Next Article in Journal
Investigation on High-Temperature Tensile and Wear Properties in an L-PBF-Fabricated TiB2-Reinforced Austenitic Steel
Previous Article in Journal
A Review of Wear-Resistant Coatings for Steel Substrates: Applications and Challenges
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Metals
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/met15111232
metals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Overcoming Processability Limitations in Al6082 Alloy by Using Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Aluminum Matrix Composites with Titanium Carbide/Silicon Carbide Reinforcements

by
Raúl Gómez
1,*,
Maria San Sebastian
1,
Teresa Guraya
2 and
Ane Miren Mancisidor
1
1
Lortek, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Arranomendia Kalea 4A, 20240 Ordizia, Spain
2
Faculty of Engineering of Bilbao, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), 48013 Bilbao, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Metals 2025, 15(11), 1232; https://doi.org/10.3390/met15111232 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 22 October 2025 / Revised: 4 November 2025 / Accepted: 7 November 2025 / Published: 8 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Optimization and Applications of Metal Additive Manufacturing)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

The use of aluminum alloys in aerospace is limited by their poor weldability, making many incompatible with additive manufacturing (AM) processes like powder bed fusion—laser beam metal (PBF-LB/M), known as well as laser powder bed fusion. This incompatibility hinders the fabrication of complex, lightweight components. To overcome this, Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites (AMMCs) are formed by mechanically alloying the non-processable Al6082 base alloy with ceramic reinforcements; subsequently, Titanium Carbide (TiC) and Silicon Carbide (SiC) particles are developed. This approach induces microstructural changes necessary for AM compatibility. The influence of varying reinforcement contents (1–5 wt.%) on powder homogeneity, microstructural evolution (via Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy and Electron Backscatter Diffraction), processability, and mechanical properties is systematically studied. The key finding is that metallurgical modification is a robust solution. TiC addition at 2 wt.% and 5 wt.% completely eliminated solidification cracking, achieving high processability. SiC substantially reduced cracking compared to the base alloy. These results demonstrate the potential of AMMCs to successfully translate conventional, non-weldable aluminum alloys into the realm of advanced additive manufacturing.

1. Introduction

Aluminum alloys have become increasingly prominent in high-performance industries such as the aerospace and automotive industries, thanks to their excellent strength-to-weight ratio and corrosion resistance. This growing demand has been further fueled by the rise of additive manufacturing technologies, particularly laser powder bed fusion of metals (PBF-LB/M), which enables the fabrication of complex geometries and tailored microstructures. Despite these advances, there are challenges remaining for certain aluminum alloys which are historically known as non-processable alloys due to issues like hot cracking [1,2,3].
This issue is especially pronounced in wrought Al-Mg-Si alloys such as EN AW-6082 (hereafter referred to as Al6082 when discussing additive manufacturing), which exhibits a wide solidification range. For instance, the metallurgically similar 6061 alloy has a Scheil–Gulliver solidification interval (Tliquidus – Tsolidus) of approximately 142 °C (from 652 °C to 510 °C) [4]. Under rapid cooling conditions, the coexistence of dendritic structures and residual liquid in the mushy zone, combined with thermal shrinkage, generates internal stresses that exceed the mechanical strength of the semi-solid network. If insufficient liquid remains to backfill intergranular gaps, solidification cracks occur [5,6].
Conventional process parameter optimization—adjusting laser power, scan speed, or hatch spacing—has shown limited success. Al6082 belongs to the “Type B” cracking category, where strain rate has minimal influence on liquid film deformation, making metallurgical solutions more effective than mechanical ones [7]. Among these, the incorporation of ceramic reinforcements to form aluminum matrix composites (AMMCs) has emerged as a promising strategy. Reinforcements such as Silicon Carbide (SiC) and Titanium Carbide (TiC) act as heterogeneous nucleation sites, refine grains, enhance thermal stability, and reduce thermal stresses, thereby improving crack resistance [8,9].
Despite these advances, crack-free processing of Al6082 via PBF-LB/M remains elusive. Even with high preheating temperatures, conventional optimization often results in severe cracking and low density [5,10]. This limitation has shifted attention toward compositional modifications. The current literature mainly explores (i) in situ alloying—adding precursor elements (e.g., Ti, Zr) [11] to form nucleating phases during melting—and (ii) pre-alloyed powders tailored for AM [12]. While effective, in situ alloying can lead to phase distribution inconsistencies, and commercial pre-alloyed powders for high-strength wrought alloys are scarce and proprietary [13,14].
An alternative, less-explored route is ex situ preparation of AMMCs by mechanically alloying Al6082 powder with ceramic particles [15,16]. This approach offers precise control over reinforcement type and concentration. However, systematic studies comparing different reinforcement mechanisms for crack mitigation in Al6082 are lacking. Specifically, no fundamental comparison exists between TiC, recognized for its efficiency as a heterogeneous nucleant, and SiC, traditionally used for dispersion strengthening [17,18].
This work provides the first systematic comparison of TiC and SiC reinforcements, introduced via ex situ mechanical alloying, on the processability, microstructural refinement, and mechanical potential (microhardness) of Al6082 processed by PBF-LB/M. Our findings demonstrate the superior efficacy of TiC in eliminating solidification cracking through heterogeneous nucleation.
Finally, while patents increasingly target ceramic reinforcements (TiC, AlN, SiC) for AM aluminum alloys, most focus on in situ synthesis. Ex situ compounding of Al6082 with TiC and SiC for PBF-LB/M remains scarcely addressed in both patents and academic literature [19]. This study fills that gap by offering a clear pathway toward crack-free, high-performance components from this wrought alloy.

2. Materials and Methods

The Al6082 matrix and the ceramic reinforcements (SiC and TiC) employed in this study were sourced from commercially available suppliers. The Al6082 powder, characterized by a particle size distribution ranging from 10 to 63 μm, exhibits the following chemical composition (wt.%): Al (balance), Mg (3), Si (2.6), Cr (0.2), Cu (0.1), and Mn (0.1). The powder morphology is predominantly spherical with minimal satellite formation, indicative of good flowability (Figure 1A). The reinforcement particles display irregular morphologies. The SiC particles have a submicrometric size distribution between 0.5 and 2 μm (Figure 1B), while the TiC particles present an average size of approximately 2 μm (Figure 1C).
Powder mixtures were prepared using a Turbula T2G mixer (WAB Group, Basel, Switzerland), operated at variable rotational speeds ranging from 23 to 101 rpm. The constituent powders were weighed using an analytical balance (Kern ADB 100-4, Balingen, Germany) with a readability of 1 mg and a linearity of ±4 mg. Homogeneity of the mixtures was assessed via compositional mapping using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), processed with Aztec software V2.0 and HKL Channel 5 (Oxford Instruments, Abingdon, UK). Cuboid specimens (10 × 10 × 10 mm3) were fabricated using the reduced build volume (RBV) of the RenAM 500Q PBF-LB/M system (Wotton-under-Edge, UK), under an argon-controlled atmosphere. This approach minimized powder consumption while ensuring the production of defect-free samples.
To investigate the influence of ceramic reinforcements on processability and material properties, four powder mixtures were prepared: Al6082 with 1 wt.%, 2 wt.%, and 5 wt.% TiC, and one mixture with 5 wt.% SiC. TiC concentrations were varied (1, 2 and 5 wt.%) to identify the minimum effective loading required for full crack elimination with the desired microstructure. SiC was fixed at 5 wt.% to serve as a high-concentration mechanical benchmark, as higher loadings are reported in the literature to cause particle agglometarion and homogeneity issues in AMMCs [8,20]. Key fabrication objectives included achieving high processability, minimizing crack formation, and maximizing relative density.
Processing parameters were systematically varied, including laser power (P: 250–400 W), scanning speed (v: 700–1100 mm/s), hatch spacing (h: 80–190 μm), and layer thickness (t: 30 μm). The volumetric energy density (VED) was calculated using the expression: VED = P/(v × h × t), resulting in values ranging from 59 to 159 J/mm3. The specific combinations are detailed in Table 1.
Relative density was determined via optical microscopy (GX51 Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) and analyzed using LEICA LAS V4.13 software. Crack density (mm/mm2) was quantified from optical micrographs using a custom macro developed in ImageJ V1.52a. Vickers hardness (HV0.5) was measured with a DuraScan EMCO TEST hardness tester (Kuchl, Austria), with ten indentations per sample to ensure statistical reliability.
Microstructural features such as grain refinement, crystallographic texture, and orientation were examined using electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD). Inverse pole figure (IPF) maps were generated with Aztec software and processed using HKL Channel 5. For EBSD analysis, samples were polished with colloidal silica, while Keller’s reagent was used for etching prior to optical microscopy.
X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) patterns were collected using a PHILIPS X’PERT PRO automatic diffractometer operating in a theta-theta configuration. The instrument ran at 40 kV and 40 mA and employed Cu-Kα radiation (λ = 1.5418 Å) with a secondary monochromator. Data detection was managed by a PIXcel solid-state detector (with an active length of 3.347 in 2θ). Fixed 1° Soller and divergence slits were utilized to ensure a constant illuminated sample volume throughout the measurement.

3. Results

3.1. Al6082 Mixtures of Powders

The results of the mixtures obtained by the Turbula TG2 mixer were analyzed before its processability by PBF-LB/M. Figure 2 shows the difference in the amount of reinforcement at each mixture of TiC. The amount of TiC, observed by the green color used for Ti, is increased along with the amount of reinforcement. Agglomerates were not found thanks to a proper combination of mixing parameters.
As well as the Al6082/TiC mixtures analysis, a comparison of Al6082 + 5 wt.% TiC with Al6082 5 wt.% SiC was carried out using FE-SEM micrographs as shown in Figure 3, where the difference in size of reinforcement is seen. The SiC reinforcement is expected to form agglomerates due to its size despite the mixing strategy, and it would result in worse additive manufacturing parts.

3.2. Processability of Unreinforced Al6082 Alloy

The first trials of processability by PBF-LB/M were run with Al6082 without reinforcements, as seen in Figure 4, where regardless of the combination of parameters cuboid samples were built successfully but showing a high tendency to crack. This finding underscores that crack formation in the Al6082 alloy cannot be eliminated by optimization of process parameters alone, which confirms that the problem is of a fundamentally metallurgical nature.

3.3. Crack Mitigation of Al6082 Alloy Through Reinforcements and Microstructural Evolution

The Al6082 mixtures with TiC and SiC ceramic reinforcements were processed under the same range of parameters used for the unreinforced alloy. An analysis of the fabricated samples shown in Figure 5 revealed that the addition of ceramic reinforcements is an effective strategy to mitigate cracking. All samples shown in Figure 5 were processed under the same parameter’s combination (P = 370 W, v = 1100 mm/s and h = 190 µm). A list of the mixtures fabricated, as well as their crack density and relative density measurements, is shown in Table 2, comparing the results with the unreinforced Al6082 alloy.
Numerical results reveal a stark contrast with the unreinforced alloy, which exhibited severe cracking (3.06 mm/mm2) with a corresponding low relative density of 96.95%. The mixture of Al6082 + 5 wt.% SiC shows a notably improvement over the unreinforced material but still shows a significant crack density (1.34 mm/mm2) although its relative density is clearly improved (99.25%). This is likely due to the tendency of SiC particles to form agglomerates, creating unreinforced zones within the matrix that could act as nuclei for crack formation, as highlighted in red in Figure 5A. For the Al6082 mixtures, results showed a clear dose–response relationship. The addition of 1 wt.% TiC (Figure 5B) drastically reduced the crack density to 0.27 mm/mm2, whereas the relative density was 98.81%, and the reinforcement concentration was insufficient to mitigate cracking. By increasing the amount of TiC reinforcement to 2 wt.% (Figure 5C) and 5 wt.% (Figure 5D), complete crack mitigation was achieved with high relative densities of 99.93% and 99.98%, respectively.
Aligned with crack mitigation, microstructural evolution was revealed by EBSD analysis, as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7. For this analysis, grains were classified based on their equivalent diameter as either fine grains, FG (<2.4 µm) or coarse grains, CG (≥2.4 µm) [21,22,23,24].
The effect of reinforcements is evident when comparing the mixture samples to the unreinforced Al6082, which exhibited a predominantly coarse, columnar grain structure (Figure 6A). This baseline microstructure consisted of approximately 55% coarse grains with a large average area of 1280 µm2, as seen in Figure 7.
The addition of 5 wt.% SiC (Figure 6B) induced noticeable grain refinement. Although the microstructure remained largely columnar with a 53% coarse grain fraction, the average area of these coarse grains was reduced by nearly 80% to 240 µm2. This indicates that SiC is effective at refining grain size, though it is insufficient to trigger a full columnar-to-equiaxed transition (CET).
In contrast, the TiC reinforcements proved to be far more potent in altering the grain morphology. The addition of 1 wt.% TiC (Figure 6C) transformed the grain structure into a bimodal distribution, composed of fine equiaxed grains mixed with columnar ones, with the fine grain fraction reaching 80%. This trend continued with 2 wt.% TiC, where the microstructure became almost entirely equiaxed, leaving only a remnant coarse grain fraction of 10% (Figure 6D). Finally, the 5 wt.% TiC composites achieved a fully equiaxed and homogeneous microstructure, composed of 100% fine grains (Figure 6E). Furthermore, increasing the TiC content not only progressively eliminated the coarse grains but also continued to refine the average size of the fine grains, which decreased from 1.25 µm2 at 1 wt.% TiC to 0.5 µm2 at 5 wt.% TiC.

3.4. Mechanical Properties of Al6082 and Al6082-SiC/TiC Mixtures

Microhardness measurements (HV0.5) were performed on both the unreinforced Al6082 alloy and the composites reinforced with TiC and SiC. Figure 8 presents the average Vickers microhardness values for each fabricated mixture, along with their standard deviations.
The highest hardness was observed in the Al6082 + 5 wt.% TiC composite, reaching 101 ± 4 HV0.5, representing a significant enhancement in mechanical resistance due to the higher reinforcement content. In contrast, the Al6082 + 5 wt.% SiC mixture exhibited a lower hardness of 88 ± 4 HV0.5, comparable to the Al6082 + 2 wt.% TiC composite (86 ± 1 HV0.5), but still notably higher than the unreinforced Al6082 (79 ± 3 HV0.5) and the Al6082 + 1 wt.% TiC mixture (80 ± 1 HV0.5).

4. Discussion

4.1. Effect of Processing Parameters on Processability

The manufacturing of unreinforced Al6082 alloy by PBF-LB/M has been shown to be easy in terms of building cuboid samples but extremely challenging in terms of building crack-free samples. The rapid cooling inherent in the process is not sufficient to trigger the columnar to equiaxed grain transition (CET). Therefore, the problem does not lie in the choice of parameters, but in the metallurgical characteristics of the alloy itself, which lead to the formation of columnar grains that cannot accommodate the stresses generated by shrinkage during solidification, creating preferential paths for crack initiation and propagation. Alternative processing strategies under PBF-LB/M, such as the use of beam shaping or spatial–temporal laser modulation, have been investigated as a strategy for process optimization to lower hot cracking susceptibility [25]. Furthermore, remelting strategies, also known as selective laser remelting (SLRM), have been shown to reduce porosity, improve density, and refine microstructure, contributing to crack mitigation [26,27,28,29].

4.2. Effect of the Reinforcing Phase on Processability

The addition of TiC and SiC reinforcements overcomes the inherent cracking of the alloy, altering its solidification behavior. The ceramic particles act as heterogeneous nucleation sites [30], meaning they provide a surface for aluminum grains to begin forming. This facilitated nucleation significantly reduces the critical undercooling required for new grains to form, which promotes a transition from columnar grains to a fine equiaxed microstructure. Equiaxed grains are more effective at accommodating solidification stresses, which drastically reduces or eliminates crack formation.
The disparity in effectiveness between TiC and SiC in crack mitigation and grain refinement is a key finding. At a concentration of 5 wt.%, TiC was a more potent grain refiner and more successful in mitigating cracks than SiC. The metallurgical reason for this difference is the crystallographic compatibility between the reinforcement and the aluminum matrix. The superiority of TiC is attributed to its excellent lattice coherency with the α-Al matrix, which creates a low-energy interface and reduces the barrier for nucleation, making it a highly efficient substrate [31,32,33].
On the other hand, the lower effectiveness of SiC is related to its tendency to agglomerate. Despite adequate powder preparation, the sub-micron size of the SiC particles make them prone to forming clusters due to strong van der Waals forces, leading to an inhomogeneous reinforcement distribution [34,35,36,37]. These groupings result in localized, unreinforced areas that solidify like the base Al6082 alloy, allowing for crack formation.
Further X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis, shown in Figure 9, supports the viability of these composites, though it reveals differences in phase stability. The diffractograms confirm the presence of the respective TiC and SiC phases within the aluminum matrix after processing. However, the Al6082 + 5 wt.% SiC composite condition shows distinct peaks corresponding to the brittle intermetallic phase Al4C3 [38,39,40]. This finding indicates that detrimental chemical reactions between the matrix and reinforcement did occur during the high-temperature PBF-LB/M process for this specific composition. Conversely, the remaining composites exhibit a desirable absence of significant peaks for brittle phases, emphasizing the importance of reinforcement type and concentration in achieving microstructural integrity.

4.3. Effect of the Reinforcements on the Mechanical Properties

The significant improvement in hardness observed in the reinforced composites appears, according to the state of the art and the microstructural changes observed, to be a direct consequence of the ceramic reinforcement’s introduction [41,42]. Two main mechanisms contribute to this strengthening. The first is grain boundary strengthening, described by the Hall–Petch relationship. The drastic refinement from the base alloy’s coarse columnar structure to a fine-grained equiaxed microstructure (with sizes often below 5 µm in the composites) increases the density of grain boundaries [43]. These boundaries act as effective barriers to dislocation movement, thereby increasing the material’s strength and hardness [44]. The second mechanism is dispersion strengthening, where the ceramic particles of TiC and SiC dispersed in the aluminum matrix act as obstacles to dislocation movement [30,45]. This effect is more pronounced with a higher volume fraction of reinforcement, which explains the trend of increasing hardness with the increase in TiC concentration. The degree to which these two mechanisms contribute to overall strength is complex and likely dependent on the specific reinforcement type and size distribution, a phenomenon consistent with findings in other additively manufactured aluminum matrix composites [42,46].
However, the hardness analysis presents an interesting nuance. The composite with 5 wt.% SiC achieves a hardness comparable to that of the composite with 2 wt.% TiC (88 HV0.5 vs. 86 HV0.5), despite its lower effectiveness in mitigating cracks. This result can be attributed to the unique metallurgy of Al-Mg-Si systems. The literature suggests that in Al-Mg-Si alloys, Si and Mg can react with silicon carbide in the high temperature range of PBF-LB/M [47], which could lead to the formation of secondary intermetallic phases, such as the hardening Mg2Si phase [48,49]. While these phases can contribute to hardness, it has also been documented that they can form brittle morphologies, such as acicular Al-Si-Ti phases, which are detrimental to ductility [50].
Therefore, the measured hardness of the SiC composite is likely the result of a complex interplay between grain refinement, dispersion strengthening, and unverified precipitation hardening from these secondary phases. This suggests that while TiC is superior for solidification control and crack mitigation, SiC can achieve comparable hardness through different metallurgical mechanisms. Crucially, the exact nature and contribution of these secondary phases remain speculative; in-depth, localized microstructural characterization, such as Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), would be required to definitively corroborate this hypothesis [51].

4.4. Industrial Implications and Limitations

This study demonstrates a promising metallurgical approach to overcome the processability limitations of Al6082 for PBF-LB/M; however, its industrial implementation faces significant challenges related to feedstock preparation, process control, and qualification requirements.
The most critical barrier for large-scale adoption lies in the robust and cost-effective preparation of composite powders. The ex situ compounding route requires precise mechanical alloying to achieve a homogeneous dispersion of ceramic reinforcements within the aluminum matrix. Any deviation in particle distribution or different amounts of the mixture mixed can lead to non-uniform grain refinement, which may reintroduce solidification cracking or porosity, compromising reliability. Scaling mechanical alloying from laboratory to industrial volumes while preserving particle integrity and dispersion quality remains a major challenge for metal matrix composite-based AM feedstocks [52]. Additionally, powder characteristics such as flowability and spreadability strongly influence layer uniformity in PBF-LB/M. Variability in these properties can exacerbate defects during processing, highlighting the need for advanced powder analytics and quality assurance protocols [53].
Processing non-weldable alloys like Al6082 requires operating within a narrow process window. Even minor fluctuations in Volumetric Energy Density (VED) can alter melt pool dynamics and solidification conditions, reducing the effectiveness of heterogeneous nucleation by TiC and increasing the risk of hot cracking. This demands high equipment stability, advanced monitoring systems, and potentially closed-loop control strategies, which increase operational complexity and cost compared to standard weldable alloys such as AlSi10Mg [11]. Interestingly, this issue appears to diminish as the reinforcement fraction increases, suggesting that higher ceramic content may broaden the stability window.

5. Conclusions

This study has conclusively demonstrated that the Al6082 aluminum alloy is intrinsically susceptible to solidification cracking during the PBF-LB/M process, a problem that could not be solved by varying the volumetric energy density or process parameters. To overcome this fundamental limitation, metallurgical modification through the creation of aluminum matrix composites (AMMCs) with ceramic reinforcements is an effective and robust strategy. The key findings of this work are as follows:
  • The addition of TiC at 2 wt.% and 5 wt.% completely eliminated crack formation, achieving high relative densities over 99.9%. In contrast, 5 wt.% SiC and 1 wt.% TiC only reduced cracking and resulted in lower final relative densities.
  • TiC proved to be a more potent grain refiner than SiC, transforming the coarse columnar structure into a fully fine-grained, equiaxed microstructure. SiC, while capable of reducing grain size, was insufficient to trigger a complete CET.
  • A crucial finding regarding phase stability was observed in the Al6082 + 5 wt.% SiC composite, which showed the formation of the brittle intermetallic phase Al4C3 in the X-ray diffraction analysis. This suggests that detrimental chemical reactions were not fully suppressed in this specific composition, potentially compromising its long-term integrity, even though it achieved comparable hardness to the 2 wt.% TiC composite.
  • The mechanical hardness of the composites increased significantly due to grain refinement (Hall-Petch effect) and dispersion strengthening. A clear dose–response was established with TiC, with hardness peaking at 101 ± 4 HV0.5 in the 5 wt.% TiC composite.
In conclusion, this work provides valuable insight into the additive manufacturing of wrought aluminum alloys, demonstrating that modifying the composition is a more viable solution than simple process optimization. Future research should focus on a detailed analysis of tensile strength, ductility, and fatigue behavior, as well as the characterization of secondary phases to fully understand the metallurgical interactions and optimize the balance between strength and toughness. Additionally, the combined addition of TiC and SiC should be investigated to achieve an optimal synergy between crack mitigation and mechanical performance. Finally, efforts must address the scalability of ex situ powder preparation and validate process consistency at industrial scale, ensuring reliable feedstock production and exploring advanced parameter control strategies for both reinforced and unreinforced Al6082 alloys.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.G., M.S.S. and A.M.M.; Methodology, R.G.; Validation, R.G.; Investigation, R.G.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, R.G.; Writing—Review and Editing, M.S.S. and T.G.; Visualization, R.G.; Supervision, M.S.S., T.G. and A.M.M.; Project Administration, M.S.S.; Funding Acquisition, M.S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the CDTI and the European Union-NextGenerationEu and supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación within the project “MADISON-MANUFACTURA ADITIVA, DIGITALIZACIÓN Y SOSTENIBILIDAD”, approved within the framework of the call “Programa Cervera para Centros Tecnológicos 2023” with Grant Agreement EXP-00263686/CER-20231012 and the ATLANTIS project (KK-2024/00061).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Uxue Nafarrate and Irkus Badias for their technical support and insightful discussions during this research. During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4, October 2025 version) for the purposes of generating preliminary graphical representations as well as for providing support with English grammar corrections and language refinement throughout the manuscript preparation. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
PBF/LB-MPowder Bed Fusion/Laser Beam—Metal
AMAdditive Manufacturing
SiCSilicon Carbide
TiCTitanium Carbide
AMMCAluminum Metal Matrix Composites
VEDVolumetric Energy Density
EDSEnergy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy
EBSDElectron Backscatter Diffraction

References

  1. Uddin, S.Z.; Murr, L.E.; Terrazas, C.A.; Morton, P.; Roberson, D.A.; Wicker, R.B. Processing and characterization of crack-free aluminum 6061 using high-temperature heating in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 22, 405–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Del Guercio, G.; Faron, S.; McCartney, D.G.; Robertson, S.; Aboulkhair, N.T.; Tuck, C.; Clare, A.T.; Simonelli, M. Experimental and computational studies on hot cracking in single laser tracks of aluminium alloy AA2024 and related implications for laser powder bed fusion. Discov. Mater 2024, 4, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Del Guercio, G.; McCartney, D.; Aboulkhair, N.; Robertson, S.; Maclachlan, R.; Tuck, C.; Simonelli, M. Cracking behaviour of high-strength AA2024 aluminium alloy produced by Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Addit. Manuf. 2022, 54, 102776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sonawane, A.; Roux, G.; Blandin, J.J.; Despres, A.; Martin, G. Cracking mechanism and its sensitivity to processing conditions during laser powder bed fusion of a structural aluminum alloy. Materialia 2021, 15, 100976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Heiland, S.; Milkereit, B.; Hoyer, K.P.; Zhuravlev, E.; Kessler, O.; Schaper, M. Requirements for Processing High-Strength AlZnMgCu Alloys with PBF-LB/M to Achieve Crack-Free and Dense Parts. Materials 2021, 14, 7190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chen, H.H.; Lo, Y.L.; Hsu, Y.Y.; Lai, K.L. Systematic optimization of L-PBF processing parameters for Al alloy 6061 with YSZ nanoparticles. Opt. Laser Technol. 2023, 167, 109676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liu, R.P.; Dong, Z.J.; Pan, Y.M. Solidification crack susceptibility of aluminum alloy weld metals. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China (Engl. Ed.) 2006, 16, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Di Schino, A.; Patel, S.K.; Shi, L. Recent Advances in Ceramic-Reinforced Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites: A Review. Alloys 2025, 4, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nartu, M.S.K.K.Y.; Agrawal, P. Additive manufacturing of metal matrix composites. Mater Des. 2025, 252, 113609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zenz, C.; Durán, C.; Florian, T.; Bielak, R.; Otto, A. Multiphysical simulation of hot cracking in Laser-Based Powder Bed Fusion. Procedia CIRP 2024, 124, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Huber, F.; Rasch, M.; Schmidt, M. Laser Powder Bed Fusion (PBF-LB/M) Process Strategies for In-Situ Alloy Formation with High-Melting Elements. Metals 2021, 11, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Larini, F.; Casati, R.; Marola, S.; Vedani, M. Microstructural Evolution of a High-Strength Zr-Ti-Modified 2139 Aluminum Alloy for Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Metals 2023, 13, 924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Iams, A.D.; Weaver, J.S.; Lane, B.M.; Giannuzzi, L.A.; Yi, F.; LaPlant, D.L.; Martin, J.H.; Zhang, F. Microstructural features and metastable phase formation in a high-strength aluminum alloy fabricated using additive manufacturing. J. Alloys Compd. 2025, 1025, 180281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Martin, J.H.; Barnes, J.E.; Rogers, K.A.; Hundley, J.; LaPlant, D.L.; Ghanbari, S.; Tsai, J.-T.; Bahr, D.F. Additive manufacturing of a high-performance aluminum alloy from cold mechanically derived non-spherical powder. Commun. Mater. 2023, 4, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Singh, P.; Singh, R.K.; Das, A.K. Influence of ceramic reinforcements on mechanical properties and high-temperature sliding wear behaviour of heat-treated Al6082–SiC–TiO2 composites developed by stir-casting process. Multiscale Multidiscip. Model. Exp. Des. 2023, 7, 1339–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gowda, Y. Characterizing the effects of SiC and Al2 O3 on the mechanical properties of Al6082 hybrid metal matrix composites: An experimental and neural network approach. Adv. Prod. Eng. Manag. 2024, 19, 281–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hassan, A.; Altaf, K.; Ismail, M.C.; Pedapati, S.R.; Marode, R.V.; Soomro, I.A.; Ahmed, N. Development of Carbide-Reinforced Al-7075 Multi-Layered Composites via Friction Stir Additive Manufacturing. J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9, 568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ramesh, S.; Nordin, A.F.; Osman, S.A.; Osman, S.A.; Yaakub, K.A.; Nasir, N.F. A Review on the Effect of Titanium Carbide (TiC) as Reinforcement Composites in Aluminium-Based Metal Matrix Composites on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties using Stir Casting Process. J. Adv. Res. 2026, 39, 43–56. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gao, Z.; Li, D.; Zhao, Y.; He, C.; Lin, H. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of TiB2/AlSi10Mg Composites Fabricated by Laser Metal Deposition. JOM 2025, 77, 2392–2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khrustalyov, A.; Vorozhtsov, A.; Rocha, F.; Simões, S. Production and Characterization of Aluminum Reinforced with SiC Nanoparticles. Metals 2023, 13, 1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gómez, R.; Aranzabe, J.; Garciandia, F.; Mancisidor, A.M.; Sebastian, M.S. Investigation of the impact of process parameters and thermal treatments on mechanical properties and microstructure of ScanCromAl ® manufactured via powder bed fusion laser beam process. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2024, 33, 1961–1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schimbäck, D.; Mair, P.; Kaserer, L.; Perfler, L.; Leichtfried, G. An improved process scan strategy to obtain high-performance fatigue properties for Scalmalloy®. Mater Des. 2022, 224, 111410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bärtl, M.; Xiao, X.; Brillo, J.; Palm, F. Influence of Surface Tension and Evaporation on Melt Dynamics of Aluminum Alloys for Laser Powder Bed Fusion. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2022, 31, 6221–6233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aversa, A.; Marchese, G.; Saboori, A.; Bassini, E. New aluminum alloys specifically designed for laser powder bed fusion: A review. Materials 2019, 12, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Stoll, T.; Schmitt, M.; Lohr, L.; Lürbke, R.; Müller, A.V.; Pinomaa, T.; Grünewald, J.; Laukkanen, A.; Wudy, K.; Neu, R. Influence of laser beam shaping on the cracking behavior of tungsten at single weld lines. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2024, 125, 106864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Qbau, N.; Nam, N.D.; Ca, N.X.; Hien, N.T. The crack healing effect of scandium in aluminum alloys during laser additive manufacturing. J. Manuf. Process. 2020, 50, 241–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yue, D.; Zhang, X.; Li, D.; Li, Z.; Wang, Z.; Chen, B. Effect of remelting strategy on forming mechanism of selective laser melted AlSi10Mg. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2024, 30, 4283–4293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, L.; Dong, T.; Jiang, F.; Ru, Y.; Guo, C.; Diao, M.; Song, H. A novel method enhanced mechanical properties of a selective laser melted Mar-M247 superalloy by progressive remelting. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2024, 33, 4968–4980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, H.; Guo, H.C.; Hu, X.; Tao, J.Y.; She, W.H.; Zhao, C. Effect of laser remelting and ultrasonic irradiation on crack suppression and properties of Ni-WC laser cladding layer. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 19277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Minasyan, T.; Hussainova, I. Laser Powder-Bed Fusion of Ceramic Particulate Reinforced Aluminum Alloys: A Review. Materials 2022, 15, 2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yao, L.; Wang, L.; Cui, R.; Lv, Q.; Zhao, C.; Wang, X.; Guan, S.; Luo, L.; Lai, Q.; Chen, R.; et al. Enhancing strength and toughness of 7xxx aluminum alloys via TiC nanoparticles in electron beam rapid additive manufacturing. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2025, 931, 148195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, K.; Jiang, H.; Wang, Q.; Wang, Y. Grain Refinement Mechanisms of TiC0.5N0.5 Nanoparticles in Aluminum. Materials 2023, 16, 1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Zuo, M.; Sokoluk, M.; Cao, C.; Yuan, J.; Zheng, S.; Li, X. Microstructure Control and Performance Evolution of Aluminum Alloy 7075 by Nano-Treating. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 10671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shin, S.; Park, H.; Park, B.; Lee, S.-B.; Lee, S.-K.; Kim, Y.; Cho, S.; Jo, I. Dispersion Mechanism and Mechanical Properties of SiC Reinforcement in Aluminum Matrix Composite through Stir- and Die-Casting Processes. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mehdi, H.; Bhati, S.S.; Mouria, P.K.; Mishra, S.; Bhadana, M.; Batra, L. Effect of nanoparticles on metal matrix composites fabricated by ultrasonic stir casting. Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 2025, 38, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Saravanamuthukumar, P.; Abdullah, A.B.; Poovazhagan, L.; Jayaram, R.S.; Murugan, S.S. Investigation of the Effect of Nano-SiC Particle Addition on the Structural and Thermal Properties of PEEK-SiC Nano Composite Made by Melt Cast Process. Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. 2025, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lai, L.; Niu, B.; Bi, Y.; Li, Y.; Yang, Z. Advancements in SiC-Reinforced Metal Matrix Composites for High-Performance Electronic Packaging: A Review of Thermo-Mechanical Properties and Future Trends. Micromachines 2023, 14, 1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shi, Y.; Wang, S.; Jian, Y. Inhibition Mechanism of the Interface Reaction in the Molten Pool of SiCp/Al Composites by Pulsed Laser Welding with Powder-Filling. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. (Engl. Ed.) 2024, 37, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hua, Z.; Xiang, Y.; Wang, C.; Jiang, P.; Zhang, M.; Hu, Y.; Mi, G.; Zhu, Q. Investigation of Ti alloying for microstructural evolution and strengthening mechanism: Avoiding Al4C3 formation in SiCp/Al composites via laser directed energy deposition. J. Alloys Compd. 2024, 970, 172371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lu, Z.; Wei, N.; Li, P.; Guo, C.; Jiang, F. Microstructure and mechanical properties of intermetallic Al 3 Ti alloy with residual aluminum. Mater. Des. 2016, 110, 466–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sun, G.; Du, W.; Chen, C.; Zhao, X. Hybrid additive manufacturing of ceramic/aluminum-titanium gradient composites via arc and laser cladding eutectic pools. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2024, 19, e2419950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tang, S.; Ummethala, R.; Suryanarayana, C.; Eckert, J.; Prashanth, K.G.; Wang, Z. Additive Manufacturing of Aluminum-Based Metal Matrix Composites—A Review. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2021, 23, 2100053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Loucif, A.; Figueiredo, R.B.; Baudin, T.; Brisset, F.; Chemam, R.; Langdon, T.G. Ultrafine grains and the Hall–Petch relationship in an Al–Mg–Si alloy processed by high-pressure torsion. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2012, 532, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cordero, Z.C.; Knight, B.E.; Schuh, C.A. Six decades of the Hall–Petch effect—A survey of grain-size strengthening studies on pure metals. Int. Mater. Rev. 2016, 61, 495–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tornabene, F.; Brischetto, S.; Triantafillou, T.; Maddaiah, K.C.; Kumar, G.B.V.; Pramod, R. Studies on the Mechanical, Strengthening Mechanisms and Tribological Characteristics of AA7150-Al2O3 Nano-Metal Matrix Composites. J. Compos. Sci. 2024, 8, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Martin, J.H.; Yahata, B.D.; Clough, E.C.; Mayer, J.A.; Hundley, J.M.; Schaedler, T.A. Additive manufacturing of metal matrix composites via nanofunctionalization. MRS Commun. 2018, 8, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Simchi, A.; Godlinski, D. Effect of SiC particles on the laser sintering of Al–7Si–0.3Mg alloy. Scr. Mater. 2008, 59, 199–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Grima, D.; Layeb, N.; Li, R.; Zammit, B.; Attard, B.; Zammit, A.; Cassar, G. Enhancing fatigue resistance in WAAM AZ80 magnesium and wrought Al6082 through shot peening: A comparative study. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Pan, S.; Yuan, J.; Jin, K.; Murali, N.; Gladstein, A.; Zeng, Y.; Taub, A.; Li, X. Influence of Mg on reaction and properties of Al–Si/TiC nanocomposites. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2022, 840, 142992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Joseph, O.O.; Afolalu, A.S.; Abioye, A.A.; Agbo, S.E.; Olatunde, S.F.; Omotehinwa, O.S. Effect of TiC addition on the mechanical properties and microstructure of Al-Si alloy. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 38, 784–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jacumasso, S.C.; Martins, J.d.P.; de Carvalho, A.L.M. Analysis of precipitate density of an aluminium alloy by TEM and AFM. Rev. Esc. Minas 2016, 69, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dadkhah, M.; Mosallanejad, M.H.; Iuliano, L.; Saboori, A. A Comprehensive Overview on the Latest Progress in the Additive Manufacturing of Metal Matrix Composites: Potential, Challenges, and Feasible Solutions. Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 2021, 34, 1173–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Talebi, F.A.; Haydari, Z.; Salehi, H.; Mehrabi, M.; Gardy, J.; Bradley, M.; Bayly, A.E.; Hassanpour, A. Spreadability of powders for additive manufacturing: A critical review of metrics and characterisation methods. Particuology 2024, 93, 211–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Metals 15 01232 g001
Figure 1. SEM micrographs of (A) Al6082 powder, (B) SiC reinforcement and (C) TiC reinforcement.
Figure 1. SEM micrographs of (A) Al6082 powder, (B) SiC reinforcement and (C) TiC reinforcement.
Metals 15 01232 g001
Metals 15 01232 g002
Figure 2. Composition maps of the Al6082/TiC mixtures built by EDS. In red aluminum and in green color titanium. (A) Al6082 + 1 wt.% TiC, (B) Al6082 + 2 wt.% TiC and (C) Al6082 + 5 wt.% TiC.
Figure 2. Composition maps of the Al6082/TiC mixtures built by EDS. In red aluminum and in green color titanium. (A) Al6082 + 1 wt.% TiC, (B) Al6082 + 2 wt.% TiC and (C) Al6082 + 5 wt.% TiC.
Metals 15 01232 g002
Metals 15 01232 g003
Figure 3. FE-SEM micrographs of the mixtures (A) Al6088 + 5 wt.% TiC, (B) Al6082 + 5 wt.% SiC. Orange arrows indicate an example of TiC particles while yellow arrows indicate an example of SiC particles.
Figure 3. FE-SEM micrographs of the mixtures (A) Al6088 + 5 wt.% TiC, (B) Al6082 + 5 wt.% SiC. Orange arrows indicate an example of TiC particles while yellow arrows indicate an example of SiC particles.
Metals 15 01232 g003
Metals 15 01232 g004
Figure 4. Representative images of unreinforced Al6082 samples fabricated via PBF-LB/M. (A) Build platform showing multiple cuboid specimens. (B) Sample processed at a volumetric energy density of 116 J/mm3, exhibiting visible cracking. (C) Sample processed at 93 J/mm3, also showing significant crack formation.
Figure 4. Representative images of unreinforced Al6082 samples fabricated via PBF-LB/M. (A) Build platform showing multiple cuboid specimens. (B) Sample processed at a volumetric energy density of 116 J/mm3, exhibiting visible cracking. (C) Sample processed at 93 J/mm3, also showing significant crack formation.
Metals 15 01232 g004
Metals 15 01232 g005
Figure 5. Optical micrographs illustrating crack formation in Al6082-based compositions processed under identical PBF-LB/M conditions (P = 370 W, v = 1100 mm/s, h = 190 µm). (A) Al6082 + 5 wt.% SiC, with red highlights indicating SiC agglomerates, (B) Al6082 + 1 wt.% TiC, (C) Al6082 + 2 wt.% TiC, and (D) Al6082 + 5 wt.% TiC. Progressive crack mitigation is observed with increasing TiC content.
Figure 5. Optical micrographs illustrating crack formation in Al6082-based compositions processed under identical PBF-LB/M conditions (P = 370 W, v = 1100 mm/s, h = 190 µm). (A) Al6082 + 5 wt.% SiC, with red highlights indicating SiC agglomerates, (B) Al6082 + 1 wt.% TiC, (C) Al6082 + 2 wt.% TiC, and (D) Al6082 + 5 wt.% TiC. Progressive crack mitigation is observed with increasing TiC content.
Metals 15 01232 g005
Metals 15 01232 g006
Figure 6. EBSD Inverse Pole Figure (IPF) maps showing the grain structure of Al6082 alloys. (A) Unreinforced Al6082 alloy, (B) Al6082 alloy with 5 wt.% SiC reinforcement, (C) Al6082 alloy with 1 wt.% TiC reinforcement, (D) Al6082 alloy with 2 wt.% TiC reinforcement and (E) Al6082 alloy with 5 wt.% TiC reinforcement.
Figure 6. EBSD Inverse Pole Figure (IPF) maps showing the grain structure of Al6082 alloys. (A) Unreinforced Al6082 alloy, (B) Al6082 alloy with 5 wt.% SiC reinforcement, (C) Al6082 alloy with 1 wt.% TiC reinforcement, (D) Al6082 alloy with 2 wt.% TiC reinforcement and (E) Al6082 alloy with 5 wt.% TiC reinforcement.
Metals 15 01232 g006
Metals 15 01232 g007
Figure 7. Quantitative analysis derived from EBSD IPF maps. (A) Distribution of grain types classified as fine (<2.4 µm) and coarse (≥2.4 µm), and (B) grain size distribution by area (µm2), highlighting the refinement effect of TiC and SiC reinforcements.
Figure 7. Quantitative analysis derived from EBSD IPF maps. (A) Distribution of grain types classified as fine (<2.4 µm) and coarse (≥2.4 µm), and (B) grain size distribution by area (µm2), highlighting the refinement effect of TiC and SiC reinforcements.
Metals 15 01232 g007
Metals 15 01232 g008
Figure 8. Average Vickers microhardness (HV0.5) values of unreinforced Al6082 and Al6082-based composites reinforced with TiC and SiC. Error bars represent standard deviation from ten indentations per sample.
Figure 8. Average Vickers microhardness (HV0.5) values of unreinforced Al6082 and Al6082-based composites reinforced with TiC and SiC. Error bars represent standard deviation from ten indentations per sample.
Metals 15 01232 g008
Metals 15 01232 g009
Figure 9. X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of unreinforced Al6082 and Al6082 composites reinforced with 5 wt.% SiC and 5 wt.% TiC. The diffractograms reveal phase composition and the presence of intermetallics, including Al4C3 in the SiC-reinforced sample.
Figure 9. X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of unreinforced Al6082 and Al6082 composites reinforced with 5 wt.% SiC and 5 wt.% TiC. The diffractograms reveal phase composition and the presence of intermetallics, including Al4C3 in the SiC-reinforced sample.
Metals 15 01232 g009
Table 1. PBF-LB/M Parameter Combinations and VED Values.
Table 1. PBF-LB/M Parameter Combinations and VED Values.
Laser Power (W)Scanning Speed (mm/s)Hatch Distance (µm)VED (J/mm3)
370110019059
25090080116
4001000100133
40090016093
400700120159
25090080116
4001000100133
250800100104
Table 2. List of manufactured mixtures and unreinforced Al6082 with their crack density and relative density measurements.
Table 2. List of manufactured mixtures and unreinforced Al6082 with their crack density and relative density measurements.
ReferenceCrack Density (mm/mm2)Relative Density (%)
Al6082 unreinforced3.0696.95
Al6082 + 5 wt.% SiC1.3499.25
Al6082 + 1 wt.% TiC0.2798.81
Al6082 + 2 wt.% TiC099.93
Al6082 + 5 wt.% TiC099.98
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gómez, R.; San Sebastian, M.; Guraya, T.; Mancisidor, A.M. Overcoming Processability Limitations in Al6082 Alloy by Using Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Aluminum Matrix Composites with Titanium Carbide/Silicon Carbide Reinforcements. Metals 2025, 15, 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/met15111232

AMA Style

Gómez R, San Sebastian M, Guraya T, Mancisidor AM. Overcoming Processability Limitations in Al6082 Alloy by Using Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Aluminum Matrix Composites with Titanium Carbide/Silicon Carbide Reinforcements. Metals. 2025; 15(11):1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/met15111232

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gómez, Raúl, Maria San Sebastian, Teresa Guraya, and Ane Miren Mancisidor. 2025. "Overcoming Processability Limitations in Al6082 Alloy by Using Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Aluminum Matrix Composites with Titanium Carbide/Silicon Carbide Reinforcements" Metals 15, no. 11: 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/met15111232

APA Style

Gómez, R., San Sebastian, M., Guraya, T., & Mancisidor, A. M. (2025). Overcoming Processability Limitations in Al6082 Alloy by Using Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Aluminum Matrix Composites with Titanium Carbide/Silicon Carbide Reinforcements. Metals, 15(11), 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/met15111232

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop