Figures & data
![](/cms/asset/1e66c548-2e6d-462b-9607-87f108903df1/tmrl_a_2054291_uf0001_oc.jpg)
Figure 1. (a, b) XRD and DSC results of the SLMed Zr60.14Cu22.31Fe4.85Al9.7Ag3 BMG samples fabricated using different energy densities, compared with the original powders; (c) Correlation between the crystallization/porosity fractions of as-printed samples and the energy density; (d) The bright field TEM image of the as-printed BMG with a crystalline fraction of 7.03%. Insets are the selected area electron diffraction (SAED) patterns from regions S1 and S2, respectively; (e) SEM images showing the samples with various porosities.
![Figure 1. (a, b) XRD and DSC results of the SLMed Zr60.14Cu22.31Fe4.85Al9.7Ag3 BMG samples fabricated using different energy densities, compared with the original powders; (c) Correlation between the crystallization/porosity fractions of as-printed samples and the energy density; (d) The bright field TEM image of the as-printed BMG with a crystalline fraction of 7.03%. Insets are the selected area electron diffraction (SAED) patterns from regions S1 and S2, respectively; (e) SEM images showing the samples with various porosities.](/cms/asset/9b43487f-c163-408e-b0b9-2cfc1b4f7bc2/tmrl_a_2054291_f0001_oc.jpg)
Figure 2. (a) Compressive stress-strain curves and (b) fracture toughness of the SLMed BMG samples with varying porosity and crystallization fractions.
![Figure 2. (a) Compressive stress-strain curves and (b) fracture toughness of the SLMed BMG samples with varying porosity and crystallization fractions.](/cms/asset/0a6afe15-c5ab-4e51-865d-be207ff36e1c/tmrl_a_2054291_f0002_oc.jpg)
Figure 3. (a, b) Cross-section SEM images showing the interactions between micro-pores and shear bands; (c) The cumulative probability of stress drops for samples with different porosities. Inset shows the enlarged serration region from stress-strain curves; (d, e) Strain field of two BMG samples with a porosity of 2.87% and 17.40% after being compressed to 4% strain in finite element simulation.
![Figure 3. (a, b) Cross-section SEM images showing the interactions between micro-pores and shear bands; (c) The cumulative probability of stress drops for samples with different porosities. Inset shows the enlarged serration region from stress-strain curves; (d, e) Strain field of two BMG samples with a porosity of 2.87% and 17.40% after being compressed to 4% strain in finite element simulation.](/cms/asset/c87d4d85-0aae-40e8-9b0e-eb78390295dc/tmrl_a_2054291_f0003_oc.jpg)
Figure 4. The relationship between the crystalline fraction and fracture toughness and width of shear-off region.
![Figure 4. The relationship between the crystalline fraction and fracture toughness and width of shear-off region.](/cms/asset/2c6a7b7b-4f1c-4f8a-a30f-ac68e8418ecb/tmrl_a_2054291_f0004_oc.jpg)
Figure 5. Plot of fracture strength as a function of plasticity for 3D-printed BMGs and BMG composites. The overall mechanical performance of our optimized materials via defect engineering surpasses that of previously reported 3D-printed BMGs and BMG composites [Citation7, Citation9,Citation10,Citation14,Citation29–41].
![Figure 5. Plot of fracture strength as a function of plasticity for 3D-printed BMGs and BMG composites. The overall mechanical performance of our optimized materials via defect engineering surpasses that of previously reported 3D-printed BMGs and BMG composites [Citation7, Citation9,Citation10,Citation14,Citation29–41].](/cms/asset/56373332-b8eb-47e9-921c-d34dba61e425/tmrl_a_2054291_f0005_oc.jpg)