Additive manufacturing of bulk metallic glasses: Fundamental principle, current/future developments and applications

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2021.09.068

Abstract

Abstract:

As an advanced manufacturing technique, the advent of additive manufacturing (AM) has opened a new horizon of alternative ways to tackle the challenge of fundamental limits for manufacturing bulk metallic glasses (BMGs). In particular, selective laser melting (SLM), direct metal deposition (DMD), electron beam melting (EBM), and laser foil printing (LFP) have been used for producing BMGs with dimensions larger than what is possible using conventional techniques such as melt-spinning, suction-casting, die-casting, etc. In this review, we analyzed the current status, issues, structural evolution, and key properties of BMGs based on these emerging AM technologies. The aim is to outline a direction for the development of BMGs using AM technology, establishing a fundamental principle to optimize processing parameters for designing alloy compositions with the high glass-forming ability (GFA), and thermal stability against crystallization. This will provide the fundamental science underpinning the future development of AM technology in the fabrication of high-density, defect-free, and completely amorphous alloy components and devices.

Key words: Bulk metallic glass, Additive manufacturing, Thermal stability, Alloying system, Process parameters

H.R. Lashgari, M. Ferry, S. Li. Additive manufacturing of bulk metallic glasses: Fundamental principle, current/future developments and applications[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2022, 119: 131-149.

Figures/Tables 22

Table 1. The most common BMGs made by additive manufacturing technologies.

Manufacturing method	Chemical composition	Build environment	Powder size/Foil thickness	Powder/Foil supplier	Process parameters
SLM (SLM 250HL)	Fe₇₄Mo₄P₁₀C_7.5B_2.5Si₂ (at.%)	-	d < 50 µm	TLS Technik& Spezialpulver KG	P: 320 WV: 3470 mm/sh: 0.124 mmt: 50 µm [35]
SLM (SLM-100)	Al₈₆Ni₆Y_4.5Co₂La_1.5 (at.%)	Ar	d < 25 µm	Institue of Metal Research, Chinse Academy of Sciences	P: 80, 120, 160, 200 WV: 1000 mm/sh: -t: - [36]
SLM (SLM 250HL)	Fe_68.3C_6.9Si_2.5B_6.7P_8.7Cr_2.3Mo_2.5Al_2.1 (at.%)	Ar	75 µm < d < 150 µm	-	P: 280-340 WV: 1500-4500 mm/sh: 110 µmt: 75 µm [37]
SLM (SLM-100)	Zr_52.5Ti₅Cu_17.9Ni_14.6Al₁₀ (at.%)	Ar	30 µm< d <108 µm	Liquid Metal	P: 200 WV: 500-2000 mm/sh: 0.1 mm, 0.15 mmt: 100 µm [38]
SLM (SLM50(H))	Zr_52.5Ti₅Cu_17.9Ni_14.6Al₁₀ (at.%)	Ar	d = 35 µm	Nanoval & Co. KG.	P: 75-120 WV: 250-2000 mm/sh: 100-200 µmt: 40 µm [39]
SLM (EOS M280)	FeCrMoCB	Ar	20 µm < d < 80 µm	Liquid Metal	P: 80-200 WV: 800-5000 mm/sh: 0.05-0.15 mmt: 20 µm [40]
SLM (EOS M290)	Zr_59.3Cu_28.8Nb_1.5Al_10.4 (at.%)	-	-	-	-[41]
SLM (SLM 50)	Ti₄₇Cu₃₈Zr_7.5Fe_2.5Sn₂Si₁Ag₂ (at.%)	-	10 µm < d < 90 µm	Nanoval GmbH	P: 60 WV: 2000 mm/sh: 140 µmt: 40 µm [42]
SLM (SLM LM-120)	Zr₅₅Cu₃₀Ni₅Al₁₀ (at.%)	Ar	d < 33 µm	-	P: 240 WV: 1200 mm/sh: 100 µmt: 60 µm [43,44]
DMD (Optomec 750 LENS)	Cu₄₇Ti₃₃Zr₁₁Ni₈Si₁ on Zr_58.5Nb_2.8Cu_15.6Ni_12.8Al_10.3 amorphous substrate	Ar	d ≈ 35 µm	Ames Lab	P: 100-250 WV: 4.2-12.7 mm/sFR: 1.5 g/min [45]
DMD (Optomec 750 LENS)	Fe₅₈Cr₁₅Mn₂B₁₆C₄Mo₂Si₁W₁Zr₁ (at.%) on 304 SS substrate	Ar	10 µm < d < 110 µm	-	P: 180-296 WV: 4.23-12.7 mm/sFR: 6-10 g/min [34]
DMD (Optomec 750 LENS)	Zr_58.5Nb_2.8Cu_15.6Ni_12.8Al_10.3 on amorphous and crystalline substrates (same composition)	Ar	d≈30 µm	Ames Lab	P: 100-250 WV: 4.2-12.7 mm/sFR: 1.5 g/min [46]
DMD (Optomec 750 LENS)	Fe_<65Cr_<25Mo_<15W_<10C_<3Mn_5<Si_<2B_<5 on 316 SS	Ar	53 µm < d < 180 µm	NanoSteel	P: 250 WV: 20 mm/sFR: 19 g/min [47]
LSF* (Pulsed laser)	Zr₅₅Cu₃₀Ni₅Al₁₀ (at.%) on amorphous substrate (same composition)	Ar	5 µm < d < 150 µm	-	E: 80 JV: 0.095 mm/sυ: 0.1 Hz [48]
DMD (Optomec 750 LENS)	FeCrMoWMnCSiB on 304 L SS	Ar	44 µm < d < 149 µm	NanoSteel	P: 350 WV: 36 mm/sFR: 12.6 g/min [49]
DMD (Optomec 750 LENS)	Zr₆₅Cu₁₅Ni₁₀Al₁₀ (at.%) on Inconel 625 substrate	Ar	d < 150 µm	Atalantic equipment engineers	P: 150-350 WV: 10-30 mm/sFR: 9.1 g/min [50]
EBM (EBM A1Arcam AB)	Zr₇₀Cu₂₄Al₄Nb₂ (at.%)	Vacuum	d ≈ 65 µm	-	BC: 20-32 mAV: 6-12 m/st: 125 µm [51]
LFP (Missouri S&T)	Zr_52.5Ti₅Al₁₀Ni_14.6Cu_17.9 (at.%) on Ti64 and Zr702 substrates	Ar	FT: 100 µm	Liquidmetal LM105	P: 300-500 WV: 240-588 mm/s [52], [53], [54]
LFP (Missouri S&T)	Zr₆₅Al_7.5Ni₁₀Cu_17.5 (at.%)	Ar	FT: 150 µm	Eco. FM	P: 300 W (pulse mode) [55]
LFP (Missouri S&T)	Zr_65.7Ti_3.3Al_3.7Ni_11.7Cu_15.6 (at.%) on Ti64	Ar	FT: 200 µm	Liquidmetal LM105	P: 300 W (pulse mode) [55]
Thermal Spray 3D Printing (HVOF)	Fe₄₈C₁₅B₆Mo₁₄Cr₁₅Y₂on Mild Steel substrate	O₂ and Kerosene	35 µm< d <55 µm	Changsha HualiuMetallurgy Powder Co.	FR: 30 g/mint: 40 µm [56]
Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF)	Zr₄₄Ti₁₁Cu₁₀Ni₁₀Be₂₅	Room environment	Rod(Ø: 1 mm, L: 700 mm)	Desktop Metal, MIT, Yale University	Extrusion temp.: 460 °C, Viscosity: 10⁵ Pa s [57]

Table 1. The most common BMGs made by additive manufacturing technologies.

Manufacturing method	Chemical composition	Build environment	Powder size/Foil thickness	Powder/Foil supplier	Process parameters
SLM (SLM 250HL)	Fe₇₄Mo₄P₁₀C_7.5B_2.5Si₂ (at.%)	-	d < 50 µm	TLS Technik& Spezialpulver KG	P: 320 WV: 3470 mm/sh: 0.124 mmt: 50 µm [35]
SLM (SLM-100)	Al₈₆Ni₆Y_4.5Co₂La_1.5 (at.%)	Ar	d < 25 µm	Institue of Metal Research, Chinse Academy of Sciences	P: 80, 120, 160, 200 WV: 1000 mm/sh: -t: - [36]
SLM (SLM 250HL)	Fe_68.3C_6.9Si_2.5B_6.7P_8.7Cr_2.3Mo_2.5Al_2.1 (at.%)	Ar	75 µm < d < 150 µm	-	P: 280-340 WV: 1500-4500 mm/sh: 110 µmt: 75 µm [37]
SLM (SLM-100)	Zr_52.5Ti₅Cu_17.9Ni_14.6Al₁₀ (at.%)	Ar	30 µm< d <108 µm	Liquid Metal	P: 200 WV: 500-2000 mm/sh: 0.1 mm, 0.15 mmt: 100 µm [38]
SLM (SLM50(H))	Zr_52.5Ti₅Cu_17.9Ni_14.6Al₁₀ (at.%)	Ar	d = 35 µm	Nanoval & Co. KG.	P: 75-120 WV: 250-2000 mm/sh: 100-200 µmt: 40 µm [39]
SLM (EOS M280)	FeCrMoCB	Ar	20 µm < d < 80 µm	Liquid Metal	P: 80-200 WV: 800-5000 mm/sh: 0.05-0.15 mmt: 20 µm [40]
SLM (EOS M290)	Zr_59.3Cu_28.8Nb_1.5Al_10.4 (at.%)	-	-	-	-[41]
SLM (SLM 50)	Ti₄₇Cu₃₈Zr_7.5Fe_2.5Sn₂Si₁Ag₂ (at.%)	-	10 µm < d < 90 µm	Nanoval GmbH	P: 60 WV: 2000 mm/sh: 140 µmt: 40 µm [42]
SLM (SLM LM-120)	Zr₅₅Cu₃₀Ni₅Al₁₀ (at.%)	Ar	d < 33 µm	-	P: 240 WV: 1200 mm/sh: 100 µmt: 60 µm [43,44]
DMD (Optomec 750 LENS)	Cu₄₇Ti₃₃Zr₁₁Ni₈Si₁ on Zr_58.5Nb_2.8Cu_15.6Ni_12.8Al_10.3 amorphous substrate	Ar	d ≈ 35 µm	Ames Lab	P: 100-250 WV: 4.2-12.7 mm/sFR: 1.5 g/min [45]
DMD (Optomec 750 LENS)	Fe₅₈Cr₁₅Mn₂B₁₆C₄Mo₂Si₁W₁Zr₁ (at.%) on 304 SS substrate	Ar	10 µm < d < 110 µm	-	P: 180-296 WV: 4.23-12.7 mm/sFR: 6-10 g/min [34]
DMD (Optomec 750 LENS)	Zr_58.5Nb_2.8Cu_15.6Ni_12.8Al_10.3 on amorphous and crystalline substrates (same composition)	Ar	d≈30 µm	Ames Lab	P: 100-250 WV: 4.2-12.7 mm/sFR: 1.5 g/min [46]
DMD (Optomec 750 LENS)	Fe_<65Cr_<25Mo_<15W_<10C_<3Mn_5<Si_<2B_<5 on 316 SS	Ar	53 µm < d < 180 µm	NanoSteel	P: 250 WV: 20 mm/sFR: 19 g/min [47]
LSF* (Pulsed laser)	Zr₅₅Cu₃₀Ni₅Al₁₀ (at.%) on amorphous substrate (same composition)	Ar	5 µm < d < 150 µm	-	E: 80 JV: 0.095 mm/sυ: 0.1 Hz [48]
DMD (Optomec 750 LENS)	FeCrMoWMnCSiB on 304 L SS	Ar	44 µm < d < 149 µm	NanoSteel	P: 350 WV: 36 mm/sFR: 12.6 g/min [49]
DMD (Optomec 750 LENS)	Zr₆₅Cu₁₅Ni₁₀Al₁₀ (at.%) on Inconel 625 substrate	Ar	d < 150 µm	Atalantic equipment engineers	P: 150-350 WV: 10-30 mm/sFR: 9.1 g/min [50]
EBM (EBM A1Arcam AB)	Zr₇₀Cu₂₄Al₄Nb₂ (at.%)	Vacuum	d ≈ 65 µm	-	BC: 20-32 mAV: 6-12 m/st: 125 µm [51]
LFP (Missouri S&T)	Zr_52.5Ti₅Al₁₀Ni_14.6Cu_17.9 (at.%) on Ti64 and Zr702 substrates	Ar	FT: 100 µm	Liquidmetal LM105	P: 300-500 WV: 240-588 mm/s [52], [53], [54]
LFP (Missouri S&T)	Zr₆₅Al_7.5Ni₁₀Cu_17.5 (at.%)	Ar	FT: 150 µm	Eco. FM	P: 300 W (pulse mode) [55]
LFP (Missouri S&T)	Zr_65.7Ti_3.3Al_3.7Ni_11.7Cu_15.6 (at.%) on Ti64	Ar	FT: 200 µm	Liquidmetal LM105	P: 300 W (pulse mode) [55]
Thermal Spray 3D Printing (HVOF)	Fe₄₈C₁₅B₆Mo₁₄Cr₁₅Y₂on Mild Steel substrate	O₂ and Kerosene	35 µm< d <55 µm	Changsha HualiuMetallurgy Powder Co.	FR: 30 g/mint: 40 µm [56]
Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF)	Zr₄₄Ti₁₁Cu₁₀Ni₁₀Be₂₅	Room environment	Rod(Ø: 1 mm, L: 700 mm)	Desktop Metal, MIT, Yale University	Extrusion temp.: 460 °C, Viscosity: 10⁵ Pa s [57]

Fig. 1. Welding of (a) Zr55Al10Ni5Cu30 and (b) Zr41Be23Ti14Cu12Ni10 BMGs (reproduced with permission from Elsevier) [60].

Fig. 2. Dissimilar welding, using electron beam welding (EBM), of Zr41Be23Ti14Cu12Ni10 BMG to (a) pure Zr metal, (b) pure Ti metal, and (c) tensile sample showing a strong bond between the BMG and Zr (reproduced with permission from Elsevier) [60].

Fig. 3. Schematic of the selective laser melting (SLM) process (reproduced with permission from Elsevier) [65].

Fig. 4. (a, b) Scaffold and cylindrical structures made from Fe74Mo4P10C7.5B2.5Si2 BMG and (c) X-ray diffraction spectrum showing a mixture of amorphous and crystalline phases (reproduced with permission from Elsevier) [35].

Fig. 5. Density map vs laser power and scanning speed in Fe68.3C6.9Si2.5B6.7P8.7Cr2.3Mo2.5Al2.1 (at.%) BMG (reproduced with permission from Elsevier) [37].

Fig. 6. Schematic of the direct metal deposition (DMD) process (reproduced with permission from Elsevier) [63].

Fig. 7. (a) Single-layer deposition by DMD showing an inhomogeneous melt zone and crystallization in HAZ, and (b) remelting of the as-deposited layer (reproduced with permission from MRS) [45].

Fig. 8. (a) Interface of 316 substrate and Fe-based metallic glass, showing a dilution region and crystalline pockets, and (b) nearly uniform distribution of elemental constituents within the dilution zone (reproduced with permission from Elsevier) [47].

Fig. 9. The electron beam melting (EBM) process (reproduced with permission from Taylor & Francis) [77].

Fig. 10. Effect of processing parameters on the sintering process in EBM: (a) The powder remains loose and intact (8 m/s, 22 mA), and (b) complete fusion (12 m/s, 32 mA) (reproduced with permission from RTeJournal) [51].

Fig. 11. The laser foil printing (LFP) process and a range of BMG parts with different shapes and geometries (reproduced with permission from Elsevier) [53,85].

Fig. 12. LFP processing of Zr-based BMG showing elemental maps and EDS line scans: (a) the first layer of foil and (b) the second layer of foil (reproduced with permission from Elsevier) [52].

Fig. 13. (a) Schematic of thermal spray 3D printing process using an HVOF system, (b) BMGs parts printed by thermal spray 3D printing, (c, d) fracture surfaces of 3D printed BMG vs as-cast BMG showing step-wise feature along the crack pathway due to layer-by-layer deposition (reproduced with permission) [56].

Fig. 14. Nanohardness maps of a Zr52.5Ti5Cu17.9Ni14.6Al10 BMG produced by SLM: (a) single scan (E = 13.3 J/mm3, V = 2000 m/s), and (b) multiple scan (E = 13.3 J/mm3, V = 2000 m/s) (reproduced with permission from Elsevier) [38].

Fig. 15. (a) Compression strength of Zr52.5Ti5Cu17.9Ni14.6Al10 SLM-produced BMG and as-cast BMG, (b) fracture surface of as-cast BMG showing river-like pattern, and (c) fracture surface of SLMed BMG, showing unmelted powder (reproduced with permission from Elsevier) [39].

Fig. 16. Hardness as a function of distance from the stainless steel substrate in Fe-based amorphous coating (reproduced with permission from Springer) [34].

Fig. 17. (a, b) LFP-processed Zr-based BMG beams on a Zr substrate, and (c) four-point bend testing of the beams, showing high strength and plasticity (reproduced with permission from Springer) [55].

Fig. 18. The corrosion resistance of SLMed Zr-based BMG compared with as-cast and Ti64 alloy (reproduced with permission from Elsevier [104]).

Table 2. Comparison of AM technologies for producing BMGs.

AM technology	Thermal residual stress	GFA	Build-plate internal cooling	Printing resolution	Printing efficiency	Printing density
SLM	++++	+++	√	+++	+++	+++
DMD	++++	+++	√	++	+++	+++
EBM	++	++++	×	+ ++	++	++++
LFP	++++	+++	√	++	+	++++
FFF	+	++++	×	+	++	+++
TS3DP	+	++++	√	++	++	+++

Fig. 19. Important aspects of additive manufacturing of BMGs (CR: cooling rate, GFA: glass-forming ability).

Fig. 20. Energy per unit length ($\frac{Laser power}{Scanning rate}$J/mm) vs ΔT.

References 109

[1]	K.J. Laws, D.B. Miracle, M. Ferry, Nat. Commun. 6 (2015) 8123. DOI PMID
[2]	J.E. Gao, et al., Acta Mater. 61 (9) (2013) 3214-3223. DOI URL
[3]	E. Axinte, Mater. Des. 35 (2012) 518-556. DOI URL
[4]	A. Inoue, A. Takeuchi, Acta Mater. 59 (6) (2011) 2243-2267. DOI URL
[5]	W. Wang, Prog. Mater. Sci. 52 (4) (2007) 540-596. DOI URL
[6]	A. Inoue, A. Takeuchi, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 375-377 (2004) 16-30.
[7]	R. Nowosielski, J. Anna, R. Babilas, J. Achiev. Mater. Manuf. Eng. 55 (2) (2012) 349-354.
[8]	R. Nowosielski, R. Babilas, J. Achiev. Mater. Manuf. Eng. 42 (1-2) (2010) 66-72.
[9]	A.P. Zykova, et al., Metals 10 (6) (2020).
[10]	L. Zuo, et al., Mater. Sci. Eng. A 772 (2020).
[11]	W.J. Botta, et al., J. Alloy. Compd. (2013) S105-S110.
[12]	J. Farmer, et al., Metall. Mater. Trans. A 40 (6) (2009) 1289-1305. DOI URL
[13]	K. Hashimoto, Appl. Surf. Sci. 257 (19) (2011) 8141-8150. DOI URL
[14]	H.R. Lashgari, et al., J. NonCryst. Solids 391 (2014) 61-82. DOI URL
[15]	A. Wang, et al., J. Alloy. Compd. 630 (2015) 209-213. DOI URL
[16]	A. Inoue, N. Nishiyama, MRS Bull. 32 (8) (2011) 651-658. DOI URL
[17]	J.G. Wang, et al., Mater. Sci. Eng. A 651 (2016) 321-331. DOI URL
[18]	S.V. Ketov, D.V. Louzguine-Luzgin, Sci. Rep. 3 (2013) 2798. DOI PMID
[19]	Y.Q. Cheng, E. Ma, Prog. Mater Sci. 56 (4) (2011) 379-473. DOI URL
[20]	C.A. Schuh, T.C. Hufnagel, U. Ramamurty, Acta Mater. 55 (12) (2007) 4067-4109. DOI URL
[21]	J.J. Lewandowski, A.L. Greer, Nat. Mater. 5 (1) (2005) 15-18. DOI URL
[22]	J. Hyun Na, M.D. Demetriou, W.L. Johnson, Appl. Phys. Lett. 99 (16) (2011) 161902. DOI URL
[23]	D.M. Mini ´c, et al., Mater. Chem. Phys. 134 (1) (2012) 111-115. DOI URL
[24]	D.M. Mini ´c, et al., Intermetallics 25 (2012) 75-79. DOI URL
[25]	D.M. Mini ´c, et al., J. Alloy. Compd. 509 (33) (2011) 8350-8355. DOI URL
[26]	V.A. Blagojevi ´c, et al., Intermetallics 19 (12) (2011) 1780-1785. DOI URL
[27]	T. Egami, J. Alloy. Compd. 509 (2011) S82-S86.
[28]	H.R. Lashgari, et al., Mater. Des. 92 (2016) 919-931. DOI URL
[29]	Z.T. Wang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (13) (2013) 135504-135505. DOI URL
[30]	P. Sharma, et al., Scr. Mater. 95 (2015) 3-6. DOI URL
[31]	L. Liu, et al., Materials 11 (11) (2018) 1-12 (Basel). DOI URL
[32]	M. Bakkal, Intermetallics 18 (6) (2010) 1251-1253. DOI URL
[33]	E.S.P. Hyung Gu Kang, W.T. Kim, D.H. Kim, H.K. Cho, JIM 41 (7) (2000) 846-849.
[34]	B. Zheng, et al., Metall. Mater. Trans. A 40 (5) (2009) 1235-1245. DOI URL
[35]	S. Pauly, et al., Mater. Today 16 (1-2) (2013) 37-41. DOI URL
[36]	X.P. Li, et al., Mater. Sci. Eng. A 606 (2014) 370-379. DOI URL
[37]	H.Y. Jung, et al., Mater. Des. 86 (2015) 703-708. DOI URL
[38]	X.P. Li, et al., Mater. Des. 112 (2016) 217-226. DOI URL
[39]	S. Pauly, et al., Mater. Des. 135 (2017) 133-141. DOI URL
[40]	Z. Mahbooba, et al., Appl. Mater. Today 11 (2018) 264-269.
[41]	P. Bordeenithikasem, et al., Addit. Manuf. 21 (2018) 312-317.
[42]	L. Deng, et al., Mater. Lett. 212 (2018) 346-349. DOI URL
[43]	D. Ouyang, N. Li, L. Liu, J. Alloy. Compd. 740 (2018) 603-609. DOI URL
[44]	C. Yang, et al., Intermetallics 94 (2018) 22-28. DOI URL
[45]	H. Sun, K.M. Flores, J. Mater. Res. 23 (10) (2011) 2692-2703. DOI URL
[46]	H. Sun, K.M. Flores, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 41 (7) (2010) 1752-1757. DOI URL
[47]	V.K. Balla, A. Bandyopadhyay, Surf. Coat. Technol. 205 (7) (2010) 2661-2667. DOI URL
[48]	G. Yang, et al., Intermetallics 22 (2012) 110-115. DOI URL
[49]	X. Ye, Y.C. Shin, Surf. Coat. Technol. 239 (2014) 34-40. DOI URL
[50]	X. Ye, et al., Metall. Mater. Trans. A 46 (9) (2015) 4316-4325. DOI URL
[51]	H. Seitz, RTeJournal Fachforum für Rapid Technol. (2015) 2015.
[52]	Y. Li, et al., J. Mater. Process. Technol. 248 (2017) 249-261. DOI URL
[53]	Y. Shen, et al., Mater. Des. 117 (2017) 213-222. DOI URL
[54]	Y. Li, et al., Mater. Sci. Eng. A 743 (2019) 404-411. DOI URL
[55]	P. Bordeenithikasem, et al., Addit. Manuf. 19 (2018) 95-103.
[56]	C. Zhang, et al., J. Mater. Chem. A 6 (16) (2018) 6 800-6 805.
[57]	M.A. Gibson, et al., Mater. Today 21 (7) (2018) 697-702. DOI URL
[58]	H. Liu, et al., Addit. Manuf. (2020) 36.
[59]	Y. Kawamura, S. Kagao, Y. Ohno, Mater. Trans. 42 (12) (2001) 2649-2651. DOI URL
[60]	S. Kagao, Y. Kawamura, Y. Ohno, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 375-377 (2004) 312-316.
[61]	A. Langlet, Method of producing products of amorphous metal.US8052923B2, 2011
[62]	Langlet, P.S.a.A., Method of producing objects containing nano metal or com- posite metal. US 8, 333,922 B2, 2012.
[63]	H. Fayazfar, et al., Mater. Des. 144 (2018) 98-128. DOI URL
[64]	Z. Yan, et al., Opt. Laser Technol. 106 (2018) 427-441. DOI URL
[65]	T.D. Ngo, et al., Compos. Part B Eng. (2018) 270-284.
[66]	A. du Plessis, I. Yadroitsava, I. Yadroitsev, Mater. Des. (2019) 242-269.
[67]	J. Zhang, et al., J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35 (2) (2019) 270-284. DOI URL
[68]	N. Li, et al., J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35 (2) (2019) 242-269. DOI URL
[69]	H. Qin, et al., Mater. Charact. 145 (2018) 29-38. DOI URL
[70]	S. Pasebani, et al., Addit. Manuf. 22 (2018) 127-137.
[71]	H. Irrinki, et al., Powder Technol. 331 (2018) 192-203. DOI URL
[72]	A. Yadollahi, et al., Int. J. Fatigue 94 (2017) 218-235. DOI URL
[73]	D. Ouyang, et al., Addit. Manuf. 23 (2018) 246-252.
[74]	M. Masoomi, et al., Data Brief 13 (2017) 408-414. DOI URL
[75]	D. Ouyang, et al., Appl. Mater. Today 23 (2021) 1-12.
[76]	M. Neikter, et al., Mater. Charact. (2018).
[77]	C. Körner, Int. Mater. Rev. 61 (5) (2016) 361-377. DOI URL
[78]	X. Gong, T. Anderson, K. Chou, Manuf. Rev. 1 (2014) 431-438.
[79]	A. Koptyug, L.E. Rännar, M. Bäckström, A. Langlet, in: Proceedings of the Inter- national Conference on Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing, Nottingham, UK, 2013.
[80]	Y. Kawamura, T. Shoji, Y. Ohno, J. NonCryst. Solids 317 (1-2) (2003) 152-157. DOI URL
[81]	C.L. Li, et al., Appl. Surf. Sci. 280 (2013) 431-438. DOI URL
[82]	M. Iqbal, et al., Key Eng. Mater. 510-511 (2012) 43-50.
[83]	N.H. Tariq, et al., J. Alloy. Compd. 460 (1-2) (2008) 258-262. DOI URL
[84]	H.W. Bergmann, B.L. Mordike, J. Mater. Sci. 16 (4) (1981) 863-869. DOI URL
[85]	Y. Shen, Research On Additive Manufacturing of Metallic Glass Alloy Doctoral Dissertation,Missouri University of Science and Technology, 2018.
[86]	Y. Shen, Y. Li, H.L. Tsai, J. NonCryst. Solids 481 (2018) 299-305. DOI URL
[87]	Y.L. Yiyu Shen, H.L. Tsai, in:Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication, 2017, pp. 755-770. 2017.
[88]	Y. Li, et al., Acta Mater. 144 (2018) 810-821. DOI URL
[89]	C. Zhang, et al., Scr. Mater. 177 (2020) 112-117. DOI URL
[90]	D.C. Hofmann, et al., Adv. Eng. Mater. 20 (10) (2018) 254-264.
[91]	T.C. Hufnagel, C.A. Schuh, M.L. Falk, Acta Mater. 109 (2016) 375-393. DOI URL
[92]	W.H. Wang, Prog. Mater Sci. (2019) 106.
[93]	N. Li, et al., Mater. Des. 143 (2018) 285-296. DOI URL
[94]	D. Ouyang, et al., Mater. Sci. Eng. A 61 (2020) 782.
[95]	S.J. Wu, et al., J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 67 (2021) 254-264. DOI
[96]	N. Sohrabi, et al., Mater. Des. 32 (2021) 199.
[97]	D.T.A. Matthews, V. Ocelík, J.T.M. de Hosson, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 471 (1-2) (2007) 155-164. DOI URL
[98]	Y. Lu, Y. Huang, J. Wu, J. Alloy. Compd. 766 (2018) 506-510. DOI URL
[99]	D.C. Hofmann, et al., Adv. Eng. Mater. 19 (1) (2017) S539-S543.
[100]	G. Herzer, Acta Mater. 61 (3) (2013) 718-734. DOI URL
[101]	R. Conteri, et al., J. Manuf. Process. 29 (2017) 175-181. DOI URL
[102]	T. Borkar, et al., Mater. Manuf. Process. 32 (14) (2016) 1581-1587. DOI URL
[103]	J.R. Scully, A. Gebert, J.H. Payer, J. Mater. Res. 22 (2) (2011) 302-313. DOI URL
[104]	C. Zhang, et al., J. Alloy. Compd. 790 (2019) 963-973. DOI URL
[105]	Y.S. Sun, et al., J. Alloy. Compd. 586 (2014) S539-S543.
[106]	A. Srikanth, G. Mohammed Thalib Basha, B. Venkateshwarlu, Mater. Today Proc. 22 (2020) 1390-1397.
[107]	E. Irissou, J.G. Legoux, A.N. Ryabinin, B. Jodoin, C. Moreau, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 17 (4) (2008) 495-516. DOI URL
[108]	F. Gärtner, et al., J. Therm. Spray Technol. 15 (2) (2006) 223-232. DOI URL
[109]	T. Stoltenhoff, H. Kreye, H.J. Richter, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 11 (4) (2002) 542-550. DOI URL