4.7 Article

A mechanical comparison of alpha and beta phase biomedical TiTa lattice structures

Journal

MATERIALS & DESIGN
Volume 212, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110220

Keywords

Tantalum; Titanium; Laser powder bed fusion; beta-titanium alloys; Lattice structures

Funding

  1. ARC Research Hub for Transforming Australia's Manufacturing Industry [IH130100008]
  2. Garnett Passe and Rodney Wil-liams Memorial Foundation
  3. AiF/IGF [19689 BG/2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent focus in orthopaedic implant alloy design has been on beta-type Ti alloys with low elastic modulus, particularly Ti-6Al-4V produced through additive manufacturing. However, utilizing the TiTa alloy system can result in lattice structures with superior mechanical properties compared to Ti-6Al-4V.
Recent orthopaedic implant alloy design has focused on beta-type Ti alloys, as the body centred cubic (BCC) crystal structure has the tendency to be characterised by a low elastic modulus. Nevertheless, the currently most used metal is Ti-6Al-4V, which mainly retains a hexagonal closed packed (HCP) crystal structure when produced by additive manufacturing. The benefits and disadvantages of the mechanical response of each crystal structure for implant applications is yet to be explored. Utilising the TiTa alloy system, low modulus Ti25Ta and Ti65Ta lattices were additively manufactured with opposing crystal structures of alpha' martensite (HCP) and beta grains (BCC). The lattices showed similar tensile, compressive and high cycle fatigue behaviour, indicating that the alpha' alloy was mechanically equal to the beta alloy for implant applications. The mechanical properties of both the TiTa lattices were also superior to identically manufactured lattices in Ti-6Al-4V in both as-built and heat treated conditions. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available