Microstructure Characterization and Mechanical Properties of Al6061 Alloy Fabricated by Laser Powder Bed Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Processing high-performance aluminum alloys, including 6xxx and 7xxx series, via laser additive manufacturing (AM) processes poses significant challenges, primarily due to the rapid cooling rates inherent in these processes, which often result in solidification cracking and metallurgical defects. This study aimed at producing dense, crack-free samples of Al6061 alloys, using the laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) process. Taguchi’s method of design of experiments was employed to study the effects of laser power, scanning speed, and hatch spacing on the L-PBF process parameters for Al6061. Two types of samples were fabricated: cubic samples for density and microstructural analyses; and dog bone samples for tensile testing. The microstructure, density, mechanical properties, fractography, and material composition of the L-PBF Al6061 parts were investigated. Based on our experimental findings, an optimal process window is suggested, with a laser power of 200–250 W, scanning speed of 1000 mm/s, and hatch spacing of 140 µm, resulting in complete melting within the energy density range of 44–50 J/mm3. This work demonstrates that adjusting processing conditions—specifically, increasing the energy density from 25.51 J/mm3 to 44.64 J/mm3—leads to a reduction in porosity from approximately 5% to below 1%, significantly improving the density and quality of the parts fabricated using L-PBF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".