Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluation of Orientation Dependence of Fracture Toughness and Fatigue Crack Propagation Behavior of As-Deposited ARCAM EBM Ti-6Al-4V

  • Published:
JOM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 10 January 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

This preliminary work documents the effects of test orientation with respect to build and beam raster directions on the fracture toughness and fatigue crack growth behavior of as-deposited EBM Ti-6Al-4V. Although ASTM/ISO standards exist for determining the orientation dependence of various mechanical properties in both cast and wrought materials, these standards are evolving for materials produced via additive manufacturing (AM) techniques. The current work was conducted as part of a larger America Makes funded project to begin to examine the effects of process variables on the microstructure and fracture and fatigue behavior of AM Ti-6Al-4V. In the fatigue crack growth tests, the fatigue threshold, Paris law slope, and overload toughness were determined at different load ratios, R, whereas fatigue precracked samples were tested to determine the fracture toughness. The as-deposited material exhibited a fine-scale basket-weave microstructure throughout the build, and although fracture surface examination revealed the presence of unmelted powders, disbonded regions, and isolated porosity, the resulting mechanical properties were in the range of those reported for cast and wrought Ti-6Al-4V. Remote access and control of testing was also developed at Case Western Reserve University to improve efficiency of fatigue crack growth testing.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 10 January 2018

    There was a typographical error in Fig. 2b in the original publication of this article. It has been corrected in the image below.

References

  1. ASTM F2792, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2012).

  2. X. Gong, T. Anderson, and K. Chou, Manuf. Rev. 1, 2 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  3. W.E. Frazier, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 23, 1917 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. M. Little, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 154, 192 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  5. B. Vayre, F. Vignat, and F. Villeneuve, Mech. Ind. 13, 89 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. L.E. Murr, E. Martinez, K.N. Amato, S.M. Gaytan, J. Hernandez, D.A. Ramirez, P.W. Shindo, F. Medina, and R.B. Wicker, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 1, 42 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. K.U. Leuven, CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 47, 525 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  8. L.E. Murr, S.M. Gaytan, D.A. Ramirez, E. Martinez, J. Hernandez, K.N. Amato, P.W. Shindo, F.R. Medina, and R.B. Wicker, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 28, 1 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Y. Zhai, D.A. Lados, and J.L. LaGoy, JOM 66, 808 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. ASTM F3122, Standard Guide for Evaluating Mechanical Properties of Metal Materials Made Via Additive Manufacturing Processes (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2014).

  11. ISO/ASTM 52921, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing—Coordinate Systems and Test Methodologies (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2013).

  12. L. Facchini, E. Magalini, P. Robotti, and A. Molinari, Rapid Prototyp. J. 15, 171 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. J. Parthasarathy, B. Starly, S. Raman, and A. Christensen, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 3, 249 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. P.C. Collins, C.V. Haden, I. Ghamarian, B.J. Hayes, T. Ales, G. Penso, V. Dixit, and G. Harlow, JOM 66, 1299 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. J. Yu, M. Rombouts, G. Maes, and F. Motmans, Phys. Proced. 39, 416 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. S. Leuders, M. Thöne, A. Riemer, T. Niendorf, T. Tröster, H.A. Richard, and H.J. Maier, Int. J. Fatigue 48, 300 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. ASTM F2924, Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing Titanium-6 Aluminum-4 Vanadium with Powder Bed Fusion (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2014).

  18. ASTM F3001, Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing Titanium-6 Aluminum-4 Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) with Powder Bed Fusion (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2014).

  19. C. Qiu, N.J.E. Adkins, and M.M. Attallah, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 578, 230 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. W. Shifeng, L. Shuai, W. Qingsong, C. Yan, Z. Sheng, and S. Yusheng, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 214, 2660 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. M. Simonelli, Y.Y. Tse, and C. Tuck, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 616, 1 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. L. Ladani, J. Razmi, and S. Farhan, Choudhury. J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 136, 031006 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. K. Rafi, N. Karthik, T.L. Starr, B.E. Stucker, Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings (Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 2012), pp. 526–535.

  24. U. Ackelid, M. Svensson, Materials Science & Technology 2009 (MS&T’09) Proceedings: Powder Metallurgy Processing and Products, pp. 2711–2719.

  25. P.A. Kobryn and S.L. Semiatin (Paper presented at the Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings, 2001), pp. 179–186.

  26. ASTM E399, Standard Test Method for Linear-Elastic Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness KIc of Metallic Materials (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2012).

  27. ISO 12135, Metallic materials—Unified method of test for the determination of quasistatic fracture toughness, (Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2002).

  28. ASTM E407, Standard Practice for Microetching Metals and Alloys (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2007).

  29. ASTM E647, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2013).

  30. L.E. Murr, E.V. Esquivel, S.A. Quinones, S.M. Gaytan, M.I. Lopez, E.Y.Y. Martinez, F. Medina, D.H. Hernandez, J.L. Martinez, S.W. Stafford, D.K. Brown, T. Hoppe, W. Meyers, U. Lindhe, and R.B. Wicker, Mater. Charact. 60, 96 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. B.L. Boyce and R.O. Ritchie, Eng. Fract. Mech. 68, 129 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. M.S. Dahar, S.M. Seifi, B.P. Bewlay, and J.J. Lewandowski, Intermetallics 57, 73 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. J. Ding, R. Hall, and J. Byrne, Int. J. Fatigue 27, 1551 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. AMS 4962, Titanium Alloy, Investment Castings 6Al 4V Hot Isostatically Pressed (Warrendale, PA: SAE International, 2013).

  35. D. Eylon, W.J. Barice, and F.H. Froes, Proceedings of 17th National SAMPE Technology Conference (Covina, CA: SAMPE, 1985), pp. 585–595.

  36. P. Kobryn and S. Semiatin, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 135, 330 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. S.S. Al-Bermani, M.L. Blackmore, W. Zhang, and I. Todd, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 41, 3422 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. N. Ikeo, T. Ishimoto, A. Serizawa, and T. Nakano, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 45, 4293 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. L.E. Murr, S.A. Quinones, S.M. Gaytan, M.I. Lopez, A. Rodela, E.Y. Martinez, D.H. Hernandez, E. Martinez, F. Medina, and R.B. Wicker, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2, 20 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. L.E. Murr, S.M. Gaytan, F. Medina, E. Martinez, J.L. Martinez, D.H. Hernandez, B.I. Machado, D.A. Ramirez, and R.B. Wicker, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527, 1861 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. G. Mur, D. Rodriguez, and J.A. Planell, J. Alloys Compd. 234, 287 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. S.M. Seifi, M.S. Dahar, J.J. Lewandowski, unpublished results (2014).

  43. L.E. Murr, S.M. Gaytan, and E. Paso, Comprehensive Materials Processing, Vol. 10 (New York: Elsevier, 2014), pp. 135–161.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by America Makes, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute, under Project No. 4009: “Rapid Qualification Methods for Powder Bed Direct Metal Additive Manufacturing Processes” through Contract No. FA8650-12-2-7230 and it is highly appreciated. Additional support was provided by an ASTM Scholarship (M. Seifi) and the Armington Professorship (J. Lewandowski). Various discussions with academic team members as well as industrial partners and government laboratories during monthly webinars are appreciated. These include four other university partners (NCSU, CMU, U of L, and WSU), five industrial partners (Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, GE, Kennametal and Bayer) and two government laboratories (ORNL and NIST). Various discussions with ASTM F42/E08 committee members are also appreciated, as is access to equipment in the Advanced Manufacturing and Mechanical Reliability Center (AMMRC) at CWRU.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohsen Seifi.

Additional information

A correction to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-018-2736-0.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seifi, M., Dahar, M., Aman, R. et al. Evaluation of Orientation Dependence of Fracture Toughness and Fatigue Crack Propagation Behavior of As-Deposited ARCAM EBM Ti-6Al-4V. JOM 67, 597–607 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-015-1298-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-015-1298-7

Navigation