Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the development of a novel benchmark design for crack quantification in additive manufacturing

  • Full Research Article
  • Published:
Progress in Additive Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Solidification cracking (SC) is a defect that has been extensively studied in welding and casting and, consequently, standardized testing methods to quantify cracking have been developed for these processes. However, additive manufacturing (AM) processes currently lack any such test. The objective of the current study is to outline the development of a first-of-its-kind solidification cracking test for AM in the form of a benchmark specimen which aims to standardize quantification of solidification cracking in AM. This test serves as a novel method of crack quantification that specifically addresses the unique process characteristics of AM, such as scan strategy, geometric limitations, and layer reheating, as opposed to adopting tests designed for traditional manufacturing processes. The benchmark design utilized self-restraint to induce cracking at pre-defined locations, and was printed from Inconel 625 and 718 using laser directed energy deposition. Crack severity was quantified by optical microscopy, and it was found that the ratio of the linear crack length to the total crack length was consistently between 0.8 and 0.9. Further characterization revealed that the cracks propagated transgranularly along the melt pool boundaries. The commercially available finite-element software package Simufact Welding was used to simulate printing of the benchmark specimen using the directed energy deposition module and confirmed high levels of stress at the crack initiation locations. Based on the characterization and simulation results, it was determined that the cause of the observed cracks was likely due to ductile fracture rather than solidification cracks. Nevertheless, the benchmark was able to show a difference in the level of cracking between alloys and the ability to initiate cracks at pre-defined locations using geometrically induced restraint. Thus, it was concluded that while the existing benchmark design demonstrated progress towards a standardized test, further refinement to the design in order to improve reliability of SC formation is required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eskin DG, Katgerman L (2004) Mechanical properties in the semi-solid state and hot tearing of aluminium alloys. Prog Mater Sci 49:629–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6425(03)00037-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kou S (2015) A simple index for predicting the susceptibility to solidification cracking. Weld J 94:374–388

    Google Scholar 

  3. Benoit MJ, Mazur M, Easton MA, Brandt M (2021) Effect of alloy composition and laser powder bed fusion parameters on the defect formation and mechanical properties of Inconel 625. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 114:915–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-06957-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lundin C, Savage W (1965) The varestraint test. Weld J Res Suppl 44:433-s–442-s

    Google Scholar 

  5. International Organization for Standardization (2005) ISO/TR 17641-3:2005 destructive tests on welds in metallic materials—hot cracking tests for weldments—arc welding processes—part 3: externally loaded tests

  6. 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.2005.10.050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kannengiesser T, Boellinghaus T (2014) Hot cracking tests—an overview of present technologies and applications. Weld World 58:397–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-014-0126-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. AMB2018–01 Description, NIST (2018). https://www.nist.gov/ambench/amb2018-01-description. Accessed 19 May 2023

  10. Yang Y, Allen M, London T, Oancea V (2019) Residual strain predictions for a powder bed fusion inconel 625 single cantilever part. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 8:294–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00144-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Houldcroft PT (1955) A simple cracking test for use with argon-arc welding. Br Weld J 2:471–475

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mazur M, Benoit M, Easton M, Brandt M (2020) Selective laser melting of Inconel 625 alloy with reduced defect formation. J Laser Appl 32:022058. https://doi.org/10.2351/7.0000093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Xia C, Kou S (2020) Evaluating susceptibility of Ni-base alloys to solidification cracking by transverse-motion weldability test. Sci Technol Weld Join 25:690–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621718.2020.1802897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rappaz M, Drezet J-M, Grasso P, Jacot A, Stefanescu D (2003) Hot tearing and coalescence: two deeply-connected phenomena. Model Cast Weld Adv Solidif Process 53–60

  15. Carter LN, Attallah MM, Reed RC (2012) Laser powder bed fabrication of nickel-base superalloys: influence of parameters; characterisation, quantification and mitigation of cracking. Superalloys 2012(6):2826–2834

    Google Scholar 

  16. Liu F, Lin X, Huang C, Song M, Yang G, Chen J, Huang W (2011) The effect of laser scanning path on microstructures and mechanical properties of laser solid formed nickel-base superalloy Inconel 718. J Alloys Compd 509:4505–4509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.11.176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu Q, Fang L, Xiong Z, Yang J, Tan Y, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Tan Q, Hao C, Cao L, Li J, Gao Z (2021) The response of dislocations, low angle grain boundaries and high angle grain boundaries at high strain rates. Mater Sci Eng A 822:141704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2021.141704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Katgerman L, Eskin DG (2008) In search of the prediction of hot cracking in aluminium alloys. In: Bollinghaus T, Herold H, Cross CE, Lippold JC (eds) Hot cracking phenomena in welds II. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rombouts M, Maes G, Mertens M, Hendrix W (2012) Laser metal deposition of Inconel 625: microstructure and mechanical properties. J Laser Appl 24:052007. https://doi.org/10.2351/1.4757717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dubiel B, Sieniawski J (2019) Precipitates in additively manufactured Inconel 625 superalloy. Materials 12:1144. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12071144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Luskin TC (2013) Investigation of weldability in high-Cr Ni-base filler metals, Ph.D. Thesis. The Ohio State University

  22. Cieslak M (1991) The welding and solidification metallurgy of alloy 625. Weld J Res Suppl 2:49–56

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kou S (2015) A criterion for cracking during solidification. Acta Mater 88:366–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2015.01.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kou S (2003) Solidification and liquation cracking issues in welding. Jom 55:37–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang J, Li F, Wang Z, Zeng X (2015) Cracking behavior and control of Rene 104 superalloy produced by direct laser fabrication. J Mater Process Technol 225:229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhou Z, Huang L, Shang Y, Li Y, Jiang L, Lei Q (2018) Causes analysis on cracks in nickel-based single crystal superalloy fabricated by laser powder deposition additive manufacturing. Mater Des 160:1238–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.10.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen Y, Lu F, Zhang K, Nie P, Elmi Hosseini SR, Feng K, Li Z (2016) Dendritic microstructure and hot cracking of laser additive manufactured Inconel 718 under improved base cooling. J Alloys Compd 670:312–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.01.250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Han Q, Mertens R, Montero-Sistiaga ML, Yang S, Setchi R, Vanmeensel K, Van Hooreweder B, Evans SL, Fan H (2018) Laser powder bed fusion of Hastelloy X: effects of hot isostatic pressing and the hot cracking mechanism. Mater Sci Eng A 732:228–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2018.07.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mouritz AP (2012) Fracture processes of aerospace materials. Introd Aerosp Mater 428:453. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857095152.428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Young GA, Capobianco TE, Penik MA, Morris BW, McGee JJ (2008) The Mechanism of Ductility Dip Cracking in Nickel-Chromium Alloys. Weld J N Y 87(2):31

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pereira FG, Lourenço JM, Nascimento RM, Castro NA (2018) Fracture behavior and fatigue performance of Inconel 625. Mater Res 25(21):e20171089. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5373-mr-2017-1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Luther SJ, Alexandrov BT, McCracken SL, Tatman JK (2022) Correlation of imposed mechanical energy with ductility-dip cracking in a highly restrained weld of Alloy 52. J Manuf Process 79:767–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.05.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Suyitno KWH, Katgerman L (2009) Integrated approach for prediction of hot tearing. Metall Mater Trans A 40:2388–2400

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial assistance of NSERC Discovery Grant program (RGPIN-2021-02892) and UBC Okanagan Aspire fund (AWD-016845). The authors of this paper would also like to acknowledge the support of the following individuals and organisations: Dr. Sudip Shrestha and the FiLTER laboratory for assistance with SEM, EDS, and EBSD imaging, Ms. Emma Pugsley of Liburdi Automation Inc. for assistance in design optimisation and fabrication, and Dr. Matthew Brown of UBCO for performing XRD procedures and assisting with analysis.

Funding

NSERC Discovery Grant, RGPIN-2021-02892, Michael J. Benoit, UBC Okanagan Aspire fund, AWD-016845, Michael J. Benoit.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada

    Andrew Wall & Michael J. Benoit

  2. Hexagon Manufacturing Intelligence, Doncaster, VIC, 3108, Australia

    Tony Dong

Authors
  1. Andrew Wall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tony Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J. Benoit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Benoit.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wall, A., Dong, T. & Benoit, M.J. On the development of a novel benchmark design for crack quantification in additive manufacturing. Prog Addit Manuf (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-024-00596-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-024-00596-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation