Selective Laser Melting

Developemts in SLM Equipment

and
d Processes
P

Dr Chris Sutcliffe R+D Director MTT Technologies

Group

Outline

• Introduction
• SLM process
• Typical characteristics
• Various applications
• Validation
• F t
Future platforms
l tf

1
Locations

SLM Technology Center - Stone - United Kingdom

MTT Technologies
Whitebridge Way,
Whitebridge Park, Stone,
Staffordshire ST15 8LQ.
England

Tel: +44 (0)1785 815651

Fax: +44 (0)1785 812115

Locations

SLM Technology Center - Lübeck - Germany

MTT Technologies
Roggenhorster Strasse 9 c
D- 23556 Lübeck
Germany

Tel. +49 451/16082- 0

Fax.+49 451/16082 – 250

2
SLM timeline

1995-1998
1995 1998 Basic Research F&S and Fraunhofer
ILT, University of Liverpool, University of
Texas
1998-2002 F&S Research leading to IP
2002- F&S / MCP partner to develop, produce
and market the MCP Realizer
2004-
2004 L
Launchh off SLM RRealizer
li 250
2006 - Launch of SLM Realizer 100
2008- MTT/3DS partner to launch the
machines in the USA

SLM timeline

3
SLM timeline

SLM process characteristics

• SLM is a cyclic process consisting of

– The application of thin powder layer
– exposure of the powder bed to laser beam
– lowering of the build platform
• Typical deposition rates of 5 – 30 cm³/h
• Typical powder particle size of between 10 and 50µm
• Laser powers of 200W and up to 400W (more of this
later)
• High
Hi h degree
d off geometric
t i freedom
f d similar
i il tot SLA
• Fully automated one-step manufacturing (more of this
later)
• Ability to process reactive powders
• Very good levels of powder recyclability

4
SLM process characteristics

Properties of typical parts

Surfaces Strength Accuracy

Typically as good
Rz  30 µm as parent ± 25µm in 100 mm

Residual Stress Density Hardness

Preheated powder up to 99.9 % up to 54 HRC

5
Typical parts

Ti Al6 V4 Inconel 625

1.4404 Al Si12 Mg

Typical uses

Heat sinks have been

designed and tested
for avionics cooling

6
Typical uses

• Material:
• 1.2344
1 2344 tool steel
• Dimensions:
• 170 x 46 x 18 [mm]
• Layer thickness:
• 75 µm
• Build time:
• 48 hours
• Post treatment:
• Manual polishing

Typical uses

• Considerable reduction
of cycle time
• Ideal design of size,
form and function of
cooling channels
• Quality improvement of
injection moulding

7
Typical uses

• Mounting of four pre-

fabricated cores on building
platform
• Precise individual
positioning of layer data to
mounted cores
• Economic hybrid
manufacturing
• Interface between Rapid
Manufacturing /
Conventional Tooling

Typical uses

• Up to 80 parts can be produced

in one run
• Customised parts can be
produced
• Very good surface finish in many
materials including CoCr,
CoCrMb, CpTi, Ti6Al4V and Ti6
Al4Nb
• Noble metals can be produced
• Low cost equipment is entering
the market

8
Not so typical uses

Trabecular lower jaw implant Dense skull plate

• Patient
P ti t specific
ifi geometries
ti
• Specialist alloysTiAl6Nb7 in this case
• Incorporation of surgical fixtures
• Structured bone integration surfaces
• Bone-Implant modulus matching

Not so typical uses

Source: Royal Perth Hospital, Australia

• Following a severe climbing accident
th patient
the ti t was given
i a THR which
hi h
was revised a number of times until
further revision was impossible
• 3D X-ray and computer tomography
allowed analysis of existing patient
bone
• Models were made of the geometry

9
Customised SLM implants

Source: Royal Perth Hospital, Australia

• Cage designed to fit
bone and give proper
screw placement

• Results :minimum
removal of healthy bone
structure and reduction
of operation time

Customised SLM implants

Source: Royal Perth Hospital, Australia • Analysis of 3d data set,

automatical generation of
pp structures
support
• SLM building of the cage
• with 0.05 mm thin layers
(TiAl6Nb7 or TiAl6V4)
• Finish of the cage
• (removal of supports)
• SLM + Finish < 2 days
• Courier cage to Perth

10
Customised SLM implants

Source: Royal Perth Hospital, Australia

• Analysis and sterilisation of
built prostheses
• Preparation of the patient
• No fitting required during
operation due to custom
cage
• Insertion and screwing of the
cage
g made of TiAl6Nb7
• Operation time reduced to 2
h compared to 3 h with
standard prostheses

Smart structures

• density gain by
improved melting
Density gain by strategy,
improved melting
D>99.9%
strategy, D>99,8%
• helium leak test
Helium leakage fulfilled up to
2 mm
test fulfilled up to 6x10-10 mbar
6x10-10 mbar
• UHV compatible
UHV compatible!
• simultaneous
growth of dense
and porous
regions
Material: 1.2344 tool steel

11
Smart structures

• Lightweight parts
• Medical implants
• Thermal management parts
• Substitution of solid mass to
boost production
• Engineered materials
• Actuation

SOME
Smart EXAMPLES
structures

12
Current materials

Material name Material type Typical applications

Stainless Steel 1.4404 (316L) functional prototypes

stainless
t i l steel
t l
Tool Steel 1.2344 (H13) Injection moulding tooling; functional
tool steel prototypes
CpTi Commercially Implants and medical devices
Pure Titanium
Ti64 Ti6Al4V Implants and high performance
functional components
Ti6Al7Nb Ti6Al7Nb Implantable devices

Aluminium Aluminum Functional prototypes and series

Silicon Alloy parts;
Cobalt Chrome CoCrMo Functional prototypes and series
superalloy parts; medical, dental

Previous equipment

SLM 100
• Build volume:
• 125 mm Ø x 70 mm
• Layer thickness:
• 20 µm – 50 µm
• Fiber Laser 50 W or
100 W
• Spot size: 30–
30 100 µm
• Build speed: up to 70
tooth caps per shift

13
Previous equipment

• Build volume 250 x

250 x 210mm
• Build speed: 5 cm3 –
30 cm3 per h
• Layer thickness: 30
µm – 100 µm
• Fiber Laser:100 W –
400 WW, cw
• Laser spot size: 80
µm – 250 µm

Current equipment
Future equipment?
• Custom build volumes
• Thinner layer thickness 10 µm – 100 µm
• Higher laser power 100 W – 1kW W, cw
• Smaller spot size 50 µm – 2500 µm
• Smater materials delivery
• Better build atmospheres (sub 100ppm O2)
• Paletised substrates and removable build units
• Rugedised for the shop floor
• Simple controlled user interfaces
• Beam monitoring (now please)
• Powder handling
• HAZOP as standard
• Verifification as standard
• Data logging as standard

14
Current equipment
Future machine SLM XXX

So what?
Future machine SLM XXX

15
Validation
Validation Documentation Relationships and Sequences

User requirement specification Performance qualification

Functional Specification Operational qualification

Design specification Installation qualification

Acceptance testing and commissioning

• The problem is that few if any of our RM

machines have been fully validated for full production
of parts...this is particularly true if one considers
highly stressed or sensitive environments parts

Likely issues- data

Is the design correct and controlled

• Does it comply with specifications, regulations and standards
• Was the movement of the design into the manufacturing phase monitored
• Were typical
yp manufacturinggpprotocols followed
Did you check the CAD data
• Are you sure you are making the right thing and the correct revision
• What if you are making customised components
• Have you taken steps to identify parts
Did you check the manufacturing data
• The data not just for the overall geometry but also for the layer data must be checked at the very
minimum you must have a level of confidence that it is correct
• It will be one of the first things a accident investigator will ask
Are your processes robust
• Was it sliced at the right layer thickness have the correct processing parameters been assigned
• Are the shop floor practices correct were the protocols followed

Are the above documented and portable

• Do you have an RM/PLM system in place

16
Likely issues- machine
Material properties
•Variation in material properties in the x/y/z direction is not acceptable full stop…lets not even bother having
the argument I don’t care if you think you can design for it…you can’t.
Property variation on a machine
•This is not acceptable the only property variation on a machine that is acceptable is random variation and this
should be minimised.
Parameter variation between machines
•All machines of a particular design must have the same machine parameters how else can you procreate and
maintain validation.
Temporal Instability
•Machines must be stable over time and they must be able to detect when they are outside limits…assuming
those limits have been defined
Machine reliability
•Will your machine stand up to production
•Will it do its job day in day out for 10 plus years
Is the user interface simple enough
•I want to drag someone in off the streets and get them to press go I do not want to employ PhD’s to work in
my factory
Collection and storage of manufacturing data
•Is the manufacturing data logged
•Is it stored (75 years!)

Some Examples

The tensile strengths of

samples are shown
across 4 builds you can
see the same
characteristics on each
build. It is clear this is
NOT a random process
variable…do you accept
the parts…what if you
part spans
p p the whole
bed…how do you design
that out…

17
Some Examples

The compressive strength

of samples are shown
across 4 builds on two
different machines at the
same machine settings you
can see one build is
significantly weaker than
the other. …do you accept
the machines knowing full
well that you will have to
validate them separately

Some Examples

EVERY LAYER PLEASE…its

not good enough to build
test samples by each part

18
Some Examples

Thought I’d better put some stuff in

on lasers

19
The Future for Additive Manufacturing

Did I say I was going to give you a look at the future

• Sorry to disappoint it seems I’m
I m not quite as clever as I thought! …here
here
are some guesses
RM/PLM/MRP/whatever 3 letter acronym you care to choose
• Data handling and portability of this data is key

Material handling
• Come on powder filled workspaces must be stopped…contamination of
us and our parts is unacceptable
Machine performance
• Stronger faster more repeatable and whilst your about it make them
easier to use
• Make them validatable please

Can we do it now?

20
THANKS FOR LISTENING

I was going to write some

conclusions but to be honneset I
guessed either you’d have seen
enough of me by now or I’d have run
out of time.

If you need any further information

contact me on.

csutcliffe@mtt-group.com

21