Abstract
The efficacy of an elasto-viscoplastic fast Fourier transform (EVPFFT) code was assessed based on blind predictions of micromechanical fields in a sample of Inconel 625 produced with additive manufacturing (AM) and experimentally characterized with high-energy X-ray diffraction microscopy during an in situ tensile test. The blind predictions were made in the context of Challenge 4 in the AFRL AM Modeling Challenge Series, which required predictions of grain-averaged elastic strain tensors for 28 unique target (Challenge) grains at six target stress states given a 3D microstructural image, initial elastic strains of Challenge grains, and macroscopic stress–strain response. Among all submissions, the EVPFFT-based submission presented in this work achieved the lowest total error in comparison with experimental results and received the award for Top Performer. A post-Challenge investigation by the authors revealed that predictions could be further improved, by over 25% compared to the Challenge-submission model, through several model modifications that required no additional information beyond what was initially provided for the Challenge. These modifications included a material parameter optimization scheme to improve model bias and the incorporation of the initial strain field through both superposition and eigenstrain methods. For the first time with respect to EVPFFT modeling, an ellipsoidal-grain-shape Eshelby approximation was tested and shown to improve predictive capability compared to previously used spherical-grain-shape assumptions. Lessons learned for predicting full-field micromechanical response using the EVPFFT modeling method are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
\(p_{\mathrm {adj}}\) is the p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons.
References
King WE, Anderson AT, Ferencz RM, Hodge NE, Kamath C, Khairallah SA, Rubenchik AM (2015) Laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing of metals; physics, computational, and materials challenges. Appl Phys Rev 2(4):041304
Francois MM, Sun A, King WE, Henson NJ, Tourret D, Bronkhorst CA, Carlson NN, Newman CK, Haut TS, Bakosi J et al Modeling of additive manufacturing processes for metals: challenges and opportunities. Current Opin Solid State Mater Sci 21 (LA-UR-16-24513; SAND-2017-6832J)
Kouraytem N, Li X, Tan W, Kappes B, Spear A Modeling process-structure-property relationships in metal additive manufacturing: a review on physics-driven versus data-driven approaches. J Phys Mater.4:032002
Gatsos T, Elsayed KA, Zhai Y, Lados DA (2020) Review on computational modeling of process-microstructure-property relationships in metal additive manufacturing. JOM 72(1):403–419
Boyce BL, Kramer SL, Fang HE, Cordova TE, Neilsen MK, Dion K, Kaczmarowski AK, Karasz E, Xue L, Gross AJ et al (2014) The sandia fracture challenge: blind round robin predictions of ductile tearing. Int J Fract 186(1–2):5–68
Boyce B, Kramer S, Bosiljevac T, Corona E, Moore J, Elkhodary K, Simha C, Williams B, Cerrone A, Nonn A et al (2016) The second Sandia fracture challenge: predictions of ductile failure under quasi-static and moderate-rate dynamic loading. Int J Fract 198(1):5–100
Kramer SL, Jones A, Mostafa A, Ravaji B, Tancogne-Dejean T, Roth CC, Bandpay MG, Pack K, Foster JT, Behzadinasab M et al (2019) The third Sandia fracture challenge: predictions of ductile fracture in additively manufactured metal. Int J Fract 218(1):5–61
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, (2018) Outcomes and conclusions from the AM-bench measurements, challenge problems, modeling submissions, and conference. Integr Mater Manuf Innov. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00164-1
Suter R, Hennessy D, Xiao C, Lienert U (2006) Forward modeling method for microstructure reconstruction using x-ray diffraction microscopy: single-crystal verification. Rev Sci Instrum 77(12):123905
Bernier JV, Barton NR, Lienert U, Miller MP (2011) Far-field high-energy diffraction microscopy: a tool for intergranular orientation and strain analysis. J Strain Anal Eng Des 46(7):527–547
Lienert U, Li S, Hefferan C, Lind J, Suter R, Bernier J, Barton N, Brandes M, Mills M, Miller M et al (2011) High-energy diffraction microscopy at the advanced photon source. JOM 63(7):70–77
Pokharel R (2018) Overview of high-energy x-ray diffraction microscopy (HEDM) for mesoscale material characterization in three-dimensions, In: Materials Discovery and Design, Springer, pp. 167–201
Kocks UF, Tomé C, Wenk H-R (1998) Texture and anisotropy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Choi YS, Groeber MA, Shade PA, Turner TJ, Schuren JC, Dimiduk DM, Uchic MD, Rollett AD (2014) Crystal plasticity finite element method simulations for a polycrystalline Ni micro-specimen deformed in tension. Metall Mater Trans A 45(13):6352–6359
Pokharel R, Lind J, Kanjarla A, Lebensohn R, Li S, Kenesei P, Suter R, Rollett A (2014) Polycrystal plasticity: comparison between grain scale observations of deformation and simulations. Annu Rev Condens Mat Phys 5:317–346
Shade PA, Blank B, Schuren JC, Turner TJ, Kenesei P, Goetze K, Suter RM, Bernier JV, Li SF, Lind J, Lienert U, Almer J (2015) A rotational and axial motion system load frame insert for in situ high energy x-ray studies. Rev Sci Instrum 86(9):093902. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4927855
Menasche DB, Musinski WD, Obstalecki M, Shah MN, Donegan SP, Bernier JV, Kenesei P, Park J-S, Shade PA AFRL additive manufacturing modeling series: challenge 4, in situ mechanical test of an IN625 sample with concurrent high-energy diffraction microscopy characterization
Chapman MG, Shah MN, Donegan SP, Scott JM, Shade PA, Menasche D, Uchic MD AFRL additive manufacturing modeling series: challenge 4, 3d reconstruction of an IN625 high-energy diffraction microscopy sample using multi-modal serial sectioning
Groeber M, Jackson M (2014) Dream.3d: a digital representation environment for the analysis of microstructure in 3d. Integ Mat Manuf Innov 3:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9772-3-5
Lebensohn RA, Rollett AD (2020) Spectral methods for full-field micromechanical modelling of polycrystalline materials. Comput Mater Sci 173:109336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2019.109336
Pokharel R, Lebensohn RA (2017) Instantiation of crystal plasticity simulations for micromechanical modelling with direct input from microstructural data collected at light sources. Scripta Mater 132:73–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2017.01.025
Lebensohn RA, Kanjarla AK, Eisenlohr P (2012) An elasto-viscoplastic formulation based on fast Fourier transforms for the prediction of micromechanical fields in polycrystalline materials. Int J Plasticity 32–33:59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2011.12.005
Moulinec H, Suquet P (1998) A numerical method for computing the overall response of nonlinear composites with complex microstructure. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 157(1):69–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(97)00218-1
Lebensohn RA (2001) N-site modeling of a 3d viscoplastic polycrystal using fast Fourier transform. Acta Mater 49(14):2723–2737. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6454(01)00172-0
Michel JC, Moulinec H, Suquet P (2000) A computational method based on augmented lagrangians and fast Fourier transforms for composites with high contrast. Comput Model Eng Sci 1(2):79–88. https://doi.org/10.3970/cmes.2000.001.239
Lebensohn RA, Brenner R, Castelnau O, Rollett AD (2008) Orientation image-based micromechanical modelling of subgrain texture evolution in polycrystalline copper. Acta Mater 56(15):3914–3926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2008.04.016
Frigo M, Johnson SG (2005) The design and implementation of FFTW3, Proceedings of the IEEE 93 (2) 216–231, special issue on “Program Generation, Optimization, and Platform Adaptation”
The HDF Group, Hierarchical data format version 5 (2021). http://www.hdfgroup.org/HDF5
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.2016.08.010
Michel JC, Moulinec H, Suquet P (2001) A computational scheme for linear and non-linear composites with arbitrary phase contrast. Int J Numer Meth Eng 52(1–2):139–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.275
Powell MJD (1964) An efficient method for finding the minimum of a function of several variables without calculating derivatives. Comput J 7(2):155–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.2.155
Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, Burovski E, Peterson P, Weckesser W, Bright J, van der Walt SJ, Brett M, Wilson J, Millman KJ, Mayorov N, Nelson ARJ, Jones E, Kern R, Larson E, Carey CJ, Polat İ, Feng Y, Moore EW, VanderPlas J, Laxalde D, Perktold J, Cimrman R, Henriksen I, Quintero EA, Harris CR, Archibald AM, Ribeiro AH, Pedregosa F, van Mulbregt P (2020) SciPy 1.0 contributors, SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python 17:261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
Herrera-Solaz V, LLorca J, Dogan E, Karaman I, Segurado J (2014) An inverse optimization strategy to determine single crystal mechanical behavior from polycrystal tests: Application to AZ31 mg alloy. Int J Plasticity 57:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2014.02.001
Mura T (1987) Micromechanics of defects in solids, 2nd edn. Martinus-Nijhoff, Dordrecht
Hershey A (1954) The elasticity of an isotropic aggregate of anisotropic cubic crystals. J Appl Mech Trans ASME 21(3):236–240
Tari V, Lebensohn RA, Pokharel R, Turner TJ, Shade PA, Bernier JV, Rollett AD (2018) Validation of micro-mechanical fft-based simulations using high energy diffraction microscopy on Ti-7Al. Acta Mater 154:273–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2018.05.036
Eshelby J (1957) The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion, and related problems. Proc R Soc Lond A 241:376–396
Groeber M, Ghosh S, Uchic MD, Dimiduk DM (2008) A framework for automated analysis and simulation of 3d polycrystalline microstructures: part 1: statistical characterization. Acta Mater 56(6):1257–1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2007.11.041
Bernier JV, Suter RM, Rollett AD, Almer J (2020) High energy diffraction microscopy in materials science. Annu Rev Mater Res 50:395–436. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-070616-124125
Tukey JW (1949) Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics 5(2):99–114
Berbenni S, Taupin V, Lebensohn RA (2020) A fast Fourier transform-based mesoscale field dislocation mechanics study of grain size effects and reversible plasticity in polycrystals. J Mech Phys Solids 135:103808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2019.103808
Herriott C, Li X, Kouraytem N, Tari V, Tan W, Anglin B, Rollett AD, Spear AD (2019) A multi-scale, multi-physics modeling framework to predict spatial variation of properties in additive-manufactured metals. Model Simul Mater Sci Eng 27(2):025009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-651x/aaf753
Acknowledgements
CKC acknowledges support provided by the US Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy’s Nuclear Energy University Program (NEUP) under Grant No. DE-NE0008799. ADS and ADR acknowledge support provided by the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment under award no. ST1605-19-03. RAL acknowledges support from DOE-DOD Joint Munitions Program. The support and resources from the Center for High Performance Computing at the University of Utah are gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all 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.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary material 2 (mp4 18537 KB)
Appendices
Appendix
Appendix A. Global and Local Model Convergence Study
During the post-Challenge analysis, a convergence study was completed to determine the optimal image resolution (voxel size) with respect to global and local error. The global error was calculated using the mean squared error (MSE) method given in Eq. (16), and the local error was calculated using the Challenge grading metric described in Eq. (1). The model inputs from Sect. 3.3.3 were used for the convergence study, aside from microstructure image resolution changes. For the purposes of the convergence study, a beta version of MASSIF with concatenated loading processes implemented was used. Utilizing MASSIF thus allowed for more data points (i.e., geometries that do not satisfy the \(2^n\) requirement) to be included in the convergence study than if the serial EVPFFT code were used. The local and global errors were calculated for seven different resolutions of the cuboidal voxel microstructure discussed in Sect. 3.3.2. The local and global error was additionally calculated for the original microstructure resolution provided for the Challenge (roughly 33 million voxels), i.e., a microstructure with no geometry modifications. Figure 12 shows the global and local error data for these eight microstructure resolutions.
From Fig. 12, the global error reached convergence before the local error. The global error reached convergence at about 1 million voxels or an average of about three voxels per grain (not shown in the plot), while the local error reached convergence at about 2.1 million voxels or an average of about 200 voxels per Challenge grain. Based on these results, the microstructure resolution used in all models presented herein did not have any significant effect on the model predictions.
Appendix B. Eigenstrain Calculations for Ellipsoidal Grains
The following calculations show the process of calculating the constant eigenstrain tensor using the dimensions of the best-fit ellipsoid of an individual grain. These calculations are implemented in DREAM.3D as the “Compute Eigenstrains by Feature (Grain/Inclusion)” filter as of version 6.5.151. The DREAM.3D filter does not have an option to subtract the mean initial elastic strain tensor as in Eq. (18), so that must be performed manually if desired. The first calculation is to change the basis of the elastic strain tensor into the best-fit ellipsoid (local) reference frame, i.e.,
where \(\varepsilon ^{\mathrm {e}'}_{kl}\) is the elastic strain tensor in the local reference frame and \(Q_{ki}\) is the orientation matrix corresponding to the orientation of the best-fit ellipsoid reference frame. The prime (\(^\prime \)) superscript indicates a tensor in the local reference frame and the absence of such indicates a tensor in the global reference frame. Next, the fourth-rank Eshelby tensor is calculated via Eshelby’s solution [37] for isotropic ellipsoidal inclusions using Eqns. 11.16–11.19 given by Mura [34], where Eshelby’s tensor, \(S_{ijkl}\), is a function of the ellipsoid semi-axis lengths, \(a\ge b\ge c\), and Poisson’s ratio, \(\nu \). Edge cases where the grain shape is a sphere or spheroid are handled using Eqns. 11.21, 11.28, and 11.29 given by Mura [34]. Within Eshelby’s solution, there are two elliptic integrals that are numerically integrated using 32-point Gaussian quadrature (arbitrarily chosen as execution time is negligible). Once Eshelby’s tensor is calculated, the uniform eigenstrain tensor is calculated in the local reference frame as follows:
where \(\varepsilon ^{*'}_{ij}\) is the eigenstrain tensor in the local reference frame. This fourth-rank tensor inversion is performed on a flattened 9 × 9 matrix and then rebuilt into a fourth-rank tensor. The final calculation is to transform the eigenstrain tensor back into the global reference frame to complete the eigenstrain calculations as follows:
where \(\varepsilon ^{*}_{kl}\) is the final eigenstrain tensor. The correctional matrix can then be applied through Eq. 20, if desired. These calculations are then repeated for every grain in the microstructure, which is 29,663 grains in the case of the Challenge microstructure.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cocke, C.K., Rollett, A.D., Lebensohn, R.A. et al. The AFRL Additive Manufacturing Modeling Challenge: Predicting Micromechanical Fields in AM IN625 Using an FFT-Based Method with Direct Input from a 3D Microstructural Image. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 10, 157–176 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-021-00211-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-021-00211-w