Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparative Study of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for H13 Tool Steel
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparative Study of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for H13 Tool Steel
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparative Study of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for H13 Tool Steel
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparative Study of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for H13 Tool Steel
2025
Overview
Additive manufacturing (AM) of hot-work tool steels such as H13 offers unique opportunities for producing complex, conformally cooled tools with reduced production time and material waste. In this study, five metal AM technologies—Fused Deposition Modeling and Sintering (FDMS, Desktop Metal Studio System and Zetamix), Binder Jetting (BJ), Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF), and Directed Energy Deposition (DED)—were compared in terms of microstructure, porosity, and post-processing heat treatment response. The as-printed microstructures revealed distinct differences among the technologies: FDMS and BJ exhibited high porosity (6–9%), whereas LPBF and DED achieved near-full densification (<0.1%). Samples with sufficiently low porosity (BJ, LPBF, DED) were subjected to tempering and quenching treatments to evaluate hardness evolution and microstructural transformations. The satisfactory post-treatment hardness was observed in both tempered and quenched and tempered BJ samples, associated with secondary carbide precipitation, while LPBF and DED samples retained stable martensitic structures with hardness around 600 HV0.5. Microstructural analyses confirmed the dependence of phase morphology and carbide distribution on the thermal history intrinsic to each AM process. The study demonstrates that while FDMS and BJ are more accessible and cost-effective for low-density prototypes, LPBF and DED offer superior density and mechanical integrity suitable for functional tooling applications.
