journal article·2023-09Open access

Additive Manufacturing Benchmark 2022 Subcontinuum Mesoscale Tensile Challenge (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MeTT) and Summary of Predictions

Orion L. Kafka, Jake Benzing, Newell Moser, Li-Anne Liew, Jordan Weaver, Nikolas Hrabe

Abstract

This additive manufacturing benchmarking challenge asked the modelling community to predict the stress-strain behavior and fracture location and pathway of an individual meso-scale (gauge dimensions of approximately 200 μm thickness, 200 μm width, 1mm length) tension specimen that was excised from a wafer of nickel allow IN625 manufactured by laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF). The data used for the challenge questions and answers are provided in a public dataset (https://data.nist.gov/od/id/mds2-2587). Testing models against the data is still possible, although a good-faith blinded prediction should be attempted before reading this article, as the results are contained herein. The uniaxial tension test was pin loaded, conducted at quasi-static strain rates under displacement control, and strain was measured via non-contact methods (digital image correlation). The predictions are challenging since the number of grains contained in the thickness of the specimen are sub-continuum. In addition, pores can be heterogeneously distributed by the L-PBF process, as opposed to intentionally seeded defects. The challenge provided information on chemical composition, grain and subgrain structure (surface-based measurements via electron backscatter diffraction and scanning electron microscopy) and pore structure (volume-based measurements via X-Ray computed tomography) along the entire gauge length for the tension specimen. During the challenge, prediction responses were collected from six different groups. Prediction accuracy compared to the measurements varied, with elastic modulus and strain at ultimate tensile strength consistently over-predicted, while most other values were a mix of over- and under-predicted. Overall, no one model performed best at all predictions. Failure-related properties proved quite challenging to predict, likely in part due to the data provided as well as the inherent difficulty in predicting fracture. Future directions and areas of improvement are discussed in the context of improving model maturity and measurement uncertainty.
Source: europepmc · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Manufacturing Process and Optimization

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (18)

Show source-provided references
1. Gesing M, Gilkey LN, Jones CA, Dingreville R, Sanborn SE, Bignell JL, Cerrone AR, Keim V, Nonn A, Cooreman S, Thibaux P, Ames N, Connor DO, Parno M, Davis B, Tucker J, Coudrillier B, Karlson KN, Ostien JT, Foulk JW, Hammetter CI, Grange S, Emery JM, Brown JA, Bishop JE, Johnson KL, Ford KR, Brinckmann S, Neilsen MK, Jackiewicz J, Ravi-Chandar K, Ivanoff T, Salzbrenner BC, Boyce B (2019) The third sandia fracture challenge: predictions of ductile fracture in additively manufactured metal. Int J Fract 218:105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-019-00361-110.1007/s10704-019-00361-1 ↗
2. Cox ME, Schwalbach EJ, Blaiszik BJ, Groeber MA (2021) AFRL additive manufacturing modeling challenge series: overview. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 10:12564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-021-00215-610.1007/s40192-021-00215-6 ↗
3. Levine L, Lane B, Heigel J, Migler K, Stoudt M, Phan T, Ricker R, Strantza M, Hill M, Zhang F, Seppala J, Garboczi E, Bain E, Cole D, Allen A, Fox J, Campbell C (2020) Outcomes and conclusions from the 2018 AM-bench measurements, challenge problems, modeling submissions, and conference. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 9(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00164-110.1007/s40192-019-00164-1 ↗
4. Committee AE (2016) ASTM E1479-16: standard practice for describing and specifying inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometers. https://doi.org/10.1520/E1479-1610.1520/E1479-16 ↗
5. Committee AE (2018) ASTM E1019-18: Standard test methods for determination of carbon, sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen in steel, iron, nickel, and cobalt alloys by various combustion and inert gas fusion techniques. https://doi.org/10.1520/E1019-1810.1520/E1019-18 ↗
6. Committee AB (2022) ASTM B564-22: Standard specification for nickel alloy forgings. https://doi.org/10.1520/B0564-2210.1520/B0564-22 ↗
7. Liew L-A, Read DT, Martin ML, DelRio FW, Bradley PE, Barbosa N, Christenson TR, Geaney JT (2020) Elastic-plastic properties of mesoscale electrodeposited LIGA nickel alloy films: microscopy and mechanics. J Micromech Microeng 31(1):15002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6439/abc0ff10.1088/1361-6439/abc0ff ↗
8. Benzing JT, Liew LA, Hrabe N, DelRio FW (2020) Tracking defects and microstructural heterogeneities in meso-scale tensile specimens excised from additively manufactured parts. Exp Mech 60(2):165–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-019-00558-410.1007/s11340-019-00558-4 ↗
9. Liew L-A, Read DT, Martin ML, Christenson TR, Geaney JT (2021) Microfabricated fiducial markers for digital image correlation-based micromechanical testing of LIGA Ni alloys. Eng Res Express 3(2):025019. https://doi.org/10.1088/2631-8695/abfb1010.1088/2631-8695/abfb10 ↗
10. Liew L-A, Read DT, Martin ML, Bradley PE, Geaney JT (2023) Elastic-plastic properties of mesoscale electrodeposited LIGA nickel alloy films: analysis of measurement uncertainties. J Verificat Validat Uncert Quantif 8(1):011005. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.406210610.1115/1.4062106 ↗
11. Moser NH, Landauer AK, Kafka OL (2023) Image processing in Python for 3D image stacks (Imppy3d). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.18434/mds2-280610.18434/mds2-2806 ↗
12. AM Bench 2022 challenge problem Subcontinuum Mesoscale Tensile Test (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MeTT). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.18434/mds2-258710.18434/mds2-2587 ↗
13. Zhang F, Levine LE, Allen AJ, Young SW, Williams ME, Stoudt MR, Moon K-W, Heigel JC, Ilavsky J (2019) Phase fraction and evolution of additively manufactured (AM) 15–5 stainless steel and inconel 625 AM-bench artifacts. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 8(3):362–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00148-110.1007/s40192-019-00148-1 ↗
14. Phan TQ, Strantza M, Hill MR, Gnaupel-Herold TH, Heigel J, D’Elia CR, DeWald AT, Clausen B, Pagan DC, Peter Ko JY, Brown DW, Levine LE (2019) Elastic residual strain and stress measurements and corresponding part deflections of 3D additive manufacturing builds of IN625 AM-bench artifacts using neutron diffraction, synchrotron X-ray diffraction, and contour method. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 8(3):318–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00149-010.1007/s40192-019-00149-0 ↗
15. Lee PL, Shu D, Ramanathan M, Preissner C, Wang J, Beno MA, Von Dreele RB, Ribaud L, Kurtz C, Antao SM, Jiao X, Toby BH (2008) A twelve-analyzer detector system for high-resolution powder diffraction. J Synchrotron Rad 15(5):427–432. https://doi.org/10.1107/S090904950801843810.1107/S0909049508018438 ↗
16. Williamson GK, Smallman RE (1956) III dislocation densities in some annealed and cold-worked metals from measurements on the X-ray debye-scherrer spectrum. Philosoph Magaz J Theoret Experim Appl Phys 1(1):34–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478643560823807410.1080/14786435608238074 ↗
17. Wang Z, Stoica AD, Ma D, Beese AM (2016) Diffraction and single-crystal elastic constants of Inconel 625 at room and elevated temperatures determined by neutron diffraction. Mater Sci Eng A 674:406–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2016.08.01010.1016/j.msea.2016.08.010 ↗
18. AM Bench 2022 challenge Macroscale Tensile Tests at Different Orientations (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MaTTO). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.18434/mds2-258810.18434/mds2-2588 ↗