Technical capabilities

Use machine envelope, material family, service condition and validation needs to frame a technical review.

Materials

Material selection starts with the component duty.

For LMD, SLM/LPBF and laser cladding, an alloy name is not enough. Substrate, duty, heat input, geometry, finishing and inspection requirements need to work together.

Powder-bed fusion visual for SLM comparison

Selection criteria

Five questions come before the alloy decision.

Missing information can be marked as open during an initial review, but it should not be replaced by a blanket material promise.

Substrate and condition

Material designation, known heat treatment, existing coating, prior damage and available material records.

Duty

Abrasion, impact, sliding contact, corrosion, oxidation, temperature or a combination of these loads.

Operating environment

Process medium, temperature range, load cycles, contact partner and required service life.

Geometry and manufacturing approach

Access, deposition zone, heat input, machining allowance and possible post-treatment.

Acceptance and inspection

Target hardness only where technically relevant, together with microstructure, bonding, geometry, surface condition and documentation.

Material families

Material families narrow the options; they do not replace component review.

Suitability depends on substrate, damage mechanism, geometry, process conditions and acceptance criteria.

Fe-based steels and tool steels

May suit build-up, repair and selected wear applications. Weldability, prior condition, heat treatment and crack risk need to be evaluated together.

Ni-based alloys

May be relevant for corrosion, oxidation, temperature exposure or dissimilar-material applications. Dilution, interfaces, finishing and inspection remain application-specific.

Co-based and hard-particle systems

May suit tribological or abrasive duty. Hardness alone is insufficient; toughness, matrix, particle bonding, crack risk and machinability also matter.

Copper and specialty substrates

Require a separate assessment of absorption, heat conduction, temperature control and material transitions. Early feasibility work is particularly important.

Published project examples

Three examples show different material questions.

Each example applies to its documented project scope. Transfer to a new component is assessed separately.

Evidence status

Material statements need a defined scope.

This distinction separates published experience, initial assessment and project-specific validation.

Material-evidence status and appropriate use
StatusWhat is availableHow to use the statement
Published project exampleThe component, manufacturing approach and public project scope are documented.Use as context for a similar question, not as transferable component approval.
Initial material assessmentThe substrate, duty and a possible material family have been reviewed.Trials, process parameters, finishing and inspection remain open.
Project-specific validationAcceptance criteria and inspection have been agreed for a defined component.The conclusion applies only to the agreed material, process and inspection scope.
Insufficient input dataThe substrate, duty or acceptance criteria are uncertain.No defensible material recommendation yet; clarify the missing information first.

Technical review

Send the substrate, duty and required component function.

Photos or CAD, operating temperature, process medium, target surface, finishing and acceptance criteria are also useful. Exafuse will identify open points before a material recommendation is developed further.

Request a material review

Recommended next steps

Pick the next page by what you need to decide.

Continue with a relevant service, case study, technical article, FAQ or feasibility request.