Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 53:231–239

DOI 10.1007/s00170-010-2812-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Additive manufacturing of metallic cellular materials

via three-dimensional printing
Christopher B. Williams & Joe K. Cochran &
David W. Rosen

Received: 4 January 2010 / Accepted: 22 June 2010 / Published online: 17 July 2010
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Abstract Cellular materials, metallic bodies with gaseous
voids interspersed throughout the solid body, are a
promising class of materials that offer high strength
accompanied by a relatively low mass. Recent research
has focused in the topological design of cellular materials in
order to satisfy multiple design objectives. Unfortunately,
these design advances have not been met with similar
advances in cellular material manufacturing as existing
techniques constrain a designer to a predetermined part
mesostructure, material type, and macrostructure. In an
effort to address these limitations, the authors have
developed a manufacturing process chain centered on an
augmented three-dimensional printing process. Specifically,
metallic cellular materials are made by selectively printing
solvent into a bed of spray-dried metal oxide ceramic
powder. The resulting green part is then sintered in a
C. B. Williams (*)
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
114F Randolph Hall,
Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
e-mail: cbwilliams@vt.edu
URL: http://www.me.vt.edu/dreams
J. K. Cochran
School of Materials Science and Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA, USA
D. W. Rosen
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA, USA
reducing atmosphere to chemically convert it to metal. The
resultant process has produced maraging steel cellular
artifacts featuring a 270-μm wall thickness and angled
trusses and channels that are less than 1 mm in diameter.
Keywords Additive manufacturing . 3D printing .
Cellular materials . Designed mesostructure
1 Manufacturing parts of designed mesostructure
1.1 Parts of designed mesostructure
“When modern man builds large load-bearing structures, he
uses dense solids; steel, concrete, glass. When nature does
the same, she generally uses cellular materials; wood, bone,
coral. There must be a reason for it” [1]. The observations
of cellular materials found in the natural world have
directed more than 50 years of research towards manufac-
turing processes capable of producing metallic cellular
materials. These structures, which feature gaseous voids
interspersed throughout the solid body, are valued for
having high strength accompanied by a relatively low
density [2]. These materials can also offer large stiffness,
improved impact absorption, and thermal and acoustic
insulation to their applications [3].
Recent research has focused in designing the mesoscopic
topology (the geometric arrangement of solid phases and
voids within a material or product on the size range of 0.1
to 10 mm) of cellular materials in order to effectively
support and improve multiple design objectives of the
artifact [4, 5]. Example parts of designed mesostructure
232
include an acetabular cup (Fig. 1a) in which the porosity of
the truss structure has been designed to match the porosity
of the recipient’s bone so as to encourage bone growth
upon implantation [6] and a trussed robot arm (Fig. 1b) that
has been optimized to minimize mass while meeting
strength and deflection constraints [7].
1.2 Cellular material manufacturing
Unfortunately, traditional cellular material manufacturing
processes prevent the realization of these design improve-
ments. Due to processing limitations, existing processes
limit cellular topology to either a random assortment of
voids (e.g., metal sponging and foaming processes such as
Hydro/Alcan/Combal, Alporas, Formgrip, Gasar, etc. [1, 3])
or an ordered repetition of a unit cell (e.g., joining crimped
sheet metal into a corrugated form [8], bonding metal
textile screen meshes [9], sand/investment casting trussed
lattices [10], etc.[11]). In addition to limiting cellular
topology, the processes also constrain part macrostructure
(most processes only offer planar geometry [12]) and
material selection [1]. While these processes are capable
of producing light-weight and strong cellular materials,
these limitations prevent a designer from tailoring part
mesostructure for specific design intent(s) [4, 13].
There are several research efforts to address the
limitations of traditional cellular material manufacturing
via the use of additive manufacturing (AM) technologies to
create parts of designed mesostructure. Through their
additive, layer-based building process, AM technologies
Fig. 1 Parts of designed mesostructure: a acetabular cup [6] and b
trussed robot arm [7]
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 53:231–239
(a.k.a., rapid prototyping, solid freeform fabrication, or
layered manufacturing) offer the utmost geometric freedom
in the design and manufacture of an artifact.
As previous efforts to use polymer-based AM to
indirectly create metal cellular structures through lost mold
and investment casting techniques resulted in porous parts
with limited cell sizes [14, 15], recent research has focused
in creating metal parts with direct-metal AM techniques.
Generally, the majority of these approaches are generally
not ideal for manufacturing cellular materials due to
limitations from poor resolution, poor surface finish, poor
material properties, limited material selection, and need for
support structures [13].
Ultrasonic consolidation [16] has been used to create
closed aluminum honeycomb panels; however, the technol-
ogy cannot build free-standing, unsupported, and angled
ribs and trusses, thus limiting its ability to create complex
cellular geometries [17]. Selective laser melting [18, 19],
direct-metal laser sintering [20], and electron beam melting
[21] have been successfully used to directly fabricate
metallic cellular materials with designed mesostructure.
While these technologies, which scan an energy source
(e.g., laser or electron beam spot) over a powder bed of
metal, are capable of creating fully dense parts with a small
feature size, they have inherent limitations:
& These processes are generally expensive (e.g., need for
a high-powered energy source) and have slow build
rates (e.g., vector scanning a small energy spot).
& The use of a high-powered energy source can introduce
residual stresses into the part, which arise from the high
thermal gradients present in the material during part
fabrication [22]. This can lead to curling and/or warping
during the build; as such, support structures, which can
be difficult to remove from small cells, must be added
to the part geometry.
& Thermal gradients (and thus warping and residual stresses)
can be reduced by first preheating the powder bed with the
energy source. This technique lightly sinters the powder
bed before reapplying the energy source at an increased
power (and/or decreased scan speed) to fully melt the
powder to create the part [23]. However, pre-sintering the
powder increases its strength, thus making the loose
powder difficult to remove from the part; a feature that
might hamper the fabrication of cellular artifacts.
& Defects on bottom-facing surfaces and an overall poor
surface finish typically arise due to the surface tension
of the molten metal, which dominates at the small sizes
required to achieve good surface finish and creates the
potential for capillary instabilities [24].
& Problems arise when building over loose powder
(which is common when creating overhanging surfaces)
because the conductive heat transport is significantly
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 53:231–239
larger than when building over previously melted
powder [25]. This effect can cause delaminations,
buckling, and warping of cellular mesostructure [26].
In an effort to address the limitations of existing cellular
material manufacturing techniques, the authors have devel-
oped a process for the realization of metal parts with
designed mesostructure. Specifically the authors have
augmented the three-dimensional printing process (3DP)
for the creation of green parts (formed from metal oxide
ceramic powders) that are suitable for conversion to metal
via thermal chemical post-processing.
2 Manufacturing process chain: three-dimensional
printing of metal oxide powders
The manufacturing process chain proposed by the authors is
composed of three steps, as presented in Fig. 2:
a. Material preparation. Fine metal oxide powders are
spray-dried with a binder to form granules suitable for
processing with a 3DP machine.
b. Artifact creation via three-dimensional printing. Cellu-
lar ceramic green parts are fabricated using 3DP.
c. Post-processing. Following the removal of excess pow-
der, the metal oxide green part is sintered in a reducing
atmosphere thus chemically converting it to metal.
As the crux of the overall process is focused in the post-
processing stage, each phase of the process is described in
this section in reverse order.
2.1 Post-processing: chemically converting metal oxide
green parts to metal via reduction
In an effort to circumvent the limitations and difficulties (e.
g., warping, residual stresses, etc.) typically encountered
Fig. 2 Three-dimensional print-
ing of spray-dried metal oxide Step One
Material Preparation
powder followed by sintering
and reduction Oxide
Powders
Spray Drying
233
when directly fabricating metal parts via laser-based AM, the
authors take inspiration from the linear cellular alloy (LCA)
manufacturing process invented by the Georgia Tech Light-
weight Structures Group [27]. In this process, metal oxide
ceramic green artifacts are formed via extrusion and are then
sintered in a reducing atmosphere. The ceramic precursor is
chemically converted to metal, as the reducing agent—
typically a gas (e.g., hydrogen or carbon monoxide)—reacts
with the oxygen of the green part and forms water vapor,
which is then removed from the system [28].
Cochran and coauthors have used this thermal/chemical
procedure to process a number of transition metal oxides
(Fe, Ni, Co, Cr, N Cu, Mo, W, Mn, and Nb), as well as
many engineering alloys (stainless steel, maraging steel,
Inconel, and Super Invar [29]) that are “comparable to
conventionally processed counterparts” [27]. The primary
requirement for this process is that the metal oxide must be
reducible at moderate temperatures (below the melting
points of the materials involved) with a partial pressure of
oxygen not lower than 10−16 atm. This requirement
excludes some elements such as Ti and Al because they
are stable under these conditions; hence, they cannot be
introduced into the alloy as an oxide and must be added in
secondary processes.
Cellular materials featuring cell sizes in the range of 0.5
to 2.0 mm with web thicknesses of 50 to 300 μm have been
created with the LCA process [27]. These small features are
accomplished, in part, by the shrinkage that is accompanied
with the reduction process (typically on the order of 30% to
70% by volume). This large shrinkage can cause cracks
and/or warping if not controlled carefully [28]; however, it
can be advantageous when fine geometric features are
desired that otherwise would be difficult or expensive to
fabricate [29].
Chemical reduction of metal oxide green parts to metal
has the potential to alleviate many of the limitations found
Step Two
Three-Dimensional Printing
Binder Roller
Print
Head
Drying
Powder Feed Built Binder
Built Object
Piston Piston Supply
Step Three
Sintering & H2
Reduction
Finished Metal Part Direct Reduction
234
in direct-metal AM of cellular materials. The thermal/
chemical post-process provides a manner in which to create
metal artifacts without the application of thermal energy in
the forming stage of a manufacturing process chain, thus
avoiding difficulties with thermal transport phenomena
found in current direct-metal AM technologies (Sec-
tion 1.2). Furthermore, implementing this post-processing
technique is economically efficient, as the cost differential
between a metal oxide powder and its metal counterpart is
usually better than a 1-to-10 ratio [29]. Fine oxide powders
are readily available in a pure and stable form. Compared to
pure metal powders, metal oxides are safer as they are
neither carcinogenic nor explosive.
2.2 Artifact creation: three-dimensional printing
As the use of extrusion in the LCA process limits part
geometry to linear macrostructure and an ordered meso-
structure (that is constant throughout the extrusion), the
authors look to combine the material strengths of the post-
process (Section 2.1) with the geometric freedom offered
by AM. Following a structured design process that featured
a conceptual design phase and a formal selection process
[30, 31], the authors determined that 3DP was the most
suitable AM technology for creating green cellular parts
composed of metal oxide ceramic material [32].
3DP features the selective printing of a binder over a bed
of powder via an array of inkjet nozzles [33] (Fig. 3). As
the binder enters the powder bed, it selectively joins
together powder particles to form printed primitives, which
stitch together to form a cross-sectional layer. A roller is
used to add a new layer of powder (at the desired thickness)
onto the previously printed layer. Excess powder from this
recoating process is caught into an overflow container for
reuse.
The authors chose 3DP as a method for creating metal
oxide green cellular parts for the following reasons:
& Speed: The parallel deposition of the multiple nozzles
enables the 3DP technology to deposit entire portions of
Roller Print
Head
Powder Feed Build Binder
Built Object
Piston Piston Supply
Fig. 3 Three-dimensional printing
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 53:231–239
a layer in a single pass, thus dramatically increasing its
build speed.
& Cost: The two-dimensional patterning process imple-
mented by 3DP is inherently scalable [34]; unlike laser-
based systems, the quantity of “toolheads” (i.e., printing
nozzles for 3DP) can be increased with very little
increase in overall cost. One can imagine creating an
array of print heads that would cover the entire width of
the working area, such that only one linear stage is
needed to sweep along the area, and thus increasing the
deposition rate (and therefore reducing build time)
significantly.
& Resolution: The use of an inkjet printing nozzle to
pattern binder provides the 3DP technology the ability
to create parts with high resolution (minimum feature
size of ~0.1 mm), which is a crucial requirement for the
realization of cellular materials. The use of inkjet
printing technology also enables the creation of cross
sections that are characteristic of cellular materials. This
is not true to all AM patterning techniques; extrusion
processes, for example, are unable to satisfactorily
deposit the small, discrete ellipses typically found in
the cross sections of trussed structures (Fig. 4b) due to
pores created by poor optimization of material flow,
filament/roller slippage, liquefier head motion, and
build/fill strategies [35].
& Complex geometry: Many AM technologies must create
support structures to facilitate the construction of
overhanging features (e.g., the trusses in Fig. 4a). Such
structures are not desirable when creating parts with
designed mesostructure because they would be very
difficult to remove from the parts’ small pores and
channels. The 3DP process eliminates the need for
specialized support structures, as the unpatterned
powder in the bed provides inherent support for the
complex geometry typical of cellular material. Unpat-
terned powder is easily removed from open cells via
careful use of compressed air and a vacuum nozzle. One
drawback of this approach, however, is that unpatterned
Fig. 4 Example a trussed material and its b cross section
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 53:231–239 235

powder cannot be removed from closed cells and can be a Polymer Binder
troublesome to remove from very small channels.
Metal Oxide Particles
& Green part density: By working with the powder in its
raw, loose form, 3DP avoids the solids loading and Printed Primitive
rheology constraints found in the other ceramic AM
technologies that work with powder/binder suspensions
(e.g., aqueous [36] and hot-melt [37] direct inkjet
printing, extrusion [38], and stereolithography [39]).
Compared to other ceramic AM processes (35 vol.%
solids in direct hot-melt inkjet printing [37], 40 vol.% b Solvent
solids in extrusion [40]), 3DP has a relatively high Spray-dried Granules
green part solids loading (powder beds with as high as
Printed Primitive
55 vol.% have been observed [41]).

2.3 Material preparation: spray-dried metal oxide powders

Fine powder particles are preferred over coarse particles in

Fig. 5 Powder/binder material system options: a coarse particles with
ceramics processing because they have better sintering printed binder and b spray-dried fine particles with printed solvent
characteristics, resulting in a finished part with a higher
relative density and better material properties. However, 3 Experimental methods
one of the primary limitations with 3DP is its inability to
properly spread fine dry powders with particle size less than 3.1 Material preparation
20 μm [42, 43]. The authors look to circumvent this
limitation by combining several fine particles into a larger While a wide variety of transition metal oxides can be
granule, which is more suitable for the 3DP recoating reduced to metal using this procedure (Section 2.1), the
process, via spray-drying. authors have chosen to work with maraging steel in this
Spray-drying is the process of spraying a slurry, composed work. Maraging steel features high strength and high
of fine powder particles (1–5 μm) and a binder, into a warm- fracture toughness and has uniform, predictable shrinkage
drying medium to produce powder granules that are relatively during heat treatment. Finally, its constituents are easily
homogenous [44]. Spray-dried granules are nearly spherical reduced (Eqs. 1–3).
and typically on the order of 30 μm in diameter; therefore,
Fe3 O4 þ 4H2 ! 3Fe þ 4H2 O ð1Þ
they flow very well and are easily recoated in the 3DP
process [45]. While the porous nature of spray-dried Co3 O4 þ 4H2 ! 3Co þ 4H2 O ð2Þ
powders (60 vol.%) is detrimental in that it slightly decreases
the solids loading possible for a green part, it is beneficial NiO þ H2 ! Ni þ H2 O ð3Þ
since smaller primitives result from the increased absorption
A metal oxide powder system that will chemically convert to
of the jetted binder and/or solvent [46].
maraging steel (Fe 18.5Ni 8.5Co 5Mo) upon reduction was
In addition to enabling 3DP to work with particle sizes
that are typically too small to be spread, spray-drying the
powder eliminates the need for printing a polymeric binder 1400
Sintering
(1300 C)
into the bed as a means of forming primitives (the 1200
traditional 3DP approach, Fig. 5a). Instead, the binder used
Temperature (C)

1000
to form granules can be activated in the powder bed
through the printing of a solvent. The printed solvent will 800
Reduction
(850 C)
partially dissolve and deform the granule surface, creating 600
printed primitives once dried (Fig. 5b). This approach is
400
Binder burnout
preferred not only because the solvent’s deformation of the (450 C)
granule surface will bring the ceramic fine particles 200

together, but also because it is modular—the same solvent 0

0 5 10 15 20
could be used on various ceramic spray-dried granules
Time (hr)
(assuming the same polymer coating is used), thus
eliminating the need to reconfigure the material system. Fig. 6 Cycle for reduction and sintering of 3D printed maraging steel
236
Table 1 Density measurements for 4 wt.% granule systems
Granule Deposited Average Average open
binder content binder/solvent relative density porosity
4 wt.% Polymeric 59.15%
binder (ZB7)
4 wt.% Solvent 62.57%
(water + IPA)
created by combining iron oxide (Fe3O4), nickel oxide (NiO),
cobalt oxide (Co3O4), and molybdenum metal (Mo) powders
and ball milling them for 24 h. Once mixed, the metal oxide
powder system is spray-dried with a 4 wt.% poly-vinyl
alcohol (PVA) solution (Celvol 203, offered by Celanese
Chemicals). This PVA was chosen because it is water soluble
and is a common binder that works well with almost any
oxide ceramic [47]. The powder particles were spray-dried by
Aero-Instant Spray-Drying Services of Brunswick, Georgia.
3.2 Part fabrication
Once spray-dried, the metal oxide granules are processed
using a ZCorp Z402 three-dimensional printer [48].
Printing tests were performed using two different printed
binding mechanisms: (a) ZCorp’s standard binder (ZB7
binder) and (b) a mild solvent (an 80/20 mixture of distilled
water and isopropyl alcohol (IPA)). The layer thickness was
held constant across all experiments at 100 μm as it
provided the highest quality surface upon recoating. Aware
of the porosity of the spray-dried granules, and small
features typical of cellular materials, the saturation level
was set at its maximum value of 2. All other printing
parameters are unchanged from default settings.
Fig. 7 a Schematic of sample
and b micrographs of cross- a Fi 7b
sectional surfaces perpendicular
to build direction and c parallel
to build direction
z
x
b
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 53:231–239
Once printing has completed, parts are left in the powder
bed for 20 min (often under an infrared lamp) to allow the
binder to fully dry. The green parts are then transferred to a
depowdering station where unbound powder is carefully
36.15% removed from the complex cellular geometry using com-
34.4%
pressed air and a vacuum nozzle in combination.
3.3 Post-processing
Once depowdered, the green parts are reduced and sintered in
an atmosphere-controlled tube furnace in an Ar–10% H2
environment using the cycle presented in Fig. 6. The
determination of the facets of the sintering scheme were guided
by Cochran and coauthors’ earlier experimentation in sintering
metal oxide constituents of maraging steel for the production of
linear cellular alloys [27, 28]. The heating cycle is composed
of three phases: debinding of the PVA binder (2°C/min ramp
to 450°C with 0.5 h hold), reduction of the metal oxide green
part (3°C/min ramp to 850°C with 6 h hold), and metal
sintering (3°C/min ramp to 1,300°C with 3 h hold). The hold
duration for the reduction and sintering phases were varied via
experimentation; the final values were chosen as they ensured
that the finished parts would have all oxide phases completely
removed and would be as dense as possible.
4 Results
4.1 Phase identification
X-ray diffraction (completed with molybdenum radiation)
was used to identify the phases present in samples created
by the manufacturing process. Count peaks occur at 2θ=
Fig. c
Fig 7c
Fig.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 53:231–239
Fig. 8 Sample part featuring
intersecting channels: a CAD
model, b metal oxide green part,
and c part after sintering and
reduction
20.155, 28.651, 35.284, 40.97, 46.067, and 50.755. These
results correspond to a BCC iron phase (JADE phase
identification software; powder diffraction file # 00-0006-
0696) with a figure of merit (FoM) of 3.5. From this, it can
be concluded that no oxide phase is present in the finished
parts; thus the parts are fully reduced.
4.2 Density
As discussed in Section 3.2, two primitive creation
principles were tested: one featuring the printing of a
polymeric binder to bind granules, the other featuring the
printing of a solvent to partially dissolve the spray-dried
granules’ binder. The density and open porosity of multiple
test parts created from both material systems were
calculated using the Archimedes method (assuming marag-
ing steel has a bulk density of 8.2 g/cm3). As can be seen in
Table 1, printing a solvent into the powder bed produces
parts with a higher density and a lower open porosity. The
solvent deforms the spray-dried granules, which in turn
brings the enclosed fine particles closer together and leads
to a better sintering performance and a higher part density.
The relatively low density measurement is attributed to a
poor powder bed density (estimated to between 30% and 40%
in these experiments) and an insufficient deformation of the
spray-dried granules. This is a limitation of the authors’
specific embodiment; experiments wherein excess solvent
was applied manually to the powder bed resulted in parts with
an average relative density of 81% and an open porosity of 9%
after reduction and sintering.
Fig. 9 Cellular material sample
in its various representations
during the manufacturing pro-
cess chain: a CAD model,
b metal oxide green part, and
c part after sintering and
reduction
237
4.3 Porosity and shrinkage
In order to further evaluate the quality of the parts created by
this manufacturing process, part porosity is investigated by
examining the cross-sectional surfaces of samples (Fig. 7).
Figure 7b provides an opportunity to analyze the porosity
present in a typical cross-sectional layer (x–y plane as per
Fig. 7a) fabricated by the process when a solvent is used for
creating primitives. It is observed that the pores are aligned
parallel to the direction of the print head travel (y-axis; left to
right in Fig. 7b), and thus are locations in which printed
bands did not successfully overlap or “stitch” to one another.
This can be attributed to a clogged print nozzle, but is more
likely due to unoptimized binder characteristics (surface
tension, wetting of granules, viscosity, droplet size, etc.) and
associated process parameters (e.g., printed line overlap).
The cross section presented in Fig. 7c provides an
opportunity to analyze the porosity that exists along the
build direction of the part (y–z plane as per Fig. 7a; from
the bottom to the top of Fig. 7c). Again, parallel lines of
porosity are observed. These lines correspond to part’s
layers and suggest an inadequate level of solvent saturation
into the powder bed. This problem can be alleviated
through an increase in the amount of solvent deposited by
the print head.
Average linear shrinkage, as measured and calculated
(ΔL/Lo) across several printed samples between their
“green” and sintered states, is 45%. This shrinkage is a
result of both the part porosity caused by unoptimized
printing parameters and the act of reducing metal oxide to
238
metal (Section 2.1). There was slight anisotropic shrinkage
in the parts due to the parallel lines of porosity (Fig. 7); on
average, parts experienced 1% more linear shrinkage in the
direction that is orthogonal to these lines of pores.
4.4 Cellular geometry
Several test parts were created in an effort to characterize
the proposed manufacturing process’ capability of fabricat-
ing parts of designed mesostructure. Each test part contains
features that are common to geometries typical of cellular
materials: thin walls, small channels, and angled trusses.
& Thin walls: The minimum wall thickness created, as
measured after sintering and reduction, was 270 μm. It
should be noted that this is not necessarily the best
possible result of the proposed augmented 3DP process
as printing resolution is primarily dependent on the
printhead of the specific 3DP machine.
& Small channels: The channel size limit that can be
created is not imposed by the resolution and printing
accuracy of the 3DP process. In its current embodiment,
the limit is imposed by the ability of the green part to
withstand the vigorous depowdering that is necessary to
remove the unbound powder trapped within the chan-
nels. Thus far, channels 2 mm in diameter as printed in
the green state (1.1 mm in diameter after sintering and
reduction) have been successfully created, as seen in
Fig. 8.
& Angled trusses: Angled trusses can be difficult to
process in an AM context as the combination of acute
angles, thin trusses, and relatively large layer thick-
nesses can lead to non-overlapping layers. Experiments
have shown that trusses, as small as 1.75 mm in
diameter (green state), can be printed when inclined to
the build plane at angles as low as 20°.
With the process’s ability to realize the geometrical
building blocks of parts of designed mesostructure verified,
a series of parts featuring complex cellular geometry were
created. An example piece, featuring trusses less than 1 mm
in diameter (post-sintering), is shown in Fig. 9. As can be
seen, the surface roughness is similar to other powder-based
AM processes, which is akin to a sand casting. Additional
parts of designed mesostructure created by this process are
presented in [49].
5 Conclusions
In this paper, the authors present a layer-based additive
manufacturing process for the realization of metal parts
with designed mesostructure. Specifically, metal oxide
green ceramic parts, created by three-dimensional printing,
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 53:231–239
are sintered and reduced in a hydrogen/argon atmosphere to
chemically convert the part to metal. The green parts are
formed by printing a solvent into a powder bed composed
of spray-dried granules; the solvent deforms the binder-
coated granules, thus pulling the enclosed fine particles
closer together and improving the sintering performance (i.
e., density) of the green part.
The process has been shown to successfully create parts
with designed mesostructure (Fig. 7). In addition to creating
cellular artifacts, it has fabricated walls as thin as 270 μm,
channels as small as 1.1 mm in diameter, and angled trusses
less than 1 mm in diameter. Furthermore, the specific
process embodiment used by the authors has produced
finished parts with an average relative density of 63% and
an average linear shrinkage of 45%.
Many opportunities exist for improving the proposed
manufacturing process. Part density could be improved by
exploring techniques for increasing powder bed density, by
increasing solvent deposition, by optimizing the solvent/
powder bed interface, or by depositing a nanoparticle
suspension into the powder bed. Printing resolution (and
thus, part feature size) could be improved through explor-
ing different print head embodiments. A different recoating
solution might enable the use of finer particles, thus
resulting in smaller printed features and an improved final
part density. As a preliminary cost analysis indicates that
metal parts created by the process cost only ~$3/in3 [49],
the authors believe the process merits further improvement.
Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the funding given
by NSF DMI-0522382. Christopher Williams acknowledges the
financial support provided by the Georgia Tech Technological
Innovation: Generating Economic Results (TI:GER) program (NSF
IGERT-0221600). Dr. Michael Middelmas is acknowledged for his
laboratory assistance during the reduction and sintering post-process
(Section 3.3). The authors would also like to thank Mr. Joe Pechin of
Aero-Instant Spray Drying Services for his generosity and assistance
in preparing the experimental powder system (Section 3.1).
References
1. Ashby MF, Evans AG, Fleck NA, Gibson LJ, Hutchinson JW,
Wadley HNG (2000) Metal foams: a design guide. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Woburn
2. Banhart J, Weaire D (2002) On the road again: metal foams find
favor. Physics Today 55:37–42
3. Banhart J (2000) Manufacturing routes for metallic foams. JOM 52
(12):22–27
4. Evans AG, Hutchinson JW, Fleck NA, Ashby MF, Wadley HNG
(2001) The topological design of multifunctional cellular metals.
Prog Mater Sci 46:309–327
5. Seepersad CC, Kumar RS, Allen JK, Mistree FM, McDowell DL
(2004) Multifunctional design of prismatic cellular materials. J
Comput-Aided Mater Des 11(2):163–181
6. Wang HV, Johnston SR, Rosen DW (2006) Design of a graded
cellular structure for an acetabular hip replacement component.
17th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pp 111–123
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 53:231–239
7. Wang H, Rosen DW (2002) Computer-aided design methods for
additive fabrication of truss structures. International Conference
on Manufacturing Automation
8. Wadley HNG, Fleck NA, Evans A (2003) Fabrication and
structural performance of periodic cellular metal sandwich
structures. Compos Sci Technol 63:2331–2343
9. Tian J, Lu TJ, Hodson HP, Queheillalt DT, Wadley HNG (2007)
Cross flow heat exchange of textile cellular metal core sandwich
panels. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 50:2521–2536
10. Jamcorp Inc. (2004) Jonathon Aerospace Materials website. http://
www.jamcorp.com. Accessed June 2007.
11. Wadley HNG (2002) Cellular metals manufacturing. Adv Eng
Mater 4(10):726–733
12. Sypeck DJ, Wadley HNG (2002) Cellular metal truss core
sandwich structures. Adv Eng Mater 4(10):759–764
13. Williams CB, Mistree F, Rosen, DW (2005) Investigation of solid
freeform fabrication processes for the manufacture of parts with
designed mesostructure. ASME IDETC Design for Manufacturing
and the Life Cycle Conference, DETC2005/DFMLC-84832
14. Hattiangadi A, Bandyopadhyay A (1999) Processing, character-
ization and modeling of non-random porous ceramic structures.
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pp 319–326
15. Chiras S, Mumm DR, Evans AG, Wicks N, Hutchinson JW,
Dharmasena K, Wadley HNG, Fichter S (2002) The structural
performance of near-optimized truss core panels. Int J Solids
Struct 39:4093–4115
16. Solidica Inc. (2004) Solidica: direct to metal aluminum tooling for
advanced manufacturing. http://www.solidica.com/technology.
html. Accessed June 2007.
17. Robinson CJ, Zhang C, Janaki Ram GD, Siggard EJ, Stucker B,
Li L (2007) Maximum height to width ratio of freestanding
structures built using ultrasonic consolidation. Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium, pp 502–516
18. Pham DT, Dimov SS, Ji C, Gault RS (2003) Layer manufacturing
processes: technology advances and research challenges. 1st
International Conference on Advanced Research in Virtual and
Rapid Prototyping, pp 107–113
19. Brooks W, Sutcliffe C, Cantwell W, Fox P, Todd J, Mines R (2005)
Rapid design and manufacture of ultralight cellular materials. 16th
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pp 231–241
20. Agarwala M, Bourell D, Beaman J, Marcus H, Barlow J (1995)
Direct selective laser sintering of metals. Rapid Prototyping J 1
(1):26–36
21. Cansizoglu O, Cormier D, Harrysson O, West H, Mahale T (2006)
An evaluation of non-stochastic lattice structures fabricateed via
electron beam melting. Solid Freeform Fabrication, pp. 209–2119
22. Kruth JP, Froyen L, Van Vaerenbergh J, Mercelis P, Rombouts M,
Lauwers B (2004) Selective laser melting of iron-based powder. J
Mater Process Technol 149(1–3):616–622
23. Cormier D, Harrysson O, West H (2004) Characterization of H13 steel
produced via electron beam melting. Rapid Prototyping J 10(1):35–41
24. Rice CS, Mendez PF, Brown SB (2000) Metal solid freeform
fabrication using semi-solid slurries. JOM 52(12):31–33.
doi:10.1007/s11837-000-0065-5
25. Kruth JP, Mercelis P, Van Vaerenbergh J, Craeghs T (2007)
Feedback control of selective laser melting. Advanced research in
virtual and rapid prototyping, pp 521–527
26. Rehme O, Emmelmann C, Schwarze D (2007) Selective laser
melting of lattice structures in solid shells. Advanced research in
virtual and rapid prototyping, pp 529–535
27. Cochran JK, Lee KJ, McDowell DL, Sanders TH (2002)
Multifunctional metallic honeycombs by thermal chemical pro-
cessing. Processing and properties of lightweight cellular metals
and structures (TMS), pp 127–136
28. Cochran JK, Lee KJ, Sanders TH (2003) Metallic articles formed
by reduction of nonmetallic articles and method of producing
239
metallic articles. US 6582651 B1, USA, Georgia Tech Research
Corporation
29. Cochran JK, Lee KJ, McDowell D, Sanders TH, Church B, Clark
J, Dempsey B, Hurysz K, McCoy T, Nadler J, Oh R, Seay W,
Shapiro B (2000) Low density monolithic metal honeycombs by
thermal chemical processing. Fourth Conference on Aerospace
Materials, Processes, and Environmental Technology
30. Williams CB, Mistree F, Rosen DW (2005) Towards the Design of
a layer-based additive manufacturing process for the realization of
metal parts of designed mesostructure. 16th Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium, pp 217–230
31. Williams CB, Mistree F, Rosen DW (2008) The Systematic Design
of a Layered Manufacturing Process for the Realization of Metal
Parts of Designed Mesostructure. 5th ASME Symposium on
International Design and Design Education, DETC2004/DEC-49457
32. Williams CB, Rosen DW (2007) Manufacturing cellular materials
via three-dimensional printing of spray-dried metal oxide ceramic
powder. 3rd International Conference on Advanced Research in
Virtual and Rapid Prototyping
33. Sachs EM, Haggerty JS, Cima MJ, Williams PA (1993) Three-
dimensional printing techniques. US patent 5 204 055, Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology
34. Carrion A (1997) technology forecast on ink-jet head technology
applications in rapid prototyping. Rapid Prototyping J 3(3):99–115
35. Agarwala MK, Jamalabad VR, Langrana NA, Safari A, Whalen
PJ, Danforth SC (1996) Structural quality of parts processed by
fused deposition. Rapid Prototyping J 2(4):4–19
36. Wright MJ, Evans JRG (1999) Ceramic deposition using an
electromagnetic jet printer station. J Mater Sci Lett 18:99–101
37. Seerden KAM, Reis N, Evans JRG, Grant PS, Halloran JW, Derby
B (2001) Ink-jet printing of wax-based alumina suspensions. J Am
Ceram Soc 84(11):2514–2520
38. Lewis JA (2000) Colloidal processing of ceramics. J Am Ceram
Soc 83(10):2341–2359
39. Griffith ML, Halloran JW (1996) Freeform fabrication of ceramics
via stereolithography. J Am Ceram Soc 79(10):2601–2608
40. Grida I, Evans JRG (2003) Extrusion freeforming of ceramics
through fine nozzles. J Eur Ceram Soc 23:629–635
41. Utela B, Anderson RL, Kuhn H (2006) Advanced ceramic
materials and three-dimensional printing (3DP). 17th Solid Free-
form Fabrication Symposium, pp 290–303
42. Sachs E, Cima MJ, Cornie J, Brancazio D, Bredt J, Curodeau A,
Fan T, Khanuja S, Lauder A, Lee J, Michaels S (1993) Three-
dimensional printing: the physics and implications of additive
manufacturing. CIRP Ann 42(1):257–260
43. Yoo, J, Cima MJ, Khanuja S, Sachs EM (1993) Structural ceramic
components by 3D printing. Solid Freeform Fabrication Sympo-
sium, pp 40–50
44. Reed JS (1995) Principles of ceramics processing. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc, New York
45. Cima, MJ, Yoo J, Khanuja S, Rynerson M, Nammour D,
Giritlioglu B, Grau J, Sachs EM (1995) Structural ceramic
components by 3D printing. Solid Freeform Fabrication Sympo-
sium, pp 479–488
46. Cima MJ, Lauder A, Khanuja S, Sachs EM (1992) Microstructural
elements of components derived from 3D printing. Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium, pp 220–227
47. Morse T (1979) Handbook of organic additives for use in ceramic
body formulation. Montana Energy and MHD Research and
Development Institute, Butte
48. Z Corporation (2007) 3D printers. http://www.zcorp.com/Products/
3D-Printers/spage.aspx. Accessed 5 November 2007
49. Williams CB (2008) Design and development of a layer-based
additive manufacturing process for the realization of metal parts of
designed mesostructure. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of
Technology