4.5 Article

Modelling Crack Growth in Additively Manufactured Inconel 718 and Inconel 625

期刊

METALS
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/met13071300

关键词

additive manufacturing; Inconel 718; Inconel 625; crack growth; Nasgro

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates crack growth in both additively manufactured (AM) and conventionally manufactured Inconel 718, as well as Inconel 625. It is found that when the crack growth rate (da/dN) is plotted as a function of the stress intensity factor range (& UDelta;K), there is considerable scatter. However, when da/dN is expressed in terms of the Schwalbe crack driving force (& UDelta;& kappa;), all curves collapse onto a single curve. This observation challenges the materials science community to address the underlying fundamental science.
This paper first examines crack growth in a range of tests on additively manufactured (AM) and conventionally manufactured Inconel 718. It is shown that whereas when the crack growth rate (da/dN) is plotted as a function of the range of the stress intensity factor (& UDelta;K), the crack growth curves exhibit considerable scatter/variability, when da/dN is expressed in terms of the Schwalbe crack driving force (& UDelta;& kappa;), then each of the 33 different curves essentially collapse onto a single curve. This relationship appears to hold over approximately six orders of magnitude in da/dN. The same phenomenon also appears to hold for 20 room temperature tests on both conventionally and additively manufactured Inconel 625. Given that the 53 studies examined in this paper were taken from a wide cross section of research studies it would appear that the variability in the da/dN and & UDelta;K curves can (to a first approximation) be accounted for by allowing for the variability in the fatigue threshold and the cyclic fracture toughness terms in the Schwalbe crack driving force. As such, the materials science community is challenged to address the fundamental science underpinning this observation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据