Materials / Compare
Ceramic Alumina 96% vs. DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel
Compare Ceramic Alumina 96% vs. DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel strength, stiffness, weight and thermal properties.
| Try it on a partA sample part to run stress or thermal on, free in your browser | Open in LessCAD | Open in LessCAD |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical | ||
| Yield strength | not given (tensile used) | 861MPasourcemean, as built, horizontal (N=72) |
| Ultimate tensile strength | 221MPasourcetypical tensile strength, 25 °C (ACMA Test #4) | 886MPasourcemean, as built, horizontal (N=72) |
| Compressive strength | 2,068MPasourcetypical, 20 °C (ASTM-C773) | not sourced |
| Flexural strength | 358MPasourceflexural strength (MOR), 20 °C (ASTM-F417) | not sourced |
| Elongation at break | not sourced | 19.9%sourcemean at break, as built, horizontal |
| Young's modulus (stiffness) | 303GPasourcetypical, 20 °C (ASTM-C848) | 197GPasourcebase material: wrought 17-4 PH, Condition H 900 (Cleveland-Cliffs) |
| Density | 3,720kg/m³sourcetypical (ASTM-C20) | 7,790kg/m³sourcemean part density (ISO 3369) |
| Strength to weight | 59.4kN·m/kg | 110kN·m/kg1.86x higher |
| Stiffness to weight | 81.5MN·m/kg3.22x higher | 25.3MN·m/kg |
| Poisson's ratio | 0.21sourcetypical, 20 °C (ASTM-C848) | 0.272sourcebase material: wrought 17-4 PH, all conditions (Cleveland-Cliffs) |
| Shear modulus | 125GPa1.62x stiffer in shear | 77.4GPa |
| Bulk modulus | 174GPa | 144GPa |
| Speed of sound | 9,025m/s | 5,029m/s |
| Thermal | ||
| Thermal conductivity | 24.7W/m·Ksourcetypical, 20 °C (ASTM-C408) | 17.9W/m·Ksourcebase material: wrought 17-4 PH, Condition H 900, at 149 °C (Cleveland-Cliffs) |
| Thermal expansion | 8.2µm/m·Ksourcemean, 25-1000 °C (ASTM-C372) | 10.4µm/m·Ksourcemean 25-100 °C, ASTM E228, AFTER atmospheric heat treatment (as-built value not published) |
| 100 mm part over a 50 °C swing | 41µm growth27% less | 52µm growth |
| Specific heat | 880J/kg·Ksourcetypical, 100 °C (ASTM-E1269) | 460J/kg·Ksourcebase material: wrought 17-4 PH, Condition A, 0-100 °C (Cleveland-Cliffs) |
| Heats up and cools (diffusivity) | 7.55mm²/s1.51x faster | 5mm²/s |
| Thermal shock resistance | 1,736W/m | 5,474W/m3.15x more resistant |
| Values for | CoorsTek AD-96, nominal 96% Al2O3 sintered alumina, typical values; CoorsTek "Ceramic Seal Material Properties" (© 2018, 01899 F). AD-96 is the general 96% grade, not the ADS-96R substrate grade. | EOS StainlessSteel 17-4PH IndustryLine (powder 9011-0041), EOS M 290, 40 µm, default job 17-4PH_040_StainlessM291_100, as built, horizontal; ISO 6892 & ASTM E8M |
Every value links to the document that states it. "Not sourced" means no citable source states it (or only a specification minimum); figures computed from it are left out too.
DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel is 3D printed: its properties depend on build direction and print settings; these are typical values.
Questions
Is Ceramic Alumina 96% stronger than DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel?
DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel is stronger: its yield strength is 861 MPa against tensile strength 221 MPa for Ceramic Alumina 96% (3.89x).
Which is lighter, Ceramic Alumina 96% or DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel?
Ceramic Alumina 96% is lighter: 3,720 kg/m³ against 7,790 kg/m³ for DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel.
Which is stiffer, Ceramic Alumina 96% or DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel?
Ceramic Alumina 96% is stiffer: Young's modulus 303 GPa against 197 GPa for DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel, so the same part in Ceramic Alumina 96% deflects less under the same load.
Which is lighter for the same job, Ceramic Alumina 96% or DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel?
For the same stiffness or strength: Ceramic Alumina 96% is lighter for a stiff rod or tie (tension), stiff beam (bending), stiff panel or plate, strong panel or plate; DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel is lighter for a strong rod or tie, strong beam.
| Part that must be | Ceramic Alumina 96% | DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel |
|---|---|---|
| Stiff rod or tie (tension) | lighter | 3.22x heavier |
| Stiff beam (bending) | lighter | 2.6x heavier |
| Stiff panel or plate | lighter | 2.42x heavier |
| Strong rod or tie | 1.86x heavier | lighter |
| Strong beam | 18% heavier | lighter |
| Strong panel or plate | lighter | 6% heavier |
For the same stiffness or strength, mass scales with density over stiffness (or strength) raised to a power set by how the part is loaded: 1 for a rod in tension, 1/2 for a beam in bending, 1/3 for a panel (the standard material-selection indices).
Which conducts heat better, Ceramic Alumina 96% or DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel?
Ceramic Alumina 96% conducts heat better: 24.7 W/m·K against 17.9 W/m·K for DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel.
Which expands less with temperature?
Ceramic Alumina 96% expands less: 8.2 µm/m·K against 10.4 µm/m·K for DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel.
Among 72 materials
Related comparisons
- Ceramic Alumina 96% vs. Ceramic Aluminum Nitride
- Ceramic Alumina 96% vs. Concrete
- Ceramic Alumina 96% vs. Iron
- Ceramic Alumina 96% vs. Stainless Steel 303
- DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel vs. Steel AISI 4340
- DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel vs. Nickel Inconel 718
- DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel vs. Stainless Steel 17-4PH
- DMLS 17-4PH Stainless Steel vs. Steel AISI 1045