In situ fatigue monitoring investigation of additively manufactured maraging steel

Abstract

This work describes an experimental validation set for assessing the real-time fatigue behavior of metallic additive manufacturing (AM) maraging steel structures. Maraging steel AM beams were fabricated with laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) and characterized with ex situ studies of porosity through X-ray computed tomography (CT), nano-indentation, and atomic force microscopy, as well as quasi-static testing to evaluate the as-printed state. Microscale evaluation showed void content of 0.34–0.36% with hardness and stiffness variation through the build direction on the order of 5.1–5.6 GPa and 139–154 GPa, respectively. The microscale inhomogeneities created an as-printed state where the compression and tension plasticity behavior at the macroscale was unequal in quasi-static loading, leading to greater yielding in tension. Specimens were subjected to cyclic loads, while the structural behavior was characterized through in situ magnetic permeability, digital image correlation (DIC) strain, and structural compliance measurements. In the range of 3 × 103 to 3 × 104 cycles to failure, magnetic permeability measurements were able to capture the mechanical state as early as 60% of life depending on failure location. Results are discussed with an emphasis on material-property-structure relationships in terms of the multi-scale material state and fatigue validation data for improving the durability of AM parts.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Certain commercial equipment and/or materials are identified in this report in order to adequately specify the experimental procedure. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or the Army Research Laboratory, nor does it imply that the equipment and/or materials used are necessarily the best available for the purpose

References

  1. 1.

    Yadollahi A, Shamsaei N (2017) Additive manufacturing of fatigue resistant materials: challenges and opportunities. Int J Fatigue 98:14–31

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Beretta S, Romano S (2017) A comparison of fatigue strength sensitivity to defects for materials manufactured by AM or traditional processes. Int J Fatigue 94:178–191

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Flodberg G, Pettersson H, Yang L (2018) Pore analysis and mechanical performance of selective laser sintered objects. Additive Manufacturing 24:307–315

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Gatto A, Bassoli E, Denti L (2018) Repercussions of power contamination on the fatigue life of additive manufactured maraging steel. Additive Manufacturing 24:13–19

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Shamsaei N, Yadollahi A, Bian L, Thompson SN (2015) An overview of direct laser deposition for additive manufacturing; part II: mechanical behavior, process parameter optimization and control. Additive Manufacturing 8:12–35

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Konecna R, Kunz L, Nicoletto G, Baca A (2016) Long fatigue crack growth in Inconel 718 produced by selective laser melting. Int J Fatigue 92:499–506

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hedayati R, Hosseini-Toudeshky H, Sadighi M, Mohammadi-Aghdam M, Zadpoor AA (2016) Computational prediction of the fatigue behavior of additively manufactured porous metallic biomaterials. Int J Fatigue 84:67–79

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Walker KF, Liu Q, Brandt M (2017) Evaluation of fatigue crack propagation behavior in Ti-6Al-4V manufactured by selective laser melting. Int J Fatigue 104:302–308

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hedayati R, Hosseini-Toudeshky H, Sadighi M, Mohammadi-Aghdam, Zadpoor AA (2018) Multiscale modeling of fatigue crack propagation in additively manufactured porous biomaterials. Int J Fatigue 113:416–427

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bassoli E, Denti L, Comin A, Sola A, Tognoli E (2018) Fatigue behavior of as-built L-PBF A357.0 parts. Metals 8:634–647

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sarkar S, Kumar CS, Nath AK (2019) Investigation on the mode of failures and fatigue life of laser-based powder bed fusion produced stainless steel parts under variable amplitude loading conditions. Additive Manufacturing 25:71–83

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kirka MM, Greeley DA, Hawkins C, Dehoff RR (2017) Effect of anisotropy and texture on the low cycle fatigue behavior of Inconel 718 processed via electron beam melting. Int J Fatigue 105:235–243

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Spierings AB, Starr TL, Wegener K (2013) Fatigue performance of additive manufactured metallic parts. Rapid Prototyp J 19:88–94

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lindberg A, Alfthan J, Pettersson H, Flodberg G, Yang L (2018) Mechanical performance of polymer powder bed fused objects-FEM simulation and verification. Additive Manufacturing 24:577–586

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gomez-Gras G, Jerez-Mesa R, Travieso-Rodriguez JA, Lluma-Fuentes J (2018) Fatigue performance of fused filament fabrication PLA specimens. Mater Des 140:278–285

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Puigoriol-Forcada JM, Alsina A, Salazar-Martin AG, Gomez-Gras G, Perez MA (2018) Flexural fatigue properties of polycarbonate fused-deposition modelling specimens. Mater Des 155:414–421

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Van Hooreweder B, Moens D, Boonen R, Kruth JP, Sas P (2013) On the difference in material structure and fatigue properties of nylon specimens produced by injection molding and selective laser sintering. Polym Test 32:972–981

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Van Hooreweder B, De Coninck F, Moens D, Boonen R, Sas P (2010) Microstructural characterization of SLS-PA12 specimens under dynamic tension/compression excitation. Polym Test 29:319–326

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Amel H, Moztarzadeh H, Rongong J, Hopkinson N (2014) Investigating the behavior of laser-sintered nylon 12 parts subject to dynamic loading. J Mater Res 29(3):319–326

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Amel H, Rongong J, Moztarzadeh H, Hopkinson N (2016) Effect of section thickness on fatigue performance of laser sintered nylon 12. Polym Test 53:204–210

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Croccolo D, De Agostinis M, Fini S, Olmi G, Robusto F, Kostic SC, Vranic A, Bogojevic N (2018) Fatigue response of as-built DMLS maraging steel and effects of aging, machining, and peening treatments. Metals 8:505–526

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Suryawanshi J, Prashanth KG, Ramamurty U (2017) Tensile, fracture, and fatigue crack growth properties of a 3D printed maraging steel through selective laser melting. J Alloys Compd 725:355–364

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Vandresse N, Ky I, Gonzalez FQ, Nuno N, Bocher P (2016) Image analysis characterization of periodic porous materials produced by additive manufacturing. Mater Des 92:767–778

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Vandresse N, Richter A, Nuno N, Bocher P (2018) Measurement of deformation heterogeneities in additive manufactured lattice materials by digital image correlation: strain maps analysis and reliability assessment. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 86:397–408

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Takezawa A, Koizumi Y, Kobashi M (2017) High-stiffness and strength porous maraging steel via topology optimization and selective laser melting. Additive Manufacturing 18:194–202

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Mezzadri F, Bouriakov V, Qian X (2018) Topology optimization of self-supporting support structures for additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing 21:666–682

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Al-Ketan O, Rowshan R, Abu Al-Rub RK (2018) Topology-mechanical property relationship of 3D printed strut, skeletal, and sheet based periodic metallic cellular materials. Additive Manufacturing 19:167–183

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Henry TC, Johnson TE, Haynes RA, Tran A (2021) Fatigue performance of polyamide 12 additively manufactured structures design with topology optimization. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 49(3). https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20180793

  29. 29.

    Cole DP, Henry TC, Gardea F, Haynes RA (2017) Interphase mechanical behavior of carbon fiber reinforced polymer exposed to cyclic loading. Compos Sci Technol 151:202–210

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Cole DP, Riddick JC, Jaim HMI, Strawhecker KE, Zander NE (2016) Interfacial mechanical behavior of 3D printed ABS. Appl Polym Sci 133(30):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Sangid MD (2013) The physics of fatigue crack initiation. Int J Fatigue 57:58–72

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Shih CC, Ho NJ, Huang HL (2010) The effects of grain boundary on dislocation development for cyclically deformed IF steel. Mater Sci Eng A 527:7247–7251

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Basinksi ZS, Basinski SJ (1992) Fundamental aspects of low-amplitude cyclic deformation in face-centered cubic crystals. Prog Mater Sci 36:89–148

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Habtour EM, Cole DP, Kube CM, Henry TC, Haynes RA, Gardea F, Sano T, Tinga T (2019) Structural state awareness through integration of global dynamic and local material behavior. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 30(9):1355–1365

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Habtour E, Cole DP, Stanton SC, Sridharan R, Dasgupta A (2016) Damage precursor detection for structures subjected to rotational base vibration. Intl J Nonlinear Mech 82:49–58

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Habtour E, Sridharan R, Dasgupta A, Robeson M, Vantadori S (2018) Phase influence of combined rotational and transverse vibrations on the structural response. Mech Syst Signal Process 100:371–383

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Kube C, Turner J (2015) Acoustic non-linearity parameters for transversely isotropic polycrystalline materials. J Acous Soc Am 137:3272–3280

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Na JK, Oneida EK (2018) Nondestructive evaluation method for standardization of fused filament fabrication based additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing 24:154–165

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ziemian CW, Ziemian RD, Haile KV (2016) Characterization of stiffness degradation caused by fatigue damage of additive manufactured parts. Mater Des 109:209–218

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Shi SB, Gu LX, Liang J, Fang BD, Gong CL, Dai CX (2016) A mesomechanical model for predicting the degradation in stiffness of FRP composites subjected to combined thermal and mechanical loading. Mater Des 89:1079–1085

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ghanei S, Kashefi M, Mazinani M (2013) Eddy current nondestructive evaluation of dual phase steel. Mater Des 50:491–496

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Cherry MR, Sathish S, Mooers RD, Pilchak AL, Grandhi R (2017) Modeling of the change of impedance of an eddy current probe due to small changes in host conductivity. IEEE Trans Magn 53(5):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Garcia-Martin J, Gomez-Gil J, Vazquez-Sanchez E (2011) Non-destructive techniques based on eddy current testing. Sensors 11(3):2525–2565

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Tang M, Pistorious PC, Beuth JL (2017) Prediction of lack-of-fusion porosity for powder bed fusion. Additive Manufacturing 14:39–48

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Oliver WC, Pharr GM (1992) An improved technique for determining hardness and elastic modulus using load displacement sensing indentation experiments. J Mater Res 7(6):1564–1583

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Lee YH, Kwon D (2003) Measurement of residual stress effect by nanoindentation on elastically strained (100) W. Scr Mater 49(5):459–465

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the manufacturing of experimental specimens tested in this work by Mr. Bradley Ruprecht, Mr. Rashad Scott, and Mr. Jack Spangler of the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC). Mr. Scott Grendahl also assisted in the wire EDM of cylinder samples for X-ray CT. The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot be shared publically at this time as the data also forms part of an ongoing study but can be shared at request.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. C. Henry.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henry, T.C., Phillips, F.R., Cole, D.P. et al. In situ fatigue monitoring investigation of additively manufactured maraging steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 107, 3499–3510 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05255-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Additive manufacturing
  • AM
  • Digital image correlation
  • DIC
  • Nano-indentation
  • X-ray computed tomography
  • Fatigue