Influence of build orientation and thermal treatment on the fracture toughness of LPBF-manufactured 18Ni300 maraging steel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the fracture behavior of 18Ni300 maraging steel manufactured via LPBF, comparing specimens on as-built condition and solubilization and aging treated. Specimens were fabricated in vertical and horizontal orientations, and fracture toughness was assessed using the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) method. Comprehensive microstructural characterization was performed to evaluate microstructure, and fracture surface features. Results revealed anisotropic fracture behavior in the as-built condition, attributed to misalignment of the crack propagation paths with the melt pool boundaries. In contrast, heat-treated specimens exhibited a reduction in ductility and fracture toughness (CTOD values decreasing by up to 97 %), which was attributed to microstructure coarsening and martensite stabilization. Fractographic examination revealed a transition from ductile failure (characterized by plastic deformation and dimple coalescence) in the as-built condition to brittle features after thermal treatment. These findings reveal that fracture mechanisms in LPBF 18Ni300 are highly sensitive to microstructural features, which are governed by build orientation and heat treatment. This study reinforces the applicability of CTOD as a robust method for evaluating fracture performance in AM metallic components, providing insights into the interdependencies among processing conditions, microstructure evolution, and mechanical integrity. Furthermore, this study validates the use of CTOD method for reliable fracture toughness assessment in LPBF components, addressing the current scarcity of validated fracture mechanics by this method and providing a robust and reliable foundation for future structural integrity analyses of LPBF 18Ni300. • Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) (δ parameter) assessment for LPBF 18Ni300 maraging steel fracture toughness evaluation. • Deepening the relationship between microstructure and mechanical properties of maraging steel LPBF-printed. • Correlation between build orientation and solubilization and aging treatments effects on fracture toughness behavior. • Up to 97 % fracture toughness reduction observed after heat treatments. • Findings support design and qualification of high-strength AM structural components.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".