Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38449837›Full record

ArticleIntegrating materials and manufacturing innovation2023

Additive Manufacturing Benchmark 2022 Subcontinuum Mesoscale Tensile Challenge (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MeTT) and Summary of Predictions.

Orion L Kafka, Jake Benzing, Newell Moser, Li-Anne Liew, Jordan Weaver, Nikolas Hrabe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrating materials and manufacturing innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Orion L KafkaMaterial Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 325 Broadway St, Boulder, 80305, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2333-8154
Jake BenzingMaterial Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 325 Broadway St, Boulder, 80305, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7266-870X
Newell MoserMaterial Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 325 Broadway St, Boulder, 80305, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3346-6427
Li-Anne LiewMaterial Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 325 Broadway St, Boulder, 80305, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0202-026X
Jordan WeaverEngineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, 20899, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4857-5164
Nikolas HrabeMaterial Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 325 Broadway St, Boulder, 80305, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7585-0980

Funding

Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NIST
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This additive manufacturing benchmarking challenge asked the modelling community to predict the stress-strain behavior and fracture location and pathway of an individual meso-scale (gauge dimensions of approximately 200 μm thickness, 200 μm width, 1mm length) tension specimen that was excised from a wafer of nickel allow IN625 manufactured by laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF). The data used for the challenge questions and answers are provided in a public dataset (https://data.nist.gov/od/id/mds2-2587). Testing models against the data is still possible, although a good-faith blinded prediction should be attempted before reading this article, as the results are contained herein. The uniaxial tension test was pin loaded, conducted at quasi-static strain rates under displacement control, and strain was measured via non-contact methods (digital image correlation). The predictions are challenging since the number of grains contained in the thickness of the specimen are sub-continuum. In addition, pores can be heterogeneously distributed by the L-PBF process, as opposed to intentionally seeded defects. The challenge provided information on chemical composition, grain and subgrain structure (surface-based measurements via electron backscatter diffraction and scanning electron microscopy) and pore structure (volume-based measurements via X-Ray computed tomography) along the entire gauge length for the tension specimen. During the challenge, prediction responses were collected from six different groups. Prediction accuracy compared to the measurements varied, with elastic modulus and strain at ultimate tensile strength consistently over-predicted, while most other values were a mix of over- and under-predicted. Overall, no one model performed best at all predictions. Failure-related properties proved quite challenging to predict, likely in part due to the data provided as well as the inherent difficulty in predicting fracture. Future directions and areas of improvement are discussed in the context of improving model maturity and measurement uncertainty.

Indexed as

Additive ManufacturingBenchmark ChallengeMechanical PropertiesSubcontinuumTensile Testing

Identifiers

PMID38449837
PMCPMC10916594

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.