Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34433989›Full record

ArticleProgress in materials science2021

Damage tolerant design of additively manufactured metallic components subjected to cyclic loading: State of the art and challenges.

Uwe Zerbst, Giovanni Bruno, Jean-Yves Buffiere, Thomas Wegener, Thomas Niendorf, Tao Wu, Xiang Zhang, Nikolai Kashaev, Giovanni Meneghetti, Nik Hrabe and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Progress in materials science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Uwe ZerbstBundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM), Unter den Eichen 87, D-12205 Berlin, Germany.
Giovanni BrunoBundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM), Unter den Eichen 87, D-12205 Berlin, Germany.
Jean-Yves BuffiereINSA-Lyon, F-69621 Villeurbanne, France.
Thomas WegenerUniversity Kassel, Material Science, Sophie-Henschel-Haus 3, D-34125 Kassel, Germany.
Thomas NiendorfUniversity Kassel, Material Science, Sophie-Henschel-Haus 3, D-34125 Kassel, Germany.
Tao WuUniversity Kassel, Material Science, Sophie-Henschel-Haus 3, D-34125 Kassel, Germany.
Xiang ZhangCoventry University, Priory Street, CV1 5FB Coventry. U.K.
Nikolai KashaevHelmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Max-Plank-Str. 1, D-21502 Geesthacht, Germany.
Giovanni MeneghettiUniversity of Padova, via Venezia, 1, I-35131 Padova, Italy.
Nik HrabeNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 325 Broadway, MS-647 Boulder CO 80305, U.S.A. (The part of Nik Hrabe is an official contribution of NIST and is not subject to the copyright of the United states.).
Mauro MadiaBundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM), Unter den Eichen 87, D-12205 Berlin, Germany.
Tiago WernerBundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM), Unter den Eichen 87, D-12205 Berlin, Germany.
Kai HilgenbergBundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM), Unter den Eichen 87, D-12205 Berlin, Germany.
Martina KoukolíkováCOMTES FHT, Průmyslová 995, 334 41 Dobřany, Czech Republic.
Radek ProcházkaCOMTES FHT, Průmyslová 995, 334 41 Dobřany, Czech Republic.
Jan DžuganCOMTES FHT, Průmyslová 995, 334 41 Dobřany, Czech Republic.
Benjamin MöllerFraunhofer-Institut für Betriebsfestigkeit (LBF), Bartningstr. 47, D-64298 Darmstadt, Germany.
Stefano BerettaPolitecnico di Milano, via La Masa 1, 20156 Milan, Italy.
Alexander EvansBundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM), Unter den Eichen 87, D-12205 Berlin, Germany.
Rainer WagenerFraunhofer-Institut für Betriebsfestigkeit (LBF), Bartningstr. 47, D-64298 Darmstadt, Germany.
Kai SchnabelFraunhofer-Institut für Betriebsfestigkeit (LBF), Bartningstr. 47, D-64298 Darmstadt, Germany.

Funding

Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NIST
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Undoubtedly, a better understanding and the further development of approaches for damage tolerant component design of AM parts are among the most significant challenges currently facing the use of these new technologies. This article presents a thorough overview of the workshop discussions. It aims to provide a review of the parameters affecting the damage tolerance of parts produced by additive manufacturing (shortly, AM parts) with special emphasis on the process parameters intrinsic to the AM technologies, the resulting defects and the residual stresses. Based on these aspects, basic concepts are reviewed and critically discussed specifically for AM materials: Criteria for damage tolerant component design;Criteria for the determination of fatigue and fracture properties;Strategies for the determination of the fatigue life in dependence of different manufacturing conditions;Methods for the quantitative characterization of microstructure and defects;Methods for the determination of residual stresses;Effect of the defects and the residual stresses on the fatigue life and behaviour. We see that many of the classic concepts need to be expanded in order to fit with the particular microstructure (grain size and shape, crystal texture) and defect distribution (spatial arrangement, size, shape, amount) present in AM (in particular laser powder bed fusion). For instance, 3D characterization of defects becomes essential, since the defect shapes in AM are diverse and impact the fatigue life in a different way than in the case of conventionally produced components. Such new concepts have immediate consequence on the way one should tackle the determination of the fatigue life of AM parts; for instance, since a classification of defects and a quantification of the tolerable shapes and sizes is still missing, a new strategy must be defined, whereby theoretical calculations (e.g. FEM) allow determining the maximum tolerable defect size, and non-destructive testing (NDT) techniques are required to detect whether such defects are indeed present in the component. Such examples show how component design, damage and failure criteria, and characterization (and/or NDT) become for AM parts fully interlinked. We conclude that the homogenization of these fields represents the current challenge for the engineer and the materials scientist.

Indexed as

Additive manufacturingcomponent assessmentdamage tolerancedefectsfatigue loadingresidual stresses

Identifiers

PMID34433989
PMCPMC8383831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.