, 150 μm thick, 25.4 mm wide) and substrate (H14,
tapes [12] where metal-metal contact under pressure results more than 12.7-mm-thick plate). Using a 25-g load and a 13-
in plastic deformation, dispersion of oxides, and collapse of s dwell time, the average microhardness of the UAM foils
asperities [21]. For enhanced mechanical properties, a strong increased almost 15% from 64.5 ± 2.7 HV for the original
continuous interfacial bonding is paramount [21]. Different foils to 73.7 ± 1.9 HV for the as-built. This was attributed to
levels of properties could be achieved by carefully selecting the modified microstructure. Similar observations were
the processing parameters. The variation in mechanical mentioned in the work of Li and Soar [27] where they
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 8: SEM micrographs of 4130 specimen before (a, b) and after (c, d) SPS treatments [21].

successfully embedded SiC fibers and single-mode (SM) microhardness along the Z-direction (height) from 159 to
optical fibers into Al3003 and Al6061 matrices using ul- 443 HV, as shown in Figure 9.
trasonic consolidation. Their [27] results showed that the Generally, heat treatment improves hardness, but the
UC process increased the hardness of alloy matrices, es- HIP showed the opposite trend. This could be due to the long
pecially at regions close to the fibers. The work-hardening heating time which resulted in significant grain growth,
effect obeyed the Hall–Petch relationship for both grains and leading to reduced hardness. SPS showed higher hardness,
sub-grains. Li et al. [20] studied the feasibility of embedding and this can be attributed to the short heating time and
electrical materials (inks widely used in the electronics in- preservation of the structure of the material [54, 55]. The
dustry) within metal matrices by UAM. To create the metal variation in microhardness across the depth of the SPS is due
matrix, a 100 μm thick Al3003 was welded on to a 5 mm thick to the specimen top surface contact with the graphite punch,
Al1050-H14. Three different dielectric materials (Commercial which resulted in carburization [21]. More work is needed in
® ™
inks, LuxPrint 8153 from DuPont , 520 Series Soldermask order to optimize the postprocessing conditions, especially
®
made by Technic, and Imagecure AQ XV501T-4 of for the HIP process. Other heating methods such as mi-
®
Sunchemical ) were embedded into UAM-fabricated Al metal
matrices, and the effect of these dielectric materials on Knoop
crowave heating might be interesting since it also produces
relatively dense materials under controlled conditions
hardness was reported. After printing, they [20] demonstrated compared to other conventional techniques [49].
Knoop hardnesses of 12.1 HK/0.01 kg, 23.0 HK/0.01 kg, and
27.3 HK/0.01 kg for 8153, XV501T-4, and 520 series dielectric
films, respectively. Moreover, they [20] pointed out that 5.2. Peel Test. Peel tests primarily provide measurements of
varying dielectric thickness had no significant effect on the the adhesive strength of tape, glue, or bonded surfaces [12].
Knoop hardness. For instance, 8153 dielectric film with Peel test is one of the techniques used in optimizing the
thicknesses of 43, 45, 48, 50, and 54 μm showed no significant process parameters involving joining of tapes. However,
differences in the Knoop microhardness. It can be said that the these tests do not provide the bulk mechanical properties
variation in thickness (for 8153 dielectric film) is within a small required for the design of UAM parts. In this case, bulk
margin; however, thickness in the range of millimeters might mechanical properties such as ultimate shear and tensile
show a significant difference. strength after UAM processing must be accounted for.
The effect of postprocessing/treatments on hardness has Despite the known limitations and capabilities of peel
also been reported in the literature. For instance, Levy et al. testing, researchers still employ this technique to quanti-
[21] studied the suitability of manufacturing low-alloy tatively assess the bond quality [6, 18, 32–34, 37]. For in-
carbon steel using UAM and the effect of posttreatments on stance, Li and Soar [18] reported the peel strength properties
the properties. SPS and HIP posttreatments were conducted of continuous SiC fibers embedded in an Al6061-O matrix
after fabrication, and the microhardness of the as-built, SPS, through ultrasonic consolidation at room temperature. They
and HIP treated conditions was reported. The as-built [18] mentioned that after embedding ≥0.8% volume fraction
showed average hardness of 206 ± 20 HV, and HIP showed of SiC in the Al matrix, the peel strength increased signif-
hardness of 153 ± 9 HV. SPS showed variation in icantly. For instance, at 2.8% volume fraction of SiC using
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 9

500 5.3. Pull-Out Test. Accurate evaluation of fiber/matrix in-

450
terfacial bond strength is still a challenge. One of the
Top layer methods employed to address this issue is the pull-out test.
400 Typically, the test involves pulling the fiber in order to
Hardness (HV)

350 achieve an initial debonding from the matrix using a

Bottom layer microhardness tester [29], synchronizing a force sensor and
300
an acoustic emission (AE) sensor using a dual channel digital
250 oscilloscope attached to the tester [29]. Key features and
200
improvements to this test setup have been proposed by Hehr
and Dapino [17]. Figure 10 shows a typical pull-out force-
150 displacement curve. Hehr and Dapino [17] studied the pull-
100 out strength of NiTi-Al UAM composites. The effect of
0 20 40 60 80 100 different surface finish methods of the fibers on the pull-out
Distance from the bottom layer (µm) strength was reported. Oxide, roughened, chemically etched,
Figure 9: Hardness profile of the UAM laminate after the SPS and mechanically polished surface finished were employed.
treatment (drawn from [21]). Their [17] pull-out results showed that the load to failure was
similar for all tested surface conditions. More so, the alu-
minum was observed on the surface of the fiber, which
pressure of 155.8 MPa, speed of 34.5 mm/s, and amplitude of indicates matrix failure rather than interface failure.
12.3 μm, the maximum peel force increased by almost 40% Kong et al. [23] also employed the pull-out to charac-
compared to 0% volume fraction of SiC. However, they [18] terize the bond strength of ultrasonically embedded shape
mentioned that there is a threshold volume fraction at memory alloy (SMA) fibers in an Al3003 matrix. They [23]
specific parameters over which the plastic flow and friction showed that process parameters such as amplitude, pressure,
are inadequate to have strong bonds at the foil-to-foil in- and speed had a significant influence on the pull-out perfor-
terfaces. Further testing showed that the base metal thick- mance. For instance, they [23] observed that at higher am-
ness had no significant influence on the peel strength. Li plitude, the resistance to pulling reduced, while increasing the
et al. [20] reported the peel test of an Al metal matrix pressure did not show any substantial improvement in the pull-
embedded with three different dielectric materials (8153, out force. Furthermore, at a speed of 27.8 mm/s, 6.8 μm am-
XV501T-4, and 520 series dielectric films). As mentioned in plitude had approximately twice the pull-out force compared to
Section 5.1, the 520 series dielectric film had higher hardness 10.4 and 14.3 μm amplitudes. Also, comparing 27.8 mm/s and
than 8153 and XV501T-4 dielectric films. It was found that 34.5 mm/s at the same amplitudes of 6.8, 10.4, and 14.3 μm,
the higher the hardness of the dielectric material, the higher 27.8 mm/s had a higher pull-out force. This was attributed to
the peeling loads (higher resistance to deformation). Also, the longer consolidation time, which translates to higher
the higher the UAM processing such as load, speed, and compressive forces being applied to the fiber [23]. The force
amplitude, the higher the peeling load. Amplitude is seen as applied is always constant with time during UAM; hence, one
one of the most significant factors affecting the bonding in would not expect a higher level of compressive forces applied to
UAM [14, 56]. This observation is in accord with the works the fiber as explained by [23]. Instead, the longer consolidation
of Friel et al. [38], Kong et al. [34], and Sriraman et al. [36] time associated with lower speed results in more bonding,
where they observed that the peeling load of Al3003-H18 which increases the pull-out force.
increased with higher amplitude. This was attributed to the
minimal number of voids associated with higher amplitudes
5.4. Push-Out Test. Due to the limitations of the pull-out test
during processing as observed by Sojiphan et al. [57]. Peel
in evaluating brittle fibers, Marshall and Oliver [19] pro-
strength is significantly affected by the presence of voids
posed the push-out test, which is also a simple test that can
coming from the sonotrode as pointed out by Li and Soar
be performed using a microhardness tester synchronized
[32]. This issue could be overcome by improving the texture
with an acoustic emission (AE) sensor. In this method,
of the sonotrode.
debonding is caused by pushing the fiber along its axis under
The UAM energy produced during processing has an
the influence of a gradually increasing load. Yang et al. [29]
influence on the peel resistances of consolidated parts.
employed the push-out test to evaluate the bond strength
Monahgan et al. [42] stated that low-power UAM not only
between SiC fiber and Al3003 matrix fabricated using UAM.
limits the degree of plastic flow but also leads to lower LWD.
AE signal spikes recorded during the push-out test indicate
Here, weaker bonding is produced and peel resistance/
debonding, and the debonding loads are observed. They [29]
strength is drastically reduced. However, with high-power
showed that debonding loads were random with respect to
UAM parameters, high contact pressures and amplitudes
different parameter variations. The reason for this has not
that cause plastic flow are produced, increasing the LWD
been satisfactorily provided, which indicates more funda-
and peel resistance. Although the peel strength test provides
mental understanding and research are still needed.
firsthand valuable bonding assessment, more information
and investigations are required in order to understand the
improved deformation resistances at different directions as 5.5. Push-Pin Test. Another method of evaluating the me-
well as bulk properties such as tensile and shear strengths. chanical performance of bonded or laminated structures is
10 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Progression of failure along interface 3

Al6061-4130 steel
Frictional sliding Pullout load 2.5
Al6061-6061
Onset of failure 2
Fiber detwinning Load cell

Force (kN)
Load (N)

Matrix yielding 1.5

Fiber
1
Grip preload
Fiber pullout Matrix 0.5
Grip 0

Displacement (mm)
0 1 2 3 4
Figure 10: Typical pull-out force-displacement curve of UAM as- Stroke (mm)
built (redrawn from [17]).
Figure 11: Load-stroke curve of the push-pin tests for Al6061-4130
steel and Al6061-6061 build (redrawn from [22]).
the push-pin technique [39]. This technique proposed by
Zhang et al. [58] involves pushing a pin at a specific rate usually experience a drop in properties, especially in the
while measuring the load and displacement. The maximum building direction [13, 53]. To improve the quality of welds,
load and the area under the load-displacement curve are especially in the building direction where normal load is
used in analyzing the tests [39]. Higher load and larger area applied, posttreatments such as SPS, HIP, and solutionizing
under the curve correspond to better push-pin performance. and aging have been employed and shown to enhance the
Sridharan et al. [22] reported the push-pin testing perfor- shear strength. For instance, Wolcott et al. [39] reported the
mance of Al6061-T6 foils on annealed 4130 steel (Al6061- shear strength of Al-Ti dissimilar material joints fabricated
4130) and Al-Al (Al6061-6061) builds. Figure 11 shows the using UAM. As-built and posttreated (SPS) specimens were
load-stroke curves of the push-pin tests for Al6061-4130 steel
and Al6061-6061.
tested using a 50-kN Lloyd Mechanical Test Frame where
load was applied until failure. Their [39] results showed that
®
It can be seen clearly that the Al-steel showed an average the SPS-treated specimen had higher ultimate shear strength
maximum load of 2.85 kN, and an area under the curve of (102.4 MPa) than the as-built specimen (46.3 MPa). Frac-
5.15 kN·mm. Al-Al as-built showed an average maximum tured surface showed that the as-built had a brittle failure,
force of 1.67 kN and an area of 1.53 kN·mm. Hence, the Al- whereas the SPS had ductile failure, evident from the
steel showed a higher strength than the Al-Al. This was presence of striation marks. Hopkins et al. [14] observed a
attributed to the high plastic flow at the interface resulting in similar brittle failure in UAM as-built Al3003-Al3003, which
oxide removal and asperity collapse, improving the metal- was attributed to the presence of voids and insufficient
lurgical bonds and the mechanical properties. Also, one bonding. Levy et al. [21] studied the shear strength of as-
would expect this behavior of Al-steel since steel is stronger built, SPS-, and HIP-treated SAE4130 (low alloy carbon
than aluminum. steel) parts. Figure 12 shows the typical load/displacement
Wolcott et al. [39] reported the delamination strength of curves of their shear tests.
Al-Ti UAM build using the push-pin technique. As-built and It can be seen from Figure 12 that specimens after the
heat-treated (SPS) specimens were employed, and their SPS posttreatment exhibited shear strength about two-fold
results showed that heat treatment enhanced the delami- higher than that of the as-printed one (maximum load of
nation strength compared to the as-built (untreated). This 4921 N versus 1690 N). The as-printed specimens delami-
further indicates the beneficial effect of posttreatments on nated and some layers were bent, as shown in Figure 12.
the mechanical properties of as-built joints. From Figure 12, SPS and HIP showed higher resistance to
Despite the considerable efforts made in applying the shear than the as-printed condition. Comparing SPS and
peel, pull-out, push-out, and push-pin tests, these methods HIP, SPS had higher resistance than HIP (maximum load of
are still debatable on a number of issues, including their 4921 N for SPS versus 3727 N for HIP (Figure 12)). This was
universal applicability and accuracy. Standardization of attributed to the microstructure where SPS showed only
these test methods is required in order to be able to compare small discontinuity as compared to the as-printed and HIP
different works and fully understand each test applicability conditions [21]. For this reason, the SPS remained intact
and limitations. Combining the data obtained from these despite some noticeable deformations (Figure 12). This
tests and from bulk mechanical property investigations could also be attributed to the inherent nature of the SPS
could provide more valuable information with regard to technique, which is known for fabricating highly dense
bond strength. materials with little or no voids [54, 55, 59]. More inves-
tigation is needed to determine the failure mechanisms and
optimal postprocessing conditions. The interfacial shear
5.6. Shear Strength. Shear strength of layered structures or strength of a metal matrix composite fabricated via UAM
builds is one of the most important studied properties. has recently received considerable attention [17, 60]. For
Special tooling is employed in order to ensure accurate instance, Hehr and Dapino [17] reported the interfacial
testing within the layered region/section [21]. UAM builds shear strength behavior of NiTi-Al matrix composites with
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 11

6000
9.52mm
5000 SPS
Interface
between
4000 layers
Load (N)

3000 HIP

19.05 mm
R = 3.18mm
2000

1000
As-printed
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Extension (mm)
Figure 12: Shear test load/displacement curves and specimens after Figure 13: Illustration of tensile loading with respect to the in-
shear testing (adopted from [21]). terface (redrawn from [14]).

different fiber surface finishes, which include oxide, testing along the Z-direction (normal to the interfaces), the
roughened, etched, and mechanically polished surfaces. For samples failed by de-bonding of the tapes without significant
all tested conditions, their [17] results showed that the matrix elongation [15]. The Z-direction showed almost zero duc-
yielded prior to the interface breaking due to the adhered tility and resulted in a brittle failure, as shown in Figure 15.
aluminum. The average shear stress was near or above This is due to the presence of defects or lack of complete
the ultimate shear strength of the aluminum tapes utilized in bonding after UAM. Hopkins et al. [14] reported the
the UAM process. For all surface conditions, the matrix was the transverse tensile strength of UAM as-built Al3003-H18
weakest point in the composite. From the work presented by (tape)/Al3003-H14 (base plate). Specimens were axially
Hehr and Dapino [17], information addressing the change in loaded at 0.127 mm/s until failure, while the force and hy-
bond mechanisms due to the different surface conditions was draulic ram displacement were recorded. Their [14] graphs
not discussed. Hence, this needs further investigation. Another showed a linear force-displacement relationship, which
issue worth exploring is studying the effect of compressive indicates that the specimens failed in an elastic brittle mode.
residual stress on the shear strength of UAM builds. This could Also, specimens with higher strength showed greater dis-
not be found in the literature. placements, which implies that there were a greater number
of localized microscale areas that underwent ductile failure
[14]. The brittle failure observed in [14] is in accord with the
5.7. Tensile Strength. Similar to shear strength tests, tensile findings in [13, 15]. For the brittle failure, a sharp drop in the
tests also provide valuable mechanical properties of as-built stress-strain curve is expected after reaching the maximum
parts. In the literature, monotonic tensile properties are one load. No satisfactory explanation for this behavior was of-
of the most commonly evaluated and reported properties of fered by the authors [15]. Perhaps, this behavior could be due
AM parts [50]. For UAM builds, tensile loading is usually to the variation in bond quality across the layer. Detailed
applied normal to the interfaces [13, 15], as illustrated in fractography is needed in order to understand the failure
Figure 13. modes of the build with respect to the different directions.
The direction of loading with respect to the building As mentioned in Section 3, posttreatments of UAM or
direction has a significant effect on the observed properties. UC as-built are employed in order to enhance the me-
Sridharan et al. [15] reported tensile tests of UAM builds chanical properties of the bond, especially in the Z-direction
from Al6061-H18 tapes tested at different directions. Tensile (building direction) [13, 53]. Gussev et al. [13] studied the
dog-bone specimens were machined in three directions: X- solutionizing and aging processing in order to enhance the
direction along the travel of the sonotrode, Y-direction along tensile strength of UAM as-built Al6061-H18 bond at dif-
the sonotrode vibration, and Z-direction along the build ferent temperatures. First, the specimens were annealed at
where the load is applied normal to the interfaces, as shown 180°C for 8 h in order to restore the Mg2Si strengthening
in Figure 14. Figure 14 also shows the typical tensile test precipitate since Al6061-H18 is a precipitation-strengthened
samples cut from the build. alloy. This process is expected to improve the bond prop-
Five specimens were tested for each direction, and the erties. Second, the specimens were annealed at 330°C for 1 h
results were compared with bulk commercial wrought alloy. in order to recrystallize the grains at the interface, and fi-
Directions X and Y are considered the same; hence, they are nally, the specimens were solutionized at 580°C for 1 h,
used interchangeably in [15]. Figure 15 shows the engi- quenched in water, and aged at 180°C for 8 h. Figure 16
neering stress-strain curves for the specimens. It can be seen shows the engineering stress versus displacement curves for
from Figure 15 that the UAM part loaded in the X- and Y- the build and reference at different heat-treated conditions.
directions had lower strength and ductility than the wrought It can be seen that properties in the Z-direction improved
alloy. Also, the specimens loaded along the Z-axis showed a after each heat-treated condition. However, at 330°C-1 h, there
significant decrease in the strength level as compared to was a decrease in the properties in the X- and Y-directions
those along X- and Y-directions and wrought alloy. In including the reference. No specific explanation was given for
12 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

16.00
Y-sonotrode vibration
5.00

Z-building direction 4.00

Sonotrode direction-X
R = 1.40 1.20

T = 0.75

Figure 14: Schematic showing the sample extraction for mechanical testing and the dimensions of the tensile test samples (redrawn from
[15]).

350 information of the properties at the interface than fatigue

Bulk properties
300 testing. For UAM builds, it is expected that the laminated or
layered structure would have different fatigue and fracture
250
X = Y-direction mechanisms as compared to monolithic alloy [35]. However,
Stress (MPa)

200 there has been few attempts aimed at investigating the fatigue
behavior of UAM as-built aluminum alloys Al2024 [35, 71] and
150
Al3003-H18 [72]. He et al. [35] studied the fatigue of as-built
100 Al2024 made from foils compared with the monolithic alloy.
Z - direction
50
The static three-point load bending fatigue tests were conducted
at two stress levels: the maximum stresses were 89% and 70% of
0 the tensile strength for R � 0.1 (R is the stress ratio employed in
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Strain (mm) fatigue testing, which is the minimum peak stress divided by the
maximum peak stress). The fatigue test data are presented in
Figure 15: Typical engineering tensile curves for the UAM-pro-
duced specimens in comparison with bulk commercial alloy
Table 4. From Table 4, L1-L3 and L4-L6 represent results of Al-
(adopted from [15]). Al specimens at low and high stress levels, respectively. S1-S3
represent results at high stress levels for Al specimen, which is
higher (∼30 MPa) than the stress levels used for L4-L6. It can be
this trend, but this could be due to the interactions between the seen from the table that the fatigue life of Al-Al increased with
solute atoms and dislocation, which is dependent on the deceasing applied stress. At high stress level (89%), both Al-Al
temperature and strain rate [61]. For 180°C-8 h, the average and Al specimens had comparable fatigue life.
tensile strength was doubled. This was attributed to the synergic Wolcott and Dapino [72] reported the transverse tensile
effects of precipitation, reduction in dislocation density, and fatigue tests of the Al3003-H18 block. Their [72] stress-
mild grain coarsening [61]. Finally, for 580°C-1 h/180°C-8 h number of cycles (S-N) curve was relatively flat, and a stress
treatment, tensile strength was significantly enhanced and the threshold of 50% of the ultimate transverse tensile strength
properties in the X- and Y-directions were comparable to the exists below which failure does not occur during 3.75 × 107
reference specimen. This trend was attributed to the significant cycles. They [72] mentioned that their reported preliminary
grain refinement across the interfaces and, consequently, im- fatigue data are only a prediction. It can be said that UAM is
proving the properties. Despite the efforts made in post- still at the developing stage and much still has to be done to
processing of UAM builds, more studies are still needed in generate fatigue life data for UAM as-built parts. Generally,
order to optimize the heat treatment parameters. For instance, fatigue life data of additive manufactured parts have been
issues of overaging (grain growth) could be detrimental to the reported to have significant scatter due to the presence of
mechanical properties of the builds. Hence, more investigations defects [50]. For instance, surface roughness is one of the
are still needed in this regard. factors that limits the fatigue performance of AM parts [50].
Several considerations and factors must be addressed when
testing the fatigue life of UAM parts. The effect of defects
5.8. Fatigue. The fatigue behavior of UAM-fabricated (voids), building direction, residual stresses, surface roughness,
structures or parts is very important in order to determine postprocessing, and, most importantly, the bonding quality
potential or estimated lifetime in cyclic loading conditions. on the fatigue life must be accounted for. Process parameter
While studies of fatigue life of additive manufactured parts optimization and fatigue failure analysis are crucial to un-
have been widely reported for other AM techniques [62–70], derstand and predict fatigue life of these parts.
there are still no adequate and substantial reports on the Applying mechanical surface treatment is one of the
fatigue life performance of UAM parts. Most of the UAM most influential posttreatments that have a significant effect
reports have concentrated on optimizing processing parame- on the fatigue properties. Mechanical surface treatments
ters [14, 29, 34, 40, 44], microstructure [12, 22, 28, 41, 45, 46], plastically deform the surface and induce strain hardening.
interfacial bonding shear [17, 48] and tensile strength [13–15], Deep levels of compressive residual stresses are induced
and hardness [10, 12, 16, 20, 27]. Moreover, tests such as tensile while improving the surface and subsurface properties. The
and shear strength might provide more adequate indication/ induced stresses retard crack initiation and propagation,
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 13

330°C-1 h
As-received 116
300 Ref. 300 114

Engineering stress (MPa)

Engineering stress (MPa)

112
250 250 110 T
200 200 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Y Y
150 X 150
100 100 X
50 50 Ref.
Z Z
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

180°C-8 h 580°C-1 h/180°C-8h

300 Ref. 300 Ref. X
Engineering stress (MPa)

Engineering stress (MPa)

250 250 Y
X
200 200
Y
150 150
100 100 Z

50 Z 50
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Figure 16: Engineering stress versus displacement curves illustrating the effect of annealing on the mechanical behavior of the UAM Al6061
[13].

Table 4: Fatigue test data for Al-Al and Al specimens [35]. and application. So far, none of these treatments have been
explored with regard to enhancing the properties of UAM
σn Fatigue Average fatigue
Specimen n (%) builds. Addressing this research gap is paramount and could
(MPa) life (Nf ) life (Nf )
provide valuable directions into studying the fatigue life of
L1 289.04 4.72 × 104 UAM builds. Another factor that must be considered during
L2 289.04 70 6.25 × 104 4.72 × 104
fatigue life testing is surface finish/roughness of UAM builds.
L3 289.04 5.40 × 104
L4 367.50 1.87 × 104
As mentioned in Section 5, surface finish or roughness sig-
L5 367.50 89 1.81 × 104 1.66 × 104 nificantly affects the surface properties, which could limit the
L6 367.50 1.30 × 104 fatigue performance. For better fatigue performance, smooth
S1 399.84 1.39 × 104 surface finish must be produced either during fabrication or
S2 399.84 89 1.54 × 104 1.57 × 104 after fabrication. Interestingly, some of the mechanical surface
S3 399.84 1.78 × 104 treatments such as UNSM and LPB produce high-quality
σ n represents the maximum stress level applied on the nominal dangerous surface finish which could enhance the fatigue performance.
cross-section; n represents the ratio of maximum stress applied in the The high-quality surface combined with the induced com-
fatigue test to tensile strength. pressive residual stresses could provide enhanced fatigue
performance. This investigation needs considerable attention,
and process parameters must be carefully selected.
which translates to improved fatigue properties [51]. For
instance, laser shock peening (LSP) [73], shot peening (SP)
[74], ultrasonic impact peening (UIP) [75], ultrasonic 5.9. Creep. Similar to fatigue, creep behavior of other AM as-
nanocrystalline surface modification (UNSM) [76], and low built parts have been reported [77, 79–83]. However, lit-
plasticity burnishing (LPB) [77] are all mechanical surface erature works on understanding the creep behavior of UAM
treatments that have shown enhanced fatigue properties of parts could not be found. Microstructural defects are one of
components. For more details, Gujba and Medraj [51] the factors that could limit the creep behavior of materials.
reviewed the laser peening process and its impact on ma- Other factors that limit the creep behavior of UAM parts are
terial properties in comparison with SP and UIP. It is worth complexity of the creep test in selecting the test temperatures
noting that the aforementioned mechanical surface treat- and applied stresses [50]. Most of the builds via UAM are for
ments not only induce deep residual stresses but also have low temperature applications. For instance, most materials
varying levels of strain hardening [78]. Hence, the choice of fabricated by UAM are Al-based alloys, and this could be the
treatment must be made according to the desired properties reason why the creep behavior of these materials has not
14 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

received considerable interests. However, it will be inter- microprocessors, telemetry, and sensors have been suc-
esting to build materials such as IN718 [79, 80, 83] and cessfully embedded using UAM. Since only a mild level of
IN738LC [81, 82] and investigate their creep behavior since heating is attained during processing, build material does
these are for high-temperature applications. In this case, not experience changes in phase. In other words, initial
careful selection of creep test parameters is paramount, material properties are retained in the final constituent
especially for dissimilar materials. material properties. Defects are common features observed at
the interfacial bonds that affect the properties significantly.
6. Challenges and Future Perspectives However, postprocessing treatments, such as HIP and SPS
treatments, have been shown to enhance the properties of the
Despite the need to understand the mechanical properties of bond. While significant works on process optimization and
AM as-built parts, there is still the challenge of directly microstructure of interfacial bonds have been reported, ex-
comparing the properties of materials fabricated by different tensive work with respect to mechanical properties is still
AM techniques. This is due to the many processing pa- limited. This is largely due to the lack of standardized testing
rameters, type of material fabricated, application, and procedures and limited applications. For instance, fatigue
presence of different types and quantity of defects, as well as testing and creep properties of UAM builds are still lacking. In
the limitations associated with various AM techniques. For conclusion, it is becoming clear that more work is still needed
instance, UAM has shown great potential in fabricating to standardize test procedures that would allow for compar-
metallic and metal-matrix composite parts, but the process ative studies with other technologies and help in realizing UAM
has been limited by a lack of wide range of applications such potentials. The future of UAM is highly dependent on various
as high-temperature applications. Significant efforts industrial applications where other AM technologies fall short.
[12, 17, 22, 28, 45, 46, 48] have been made to understand the For instance, UAM has shown significant progress in fabri-
interface characteristics. However, eliminating interfacial cating heat exchangers with complex geometries through in-
defects is still a challenge encountered in UAM builds even tegrating dissimilar metals, benefiting from their various
though posttreatments have shown promising results. physical and mechanical attributes.
Comparing the works of different research groups is still a
challenge. This is largely due to the lack of standardized and
acceptable mechanical property evaluation procedures for
Conflicts of Interest
comparative studies [50]. More work is still needed in order The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
to address the overwhelming challenges of understanding
the mechanical properties of AM parts. For comparative
studies, standardized testing procedures are needed. Acknowledgments
In spite of the aforementioned challenges that need to be
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support
addressed, UAM technology has been used successfully for
provided by Concordia University, Montreal, Canada,
different industrial applications. For instance, fabricating
through the Horizon Postdoctoral Fellowship and Natural
heat exchangers with complex internal geometries using
Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of
high thermally conductive metals has been a challenge.
Canada.
®
However, Fabrisonic has successfully built copper and
aluminum heat exchangers using UAM. This product has
passed rigorous NASA qualifications, such as thermal, vi- References
®
bration, and burst tests [1]. Fabrisonic has also built
thermal management devices with channel size ranging [1] Fabrisonic, 3D Metal Printing without Melting, Fabrisonic,
from microscale (250 μm) to macroscale (12.7 mm) for Columbus, OH, USA, 2019, https://fabrisonic.com/
ultrasonic-additive-manufacturing-overview/.
aerospace applications. Building layers of tantalum, mo-
[2] D. R. White, “Ultrasonic consolidation of aluminum tooling,”
lybdenum, and titanium using UAM for radiation shielding Advanced Materials Processing, vol. 161, pp. 64-65, 2003.
in structural panels has also been achieved. Here, one could [3] D. R. White, “Ultrasonic consolidation: status report on de-
see that UAM has potentials in various industries such as velopment of solid state net shape processing for direct
electronics, aerospace, and power generation. This is due to manufacturing,” Report No. RTO-MP-AVT-139, pp. 1–66, De-
the ability of the technology to produce complex geometries fense Technical Information Center, Richmond, VA, USA, 2006.
using similar or dissimilar materials at relatively low fab- [4] A. Hehr and M. J. Dapino, “Dynamics of ultrasonic additive
rication temperatures. manufacturing,” Ultrasonics, vol. 73, pp. 49–66, 2017.
[5] G. D. Janaki Ram, Y. Yang, and B. E. Stucker, “Effect of
process parameters on bond formation during ultrasonic
7. Summary consolidation of aluminum alloy 3003,” Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 221–238, 2006.
UAM or UC process has received considerable attention due [6] C. Y. Kong, R. C. Soar, and P. M. Dickens, “A model for weld
to advantages in fabricating 3D builds using similar and strength in ultrasonically consolidated components Pro-
dissimilar materials. Fabrication of 3D parts is achieved at a ceeding of the institution of mechanical engineering, Part C,”
relatively low temperature compared to other AM tech- Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C:
nologies. This allows for delicate components such as Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, vol. 219, no. 1,
electronics to be embedded into solid parts. For instance, pp. 83–91, 2005.
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 15

[7] G. S. Kelly, S. G. Advani, J. W. Gillespie, and T. A. Bogetti, “A [22] N. Sridharan, P. Wolcott, M. Dapino, and S. S. Babu, “Mi-
model to characterize acoustic softening during ultrasonic crostructure and mechanical property characterisation of
consolidation,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, aluminium–steel joints fabricated using ultrasonic additive
vol. 213, no. 11, pp. 1835–1845, 2013. manufacturing,” Science and Technology of Welding and
[8] Y. Yang, G. D. Janaki Ram, and B. E. Stucker, “Bond for- Joining, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 373–380, 2017.
mation and fiber embedment during ultrasonic consolida- [23] C. Y. Kong, R. C. Soar, and P. M. Dickens, “Ultrasonic
tion,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 209, consolidation for embedding SMA fibres within aluminium
no. 10, pp. 4915–4924, 2009. matrices,” Composite Structures, vol. 66, no. 1–4, pp. 421–427,
[9] D. Bakavos and P. B. Prangnell, “Mechanisms of joint and 2004.
microstructure formation in high power ultrasonic spot [24] R. J. Friel, “Power ultrasonics for additive manufacturing and
welding 6111 aluminium automotive sheet,” Materials Science consolidating of materials,” in Power Ultrasonics: Applications
and Engineering: A, vol. 527, no. 23, pp. 6320–6334, 2010. of High-Intensity Ultrasound, pp. 313–315, Woodhead Pub-
[10] G. S. Kelly, M. S. Just, S. G. Advani, and J. W. Gillespie, lishing, Cambridge, UK, 2015.
“Energy and bond strength development during ultrasonic [25] A. A. Ward, Y. Zhang, and Z. C. Cordero, “Junction growth in
consolidation,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, ultrasonic spot welding and ultrasonic additive manufacturing,”
vol. 214, no. 8, pp. 1665–1672, 2014. Acta Materialia, vol. 158, pp. 393–406, 2018.
[11] A. Miriyev, S. Kalabukhov, and N. Frage, “Ultrasonic additive [26] C. Li, Z. Y. Liu, and X. Y. Fang, “Residual stress metal additive
manufacturing of dissimilar material systems: method, post- additive manufacturing,” in in Proceedings of the 4th CIRP
processing and properties,” in Proceedings of the Fraunhofer Conference on Surface Integrity, pp. 348–353, Tianjin, China,
Direct Digital Manufactruing Conference (DDMC2016), Ber- July 2018.
lin, Germany, March 2016. [27] D. Li and R. C. Soar, “Plastic flow and work hardening of Al
[12] D. E. Schick, R. Hahnlen, and R. Dehoff, “Microstructural alloy matrices during ultrasonic consolidation fibre embed-
characterization of bonding interfaces in aluminum 3003 ding process,” Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol. 498,
blocks fabricated by ultrasonic additive manufacturing,” no. 1-2, pp. 421–429, 2008.
Welding Journal, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 105–115, 2010. [28] R. J. Friel and R. A. Harris, “A nanometre-scale fibre-to-
[13] M. N. Gussev, N. Sridharan, M. Norfolk, K. A. Terrani, and matrix interface characterization of an ultrasonically
S. S. Babu, “Effect of post weld heat treatment on the 6061 consolidated metal matrix composite,” Proceedings of the
aluminum alloy produced by ultrasonic additive Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of
manufacturing,” Materials Science and Engineering: A, Materials: Design and Applications, vol. 224, no. 1,
vol. 684, pp. 606–616, 2017. pp. 31–40, 2010.
[14] C. D. Hopkins, P. J. Wolcott, M. J. Dapino, A. G. Truog, [29] Y. Yang, G. D. Janaki Ram, and B. E. Stucker, “An experi-
S. S. babu, and S. A. Fernandez, “Optimizing ultrasonic ad- mental determination of optimum processing parameters for
ditive manufactured Al3003 properties with statistical mod- Al∕SiC metal matrix composites made using ultrasonic con-
eling,” Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, solidation,” Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology,
vol. 134, no. 1, Article ID 011004, 2012. vol. 129, no. 4, pp. 538–549, 2007.
[15] N. Sridharan, M. Gussev, R. Seibert et al., “Rationalization of [30] K. C. Joshi, “The formation of ultrasonic bonds between
anisotropic mechanical properties of Al-6061 fabricated using metals,” Welding Journal, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 840–848, 1971.
ultrasonic additive manufacturing,” Acta Materialia, vol. 117, [31] J. J. Powers and J. B. Jones, “Ultrasonic welding,” Welding
pp. 228–237, 2016. Journal, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 761–766, 1956.
[16] C. Q. Zhang, J. D. Robson, and P. B. Prangnell, “Dissimilar [32] D. Li and R. Soar, “Influence of sonotrode texture on the
ultrasonic spot welding of aerospace aluminum alloy AA2139 performance of an ultrasonic consolidation machine and the
to titanium alloy TiAl6V4,” Journal of Materials Processing interfacial bond strength,” Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, vol. 231, pp. 382–388, 2016. Technology, vol. 209, no. 4, pp. 1627–1634, 2009.
[17] A. Hehr and M. J. Dapino, “Interfacial shear strength esti- [33] C. Y. Kong, R. C. Soar, and P. M. Dickens, “Characterisation
mates of NiTi-Al matrix composites fabricated via ultrasonic of aluminium alloy 6061 for the ultrasonic consolidation
additive manufacturing,” Composites Part B: Engineering, process,” Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol. 363, no. 1-
vol. 77, pp. 199–208, 2015. 2, pp. 99–106, 2003.
[18] D. Li and R. C. Soar, “Characterization of process for em- [34] C. Y. Kong, R. C. Soar, and P. M. Dickens, “Optimum process
bedding SiC fibers in Al 6061-O matrix through ultrasonic parameters for ultrasonic consolidation of 3003 aluminium,”
consolidation,” Journal of Engineering Materials and Tech- Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 146, no. 2,
nology, vol. 131, no. 2, Article ID 021016, 2009. pp. 181–187, 2004.
[19] D. B. Marshall and W. C. Oliver, “Measurement of interfacial [35] X.-H. He, H.-J. Shi, Y.-D. Zhang et al., “Mechanical properties
mechanical properties in fiber-reinforced ceramic compos- and microstructure of Al/Al laminated structure produced via
ites,” Journal of the American Ceramic Society, vol. 70, no. 8, ultrasonic consolidation process,” Materials Science and
pp. 542–548, 1987. Technology, vol. 31, no. 15, pp. 1910–1918, 2015.
[20] J. Li, T. Monaghan, S. Masurtschak, A. Bournias-Varotsis, [36] M. R. Sriraman, S. S. Babu, and M. Short, “Bonding char-
R. J. Friel, and R. A. Harris, “Exploring the mechanical acteristics during very high power ultrasonic additive
strength of additively manufactured metal structures with manufacturing of copper,” Scripta Materialia, vol. 62, no. 8,
embedded electrical materials,” Materials Science and Engi- pp. 560–563, 2010.
neering: A, vol. 639, pp. 474–481, 2015. [37] J. George and B. Stucker, “Fabrication of lightweight struc-
[21] A. Levy, A. Miriyev, N. Sridharan et al., “Ultrasonic additive tural panels through ultrasonic consolidation,” Virtual and
manufacturing of steel: method, post-processing treatments Physical Prototyping, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 227–241, 2006.
and properties,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, [38] R. J. Friel, K. E. Johnson, P. M. Dickens, and R. A. Harris, “The
vol. 256, pp. 183–189, 2018. effect of interface topography for ultrasonic consolidation of
16 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

aluminium,” Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol. 527, [54] N. Al-Aqeeli, K. Abdullahi, A. S. Hakeem, C. Suryanarayana,
no. 16-17, pp. 4474–4483, 2010. T. Laoui, and S. Nouari, “Synthesis, characterisation and
[39] P. J. Wolcott, N. Sridharan, S. S. Babu, A. Miriyev, N. Frage, mechanical properties of SiC reinforced Al based nano-
and M. J. Dapino, “Characterisation of Al–Ti dissimilar composites processed by MA and SPS,” Powder Metallurgy,
material joints fabricated using ultrasonic additive vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 149–157, 2013.
manufacturing,” Science and Technology of Welding and [55] N. Al-Aqeeli, K. Abdullahi, and C. Suryanarayana, “Structure
Joining, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 114–123, 2016. of mechanically milled CNT-reinforced Al-alloy nano-
[40] J. O. Obielodan, B. E. Stucker, E. Martinez et al., “Optimi- composites,” Materials and Manufacturing Processes, vol. 28,
zation of the shear strengths of ultrasonically consolidated Ti/ no. 9, pp. 984–990, 2013.
Al 3003 dual-material structures,” Journal of Materials Pro- [56] M. R. Sriraman, M. Gonser, D. Foster, H. T. Fujii, S. S. Babu,
cessing Technology, vol. 211, no. 6, pp. 988–995, 2011. and M. Bloss, “Thermal transients during processing of
[41] H. T. Fujii, M. R. Sriraman, and S. S. Babu, “Quantitative materials by very high-power ultrasonic additive
evaluation of bulk and interface microstructures in Al-3003 manufacturing,” Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B,
alloy builds made by very high power ultrasonic additive vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 133–144, 2012.
manufacturing,” Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A, [57] K. Sojiphan, M. R. Sriraman, and S. S. Babu, “Stability of
vol. 42, no. 13, pp. 4045–4055, 2011. microstructure in Al 3003 builds made by very high power
[42] T. Monaghan, A. J. Capel, S. D. Christie, R. A. Harris, and ultrasonic additive manufacturing,” in Proceedings of the 21st
R. J. Friel, “Solid-state additive manufacturing for metallized International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, vol. 22,
optical fiber integration,” Composites Part A: Applied Science no. 2, pp. 362–371, Austin, TX, USA, 2010.
and Manufacturing, vol. 76, pp. 181–193, 2015. [58] C. Zhang, A. Deceuster, and L. Li, “A method for bond
[43] Y. Yang, G. D. Janaki Ram, and B. E. Stucker, “An analytical strength evaluation for laminated structures with application
energy model for metal foil deposition in ultrasonic con- to ultrasonic consolidation,” Journal of Materials Engineering
solidation,” Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol. 16, no. 1, and Performance, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1124–1132, 2009.
pp. 20–28, 2010. [59] K. Abdullahi and N. Al-Aqeeli, “Mechanical alloying and
[44] U. Khan, N. Z. Khan, and J. Gulati, “Ultrasonic welding of Bi- spark plasma sintering of nano-SiC reinforced
metals: optimizing process parameters for maximum tensile- Al–12Si–0.3Mg alloy,” Arabian Journal for Science and En-
shear strength and plasticity of welds,” Procedia Engineering,
gineering, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 3161–3168, 2014.
vol. 173, pp. 1447–1454, 2017.
[60] R. Hahnlen and M. J. Dapino, “NiTi-Al interface strength in
[45] C. Q. Zhang, J. D. Robson, O. Ciuca, and P. B. Prangnell,
ultrasonic additive manufacturing composites,” Composites
“Microstructural characterization and mechanical properties
Part B: Engineering, vol. 59, pp. 101–108, 2014.
of high power ultrasonic spot welded aluminum alloy
[61] M. R. Rezaei, M. R. Toroghinejad, and F. Ashrafizadeh,
AA6111-TiAl6V4 dissimilar joints,” Materials Characteriza-
“Effects of ARB and ageing processes on mechanical prop-
tion, vol. 97, pp. 83–91, 2014.
erties and microstructure of 6061 aluminum alloy,” Journal of
[46] K. E. Johnson, Interlaminar subgrain refinement in ultrasonic
Materials Processing Technology, vol. 211, no. 6, pp. 1184–
consolidation, Ph.D. thesis, Loughborough University, Lei-
1190, 2011.
cestershire, UK, 2008.
[62] A. B. Spierings, T. L. Starr, and K. Wegener, “Fatigue per-
[47] H. T. Fujii, S. Shimizu, Y. S. Sato, and H. Kokawa, “High-
strain-rate deformation in ultrasonic additive manufactur- formance of additive manufactured metallic parts,” Rapid
ing,” Scripta Materialia, vol. 135, pp. 125–129, 2017. Prototyping Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 88–94, 2013.
[48] A. Miriyev, A. Levy, S. Kalabukhov, and N. Frage, “Interface [63] A. S. Johnson, S. Shao, N. Shamsaei, S. M. Thompson, and
evolution and shear strength of Al/Ti bi-metals processed by a L. Bian, “Microstructure, fatigue behavior and failure
spark plasma sintering (SPS) apparatus,” Journal of Alloys and mechanisms of direct laser deposited inconel 718,” The
Compounds, vol. 678, pp. 329–336, 2016. Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, vol. 69,
[49] M. Oghbaei and O. Mirzaee, “Microwave versus conventional no. 3, pp. 499–511, 2016.
sintering: a review of fundamentals, advantages and appli- [64] E. Amsterdam and G. A. Cool, “High cycle fatigue of laser
cations,” Journal of Alloys and Compounds, vol. 494, no. 1-2, beam deposited Ti-6Al-4V and Inconel 718,” in Bridging the
pp. 175–189, 2010. Gap between Theory and Operational Practice, pp. 1261–1274,
[50] T. DebRoy, H. L. Wei, J. S. Zuback et al., “Additive Springer, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2009.
manufacturing of metallic components–process, structure [65] A. J. Sterling, B. Torries, N. Shamsaei, S. M. Thompson, and
and properties,” Progress in Materials Science, vol. 92, D. W. Seely, “Fatigue behavior and failure mechanisms of
pp. 112–224, 2018. direct laser deposited Ti-6Al-4V,” Materials Science and
[51] A. Gujba and M. Medraj, “Laser peening process and its Engineering: A, vol. 655, pp. 100–112, 2016.
impact on materials properties in comparison with shot [66] X.-F. Ma, Z. Duan, H.-J. Shi, R. Murai, and E. Yanagisawa,
peening and ultrasonic impact peening,” Materials, vol. 7, “Fatigue and fracture behavior of nickel-based superalloy
no. 12, pp. 7925–7974, 2014. inconel 718 up to the very high cycle regime,” Journal of
[52] E. Uhlmann, C. Fleck, G. Gerlitzky, and F. Faltin, “Dynamical Zhejiang University-Science A, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 727–737,
fatigue behavior of additive manufactured products for a 2010.
fundamental life cycle approach,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 61, [67] A. Fatemi, R. Molaei, S. Sharifimehr, N. Phan, and
pp. 588–593, 2017. N. Shamsaei, “Multiaxial fatigue behavior of wrought and
[53] N. Sridharan, M. N. Gussev, C. M. Parish et al., “Evalu- additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V including surface finish
ation of microstructure stability at the interfaces of Al- effect,” International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 100, pp. 347–366,
6061 welds fabricated using ultrasonic additive 2017.
manufacturing,” Materials Characterization, vol. 139, [68] D. Greitemeier, F. Palm, F. Syassen, and T. Melz, “Fatigue
pp. 249–258, 2018. performance of additive manufactured TiAl6V4 using
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 17

electron and laser beam melting,” International Journal of

Fatigue, vol. 94, pp. 211–217, 2017.
[69] A. W. Prabhu, T. Vincent, A. Chaudhary, W. Zhang, and
S. S. Babu, “Effect of microstructure and defects on fatigue
behaviour of directed energy deposited Ti–6Al–4V,” Science
and Technology of Welding and Joining, vol. 20, no. 8,
pp. 659–669, 2015.
[70] A. Bača, R. Konečná, G. Nicoletto, and L. Kunz, “Influence of
build direction on the fatigue behaviour of ti6al4v alloy
produced by direct metal laser sintering,” Materials Today:
Proceedings, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 921–924, 2016.
[71] X.-H. He, H.-J. Shi, Y.-D. Zhang, W.-X. Fu, Z.-G. Yang, and
C. E. Wilkinson, “In-situ scanning electron microscopy
studies of small fatigue crack growth in ultrasonic consoli-
dation bonded aluminum 2024 laminated structure,” Mate-
rials Letters, vol. 112, pp. 47–50, 2013.
[72] P. J. Wolcott and M. J. Dapino, Fatigue Characterization of
Ultrasonic Additive Manufactured, Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engnieering, The Ohio State University, Co-
lumbus, OH, USA, 2012.
[73] X. C. Zhang, Y. K. Zhang, J. Z. Lu, F. Z. Xuan, Z. D. Wang, and
S. T. Tu, “Improvement of fatigue life of Ti–6Al–4V alloy by
laser shock peening,” Materials Science and Engineering: A,
vol. 527, no. 15, pp. 3411–3415, 2010.
[74] M. Y. P Costa, H. J. C Voorwald, W. L. Pigatin,
V. A. Guimarães, and M. O. H. Cioffi, “Evaluation of shot
peening on the fatigue strength of anodized Ti-6Al-4V alloy,”
Materials Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 107–109, 2006.
[75] A. Galtier and E. S. Statnikov, “The influence of ultrasonic
impact treatment on fatigue behaviour of welded joints in
high-strength steel,” Welding in the World, vol. 48, no. 5-6,
pp. 61–66, 2004.
[76] A. Cherif, Y. Pyoun, and B. Scholtes, “Effects of ultrasonic
nanocrystal surface modification (UNSM) on residual stress
state and fatigue strength of AISI 304,” Journal of Materials
Engineering and Performance, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 282–286, 2009.
[77] P. S. Prevéy and J. T. Cammett, “The influence of surface
enhancement by low plasticity burnishing on the corrosion
fatigue performance of AA7075-T6,” International Journal of
Fatigue, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 975–982, 2004.
[78] A. K. Gujba, Z. Ren, Y. Dong, C. Ye, and M. Medraj, “Effect of
ultrasonic nanocrystalline surface modification on the water
droplet erosion performance of Ti-6Al-4V,” Surface and
Coatings Technology, vol. 307, pp. 157–170, 2016.
[79] Y.-L. Kuo, S. Horikawa, and K. Kakehi, “Effects of build
direction and heat treatment on creep properties of Ni-base
superalloy built up by additive manufacturing,” Scripta
Materialia, vol. 129, pp. 74–78, 2017.
[80] H. Y. Song, Multi-scale microstructure characterization for
improved understanding of microstructure-property relation-
ship in additive manufacturing, Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH, USA, 2016.
[81] L. Rickenbacher, T. Etter, S. Hovel, and K. Wegener, “High
temperature material properties of IN738LC processed by
selective laser melting (SLM) technology,” Rapid Prototyping
Journal, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 282–290, 2013.
[82] K. Kunze, T. Etter, J. Grässlin, and V. Shklover, “Texture,
anisotropy in microstructure and mechanical properties of
IN738LC alloy processed by selective laser melting (SLM),”
Materials Science & Engineering A, vol. 620, pp. 213–222, 2015.
[83] M. Pröbstle, S. Neumeier, J. Hopfenmüller et al., “Superior
creep strength of a nickel-based superalloy produced by se-
lective laser melting,” Materials Science and Engineering: A,
vol. 674, pp. 299–307, 2016.