4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Surface Treatment of Powder-Bed Fusion Additive Manufactured Metals for Improved Fatigue Life

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11665-018-3732-9

关键词

additive manufacturing; dynamic; high cycle fatigue; mechanical; superalloys; surface finish; titanium

资金

  1. Aerospace Corporation's Independent Research and Development program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-cycle fatigue (HCF) tests were conducted on samples fabricated by two powder-bed additive manufacturing techniques. Samples were tested with as-produced surfaces and after various non-contact surface improvement treatments. Ti-6Al-4V samples were made using both electron beam melting (EBM) and selective laser melting (SLM), while Inconel 625 was fabricated using SLM. Ti-6Al-4V was treated with a commercial chemically accelerated vibratory polishing process, with target material removal of approximately 200 mu m from each surface for EBM samples and 100 mu m for SLM samples. This technique led to increases in both the number of cycles before failure at a given loading condition and endurance limit (at 10(7) cycles) compared to samples with as-produced surfaces. The results are interpreted as the reduction in elastic stress concentration factor associated with surface defects where fatigue cracks initiate. SLM 625 was treated with both an abrasive polishing method and laser surface remelting. Both methods led to improvements in surface roughness, but these did not lead to improvements in fatigue properties of SLM 625. For abrasive polished samples, the combination of improved measured surface roughness without fatigue property enhancement suggests that surface material is removed, but the roots of surface defects, where fatigue cracks initiate, were left intact. For laser treatment, the remelted surface layer retained a rapidly solidified microstructure that did not increase the number of cycles before crack initiation even though the surface was smoother compared to the surface prior to polishing.

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