Newell Moser, Jake Benzing, Orion L. Kafka, Jordan Weaver, Nicholas Derimow, Ross Rentz, Nikolas Hrabe
{"title":"AM 工作台 2022 不同方向的宏观尺度拉伸挑战(CHAL-AMB2022-04-MaTTO)和预测摘要","authors":"Newell Moser, Jake Benzing, Orion L. Kafka, Jordan Weaver, Nicholas Derimow, Ross Rentz, Nikolas Hrabe","doi":"10.1007/s40192-023-00333-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The 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<span>\\(^\\circ \\)</span> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":13604,"journal":{"name":"Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AM Bench 2022 Macroscale Tensile Challenge at Different Orientations (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MaTTO) and Summary of Predictions\",\"authors\":\"Newell Moser, Jake Benzing, Orion L. Kafka, Jordan Weaver, Nicholas Derimow, Ross Rentz, Nikolas Hrabe\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40192-023-00333-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The 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<span>\\\\(^\\\\circ \\\\)</span> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"88\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-023-00333-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-023-00333-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这项工作中描述的增材制造基准挑战旨在预测拉伸试样的平均应力应变特性,这些试样是从通过激光粉末床熔融技术制造的未经热处理的 IN625 块上切除的。我们考虑了两种不同的激光扫描策略:仅 X 光栅和 XY 光栅,其中 XY 光栅涉及在后续层之间的扫描方向上旋转 90(^\circ \)次。为了测量各向异性,研究了相对于构建方向的多个拉伸方向(例如平行、垂直以及两者之间的间隔)。基准参与者可通过电子反向散射衍射测量获得晶粒结构信息,以及平行于构建方向并通过 XY 扫描策略制作的拉伸试样的应力-应变响应。然后,要求参与者预测其余试样和方向的拉伸性能,如极限拉伸强度。有趣的是,测得的机械性能并不随拉伸方向的变化而线性变化。此外,无论取向如何,使用 XY 扫描策略制造的试样都比仅使用 X 扫描策略制造的试样具有更高的屈服强度。基准数据已经公开,有兴趣的人可以查阅[1]。在挑战赛的建模方面,有五个团队参加了此次基准测试。虽然大多数模型都采用了晶体塑性框架,但有一个团队选择了使用更多的半经验方法,并取得了巨大成功。然而,没有一个团队在所有预测方面都表现出色,所有团队似乎都在与仅 X 扫描策略相关的预测方面遇到了挑战。
AM Bench 2022 Macroscale Tensile Challenge at Different Orientations (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MaTTO) and Summary of Predictions
The 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.
期刊介绍:
The journal will publish: Research that supports building a model-based definition of materials and processes that is compatible with model-based engineering design processes and multidisciplinary design optimization; Descriptions of novel experimental or computational tools or data analysis techniques, and their application, that are to be used for ICME; Best practices in verification and validation of computational tools, sensitivity analysis, uncertainty quantification, and data management, as well as standards and protocols for software integration and exchange of data; In-depth descriptions of data, databases, and database tools; Detailed case studies on efforts, and their impact, that integrate experiment and computation to solve an enduring engineering problem in materials and manufacturing.