journal article·2021-12Open access

AFRL Additive Manufacturing Modeling Series: Challenge 1, Characterization of Residual Strain Distribution in Additively-Manufactured Metal Parts Using Energy-Dispersive Diffraction

Andrew C. Chuang, Jun-Sang Park, Paul A. Shade, Edwin J. Schwalbach, Michael A. Groeber, William D. Musinski

Abstract

A machine component fabricated by additive manufacturing (AM) of metal powders often possesses steep residual stress gradients with significant magnitudes due to large temperature gradients that transpire within a localized area during fabrication. These processing-induced residual stresses can cause distortion of the part, and if they are of significant magnitude, they could induce cracking of the component, degrade printability, and/or diminish subsequent mechanical performance. The ability to predict these residual stresses imparted by AM is an important step in permeating AM technology for advanced manufacturing. Calibration and validation of AM process models used for prediction are, therefore, a critical step in understanding the origin and mitigating the challenges associated with residual stresses inherent to the AM process. In the present work, the residual strain distributions in components with simple geometries fabricated by a laser powder bed fusion (LBPF) process were characterized non-destructively using energy-dispersive X-ray diffraction in support of the US Air Force Research Laboratory Additive Manufacturing Modeling Challenge Series Groeber et al. (JOM 70:441-448, 2018). The measurement setup and approach are described in detail so that the data can be used as a benchmark to calibrate and validate models for the prediction of macro-scale residual stresses due to the LPBF process.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses

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

References (73)

Show source-provided references
1. Groeber M, Schwalbach E, Musinski W, Shade P, Donegan S, Uchic M, Sparkman D, Turner T, Miller J (2018) A preview of the U.S. air force research laboratory additive manufacturing modeling challenge series. JOM Member J Miner Metals Mater Soc 70:441–44410.1007/s11837-018-2806-3 ↗
2. Gao W, Zhang Y, Ramanujan D, Ramani K, Chen Y, Williams CB, Wang CC, Shin YC, Zhang S, Zavattieri PD (2015) The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. CAD Comp Aided Des 69:65–8910.1016/j.cad.2015.04.001 ↗
3. Gardan J (2016) Additive manufacturing technologies: state of the art and trends. Int J Prod Res 54:3118–313210.1080/00207543.2015.1115909 ↗
4. DebRoy T, Mukherjee T, Milewski JO, Elmer JW, Ribic B, Blecher JJ, Zhang W (2019) Scientific, technological and economic issues in metal printing and their solutions. Nat Mater 18:1026–103210.1038/s41563-019-0408-2 ↗
5. Nagesha B, Dhinakaran V, Varsha Shree M, Manoj Kumar K, Chalawadi D, Sathish T (2020) Review on characterization and impacts of the lattice structure in additive manufacturing. Mater Today: Proc 21:916–91910.1016/j.matpr.2019.08.158 ↗
6. Thompson SM, Bian L, Shamsaei N, Yadollahi A (2015) An overview of direct laser deposition for additive manufacturing; part I: transport phenomena, modeling and diagnostics. Addit Manuf 8:36–62
7. Shamsaei N, Yadollahi A, Bian L, Thompson SM (2015) An overview of direct laser deposition for additive manufacturing; part II: mechanical behavior, process parameter optimization and control. Addit Manuf 8:12–35
8. Shipley H, McDonnell D, Culleton M, Coull R, Lupoi R, O’Donnell G, Trimble D (2018) Optimisation of process parameters to address fundamental challenges during selective laser melting of Ti-6Al-4V: a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 128:1–2010.1016/j.ijmachtools.2018.01.003 ↗
9. Seede R, Shoukr D, Zhang B, Whitt A, Gibbons S, Flater P, Elwany A, Arroyave R, Karaman I (2020) An ultra-high strength martensitic steel fabricated using selective laser melting additive manufacturing: densification, microstructure, and mechanical properties. Acta Mater 186:199–21410.1016/j.actamat.2019.12.037 ↗
10. Nguyen DS, Park HS, Lee CM (2020) Optimization of selective laser melting process parameters for Ti-6Al-4V alloy manufacturing using deep learning. J Manuf Process 55:230–23510.1016/j.jmapro.2020.04.014 ↗
11. Tolosa I, Garciandía F, Zubiri F, Zapirain F, Esnaola A (2010) Study of mechanical properties of AISI 316 stainless steel processed by “selective laser melting”, following different manufacturing strategies. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 51:639–64710.1007/s00170-010-2631-5 ↗
12. Calignano F, Lorusso M, Pakkanen J, Trevisan F, Ambrosio EP, Manfredi D, Fino P (2017) Investigation of accuracy and dimensional limits of part produced in aluminum alloy by selective laser melting. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 88:451–45810.1007/s00170-016-8788-9 ↗
13. Han J, Wu M, Ge Y, Wu J (2018) Optimizing the structure accuracy by changing the scanning strategy using selective laser melting. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95:4439–444710.1007/s00170-017-1503-7 ↗
14. Ganesh P, Kaul R, Sasikala G, Kumar H, Venugopal S, Tiwari P, Rai S, Prasad RC, Kukreja LM (2014) Fatigue crack propagation and fracture toughness of laser rapid manufactured structures of AISI 316L stainless steel. Metallogr Microstruct Anal 3:36–4510.1007/s13632-013-0115-3 ↗
15. Huynh L, Rotella J, Sangid MD (2016) Fatigue behavior of IN718 microtrusses produced via additive manufacturing. Mater Des 105:278–28910.1016/j.matdes.2016.05.032 ↗
16. Carroll BE, Palmer TA, Beese AM (2015) Anisotropic tensile behavior of Ti-6Al-4V components fabricated with directed energy deposition additive manufacturing. Acta Mater 87:309–32010.1016/j.actamat.2014.12.054 ↗
17. Bian L, Thompson SM, Shamsaei N (2015) Mechanical properties and microstructural features of direct laser-deposited Ti-6Al-4V. JOM 67:629–63810.1007/s11837-015-1308-9 ↗
18. Ran X, Liu D, Li A, Wang H, Tang H, Cheng X (2016) Microstructure characterization and mechanical behavior of laser additive manufactured ultrahigh-strength AerMet100 steel. Mater Sci Eng A 663:69–7710.1016/j.msea.2016.03.051 ↗
19. Wang Q, Zhang S, Zhang CH, Wu C, Wang J, Chen J, Sun Z (2017) Microstructure evolution and EBSD analysis of a graded steel fabricated by laser additive manufacturing. Vacuum 141:68–8110.1016/j.vacuum.2017.03.021 ↗
20. du Plessis A, le Roux SG (2018) Standardized X-ray tomography testing of additively manufactured parts: a round robin test. Additive Manuf 24:125–13610.1016/j.addma.2018.09.014 ↗
21. Cakmak E, Bingham P, Cunningham RW, Rollett AD, Xiao X, Dehoff RR (2021) Non-destructive characterization of additively manufactured components with x-ray computed tomography for part qualification: a study with laboratory and synchrotron x-rays. Mater Character 173:11089410.1016/j.matchar.2021.110894 ↗
22. Pesach A, Tiferet E, Vogel SC, Chonin M, Diskin A, Zilberman L, Rivin O, Yeheskel O, Caspi EN (2018) Texture analysis of additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V using neutron diffraction. Additive Manuf 23:394–40110.1016/j.addma.2018.08.010 ↗
23. Zhao C, Fezzaa K, Cunningham RW, Wen H, De Carlo F, Chen L, Rollett AD, Sun T (2017) Real-time monitoring of laser powder bed fusion process using high-speed X-ray imaging and diffraction. Sci Rep 7:1–1110.1038/s41598-016-0028-x ↗
24. Kenel C, Grolimund D, Li X, Panepucci E, Samson VA, Sanchez DF, Marone F, Leinenbach C (2017) In situ investigation of phase transformations in Ti-6Al-4V under additive manufacturing conditions combining laser melting and high-speed micro-X-ray diffraction. Sci Rep 7:1–1010.1038/s41598-017-16760-0 ↗
25. Calta NP, Wang J, Kiss AM, Martin AA, Depond PJ, Guss GM, Thampy V, Fong AY, Weker JN, Stone KH, Tassone CJ, Kramer MJ, Toney MF, Van Buuren A, Matthews MJ (2018) An instrument for in situ time-resolved X-ray imaging and diffraction of laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing processes. Rev Sci Instrum 89:05510110.1063/1.5017236 ↗
26. Brown DW, Losko A, Carpenter JS, Clausen B, Cooley JC, Livescu V, Kenesei P, Park J-S, Stockman TJ, Strantza M (2020) In-Situ high-energy X-ray diffraction during a linear deposition of 308 stainless steel via wire arc additive manufacture. Metall Mater Trans A 51:1379–139410.1007/s11661-019-05605-2 ↗
27. Mercelis P, Kruth J (2006) Residual stresses in selective laser sintering and selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp J 12:254–26510.1108/13552540610707013 ↗
28. Lu Y, Wu S, Gan Y, Huang T, Yang C, Junjie L, Lin J (2015) Study on the microstructure, mechanical property and residual stress of SLM Inconel-718 alloy manufactured by differing island scanning strategy. Optics Laser Technol 75:197–20610.1016/j.optlastec.2015.07.009 ↗
29. Fang ZC, Wu ZL, Huang CG, Wu CW (2020) Review on residual stress in selective laser melting additive manufacturing of alloy parts. Optics Laser Technol 129:10628310.1016/j.optlastec.2020.106283 ↗
30. Parry L, Ashcroft IA, Wildman RD (2016) Understanding the effect of laser scan strategy on residual stress in selective laser melting through thermo-mechanical simulation. Additive Manuf 12:1–1510.1016/j.addma.2016.05.014 ↗
31. Ahmad B, van der Veen SO, Fitzpatrick ME, Guo H (2018) Measurement and modelling of residual stress in wire-feed additively manufactured titanium. Mater Sci Technol 34:2250–225910.1080/02670836.2018.1528747 ↗
32. Wei HL, Mukherjee T, Zhang W, Zuback JS, Knapp GL, De A, DebRoy T (2021) Mechanistic models for additive manufacturing of metallic components. Progress Mater Sci 116:10070310.1016/j.pmatsci.2020.100703 ↗
33. Moshiri C (2019) Carmignato, Mohanty Tosello, benchmarking of laser powder bed Ffusion machines. J Manuf Mater Process 3:85
34. Huang H, Chen J, Carlson B, Wang H-P, Crooker P, Frederick G, Feng Z (2018) Stress and distortion simulation of additive manufacturing process by high performance computing, In: Volume 6A: materials and fabrication. American Society of Mechanical Engineers10.1115/PVP2018-85045 ↗
35. Peter N, Pitts Z, Thompson S, Saharan A (2020) Benchmarking build simulation software for laser powder bed fusion of metals. Additive Manuf 36:10153110.1016/j.addma.2020.101531 ↗
36. Levine L, Stoudt M, Lane B (2018) A preview of the NIST/TMS additive manufacturing benchmark test and conference series. JOM 70:259–26010.1007/s11837-018-2753-z ↗
37. 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(2020):1–1510.1007/s40192-019-00164-1 ↗
38. 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 8:318–33410.1007/s40192-019-00149-0 ↗
39. CHALLENGE RESULTS ANNOUNCED | Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Additive Manufacturing (AM) Modeling Challenge Series (2021) https://materials-data-facility.github.io/MID3AS-AM-Challenge/
40. Cox ME, Schwalbach EJ, Blaiszik B, Groeber MA (2021) AFRL additive manufacturing modeling challenge series: overview. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 10:125–12810.1007/s40192-021-00215-6 ↗
41. Schwalbach EJ, Chapman MG, Groeber MA (2021) AFRL additive manufacturing modeling series: challenge 2. Microscale process-to-structure data description. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 10:319–33710.1007/s40192-021-00220-9 ↗
42. Musinski WD, Blosser PE, Torbet CJ, Schwalbach EJ, Chapman MG, Donegan SP, Pollock TM, Groeber MA AFRL additive manufacturing modeling series: challenge 3, room temperature testing of additively-manufactured inconel 625 under a range of microstructural and specimen configurations, Submitted to Integr Mater Manuf Innov
43. Chapman MG, Shah MN, Donegan SP, Scott JM, Shade PA, Menasche DB, Uchic MD (2021) AFRL additive manufacturing modeling series: challenge 4, 3d reconstruction of an IN625 high-energy diffraction microscopy sample using multi-modal serial sectioning. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 10:129–14110.1007/s40192-021-00212-9 ↗
44. Menasche DB, Musinski WD, Obstalecki M, Shah MN, Donegan SP, Bernier JV, Kenesei P, Park J-S, Shade PA (2021) AFRL additive manufacturing modeling series: challenge 4, in situ mechanical test of an IN625 sample with concurrent high-energy diffraction microscopy characterization. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 10:338–34710.1007/s40192-021-00218-3 ↗
45. CHALLENGE 1: Macro-scale Process-to-Structure Predictions, Problem Statement | Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Additive Manufacturing (AM) Modeling Challenge Series (2021). https://materials-data-facility.github.io/MID3AS-AM-Challenge/Challenge1ProblemStatement_2019Release.pdf
46. ISO/ASTM52921-13 (2019) Standard terminology for additive manufacturing–coordinate systems and test methodologies, vol 10.04, 14 p
47. Park JS, Okasinski J, Chatterjee K, Chen Y, Almer J (2017) Non-destructive characterization of engineering materials using high-energy X-rays at the advanced photon source. Synchrotron Radiat News 30:9–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08940886.2017.131612510.1080/08940886.2017.1316125 ↗
48. Park JS, Chuang CP, Okasinski J 6-bm, an energy dispersive x-ray diffraction beamline at the advanced photon source for engineering applications, in prep (unpublished)
49. APS, 6BM beamline configuration (2020). https://www.aps.anl.gov/Sector-6/6-BM
50. Kaiser DL, Watters JRL (2007) National Institute of standards and technology standard reference material674b X-ray powder diffraction intensity set for quantitative analysis by X-ray powder diffraction. Technical Report, National Institute of Standards and Technology
51. Rowles MR (2011) On the calculation of the gauge volume size for energy-dispersive X-ray diffraction. J Synchrot Radiat 18:938–94110.1107/S0909049511033267 ↗
52. David WIF (1986) Powder diffraction peak shapes. Parameterization of the pseudo-Voigt as a Voigt function. J Appl Crystallogr 19:63–6410.1107/S0021889886089999 ↗
53. Young RA (1995) The Rietveld method IUCr, monographs on crystallography. Oxford Science Publications
54. Ma D, Stoica AD, Wang Z, Beese AM (2017) Crystallographic texture in an additively manufactured nickel-base superalloy. Mater Sci Eng A 684:47–5310.1016/j.msea.2016.12.028 ↗
55. de Jager B, Zhang B, Song X, Papadaki C, Zhang H, Romano Brandt L, Salvati E, Sui T, Korsunsky A (2017) Texture and microstructure analysis of IN718 nickel superalloy samples additively manufactured by selective laser melting, In: Proceedings of the international multiConference of engineers and computer scientists 2017, vol II, pp. 1689–1699
56. Noyan I, Cohen J (2009) Residual stress-measurement by diffraction and interpretation. Spinger, Verlag
57. Schajer GS (2013) Practical residual stress measurement methods. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., NY10.1002/9781118402832 ↗
58. Hauk VM, Vaeseen GJH (1983) Residual stress evaluation with X-rays in steels having preferred orientation. Metall Trans A 15A:1407–1414
59. Daymond MR (2004) The determination of a continuum mechanics equivalent elastic strain from the analysis of multiple diffraction peaks. J Appl Phys 96:4263–427210.1063/1.1794896 ↗
60. Korsunsky AM, Vorster WJJ, Zhang SY, Dini D, Latham D, Golshan M, Liu J, Kyriakoglou Y, Walsh MJ (2006) The principle of strain reconstruction tomography: determination of quench strain distribution from diffraction measurements. Acta Mater 54:2101–210810.1016/j.actamat.2006.01.003 ↗
61. Park JS, Ray AK, Dawson PR, Lienert U, Miller MP (2016) Determination of residual stress in a microtextured $$\alpha $$ titanium component using high-energy synchrotron X-rays. J Strain Anal Eng Des 51:358–37410.1177/0309324716640419 ↗
62. An K, Yuan L, Dial L, Spinelli I, Stoica AD, Gao Y (2017) Neutron residual stress measurement and numerical modeling in a curved thin-walled structure by laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Mater Des 135:122–13210.1016/j.matdes.2017.09.018 ↗
63. Li S, Wei Q, Shi Y, Zhu Z, Zhang D (2015) Microstructure characteristics of inconel 625 superalloy manufactured by selective laser melting. J Mater Sci Technol 31:946–95210.1016/j.jmst.2014.09.020 ↗
64. Kreitcberg A, Brailovski V, Turenne S (2017) Effect of heat treatment and hot isostatic pressing on the microstructure and mechanical properties of Inconel 625 alloy processed by laser powder bed fusion. Mater Sci Eng A 689:1–1010.1016/j.msea.2017.02.038 ↗
65. Rasmussen CE, Williams CK (2006) Gaussian processes for machine learning. MIT Press, Cambridge
66. Matheron G (1960) Krigeage d’un panneau rectangulaire par sa périphérie, note géostatistique. http://cg.ensmp.fr/bibliotheque/public/MATHERON_Rapport_00034.pdf
67. Noack MM, Yager KG, Fukuto M, Doerk GS, Li R, Sethian JA (2019) A Kriging-based approach to autonomous experimentation with applications to X-ray scattering. Sci Rep 9:1180910.1038/s41598-019-48114-3 ↗
68. Carrat F, Valleron A-J (1992) Epidemiologic mapping using the “Kriging” method: application to an Influenza-like epidemic in France. Am J Epidemiol 135:1293–130010.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116236 ↗
69. Martin JD, Simpson TW (2005) Use of Kriging models to approximate deterministic computer models. AIAA J 43:853–86310.2514/1.8650 ↗
70. MATLAB 2017 User’s manual, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA
71. Schiffner K, Droste C (1999) Simulation of residual stresses by shot peening. Comput Struct 72(1–3):329–34010.1016/S0045-7949(99)00012-7 ↗
72. Yang F, Gao Y (2016) Predicting the peen forming effectiveness of Ti-6Al-4V strips with different thicknesses using realistic finite element simulations. J Eng Mater Technol Trans ASME 138(1):01100410.1115/1.4031830 ↗
73. Buchanan DJ, John R (2014) Residual stress redistribution in shot peened samples subject to mechanical loading. Mater Sci Eng A 615:70–7810.1016/j.msea.2014.06.118 ↗