The Influence of Residual Stress on Fatigue Crack Growth Rates in Stainless Steel Processed by Different Additive Manufacturing Methods

The properties and microstructure of Type 304L stainless steel produced by two additive manufacturing (AM) methods—directed energy deposition (DED) and powder bed fusion (PBF)—are evaluated and compared. Localized heating and steep temperature gradients of AM processes lead to significant residual stress and distinctive microstructures, which may be process-specific and influence mechanical behavior. Test data show that materials produced by DED and PDF have small differences in tensile strengths but clear differences in residual stress and microstructural features. Measured fatigue crack growth rates (FCGRs) for cracks propagating parallel to and perpendicular to the build directions differ between the two AM materials. To separate the influences of residual stress and microstructure, K-control test procedures with decreasing and constant stress intensity factor ranges are used to measure FCGRs in the near-threshold regime (crack growth rates ≤ 1 × 10⁻⁸ m/cycle). Residual stress is quantified by the residual stress intensity factor, K_res, measured by the online crack compliance method. Correcting the FCGR data for differences in K_res brings results for specimens of the two AM materials into agreement with each other and with results for wrought specimens, when the latter are corrected for crack closure. Differences in microstructure and tensile strength have an insignificant influence on FCGRs in these tests.