ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparative Study of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for H13 Tool Steel.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Two Tempering Treatments at Different Temperatures on Microstructure and Room/High-Temperature Wear Resistance of H13 Steel.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Microstructure, Mechanical Properties and Additive Manufacturing of Steels.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM) of hot-work tool steels such as H13 offers unique opportunities for producing complex, conformally cooled tools with reduced production time and material waste. In this study, five metal AM technologies-Fused Deposition Modeling and Sintering (FDMS, Desktop Metal Studio System and Zetamix), Binder Jetting (BJ), Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF), and Directed Energy Deposition (DED)-were compared in terms of microstructure, porosity, and post-processing heat treatment response. The as-printed microstructures revealed distinct differences among the technologies: FDMS and BJ exhibited high porosity (6-9%), whereas LPBF and DED achieved near-full densification (<0.1%). Samples with sufficiently low porosity (BJ, LPBF, DED) were subjected to tempering and quenching treatments to evaluate hardness evolution and microstructural transformations. The satisfactory post-treatment hardness was observed in both tempered and quenched and tempered BJ samples, associated with secondary carbide precipitation, while LPBF and DED samples retained stable martensitic structures with hardness around 600 HV0.5. Microstructural analyses confirmed the dependence of phase morphology and carbide distribution on the thermal history intrinsic to each AM process. The study demonstrates that while FDMS and BJ are more accessible and cost-effective for low-density prototypes, LPBF and DED offer superior density and mechanical integrity suitable for functional tooling applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.