letter
1038/nature23894
3D printing of high-strength aluminium alloys
John H. Martin1,2, Brennan D. Yahata1, Jacob M. Hundley1, Justin A. Mayer1, Tobias A. Schaedler1 & Tresa M. Pollock2
Metal-based additive manufacturing, or three-dimensional (3D)
printing, is a potentially disruptive technology across multiple
industries, including the aerospace, biomedical and automotive
industries. Building up metal components layer by layer increases
design freedom and manufacturing flexibility, thereby enabling
complex geometries, increased product customization and shorter
time to market, while eliminating traditional economy-of-scale
constraints. However, currently only a few alloys, the most relevant
being AlSi10Mg, TiAl6V4, CoCr and Inconel 718, can be reliably
printed1,2; the vast majority of the more than 5,500 alloys in use
today cannot be additively manufactured because the melting
and solidification dynamics during the printing process lead to
intolerable microstructures with large columnar grains and periodic
cracks3–5. Here we demonstrate that these issues can be resolved by
introducing nanoparticles of nucleants that control solidification
during additive manufacturing. We selected the nucleants on the
basis of crystallographic information and assembled them onto 7075
and 6061 series aluminium alloy powders. After functionalization
with the nucleants, we found that these high-strength aluminium
alloys, which were previously incompatible with additive
manufacturing, could be processed successfully using selective
laser melting. Crack-free, equiaxed (that is, with grains roughly
equal in length, width and height), fine-grained microstructures
were achieved, resulting in material strengths comparable to
that of wrought material. Our approach to metal-based additive
manufacturing is applicable to a wide range of alloys and can be
implemented using a range of additive machines. It thus provides
a foundation for broad industrial applicability, including where
electron-beam melting or directed-energy-deposition techniques
are used instead of selective laser melting, and will enable additive
manufacturing of other alloy systems, such as non-weldable nickel
superalloys and intermetallics. Furthermore, this technology could
be used in conventional processing such as in joining, casting and
injection moulding, in which solidification cracking and hot tearing
are also common issues.
In metal-based additive manufacturing, application of a direct
energy source, such as a laser or electron beam, to melt alloy powders
locally results in solidification rates between 0.1 m s−1 and 5 m s−1,
an order of magnitude increase over conventional casting processes.
Given that rastering of this direct energy source (such that it follows
a pattern of slightly overlapping lines in a back and forth pattern) to
continuously fuse successive layers of powder is analogous to welding
processes, it is not surprising that the suite of printable metal alloys
are limited to those known to be easily weldable. Application of con-
ventional 3D printing methods to ‘unweldable’ high-performance
engineering alloys that cannot accommodate these solidification
conditions, such as 6000 and 7000 series aluminium alloys and
high-strengthening-phase (high-γ′) nickel superalloys, results in
microstructures with columnar grains and cracks spanning dozens
of successive print layers3–5. The limitations of the currently printable
alloys, especially with respect to specific strength, fatigue life and frac-
ture toughness, have hindered metal-based additive manufacturing
from maturing to its full potential.
1
HRL Laboratories LLC, Sensors and Materials Laboratory, Architected Materials Department, Malibu, California, USA. 2Materials Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA.
© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
doi:10.
During solidification of these unweldable alloys, the primary equi-
librium phase solidifies first at a different composition from the bulk
liquid. This results in solute enrichment in the liquid near the solidi-
fying interface, locally changing the equilibrium liquidus temperature
and producing an unstable, undercooled condition6. As a result, there
is a breakdown of the solid–liquid interface leading to cellular or den-
dritic grain growth with long channels of interdendritic liquid trapped
between solidified regions. As temperature and liquid volume fraction
decrease, volumetric solidification shrinkage and thermal contraction
in these channels produces cavities and hot tearing cracks which may
span the entire length of the columnar grain and can propagate through
additional intergranular regions7,8 (Fig. 1e).
In contrast, fine equiaxed microstructures more easily accommodate
strain in the semi-solid state by suppressing coherency that locks the
orientation of these solid dendrites and promotes tearing9. Producing
these ideal equiaxed structures requires large amounts of undercool-
ing, which has thus far proven difficult in additive processes where
high thermal gradients arise from rastering of a direct energy source in
an arbitrary geometric pattern10. Here we present a general approach
to control solidification microstructure by promoting nucleation of
new grains with nanoparticle grain refiners (Fig. 1d). Alloy powder
feedstock particles are decorated with lattice-matched nanoparticles
(Fig. 1b) that heterogeneously nucleate the primary equilibrium phases
during cooling of the melt pool. By providing a high density of low-
energy-barrier heterogeneous nucleation sites ahead of the solidifi-
cation front, the critical amount of undercooling needed to induce
equiaxed growth is decreased11. This allows for a fine equiaxed grain
structure that accommodates strain and prevents cracking under oth-
erwise identical solidification conditions. Using this technology enables
additive manufacturing of previously unattainable high-performance
alloys, such as 7075 or 6061 aluminium, with improved properties over
currently available systems.
Aluminium alloys are a good demonstration platform for our
approach, because the only printable aluminium alloys are based on the
binary Al–Si system and have a wide range of reported properties, but
tend to converge around a yield strength of approximately 200 MPa with
a low ductility of 4% (refs 1, 12). The exception is Scalmalloy13,14, which
relies on alloying additions of scandium, a rare high-cost metal. In con-
trast, most aluminium alloys used in automotive, aerospace and con-
sumer applications are wrought alloys of the 2000, 5000, 6000 or 7000
series, which can exhibit strengths exceeding 400 MPa and ductility of
more than 10% but cannot currently be additively manufactured15–17.
These systems have low-cost alloying elements (Cu, Mg, Zn, Si)
carefully selected to produce complex strengthening phases during
subsequent ageing. These same elements promote large solidification
ranges, leading to hot tearing during solidification, an issue that has
been difficult to surmount for the more than 100 years since the first
age-hardenable alloy, duralumin, was developed18,19. The most com-
plete study of elemental effects dates back to the late 1940s; however,
the mechanistic effect was not fully described until 1999 by Rappaz,
Drezet and Gremaud (RDG)8,20. The RDG model incorporated both
deformation of the semi-solid network and fluid backfill to capture the
composition and microstructure effects on cavitation-assisted tearing.
2 1 s e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 7 | V O L 5 4 9 | N A T U RE | 3 6 5
 RESEARCH letter
a Standard
a alloy powder
Laser or
electron beam
50 μm
c Columnar growth Melt pool
Crack
Powder bed
Shrinkage
e f
z 111
y 15 μm
35 μm
x 100 110
Large columnar grains with cracks
Crack-free, small equiaxed grains
Figure 1 | Additive manufacturing of metal alloys via selective laser
melting. The central schematic represents an overview of the additive
manufacturing process, whereby a direct energy source (laser or electron
beam) melts a layer of metal powder (yellow), which solidifies (red to blue),
fusing it to the previous (underlying) layer of metal (grey). a, Conventional
Al7075 powder feedstock. b, Al7075 powder functionalized with
nanoparticles. c, Many alloys including Al7075 tend to solidify by columnar
growth of dendrites, resulting in cracks due to solidification shrinkage.
Additionally, Gourlay and Dahle21 demonstrated experimentally that
strain can be accommodated more readily in a fine equiaxed material
owing to an increase in the solid fraction at which dendrite coherency
occurs and the suppression of large dilatant shear bands which require
additional backfilling. Combining the mechanistic effects addressed by
Gourlay and Dahle and the predictions of the RDG model to minimize
crack susceptibility has not been effective for highly crack-susceptible
alloys such as Al7075 and Al6061, owing to a lack of processing paths
to produce fine equiaxed grains. We have developed a scalable and
alloy-agnostic approach to incorporate grain-refining particles into
conventional hot-tear-susceptible alloy powders directly to additively
manufacture high-strength crack-free alloys with a fine equiaxed
microstructure (Fig. 2). Conventional alloy powders and nanopar-
ticles are electrostatically assembled, producing a powder feedstock
with uniformly distributed nanoparticles. Nanoparticle compositions
targeted to each alloy were selected using a software tool that identi-
fies matching crystallographic lattice spacing and density to provide a
low-energy nucleation barrier on the basis of classical nucleation theory
(Fig. 2f). The software analysed more than 4,500 different powder and
nanoparticle combinations corresponding to more than 11.5 million
matching pairs. Potential matches were sorted by a combined set of
constraints: minimized lattice misfit, similar atomic packing along
matched crystallographic planes, thermodynamic stability in the
desired alloy, and availability. For the aluminium alloys tested, hydro-
gen-stabilized zirconium particles were selected for their stability in
air and ability to decompose at the melting temperature, resulting in
formation of the favourable Al3Zr nucleant phase22. This phase has
previously been described as a ‘mild’ grain refiner, but can be difficult to
incorporate in many aluminium alloys owing to rapid coarsening and
a high liquidus temperature, making gas atomization of additive feed-
stock difficult22,23. In our approach, incorporation of this particulate at
3 6 6 | N A T U RE | V O L 5 4 9 | 2 1 s e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 7
© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
b Nanoparticle-enhanced g
powder
15 μm
d Equiaxed growth
2 cm
Strain-tolerant
h
z
y
x
1 cm
d, Suitable nanoparticles can induce heterogeneous nucleation and facilitate
equiaxed grain growth, thereby reducing the effect of solidification
strain. e, Many alloys exhibit intolerable microstructure with large grains
and periodic cracks when 3D-printed using conventional approaches,
as illustrated by the inverse pole figure. f, Functionalizing the powder
feedstock with nanoparticles produces fine equiaxed grain growth and
eliminates hot cracking. g, A 3D-printed, topologically optimized Al6061
piston on the build plate. h, 3D-printed Al7075 HRL logo.
the instant of melting provides a high level of mixing and a high density
of nucleation sites.
Pre-alloyed gas-atomized 7075 and 6061 spherical powders with
an average particle size of 45 μ​m were coated with 1 vol% hydrogen-
stabilized zirconium nucleants using an electrostatic assembly tech-
nique to ensure uniform distribution in the powder bed and avoid
settling. Assembled powders were additively manufactured via selec-
tive laser melting using a Concept Laser M2 400W system with an
80 mm ×​ 80 mm build volume. Standard machine parameters provided
by the manufacturer for a conventional AlSi10Mg alloy were used for
all nanoparticle-functionalized 7075 and 6061 powders. After com-
pletion of the build, components were homogenized on the build plate
and aged to a T6 condition in accordance with conventional wrought
materials. For direct property comparison, parts were also manufac-
tured from stock 7075, 6061 and AlSi10Mg powders under the same
conditions.
Microstructure analysis reveals a substantial difference between com-
ponents additively manufactured from stock powders and those pro-
duced with nanoparticle-functionalized powder (Figs 1 and 3). Stock
7075 and 6061 (Extended Data Figs 6 and 7) exhibit a series of large
columnar grains oriented parallel to the build direction, with cracks
present in the intercolumnar region and extending through multiple
build layers. This is consistent with previously documented attempts
at printing wrought aluminium alloys and is driven by the high, direc-
tional heat flux in the additive process, which provides high thermal
gradients and minimal undercooling during solidification4. Previous
additive routes to producing equiaxed grains have focused on manip-
ulating the thermal gradient and solidification velocity to induce sub-
stantial undercooling for nucleation of equiaxed microstructures. This
requires extensive manipulation of parameters including scan strategy
and build temperature and is not extensible to multiple alloy systems,
 letter RESEARCH

a b c

5 μm 25 μm 5 μm

d e f
Primary
solidification phase

Lattice-matched
nucleant phase
15 μm 1 μm

Figure 2 | Nanoparticle assembly on additive metal feedstock. The
assembly approach enables the production of various feedstocks with
different nanoparticle assemblies, which can be targeted to induce
equiaxed grain growth a, Al7075 powder with TiB2 nanoparticles.
b, TiAl6V4 powder with ZrH2 nanoparticles. c, Al7075 powder with
WC nanoparticles. d, AlSi10Mg powder with WC nanoparticles.
e, Iron powder with TiC nanoparticles. f, Schematic representation of
how lattice-matched nanoparticles (bottom phase in blue and yellow)
can induce low-energy-barrier epitaxial growth of solidifying metals
(top phase in purple), with lattice-matched planes in the unit cells
indicated in green on the right.

additive hardware or build geometries10,24. Although the solidification
velocity is relatively high, it alone is not sufficient to induce equiaxed
growth per the conventional Hunt criterion for a columnar-to-equiaxed
transition. In particular, the high thermal conductivity of aluminium
and the large liquid diffusivities of alloying elements make substantial
undercooling extremely difficult to achieve with the accessible ranges
of solidification velocities and thermal gradients25. In addition, the
Hunt criterion assumes a steady-state solidification front, whereas the
additive process deviates substantially from steady state owing to the
raster pattern and accumulation of residual heat26. As such, solidifica-
tion preferentially occurs through nucleation on existing grains, leading
to the observed grain growth vertical to the build direction with grains
extending across multiple build layers, as in the inverse pole figure
map in Fig. 1e.

a 635 b fs = 0.2 fs = 0.6 fs = 0.9

AlSi10Mg
610 Al7075

585
Temperature (°C)

560

535

510

485

460
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fraction of solid, fs
c 580 d
Al7075
Al7075 + Zr Al7075 Al7075 + Zr
560
Temperature (°C)

540

520

500

480
25 μm 25 μm
460
0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Cracks Residual porosity
Fraction of solid, fs

Figure 3 | Solidification behaviour of additive aluminium alloys.
a, Solidification curves for Al7075 (orange) and conventional 3D-printed
aluminium (AlSi10Mg; blue). b, Schematic representation of solidification,
indicating how solidification over a large temperature range leads to long
channels of interdendritic fluid that result in cracking (top; such as in
Al7075), whereas a small solidification range leads to short interdendritic
regions that can easily be backfilled (bottom; such as in AlSi10Mg). The
three panels in each row correspond to the solid fractions indicated by the
vertical green dashed lined in a. c, Adding zirconium to Al7075 (purple)
has little effect on the solidification behaviour at high solid fractions, at
which alloys are the most tear- and crack-susceptible. d, Polished and
etched scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images depicting the resulting
microstructures with (right) and without (left) the addition of zirconium.

2 1 s e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 7 | V O L 5 4 9 | N A T U RE | 3 6 7
© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
 RESEARCH letter
a 500
400
Stress (MPa)
300
200
Al7075 + Zr
100 Al7075
AlSi10Mg
0
0 2 4 6
Elongation (%)
b 5%
1% 2% 3% 4.5%
Figure 4 | Mechanical testing of 3D-printed aluminium alloys.
a, Representative tensile curves of the 3D-printed materials in this study.
b, Representative deformation behaviour of Al7075 +​ Zr, indicating Luders
band propagation due to the refined grain size. The colour scale shows the
local principal strain, with the total elongation listed under each panel.
In contrast, the 7075 and 6061 alloys manufactured with grain-
refining nanoparticles show uniform equiaxed growth with no cracking.
Upon melting, zirconium particulates are pulled into the melt pool and
react to form Al3Zr. Al3Zr has more than 20 matching interfaces with
the primary face-centred-cubic aluminium phase, exhibiting less than
0.52% lattice mismatch and 1% variation in atomic density, providing
an ideal low-energy heterogeneous nucleation site. Nucleation of new
grains ahead of the solidification front requires both an energetically
favourable condition and a large number of nucleation sites to ensure
new grains can form before the main solidification front overtakes new
grains. The columnar growth demonstrated in the unmodified mate-
rial indicates that undercooling is present, providing an energetically
favourable condition; however, without additional nucleation sites,
homogenous nucleation requires a substantially higher energy barrier.
The large number of low-energy-barrier heterogeneous nucleation sites
ahead of the solidification front induces a fine equiaxed structure under
the same processing conditions as for the unmodified powder. This
results in crack-free microstructure with grain sizes of about 5 μ​m, 100
times smaller than the grains in the unmodified material (Fig. 1e, f).
The nucleant particles are uniformly incorporated into the micro-
structure, which can provide additional strengthening and resistance
to grain growth owing to pinning effects.
The cracking that we observed in the stock material appears consist-
ent with the mechanisms of the RDG model8. Columnar grains grow in
the direction of the heat flux, leaving a thin layer of interdendritic fluid
and leading to cavity formation (Fig. 3b). Further thermal shrinkage
allows this initial cavity to ‘unzip’ and to propagate through interden-
dritic colonies, resulting in large cracks oriented parallel to the colum-
nar grains8. Although the RDG model does not explicitly describe the
effects of equiaxed microstructure on crack susceptibility, the shift to
equiaxed growth drastically reduces the effect of entrapped liquid as
the grains begin to behave as a low-resistance granular solid21. Fine
equiaxed semi-solid structures allow easier grain rotation and defor-
mation, providing a means to accommodate strain in the semisolid
state and thus preventing crack initiation and growth. The complete
3 6 8 | N A T U RE | V O L 5 4 9 | 2 1 s e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 7
© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Table 1 | Material properties of relevant alloy systems
Yield Ultimate Elastic Elongation
strength strength modulus to failure
Material (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) (%)
AM Al7075 (T6) NA 25.5 NA 0.4
Wrought Al7075 372–469 462–538 71.7 3–9
(T6; plate)31
AM Al7075 +​  Zr (T6) 325–373 383–417 63–66 3.8–5.4
AM AlSi10Mg 209 315 69.4 7.3
AM AlSi10Mg (CL31)32 170–220 310–325 75 2–3
Measured and literature values for comparative alloys; ranges listed when available. ‘T6’ refers to
the heat-treatment condition; ‘plate’ refers to the specific material; AM, additively manufactured;
NA, not available.
8
elimination of cracks that we observed is attributed to the change in
microstructure. Hot-tearing models, including the RDG model, are
dominated by the final stage of solidification when the fraction of solid
is greater than 0.8 (ref. 27). Many hot-tear-susceptible materials can be
identified from their solidification curves (Fig. 3a). The shapes of these
Principal strain
curves are dictated by the compositions of the constituent alloys and
can be described using a Scheil–Gulliver solidification model based on
the equilibrium phase diagram28. Thermo-Calc software was used to
simulate sequential steps from the liquidus temperature to an approx-
imate solidus temperature, calculating the fraction of solid and com-
position of the new liquid at each point. Susceptible alloys have large
0%
solidification ranges between the liquidus and solidus temperatures and
sharp turnover in the solidification curves at high fractions of solid.
The sharp turnover is typically associated with the increased levels of
strengthening solute that partitions in the liquid to a high degree during
solidification. Associated thermal shrinkage leads to tearing and cav-
itation in that thin films of interdendritic liquid that are present at the
high solid fraction. Decreasing the solid fraction at which the turnover
occurs or reducing the difference between the solidus and liquidus tem-
peratures will improve resistance to tearing. A conventional additive
aluminium alloy such as AlSi10Mg has both an early turnover and a
small difference in liquidus and solidus temperature, leading to a low
tendency for cracking during solidification. This is in stark contrast to
7075 and other hot-crack-susceptible alloys (Extended Data Fig. 5 with
Al6061 as well).
The shapes of the solidification curves can be shifted with increasing
solidification velocity owing to the non-equilibrium partition coeffi-
cients; however, we found no evidence of substantial departure from
equilibrium29. The addition of zirconium might be expected to shift the
solidification curve into a more favourable shape; however, as shown in
Fig. 3c, this is not the case. The Al–Zr binary phase diagram indicates
a peritectic reaction at high mass fractions of aluminium22. As such,
any Al–Zr reactions occur at the beginning of solidification where tear
resistance is not critical owing to the low volume fraction of solid. More
importantly, the addition of zirconium does not substantially alter the
shape of the solidification curve at high fractions of solid, where hot
tearing is initiated. As discussed above, the early inclusion of zirconium
induces equiaxed growth, which can more easily accommodate the
thermal contraction strains associated with solidification, ultimately
resulting in an alloy system that is highly tear resistant, despite con-
ventional wisdom.
We performed tensile testing and compared the results against
equivalent specimens produced from unmodified powder to verify
the crack-free nature of the additively manufactured material. Figure 4
displays typical stress–strain curves for each material; the associated
yield strength, modulus, ultimate tensile strength and elongation to
failure are summarized in Table 1. As shown, stock 7075 retains almost
no strength owing to the large volume of cracks caused by hot tearing.
Conventional AlSi10Mg shows about 7% ductility but less than half
the strength of the wrought 7075 system, consistent with data pro-
vided by multiple selective laser melting companies. In comparison,
additively manufactured 7075 with the incorporation of Al3Zr nucle-
ant particles shows an 80% increase in strength over AlSi10Mg, and is

within the expected bounds for its wrought counterpart. The modified
Al7075 demonstrates Luders banding during deformation, which is
indicative of an aluminium alloy with grain sizes of less than 10 μ​m
(Fig. 4)30. The yield strength and elongation of functionalized Al7075
was produced within reported ranges of wrought Al7075 (Table 1);
however, the ultimate strength difference and lower limit of yield
strength can be explained by strain softening from the reduced grain
size and evaporation of zinc, a major strengthening element, during the
laser melting process. Differences between additively manufactured
7075 and conventional wrought material can be remedied by increasing
the zinc concentration in the feedstock powder to improve strength and
by optimizing the heat treatment to target an optimum final grain size
to eliminate strain softening. Likewise, ductility and elastic modulus
can be increased by improving processing parameters to reduce the
porosity caused by excessive laser energy density and trapped gas, a
feature that was not optimized in this study. Additively manufactured
metal parts are often hot-isostatic-pressed to reduce porosity and to
improve properties, but this was not carried out for this study to pre-
serve equivalent processing conditions between functionalized and
stock aluminium powders.
We have used secondary particulates in additive manufacturing to
induce grain refinement of high-strength aluminium alloys of wrought
compositions, producing crack-free materials with strengths double
that of the most common additively manufactured aluminium alloy.
This metallurgical approach is applicable to other industrially relevant
crack-susceptible alloys and can be extended to new families of additive
manufacturing materials such as non-weldable nickel alloys, superal-
loys and intermetallics. Furthermore, our approach provides a metal-
lurgical tool for metals processing, affording a diverse range of alloys
for additive manufacturing, accelerating broad adoption of additive
processes and enabling the design of new alloy systems specifically for
additive processing.
Online Content Methods, along with any additional Extended Data display items and
Source Data, are available in the online version of the paper; references unique to
these sections appear only in the online paper.
received 14 February; accepted 26 July 2017.
1. Lewandowski, J. J. & Seifi, M. Metal additive manufacturing: a review of
mechanical properties. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 46, 151–186 (2016).
2. Frazier, W. E. Metal additive manufacturing: a review. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 23,
1917–1928 (2014).
3. Collins, F. R. & Dudas, J. H. Preventing weld cracks in high-strength aluminum
alloys. Weld. J. 45, 241 (1966).
4. Kaufmann, N. et al. Influence of process parameters on the quality of
aluminium alloy EN AW 7075 using selective laser melting (SLM). Phys.
Procedia 83, 918–926 (2016).
5. Zhang, H., Zhu, H., Qi, T., Hu, Z. & Zeng, X. Selective laser melting of high
strength Al-Cu-Mg alloys: processing, microstructure and mechanical
properties. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 656, 47–54 (2016).
6. Kurz, W. & Fisher, D. J. Fundamentals of Solidification (Trans Tech Publications,
1998).
7. Coniglio, N. & Cross, C. E. Initiation and growth mechanisms for weld
solidification cracking. Int. Mater. Rev. 58, 375–397 (2013).
8. Rappaz, M., Drezet, J. & Gremaud, M. A new hot-tearing criterion. Metall. Mater.
Trans. A 30, 449–455 (1999).
9. Yuan, L., O’Sullivan, C. & Gourlay, C. M. Exploring dendrite coherency with the
discrete element method. Acta Mater. 60, 1334–1345 (2012).
10. Collins, P. C., Brice, D. A., Samimi, P., Ghamarian, I. & Fraser, H. L.
Microstructural control of additively manufactured metallic materials. Annu.
Rev. Mater. Res. 46, 63–91 (2016).
© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
letter RESEARCH
11. Easton, M. A. & Stjohn, D. Grain refinement of aluminum alloys : part I. The
nucleant and solute paradigms — a review of the literature. Metall. Mater. Trans.
A 30, 1613–1623 (1999).
12. Ding, Y. et al. Microstructure and mechanical property considerations in
additive manufacturing of aluminum alloys. MRS Bull. 41, 745–751 (2016).
13. Schmidtke, K., Palm, F., Hawkins, A. & Emmelmann, C. Process and mechanical
properties: applicability of a scandium modified Al-alloy for laser additive
manufacturing. Phys. Procedia 12, 369–374 (2011).
14. Material Data Sheet — Scalmalloy (APWorks, 2016).
15. Starke, E. A. & Staley, J. T. Application of modern aluminum alloys to aircraft.
Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 32, 131–172 (1996).
16. Immarigeon, J. P. et al. Lightweight materials for aircraft applications. Mater.
Charact. 35, 41–67 (1995).
17. Miller, W. et al. Recent development in aluminium alloys for the automotive
industry. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 280, 37–49 (2000).
18. Society of Automotive Engineers & American Society for Testing and
Materials. Metals and Alloys in the Unified Numbering System (ASTM
International, 2012).
19. Nelson, W. Duralumin Welding. Report No. 399 (National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics, 1927).
20. Pumphrey, W. I. & Lyons, J. V. Cracking during the casting and welding of
the more common binary aluminum alloys. J. Inst. Met. 74, 439–455
(1948).
21. Gourlay, C. M. & Dahle, A. K. Dilatant shear bands in solidifying metals. Nature
445, 70–73 (2007).
22. Murray, J., Peruzzi, A. & Abriata, J. P. The Al-Zr (aluminum-zirconium) system.
J. Phase Equilibria 13, 277–291 (1992).
23. Murty, B. S., Kori, S. A. & Chakraborty, M. Grain refinement of aluminium and
its alloys by heterogeneous nucleation and alloying. Int. Mater. Rev. 47, 3–29
(2002).
24. Dehoff, R. R. et al. Site specific control of crystallographic grain orientation
through electron beam additive manufacturing. Mater. Sci. Technol. 31,
931–938 (2015).
25. Martorano, M. A., Beckermann, C. & Gandin, C.-A. A solutal interaction
mechanism for the columnar-to-equiaxed transition in alloy solidification.
Metall. Mater. Trans. A 34, 1657–1674 (2003).
26. Hunt, J. D. Steady state columnar and equiaxed growth of dendrites and
eutectic. Mater. Sci. Eng. 65, 75–83 (1984).
27. Eskin, D. G., Suyitno & Katgerman, L. Mechanical properties in the semi-solid
state and hot tearing of aluminium alloys. Prog. Mater. Sci. 49, 629–711
(2004).
28. TCAL4: TCS Al-based Alloy Database http://www.thermocalc.com/
media/19881/tcal4.pdf (Thermo-Calc, 2016).
29. Aziz, M. J. Model for solute redistribution during rapid solidification.
J. Appl. Phys. 53, 1158–1168 (1982).
30. Yu, C. Y., Kao, P. W. & Chang, C. P. Transition of tensile deformation behaviors in
ultrafine-grained aluminum. Acta Mater. 53, 4019–4028 (2005).
31. CL 30AL/CL 31AL Aluminium Alloy (Concept Laser, Hofmann Innovation Group,
2012).
32. Boyer, H. E. & Gail, T. L. Materials Handbook Desk Edition (American Society for
Metals, 1985).
Acknowledgements We acknowledge financial support by HRL Laboratories,
LLC, and thank D. Martin for her artistic contribution to the figures, as well as B.
Carter of HRL Laboratories, LLC, X. Li of the University of California, Los Angeles,
and K. Hemker of John Hopkins University for discussions.
Author Contributions J.H.M., B.D.Y., J.M.H., T.A.S. and T.M.P. analysed the results
and wrote the manuscript. J.H.M., B.D.Y. and T.A.S. designed the experiments.
B.D.Y. and J.A.M. functionalized the feedstock material and operated the
Concept Laser M2. J.H.M., B.D.Y. and J.A.M. prepared the metallurgical
specimens and performed the optical and electron microscopy and the
mechanical testing.
Author Information Reprints and permissions information is available at
www.nature.com/reprints. The authors declare no competing financial
interests. Readers are welcome to comment on the online version of the paper.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Correspondence and
requests for materials should be addressed to J.H.M. (jhmartin@hrl.com).
Reviewer Information Nature thanks P. Collins, I. Todd and the other
anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
2 1 s e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 7 | V O L 5 4 9 | N A T U RE | 3 6 9
 RESEARCH letter
Methods
Materials. Aluminium alloy 7075 micropowder. Aluminium alloy 7075 micro­
powder was purchased from Valimet Inc. The powder consisted of Al (balance), Zn
(5.40%), Mg (2.25%), Cu (1.54%), Cr (0.19%), Fe (0.17%), Si (0.13%), Mn (0.02%)
and Ti (<​0.01%), in weight per cent. The particle size distribution was bimodal
with peak values at 45 μ​m and 15 μ​m (Extended Data Fig. 1).
Aluminium alloy 6061 micropowder. Aluminium alloy 6061 micropowder was
purchased from Valimet Inc. The powder consisted of Al (balance), Mg (0.83%),
Si (0.62%), Fe (0.25%), Cu (0.23%), Cr (0.08%), Mn (0.04%), Zn (0.04%) and Ti
(0.02%), in weight per cent. The average particle size was 45 μ​m.
CL31 aluminium–silicon–magnesium alloy micropowder. Aluminium–silicon–
magnesium alloy micropowder was purchased from Concept Laser Inc. The pow-
der consisted of Al (balance), Si (9.0%–10.0%), Mg (0.2%–0.45%), Fe(<​0.55%,
trace), Mn(<​0.45%, trace) and Ti(<​0.15%, trace), in weight per cent. Particle size
optimized for selective laser melting and proprietary to the manufacturer.
Hydrogen-stabilized zirconium. ZrH2 powder was purchased from US Research
Nanomaterials Inc.
Lattice matching. To determine the particulate compositions and crystallographic
faces with the highest probability of inducing epitaxial, heterogeneous nucleation
in the given alloy system, we developed software with Citrine Informatics that
uses lattice matching algorithms to search through crystallographic databases for
the highest matching crystal structures. By minimizing the lattice strain between
an inoculating nanoparticulate and the nucleating phase of a molten material,
the free-energy barrier to nucleation is reduced, enabling higher nucleation rates
for any given undercooling. Lattice matching is calculated through an area strain
measurement that accounts for the change in surface area of one indexed lattice
plane that is needed to match to the area of another indexed lattice plane of another
material.
Selective laser melting. Additive manufacturing of the stock aluminium alloy
and functionalized aluminium alloy powders were performed on a Concept Laser
M2 selective laser melting machine (specifications are listed in Extended Data
Table 1). Samples consisted of 60 mm ×​ 20 mm ×​ 40 mm tensile block specimens
and 10 mm ×​ 10 mm ×​ 40 mm blocks for examining microstructure. Images of
the as-printed samples on the build plates can be seen in Extended Data Fig. 2.
Samples were processed with the Concept Laser ‘islanding’ scan strategy, which
was specifically developed for the CL31 AlSi10Mg alloy material to minimize ther-
mal and residual stress build-up in the part. Islands that compose the core of the
build geometry were 2 mm ×​ 2 mm in size. Standard machine parameters provided
by the Concept Laser for conventional AlSi10Mg alloy were used for all builds.
The parameter values are considered proprietary by Concept Laser and cannot
be accessed by the user. The 70 mm ×​ 70 mm build plates were machined out of
aluminium alloy 6061 and sandblasted on the surface. Layers of the build were
incremented by a range from 25 μ​m to 80 μ​m depending on part geometry and
location in the build. Processing was done under a flowing, inert argon atmosphere
with oxygen monitoring. All processing was completed at room temperature with
no applied heat to the build plate. Samples were removed from the machine and
cleaned of extra powder by sonicating in water. Parts were then dried with clean
compressed dry air.
Heat treatment. Samples were then heat treated to a T6 condition. Samples
were solutionized at 480 °C in air with a ramp rate of 5 °C min−1 for 2 h and then
quenched with water at 25 °C. Samples were subsequently aged at 120 °C with a
ramp rate of 4 °C min−1 in air for 18 h and allowed to cool to room temperature.
Although additional insight is needed to determine the appropriate heat treat-
ment methods for additively manufactured high-strength aluminium alloys,
© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
ageing time for the samples was determined by performing four ageing treatments
with hold times of 6 h, 12 h, 18 h and 24 h at 120 °C. Vicker’s hardness measure-
ments were used to determine a range of appropriate ageing time around 18 h (see
Extended Data Fig. 3).
Sectioning and sample preparation. All samples were removed from the build
plates via wire electro discharge machining (EDM). Tensile specimens were sec-
tioned with wire EDM to a thickness of 2 mm. Tensile specimens were prepared
for mechanical testing by polishing the surfaces of the gauge section with 240, 360,
400, 800 and 1,200 grit sand paper by hand. One side of the mechanical test samples
was painted with white and spackled with black paint with an airbrush for digital
image correlation using a GOM ARAMIS-3D Motion and Deformation Sensor.
Microstructure blocks were sectioned with a water-cooled saw and mounted in
epoxy resin for polishing. Grinding was done with 240, 360, 400, 800 and 1,200 grit
sand paper. Final polishing of the samples was accomplished with 1-μ​m diamond
and 50-nm Al2O3 polishing compounds from PACE Technologies. Some polished
samples were etched with Keller’s Etch for 10 s to reveal microstructure. Additional
imaging was conducted using SEM and electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD).
Materials characterization. To observe microstructural differences, mounted sam-
ples were observed with an optical microscope under polarized light and with SEM.
Vicker’s micro hardness was performed on mounted samples. The load applied
was 200 g and indentation sizes were measured and compared (see Extended Data
Fig. 3). These hardness measurements indicated that the appropriate ageing time
is about 18 h for additively manufactured 7075.
Inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) was com-
pleted on raw Al7075 +​ Zr powder and on a Al7075 +​ Zr component after being
additively manufactured. Analysis showed about 25% loss of zinc and about 32%
loss of magnesium, both of which are strengthening elements for the 7075 alloy.
Mechanical testing. Tensile tests were performed on a servo-electric INSTRON
5960 frame equipped with a 50-kN load cell (INSTRON). Samples were clamped
by the ends of the dog-bone-shaped samples. The extension rate was 0.2 mm min−1
and samples were loaded until fracture. Testing was conducted following ASTM E8.
A U-joint was used to account for any misalignment in the sample. Extended Data
Fig. 4 displays the stress–strain curves for the Al7075 material tested in this study
and typical stress–strain curves for the CL31 stock powder produced.
Because cracking tended to orient parallel to the build direction, all tensile
testing was conducted perpendicular to the expected crack orientation. This
ensured that any residual cracks would have the maximum effect on the tensile
properties. Observed ductility in the nanoparticle-functionalized material indicates
a complete elimination of deleterious cracking.
Scheil simulation. Scheil simulations were conducted as described in the main
text. Extended Data Fig. 5 shows the solidification curve for Al6061 in comparison
to the solidification curves of Al7075 and AlSi10Mg (which are also depicted in
Fig. 3a). The shape of the Al6061 Scheil curve indicates a high susceptibility to
hot cracking.
Microstructure. Extended Data Fig. 6 shows micrographs of additively manufac-
tured 6061 with and without Zr additions, indicating identical behaviour to 7075.
Additional micrographs of 7075 with and without Zr can also be seen in Extended
Data Fig. 7. Cracking is seen in the unmodified powder, whereas the addition of
the Zr nucleant induces fine equiaxed grains and eliminates hot cracking. Further
evidence of cracking between columnar grains in additive manufacturing of 7075
without Zr is shown in Extended Data Fig. 8. The EBSD map is used to clearly show
that the cracking is restricted to intergranular regions.
Data availability. The data that support the findings of this study are available
from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
 letter RESEARCH

Extended Data Figure 1 | SEM image of aluminium alloy 7075 powder.

© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
 RESEARCH letter

Extended Data Figure 2 | As-printed Al7075 parts for tensile testing and microstructure evaluation. a, Stock Al7075. b, Al7075 +​ Zr.

© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
 letter RESEARCH

Extended Data Figure 3 | Ageing behaviour of additive Al7075.

© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
 RESEARCH letter

Extended Data Figure 4 | Stress–strain curves for the materials tested in this study, indicating high repeatability in the Al7075 + Zr material.
The colour indicates the material type, with curves of the same colour indicating replicate samples.

© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
 letter RESEARCH

Extended Data Figure 5 | Scheil solidification curves for aluminium alloys AlSi10Mg, Al7075 and Al6061. The curve for Al6061 is from ref. 28.

© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
 RESEARCH letter

Extended Data Figure 6 | Micrographs of etched Al6061, processed as received. Large cracks are observed in the absence of Zr (left). With the addition
of Zr nanoparticles, no cracking is observed, but there is some residual porosity (right). Rows indicate increasing magnification.

© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
 letter RESEARCH

Extended Data Figure 7 | Micrographs of etched Al7075, processed as received. Large networks of cracks are observed in the absence of Zr (left). With
the addition of Zr nanoparticles, no cracking is observed, but there is some residual porosity (right). Rows indicate increasing magnification.

© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
 RESEARCH letter

Extended Data Figure 8 | EBSD inverse pole figure of 3D-printed stock 7075 indicating large networks of columnar cracking. Build direction is
vertical to the page.

© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
 letter RESEARCH

Extended Data Table 1 | Specifications of the Concept Laser M2 selective laser melting system

© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.