J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S 4 (2011) 1396–1411

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmbbm

Research paper

Microstructure and mechanical properties of open-cellular

biomaterials prototypes for total knee replacement implants
fabricated by electron beam melting

L.E. Murr a,b,∗ , K.N. Amato a,b , S.J. Li c , Y.X. Tian c , X.Y. Cheng c , S.M. Gaytan a,b ,
E. Martinez a,b , P.W. Shindo a,b , F. Medina b , R.B. Wicker b,d
a Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA
b W. M. Keck Center for 3D Innovation, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA
c Shenyang National Laboratory for Materials Science, Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang, 110016, China
d Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Total knee replacement implants consisting of a Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy femoral component
Received 11 February 2011 and a Ti–6Al–4V tibial component are the basis for the additive manufacturing of novel
Received in revised form solid, mesh, and foam monoliths using electron beam melting (EBM). Ti–6Al–4V solid
14 April 2011 prototype microstructures were primarily α-phase acicular platelets while the mesh
Accepted 6 May 2011 and foam structures were characterized by α′ -martensite with some residual α. The
Published online 12 May 2011 Co–29Cr–6Mo containing 0.22% C formed columnar (directional) Cr23 C6 carbides spaced
∼2 µm in the build direction, while HIP-annealed Co–Cr alloy exhibited an intrinsic stacking
fault microstructure. A log–log plot of relative stiffness versus relative density for Ti–6Al–4V
and Co–29Cr–6Mo open-cellular mesh and foams resulted in a fitted line with a nearly ideal
slope, n = 2.1. A stress shielding design graph constructed from these data permitted mesh
and foam implant prototypes to be fabricated for compatible bone stiffness.
c 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
⃝

1. Introduction including austenitic stainless steels (especially 316L) and Co-

Bone implant materials, especially metals and alloys,
have evolved over several millennia beginning with gold
cranioplasty, Ni plated steel and related alloy evolution for
fracture plates and a host of Ti alloy implants for a variety
of skeletal repair joint replacements and dental restorations
(Sanan and Haines, 1997). More recently, other metallic
alloys have been employed especially as bone implant alloys,
base (Co–Cr) alloys (Park, 2000). Between about 1950 through
to 1990, α and (α + β) Ti alloys with solid elastic (Young’s)
moduli of ∼110 GPa were developed, while more recently
β-Ti alloys with lower elastic moduli (ranging from ∼50
to 90 GPa) have been developed (Niinomi, 2007). As bone
implant materials, Ti and its alloys exhibit very suitable
characteristics for biomedical applications because they
exhibit high biocompatibility, strength, and often superior

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968,
USA. Tel.: +1 915 747 6929; fax: +1 915 747 8036.
E-mail address: lemurr@utep.edu (L.E. Murr).
c 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1751-6161/$ - see front matter ⃝
doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.05.010
 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S
corrosion resistance (Niinomi, 2001, 2008). However, the vast
majority of these implant applications utilize monolithic
(solid) Ti alloy appliances which have exhibited limited
lifetimes as a consequence of incomplete or lacking fusion
or bone cell ingrowth, and elastic modulus mismatch. Other
issues, relating to implant efficiency include the absence
of vascularization, and in situations such as knee implant
appliances in particular, the production of wear debris at
bearing surfaces.
Elastic modulus mismatch, or stress shielding, is a major
feature of metallic implant—bone incompatibility. Since bone
tissue remodels itself in response to applied stress, stress
reduction leads to bone loss or resorption. Consequently,
high modulus (or stiff) implant material dominates the load
bearing regime in contrast to low modulus bone. Cortical or
hard bone can have elastic moduli ranging from 3 to 30 GPa,
while the softer (intramedulary) trabecular or cancellous
bone has significantly lower elastic moduli: 0.02–2 GPa (Yang
et al., 2001). This is in contrast to ∼110 GPa for variously
processed Ti–6Al–4V which has dominated the manufacture
of commercial implants over the past decade (Long and
Rack, 1998; Chuna et al., 2003; Niinomi, 2007). Many knee
replacements also utilize Co–Cr–Mo alloys especially for
superior wear resistance, but these alloys have even higher
moduli: ∼210 GPa.
An effective strategy for reducing or eliminating stress
shielding and simultaneously enhancing osteoconductivity
and bone cell ingrowth, has been the development of porous
metallic structures such as foams, which can be tailored to
more closely match the modulus or stiffness of bone, thereby
minimizing or eliminating stress shielding. Open cellular
foams and other porous structures are required for bone
cell ingrowth to be effective in optimizing biocompatibility.
While there has been considerable effort in developing Ti
and Ti-alloy foams (Dunand, 2004; Ryan et al., 2006; Singh
et al., 2010) the development of practical, biomedical implants
incorporating porosity in surface coatings has been minimally
successful, and many commercial implants utilize some
form of surface porosity created by sintering sponge or
bead configurations or attaching other porous coatings to
the monolithic implant surface (Hacking et al., 2002; Bobyn
et al., 2005). The mechanical behavior of porous structures
depends on pore volume fraction and size distribution.
In turn, these determine the strut size or ligament wall
thickness and dimension partitioning the pores, and bearing
the load. In addition, pore size is also important for effective
bone ingrowth. The general consensus has been that a
minimum pore architecture or interconnectivity is in the
range of 100 µm (Holy et al., 2000; Freyman et al., 2001).
Correspondingly, Yang et al. (2001) and Ryan et al. (2006) have
suggested larger pore sizes in the range of 500 µm–1 mm
promote the formation of fibrous tissues to optimize the
biocompatibility. However, in contrast to solid, monolithic
implants fixed with acrylic cement, porous or porous-coated
implants must be initially stabilized with a precise press-fit to
assure optimal bone tissue ingrowth.
While it is very difficult to custom fabricate monolithic
and complex Ti-alloy implants having designed porosity
or stiffness features, new approaches utilizing solid free-
form fabrication or rapid prototyping to build complex
4 (2011) 1396–1411 1397
structures from any available pre-alloyed powder by additive
(layer-based) manufacturing directly from computer (CAD)-
generated models using directed laser or electron beams have
been demonstrated. Harryson and Cormier (2005) described
the fabrication of custom (or patient-specific) orthopedic
implants using electron beam melting (EBM). Hollander et al.
(2006), Multen et al. (2009) and Stamp et al. (2009) utilized
selective laser melting (SLM) to produce regular or periodic
(reticulated) mesh structures and stochastic foam structures
while Heinl et al. (2007, 2008) produced Ti-alloy mesh arrays
corresponding to porosities or densities having stiffnesses
(elastic constants) approaching bone stiffnesses (in excess of
20 GPa). Cellular Ti–6Al–4V fabricated by EBM for orthopaedic
implants has also been described by Marin et al. (2010).
More recently, Murr et al. (2010) illustrated a wide range of
Ti–6Al–4V reticulated mesh and stochastic foam prototypes
fabricated by EBM, and demonstrated that these open-cellular
structures behaved similarly to a wide range of metallic
foams, especially aluminum and aluminum alloys which
follow the Gibson and Ashby (1997) relationship:
E = α1 Es (ρ/ρs )n (1)
where E is the elastic (Young’s) modulus (or stiffness at
a corresponding density, ρ), and Es and ρs are the solid
(full density) stiffness and full density, respectively. While
generally n is approximated by 2, the experimental value
has been shown to vary from ∼1.8 to 2.2. Murr et al. (2010)
demonstrated that for Ti–6Al–4V mesh and foam prototypes,
n = 2.3. In addition, it was demonstrated that complex, 3D
implant monoliths incorporating functionally-graded mesh
or foam or mesh/foam density variations and solid sections
could be fabricated by EBM.
In the present study, we focus on the fabrication of open
cellular mesh and foam components of a Co–Cr–Mo alloy
(ASTM F-75) and Ti–6Al–4V using EBM for a range of densities
and measured stiffnesses. In addition, these structures are in-
corporated into Co–Cr femoral and Ti–6Al–4V tibial prototypes
representing total knee replacement implants. The varying
density open cellular structures and their microstructures are
characterized by optical and scanning electron microscopy
and X-ray diffraction, while the corresponding microinden-
dation hardness for mesh strut structures and foam ligament
structures are measured along with dynamic Young’s modu-
lus (dynamic stiffness number).
2. Experimental procedures
2.1. Fabrication of biomedical implant prototypes: The
EBM system
Fig. 1 shows a schematic view of the Arcam A2 electron beam
melting (EBM) system along with examples of the Ti–6Al–4V
and Co-base (29% Cr, 6% Mo, 0.22% C, 0.25% Ni, 0.7% Si, 0.5%
Mn, balance Co; in weight%) pre-alloyed powders used to
fabricate solid (fully dense) and more complex open cellular
structures as well as multifunctional monolithic biomedical
components. As illustrated in Fig. 1, an electron beam is
generated in the electron gun at (1), and focused (2) and
electromagnetically scanned (3) onto powder layers gravity
1398 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S 4 (2011) 1396–1411

fed from cassettes (4) and mechanically raked (5) into layers
roughly 75–100 µm thick. The powder layer thickness is
smaller for the smaller average powder size, which in the case
of the Ti–6Al–4V powder is ∼30 µm in contrast to the Co-base
alloy powder with an average diameter of ∼40 µm (Fig. 1). The
beam is selectively scanned by computer aided design (CAD)
software to melt specific layer portions which are added to
the next layer, ultimately forming a 3D (multilayer) structure
as the building component is lowered with each added layer
(6 in Fig. 1). Prior to the melt scan, the beam is rastered over
the newly raked layer in multiple (∼11) passes to preheat
the layer. The preheat scan rate is ∼104 mm/s with a beam
current of ∼30 mA, in contrast to the melt scan rate of
∼400 mm/s at a reduced beam current of 6–10 mA. Preheat
temperatures averaged ∼ 640 ◦ C–840 ◦ C for the Ti-alloy and
Co-base alloy, respectively. This is in contrast to melting
temperatures of 1625 ◦ C and 1430 ◦ C for the Ti-alloy and
the Co-base alloy, respectively. The building of 3D structures
by EBM from limited melt pools in the additive layers is a
form of directional solidification, with the solidification rate
determined in part by the beam scan and focus parameters
as well as the building structure geometries and dimensions,
and associated heat conduction and cooling rate. Thijs
et al. (2010) have recently discussed microstructural-build
related features, even epitaxial or columnar-grain orientation
variations in selective laser melting (SLM) fabrication of
Ti–6Al–4V in the context of scanning strategies, which include
beam scan direction or direction sequence, beam current,
scan speed, beam focus, etc. as discussed above.

2.2. Mesh and foam building software and modeling
strategies
Reticulated mesh structures and stochastic foams for
Ti–6Al–4V and Co–29Cr–6Mo alloys were fabricated from
CAD software models developed from Materialise/Magics
(http://www.materialise.com) software and CT-scan models,
respectively as discussed in detail elsewhere (Murr et al.,
2010). The mesh array structure generator utilized a single
unit cell or lattice-structure unit referred to as a dode thin
element which varies in geometrical structure from 2-fold
to 3-fold symmetry axes with a rotation of 45◦ around the
longitudinal, reference axis (Fig. 2(a)). This build element
feature and corresponding 3D model are illustrated in Fig. 2(a)
and (b), respectively. By varying the element dimensions
(Fig. 2(a)) the model size can be changed, including the
strut diameters, and this produces density or corresponding
porosity variations in the EBM fabricated components.
Utilizing CT scans for standard aluminum stochastic
open cellular foams, bitmap files representing image or
model slices with specific pixel dimensions were created
as illustrated in Fig. 2(c) and (d). These file representations
(Fig. 2(c) and (d)) can be altered in linear dimension to create
variations in cell sizes and cell ligament dimensions resulting
in density and porosity variations (Murr et al., 2010).
2.3. Dynamic stiffness measurements for mesh and foam
samples
The elastic moduli (E) or Young’s moduli were measured for
EBM fabricated Ti–6Al–4V and Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy mesh and
Fig. 1 – EBM system schematic (Arcam A2). Components
are discussed in the text. Upper left SEM view shows
Ti–6Al–4V powder while lower left SEM view shows
Co–29Cr–6Mo powder.
foam samples (utilizing the CAD models demonstrated in
Fig. 2), using a resonant frequency analyser (IMCE-HTVP-
1750-C) for rectangular test specimens. The elastic modulus,
E, referenced to as the dynamic stiffness or stiffness-
related number is proportional to the resonant frequency
squared. These rectangular samples were supported by
small beams impacted lightly by a small hammer creating
a measurable resonant frequency. The test samples were
nominally 2.3 cm × 2.3 cm × 3.6 cm in dimension or carefully
machined to this dimension, which complied with the
general requirements discussed for metal foams by Ashby
et al. (2000).
2.4. Mechanical testing for solid, full-density components
and mesh and foam samples
Mechanical behavior for solid and open-cellular structures for
the Ti–6Al–4V and Co–29Cr–6Mo alloys fabricated by EBM was
investigated using Vickers microindentation hardness (HV)
(Shimadzu HMV-2000 tester using a 100 gf load) and Rockwell
C-scale hardness (HRC) (using a 150 kgf load). HV and HRC
measurements were made for the solid EBM components
while HV measurements only using the 25 gf load were made
for mounted and polished mesh struts and foam ligaments.
 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S 4 (2011) 1396–1411 1399

Fig. 2 – Reticulated mesh (a) and stochastic foam (b) models for EBM building of open cellular structures. In (a), the
dode-thin (Materialise/Magics) build element is shown on the left in cube and diamond orientations (0 and 45◦ ) which
correspond to the viewing arrows in the 3D model on the right. In (b), the foam pore and ligament structure is shown on the
left with a 3D model on the right.

A total of 25 Vickers indentations were made on each of two
mounted sections from each sample were made to produce
100 HV values. Twenty-five HRC indentation values were
made for the solid sample.
Tensile specimens were machined from solid Ti–6Al–4V
and Co–29Cr–6Mo specimens and tested in an upgraded
Tinius-Olson Universal Testing Machine (SIN 175118). The
Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy samples (solid cylinders) were also HIP-
annealed at 0.1 GPa for 4 h in Ar at 1200 ◦ C, and tensile
tested. All tensile tests were conducted at room temperature
(∼20◦ C) utilizing a strain rate of ∼10−3 s−1 . Yield stress
measurements utilized the standard 0.2% engineering strain
offset. Fracture surfaces for failed specimens were also
examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
2.5. Characterization of materials and microstructures
Microstructures for the solid and open-cellular EBM fabri-
cated components were initially observed by optical metallog-
raphy (OM), followed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The OM was
performed on sectioned, mounted, polished, and etched sam-
ples using a digital imaging Reichert MEF4 A/M metallograph.
The etching protocols for the Ti–6Al–4V samples have been
described in detail by Murr et al. (2009) while those for the
Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy samples have been described by Gaytan
et al. (2010).
SEM analysis, including fractography for failed tensile
specimens, employed a Hitachi S-4800 field emission (FE) SEM
fitted with an EDAX energy-dispersive (X-ray) spectrometer
1400 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S 4 (2011) 1396–1411

Fig. 3 – Examples of solid and open-cellular, monolithic EBM built components of Ti–6Al–4V. (a) shows vertical built cylinder
(z) in build direction along z-axis and horizontal built cylinder (x, y) along x or y axis perpendicular to the build direction
(heavy arrow). (b) Foam and dode-thin reticulated mesh examples compared to solid cylinder (z). (c) Non-parallel view in (b)
showing 2 different density foam cubes at left, a solid cylindrical foam, an open core mesh cylinder, a similar mesh cylinder
with thin tube, and solid cylinder at right. Rockwell (HRC) values for solid vertical and horizontal cylinders are shown in (a).

(EDS) system; operated primarily at 20 kV in the secondary
electron emission mode.
Solid, full-density samples were prepared for TEM analysis
by sectioning EBM-fabricated geometries (mostly cylinders)
to prepare coupons which could be ground to a thickness
of ∼200 µm punched into 3 mm standard TEM samples
which were mechanically dimpled and electropolished using
protocols described in Murr et al. (2009) for the Ti–6Al–4V
samples, and in Gaytan et al. (2010) for the Co–29Cr–6Mo
samples. The TEM was a Hitachi H-9500 high-resolution
system operated at 300 kV, employing a goniometer-tilt stage,
an EDS attachment, and a digital imaging system.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Comparison of solid Ti–6Al–4V and Co–29Cr–6Mo
alloy components
Fig. 3 illustrates some examples of EBM fabricated solid
(full density) components (Fig. 3(a)) along with open-cellular
 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S 4 (2011) 1396–1411 1401

mesh and foam product prototypes, and complex functional

(solid/cellular) monolithic prototypes (Fig. 3(b) and (c)). From
the left in Fig. 3(b) and (c): 2 foam example rectangular
forms, foam open-core cylinder, 2 dode thin mesh cylinders
(one with open core and one with a thin solid cylinder
and open core), and a solid cylinder (right). Fig. 3(a) shows
simple solid cylinders built in vertical (z) and horizontal (x, y)
axial reference systems for Ti–6Al–4V components. Similar
reference builds were also fabricated for the Co–29Cr–6Mo
alloy as well, along with rectangular plates built in the
vertical direction (z-axis). These prototypes provided a solid
component reference for the microstructures and mechanical
behavior of the open-cellular systems. Fig. 4 compares
the as-fabricated (EBM) Ti–6Al–4V microstructures for the
vertical (z) and horizontal (x) cylinders shown in Fig. 3(a).
The classical α-acicular (hcp phase) Widmanstätten platelet
structure surrounded by interfacial β (bcc) phase is shown in
Fig. 4(a), while in Fig. 4(b) the microstructure is dominated by
thinner and smaller plates of α phase and small β grains as a
consequence of more rapid cooling in the building cylinder in
the horizontal (x) orientation. These comparisons are made in
the horizontal reference plane perpendicular to the vertical
cylinder axis and the EBM build direction (Fig. 3(a)). The
corresponding hardness (HV and HRC) values illustrate the
relationship of these microstructures to mechanical behavior
as it is represented by hardness. For example, the simple Fig. 4 – Ti–6Al–4V microstructures observed by optical
rule of thumb indicates the yield stress (YS—0.2% offset) ∼ = metallography. (a) Vertical cylinder (z) build as in Fig. 3(a).
HV/3. The HV values for Fig. 3(a) were 3.7 GPa and 4.5 GPa, (b) Horizontal cylinder (x) build as in Fig. 3(a).
respectively, for the corresponding vertical (z) and horizontal
(x, y) cylinder builds. These values reflect the microstructural
refinement illustrated on comparing Fig. 4(a) and (b). These
HV values also correlate with the HRC values shown in
Fig. 3(a).
The microstructure variation between Fig. 4(a) and (b)
(α→ fine α/β) is a consequence of the different thermal
environments and the effect on the cooling (solidification)
rate. More rapid cooling occurs for the horizontal (x, y) builds
in contrast to the vertical (z) builds shown in Fig. 3(a). There
is also some apparent fine α′ -martensite plate structure in
Fig. 4(b). These features (α→ α′ ) have been shown for EBM
in contrast to SLM where the melt scan is a factor of
∼30 greater for laser scanning in contrast to electron beam
scanning (Murr et al., 2009). These different microstructures
have also been studied in more detail elsewhere (Murr et al.,
2009), while Fig. 5 shows the coarse Ti–6Al–4V α-martensite
(Widmanstätten) acicular platelet structure with a magnified,
TEM image insert showing the α − β regions, and some
dislocation structure within the α-grains.
In contrast to the Ti–6Al–4V microstructures shown in
Figs. 4–6 shows a complex, microstructural architecture
composed of Cr23 C6 (cubic) precipitates within a (111)
textured fcc Co–Cr matrix; a variance of directional
solidification (Chalmers, 1964) as discussed for elongated
grain growth in SLM of Ti–6Al–4V by Thijs et al. (2010). The
Cr23 C6 microstructural architecture illustrated in the OM and
TEM image insert in Fig. 6 has been described in detail in
Gaytan et al. (2010), to result from orthogonal EBM beam Fig. 5 – Acicular α-phase grain structure in Ti–6Al–4V. The
scanning. Similar columnar, precipitate architecture has been insert shows a TEM image portion. Note α and β phases,
created by EBM built nickel-based superalloy 718 (Strondl and dislocation structure in α grains in the insert.
et al., 2008). Fig. 7 compares the as-fabricated Co–29Cr–6Mo
1402 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S 4 (2011) 1396–1411

Fig. 7 – OM (a) and TEM views of microstructures for

Fig. 6 – OM 3D composite illustrating columnar carbides
(Cr23 C6 ) formed in the (111) direction in EBM fabricated
cylinders (z) of Co–29Cr–6Mo as in Fig. 3(a) with TEM 3D
composite insert showing individual cubic Cr23 C6
precipitates (from Gaytan et al., 2010). The arrow on the
right illustrates the EBM build direction.
EBM-built Co–29Cr–6Mo cylinder (z) (b), following
HIP-anneal according to ASTM-F75 Standard. (a) shows
equiaxed grains with annealing twins while (b) shows
intrinsic (fcc) stacking faults.

alloy microstructures after HIP and anneal (4 h @ 1130 ◦ C) in

contrast to Fig. 6. Here the columnar Cr23 C6 architecture has
dissolved, forming a classical, low-stacking fault-annealing
twin-related, equiaxed grain structure (Murr, 1975) containing
frequent annealing twin boundaries. Stacking faults are also
present in the as-fabricated microstructure/microstructural
architecture but are only weakly evident in contrast to the
TEM 3D insert in Fig. 6 (arrows). However, the stacking
fault density increased noticeably in the HIP-annealed
components (Fig. 7(b)).
Fig. 8 compares bar-graph summaries of mechanical
(tensile) behavior for the Ti–6Al–4V and Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy
fabricated and thermo-mechanically processed in nominal,
wrought and cast-HIPed form, EBM as-fabricated and HIP- Fig. 8 – Tensile properties for Ti–6Al–4V and Co–29Cr–6Mo.
annealed form, etc. Tensile specimens machined and tested Note yield stress (YS) represents 0.2% engineering offset.
from vertical (z) and horizontal (x, y) cylindrical builds UTS represents the ultimate tensile strength.
illustrated in Fig. 3(a) along with commercial wrought
materials correspond to the microstructures illustrated in
Figs. 4–7. While the EBM as-fabricated Ti–6Al–4V components
perform as well as the nominal wrought and coarse α-phase α-phase wrought material, exhibiting prominent ductile-
wrought products, the EBM fabricated and HIP-annealed dimple fracture as illustrated in comparing Fig. 9(a) and
Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy components are far superior to ASTM- (b), respectively. The Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy EBM-fabricated
F75 standards for biomedical implant fabrication; exceeding fracture structure for the vertical (z-axis) build exhibited an
the nominal yield stress by 30%, the UTS by 75%, and the orthogonal, ductile dimple array in many fracture surface
elongation by more than 200%. areas corresponding to the Cr23 C6 precipitate array geometry
The corresponding fracture surface structures for the EBM- illustrated in the horizontal (surface) reference plane for the
fabricated Ti–6Al–4V are indistinguishable from the coarse OM-3D composition shown in Fig. 6. This feature is shown
 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S
Fig. 9 – Fracture surface structure for (a) EBM—Ti–6Al–4V
and (b) wrought (forged) Ti–6Al–4V. (See Fig. 8.)
Fig. 10 – Fracture surface structure for (a)
EBM—Co–29Cr–6Mo and (b) EBM-HIP/annealed
Co–29Cr–6Mo. Magnification for (a) and (b) is shown in (a).
in Fig. 10. Correspondingly, the fracture surface features for
the as-fabricated and HIP-annealed Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy where
4 (2011) 1396–1411 1403
similar to the Ti–6Al–4V alloy fracture surface, ductile dimple
structure.
3.2. Open-cellular structure fabrication; dynamic stiffness
versus density measurements
Figs. 11–13 show typical examples for EBM fabricated
Ti–6Al–4V (Fig. 11) and Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy (Figs. 12 and
13) open cellular structures: reticulated mesh (Fig. 12) and
stochastic foam (Fig. 13) densities as indicated. These open-
cellular structures were based on the CAD-element models
illustrated in Fig. 2. In addition to the structure densities
noted in Fig. 11 for Ti–6Al–4V, additional densities were
fabricated, and the corresponding stiffness (Young’s modulus)
measured. These measured densities versus stiffness were
as follows (ρ in g/cm3 : E in GPa); with the bold densities—
represented in Fig. 11: foam (Fig. 11(a) and (b)) −0.58 (0.48),
0.68 (1.35), 0.83 (1.29); mesh (Fig. 11(c)) −0.78 (0.92), 0.86
(1.53), 1.22 (2.70), 1.59 (6.15). Correspondingly, the structure
densities noted in Figs. 12 and 13 for the Co–26Cr–6Mo
alloy and their stiffnesses along with additional ρ : (E)
measurements were as follows: foam (Fig. 13) −0.77(0.70),
0.69 (0.35), 0.66 (0.28), 0.63 (0.25); mesh (Fig. 12) −1.85 (3.68),
1.25 (1.16), 0.98 (0.49). These measured values were plotted
as relative stiffness (E/Es ) versus relative density (ρ/ρs ) as
shown in Fig. 14 for Es = 110 GPa and ρs = 4.43 g/cm3 for
the Ti–6Al–4V, and Es = 210 GPa and ρs = 8.44 g/cm3 for
the Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy. The complete field of data in Fig. 14
are interpolated along a fitted line with a slope, n, of 2.1,
corresponding to the general scaling for open-cellular solids
established by Gibson and Ashby (1997) in Eq. (1). While α1
in Eq. (1) has been observed to vary between 0.1 and 4,
depending upon foam structure (Gibson and Ashby, 1997;
Ashby and Tianjian, 2003), the relative modulus in Fig. 14 is
within a factor of roughly half an order of magnitude for the
range of variation of α1 which at the intercept of the fitted
line is ∼0.2 in Fig. 14. Indeed, the fact that the fitted line in
Fig. 14 for both the mesh and foam structures approximates
the ideal foam model, where n = 2 in Eq. (1), is an indication
that the mesh structure behaves essentially the same as the
foam structure.
Figs. 15 and 16 compare selected mesh and foam strut
and ligament structures, respectively, for the Ti–6Al–4V and
Co–29Cr–6Mo alloys as illustrated in Figs. 11–13, respectively.
While these strut and ligament structures show surface
roughness as a consequence of incomplete melt-sintering,
this can enhance bone cell ingrowth efficiency so long as the
effective pore sizes or open cell sizes allow for optimal bone
cell ingrowth; >100 µm (Singh et al., 2010). This feature can
limit the upper end of the density range required to achieve
requisite stiffness to reduce or eliminate stress shielding.
However, adjustments can be made in the fabrication of open
cellular structures as shown in Fig. 11 to 13 by adjusting the
build element (or unit cell) size together with the strut or
ligament diameter in order to maintain the requisite pore
size while optimizing the density. Foam ligament dimension
variations as contrasted with strut dimensions are illustrated
in Figs. 15 and 16.
Figs. 17 and 18 compare the mesh-strut and foam-
ligament microstructures for the EBM-fabricated Ti–6Al–4V
1404 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S 4 (2011) 1396–1411

Fig. 11 – EBM-fabricated Ti–6Al–4V foam (a) and (b) and mesh (c) examples. (a) and (b) show views along diagonal and
normal to face (45◦ relative to (a)). Densities are noted.

and Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy open cellular structures represented
in Figs. 11–13. The Ti–6Al–4V mesh-strut microstructures
(Fig. 17(a)) are dominated by α′ -martensite plates corre-
sponding to the rapidly solidified (cooled) horizontal solid
builds illustrated in Fig. 4(b), while the foam ligament ex-
ample shown in Fig. 18(a) exhibits a mixture of mainly α′
martensite, with some α-phase acicular platelets because
of slightly different solidification rates. The α′ -martensite
platelets are especially notable in contrast to the regular α-
phase acicular platelets for slower cooling solids as shown in
Fig. 5.
It should be noted on comparing Figs. 17 and 18 that the
Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy in Figs. 17(b) and 18(b) exhibit a similar
directional carbide microstructure to that shown for the EBM
fabricated solid samples in Fig. 6, although not as extensive.
Note that the directional carbide columns in Figs. 17(b) and
18(b) form in build direction (arrow on the left in Figs. 17(b)
and 18(b)).
The Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy mesh-strut and foam-ligament
microstructures exhibit the same Cr23 C6 columnar precip-
itate architecture characteristic of the build process (beam
scan geometry and corresponding, melt pool directional so-
 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S 4 (2011) 1396–1411 1405

Fig. 12 – EBM-fabricated Co–29Cr–6Mo mesh examples in 2 views at 45◦ , (a) and (b) respectively. Densities are noted.

Fig. 13 – EBM-fabricated Co–29Cr–6Mo foam examples in 2 views at 45◦ , (a) and (b) respectively. Densities are noted.
1406 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S 4 (2011) 1396–1411

Fig. 14 – Relative stiffness versus relative density plots for

Ti–6Al–4V and Co–29Cr–6Mo mesh and foam samples
Fig. 16 – SEM image comparisons for EBM mesh and foam
(Figs. 11–13). The data is fitted to a single line with a slope
samples. (a) Co–29Cr–6Mo mesh. (b) Co–29Cr–6Mo foam.
n = 2.1.

Fig. 15 – SEM image comparisons for EBM mesh and foam

samples. (a) Ti–6Al–4V mesh. (b) Ti–6Al–4V foam.

Fig. 17 – 3D composite OM comparisons for Ti–6Al–4V (a)

and Co–29Cr–6Mo (b) mesh strut microstructures. The
lidification for solid cylindrical components) illustrated in arrow on the left denotes the build direction.
Fig. 6. Correspondingly, the associated Vickers microinden-
 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S 4 (2011) 1396–1411 1407

Fig. 18 – 3D composite OM comparisons for Ti–6Al–4V (a)

and Co–29Cr–6Mo (b) foam ligament microstructures.
Magnifications of (a) and (b) are the same as shown in (a).
The arrow on the left denotes the build direction.

Ti-6Al-4V
5

4.1 4
4
3.4 3.5
HV (GPa)

2 Fig. 20 – X-ray images illustrating total knee replacements

for both knees. (a) Right knee replacement. (b) Left knee of
1
same patient prior to replacement. (c) Left knee (b)
0 replacement X-ray slightly magnified from (b). X-rays
SOLID (Z) SOLID (X, Y) MESH FOAM
courtesy of Patricia Murr.
Co-29Cr-6Mo
6
5.2
5
4.5 4.5
4
strength structures when compared to the solid EBM fabri-
3.5
HV (GPa)

cated components. Fig. 19 illustrates these microindentation

3
(HV) comparisons for the solid and open-cellular structures of
2
Ti–6Al–4V and Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy.
1

0
SOLID (Z) SOLID (Z) HIP
Fig. 19 – Vickers microindentation hardness (HV)
comparisons for Ti–6Al–4V and Co–29Cr–6Mo solid and
open-cellular (mesh and foam) components fabricated by
EBM.
tation hardness (HV) measurements for the 3D reconstruc-
tions in Figs. 17 and 18 are indicative of relatively high
MESH FOAM 3.3. Knee replacement components and stress shielding
design strategies
Fig. 20 illustrates two examples of contemporary, commer-
cial, orthopaedic total knee replacements consisting of a
Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy femoral appliance (f ) and a Ti–6Al–4V tib-
ial stem appliance (t). These components are cemented using
acrylic cement onto the shaped bone segments with no stress
shielding surface structure porosity. The left X-ray (Fig. 20(a))
shows a right knee replacement with a slightly longer tibial
1408 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S
Fig. 21 – Co–29Cr–6Mo femoral prototype with mesh
structure fabricated by EBM and HIP-annealed using
ASTM-F75 standard, and finish machined and partially
polished as shown in (a). (b) Shows a magnified view of
mesh structure section.
stem than the right knee (X-ray image in Fig. 20(c)). The dam-
aged (multiply-torn meniscus) left knee prior to replacement
(Fig. 20(c)) is shown in the center X-ray image in Fig. 20(b). For
commercial implants, the Co–Cr component is usually cast
while the Ti–6Al–4V component is usually fabricated from
wrought stock.
Fig. 21 shows a Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy prototype fabricated
by EBM, HIP-annealed as illustrated in Fig. 7, and machined
and partially polished. The prototype is oriented as illustrated
in the side-view X-ray image of Fig. 20(a) corresponding to
the femoral component (f ). The inside of the implant has
been built as a monolith having a mesh array similar to that
fabricated in Fig. 12. This array is roughly 2 mesh openings
with a thickness of ∼600 µm, and a pore or mesh opening
size of ∼400 µm; with an effective density of ∼4.2 g/cm3 , as
illustrated in the magnified view in Fig. 21(b). This density, or
its equivalent relative density (ρ/ρs ∼ = 0.5) corresponds to a
relative stiffness (E/Es ) of 0.09 in Fig. 14. This is represented
in the stress shielding design graph reproduced (from Fig. 14)
in Fig. 22 for both the Ti–6Al–4V and Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy
data. This corresponds to an assumed femoral cortical bone
stiffness of ∼19 GPa.
Fig. 23 shows the EBM fabrication of a Ti–6Al–4V tibial stem
prototype having an exaggerated stem length in comparison
4 (2011) 1396–1411
Fig. 22 – Stress shielding design graph. Shaded region
corresponds to the Ti–6Al–4V and Co–29Cr–6Mo data field
in Fig. 14. Fitted lines are indicated by 1–4 shown in the key
box.
with those commercial appliances shown in Fig. 20(a) and (c).
This prototype has a solid internal core surrounded by a mesh
structure corresponding to Fig. 2(a). The design assumes
a transition between the central intramedulary/trabecular
bone region and the outer cortical bone, having an assumed
stiffness of ∼5 GPa. This corresponds to a relative stiffness
(E/Es ) in Figs. 14 and 23 of 0.045, corresponding to a relative
density of ∼0.36, or an approximate density of 1.6 g/cm3
characteristic of the mesh structure shown in Figs. 2(a), 3(b)
and (c), and 11(c).
Porous implants which rely upon bone cell ingrowth for
stability, and especially the tibial stem in Fig. 24, must be
stabilized initially with a press fit which is not easily obtained,
and requires meticulous surgical technique. The use of a
longer stem prosthesis as illustrated in Fig. 24 anchored in
the intramedulary isthmus would seem desirable. Since shear
strength is influenced (reduced) by porosity, this can become
an issue along with adequate fatigue strength, perhaps more
so in other prostheses, such as the hip stem. In addition, for
severe knee damage or fracture of the femor, the femoral
component shown in Figs. 20 and 21 can be connected (or
fabricated as a monolith by EBM) to a stem as illustrated in
Fig. 23.
A low modulus, porous system having adequate stress
shielding can also be developed using foam stem designs
such as those suggested in Fig. 3(b) and (c), and in the CAD-
model designs illustrated in Fig. 24. These features have been
described in previous work addressing EBM implant design
and fabrication (Murr et al., 2010) for Ti–6Al–4V. Of course
the functional porosity, monolithic stem concepts illustrated
 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S
Fig. 23 – Ti–6Al–4V EBM tibial knee stem monolithic prototype. (a) Dode-thin build element (Fig. 2(a)) creating a CAD model
with a solid rod core surrounded by a mesh. Note the enlarged mesh section insert on the left. (b) EBM prototype product
with a mesh density of ∼0.93 g/cm3 . (c) Magnified section in (b).
in Fig. 24 can be incorporated in femoral stem designs as
described above, as well as the tibial stem concepts illustrated
in Fig. 23.
4. Summary and conclusions
We have demonstrated that additive manufacturing using
electron beam melting can fabricate compatible, patient
specific total knee implants: Co–29Cr–6Mo femoral appliances
and Ti–6Al–4V tibial appliances consisting of monolithic,
functional solid-mesh-foam components. In this study, we
have compared characteristic microstructures for solid,
mesh, and foam Ti–6Al–4V prototypes. The Ti–6Al–4V
solid EBM prototypes exhibit the α-phase, acicular platelet
microstructures similar to commercial, wrought products,
while the mesh and foam prototypes exhibit α′ -martensitic
platelets or mixtures of α and α′ platelets which are
spatially smaller than the solid α-phase platelets, giving rise
to harder structures and correspondingly higher strengths.
In contrast, the EBM fabricated solid, mesh, and foam
Co–29Cr–6Mo prototypes all exhibited a directional, columnar
Cr23 C6 precipitate architecture parallel to the EBM build
direction intermixed with some stacking faults in the fcc
matrix. These columnar precipitates were spaced ∼2 µm
within textured, directional grains. Following HIP-annealing
4 (2011) 1396–1411 1409
these columnar precipitates dissolved and were replaced
by a higher density of intrinsic stacking faults which
kept the hardness essentially constant, while there was
a slight drop in the yield stress. However, the UTS
increased by 20% while the elongation increased by 900%.
In contrast to the ASTM-F75 Co–29Cr–6Mo transplant
standard, the yield stress for the EBM-fabricated and HIPed
component increased by 30% while the elongation increased
by ∼200%.
We measured the dynamic stiffness (Young’s modulus)
and density for Ti–6Al–4V and Co–29Cr–6Mo alloy mesh and
foam samples fabricated by EBM, and plotted these data
as relative stiffness (E/Es ) versus relative density (ρ/ρs ) on
log–log axes. A fitted line to the data resulted in a slope, n
in Eq. (1) of 2.1. From this data plot, a stress shielding design
graph was constructed which permits Co–29Cr–6Mo and
Ti–6Al–4V mesh and foam implant prototypes to be fabricated
for compatible bone stiffness in contrast to requisite
density.
Acknowledgments
We are pleased to acknowledge the support of John Wooten
of CalRam, Inc., Simi Valley, CA, and Ulf Ackelid of Arcam
AB, Sweden in specimen preparation and mechanical testing.
1410 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S
Fig. 24 – CAD model foam stem having inner low density
foam and outer higher density foam. (a) and (b) show
different foam density models. (b) Shows a cut-away
(half-section) view.
This research was supported by Mr. & Mrs. MacIntosh
Murchison Chair endowments at The University of Texas at
El Paso.
REFERENCES
Ashby, M.F., et al., 2000. Metal Foams: A Design Guide.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, Mass.
Ashby, M.F., Tianjian, L., 2003. Metal foams: a survey. Sci. China
Ser. B 46 (6), 521–532.
Bobyn, J.D., et al., 2005. The effect of proximally and fully porous-
coated canine hip stem design in bone modeling. J. Orthop.
Res. 5, 393–408.
Chalmers, B., 1964. The Principles of Solidification. Wiley, New
York.
Chuna, C.K., Leong, K.F., Lim, C.S., 2003. Rapid Prototyping: Princi-
ples and Applications, 2nd ed. World Scientific, Singapore.
Dunand, D.C., 2004. Processing of titanium foams. Adv. Eng. Mater.
6, 369–376.
Freyman, T.M., Yannas, I.V., Gibson, L.J., 2001. Cellular materials
as porous scaffolds for tissue engineering. Prog. Mater. Sci. 46
(3–4), 273–282.
Gaytan, S.M., et al., 2010. Comparison of microstructures and
mechanical properties for solid and mesh cobalt-base alloy
prototypes fabricated by electron beam melting. Metall. Mater.
Trans. A 41A, 3216–3227.
4 (2011) 1396–1411
Gibson, L.J., Ashby, M.F., 1997. Cellular Solids: Structure and
Properties. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Hacking, S.A., et al., 2002. Fibrous tissue ingrowth and
attachment to porous tantalum. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 52,
631–638.
Harryson, O., Cormier, D.R., 2005. Direct fabrication, of custom or-
thopaedic implants using electron beam melting technology.
In: Gibson, I. (Ed.), Advanced Manufacturing Technology for
Medical Applications: Reverse Engineering, Software Conver-
sion and Rapid Prototyping. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., London,
pp. 191–206 (Chapter 9).
Heinl, P., et al., 2007. Cellular titanium by selective electron beam
melting. Adv. Eng. Mater. 9 (5), 360–364.
Heinl, P., et al., 2008. Cellular Ti–6Al–4V structures with
interconnected macro-porosity for bone implants fabricated
by selective electron beam melting. Acta Biomater. 4,
1536–1544.
Hollander, D.A., et al., 2006. Structural, mechanical and in-
vitro characterization of individually structured Ti–6Al–4V
produced by direct laser forming. Biomaterials 27 (7),
955–963.
Holy, C.E., Shoichet, M.S., Davies, J.E., 2000. Engineering three-
dimensional bone tissue in vitro using biodegradable scaffolds:
investigating initial cell-seeding density and culture period.
J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 51 (3), 376–382.
Long, M., Rack, H.J., 1998. Titanium alloys in total joint
replacement—a materials science perspective. Biomaterials 19
(18), 1621–1639.
Marin, E., et al., 2010. Characterization of cellular solids in
Ti–6Al–4V for orthopaedic implant applications: trabecular
titanium. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 3, 373–381.
Multen, L., et al., 2009. Selective laser melting: a regular unit
cell approach for the manufacture of porous, titanium, bone
in-growth constructs suitable for orthopaedic applications.
J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B 89B (2), 325–334.
Murr, L.E., 1975. Interfacial Phenomena in Metals and Alloys.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, MA.
Murr, L.E., et al., 2009. Microstructure and mechanical properties
of electron beam-rapid manufactured Ti–6Al–4V biomedical
prototypes compared to wrought Ti–6Al–4V. Mater. Charact.
60, 96–105.
Murr, L.E., et al., 2010. Next generation biomedical implants using
additive manufacturing of complex cellular and functional
mesh arrays. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 368, 1999–2032.
Niinomi, M., 2001. Recent metallic materials for biomedical
applications. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 32A, 477–486.
Niinomi, M., 2007. Recent research and development in metallic
materials for biomedical, dental, and healthcare products.
Mater. Sci. Forum 539–543, 193–200.
Niinomi, M., 2008. Mechanical biocompatibilities of titanium
alloys for biomedical applications. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed.
Mater. 1, 30–42.
Park, J.B., 2000. In: Bronzino, J.D. (Ed.), The Biomedical Engineering
Handbook Vol. 1. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL.
Ryan, G., Pandit, A., Apatsidis, D.P., 2006. Fabrication methods
of porous metals for use in orthopaedic applications.
Biomaterials 27 (13), 2651–2670.
Sanan, A., Haines, S., 1997. Reporing holes in the head: a history
of cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 40 (3), 588–603.
Singh, R., et al., 2010. Titanium foams for biomedical applications:
a review. Mater. Tech. 25, 127–136.
Stamp, R., et al., 2009. The development of a scanning strategy
for the manufacture of porous biometerials by selective laser
melting. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 20 (9), 1839–1848.
Strondl, A., et al., 2008. Investigations of MX and γ ′ /γ ′′ precipitates
in the nickel-based superalloy 718 produced by electron beam
melting. Mater. Sci. Engr. A 480, 138–147.
 J O U R N A L O F T H E M E C H A N I C A L B E H AV I O R O F B I O M E D I C A L M AT E R I A L S 4 (2011) 1396–1411 1411

Thijs, L., et al., 2010. A study of the microstructural evolution Yang, S., et al., 2001. The design of scaffolds for use in tissue
during selective laser melting of Ti–6Al–4V. Acta Mater. 58, engineering, part I. Traditional factors. Tissue Eng. 7 (6),
3303–3312. 679–689.