AM Bench 2022 Macroscale Tensile Challenge at Different Orientations (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MaTTO) and Summary of Predictions
-
Published:2024-01-16
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:2193-9764
-
Container-title:Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Integr Mater Manuf Innov
Author:
Moser NewellORCID, Benzing JakeORCID, Kafka Orion L.ORCID, Weaver JordanORCID, Derimow NicholasORCID, Rentz RossORCID, Hrabe NikolasORCID
Abstract
AbstractThe additive manufacturing benchmarking challenge described in this work was aimed at the prediction of average stress–strain properties for tensile specimens that were excised from blocks of non-heat-treated IN625 manufactured by laser powder bed fusion. Two different laser scan strategies were considered: an X-only raster and an XY raster, which involved a 90$$^\circ $$
∘
rotation in the scan direction between subsequent layers. To measure anisotropy, multiple tensile orientations with respect to the build direction were investigated (e.g., parallel, perpendicular, and intervals in between). Benchmark participants were provided grain structure information via electron backscatter diffraction measurements, as well as the stress–strain response for tensile specimens manufactured parallel to the build direction and produced by the XY scan strategy. Then, participants were asked to predict tensile properties, like the ultimate tensile strength, for the remaining specimens and orientations. Interestingly, the measured mechanical properties did not vary linearly as a function of tensile orientation. Moreover, specimens manufactured with the XY scan strategy exhibited greater yield strength than those corresponding to the X-only scan strategy, regardless of orientation. The benchmark data have been made publicly available for anyone that is interested [1]. For the modeling aspect of the challenge, five teams participated in this benchmark. While most of the models incorporated a crystal plasticity framework, one team chose to use a more semiempirical approach and to great success. However, no team excelled at all the predictions, and all teams were seemingly challenged with the predictions associated with the X-only scan strategy.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,General Materials Science
Reference19 articles.
1. 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/mds2-2588 2. Boyce BL, Kramer SLB, Fang HE, Cordova TE, Neilsen MK, Dion K, Kaczmarowski AK, Karasz E, Xue L, Gross AJ, Ghahremaninezhad A, Ravi-Chandar K, Lin S-P, Chi S-W, Chen JS, Yreux E, Rüter M, Qian D, Zhou Z, Bhamare S, O’Connor DT, Tang S, Elkhodary KI, Zhao J, Hochhalter JD, Cerrone AR, Ingraffea AR, Wawrzynek PA, Carter BJ, Emery JM, Veilleux MG, Yang P, Gan Y, Zhang X, Chen Z, Madenci E, Kilic B, Zhang T, Fang E, Liu P, Lua J, Nahshon K, Miraglia M, Cruce J, DeFrese R, Moyer ET, Brinckmann S, Quinkert L, Pack K, Luo M, Wierzbicki T (2014) The Sandia fracture challenge: blind round robin predictions of ductile tearing. Int J Fract. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-013-9904-6 3. Kramer SLB, Jones A, Mostafa A, Ravaji B, Tancogne-Dejean T, Roth CC, Bandpay MG, Pack K, Foster JT, Behzadinasab M, Sobotka JC, McFarland JM, Stein J, Spear AD, Newell P, Czabaj MW, Williams B, Simha H, 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-019-00361-1 4. Cox ME, Schwalbach EJ, Blaiszik BJ, Groeber MA (2021) AFRL additive manufacturing modeling challenge series: overview. Integr Mater Manuf Innov. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-021-00215-6 5. 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/s40192-019-00164-1
|
|