No abstract

Metallic materials are extensively used in engineering structures and fatigue failure is one of the most common failure modes of metal structures. Fatigue phenomena occur when a material is subjected to fluctuating stresses and strains, which lead to failure due to damage accumulation. Different methods, including the Palmgren-Miner linear damage rule- (LDR-) based, multiaxial and variable amplitude loading, stochastic-based, energy-based, and continuum damage mechanics methods, forecast fatigue life. This paper reviews fatigue life prediction techniques for metallic materials. An ideal fatigue life prediction model should include the main features of those already established methods, and its implementation in simulation systems could help engineers and scientists in different applications. In conclusion, LDR-based, multiaxial and variable amplitude loading, stochastic-based, continuum damage mechanics, and energy-based methods are easy, realistic, microstructure dependent, well timed, and damage connected, respectively, for the ideal prediction model.

T he creep behaviour and the microstructural evolution of a 9Cr-Mo-Nb-V (T 91) steel were extensively evaluated by means of short term constant load creep tests and T EM analysis. Statistical analysis of the microstructural data revealed that the precipitated phases M 23 C 6 (where M is a metal, mainly Cr or Fe) and MX (where M is Nb or V, and X is C and/or N) were subject to coarsening during creep exposure. T he coarsening law and its dependence on applied stress were identified, and the model was used to predict the magnitude of the Orowan stress at the time corresponding to the minimum creep rate. T he minimum creep rate dependence on applied stress at 873 K was described by incorporating the threshold stress concept in a power law with stress exponent n=5. In the resulting phenomenological model, the strengthening eVect of the dispersed phases was thus expressed by a threshold stress proportional to the Orowan stress.MST /4310

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Metal additive manufacturing is changing the way in which engineers and designers model the production of three-dimensional (3D) objects, with rapid growth seen in recent years. Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) is the most used metal additive manufacturing technique, and it is based on the efficient interaction between a high-energy laser and a metal powder feedstock. To make LPBF more cost-efficient and environmentally friendly, it is of paramount importance to recycle (reuse) the unfused powder from a build job. However, since the laser-powder interaction involves complex physics phenomena and generates by-products which might affect the integrity of the feedstock and the final build part, a better understanding of the overall process should be attained. The present review paper is focused on the clarification of the interaction between laser and metal powder, with a strong focus on its side effects. Figure 1. Schematics of the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) equipment. Adapted from Reference [9] with permission from Elsevier.While the market and the applications of laser powder bed fusion continuously and impressively grew in recent years, there is a common view across users and researchers concerning the repeatability of the process in terms of chemical composition and mechanical properties of the final parts, which are of paramount importance when challenging environmental or testing conditions are considered [10][11][12][13][14][15][16].The most typical approach to study the microstructural and mechanical properties of parts built by LPBF is to compare them with castings of the same alloy or, rather, the corresponding alloy since the starting material is metal powder rather than a fuse. However, in some existing alloys designed for cast and wrought parts, laser additive manufacturing processing results in cracking or other microstructure deficiencies [11,12,16,17]. It is worth noting that LPBF has more similarities with laser welding rather than casting, since the two laser-based techniques have some common features (i.e., melt-pool formation, moving heat source) [18]. However, process parameters are, in general, quite different in terms of laser power and scan speed, and the laser-matter interaction is much more complicated in LPBF processes, since the powder feedstock is inherently unstable and the solidified material undergoes multiple thermal cycles corresponding to the fusion of subsequent layers during the additive process [19][20][21][22]. Furthermore, owing to the similarities with welding and to the complicated interaction between laser and metal particles, when comparing laser powder bed fusion with other metal forming processes, it is evident that the range of processable alloys is very limited and the number of high-productivity commercially available alloys is even smaller [23]. One of the reasons behind this is that the level of metal powder sensitivity to the laser action during LPBF is not yet fully understood, despite the efforts of the scientific community to uncover it [24][25][26][27], and ...