Selective laser melting of porosity graded lattice structures for bone implants

  • Dalia MahmoudEmail author
  • M. A. ElbestawiEmail author


Porosity-graded lattice structures are used in bone implants to mimic natural bone properties. Rather than having uniform pore size distribution, the size distribution is gradually changed in a certain direction to achieve specific mechanical and biological properties. Selective laser melting (SLM) has been used to print uniform metallic lattice structures with high accuracy. However, the accuracy of SLM in printing lattice structures with a wide range of pore sizes and volume fractions needs to be defined. The effect of SLM process scanning strategies on morphological properties of graded porosity metallic lattice structures is investigated in this study. Three different scanning strategies are proposed, and their effect on volume fraction, strut size, and surface integrity is investigated. Characterization of the printed parts reveals that the effect of different scanning strategies on the morphological quality is highly dependent on the design volume fraction for the chosen unit cell design. It was noted that using hatching strategies results in better dimensional accuracy and surface integrity in high-volume fraction lattice structures. While the use of total fill scanning strategy resulted in significantly distorted geometries in high-volume fractions. However, in lower-volume fractions, the dimensional accuracy as well as the surface integrity are comparable to that of hatching strategies. This work highlights the importance of understanding the limitations and capabilities of the SLM process in this application, and to enhance the printing quality of porosity-graded metallic lattice structures.


Selective laser melting Porosity-graded lattice structures Gyroids Dimensional accuracy Surface integrity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We acknowledge the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC; funding reference number 518494).


  1. 1.
    Cronskär M, Bäckström M, Rännar L-E (2013) Production of customized hip stem prostheses—a comparison between conventional machining and electron beam melting (EBM). Rapid Prototyp J 19:365–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harrysson OLA, Cansizoglu O, Marcellin-Little DJ, Cormier DR, West HA II (2008) Direct metal fabrication of titanium implants with tailored materials and mechanical properties using electron beam melting technology. Mater Sci Eng C 28:366–373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huiskes R, Weinans H, van Rietbergen B (1992) The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res:124–134.
  4. 4.
    Van Der Stok J, Van Der Jagt OP, Amin Yavari S et al (2013) Selective laser melting-produced porous titanium scaffolds regenerate bone in critical size cortical bone defects. J Orthop Res 31:792–799. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abele E, Stoffregen HA, Kniepkamp M, Lang S, Hampe M (2015) Selective laser melting for manufacturing of thin-walled porous elements. J Mater Process Technol 215:114–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Helou M, Kara S (2017) Design, analysis and manufacturing of lattice structures: an overview. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 31:243–261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rajagopalan S, Robb RA (2006) Schwarz meets Schwann: design and fabrication of biomorphic and durataxic tissue engineering scaffolds. Med Image Anal 10:693–712. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Almeida HA, Bártolo PJ (2014) Design of tissue engineering scaffolds based on hyperbolic surfaces: structural numerical evaluation. Med Eng Phys 36:1033–1040. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yan C, Hao L, Hussein A, Young P (2015) Ti–6Al–4V triply periodic minimal surface structures for bone implants fabricated via selective laser melting. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 51:61–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kumar A, Nune KC, Murr LE, Misra RDK (2016) Biocompatibility and mechanical behaviour of three-dimensional scaffolds for biomedical devices: process–structure–property paradigm. Int Mater Rev 61:20–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taniguchi N, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Sasaki K, Otsuki B, Nakamura T, Matsushita T, Kokubo T, Matsuda S (2016) Effect of pore size on bone ingrowth into porous titanium implants fabricated by additive manufacturing: an in vivo experiment. Mater Sci Eng C 59:690–701. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ahmadi SM, Yavari SA, Wauthle R, Pouran B, Schrooten J, Weinans H, Zadpoor A (2015) Additively manufactured open-cell porous biomaterials made from six different space-filling unit cells: the mechanical and morphological properties. Materials (Basel) 8:1871–1896. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang S, Li C, Hou W, Zhao S, Li S (2016) Longitudinal compression behavior of functionally graded Ti–6Al–4V meshes. J Mater Sci Technol 32:1098–1104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al-Saedi DSJ, Masood SH, Faizan-Ur-Rab M et al (2018) Mechanical properties and energy absorption capability of functionally graded F2BCC lattice fabricated by SLM. Mater Des 144:32–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Onal E, Frith JE, Jurg M, Wu X, Molotnikov A (2018) Mechanical properties and in vitro behavior of additively manufactured and functionally graded Ti6Al4V porous scaffolds. Metals (Basel) 8.
  16. 16.
    Sing SL, Wiria FE, Yeong WY (2018) Selective laser melting of lattice structures: a statistical approach to manufacturability and mechanical behavior. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 49:170–180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sing SL, Yeong WY, Wiria FE, Tay BY (2016) Characterization of titanium lattice structures fabricated by selective laser melting using an adapted compressive test method. Exp Mech 56:735–748. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ahmadi SM, Hedayati R, Ashok Kumar Jain RK, Li Y, Leeflang S, Zadpoor AA (2017) Effects of laser processing parameters on the mechanical properties, topology, and microstructure of additively manufactured porous metallic biomaterials: a vector-based approach. Mater Des 134:234–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dai D, Gu D, Zhang H, Xiong J, Ma C, Hong C, Poprawe R (2018) Influence of scan strategy and molten pool configuration on microstructures and tensile properties of selective laser melting additive manufactured aluminum based parts. Opt Laser Technol 99:91–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghouse S, Babu S, Van Arkel RJ et al (2017) The influence of laser parameters and scanning strategies on the mechanical properties of a stochastic porous material. Mater Des 131:498–508. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kapfer SC, Hyde ST, Mecke K, Arns CH, Schröder-Turk GE (2011) Minimal surface scaffold designs for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 32:6875–6882. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Melchels FPW, Bertoldi K, Gabbrielli R, Velders AH, Feijen J, Grijpma DW (2010) Mathematically defined tissue engineering scaffold architectures prepared by stereolithography. Biomaterials 31:6909–6916. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Melancon D, Bagheri ZS, Johnston RB, Liu L, Tanzer M, Pasini D (2017) Mechanical characterization of structurally porous biomaterials built via additive manufacturing: experiments, predictive models, and design maps for load-bearing bone replacement implants. Acta Biomater 63:350–368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arabnejad S, Burnett Johnston R, Pura JA, Singh B, Tanzer M, Pasini D (2016) High-strength porous biomaterials for bone replacement: a strategy to assess the interplay between cell morphology, mechanical properties, bone ingrowth and manufacturing constraints. Acta Biomater 30:345–356. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bobbert FSL, Lietaert K, Eftekhari AA, Pouran B, Ahmadi SM, Weinans H, Zadpoor AA (2017) Additively manufactured metallic porous biomaterials based on minimal surfaces: a unique combination of topological, mechanical, and mass transport properties. Acta Biomater 53:572–584. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heinl P, Müller L, Körner C, Singer RF, Müller FA (2008) Cellular Ti-6Al-4V structures with interconnected macro porosity for bone implants fabricated by selective electron beam melting. Acta Biomater 4:1536–1544. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang J, Cai H, Lv J, Zhang K, Leng H, Sun C, Wang Z, Liu Z (2014) In vivo study of a self-stabilizing artificial vertebral body fabricated by Electron beam melting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E486–E492. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walker JM, Bodamer E, Kleinfehn A, Luo Y, Becker M, Dean D (2017) Design and mechanical characterization of solid and highly porous 3D printed poly(propylene fumarate) scaffolds. Prog Addit Manuf 2:99–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rack HJ, Qazi JI (2006) Titanium alloys for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Eng C 26:1269–1277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mercelis P, Kruth J, Kruth J-P (2006) Residual stresses in selective laser sintering and selective laser melting residual stresses in selective laser sintering and selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp 12:254–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kruth J-P, Deckers J, Yasa E, Wauthlé R Assessing and comparing influencing factors of residual stresses in selective laser melting using a novel analysis method.
  32. 32.
    Kudzal A, McWilliams B, Hofmeister C, Kellogg F, Yu J, Taggart-Scarff J, Liang J (2017) Effect of scan pattern on the microstructure and mechanical properties of powder bed fusion additive manufactured 17-4 stainless steel. Mater Des 133:205–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schwanekamp T, Bräuer M, Reuber M (2017) Geometrical and topological potentialities and restrictions in selective laser sintering of customized carbide precision tools 49:Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ter HG, Becker T (2018) Selective laser melting produced Ti-6Al-4V: post-process heat treatments to achieve superior tensile properties. Materials (Basel) 11:146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ho ST, Hutmacher DW (2006) A comparison of micro CT with other techniques used in the characterization of scaffolds. Biomaterials 27:1362–1376. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ataee A, Li Y, Fraser D, Song G, Wen C (2018) Anisotropic Ti-6Al-4V gyroid scaffolds manufactured by electron beam melting (EBM) for bone implant applications. Mater Des 137:345–354. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Han C, Li Y, Wang Q, Wen S, Wei Q, Yan C, Hao L, Liu J, Shi Y (2018) Continuous functionally graded porous titanium scaffolds manufactured by selective laser melting for bone implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 80:119–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Su X, Yang Y (2012) Research on track overlapping during selective laser melting of powders. J Mater Process Technol 212:2074–2079. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kruth JP, Froyen L, Van Vaerenbergh J et al (2004) Selective laser melting of iron-based powder. J Mater Process Technol 149:616–622. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mumtaz K, Hopkinson N (2009) Top surface and side roughness of Inconel 625 parts processed using selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp J 15Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gu D, Shen Y (2009) Balling phenomena in direct laser sintering of stainless steel powder: metallurgical mechanisms and control methods. Mater Des 30:2903–2910. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mumtaz KA, Hopkinson N (2010) Selective laser melting of thin wall parts using pulse shaping. J Mater Process Technol 210:279–287. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations