TC4 is the Chinese designation commonly aligned with Ti-6Al-4V. In additive manufacturing it remains the default titanium alloy for a simple reason: it gives a practical mix of high specific strength, corrosion resistance, broad machine compatibility, and a mature qualification history.
That does not mean every titanium project should default to TC4. It means TC4 is the easiest high-performance titanium route to justify when the part is structural, weight-sensitive, and likely to move beyond one-off prototyping. The real question is whether the powder, the PSD window, and the chemistry controls fit the exact process and service target.
What TC4, Grade 5, and Grade 23 mean in practice
The most relevant comparison is usually Grade 5 versus Grade 23. Both sit in the Ti-6Al-4V family, but Grade 23 uses tighter interstitial control and is often preferred when ductility, fatigue behavior, or medical-oriented specifications matter more. Grade 5 is still common when the application is strength-driven and the project does not require the stricter chemistry window of Grade 23.
The first decision is usually Grade 5 versus Grade 23. That choice changes interstitial expectations, ductility margin, and where the alloy best fits. If the chemistry window is still being defined, the dedicated titanium oxygen-limit discussion guide is the best next read before the build route is locked. If the Grade 23 route is being evaluated for surgical guides, drill-guide carriers, or instrument-adjacent hardware, continue with the focused Ti64 Grade 23 surgical guide and instrument hardware page.
Why TC4 stays dominant in AM
The reason is not only material performance. TC4 has widely used PSD cuts, broad printer parameter history, and a post-processing route that most serious AM teams already understand. That makes qualification easier than with less common titanium systems.
TC4 also works across more than one AM process. LPBF remains the most common route, but TC4 also shows up in EBM and DED programs. That matters because teams can often keep the same alloy family while moving between prototyping, production, repair, and larger geometry strategies.
Powder points that matter
For LPBF, teams often request 15-45 um or 15-53 um. EBM usually moves to a coarser range, while DED can require a very different cut depending on nozzle design and feed method. The correct answer is process-specific rather than universal.
Titanium evaluation should never stop at PSD alone. Oxygen, nitrogen, morphology, satellite level, and packing behavior directly affect how safely the powder can be introduced into a repeatable process. If the project includes reuse, baseline chemistry becomes even more important because reused titanium can move out of tolerance faster than many teams expect.
For a serious titanium route, the minimum review should include:
- PSD range and test method
- Oxygen and nitrogen limits
- chemistry consistency
- Morphology and contamination control
- Batch traceability
Process fit: LPBF, EBM, and DED
LPBF is the most common request because TC4 prints dense parts with strong geometry freedom and a large installed machine base. EBM is often chosen when residual stress management and thicker sections matter more than surface finish. DED is useful for larger structures, repairs, or geometry build-up where powder feed behavior becomes part of the process risk.
That is why the process route should be explicit from the beginning. LPBF, EBM, and DED ask for different powder behavior, even when the alloy family is the same.
If the part is corrosion-driven rather than strength-driven, it is worth comparing TC4 against Grade 2 titanium powder. If the process is electron beam rather than laser based, pair the alloy decision with the EBM powder size guide instead of reusing an LPBF-style PSD request.
TC4 sourcing matrix
| Decision | State in the RFQ | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Grade intent | Grade 5, Grade 23, or governing program specification | Lot chemistry and the applicable material specification |
| Process fit | LPBF, EBM, DED, machine and parameter basis | PSD result and method, morphology, flow evidence relevant to the route |
| Powder history | Virgin-only or approved reuse/blending policy | Lot identity, traceability, handling and contamination controls |
| Final application | Service environment, qualification stage and critical properties | TDS/SDS plus the agreed mechanical, heat-treatment and inspection basis |
Powder COA, process qualification, and final-part acceptance are different evidence layers. A strong supplier response should identify which layer each document supports.
If the end use is aerospace structural hardware, including brackets, lightweight nodes, or hydraulic-support hardware, continue with the consolidated Ti64 aerospace structures guide. If the route is being defined for orthopedic or medical use, continue with the focused Ti64 Grade 23 medical applications page or the narrower Ti64 Grade 23 surgical guide and instrument hardware page.
The practical takeaway
Use TC4 when the part is structural, weight-sensitive, and needs a titanium route with broad AM familiarity. Define the grade intent, the process route, and the oxygen logic before treating Ti64 as a generic titanium option.
For a comparable quote, include grade/specification, process, machine, PSD, interstitial limits, powder history, quantity, recurring demand, qualification stage, and delivery country. Ask for lot COA, PSD, TDS/SDS, available SEM or morphology evidence, and packaging information through the RFQ.