Next Article in Journal
Biobased Hydrophobic Solutions for Natural Textiles—Moving Beyond PFAS
Next Article in Special Issue
Advancements in EBSD Techniques: A Comprehensive Review on Characterization of Composites and Metals, Sample Preparation, and Operational Parameters
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Assessment of the Strength and Microstructural Properties of Fly Ash-Containing Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Self-Compacting Sustainable Concrete
Previous Article in Special Issue
Correlation Between Soft Magnetic Properties and Microstructure According to Heat Treatment in FeCo-2V Electrical Steel
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
J. Compos. Sci.
Volume 9
Issue 2
10.3390/jcs9020080
jcs-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Metallic Multimaterials Fabricated by Combining Additive Manufacturing and Powder Metallurgy

by
Mayank Kumar Yadav
1,
Riddhi Shukla
1,
Lixia Xi
2,*,
Zhi Wang
3 and
Konda Gokuldoss Prashanth
1,4,*
1
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia
2
Jiangsu Provincial Engineering Laboratory for Laser Additive Manufacturing of High-Performance Metallic Components, College of Materials Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Yudao Street 29, Nanjing 210016, China
3
National Engineering Research Center of Near-Net-Shape Forming for Metallic Materials, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China
4
Centre for Biomaterials, Cellular and Molecular Theranostics (CBCMT), Vellore Institute of Technology, School of Mechanical Engineering, Vellore 632014, Tamil Nadu, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9(2), 80; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9020080
Submission received: 31 December 2024 / Revised: 28 January 2025 / Accepted: 8 February 2025 / Published: 10 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Metal Composites, Volume II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nature has created a unique combination of materials, and the design and material compositions used in nature are not successfully employed for industrial applications. Metallic multimaterials (MMMs) are a unique class of materials that combine the properties of various metallic constituents (both matrix and reinforcement(s)) to improve the functionality, performance in real-time, and application spectrum. Accordingly, this study explores the fabrication perspective of MMMs by combining both additive manufacturing (AM) and powder metallurgical (PM) routes. Ti6Al4V structures were fabricated via the laser powder-bed fusion (LPBF) process, and the reinforcement powders were added into the spark plasma sintering (SPS) mold where the Ti6Al4V structures were placed. Different reinforcement compositions including Mg, Al, Fe, Ni, and Cu were explored. Since the present study is focused on the variation of hardness, the hardness profile of the MMM composite was explored showing a sinusoidal trend. This study stands as a testimonial of fabricating MMM composites via a combination of AM and PM processes.

1. Introduction

The design and composition of materials observed in nature is based on their applications and the properties needed for those applications. On this account, unique composite materials are observed in nature with optimized design and composition [1]. Some of the nature-inspired multimaterials are as follows: (a) bones: soft collagen with hard minerals for energy dissipation applications [2]; (b) mollusk shells: metal in calcium carbonate shells offer excellent mechanical and tribological properties [3]; (c) deer antlers: calcium phosphate covered with keratin and traces of Fe or Zn for improving toughness and fracture resistance [4]; (d) certain fungi create composite-like structures of fungal mycelium and metal nanoparticles (like Ag, Cu, Fe, etc.) by absorbing metals from their environment. These composite structures offer unique antimicrobial and electrical properties [5]. However, most of the materials designed and fabricated by humans exhibit simple structures using single materials or simple combinations of materials as composites. Hence, they are not completely optimized for unique/specific applications due to unique challenges and limitations w.r.t. design and traditional manufacturing technologies [6].
Thanks to the introduction of additive manufacturing (AM) technologies and the introduction of design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) offering unlimited design freedom with layer-by-layer deposition and fabrication mechanism [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], using AM, materials with complex structures and theoretically any design may be fabricated [15,16,17]. Recent technological innovations and advancements have offered the advantages of fabricating functionally graded materials either of single materials or multiple materials [15,18,19,20,21,22,23,24] and multimaterials [25,26,27,28]. The metallic multimaterials (MMMs) fabricated by LPBF are conventionally made of two materials in the form of structures or solids [29]. MMMs with multiple compositions were also fabricated via the LPBF process but in a graded fashion. However, it is difficult to fabricate MMMs in the form of composites, where one or multiple materials (reinforcements) are periodically placed or randomly distributed within the matrix. This is where interpenetrating composites (IPCs) are fabricated, where the LPBF fabricates the structure matrix, and the second material (generally a low-temperature material) is introduced via casting, which is often a low melting reinforcement [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. When the IPCs are fabricated with the help of AM and casting, only one type of reinforcement may be introduced into the AM-made precursor, and it is impossible to add multiple reinforcements to the precursor [41,42,43,44,45]. To overcome such disadvantages and to fabricate MMMs with one type of matrix and several reinforcements, an AM-made precursor may be added with multiple reinforcements through a powder metallurgical (PM) approach. Accordingly, this manuscript stands as a testimony for fabricating MMMs by combining AM and PM approaches, where the Ti6Al4V honeycomb structure (precursor) is fabricated via the LPBF process, and one or multiple reinforcements are added through a PM approach to reap the benefits of MMMs.
MMMs have impacted industry in almost every sector (including aerospace, automotive, energy, industrial, medical, etc.) by extending both the capabilities and functionality of components matching the specific needs of the working environment [46,47,48]. More efficient parts may be fabricated by combining different materials (Table 1). Some examples are: (1) Materials with insulating properties are combined with conductors for reducing energy consumption in building and/or automotive industries [49]. (2) Material combinations where high strength and toughness are combined with functional properties (thermal and electrical conductivity) [50,51]. (3) In addition, MMM parts can help improve components life span, promoting a more green and sustainable future. Lightweight and functionally active MMMs in the automobile and aerospace sectors can help in increasing the life span of the vehicle and at the same time help in energy and fuel savings and reducing CO2 emissions [52,53,54].
Combining two unique processes (AM and PM) offers the following specific advantages: (1) flexible and enhanced material design—offering the possibility of fabricating tailored and gradient structures; (2) improved properties including mechanical properties; (3) reduced material defects; (4) optimized material utilization; (5) application-specific properties by tuning the material additions; (6) cost-efficiency; and (7) versatility in manufacturing. In addition, for the fabrication of MMMs (interpenetrating composites), the combination of AM and casting approaches may be utilized. However, if more than one reinforcement is required to be added to the matrix, the casting-based approach may not be feasible and hence the novel approach of introducing PM to AM will be highly beneficial. Accordingly, this manuscript proposes a novel combination of manufacturing processes (by combining AM and PM) to fabricate MMMs with different material combinations.

2. Experimental Details

The Ti6Al4V honeycomb structures were fabricated using a laser powder-bed fusion (LPBF) SLM280 device from SLM Solutions GmbH (Luebeck, Germany) from commercially available Ti6Al4V atomized powders. The Ti6Al4V samples were fabricated using the following laser parameters: laser power ‘W’: 400 W, laser scan rate ‘v’: 1000 mm/s, hatch distance ‘h’: 0.12 mm, and layer thickness ‘t’: 0.05 mm, leading to an energy density of 66.67 J/mm3 [68]. The Ti6Al4V structures were fabricated over a Ti-based substrate under an Ar atmosphere to avoid possible oxidation of the melt during the LPBF process. Similarly, the 316L stainless steel (SS) sample was fabricated using the following process parameters: laser power ‘W’: 62.5 W, laser scan rate ‘v’: 1000 mm/s, hatch distance ‘h’: 0.060 mm, and layer thickness ‘t’: 0.025 mm, leading to an energy density of 42.00 J/mm3. A hatch-style rotation of 90° was employed between the layers to minimize possible thermal gradients arising during extreme solidification conditions [69,70,71,72]. The composite samples were prepared using the spark plasma sintering (SPS) HPD 10-GB device from FCT System GmbH (Effelder-Rauenstein, Germany). The matrix (Ti6Al4V struts) is placed inside a graphite mold and the reinforcement particles (commercially available powders of appx. 50 μm diameter from Al, Mg, Fe, Ni, and Cu) are added to the struts in the required portions. The composites are then consolidated to form metallic multimaterials. The sintering parameters are furnished in Table 2. The composite manufacturing steps are furnished in Figure 1.
The structural characterization of the samples was carried out using X-ray diffraction (XRD) by a Panalytical X’Pert PRO Diffractometer (Malvern Panalytical GmbH, Kassel, Germany) with Cu Kα (λ = 1.54 Å) radiation at 40 kV and 30 mA. The scanning was performed within the 2θ range 20° and 100° with a step size of 0.01° and scan speed of 1°/min. The microstructural characterization was carried out using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) from Zeiss Gemini SEM 450, Zeiss GmbH, Oberkochen, Germany integrated with Apex energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). Both secondary (SE) and backscatter (BSD) SEM images were recorded. The mechanical testing of the samples was carried out using a Future-Tech Corp microhardness tester (FM-810), Future Tech GmbH, Quierschied, Germany. A test load of 0.1 kgf and a dwell time of 10 s were employed for all the hardness measurements.

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 2 shows the SEM–EDS maps of the metallic multimaterials (Ti6Al4V–Mg—bimetal, Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al—trimetal, and Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al–Fe—MMM). It can be observed from Figure 2a—Ti6Al4V–Mg MMM composite that the Ti6Al4V matrix lattice is not distorted and almost maintains its structure/dimensions after the SPS process. The Mg reinforcement is sintered and shows a distinct interface with the matrix. However, no interfacial reaction between the matrix (Ti) and the reinforcement (Mg) may be observed. On the other hand, in the case of the Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al MMM composite (where two reinforcements Mg and Al are added to the Ti6Al4V matrix) (Figure 2b), both Al and Mg reinforcements are sintered without introducing porosity and maintain a good interface with the lattice. No material reaction is observed at the matrix–reinforcement interface (from Figure 2b). In addition, both the reinforcements are distributed evenly except at the boundary, where there is a mixture of both Mg and Al (as marked in Figure 2b). This mixing of Al and Mg may have happened during the addition of the reinforcement powders to the Ti6Al4V lattice precursor. The Ti6Al4V lattice shows signs of distortion, where the compression of the lattice is observed. In Figure 2c, three different reinforcements (Mg, Al, and Fe) were added to the Ti6Al4V matrix. This MMM composite shows severe lattice distortion like the Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al composite. The reinforcement particles are sintered well, and no visible interfacial reaction is observed between the reinforcement particles and the Ti6Al4V precursor interface. Like the previous counterpart (Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al composite), the mixing of reinforcement powders may be observed near the interface and are marked by blue areas in Figure 2c.
XRD measurements were conducted on these MMM composites to evaluate the reaction between the different reinforcement powders at their interface and the reinforcement–matrix interface. The XRD diffraction patterns of these MMM composites (Ti6Al4V–Mg, Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al, and Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al–Fe) are shown in Figure 3. The Ti6Al4V structure fabricated by LPBF shows the presence of α′-Ti—martensitic microstructure, even though Ti6Al4V is an α + β composition [73,74,75,76,77,78,79]. The complex interplay during heat extraction along different directions (including conduction, convection, and radiation) with different rates leads to a complex and anisotropic microstructure in the LPBF-processed materials [80,81,82,83]. The diffraction pattern of the Ti6Al4V–Mg MMM shows the diffraction peaks of Mg and α/α′-Ti phases, both showing hcp crystal structure. Thermal energy supplied during the SPS process may partially relax the Ti6Al4V microstructure, where partial transformation of α′ phase to α phase may take place. Hence both α and α′ phases coexist after the SPS process. No additional peaks other than the Mg and α/α′-Ti phases are observed within the deductible limits of the XRD suggesting no interfacial reaction taking place during the fabrication process.
The diffraction pattern of the Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al MMM shows the peaks of hcp Mg and α/α′-Ti phases and fcc α-Al corresponding to the matrix and the two reinforcements in the MMM composites. No additional peaks other than the Mg, Al, and α/α′-Ti phases are observed suggesting no interfacial reaction. Similarly in the case of the third composite, where three different reinforcements are added (Mg, Al, and Fe), four phases are observed, namely, hcp Mg, α/α′-Ti, fcc α-Al, and α-Fe. Even in this case, no additional phases are observed corroborating that no intermetallic phases form at the interface due to interfacial reaction within the XRD deductible limits. The results suggest that the sintering conditions (time, pressure, and temperature and their combination) are insufficient to initiate interfacial diffusion between the matrix and interface.
The SEM (BE and BSD) images of the MMM composites are shown in Figure 4. The microstructures of the LPBF Ti6Al4V structures transform from a predominantly α′-Ti—martensitic microstructure to a α/α′-Ti microstructure after sintering. This is due to the thermal energy offered to the structures during sintering that relaxes the Ti6Al4V microstructure. In addition, the internal defects like dislocation density reduce from ~3.5 × 1015 m/m3 to ~4.8 × 1014 m/m3 due to structural relaxation of the structure with the supplied thermal energy during the SPS process. It may be observed from Figure 4 that the reinforcement particles (Mg/Al/Fe) do not form any reaction at the interface. However, there may be a chance of reaction between the reinforcements observed at the reinforcement boundaries due to particle mixing that may have occurred during the fabrication process (during powder addition to the Ti6Al4V precursor). The BSD images show the material contract between the different reinforcement compositions and the matrix. Near the Al/Fe reinforcement boundary mixing of powder is observed. However, no concrete evidence of intermetallic phase formation can be ascertained from the SEM image corroborating the XRD patterns. The SE images show that both Mg and Al particles diffuse well during the sintering process (sintering temperature—550 °C > 0.7Tm) since the particle boundaries almost disappear. However, in the case of the Fe particles, the particle boundaries still exist, suggesting the diffusion between the particles is incomplete due to the employed sintering temperature (550 °C), which is less than 0.7Tm.
The hardness profile observed for the Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al–Fe MMM composite is shown in Figure 5. Since the LPBF Ti6Al4V results in α′-Ti martensitic microstructure, it offers very high hardness (~480 HV). However, after the SPS process, the hardness relaxes and hardness values of ~460 HV were observed for the Ti6Al4V structure. The reinforcement (since sintered) shows lower hardness than the solidified Ti6Al4V structure. Sintered Fe shows the highest hardness of ~110 HV, Mg showing intermediate hardness (~75 HV), and Al the least hardness (~40 HV). Since the reinforcements and the matrix lattice are placed uniquely, the hardness profile shows variation in a sinusoidal fashion (Figure 5). Such a unique hardness profile can be observed only for the novel MMM composites fabricated by combining both AM and PM processes.
To illustrate the feasibility of fabricating different compositions, another MMM composite with three different reinforcement compositions and matrix precursor has been manufactured. The three different reinforcement compositions are CP–Ti, CP–Ni, and CP–Cu. The matrix precursor used was 316L SS (Figure 6). Since the LPBF 316L SS shows austenitic microstructure (exhibiting fcc crystal structure, which is soft in nature [84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92]) and the employed sintering temperature was 1000 °C (which is ~0.7 Tm), the precursor structure was severely deformed/distorted along the CP–Ti side (which is harder as compared to Ni and Cu). Since Ti is hard, it can resist the load and distort the precursor structure. However, along the Cu and Ni sides, the distortion of 316L SS was not pronounced due to the soft nature of the reinforcement and the reinforcement particles can observe the load during the SPS process. In addition, like the Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al–Fe composite, the reinforcement powders Ni and Cu were missing near their interface. However, no distinct interfacial reaction between the reinforcements and reinforcement–matrix interface is observed.
These MMM composites are subjected to sintering after the reinforcement particles are introduced to the matrix precursor (typically fabricated using AM-based processes) [93,94,95,96,97,98]. In general, no interfacial reaction between the matrix and the reinforcement particles is observed. The absence of reinforcement reaction between the matrix and interface in MMM composites may be attributed to the following: The reinforcement particles introduced into the matrix precursor are loosely packed and most of the pressure applied during the sintering process is utilized for the consolidation of the powder particles. In addition, the temperature applied during the sintering process will be quite low and the time of sintering is too short to form any reaction between the powder reinforcement particles and the matrix at the interface. The interfacial reaction may be pronounced if an extended sintering time may be offered with very high sintering temperatures (close to the melting point of the reinforcement material) [99,100,101,102,103,104,105]. In this study, the feasibility of manufacturing MMM composites by combining AM (LPBF) and PM (SPS) was demonstrated. Several MMM composites (bimetal—Ti6Al4V–Mg, trimetal—Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al, and multimaterials—Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al–Fe and 316L SS—Cu–Fe–Ti) were fabricated. In all these combinations, hardness was taken as the varying factor and sinusoidal hardness variation can be observed in the Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al–Fe MMM. Similarly, MMMs with other varying properties (like conductivity, corrosion, tribology, etc.) may be fabricated by carefully selecting the composition of the reinforcement(s) and matrix. The structure of the matrix may also be modified depending on the real-time application. Hence, the present study is a testimony of fabricating next-generation and novel MMM composites with multiple compositions.

4. Conclusions

The present manuscript deals with the fabrication of Ti6Al4V –Mg/Al/Fe and 316L SS/Ti/Cu/Ni MMMs by combining AM (LPBF) and PM (SPS) techniques. The results show that there is no interfacial reaction between the matrix and the reinforcement and between the different reinforcement compositions. Occasionally between the two reinforcement interfaces mixing of powder particles may be observed that arises during the powder introduction process before consolidation. The hardness profile shows a sinusoidal variation in hardness due to the distribution of the different reinforcement particles and the matrix precursor. The present study opens the avenue of fabricating MMMs with different compositions, where a diverse material property is required.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.X., Z.W. and K.G.P.; methodology, M.K.Y., R.S. and K.G.P.; validation, L.X., Z.W. and K.G.P.; formal analysis, M.K.Y., R.S. and K.G.P.; investigation, M.K.Y., R.S., L.X., Z.W. and K.G.P.; resources, L.X. and K.G.P.; data curation, M.K.Y. and R.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K.Y., R.S., L.X. and Z.W.; writing—review and editing, K.G.P.; supervision, K.G.P.; project administration, K.G.P.; funding acquisition, L.X., Z.W. and K.G.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The present research was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52205382) and special fund of Jiangsu Province Science and Technology Plan (BZ2024019).

Data Availability Statement

Data may be shared on reasonable requests.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Katiyar, N.K.; Goel, G.; Hawi, S.; Goel, S. Nature-Inspired Materials: Emerging Trends and Prospects. NPG Asia Mater. 2021, 13, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, R.; Bai, H.; Zhu, Z.; Zhu, L.; Zhu, C.; Che, Z.; Liu, H.; Wang, J.; et al. Collagen-Based Biomaterials for Bone Tissue Engineering. Mater. Des. 2021, 210, 110049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Le Vay, L.; Egan, B. SHELLFISH (MOLLUSCS AND CRUSTACEA) | Characteristics of the Groups. In Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1999; pp. 1993–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kierdorf, U.; Stoffels, D.; Kierdorf, H. Element Concentrations and Element Ratios in Antler and Pedicle Bone of Yearling Red Deer (Cervus Elaphus) Stags—A Quantitative X-Ray Fluorescence Study. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2014, 162, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moghaddam, A.B.; Namvar, F.; Moniri, M.; Tahir, P.M.; Azizi, S.; Mohamad, R. Nanoparticles Biosynthesized by Fungi and Yeast: A Review of Their Preparation, Properties, and Medical Applications. Molecules 2015, 20, 16540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bandyopadhyay, A.; Traxel, K.D.; Bose, S. Nature-Inspired Materials and Structures Using 3D Printing. Mater. Sci. Eng. R Rep. 2021, 145, 100609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Herzog, D.; Seyda, V.; Wycisk, E.; Emmelmann, C. Additive Manufacturing of Metals. Acta Mater. 2016, 117, 371–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. DebRoy, T.; Wei, H.L.; Zuback, J.S.; Mukherjee, T.; Elmer, J.W.; Milewski, J.O.; Beese, A.M.; Wilson-Heid, A.; De, A.; Zhang, W. Additive Manufacturing of Metallic Components—Process, Structure and Properties. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2018, 92, 112–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Aboulkhair, N.T.; Simonelli, M.; Parry, L.; Ashcroft, I.; Tuck, C.; Hague, R. 3D Printing of Aluminium Alloys: Additive Manufacturing of Aluminium Alloys Using Selective Laser Melting. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2019, 106, 100578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, S.; Yuan, S.; Zhu, J.; Wang, C.; Li, J.; Zhang, W. Additive Manufacturing-Driven Design Optimization: Building Direction and Structural Topology. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 36, 101406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Korpela, M.; Riikonen, N.; Piili, H.; Salminen, A.; Nyrhilä, O. Additive Manufacturing—Past, Present, and the Future. In Technical, Economic and Societal Effects of Manufacturing 4.0; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 17–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gibson, I.; Rosen, D.; Stucker, B. Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 1–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lalegani Dezaki, M.; Serjouei, A.; Zolfagharian, A.; Fotouhi, M.; Moradi, M.; Ariffin, M.K.A.; Bodaghi, M. A Review on Additive/Subtractive Hybrid Manufacturing of Directed Energy Deposition (DED) Process. Adv. Powder Mater. 2022, 1, 100054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yoo, D.J. Recent Trends and Challenges in Computer-Aided Design of Additive Manufacturing-Based Biomimetic Scaffolds and Bioartificial Organs. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2014, 15, 2205–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mahmoud, D.; Elbestawi, M. Lattice Structures and Functionally Graded Materials Applications in Additive Manufacturing of Orthopedic Implants: A Review. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2017, 1, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cann, J.L.; De Luca, A.; Dunand, D.C.; Dye, D.; Miracle, D.B.; Oh, H.S.; Olivetti, E.A.; Pollock, T.M.; Poole, W.J.; Yang, R.; et al. Sustainability through Alloy Design: Challenges and Opportunities. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2021, 117, 100722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bertol, L.S.; Júnior, W.K.; da Silva, F.P.; Aumund-Kopp, C. Medical Design: Direct Metal Laser Sintering of Ti-6Al-4V. Mater. Des. 2010, 31, 3982–3988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tan, C.; Zhou, K.; Kuang, T. Selective Laser Melting of Tungsten-Copper Functionally Graded Material. Mater. Lett. 2019, 237, 328–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, S.; Liu, L.; Li, K.; Zhu, L.; Chen, J.; Hao, Y. Pore Functionally Graded Ti6Al4V Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering Application. Mater. Des. 2019, 168, 107643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vijayavenkataraman, S.; Kuan, L.Y.; Lu, W.F. 3D-Printed Ceramic Triply Periodic Minimal Surface Structures for Design of Functionally Graded Bone Implants. Mater. Des. 2020, 191, 108602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Baskaran, J.; Muthukannan, D.; Shukla, R.; Konda Gokuldoss, P. Manufacturability and Deformation Studies on a Novel Metallic Lattice Structure Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting. Vacuum 2024, 222, 113065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Han, J.C.; Wang, B.L. Thermal Shock Resistance Enhancement of Functionally Graded Materials by Multiple Cracking. Acta Mater. 2006, 54, 963–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Feng, H.; Meng, Q.; Zhou, Y.; Jia, D. Spark Plasma Sintering of Functionally Graded Material in the Ti-TiB2-B System. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2005, 397, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, X.Y.; Fang, G.; Xing, L.L.; Liu, W.; Zhou, J. Effect of Porosity Variation Strategy on the Performance of Functionally Graded Ti-6Al-4V Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering. Mater. Des. 2018, 157, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wei, C.; Li, L. Recent Progress and Scientific Challenges in Multi-Material Additive Manufacturing via Laser-Based Powder Bed Fusion. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2021, 16, 347–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Verma, A.; Kapil, A.; Klobčar, D.; Sharma, A. A Review on Multiplicity in Multi-Material Additive Manufacturing: Process, Capability, Scale, and Structure. Materials 2023, 16, 5246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, D.; Zheng, X. Multi-Material Additive Manufacturing of Metamaterials with Giant, Tailorable Negative Poisson’s Ratios. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 9139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nazir, A.; Gokcekaya, O.; Md Masum Billah, K.; Ertugrul, O.; Jiang, J.; Sun, J.; Hussain, S. Multi-Material Additive Manufacturing: A Systematic Review of Design, Properties, Applications, Challenges, and 3D Printing of Materials and Cellular Metamaterials. Mater. Des. 2023, 226, 111661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Prashanth, K.G. Interpenetrating Composites: A Nomenclature Dilemma. Materials 2025, 18, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, Q.; Prashanth, K.G. Metal-Metal Interpenetrating Phase Composites: A Review. J. Alloys Compd. 2024, 1009, 176951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, Y.; Chen, B.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Ritchie, R.O. Bioinspired Interpenetrating-Phase Metal Composites. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2024, 144, 101281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, M.; Yu, Q.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, J.; Tan, G.; Jiao, D.; Zhu, W.; Li, S.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, R.; et al. 3D Printed Mg-NiTi Interpenetrating-Phase Composites with High Strength, Damping Capacity, and Energy Absorption Efficiency. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, 5581–5589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, M.; Zhao, N.; Yu, Q.; Liu, Z.; Qu, R.; Zhang, J.; Li, S.; Ren, D.; Berto, F.; Zhang, Z.; et al. On the Damage Tolerance of 3-D Printed Mg-Ti Interpenetrating-Phase Composites with Bioinspired Architectures. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 3247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mattern, A.; Huchler, B.; Staudenecker, D.; Oberacker, R.; Nagel, A.; Hoffmann, M.J. Preparation of Interpenetrating Ceramic–Metal Composites. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2004, 24, 3399–3408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Merzkirch, M.; Blümel, C.; Rössler, R.; Schell, K.G.; Bucharsky, E.C.; Weidenmann, K.A. Manufacturing and Characterization of Interpenetrating SiC Lightweight Composites. Procedia CIRP 2014, 18, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, B.; Zhao, S.; Ojima, F.; Yang, J.F.; Ishizaki, K. Pulse Electric Current Sintering of 3D Interpenetrating SiC/Al Composites. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 2867–2870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Moon, R.J.; Tilbrook, M.; Hoffman, M.; Neubrand, A. Al–Al2O3 Composites with Interpenetrating Network Structures: Composite Modulus Estimation. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2005, 88, 666–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Prielipp, H.; Knechtel, M.; Claussen, N.; Streiffer, S.K.; Müllejans, H.; Rühle, M.; Rödel, J. Strength and Fracture Toughness of Aluminum/Alumina Composites with Interpenetrating Networks. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 1995, 197, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Drotárová, L.; Slámečka, K.; Balint, T.; Remešová, M.; Hudák, R.; Živčák, J.; Schnitzer, M.; Čelko, L.; Montufar, E.B. Biodegradable WE43 Mg Alloy/Hydroxyapatite Interpenetrating Phase Composites with Reduced Hydrogen Evolution. Bioact. Mater. 2024, 42, 519–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Guo, X.; Ding, J.; Li, X.; Qu, S.; Hsi Fuh, J.Y.; Lu, W.F.; Song, X.; Zhai, W. Interpenetrating Phase Composites with 3D Printed Triply Periodic Minimal Surface (TPMS) Lattice Structures. Compos. B Eng. 2023, 248, 110351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mortensen, A. Melt Infiltration of Metal Matrix Composites. Compr. Compos. Mater. 2000, 3, 521–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sasaki, G.; Adachi, J.; Choi, Y.B.; Pan, J.; Fujii, T.; Matsugi, K.; Yanagisawa, O. Fabrication of the Aluminum Matrix Composite by Ultrasonic Infiltration Technique. Mater. Sci. Forum 2005, 475–479, 921–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sampath, V.; Ramanan, N.; Palaninathan, R. Modeling of Liquid Metal Infiltration of Porous Fiber Preform During Squeeze Casting. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2006, 21, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Travitzky, N.A. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Alumina/Copper Composites Fabricated by Different Infiltration Techniques. Mater. Lett. 1998, 36, 114–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Srinivasa Rao, B.; Jayaram, V. Pressureless Infiltration of Al–Mg Based Alloys into Al2O3 Preforms: Mechanisms and Phenomenology. Acta Mater. 2001, 49, 2373–2385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hinojos, A.; Mireles, J.; Reichardt, A.; Frigola, P.; Hosemann, P.; Murr, L.E.; Wicker, R.B. Joining of Inconel 718 and 316 Stainless Steel Using Electron Beam Melting Additive Manufacturing Technology. Mater. Des. 2016, 94, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mei, X.; Wang, X.; Peng, Y.; Gu, H.; Zhong, G.; Yang, S. Interfacial Characterization and Mechanical Properties of 316L Stainless Steel/Inconel 718 Manufactured by Selective Laser Melting. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2019, 758, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sagong, M.J.; Kim, E.S.; Park, J.M.; Karthik, G.M.; Lee, B.J.; Cho, J.W.; Lee, C.S.; Nakano, T.; Kim, H.S. Interface Characteristics and Mechanical Behavior of Additively Manufactured Multi-Material of Stainless Steel and Inconel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2022, 847, 143318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zinkle, S.J.; Was, G.S. Materials Challenges in Nuclear Energy. Acta Mater. 2013, 61, 735–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Leedy, K.D.; Stubbins, J.F. Copper Alloy–Stainless Steel Bonded Laminates for Fusion Reactor Applications: Crack Growth and Fatigue. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2001, 297, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, Z.H.; Zhang, D.Q.; Sing, S.L.; Chua, C.K.; Loh, L.E. Interfacial Characterization of SLM Parts in Multi-Material Processing: Metallurgical Diffusion between 316L Stainless Steel and C18400 Copper Alloy. Mater. Charact. 2014, 94, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schimek, M.; Springer, A.; Kaierle, S.; Kracht, D.; Wesling, V. Laser-Welded Dissimilar Steel-Aluminum Seams for Automotive Lightweight Construction. Phys. Procedia 2012, 39, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Scaramuccia, M.G.; Demir, A.G.; Caprio, L.; Tassa, O.; Previtali, B. Development of Processing Strategies for Multigraded Selective Laser Melting of Ti6Al4V and IN718. Powder Technol. 2020, 367, 376–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sing, S.L.; Lam, L.P.; Zhang, D.Q.; Liu, Z.H.; Chua, C.K. Interfacial Characterization of SLM Parts in Multi-Material Processing: Intermetallic Phase Formation between AlSi10Mg and C18400 Copper Alloy. Mater. Charact. 2015, 107, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chen, K.; Wang, C.; Hong, Q.; Wen, S.; Zhou, Y.; Yan, C.; Shi, Y. Selective Laser Melting 316L/CuSn10 Multi-Materials: Processing Optimization, Interfacial Characterization and Mechanical Property. J. Mater. Process Technol. 2020, 283, 116701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wei, C.; Li, L.; Zhang, X.; Chueh, Y.H. 3D Printing of Multiple Metallic Materials via Modified Selective Laser Melting. CIRP Ann. 2018, 67, 245–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Al-Jamal, O.M.; Hinduja, S.; Li, L. Characteristics of the Bond in Cu–H13 Tool Steel Parts Fabricated Using SLM. CIRP Ann. 2008, 57, 239–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wei, C.; Chueh, Y.H.; Zhang, X.; Huang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Li, L. Easy-To-Remove Composite Support Material and Procedure in Additive Manufacturing of Metallic Components Using Multiple Material Laser-Based Powder Bed Fusion. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Trans. ASME 2019, 141, 071002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Terrazas, C.A.; Gaytan, S.M.; Rodriguez, E.; Espalin, D.; Murr, L.E.; Medina, F.; Wicker, R.B. Multi-Material Metallic Structure Fabrication Using Electron Beam Melting. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 71, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. McDonnell, B.; Errico, V.; Posa, P.; Angelastro, A.; Furman, A.; O’Hara, E.; Campanelli, S.L.; Harrison, N. Bi-Metallic Lattice Structures Manufactured via an Intralayer Multi-Material Powder Bed Fusion Method. Addit. Manuf. 2024, 89, 104301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Roach, D.J.; Hamel, C.M.; Dunn, C.K.; Johnson, M.V.; Kuang, X.; Qi, H.J. The M4 3D Printer: A Multi-Material Multi-Method Additive Manufacturing Platform for Future 3D Printed Structures. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 29, 100819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Benyahia, K.; Seriket, H.; Prod’hon, R.; Gomes, S.; André, J.C.; Qi, H.J.; Demoly, F. A Computational Design Approach for Multi-Material 4D Printing Based on Interlocking Blocks Assembly. Addit. Manuf. 2022, 58, 102993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chueh, Y.H.; Zhang, X.; Ke, J.C.R.; Li, Q.; Wei, C.; Li, L. Additive Manufacturing of Hybrid Metal/Polymer Objects via Multiple-Material Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 36, 101465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ritchie, R.O. The Conflicts between Strength and Toughness. Nat. Mater. 2011, 10, 817–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Rocha, V.G.; Saiz, E.; Tirichenko, I.S.; García-Tuñón, E. Direct Ink Writing Advances in Multi-Material Structures for a Sustainable Future. J. Mater. Chem. A Mater. 2020, 8, 15646–15657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Czerwinski, F. Current Trends in Automotive Lightweighting Strategies and Materials. Materials 2021, 14, 6631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Shukla, R.; Yadav, M.K.; Madruga, L.Y.C.; Jayaraj, J.; Popat, K.; Wang, Z.; Xi, L.; Prashanth, K.G. A Novel Ti-Eggshell-Based Composite Fabricated by Combined Additive Manufacturing-Powder Metallurgical Routes as Bioimplants. Ceram. Int. 2025, 51, 6281–6291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Singh, N.; Hameed, P.; Ummethala, R.; Manivasagam, G.; Prashanth, K.G.; Eckert, J. Selective Laser Manufacturing of Ti-Based Alloys and Composites: Impact of Process Parameters, Application Trends, and Future Prospects. Mater. Today Adv. 2020, 8, 100097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kumar, D.; Shankar, G.; Prashanth, K.G.; Suwas, S. Control of Texture and Microstructure in Additive Manufacturing of Stainless Steel 316 L. J. Alloys Compd. 2023, 976, 173040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kumar, D.; Shankar, G.; Prashanth, K.G.; Suwas, S. Texture Dependent Strain Hardening in Additively Manufactured Stainless Steel 316L. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2021, 820, 141483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kumar, D.; Jhavar, S.; Arya, A.; Prashanth, K.G.; Suwas, S. Mechanisms Controlling Fracture Toughness of Additively Manufactured Stainless Steel 316L. Int. J. Fract. 2021, 235, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhao, C.; Wang, Z.; Li, D.; Kollo, L.; Luo, Z.; Zhang, W.; Prashanth, K.G. Cu-Ni-Sn Alloy Fabricated by Melt Spinning and Selective Laser Melting: A Comparative Study on the Microstructure and Formation Kinetics. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 13097–13105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Karimi, J.; Suryanarayana, C.; Okulov, I.; Prashanth, K.G. Selective Laser Melting of Ti6Al4V: Effect of Laser Re-Melting. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2020, 805, 140558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Prashanth, K.G.; Damodaram, R.; Maity, T.; Wang, P.; Eckert, J. Friction Welding of Selective Laser Melted Ti6Al4V Parts. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2017, 704, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Karimi, J.; Kollo, L.; Prashanth, K.G. Tailoring Anisotropy and Heterogeneity of Selective Laser Melted Ti6Al4V Alloys. Trans. Indian Natl. Acad. Eng. 2023, 8, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, F.; Mei, J.; Wu, X. Direct Laser Fabrication of Ti6Al4V/TiB. J. Mater. Process Technol. 2008, 195, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Liu, S.; Shin, Y.C. Additive Manufacturing of Ti6Al4V Alloy: A Review. Mater. Des. 2019, 164, 107552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yadroitsava, I.; Grewar, S.; Hattingh, D.; Yadroitsev, I. Residual Stress in SLM Ti6Al4V Alloy Specimens. In Materials Science Forum; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Wollerau, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 828–829, pp. 305–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Onuike, B.; Bandyopadhyay, A. Additive Manufacturing of Inconel 718—Ti6Al4V Bimetallic Structures. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 22, 844–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wang, Z.; Xie, M.; Li, Y.; Zhang, W.; Yang, C.; Kollo, L.; Eckert, J.; Prashanth, K.G. Premature Failure of an Additively Manufactured Material. NPG Asia Mater. 2020, 12, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhao, C.; Wang, Z.; Li, D.; Kollo, L.; Luo, Z.; Zhang, W.; Prashanth, K.G. Selective Laser Melting of Cu–Ni–Sn: A Comprehensive Study on the Microstructure, Mechanical Properties, and Deformation Behavior. Int. J. Plast. 2021, 138, 102926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Jung, H.Y.; Choi, S.J.; Prashanth, K.G.; Stoica, M.; Scudino, S.; Yi, S.; Kühn, U.; Kim, D.H.; Kim, K.B.; Eckert, J. Fabrication of Fe-Based Bulk Metallic Glass by Selective Laser Melting: A Parameter Study. Mater. Des. 2015, 86, 703–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhao, C.; Wang, Z.; Li, D.; Xie, M.; Kollo, L.; Luo, Z.; Zhang, W.; Prashanth, K.G. Comparison of Additively Manufacturing Samples Fabricated from Pre-Alloyed and Mechanically Mixed Powders. J. Alloys Compd. 2020, 830, 154603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Bedmar, J.; Riquelme, A.; Rodrigo, P.; Torres, B.; Rams, J. Comparison of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for 316L Stainless Steel. Materials 2021, 14, 6504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chen, S.; Ma, G.; Wu, G.; Godfrey, A.; Huang, T.; Huang, X. Strengthening Mechanisms in Selective Laser Melted 316L Stainless Steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2022, 832, 142434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Suryawanshi, J.; Prashanth, K.G.; Ramamurty, U. Mechanical Behavior of Selective Laser Melted 316L Stainless Steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2017, 696, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zhang, S.Y.; Compagnon, E.; Godin, B.; Korsunsky, A.M. Investigation of Martensite Transformation in 316L Stainless Steel. In Proceedings of the Materials Today: Proceedings; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 2, pp. S251–S260. [Google Scholar]
  88. Zhai, W.; Zhu, Z.; Zhou, W.; Nai, S.M.L.; Wei, J. Selective Laser Melting of Dispersed TiC Particles Strengthened 316L Stainless Steel. Compos. B Eng. 2020, 199, 108291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Brytan, Z. Comparison of Vacuum Sintered and Selective Laser Melted Steel AISI 316L. Arch. Metall. Mater. 2017, 62, 2125–2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wang, C.; Lin, X.; Wang, L.; Zhang, S.; Huang, W. Cryogenic Mechanical Properties of 316L Stainless Steel Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2021, 815, 141317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Shamsujjoha, M.; Agnew, S.R.; Fitz-Gerald, J.M.; Moore, W.R.; Newman, T.A. High Strength and Ductility of Additively Manufactured 316L Stainless Steel Explained. Metall. Mater. Trans. A Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci. 2018, 49, 3011–3027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Li, Z.; Yang, Z.; Liu, B.; Yang, S.; Kuai, Z.; Li, J.; Li, H.; Chen, Y.; Wu, H.; Bai, P. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of CNC-SLM Hybrid Manufacturing 316L Parts. J. Manuf. Process 2022, 79, 432–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Tang, S.H.; Cheng, C.W.; Yeh, R.Y.; Hsu, R.Q. Direct Joining of 3D-Printed Thermoplastic Parts to SLM-Fabricated Metal Cellular Structures by Ultrasonic Welding. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2018, 99, 729–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Yang, E.; Leary, M.; Lozanovski, B.; Downing, D.; Mazur, M.; Sarker, A.; Khorasani, A.M.; Jones, A.; Maconachie, T.; Bateman, S.; et al. Effect of Geometry on the Mechanical Properties of Ti-6Al-4V Gyroid Structures Fabricated via SLM: A Numerical Study. Mater. Des. 2019, 184, 108165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ge, J.; Huang, J.; Lei, Y.; O’Reilly, P.; Ahmed, M.; Zhang, C.; Yan, X.; Yin, S. Microstructural Features and Compressive Properties of SLM Ti6Al4V Lattice Structures. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2020, 403, 126419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Moniruzzaman, M.; O’neal, C.; Bhuiyan, A.; Egan, P.F. Design and Mechanical Testing of 3d Printed Hierarchical Lattices Using Biocompatible Stereolithography. Designs 2020, 4, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Mulhi, A.; Dehgahi, S.; Waghmare, P.; Qureshi, A. Dimensional Assessment of Uniformly Periodic Porosity Primitive TPMS Lattices Using Additive Manufacturing Laser Powder Bed Fusion Technique. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2023, 124, 2127–2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. De Wild, M.; Ghayor, C.; Zimmermann, S.; Rüegg, J.; Nicholls, F.; Schuler, F.; Chen, T.H.; Weber, F.E. Osteoconductive Lattice Microarchitecture for Optimized Bone Regeneration. 3d Print. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 6, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Guo, R.F.; Wang, Y.; Shen, P.; Shaga, A.; Ma, Y.H.; Jiang, Q.C. Influence of Matrix Property and Interfacial Reaction on the Mechanical Performance and Fracture Mechanism of TiC Reinforced Al Matrix Lamellar Composites. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2020, 775, 138956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Xiong, B.; Zheng, F.; Cheng, D.; Zhu, Q.; Niu, Z.; Wang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y.; Liu, Z.; Wang, Z.; et al. Interfacial Reaction Induced Mechanical Behaviors in Graphene Reinforced Nb/Nb5Si3 Composites. Mater. Today Commun. 2024, 39, 109014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Bai, Y.; Zhou, J.; Zhao, C.; Yun, K.; Qi, L. Inhibition of Interfacial Reaction and Enhancement of Mechanical Properties of CF/Al Composite. Mater. Charact. 2024, 216, 114258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Liu, Z.; Bao, J.; Hu, W.; Yan, H. Microstructure, Interfacial Reaction Behavior, and Mechanical Properties of Ti3AlC2 Reinforced Al6061 Composites. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2024, 34, 2756–2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Jiang, J.; Wang, Y.; Yang, L.; Jia, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Li, M.; Zhang, X.; Kong, X.; Zhang, G.; Yang, Q.; et al. Interfacial Reaction and Matrix Microstructure Evolution of SiCf/Ti2AlNb Composites Induced by Hot Isostatic Pressing. J. Alloys Compd. 2024, 1008, 176554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, T.; Liu, X. Flash Joining of C/C Composite with Ag-Cu-Ti Filler by Spark Plasma Sintering: The Promoting and Inhibiting Effects on the Interfacial Reactions. Ceram. Int. 2024. in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Hu, Q.; Chen, H.; Fu, W.; Zhou, L.; Deng, Y. Effect of Titanium Element on the Interfacial Reactions and Properties of B4C/Al Composites Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2025, 333, 130385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcs 09 00080 g001
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the composite manufacturing process: (a1) additive manufacturing of the lattice using LPBF process, (a2) fabricated metal lattice precursor, (b1) spark plasma sintering of the composite by placing the precursor inside the spark plasma sintering mold, and (c1) structure of the fabricated metallic bimetal.
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the composite manufacturing process: (a1) additive manufacturing of the lattice using LPBF process, (a2) fabricated metal lattice precursor, (b1) spark plasma sintering of the composite by placing the precursor inside the spark plasma sintering mold, and (c1) structure of the fabricated metallic bimetal.
Jcs 09 00080 g001
Jcs 09 00080 g002
Figure 2. Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive spectroscopy area maps showing the individual constituents present in the metallic multimaterials (MMMs): (a) Ti6Al4V-Mg MMM composite—bimetal composite, (b) Ti6Al4V-Mg-Al composite—trimetal composite, and (c) Ti6Al4V-Mg-Ti-Fe composite—multimaterial composite.
Figure 2. Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive spectroscopy area maps showing the individual constituents present in the metallic multimaterials (MMMs): (a) Ti6Al4V-Mg MMM composite—bimetal composite, (b) Ti6Al4V-Mg-Al composite—trimetal composite, and (c) Ti6Al4V-Mg-Ti-Fe composite—multimaterial composite.
Jcs 09 00080 g002
Jcs 09 00080 g003
Figure 3. X-ray diffraction patterns of the different metallic multimaterial composites fabricated by the combination of additive manufacturing and powder metallurgical processes.
Figure 3. X-ray diffraction patterns of the different metallic multimaterial composites fabricated by the combination of additive manufacturing and powder metallurgical processes.
Jcs 09 00080 g003
Jcs 09 00080 g004
Figure 4. Scanning electron microscopy images (both secondary electron (BE) and back-scattered (BSD) modes) showing the microstructure of the Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al–Fe metallic multimaterial composite.
Figure 4. Scanning electron microscopy images (both secondary electron (BE) and back-scattered (BSD) modes) showing the microstructure of the Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al–Fe metallic multimaterial composite.
Jcs 09 00080 g004
Jcs 09 00080 g005
Figure 5. Hardness profile plot observed for the Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al–Fe metallic multimaterial composite fabricated by combining additive manufacturing and powder metallurgical processes.
Figure 5. Hardness profile plot observed for the Ti6Al4V–Mg–Al–Fe metallic multimaterial composite fabricated by combining additive manufacturing and powder metallurgical processes.
Jcs 09 00080 g005
Jcs 09 00080 g006
Figure 6. Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive spectroscopy area maps showing the individual constituents present in the 316L SS–Ti–Cu–Ni metallic multimaterial composite.
Figure 6. Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive spectroscopy area maps showing the individual constituents present in the 316L SS–Ti–Cu–Ni metallic multimaterial composite.
Jcs 09 00080 g006
Table 1. Table illustrating the reported multimaterials along with their industrial applications and a brief rationale on the material combinations.
Table 1. Table illustrating the reported multimaterials along with their industrial applications and a brief rationale on the material combinations.
Material
Combination		IndustryDescriptionReferences
IN 718—316L Stainless steel (SS)Nuclear fission
applications		Applications: Pressure tubes, reactor head (pressurized light-water reactors) or bottom (boiling light-water reactors), and the reactor pressure vessel of the nuclear reactor
Material 1: Nickel alloys ensure resistance to extreme chemical environments (corrosion resistance) and high temperatures—especially high-temperature corrosion resistance.
Material 2: Stainless steel provides mechanical strength and corrosion resistance.
Material combination: The combination of these materials (IN718 and 316L SS) offers both high-temperature resistance and structural integrity, ensuring safe and efficient reactor operation.		[51,55,56,57]
316L SS—Oxygen-free high conductivity (OHFC) CuNuclear fusion
applications		Applications: Plasma-facing surfaces of divertor plates and first wall components in tokamaks (fusion reactors) like ITER.
Material 1: Copper provides excellent thermal conductivity, which is crucial for efficiently removing heat from the reactor surface exposed to high plasma temperatures.
Material 2: Stainless steel offers structural integrity and corrosion resistance, essential for withstanding the demanding reactor environment.
Material combination: The plasma-facing components (PFCs) are exposed to extremely high heat fluxes, requiring materials that can handle both high temperatures and the erosive effects of plasma.		[58,59]
H360LA—EN AW-5128/EN AW-6016Chemical
processing
applications		Applications: Adapters in oxygen regenerators.
Material 1: Steel ensures mechanical strength and durability.
Material 2: Aluminum forms a protective alumina layer, ensuring high corrosion resistance in oxygen-rich environments.
Material combination: Combines corrosion resistance with structural support.		[60]
Ti6Al4V—IN718Nuclear fusion/ aerospace
applications		Applications: Gas turbine blades and shafts.
Material 1: Titanium is lightweight with a high strength-to-weight ratio, making it ideal for cooler sections of the turbine to reduce overall weight.
Material 2: Inconel, a nickel-based superalloy, exhibits excellent creep and oxidation resistance, enabling it to perform in high-temperature regions exposed to hot gases.
Material combination: Enhances turbine efficiency with reduced weight and improved durability in varying thermal zones.		[61]
C18400
Cu alloy—AlSi10Mg		Electrical
applications		Applications: Electrical connectors and heat exchangers.
Material 1: Copper offers excellent electrical conductivity and heat dissipation.
Material 2: Aluminum provides lightweight and corrosion-resistant properties, making it suitable for large structures.
Material combination: Combines high conductivity and lightweight characteristics for efficient energy systems.		[62]
316L SS—CuSn10Marine/industrial applicationsApplications: Heat exchanger components and corrosion-resistant structures.
Material 1: SS316L provides corrosion resistance and mechanical strength in marine environments.
Material 2: CuSn10 ensures superior thermal and electrical conductivity, alongside excellent wear resistance.
Material combination: Combines structural integrity and conductivity for demanding environments.		[63,64]
AlSi10Mg—C18400 Cu alloyLightweight
components		Applications: Lightweight structural and thermal management components.
Material 1: A lightweight aluminum alloy commonly used in additive manufacturing (AM) for its excellent mechanical properties, high strength-to-weight ratio, and corrosion resistance.
Material 2: A high-conductivity copper alloy primarily used for thermal management applications due to its superior electrical and thermal conductivity.
Material combination: Provides lightweight structures with efficient thermal management.		[62]
Cu—H13 tool steelDie casting
applications		Applications: Bi-metallic die for the pressure die-casting industry.
Material 1: Core would be from copper to reduce thermal resistance, thus encouraging the flow of heat energy from the cavity to the cooling channels.
Material 2: H13 tool steel to provide structural strength.
Material combination: Combines thermal management with structural integrity for effective die-casting operations.		[65]
Tool steel–ceramic (80%ZrO2 + 20% Al2O3—tool steelTooling
applications		Applications: Tools and dies.
Material 1: Tool steel provides structural strength and toughness.
Material 2: Ceramic offers high hardness and wear resistance.
Material combination: Combines toughness and wear resistance for extended tool life in demanding applications.		[60]
SiC—316LAdvanced
manufacturing
applications		Applications: Support structures for SLM.
Material 1: Silicon carbide enhances wear resistance and thermal conductivity.
Material 2: Stainless steel ensures corrosion resistance and structural integrity.
Material combination: Facilitates easy support removal and high-performance structural compatibility.		[66]
Ti6Al4V—CuBiomedical/
aerospace
applications		Applications: Implants and components requiring thermal management.
Material 1: Titanium ensures biocompatibility and structural strength in biomedical and aerospace applications.
Material 2: Copper provides excellent thermal conductivity for heat management.
Material combination: Combines biocompatibility and efficient thermal management for biomedical and aerospace uses.		[67]
Table 2. Table furnishing the process parameters employed during the spark plasma sintering process to fabricate the metallic multimaterials.
Table 2. Table furnishing the process parameters employed during the spark plasma sintering process to fabricate the metallic multimaterials.
S. No.CompositionTemperature (°C)Load (MPa)Time (min)
1Ti–Mg5505010
2Ti–Mg–Al5505010
3Ti–Mg–Al–Fe5505010
4SS(Hexagon)—Ti–Cu–Ni1000505
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

Yadav, M.K.; Shukla, R.; Xi, L.; Wang, Z.; Prashanth, K.G. Metallic Multimaterials Fabricated by Combining Additive Manufacturing and Powder Metallurgy. J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9, 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9020080

AMA Style

Yadav MK, Shukla R, Xi L, Wang Z, Prashanth KG. Metallic Multimaterials Fabricated by Combining Additive Manufacturing and Powder Metallurgy. Journal of Composites Science. 2025; 9(2):80. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9020080

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yadav, Mayank Kumar, Riddhi Shukla, Lixia Xi, Zhi Wang, and Konda Gokuldoss Prashanth. 2025. "Metallic Multimaterials Fabricated by Combining Additive Manufacturing and Powder Metallurgy" Journal of Composites Science 9, no. 2: 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9020080

APA Style

Yadav, M. K., Shukla, R., Xi, L., Wang, Z., & Prashanth, K. G. (2025). Metallic Multimaterials Fabricated by Combining Additive Manufacturing and Powder Metallurgy. Journal of Composites Science, 9(2), 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9020080

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop