Evaluates porosity in Ti–6Al–4V components using island versus crosshatch scanning, suggesting optimal approaches for defect reduction.
Island scanning is widely used in Laser-based Powder Bed Fusion; however, its influence on porosity formation compared with conventional cross-hatching has not been sufficiently investigated, particularly under varying hatch spacing. In this work, Ti6Al4V components were fabricated using crosshatch and island scanning strategies over a range of hatch spacing factors (A1 = 0.5–0.9), intentionally covering a regime associated with lack-of-fusion defects. Porosity distribution and microstructures were characterised using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and X-ray computed tomography, while Vickers hardness testing evaluated the mechanical response to porosity. Both strategies exhibited characteristic necklace-like porosity near boundaries; however, island scanned components showed substantially higher overall porosity, approximately five times that of crosshatch components, due to persistent island-boundary-related pores. Minimum porosity occurred at A1 = 0.6–0.7 for both strategies, whereas overheating-related irregular pores dominated at A1 = 0.5 and lack-of-fusion defects became prevalent at A1 = 0.8–0.9. Island scanning also showed a higher probability of extra-large pores (≥100 μm), which were absent in crosshatch components. Hardness decreased by approximately 10–20 HV at higher A1 values, consistent with increased defect content. Linear regression confirmed a negative correlation between porosity and hardness, with a stronger dependence for island scanning (R² = 0.69, p = 0.00012) than for crosshatch scanning (R² = 0.30, p = 0.034). Using the melt pool geometry criterion from literature, a target processing zone was identified, where a Tang-Pistorius-Beuth inequality range of 0.4–0.75 provides optimal conditions for defect reduction in crosshatch scanning, but does not apply to island scanning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: