Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 18611868

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science and Engineering A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Characterization of Ti6Al4V open cellular foams fabricated by additive

manufacturing using electron beam melting
L.E. Murr a,b, , S.M. Gaytan a,b , F. Medina b , E. Martinez a,b , J.L. Martinez a,b , D.H. Hernandez a,b ,
B.I. Machado a,b , D.A. Ramirez a,b , R.B. Wicker b,c
a
b
c

Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA
W.M. Keck Center for 3D Innovation, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 17 September 2009
Received in revised form 3 November 2009
Accepted 5 November 2009

Keywords:
Electron beam melting
Open cellular foam fabrication
Elastic modulus measurement
Optical microscopy
SEM and TEM characterization

a b s t r a c t
Ti6Al4V open cellular foams were fabricated by additive manufacturing using electron beam melting
(EBM). Foam models were developed from CT-scans of aluminum open cellular foams and embedded
in CAD for EBM. These foams were fabricated with solid cell structures as well as hollow cell structures
and exhibit tailorable stiffness and strength. The strength in proportion to the measured microindentation hardness is as much as 40% higher for hollow cell (wall) structures in contrast to solid, fully dense
EBM fabricated components. Plots of relative stiffness versus relative density were in good agreement
with the GibsonAshby model for open cellular foam materials. Stiffness or Youngs modulus values measured using a resonant frequency-damping analysis technique were found to vary inversely with porosity
especially for solid cell wall, open cellular structure foams. These foams exhibit the potential for novel
biomedical, aeronautics, and automotive applications.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Although melt-processing of aluminum and aluminum alloys
has produced cellular foams with open or closed cells for at least
three decades [15], these same highly-porous metal or alloy
products have only recently been fabricated for Ti6Al4V [6,7].
While the low melting point and low reactivity of aluminum alloys
make liquid-state processing possible, the high melting points and
extreme chemical afnity of titanium and its alloys with oxygen
and nitrogen as well as their extremely high reactivity with most
mold materials has prevented cellular foam processing from these
materials.
Titanium alloy foams have numerous potential applications
as a consequence of their light weight and exceptional, isotropic
mechanical properties, and corrosion resistance. These include a
host of structural applications in aerospace, aeronautics and automotive systems which take advantage of density-compensated
strength and stiffness at elevated temperatures. Murr et al. [7]
have also recently demonstrated that Ti6Al4V cellular foams
produced by additive manufacturing (AM) using electron beam

Corresponding author at: Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, The University of Texas at El Paso, 500 W. Univrsity Ave., Room M-201, El Paso,
TX 79968-0520, USA. Tel.: +1 915 747 5468; fax: +1 915 747 8036.
E-mail address: lemurr@utep.edu (L.E. Murr).
0921-5093/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2009.11.015

melting (EBM) of precursor powder can have innovative applications as the next generation biomedical implants. These cellular
foams were fabricated by EBM using CAD models created from CTscans of aluminum alloy foams. The CAD models serve as building
units or building elements which allow spatial replication similar
to crystal unit cells [7].
The present paper is an extension of this preliminary research
[7] on the fabrication of Ti6Al4V cellular foams using EBM.
We measured the stiffness (or Youngs modulus) and examined
the stiffness versus density in contrast to many very low density foams (with relative density <0.3), especially aluminum alloys
which t the GibsonAshby foam model [2]. We characterized the
Ti6Al4V foam microstructures using optical and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and examined test model microstructures
emulating the cooling or solidication features of the connected
foam structures versus bulk or full-density components using
transmission electron microscopy.
2. Experimental methods and analytical issues
The Ti6Al4V open cellular foam building by EBM was accomplished by creating 3D-digital models based upon CT-scanned
aluminum alloy foams described previously [7]. These scanned
foams were converted to Stl les where the cellular foam build
element can be altered in linear dimension and cellular structure
size to create systematic porosity variations (or densities). Fig. 1

1862

L.E. Murr et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 18611868

Fig. 1. Software (CAD) models for open cellular foams based upon micro-CT-scans for aluminum alloy foams (a) 2X base foam or primary build unit (1X). (b) 2X test foam
volume (isometric view); (c) 3X base foam; (d) 3X test foam volume. In (b) the virtual volume is denoted by dotted lines.
From Murr et al. [7].

illustrates 3D foam models which are created from these software

systems to direct the layer-melt scan in the EBM. The ARCAM A2,
EBM system has been described in detail elsewhere [7,8]. Ti6Al4V
powder (having a nominal composition of 6.04% Al, 4.05% V and
0.13% O (balance Ti in wt%) and an average particle diameter of
30 m) is raked into 100 m thick layers which are preheated
by rapid scanning of the beam followed by a melt scan [7,8]. The
melt scan is driven by the computer-aided (CAD) system which
selectively melts each additive layer to build the 3D structure. The
CAD system incorporates the CT scan in the form of a prime element or structural element. Fig. 1 utilizes the prime foam element
(designated IX) to produce models for 2X (Fig. 1(a) and (b)) and 3X
(Fig. 1(c) and (d)) foams. Foams were also built from 2.5X and 4X as

well as illustrated in Fig. 2. Fig. 2 shows a CAD model slice through

a cellular foam build illustrating cell structure features implicit in
the surface view in Fig. 1 (arrow in Fig. 1(c)). In Figs. 1 and 2(a)
and (c) these cell structure ligaments are solid. However, in this
study we fabricated open cellular foams with solid (S) cell or ligament structures (arrow in Fig. 1(c)) as well as hollow (H) cell
structures. These are illustrated in Fig. 2(b). The EBM system currently has four building modules: preheat, melt, wafer support, and
volume support. The beam conditions for preheat and melt have
already been described. The wafer system module allows for the
creation of the open contours during the open cell foam fabrication
shown schematically in Fig. 2(b). The wafer supports are created in
Magics, RPTM software as 3D objects without a specic thickness.

L.E. Murr et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 18611868

1863

impulse-excitation using a small mechanical tapping device to create a mechanically induced vibration in the cellular foam sample
[9]. This vibration consists of the sum of several resonant frequencies, fr , each of which dampens according to the energy absorption
of the material to produce a measurement of the elastic modulus,
E, in the form:
E = mfr2

Fig. 2. CAD model sections (2.3 cm 2.3 cm) for the open cellular Ti6Al4V foams:
1X, 2X, 2.5X, 3X and 4X. (a) The least dense (or most porous) foam (4X) in contrast
to the most dense (or least porous) foam (1X). 1X represents the base CAD element.
(b) Enlarged cell wall or ligament in 4X (a) having a solid (S) or hollow (H) structure.
(c) The three intermediate cellular foam sections for solid cell structures (2X, 2.5X,
3X) at reduced magnication relative to (a).

Consequently, this module only melts the contour (Fig. 2(b)) of the
desired component area when used as a model, and only builds a
hollow ligament shell with a wall thickness of roughly one beam
diameter. This means that the shell thickness will be roughly the
same for all foams (1X to 4X in Fig. 2). These complex, hollow cell
structures were functionally lower in density than the solid structure cellular foams with identical porosity or pores/inch (ppi). We
were also interested in comparing the corresponding stiffnesses for
these structural variants.
Murr et al. [7] have already noted that the microstructures and
residual microindentation hardnesses were different for reticulated mesh structures because of the variations in cooling rates
for thin struts versus larger, solid, monolithic components built
by EBM. These variations were observed to be circumstantially
desirable because the thinner strut geometries were up to 20%
harder (and stronger) than solid monoliths [7]. Consequently, it
was assumed that in the fabricated cellular foams, those with solid
cell or ligament structures would differ from the hollow or open
structures (Fig. 2(b)) in a similar fashion. Since it was not possible
to create standard, electron transparent thin sections (from 3 mm
discs) from cellular foam ligament structures (Fig. 1), we devised
a test structure to simulate cooling variations for thin components
and component arrangements implicit in Figs. 1 and 2(b). These
test arrays were thin-plate structures from which standard 3 mm
TEM discs could be punched from one of the test strips composing
this simulated, thin ligament or connecting cell structure. These
EBM-test structures could be altered in structure and dimensions
to simulate the foam cell dimensions implicit in Fig. 1. Connected or
continuous plate arrays and unconnected arrays allowed for variations in heat conduction and altered the solidication rate.
The elastic (Youngs) moduli for EBM fabricated Ti6Al4V cellular foams were initially measured in this study using a resonant
frequency and damping analyzer (RFDA) developed by IMCE, n.v.
Genk, Belgium [9]. This non-destructive testing system is based on

(1)

where  is a geometrical (specimen) shape factor, m is the specimen mass, and fr is the prominent, resonant frequency [9]. This
non-destructive testing measures the dynamic Youngs modulus in
contrast to the static modulus for tensile or compression testing.
This is often referred to as a stiffness-related number rather than
the conventional Youngs modulus.
The cellular foams fabricated as test samples in this study were
designed to satisfy the general metal foam requirements discussed
by Ashby et al. [1]: height/width >1.5, height >7 times the cell
size or pore (channel) size. Fabricated test components were,
after elastic modulus measurements, sliced in sections which were
mounted, polished, and etched for optical metallographic examination and measurement of Vickers microindentation hardness (HV)
using a 100 gf (1 N) load for a 10 s dwell time. The etching of the
mounted and polished sections involved a solution consisting of
100 mL H2 O, 2.5 mL HF and 5 mL HNO3 . Representative sections
cut from the cellular mesh samples were also observed in a Hitachi
S-4800 eld emission SEM operating at 20 kV. Electron transparent specimens prepared from solid, full density (4.3 g/cm3 ) test
blocks and the test/simulation congurations described above, and
described in detail by Murr et al. [8], were observed in a Hitachi
H-8000 TEM operating at 200 kV accelerating potential, employing
a goniometer-tilt stage.
3. Results and discussion
Fig. 3 illustrates examples of the ve different cellular foams fabricated by EBM utilizing CAD models illustrated typically in Fig. 1.
Fig. 3(a) shows the 1X, solid cell, base element foam and the 4X
foams in both the solid cell (S) hollow cell (H) wall structures (or
connecting ligaments) shown schematically in Fig. 2(b). Fig. 3(b)
illustrates cross-sectional (optical) views for the 3X solid cell structure at the left and the 4X open cell structure at the right. Fig. 3(c)
illustrates the corresponding solid (S) and hollow (H) cell ligament
structures and the nominal designations for the cell or cell wall
thicknesses: tS and tO , respectively. Note that tO will be essentially
constant and related to the electron beam diameter. Table 1 summarizes the solid and open (or hollow) cell foams in this study along
with their measured pore density (pores/inch, ppi), measured density (), relative density (/o ) (where o is 4.3 g/cm3 ), and the
effective porosity in percent, which includes the nominal, internal cell porosity for the open cell structures. Table 1 also lists the
average cell structure (ligament) thickness for the solid cellular
foams (tS ) and the average cell wall thickness (tO ) for the hollow
cell structures for the open cellular foams (as illustrated in Fig. 3(c))
along with the corresponding Vickers microindentation hardness
averages. With the exception of the most dense solid and open (or
hollow) cell structures, the experimental hollow cellular foams in
Table 1 have relative densities equal to or less than 0.3, consistent
with most of the other reported metal and alloy foams, especially
aluminum and aluminum alloys [1,2].
As implicit in Table 1, the cell ligament or wall structures for
both the solid cell structures and the hollow cell structures exhibit
microindentation hardnesses which vary from roughly 29% to 37%
greater than monolithic, bulk samples where the Vickers microindentation hardness is nominally 3.5 GPa. This in contrast to values
ranging from 4.5 to 4.8 GPa for the thin ligaments or hollow cell

1864

L.E. Murr et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 18611868

Fig. 3. Comparison of 1X solid and 4X solid and open cell structure Ti6Al4V foams (a). (b) A solid cell structure 3X foam (left) and an open cell structure 4X foam (right)
cross-section views. (c) Enlarged, schematic views for cell ligaments or walls in (b) showing solid cell wall structure thickness designation (tS ) and hollow cell structure wall
thickness designation (tO ) corresponding to the foam cross-sections in (b).

walls. This results by rapid solidication facilitated by the small

dimensions. It can be observed in Table 1 that the larger, solid
ligament thickness exhibits consistently lower (7%) microindentation hardness in contrast to the hollow cell wall thickness (tO in
Fig. 3(c)).

Fig. 4 compares a solid, monolithic build acicular (Widmansttten), -phase grain structure having a Vickers microindentation
hardness of 3.6 GPa (Fig. 4(a)) with a 2.5X cellular foam with
a hollow cell structure exhibiting predominantly  -martensite
microstructure, having a Vickers microindentation hardness of

Based upon the design (CAD) features noted in Figs. 2 and 3.

a
Pores/inch (ppi).
b
Based upon a xed, fabricated virtual volume of 20.74 cm3 : for dimensions of 2.3 cm 2.3 cm 3.6 cm.
c
o = 4.43 g/cm3 .
d
The thickness for the solid cells is tS (ave.) while for the open cells it is tO (Fig. 3(c)). tO will be essentially constant as noted since it represents the electron beam diameter as directed by the wafer support module discussed
earlier.
e
Note that the nominal, residual yield strength can be estimated as HV/3 where HV is the Vickers microindentation hardness.
f
EO = 110 GPa.

88.8
4.4
12.3
11.7
4.4
9.77
0.48
1.35
1.29
0.48
4.5
4.7
4.6
4.9
4.8
11
7
6
4
3
1X-hollow (H)
2X-hollow (H)
2.5X-hollow (H)
3X-hollow (H)
4X-hollow (H)

41.2
17.2
14.1
12.1
9.7

1.99
0.83
0.68
0.58
0.47

0.45
0.19
0.15
0.13
0.11

55
81
85
87
89

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4

22.9
9.4
14.4
12.9
10.5

90.0
23.2
15.0
8.2
6.8
9.97
2.55
1.65
0.90
0.75
23.3
14.6
13.9
10.6
10.6
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.1
4.6
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.9
11
7
6
4
3
1X-solid (S)
2X-solid (S)
2.5X-solid (S)
3X-solid (S)
4X-solid (S)

41.2
26.9
19.3
16.6
16.1

1.99
1.29
0.93
0.80
0.78

0.45
0.29
0.21
0.18
0.18

55
71
79
82
82

Cell (wall)
hardness
(GPa)e
Pore density
(ppi)a
Foam CAD
designation*

Table 1
Ti6Al4V cellular foam properties.

Sample mass, m (g)

Density 
(g/cm3 )b

Relative
density
(/o )c

Porosity (%)

Cell wall or ligament

thickness (mm)d

Resonant
frequency,
fr (kHz)

Stiffness E
(GPa)

Relative stiffness
(E/EO )f (103 )

L.E. Murr et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 18611868

1865

Fig. 4. Comparative optical metallograph images for a solid (fully dense) monolithic
component (a) and a 2.5X, open cell structure foam (b). The image in (b) represents
a wall thickness region illustrated at tO in Fig. 3(c). The magnication is the same as
shown in (a).

4.5 GPa. Correspondingly, comparing the solid cell wall structure

4X foam with the hollow cell wall structure 4X foam produced
microindentation hardness values of 4.6 GPa and 4.8 GPa, respectively. The microindentation hardness of 4.6 GPa for the solid
cell wall structure in contrast to 3.6 GPa for Fig. 4(a) for a bulk
solid section is characteristic for microstructure strengthening
where rened (or smaller dimension) microstructures imply higher
strength and associated microindentation hardness, especially
since the yield stress ( Y ) for many metals and alloys is roughly
a third of the Vickers microindentation hardness (HV):  Y
= HV/3
[10]. Fig. 4(b) shows a mixture of  -martensite and the hcp phase; primarily  -martensite. The microstructure in Fig. 4(b)
is characteristic of thin wall structures in hollow cell ligaments
(Fig. 3(c)).
Fig. 5 compares a section from a solid monolithic build similar
to Fig. 4(a) exhibiting acicular -plates with continuous, interphase (dark). Consistent with solid monolithic builds (Fig. 4(a)),
the microindentation hardness in Fig. 5(a) was 3.5 GPa. In contrast, Fig. 5(b) shows the corresponding, rened microstructure for
a thin (1.1 mm thick) strip from a test model or simulated build
1 cm 1 cm on a side. In contrast to Fig. 5(a), the microindentation
hardness for Fig. 5(b) was 4.8 GPa, an increase of 37%. Fig. 5(a), compares the softer, solid monolithic, acicular -grain structure with a
much ner mixture of ,  -martensite, and particulated -phase
grains, all contributing to increased hardness (and strength).
Fig. 6(a) shows a bright-eld TEM image for the solid, monolithic
build microstructure in Fig. 5(a) consisting of acicular -platelets
separated by narrow, interphase regions of -phase, spaced 2 m.

1866

L.E. Murr et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 18611868

Fig. 5. Optical micrographs showing acicular -phase microstructure for a solid,

EBM fabricated Ti6Al4V cylinder (a) and a 1.1 mm thick strip in a test element as
in Fig. 4 showing rened - and -phase (dark dots). The hardness in (a) was 3.5 GPa
in contrast to (b) where the hardness was 4.8 GPa. The magnication in (b) was the
same as shown in (a).

In comparison, Fig. 6(b) shows the TEM microstructure corresponding to a 1.1 mm thick test strip represented in Fig. 5(b). The
particulation of -phase grains implicit in Fig. 5(b) is illustrated
in Fig. 6(b) where the interphase spacing is roughly half that in
Fig. 6(a). These features are characteristic of the 2.5X solid cell wall
microstructure illustrated in Fig. 4(b).
Fig. 7(a) shows a loglog plot of the relative stiffness values versus the relative density values listed in Table 1. The straight-line t
to the solid (S) cell wall structure data points has a slope of 2.4,
somewhat higher than the value of 2 tted for a large number
of open cellular aluminum foam results as summarized by Gibson [11], and implicit in the GibsonAshby model for open cellular
materials [2]:
E
=
Eo

  n
o

(2)

where n = 2 generally. However, experimentally it has been shown

that n varies from about 1.8 to 2.2 [1]. In our earlier work involving
Ti6Al4V open cellular mesh structures, a value of n = 2.4 was also
measured for a simple cubic mesh element array fabricated by EBM
[7]. It can be noted in Fig. 7(a) that there is no similar straight-line
t for the hollow cell wall (H) foam structures.
Fig. 7(b) illustrates that the measured stiffness (the elastic or
Youngs modulus (E)) values were found to vary inversely with
porosity, consistent with literature values for various foams measured ultrasonically and in compression testing, especially the
curve tted to the solid cell wall structure foams (S) [12,13]. However, unlike these literature values, the pore fraction or porosity is

Fig. 6. TEM bright-eld images corresponding to optical microscope images for

corresponding microstructures in Fig. 9. (a) Solid monolith exhibiting 2 m wide
-platelets with -phase boundaries. Arrow denotes an / grain boundary. (b)
1.1 mm test plate (Fig. 4) electropolished disc. The TEM image corresponds to
Fig. 9(b) illustrating rened (dark). The selected area electron diffraction (SAED)
pattern insert in (a) shows the -phase (h c p) (0 0 1) plane while the SAED pattern
insert in (b) shows additional, multiple diffraction spots from the rene -phase.
Note the magnication of (a) and (b) is the same.

>50% (in Fig. 7(b)) while the literature values are between 2% and
50% [13]. The stiffness values at 50% porosity for literature values
were, however, observed to be 15 GPa; extrapolated to 5 GPa at
55% porosity. This is consistent with the data plotted in Fig. 7(b)
which extends the E versus porosity values to 90% porosity, with
E approaching zero at 95% porosity. Note that because the porosity
for the hollow cell wall structure (H) foams in Table 1 could not
be measured by Archimedes method, the porosities for all foams
in Table 1 were calculated from the densities: ( o )/o . It can
also be noted in Table 1 that E values also vary inversely with pore
density (ppi).
The compressive strength of open cellular metallic foams can be
predicted using the GibsonAshby model:



=C
o
o

3/2
(3)

where  and  o denote the strength of the porous and fully dense
Ti6Al4V, respectively, and C is a scaling factor, typically near 0.3,
but ranging from 0.1 to 1 [1]. Typical values of  o , the residual
0.2% offset yield stress for Ti6Al4V EBM components has ranged

L.E. Murr et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 18611868

1867

Fig. 7. (a) Relative stiffness plotted against relative density for experimental solid cell wall (S) and hollow cell wall (H) Ti6Al4V cellular foams. The solid line is tted to
the solid cell (S) foam data. (b) Stiffness (Youngs modulus) versus porosity for solid cell wall (S) and hollow cell wall (H) Ti6Al4V foams. The solid line is tted to the solid
cell (S) foam data.

from 1.1 GPa to 1.3 GPa [8,14]. Assuming an average value of 1.2 GPa
for  o and 
= HV/3, relative strengths for the Ti6Al4V foams in
Table 1 vary from 1.14 to 1.25 for the solid cell wall structure
foams (S), and 1.25 to 1.36 for the hollow cell structure foams
(H). Consequently, the scaling factor, C, in Eq. (3) varies from 3.8 to
36.9 for the solid and open cell structure foams listed in Table 1, a
factor of 3.836.9 larger than conventional aluminum foams having
lower porosities (<50%), and indicative of ideally superior strength
for the EBM fabricated Ti6Al4V foams in Table 1.
The versatility of the EBM process to fabricate complex, multifunctional Ti6Al4V and other metal or alloy foam components
is unprecedented. In fact open cellular Ti6Al4V non-stochastic

Fig. 8. EBM CAD model half-section (a) and corresponding, fabricated monolithic
foam component (b) which was cut to show the half-section view.

Fig. 9. Example of large Ti6Al4V open cellular foam (4X) prototype fabricated by
EBM.

1868

L.E. Murr et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 18611868

lattice structures fabricated by Cansizoglu et al. [6], and foams

produced in this work, have not been fabricated by any other
process. Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate a few examples of complex foam
structures which can be fabricated as monolithic components. The
cross-section model in Fig. 8(a) along with an EBM fabricated
monolithshown in Fig. 8(b) can serve as an example for next
generation orthopaedic component fabrication where cortical bone
stiffness and density are matched with the outer foam structure
and the less dense inner foam is characteristic of trabecular bone
[7]. The foam structures in Fig. 8(b) are also joined to a solid end
form to create a complex monolithic product which cannot be
fabricated by any known process other than additive manufacturing.
Finally, Fig. 9 illustrates the ability to scale Ti6Al4V foam
structures relative to the test components illustrated in Fig. 3(a)
above. Because foam structures are generally isotropic and energy
absorbing, Ti6Al4V foams will have innovative aeronautical and
automotive applications implicit in Figs. 8 and 9. However, additive
manufacturing often leads to non-isotropic mechanical properties. Nonetheless, we have not observed any directionally different
microstructural features. This issue will be experimentally examined in future studies.

It has been shown that complex foam structures can be fabricated with solid, fully dense monoliths by EBM. While this study has
demonstrated innovative Ti6Al4V open cellular foams and complex, multifunctional component fabrication having a wide range
of technology applications, the implications are that any metal or
alloy system, or complex array which can be modeled in digital
CAD, can be fabricated by additive manufacturing using EBM with
a suitable precursor powder.
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported in part by Mr. and Mrs. MacIntosh Murchison Endowments at The University of Texas at El
Paso. A portion of this research was also supported by LockheedMartin/Aeronautics. Any expressed opinions, ndings, conclusions
or recommendations are the authors and not necessarily representative of those of Lockheed-Martin/Aeronautics. We are grateful to
Joris Bracke of Integrated Material Control Engineering, n.v. Genk,
Belgium for measuring the stiffness values for the experimental
foams. The authors are also grateful to Professor John Eaton and Drs.
Christopher Elkins and Andrew Onstad at Stanford University for
providing a metal foam sample and introducing us to the concept
of reproducing metal foams using additive manufacturing.

4. Summary and conclusions

References
The ability to fabricate stiff Ti6Al4V open cellular foams using
EBM as demonstrated and described in this research program is
a unique innovation not possible by other non-additive manufacturing processing technologies. In fact, the stiffnesses or elastic
moduli for these open cellular Ti6Al4V foams vary with density (especially relative stiffness versus relative density) consistent
with the GibsonAshby foam model [2]. Moreover, the stiffness
varies inversely with porosity or pore density consistent with literature values for a number of metal and alloy systems, especially
aluminum [12,13].
In this study we have fabricated open cellular foams having both solid and hollow cell wall or ligament structures. These
complex structures have different cooling rates in contrast to
bulk or solid monoliths of Ti6Al4V built by EBM which promote  -martensite formation or granular -phase which are
often intermixed with rened, acicular (Widmansttten) -phase
microstructure. This microstructure renement in the cellular
ligaments, and especially in the thin walls of hollow cell structures, promotes higher microindentation hardness and residual
strength. Indeed the hardness increase for the foam cell structures in contrast to solid, fully dense monoliths, can be as high as
40%.

[1] M.F. Ashby, A. Evans, N.A. Fleck, L.J. Gibson, J.W. Hutchinson, H.N.G. Wadley,
Metal Foams: A Design Guide, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 2000.
[2] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties, Cambridge
Univ. Press, New York, 1997.
[3] H.P. Degischer, B. Kriszt (Eds.), Handbook of Cellular Metals, Wiley, Weinheim,
2002.
[4] A. Ghosh, T. Sanders, D. Claar (Eds.), Processing and Properties of Lightweight
Cellular Metals and Structures, TMS, Warrendale, PA, 2002.
[5] D.C. Dunand, Adv. Eng. Mater. 6 (6) (2004) 369.
[6] O. Cansizoglu, O. Harrysson, D. Cormier, H. West, T. Mahale, Mater. Sci. Eng.
A492 (2008) 468.
[7] L.E. Murr, S.M. Gaytan, F. Medina, H. Lopez, E. Martinez, B.I. Machado, D.H.
Hernandez, L. Martinez, M.I. Lopez, R.B. Wicker, J. Bracke, Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
(London), in press.
[8] L.E. Murr, E.V. Esquivel, S.A. Quinones, S.M. Gaytan, M.I. Lopez, E.Y. Martinez, F.
Medina, D.H. Hernandez, E. Martinez, J.L. Martinez, S.W. Stafford, D.K. Brown,
T. Hoppe, W. Meyers, U. Lindhe, R.B. Wicker, Mater. Charact. 60 (2009) 96.
[9] G. Roebben, B. Bollen, A. Brebels, O. Van Humbeeck, O. Van der Biest, Rev. Sci.
Instrum. 68 (12) (1997) 4511.
[10] L.E. Murr, Interfacial Phenomena in Metals and Alloys, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975, p. 285.
[11] L.J. Gibson, Ann. Rev. Mater. Sci. 30 (2000) 191.
[12] N.G.D. Murray, D.C. Dunand, J. Mater. Res. 21 (2006) 1175.
[13] K.A. Erk, D.C. Dunand, K.R. Shull, Acta Mater. 56 (2008) 5147.
[14] L.E. Murr, S.A. Quinones, S.M. Gaytan, M.I. Lopez, A. Rodela, E.Y. Martinez, D.H.
Hernandez, E. Martinez, F. Medina, R.B. Wicker, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater.
2 (2009) 20.