Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2026
Production of Single Tracks of Ti-6Al-4V by Directed Energy Deposition to Determine the Layer Thickness for Multilayer Deposition
Published on: March 13, 2018
Use of indentation test methods for additive manufacturing build verification for Ti-6Al-4V
Abigail Tetteh1, Daniel Porter1, Thomas Southern2
1Division of Applied Mechanics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Profilometry-based Indentation Plastometry (PIP) and Vickers micro-hardness offer promising alternatives for verifying Additive Manufacturing (AM) parts. These indentation techniques show good correlation with tensile test results, potentially reducing build times and costs for 3D-printed medical devices.
Area of Science:
- Materials Science
- Manufacturing Engineering
- Mechanical Engineering
Background:
- Additive Manufacturing (AM), or 3D printing, is increasingly used for medical devices.
- AM parts exhibit greater mechanical property variability than traditionally manufactured parts.
- Current verification relies on tensile testing, which is time-consuming and inefficient for AM.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate indentation techniques for AM build verification.
- To compare Profilometry-based Indentation Plastometry (PIP) and Vickers micro-hardness against tensile testing.
- To assess the feasibility of these methods for cost-effective and time-efficient AM part verification.
Main Methods:
- Tensile testing of AM and wrought titanium alloy coupons (ASTM E8).
- Cutting indentation coupons from tensile coupon grip sections.
- Conducting Vickers micro-hardness and PIP indentation tests.
- Performing linear regression analysis to compare indentation results with tensile outcomes.
Main Results:
- PIP showed similar correlations to tensile results for both AM and wrought specimens for yield strength (0.48, 0.22) and ultimate tensile strength (0.85, 0.84).
- Vickers micro-hardness demonstrated a stronger correlation with tensile results for AM specimens (yield strength: 0.59, ultimate tensile strength: 0.70) compared to wrought specimens (yield strength: 0.14, ultimate tensile strength: 0.17).
- Outliers were observed, likely due to sample anisotropy.
Conclusions:
- Indentation techniques, particularly PIP and Vickers micro-hardness, show potential for AM build verification.
- These methods could offer a more efficient alternative to traditional tensile testing.
- Further validation is needed to fully implement indentation techniques for AM quality control.
