Assessment of Hot Cracking Susceptibility Through Interdendritic Feeding Simulations
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Established indexes for predicting hot cracking susceptibility exhibit limited agreement with experiments for additive manufacturing of new refractory alloys. A recent publication from Giorjao et al. proposes a new index based on the physics of liquid feeding into the interdendritic channels. Laminar flow simulations are performed with the Scheil solidification profile mirrored about a central axis, creating a funnel which is assumed can represent the interdendritic wall geometry. The pressure difference developed from flow in this geometry is hypothesized to correlate with cracking susceptibility, as it is expected that this parameter should scale with the ability of the interdendritic liquid to backfill shrinkage porosity. The approach has the advantage of utilizing parameters that can be predicted using CALPHAD software and databases; however, it exhibits a drawback that pressure drop is a function of geometry and simulation scale. In the present work, sensitivity studies were performed on geometric and viscosity parameters. An alternative to the constant flow rate assumption used by Giorjao et al. is proposed, in which the flow rate that results from the pressure difference imposed by solidification shrinkage is used as the crack susceptibility criterion. Results are subsequently compared to laser glazing experiments on four RHEAs, a set of stainless steels, and several Al alloys. It is found that the constant flow rate assumption produces better agreement with experiments than the model with a physics-based feeding pressure. Observations are discussed in the context of current literature and physical understanding of solidification in additive manufacturing.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Metallurgy and Material Forming · High Temperature Alloys and Creep · Fatigue and fracture mechanics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. Westin EM (2022) Hot cracking in duplex stainless steel weldments—a review. Weld World 66:1483–1499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-022-01310-810.1007/s40194-022-01310-8 ↗
2. Wang N, Mokadem S, Rappaz M, Kurz W (2004) Solidification cracking of superalloy single- and bi-crystals. Acta Mater 52:3173–3182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2004.03.04710.1016/j.actamat.2004.03.047 ↗
3. Cao G, Kou S (2006) Hot cracking of binary Mg–Al alloy castings. Mater Sci Eng, A 417:230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2005.10.05010.1016/j.msea.2005.10.050 ↗
4. Wall A, Benoit MJ (2023) A review of existing solidification crack tests and analysis of their transferability to additive manufacturing. J Mater Process Technol 320:118090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2023.11809010.1016/j.jmatprotec.2023.118090 ↗
5. Srivastava A, Joshi V, Shivpuri R (2004) Computer modeling and prediction of thermal fatigue cracking in die-casting tooling. Wear 256:38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00281-310.1016/S0043-1648(03)00281-3 ↗
6. He Q, Wei H, Chen J-S, Wang H-P, Carlson BE (2018) Analysis of hot cracking during lap joint laser welding processes using the melting state-based thermomechanical modeling approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 94:4373–4386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1157-510.1007/s00170-017-1157-5 ↗
7. Ruan H, Rezaei S, Yang Y, Gross D, Xu B-X (2023) A thermo-mechanical phase-field fracture model: application to hot cracking simulations in additive manufacturing. J Mech Phys Solids 172:105169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2022.10516910.1016/j.jmps.2022.105169 ↗
8. Khalajzadeh V, Beckermann C (2020) Simulation of shrinkage porosity formation during alloy solidification. Metall Mater Trans A 51:2239–2254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-020-05699-z10.1007/s11661-020-05699-z ↗
9. Magnusson T, Arnberg L (2001) Density and solidification shrinkage of hypoeutectic aluminum-silicon alloys. Metall Mater Trans A 32:2605–2613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-001-0050-910.1007/s11661-001-0050-9 ↗
10. Perelmuter M (2014) Modeling formation and growth of cracks on the material interface. Proc Mater Sci 3:1075–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mspro.2014.06.17510.1016/j.mspro.2014.06.175 ↗
11. Goldstein R, Perelmuter M (1999) Modeling of bonding at an interface crack. Int J Fract 99:53–79. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101838232194910.1023/A:1018382321949 ↗
12. Xu J, Kontis P, Peng RL, Moverare J (2022) Modelling of additive manufacturability of nickel-based superalloys for laser powder bed fusion. Acta Mater 240:118307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2022.11830710.1016/j.actamat.2022.118307 ↗
13. Giorjao R, Sutton B, Ramirez A (2021) New composition based technique for solidification cracking resistance evaluation. Metall Mater Trans A 52:2512–2521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-021-06244-210.1007/s11661-021-06244-2 ↗
14. Kou S (2015) A criterion for cracking during solidification. Acta Mater 88:366–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2015.01.03410.1016/j.actamat.2015.01.034 ↗
15. Clyne TW, Wolf M, Kurz W (1982) The effect of melt composition on solidification cracking of steel, with particular reference to continuous casting. Metall Trans B 13:259–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0266458310.1007/BF02664583 ↗
16. Scheil E (1942) Bemerkungen zur Schichtkristallbildung 34: 70–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijmr-1942-340303.10.1515/ijmr-1942-340303 ↗
17. Lauga E, Brenner MP, Stone HA (2024) Microfluidics: The no-slip boundary condition, (2005). http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0501557 (accessed November 17, 2024).
18. Day MA (1990) The no-slip condition of fluid dynamics. Erkenntnis 33:285–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0071758810.1007/BF00717588 ↗
19. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res 12(85):2825–2830. http://jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.html
20. Oriola AT (2024) On the hot cracking susceptibility of refractory high entropy alloys (RHEAs) during solidification: toward a crack susceptibility index for additive manufacturing. MS Thesis, University of Cincinnati. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1733351818521435
21. Arata Y, Matsuda F, Saruwatari S (1974) Varestraint test for solidification crack susceptibility in weld metal of austenitic stainless steels. Trans JWRI https://doi.org/10.18910/3695.10.18910/3695 ↗
22. Senda T, Matsuda F, Takano G, Watanabe K, Kobayashi T, Matsuzaka T (1971) Fundamental investigations on solidi-fication crack susceptibility for weld metals with Trans-Varestraint test. Trans Japan Welding Soc 2(2):141–162
23. Braccini M, Martin CL, Suéry M, Bréchet Y (2000) Relation between mushy zone rheology and hot tearing phenomena in Al-Cu alloys. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Modeling of Casting, Welding and Advanced Solidification Processes held in Aachen, Germany, on August 20 to 25, 2000. Sahm, Peter R. (Editor). Aachen: Shaker, pp. 18–24.
24. Rappaz M, Drezet J-M, Gremaud M (1999) A new hot-tearing criterion. Metall Mater Trans A 30:449–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-999-0334-z10.1007/s11661-999-0334-z ↗
25. Liu D, Wang Y (2019) Mesoscale multi-physics simulation of rapid solidification of Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Addit Manuf 25:551–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.12.00510.1016/j.addma.2018.12.005 ↗
26. Darabi R, Azinpour E, Reis A, De Sa JC (2023) Multi-scale Multi-physics Phase-field coupled Thermo-mechanical approach for modeling of powder bed fusion process. Appl Math Model 122:572–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2023.06.02110.1016/j.apm.2023.06.021 ↗
27. Housiadas KD, Beris AN (2024) Pressure-driven viscoelastic flow in axisymmetric geometries with application to the hyperbolic pipe. J Fluid Mech 999:A7. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2024.84810.1017/jfm.2024.848 ↗
28. Sisavath S, Jing X, Zimmerman RW (2001) Creeping flow through a pipe of varying radius. Phys Fluids 13:2762–2772. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.139928910.1063/1.1399289 ↗
29. Faria GA, Kadirvel K, Hinojos A, Zhang W, Wang Y, Ramirez AJ (2019) On the use of metastable interface equilibrium assumptions on prediction of solidification micro-segregation in laser powder bed fusion. Sci Technol Welding Join 24(5):446–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621718.2019.160840610.1080/13621718.2019.1608406 ↗
30. Kurz W, Fisher DJ (1981) Dendrite growth at the limit of stability: tip radius and spacing. Acta Metall 29:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6160(81)90082-110.1016/0001-6160(81)90082-1 ↗