@article{SerranoMunozFritschMishurovaetal.2020, author = {Serrano-Munoz, Itziar and Fritsch, Tobias and Mishurova, Tatiana and Trofimov, Anton and Apel, Daniel and Ulbricht, Alexander and Kromm, Arne and Hesse, Rene and Evans, Alexander and Bruno, Giovanni}, title = {On the interplay of microstructure and residual stress in LPBF IN718}, series = {Journal of materials science}, volume = {56}, journal = {Journal of materials science}, number = {9}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {New York}, issn = {0022-2461}, doi = {10.1007/s10853-020-05553-y}, pages = {5845 -- 5867}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The relationship between residual stresses and microstructure associated with a laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) IN718 alloy has been investigated on specimens produced with three different scanning strategies (unidirectional Y-scan, 90 degrees XY-scan, and 67 degrees Rot-scan). Synchrotron X-ray energy-dispersive diffraction (EDXRD) combined with optical profilometry was used to study residual stress (RS) distribution and distortion upon removal of the specimens from the baseplate. The microstructural characterization of both the bulk and the near-surface regions was conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD). On the top surfaces of the specimens, the highest RS values are observed in the Y-scan specimen and the lowest in the Rot-scan specimen, while the tendency is inversed on the side lateral surfaces. A considerable amount of RS remains in the specimens after their removal from the baseplate, especially in the Y- and Z-direction (short specimen dimension and building direction (BD), respectively). The distortion measured on the top surface following baseplate thinning and subsequent removal is mainly attributed to the amount of RS released in the build direction. Importantly, it is observed that the additive manufacturing microstructures challenge the use of classic theoretical models for the calculation of diffraction elastic constants (DEC) required for diffraction-based RS analysis. It is found that when the Reuss model is used for the calculation of RS for different crystal planes, as opposed to the conventionally used Kroner model, the results exhibit lower scatter. This is discussed in context of experimental measurements of DEC available in the literature for conventional and additively manufactured Ni-base alloys.}, language = {en} } @article{SchroederEvansMishurovaetal.2021, author = {Schr{\"o}der, Jakob and Evans, Alexander and Mishurova, Tatiana and Ulbricht, Alexander and Sprengel, Maximilian and Serrano-Munoz, Itziar and Fritsch, Tobias and Kromm, Arne and Kannengießer, Thomas and Bruno, Giovanni}, title = {Diffraction-based residual stress characterization in laser additive manufacturing of metals}, series = {Metals : open access journal}, volume = {11}, journal = {Metals : open access journal}, number = {11}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {2075-4701}, doi = {10.3390/met11111830}, pages = {34}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Laser-based additive manufacturing methods allow the production of complex metal structures within a single manufacturing step. However, the localized heat input and the layer-wise manufacturing manner give rise to large thermal gradients. Therefore, large internal stress (IS) during the process (and consequently residual stress (RS) at the end of production) is generated within the parts. This IS or RS can either lead to distortion or cracking during fabrication or in-service part failure, respectively. With this in view, the knowledge on the magnitude and spatial distribution of RS is important to develop strategies for its mitigation. Specifically, diffraction-based methods allow the spatial resolved determination of RS in a non-destructive fashion. In this review, common diffraction-based methods to determine RS in laser-based additive manufactured parts are presented. In fact, the unique microstructures and textures associated to laser-based additive manufacturing processes pose metrological challenges. Based on the literature review, it is recommended to (a) use mechanically relaxed samples measured in several orientations as appropriate strain-free lattice spacing, instead of powder, (b) consider that an appropriate grain-interaction model to calculate diffraction-elastic constants is both material- and texture-dependent and may differ from the conventionally manufactured variant. Further metrological challenges are critically reviewed and future demands in this research field are discussed.}, language = {en} } @article{SerranoMunozMishurovaThiedeetal.2020, author = {Serrano-Munoz, Itziar and Mishurova, Tatiana and Thiede, Tobias and Sprengel, Maximilian and Kromm, Arne and Nadammal, Naresh and Nolze, Gert and Saliwan-Neumann, Romeo and Evans, Alexander and Bruno, Giovanni}, title = {The residual stress in as-built laser powder bed fusion IN718 alloy as a consequence of the scanning strategy induced microstructure}, series = {Scientific reports}, volume = {10}, journal = {Scientific reports}, number = {1}, publisher = {Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature}, address = {London}, issn = {2045-2322}, doi = {10.1038/s41598-020-71112-9}, pages = {15}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The effect of two types of scanning strategies on the grain structure and build-up of Residual Stress (RS) has been investigated in an as-built IN718 alloy produced by Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF). The RS state has been investigated by X-ray diffraction techniques. The microstructural characterization was performed principally by Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD), where the application of a post-measurement refinement technique enables small misorientations (< 2 degrees) to be resolved. Kernel average misorientation (KAM) distributions indicate that preferably oriented columnar grains contain higher levels of misorientation, when compared to elongated grains with lower texture. The KAM distributions combined with X-ray diffraction stress maps infer that the increased misorientation is induced via plastic deformation driven by the thermal stresses, acting to self-relieve stress. The possibility of obtaining lower RS states in the build direction as a consequence of the influence of the microstructure should be considered when envisaging scanning strategies aimed at the mitigation of RS.}, language = {en} } @article{SchroederEvansPolatidisetal.2022, author = {Schr{\"o}der, Jakob and Evans, Alexander and Polatidis, Efthymios and Mohr, Gunther and Serrano-Munoz, Itziar and Bruno, Giovanni and Čapek, Jan}, title = {Understanding the impact of texture on the micromechanical anisotropy of laser powder bed fused Inconel 718}, series = {Journal of materials science}, volume = {57}, journal = {Journal of materials science}, number = {31}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {New York}, issn = {0022-2461}, doi = {10.1007/s10853-022-07499-9}, pages = {15036 -- 15058}, year = {2022}, abstract = {The manufacturability of metallic alloys using laser-based additive manufacturing methods such as laser powder bed fusion has substantially improved within the last decade. However, local melting and solidification cause hierarchically structured and crystallographically textured microstructures possessing large residual stress. Such microstructures are not only the origin of mechanical anisotropy but also pose metrological challenges for the diffraction-based residual stress determination. Here we demonstrate the influence of the build orientation and the texture on the microstructure and consequently the mechanical anisotropy of as-built Inconel 718. For this purpose, we manufactured specimens with [001]/[011]-, [001]- and [011]/[11 (1) over bar]-type textures along their loading direction. In addition to changes in the Young's moduli, the differences in the crystallographic textures result in variations of the yield and ultimate tensile strengths. With this in mind, we studied the anisotropy on the micromechanical scale by subjecting the specimens to tensile loads along the different texture directions during in situ neutron diffraction experiments. In this context, the response of multiple lattice planes up to a tensile strain of 10\% displayed differences in the load partitioning and the residual strain accumulation for the specimen with [011]/[(1) over bar 11]-type texture. However, the relative behavior of the specimens possessing an [001] /[011]- and [001]-type texture remained qualitatively similar. The consequences on the metrology of residual stress determination methods are discussed.}, language = {en} } @article{SprengelMohrAltenburgetal.2021, author = {Sprengel, Maximilian and Mohr, Gunther and Altenburg, Simon J. and Evans, Alexander and Serrano-Munoz, Itziar and Kromm, Arne and Pirling, Thilo and Bruno, Giovanni and Kannengießer, Thomas}, title = {Triaxial residual stress in Laser Powder Bed Fused 316L}, series = {Advanced engineering materials}, volume = {24}, journal = {Advanced engineering materials}, number = {6}, publisher = {Wiley-VCH}, address = {Weinheim}, issn = {1438-1656}, doi = {10.1002/adem.202101330}, pages = {13}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The control of residual stress (RS) remains a challenge in the manufacturing of metallic parts using the laser powder bed fusion process (LPBF). This layer-by-layer manufacturing approach gives rise to complex triaxial RS distributions, which require extensive characterization effort for a broader acceptance of LPBF in industry. This study focuses on the distribution of bulk triaxial RS and surface RS in LPBF austenitic steel 316L. The RS are determined by X-ray and neutron diffraction to characterize the RS distribution. Variations in the LPBF parameters interlayer time (ILT) and scanning velocity and their influence on the temperature distribution and resulting RS is investigated using thermographic data from in situ process monitoring. The RS in the LPBF 316L is tensile at the surface and compressive in the bulk. The RS is directly related to the thermal history of the part as shown by the in situ thermography data. Shorter ILT leads to higher temperatures of the part during the manufacturing, which decrease the RS and RS formation mechanisms. Interestingly, the surface RS does not agree with this observation. This study highlights the benefit of using multiple RS determination methods and in situ thermography monitoring to characterize the RS in LPBF processed parts.}, language = {en} } @article{WuttkeLiLietal.2019, author = {Wuttke, Matthias and Li, Yong and Li, Man and Sieber, Karsten B. and Feitosa, Mary F. and Gorski, Mathias and Tin, Adrienne and Wang, Lihua and Chu, Audrey Y. and Hoppmann, Anselm and Kirsten, Holger and Giri, Ayush and Chai, Jin-Fang and Sveinbjornsson, Gardar and Tayo, Bamidele O. and Nutile, Teresa and Fuchsberger, Christian and Marten, Jonathan and Cocca, Massimiliano and Ghasemi, Sahar and Xu, Yizhe and Horn, Katrin and Noce, Damia and Van der Most, Peter J. and Sedaghat, Sanaz and Yu, Zhi and Akiyama, Masato and Afaq, Saima and Ahluwalia, Tarunveer Singh and Almgren, Peter and Amin, Najaf and Arnlov, Johan and Bakker, Stephan J. L. and Bansal, Nisha and Baptista, Daniela and Bergmann, Sven and Biggs, Mary L. and Biino, Ginevra and Boehnke, Michael and Boerwinkle, Eric and Boissel, Mathilde and B{\"o}ttinger, Erwin and Boutin, Thibaud S. and Brenner, Hermann and Brumat, Marco and Burkhardt, Ralph and Butterworth, Adam S. and Campana, Eric and Campbell, Archie and Campbell, Harry and Canouil, Mickael and Carroll, Robert J. and Catamo, Eulalia and Chambers, John C. and Chee, Miao-Ling and Chee, Miao-Li and Chen, Xu and Cheng, Ching-Yu and Cheng, Yurong and Christensen, Kaare and Cifkova, Renata and Ciullo, Marina and Concas, Maria Pina and Cook, James P. and Coresh, Josef and Corre, Tanguy and Sala, Cinzia Felicita and Cusi, Daniele and Danesh, John and Daw, E. Warwick and De Borst, Martin H. and De Grandi, Alessandro and De Mutsert, Renee and De Vries, Aiko P. J. and Degenhardt, Frauke and Delgado, Graciela and Demirkan, Ayse and Di Angelantonio, Emanuele and Dittrich, Katalin and Divers, Jasmin and Dorajoo, Rajkumar and Eckardt, Kai-Uwe and Ehret, Georg and Elliott, Paul and Endlich, Karlhans and Evans, Michele K. and Felix, Janine F. and Foo, Valencia Hui Xian and Franco, Oscar H. and Franke, Andre and Freedman, Barry I. and Freitag-Wolf, Sandra and Friedlander, Yechiel and Froguel, Philippe and Gansevoort, Ron T. and Gao, He and Gasparini, Paolo and Gaziano, J. Michael and Giedraitis, Vilmantas and Gieger, Christian and Girotto, Giorgia and Giulianini, Franco and Gogele, Martin and Gordon, Scott D. and Gudbjartsson, Daniel F. and Gudnason, Vilmundur and Haller, Toomas and Hamet, Pavel and Harris, Tamara B. and Hartman, Catharina A. and Hayward, Caroline and Hellwege, Jacklyn N. and Heng, Chew-Kiat and Hicks, Andrew A. and Hofer, Edith and Huang, Wei and Hutri-Kahonen, Nina and Hwang, Shih-Jen and Ikram, M. Arfan and Indridason, Olafur S. and Ingelsson, Erik and Ising, Marcus and Jaddoe, Vincent W. V. and Jakobsdottir, Johanna and Jonas, Jost B. and Joshi, Peter K. and Josyula, Navya Shilpa and Jung, Bettina and Kahonen, Mika and Kamatani, Yoichiro and Kammerer, Candace M. and Kanai, Masahiro and Kastarinen, Mika and Kerr, Shona M. and Khor, Chiea-Chuen and Kiess, Wieland and Kleber, Marcus E. and Koenig, Wolfgang and Kooner, Jaspal S. and Korner, Antje and Kovacs, Peter and Kraja, Aldi T. and Krajcoviechova, Alena and Kramer, Holly and Kramer, Bernhard K. and Kronenberg, Florian and Kubo, Michiaki and Kuhnel, Brigitte and Kuokkanen, Mikko and Kuusisto, Johanna and La Bianca, Martina and Laakso, Markku and Lange, Leslie A. and Langefeld, Carl D. and Lee, Jeannette Jen-Mai and Lehne, Benjamin and Lehtimaki, Terho and Lieb, Wolfgang and Lim, Su-Chi and Lind, Lars and Lindgren, Cecilia M. and Liu, Jun and Liu, Jianjun and Loeffler, Markus and Loos, Ruth J. F. and Lucae, Susanne and Lukas, Mary Ann and Lyytikainen, Leo-Pekka and Magi, Reedik and Magnusson, Patrik K. E. and Mahajan, Anubha and Martin, Nicholas G. and Martins, Jade and Marz, Winfried and Mascalzoni, Deborah and Matsuda, Koichi and Meisinger, Christa and Meitinger, Thomas and Melander, Olle and Metspalu, Andres and Mikaelsdottir, Evgenia K. and Milaneschi, Yuri and Miliku, Kozeta and Mishra, Pashupati P. and Program, V. A. Million Veteran and Mohlke, Karen L. and Mononen, Nina and Montgomery, Grant W. and Mook-Kanamori, Dennis O. and Mychaleckyj, Josyf C. and Nadkarni, Girish N. and Nalls, Mike A. and Nauck, Matthias and Nikus, Kjell and Ning, Boting and Nolte, Ilja M. and Noordam, Raymond and Olafsson, Isleifur and Oldehinkel, Albertine J. and Orho-Melander, Marju and Ouwehand, Willem H. and Padmanabhan, Sandosh and Palmer, Nicholette D. and Palsson, Runolfur and Penninx, Brenda W. J. H. and Perls, Thomas and Perola, Markus and Pirastu, Mario and Pirastu, Nicola and Pistis, Giorgio and Podgornaia, Anna I. and Polasek, Ozren and Ponte, Belen and Porteous, David J. and Poulain, Tanja and Pramstaller, Peter P. and Preuss, Michael H. and Prins, Bram P. and Province, Michael A. and Rabelink, Ton J. and Raffield, Laura M. and Raitakari, Olli T. and Reilly, Dermot F. and Rettig, Rainer and Rheinberger, Myriam and Rice, Kenneth M. and Ridker, Paul M. and Rivadeneira, Fernando and Rizzi, Federica and Roberts, David J. and Robino, Antonietta and Rossing, Peter and Rudan, Igor and Rueedi, Rico and Ruggiero, Daniela and Ryan, Kathleen A. and Saba, Yasaman and Sabanayagam, Charumathi and Salomaa, Veikko and Salvi, Erika and Saum, Kai-Uwe and Schmidt, Helena and Schmidt, Reinhold and Ben Schottker, and Schulz, Christina-Alexandra and Schupf, Nicole and Shaffer, Christian M. and Shi, Yuan and Smith, Albert V. and Smith, Blair H. and Soranzo, Nicole and Spracklen, Cassandra N. and Strauch, Konstantin and Stringham, Heather M. and Stumvoll, Michael and Svensson, Per O. and Szymczak, Silke and Tai, E-Shyong and Tajuddin, Salman M. and Tan, Nicholas Y. Q. and Taylor, Kent D. and Teren, Andrej and Tham, Yih-Chung and Thiery, Joachim and Thio, Chris H. L. and Thomsen, Hauke and Thorleifsson, Gudmar and Toniolo, Daniela and Tonjes, Anke and Tremblay, Johanne and Tzoulaki, Ioanna and Uitterlinden, Andre G. and Vaccargiu, Simona and Van Dam, Rob M. and Van der Harst, Pim and Van Duijn, Cornelia M. and Edward, Digna R. Velez and Verweij, Niek and Vogelezang, Suzanne and Volker, Uwe and Vollenweider, Peter and Waeber, Gerard and Waldenberger, Melanie and Wallentin, Lars and Wang, Ya Xing and Wang, Chaolong and Waterworth, Dawn M. and Bin Wei, Wen and White, Harvey and Whitfield, John B. and Wild, Sarah H. and Wilson, James F. and Wojczynski, Mary K. and Wong, Charlene and Wong, Tien-Yin and Xu, Liang and Yang, Qiong and Yasuda, Masayuki and Yerges-Armstrong, Laura M. and Zhang, Weihua and Zonderman, Alan B. and Rotter, Jerome I. and Bochud, Murielle and Psaty, Bruce M. and Vitart, Veronique and Wilson, James G. and Dehghan, Abbas and Parsa, Afshin and Chasman, Daniel I. and Ho, Kevin and Morris, Andrew P. and Devuyst, Olivier and Akilesh, Shreeram and Pendergrass, Sarah A. and Sim, Xueling and Boger, Carsten A. and Okada, Yukinori and Edwards, Todd L. and Snieder, Harold and Stefansson, Kari and Hung, Adriana M. and Heid, Iris M. and Scholz, Markus and Teumer, Alexander and Kottgen, Anna and Pattaro, Cristian}, title = {A catalog of genetic loci associated with kidney function from analyses of a million individuals}, series = {Nature genetics}, volume = {51}, journal = {Nature genetics}, number = {6}, publisher = {Nature Publ. Group}, address = {New York}, organization = {Lifelines COHort Study}, issn = {1061-4036}, doi = {10.1038/s41588-019-0407-x}, pages = {957 -- +}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is responsible for a public health burden with multi-systemic complications. Through transancestry meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and independent replication (n = 1,046,070), we identified 264 associated loci (166 new). Of these,147 were likely to be relevant for kidney function on the basis of associations with the alternative kidney function marker blood urea nitrogen (n = 416,178). Pathway and enrichment analyses, including mouse models with renal phenotypes, support the kidney as the main target organ. A genetic risk score for lower eGFR was associated with clinically diagnosed CKD in 452,264 independent individuals. Colocalization analyses of associations with eGFR among 783,978 European-ancestry individuals and gene expression across 46 human tissues, including tubulo-interstitial and glomerular kidney compartments, identified 17 genes differentially expressed in kidney. Fine-mapping highlighted missense driver variants in 11 genes and kidney-specific regulatory variants. These results provide a comprehensive priority list of molecular targets for translational research.}, language = {en} } @article{FritschSprengelEvansetal.2021, author = {Fritsch, Tobias and Sprengel, Maximilian and Evans, Alexander and Farahbod-Sternahl, Lena and Saliwan-Neumann, Romeo and Hofmann, Michael and Bruno, Giovanni}, title = {On the determination of residual stresses in additively manufactured lattice structures}, series = {Journal of applied crystallography / International Union of Crystallography}, volume = {54}, journal = {Journal of applied crystallography / International Union of Crystallography}, publisher = {Munksgaard}, address = {Copenhagen}, issn = {0021-8898}, doi = {10.1107/S1600576720015344}, pages = {228 -- 236}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The determination of residual stresses becomes more complicated with increasing complexity of the structures investigated. Additive manufacturing techniques generally allow the production of 'lattice structures' without any additional manufacturing step. These lattice structures consist of thin struts and are thus susceptible to internal stress-induced distortion and even cracks. In most cases, internal stresses remain locked in the structures as residual stress. The determination of the residual stress in lattice structures through nondestructive neutron diffraction is described in this work. It is shown how two difficulties can be overcome: (a) the correct alignment of the lattice structures within the neutron beam and (b) the correct determination of the residual stress field in a representative part of the structure. The magnitude and the direction of residual stress are discussed. The residual stress in the strut was found to be uniaxial and to follow the orientation of the strut, while the residual stress in the knots was more hydrostatic. Additionally, it is shown that strain measurements in at least seven independent directions are necessary for the estimation of the principal stress directions. The measurement directions should be chosen according to the sample geometry and an informed choice on the possible strain field. If the most prominent direction is not measured, the error in the calculated stress magnitude increases considerably.}, language = {en} }