Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 51, Issue 8, pp 3836–3845 | Cite as

The effect of surface finish on tensile behavior of additively manufactured tensile bars

  • Wes Everhart
  • Eric Sawyer
  • Tod Neidt
  • Joe Dinardo
  • Ben Brown
Original Paper


Additive Manufacturing (AM) has significantly increased the design freedom available for metal parts. Many novel designs rely on the existence of surfaces that are not accessible and therefore rely on the surface finish of the parts directly from the AM equipment. Work has been performed to characterize the difference between AM, then machined tensile samples and AM tensile samples with an unimproved surface finish. This work utilizes surface analysis, fractography, and finite element analysis (FEA) to expand on this by investigating the effects of the unimproved surfaces on local tensile behavior and fracture mechanics in AM materials. Results show that measurement error in cross-sectional area is the main source of variation between unfinished and machined strength measurements. Results also indicate that a ductile material may demonstrate the same tensile strength regardless of post processing. Fractography shows that stress concentration near the surface of the samples leads to changes in fracture behavior likely explaining the difference in elongation of the samples. Finally, FEA work did not successfully show a difference in fracture initiation, though this is likely due to inaccurate representation of the samples surface.


Finite Element Analysis Surface Finish Additive Manufacture Stress Triaxiality Equivalent Plastic Strain 



The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance provided for this research by AM equipment technicians Kevin Davis and Justin Tannehill, microscopists Brandon Cox and Diana Goedecke and tensile testing personnel Ed Wenski, Bill Lepley, and Jason Rogers. All data prepared, analyzed, and presented have been developed in a specific context of work and were prepared for internal evaluation and use pursuant to that work authorized under the referenced contract. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof or Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, LLC. This presentation has been authored by Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies under Contract No. DE-NA0000622 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for the United States Government purposes.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    El-Hajje A, Kolos EC, Wang JK, Maleksaeedi S, He Z, Wiria FE, Ruys AJ (2014) Physical and mechanical characterization of 3D-printed porous titanium for biomedical applications. J Mater Sci 25(11):2471–2480. doi: 10.1007/s10856-014-5277-2 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hrabe N, Quinn T (2013) Effects of processing on microstructure and mechanical properties of a titanium alloy (Ti–6Al–4V) fabricated using electron beam melting (EBM), part 1: distance from build plate and part size. Mater Sci Eng, A 573:264–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang LC, Klemm D, Eckert J, Hao YL, Sercombe TB (2011) Manufacture by selective laser melting and mechanical behavior of a biomedical Ti–24Nb–4Zr–8Sn alloy. Scr Mater 65(1):21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kempen K, Yasa E, Thijs L, Kruth JP, Van Humbeeck J (2011) Microstructure and mechanical properties of selective laser melted 18Ni-300 steel. Phys Procedia 12:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xu W, Brandt M, Sun S, Elambasseril J, Liu Q, Latham K, Qian M (2015) Additive manufacturing of strong and ductile Ti–6Al–4V by selective laser melting via in situ martensite decomposition. Acta Mater 85:74–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mathisen MB, Eriksen L, Yingda YU, Jensrud O, Hjelen J (2014) Characterization of microstructure and strain response in Ti–6Al–4V plasma welding deposited material by combined EBSD and in situ tensile test. Trans Nonferr Met Soc China 24(12):3929–3943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang F (2012) Mechanical property study on rapid additive layer manufacture Hastelloy® X alloy by selective laser melting technology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 58(5–8):545–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhu Y, Li J, Tian X, Wang H, Liu D (2014) Microstructure and mechanical properties of hybrid fabricated Ti–6.5 Al–3.5 Mo–1.5 Zr–0.3 Si titanium alloy by laser additive manufacturing. Mater Sci Eng, A 607:427–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suo H, Chen Z, Liu J, Gong S, Xiao J (2014) Microstructure and mechanical properties of Ti-6Al-4V by electron beam rapid manufacturing. Rare Metal Mater Eng 43(4):780–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ram GJ, Esplin CK, Stucker BE (2008) Microstructure and wear properties of LENS® deposited medical grade CoCrMo. J Mater Sci 19(5):2105–2111. doi: 10.1007/s10856-007-3078-6 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen J, Xue L, Wang SH (2011) Experimental studies on process-induced morphological characteristics of macro-and microstructures in laser consolidated alloys. J Mater Sci 46(17):5859–5875. doi: 10.1007/s10853-011-5543-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hrabe N, Quinn T (2013) Effects of processing on microstructure and mechanical properties of a titanium alloy (Ti–6Al–4V) fabricated using electron beam melting (EBM), Part 2: energy input, orientation, and location. Mater Sci Eng, A 573:271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bass BS (2008) Validating the Arcam EBM process as an alternative fabrication method for titanium-6Al-4V alloys. Accessed 17 Dec 2015
  14. 14.
    Ackelid U, Svensson M (2009) Novel sintering approaches: additive manufacturing of dense metal parts by electron beam melting, European Congress and exhibition on powder metallurgy. In: European PM conference proceedings, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Antonysamy AA (2012) Microstructure, texture and mechanical property evolution during additive manufacturing of Ti6Al4V alloy for aerospace applications. PhD Dissertation, University of ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spierings AB, Herres N, Levy G (2011) Influence of the particle size distribution on surface quality and mechanical properties in AM steel parts. Rapid Prototyping J 17(3):195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kruth JP, Mercelis P, Van Vaerenbergh J, Froyen L, Rombouts M (2005) Binding mechanisms in selective laser sintering and selective laser melting. Rapid prototyping journal 11(1):26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vilaro T, Colin C, Bartout JD, Nazé L, Sennour M (2012) Microstructural and mechanical approaches of the selective laser melting process applied to a nickel-base superalloy. Mater Sci Eng, A 534:446–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rafi HK, Karthik NV, Gong H, Starr TL, Stucker BE (2013) Microstructures and mechanical properties of ti6al4v parts fabricated by selective laser melting and electron beam melting. J Mater Eng Perform 22(12):3872–3883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niendorf T, Brenne F (2013) Steel showing twinning-induced plasticity processed by selective laser melting—An additively manufactured high performance material. Mater Charact 85:57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Suh CH, Jung YC, Kim YS (2010) Effects of thickness and surface roughness on mechanical properties of aluminum sheets. J Mech Sci Technol 24(10):2091–2098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chen L, Ahadi A, Zhou J, Ståhl JE (2013) Modeling effect of surface roughness on nanoindentation tests. Procedia CIRP 8:334–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xie HB, Manabe K, Jiang ZY (2013) A novel approach to investigate surface roughness evolution in asymmetric rolling based on three dimensional real surface. Finite Elem Anal Des 74:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ASTM Standard E8 (2015) standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken. doi:  10.1520/E0008-15A,
  25. 25.
    ASTM Standard E4 (2014) Standard practices for force verificiation of testing machines, ASTM International, West Conshohocken. doi:  10.1520/E0004-14,
  26. 26.
    ASTM Standard E83 (2010) Standard practice for verification and classification of extensometer systems, ASTM International, West Conshohocken. doi: 10.1520/E0083-10A,
  27. 27.
    Metallic materials properties development and standardization (MMPDS-01). U.S. Department of TransportationGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oh CS, Kim NH, Kim YJ, Baek JH, Kim YP, Kim WS (2011) A finite element ductile failure simulation method using stress-modified fracture strain model. Eng Fract Mech 78(1):124–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Security CampusKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations