ed

1 On the Development of a Novel Benchmark Design for Crack Quantification in Additive

2 Manufacturing
3 Andrew Wall1, Tony Dong2, Michael J. Benoit1
4 1School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Kelowna, British Columbia, V1V 1V7,

iew
5 Canada
6 2Hexagon Manufacturing Intelligence, Doncaster, Victoria, 3108, Australia
7

8 Abstract:

ev
9 Solidification cracking is a defect that has been extensively studied in welding and casting and,
10 consequently, standardised testing methods to quantify cracking have been developed for these processes.
11 However, additive manufacturing (AM) processes currently lack any such test. The objective of the current
12 study is to outline the development of a first-of-its-kind solidification cracking test for AM in the form of

r
13 a benchmark specimen which aims to standardise quantification of solidification cracking in AM. The
14 benchmark design utilized self-restraint to induce cracking at pre-defined locations, and was printed from
15 Inconel 625 and 718 using laser directed energy deposition. Crack severity was quantified by optical
16
17
18
er
microscopy, and it was found that the ratio of the linear crack length to the total crack length was
consistently between 0.8-0.9. Further characterization revealed that the cracks propagated transgranularly
along the melt pool boundaries. The commercially available finite element software package Simufact
pe
19 Welding was used to simulate printing of the benchmark specimen using the directed energy deposition
20 module and confirmed high levels of stress at the crack initiation locations. Based on the characterization
21 and simulation results, it was determined that the cause of the observed cracks was likely due to ductile
22 fracture rather than solidification cracks. Nevertheless, the benchmark was able to show a difference in the
23 level of cracking between alloys and the ability to initiate cracks at pre-defined locations using
24 geometrically-induced restraint. Thus, it was concluded that while the existing benchmark design
ot

25 demonstrated progress towards a standardized test, further refinement to the design is required.
26
tn

27 Keywords: additive manufacturing, cracking, hot tearing, nickel superalloys, standardization, finite
28 element analysis, laser directed energy deposition (L-DED)
29
rin
ep
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
 30 1. Introduction

ed
31 Solidification cracking (SC) is a defect that occurs in the semi-solid region of a solidifying metal or alloy,
32 known as the mushy zone, where the permeability of the region decreases as solid dendrites grow and begin
33 to interact with one another, decreasing the flow of liquid metal and preventing it from filling cavities [1].
34 As the metal cools and solidifies, thermal contraction and solidification shrinkage induce a tensile strain in
35 the mushy zone, which can cause cavities to propagate as solidification cracks (also referred to as hot

iew
36 tearing) if the induced strain is greater than the ductility of the mushy zone [2]. Solidification cracking is
37 known to occur during solidification-based processing of many important engineering alloys, including
38 aluminium, magnesium, nickel-based superalloys, and stainless steels, and the occurrence of these cracks
39 leads to a deterioration of the alloy mechanical properties. Consequently, this presents a challenge for the
40 use of these alloys in additive manufacturing (AM) processes [3]. However, it should be noted that SC is
41 not the only type of cracking that can occur during solidification and cooling of an alloy, as liquation cracks

ev
42 may form in the partially melted zone (PMZ), and ductility dip cracking may occur in the solid metal as the
43 alloy cools through a critical temperature range in which the drop in ductility can cause solid-state fractures
44 when combined with the residual stress within the part.

r
45 Solidification cracking has been studied extensively for both casting and welding processes and, as such,
46 standardised methods of testing susceptibility to SC have been developed, such as the Varestraint test for
47 welding [4,5], and the Constrained Rod Casting (CRC) test for casting [6], although over 140 such tests
48
49
50
er
have been developed [7]. However, no standardized method of testing for SC susceptibility exists for AM
processes and, consequently, the experimental methods vary considerably among studies, with a notable
issue being the different methods of crack severity quantification. In a recent review of the topic [8], it was
pe
51 found that some studies quantify cracks using the total length of the cracks in a given area, some use the
52 total area of cracks, and some use qualitative methods such as whether or not cracks occurred at all. Other
53 variations between studies included using different printed sample geometries and sizes, a wide range of
54 process parameters, and differing methods of crack analysis (e.g., site selection, number of measurements,
55 imaging techniques, etc.). These differences in experimental methods make it difficult to compare the
56 effectiveness of crack mitigation methods among studies and also neglects a number of considerations that
ot

57 are unique to AM (e.g., scan strategy, cyclic thermal history and re-melting, varying load conditions due to
58 geometric variations during part manufacture, etc.). The SC susceptibility tests that have previously been
59 developed for casting and welding do not account for many of these considerations and, as such, do not
60 fully encapsulate the complexity of AM processes, though aspects of their design philosophies can be
tn

61 transferred to AM-specific designs [8]. The lack of standards for AM processes is a major limiting factor
62 for adoption of these technologies for industrial applications.
63 The objective of the current study is to outline the development of a novel SC susceptibility benchmark
rin

64 designed for AM processes. As no test of this kind currently exists, this benchmark serves as a first step in
65 the development of future tests. Consequently, the benchmark design developed in the current study was
66 intended to be a simple yet robust design so as to be applicable to a wider range of processes and conditions
67 to provide a basic level of repeatability among studies and to provide insights into the steps required to
68 improve future designs and increase standardization.
ep

69 2. Materials and methods

70 2.1. Benchmark Design
71 In order to maintain a simple but robust benchmark, the initial design was intended to use geometric features
Pr

72 that could be produced using a range of AM processes and, as such, aimed to remove features that require
73 supports (e.g., low overhang angles, internal cavities, etc.) or high geometric precision (e.g., thin sections).
2

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
 74 The geometry for the resultant design that was used in the current study is shown in Figure 1. The basic

ed
75 design philosophy was to print a number of individual ‘legs’ that act as a restraint on the metal undergoing
76 solidification in layers above the apex of where the legs are joined. This geometrically induced self-restraint
77 is intended to impart a tensile load to the melt pool to promote solidification cracking.
78 Results presented at the recent National Institute of Standards and Technology (NSIT) AM Bench 2022

iew
79 conference on the AMB2018-01 residual stress benchmark challenge, which featured a bridge-like design
80 similar to the crack benchmark presented in Figure 1, typically showed high levels of longitudinal strain
81 along the edges of the top surface [9,10]. Therefore, the current design employs a tapered peak at the top
82 of the design which was intended to vary residual stress based on location along the sample and to promote
83 SC at the apex of each leg intersection. Utilizing these findings, assessment of crack severity would then
84 ideally account for both the crack length and location (i.e., apex). Cracks observed further away from the

ev
85 high-stress regions would carry a higher weighting of severity compared to cracks of the same length found
86 closer to high-stress locations. Initial estimations suggested the centre apex to be the location of highest
87 stress concentration as it has the most constraint, imposed by the rest of the specimen, compared to the
88 other apexes. The proposed design and quantification method were inspired by several existing tests and

r
89 benchmarks, both for AM and conventional manufacturing processes. The idea of using a repeating
90 geometric feature to induce varying levels of stress at different locations was adopted from existing self-
91 restraint tests in casting and welding, such as the varying rod length in the Constrained Rod Casting (CRC)
92
93
94
95
er
test [6] and the varying slit length in the Houldcroft Test [11]. These existing tests provide insight into the
utility of self-restraint tests, as well as methods of quantifying the results such as the crack susceptibility
index used in the CRC which assesses crack severity based on not only the severity of the crack, but also
which rod the crack occurred in, as longer rods are more susceptible to cracking [6].
pe
ot
tn

96
97 Figure 1. Design schematic for the benchmark specimen with a 10 mm thickness. All units are in mm.
rin

98
99 2.2. Materials
100 Gas atomized Inconel 625 (IN625) powder supplied by Kennametal with a nominal particle size distribution
101 of 45 – 90 µm was used in the current investigation to print the majority of the benchmark samples. Inconel
ep

102 625 was used as it has been shown to experience SC during AM [12]. Additional samples were also printed
103 with gas atomized Inconel 718 (IN718) powder, also supplied by Kennametal with a nominal particle size
104 distribution of 45 – 150 µm, in order to assess the ability of the benchmark to evaluate crack susceptibility
105 between similar alloys, as IN718 is known to be less crack susceptible than IN625 [13]. The chemical
Pr

106 composition of both powders as measured by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry
107 (ICP OES) is presented in Table 1. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of the as-received powder
3

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
108 and powder cross sections are shown in Figure 2. From the figure it can be seen that the as-received powders

ed
109 are fairly uniform in shape, with mostly spherical particles, though some variation is observed with the
110 inclusion of ellipsoidal particles. The particles also have several small satellites adhered to them, with
111 varying number and size. The cross-section of the powder particles revealed a dendritic structure with
112 interdendritic phases enriched in Nb and Mo, and smaller, dark spots rich in Ti. Pores were observed in
113 some particle cross-sections, though they were relatively uncommon.

iew
114 Table 1. Chemical composition of powders as measured by ICP-OES (wt%)
Ni Cr Mo Fe Nb+Ta Co Ti Al Mn
Inconel 625 bal. 21.23 8.71 0.29 2.38 0.08 0.04 0.15 0.29
Inconel 718 bal. 19.65 3.16 18.50 4.83 0.03 1.13 0.57 0.20
115

r ev
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep

116
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
117 Figure 2. SEM images of the (a, c) as-received powder morphology and (b,d) the particle cross-sections for (a, b) IN625 and (c,

ed
118 d) IN718 powders. The small dark spots in (b) and (d) were determined to be phases rich in titanium.
119
120 2.3. Benchmark Fabrication
121 The benchmark samples were manufactured using laser directed energy deposition (L-DED) on a Liburdi

iew
122 Automated Welding System (LAWS) 1000 with a spot size of 0.9 mm, supplied by Liburdi Automation
123 Inc. A bi-linear stripe scan strategy was used, with the scan vectors alternating in direction by 90° every
124 two layers, as demonstrated in Figure 3. The laser power varied with layer number based on vendor
125 recommendation (Table 2), as the samples were printed on a large heat sink (substrate) and so the first
126 layers were printed at a higher power to ensure complete fusion (root), with transitional layers to gradually
127 lower the power (transition), before using a lower power in the remaining layers (fill). All other process

ev
128 parameters were held constant based on vendor recommendation and are presented in Table 3. All samples
129 were printed on 304 stainless steel substrates with dimensions 203 × 203 × 6.35 mm3. Two independent
130 replicate benchmark samples were printed from IN625 for repeatability analysis, and a single benchmark
131 was printed from IN718 for comparative purposes.

r
er
pe
132
133 Figure 3. Scan strategy of the printed samples where n = the first layer. The scanning direction alternates by 90° every two layers.
134
135 Table 2. Laser power variation between layers
ot

Layer Power (W)

Root (Layers 1 – 2) 350
Transition (Layers 3 – 4) 325
tn

Fill (Layers 5+) 300

136
137 Table 3. L-DED process parameters
Powder feed rate (g/min) 2.5
rin

Travel speed (mm/min) 508

Layer height (mm) 0.4
Ar shielding gas flow rate 11.8
(L/min)
Ar nozzle gas flow rate 2.8
ep

(L/min)
Ar powder carrier gas flow 3.5
rate (L/min)
138
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
139 2.4. Microstructural characterization and analysis

ed
140 The benchmark specimens were cross sectioned lengthwise at the mid-plane of the sample after printing in
141 order to assess cracking at the apex of the legs. Cross sections were mounted in conductive resin and
142 prepared by standard metallographic grinding and polishing, using a final polishing step with 0.04 µm
143 colloidal silica. The samples were not etched after polishing, but the colloidal silica produced a slight

iew
144 etching effect. A Keyence VHX-970F was used for optical microscopy. A Tescan Mira 3 XMU SEM
145 equipped with an Oxford Instruments X-Max energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) detector and an
146 Oxford Instruments Nordlys electron back scatter diffraction (EBSD) detector were used for detailed
147 microstructure analysis. SEM imaging, in both secondary (SE) and back scatter (BSE) electron modes, and
148 EDS measurements were performed with an accelerating voltage of 15 kV, while EBSD measurements
149 used an accelerating voltage and step size of 30 kV and 1µm, respectively. EBSD data was processed using

ev
150 AZtecCrystal software (build 3.1.390)
151 X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was performed on the IN625 benchmark samples to identify phases using
152 a Bruker D8 Advance system. All measurements were taken using a Cu anode (K𝛼1 = 1.5406 Å) with a Ni
153 K𝛽 filter. Samples were randomly oscillated in the X/Y plane to increase particle statistics. The sample was

r
154 rotated through a 2θ range of 20 º to 100 º with a step size of 0.03° and step time of 2s. Phase identification
155 was performed with Difrac EVA (version 6.1.0.4) using the Crystallography Open Database (rev.269086).
156
157
158
2.5. Simulations
2.5.1 Solidification simulation
er
The solidification behaviour of both IN625 and IN718 was simulated using Thermo-Calc (version 2022.b)
pe
159 with the TCNI12 Ni database. The non-equilibrium (i.e., Scheil) module was used for the simulations to
160 predict the temperature vs. solid fraction (T vs. fs) curves and phase evolution during solidification. A
161 temperature step size of 1 ºC was used, with no fast-diffusing elements or back diffusion selected. No phases
162 were suppressed during the simulations. The material compositions used for this analysis are based on the
163 ICP-OES results outlined in Table 1.
ot

164 2.5.2 L-DED process simulation

165 The directed energy deposition module of the commercially available Simufact Welding (Hexagon
166 Manufacturing Intelligence, version 2022.0.1) finite element (FE) software was used to simulate the
tn

167 thermomechanical behaviour of the benchmark specimen throughout printing and to provide a prediction
168 of the temperature and stress history at crack locations. The FE mesh for the benchmark was comprised of
169 hexahedral elements with a size of 0.4 mm, resulting in one element layer per printed layer, and was
170 produced with the software MSC Apex (version 2023.1). The mesh for the substrate was similar, but used
rin

171 an element size of 1 mm. Nodes at each corner of the substrate that were fixed in the x, y, and z directions
172 served as the boundary conditions with the first layer of the printed specimen being fixed to the substrate.
173 The material for the benchmark specimen was designated as Inconel 625 and the baseplate was designated
174 as 304 stainless steel, using the thermophysical properties in the Simufact database for each material. The
175 toolpath used for the simulation was created using the GCode produced by the Liburdi LAWS software for
ep

176 printing of the benchmark geometry (section 2.3. Benchmark Fabrication). These simulations used the exact
177 input geometry based on the CAD files from which the mesh was built, and such they cannot account for
178 geometric inaccuracies that may occur during printing. The simulations were performed using the
179 ‘Advanced Thermal Cycle’ setting in Simufact in order to reduce calculation time due to the size and
Pr

180 complexity of the simulation. This setting combines heat input for a defined number of timesteps, followed
181 by a cooling period. For the current simulation, 25 timesteps were merged for a given calculation, which
6

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
182 resulted in a calculation approx. every 2 seconds of simulated process time, and a single calculation could

ed
183 not contain more than one weld track. This setting may negatively impact the quality of results, especially
184 due to the complexity of the geometry; thus, the absolute values of predicted thermomechanical history
185 produced by the simulations may have an unknown margin of error. Nevertheless, the Advanced Thermal
186 Cycle setting was required for the simulations to reduce computational time (~1 week) and file size (~1
187 TB) for the benchmark design, and the level of error associated with using this simplification will be

iew
188 discussed later. Consequently, the FE simulation results were used to generally understand the local
189 thermomechanical history throughout the benchmark sample during printing rather than to predict the true
190 values.

191 3. Results
192 3.1 Crack quantification

ev
193 The printed benchmark specimens can be seen in Figure 4 for both IN625 and IN718, in which the layer-
194 wise nature of the L-DED process can be seen. Nevertheless, the bulk material in the samples was found to
195 generally be of high density (i.e., low porosity) and of good quality, except for the regions in which cracks
196 were intended to form. The optical microscopy images shown in Figure 5 reveal the presence of cracks

r
197 located at the apexes of where two legs join in the sample for both IN625 benchmark specimens. Note that
198 IN625 replicate 2 was initially cross sectioned along apex 5 for analysis in the transverse direction, but no
199
200
201
er
substantial results were obtained; consequently, no images were collected in the longitudinal section at this
location. As seen in Figure 5, many of the cracks propagate in a similar fashion, in which the zig-zag path
appears to follow the weld pool boundaries.
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep

202
203 Figure 4. Printed samples of the benchmark specimen for both IN625 and IN718.
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
 ed
iew
r ev
er
pe
ot
tn

204
205 Figure 5. Optical microscopy images of cracks at the intersections of legs in both of the IN625 replicate samples. Many of the
206 cracks follow a similar 'zig-zag' path, and all cracks have a similar initial narrow crack geometry. Note that replicate 2 was
rin

207 originally cut transversely through apex 5 and, therefore, the logitudinal cross section at this location was not able to be imaged.
208
209 The cracks were quantified by measuring both the maximum vertical length of the cracks from the apex of
210 the intersection to the tip of the crack (apex-to-tip length), and the total crack propagation length (total crack
ep

211 length), the results of which can be seen in Table 4 and Table 5. Measurements were conducted on optical
212 micrographs taken at 100× magnification. A crack was only measured if it was observed to originate at the
213 apex of the intersection within the cross section of analysis, and the distance measured includes any cracks
214 or other voids that are connected to this initial crack. By example, while a void can be seen in the micrograph
Pr

215 of apex 4 of replicate 1 in Figure 5, no crack length was recorded in Table 4 as no crack was observed to
216 originate at the apex. The ratio of the apex-to-tip length and the total crack length was also determined.
8

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
217 Interestingly, when cracks were observed at a given apex, the apex-to-tip:total crack length ratio was found

ed
218 to be between 0.8 to 0.9 for all apex locations in both benchmark replicates. It is worth noting that by
219 inspection of Table 4 and Table 5 that there is no clear relationship between any quantitative crack
220 measurement and apex location in the sample.
221 One challenge that was encountered when quantifying crack lengths was that the visibility of cracks was

iew
222 found to be influenced by the specific cross section analysed within the sample; a deviation of a few microns
223 further into the sample (e.g., from grinding and polishing) may reveal or remove cracks from view. This
224 also impacted the observed width of the crack and, therefore, the observed surface area of the crack. For
225 this reason, width and surface area measurements were not used for quantification. Comparison of the crack
226 lengths for replicate 1 (Table 4) and replicate 2 (Table 5) highlight the difficulty in obtaining highly
227 repeatable crack measurements, even in samples processed from the same powder with the same parameters

ev
228 and analysed at nominally the same location. Furthermore, the observation of voids near some of the apexes
229 confounds crack observations, as SC is closely related to the formation of shrinkage pores and lack of fusion
230 defects can act as stress risers; nevertheless, the inclusion of pores in the crack quantification measurements
231 was intended to simplify the quantification process and avoid further variation in measurements.

r
232 Table 4. Crack quantification at the apexes seen in Figure 5 for IN625 replicate 1.
Apex No. Apex-to-Tip Length (μm) Total Crack Length (μm) Apex:Total
Ratio
1
2
3
0
1579
868
er 0
1842
952
-
0.86
0.91
pe
4 0 0 -
5 690 847 0.81
6 1460 1739 0.84
7 1256 1424 0.88
233
ot

234 Table 5. Crack quantification at the apexes seen in Figure 5 for IN625 replicate 2.
Apex No. Apex-to-Tip Length (μm) Total Crack Length (μm) Apex:Total
Ratio
tn

1 625 764 0.82

2 1197 1368 0.88
3 944 1127 0.84
4 838 988 0.85
5 N/A N/A N/A
rin

6 784 880 0.89

7 0 0 -
235
ep

236 3.2 Microstructure analysis

237 Higher magnification SEM images of the cracks shown in Figure 5 in replicate 1 at apex 2 (Figure 6) and
238 apex 6 (Figure 7) reveal a fracture surface morphology that differs along the crack length, but show strong
239 similarities between the two cracks. As seen in Figure 6, the crack at intersection 2 differs in width and a
240 change in fracture morphology occurs at one of the points where propagation changes direction. Figure 7
Pr

241 shows an SEM image of a similar instance of hairline fracture propagating from a larger crack observed at

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
242 intersection 6, and it appears that this smaller crack propagates along an interdendritic pathway (Figure 7c).

ed
243 The fracture surface differs based on the location in the crack as well. As seen in Figure 6e, the surface
244 along the large, uniform crack is rough and dimpled, whereas the surface shown in Figure 7e is relatively
245 smooth with a number of ‘spikes’ across the surface, a morphology noted by Rappaz et al. [14] to be related
246 to solidification cracking. The fracture surface of the hairline fractures is difficult to determine due to their
247 narrow opening, however they do not show signs of a dendritic fracture surface that is common of SC [15].

iew
r ev
er
pe

248
ot

249 Figure 6. SEM-SE images of various locations along the crack in IN625 replicate 1, apex 2 as seen in Figure 5.
tn
rin
ep
Pr

10

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
 ed
iew
r ev
250
er
pe
251 Figure 7. SEM-SE images of various locations along the crack in IN625 replicate 1, apex 6, as seen in Figure 5.
252
253 The EBSD analyses of the microstructures in the proximity of the relatively wide and straight cracked
254 regions in replicate 1 at apex 2 and apex 6 are presented in Figure 8. The inverse pole figure (IPF) shows
255 that the cracks propagate in a transgranular mode , as seen by the same crystallographic grain orientations
ot

256 on either side of the crack, and the dimpled surface along the fracture (Figure 6e) supports the finding of a
257 transgranular fracture as a dimpled surface is common for ductile fracture modes [16]. Moreover, Figure
258 8c and 8f show a high number of low-angle grain boundaries (LAGB) in green for the cracks at apexes 2
tn

259 and 6, which are commonly associated with high strain rates and plastic deformation during fracture [17].
260 These transgranular fractures appear to occur close to the melt pool boundaries, as indicated by the aligned
261 columnar grains orthogonal to the crack and the change in directionality of the grains below the fracture
262 location in Figure 8b and e, which suggests solidification in different directions (i.e., towards the centre of
263 their respective melt pools). IPF maps of the region around the tip of the hairline fractures at both apex 2
rin

264 and apex 6 in IN625 replicate 1 (Figure 9) reveals that these cracks appear to continue to propagate
265 transgranularly, which indicates that they are not likely to be SC, as SC are well known to propagate in an
266 intergranular manner [18].
267
ep
Pr

11

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
 ed
iew
r ev
268
269 Figure 8. (a, d) SEM-SE images, (b, e) IPF-Z grain orientation maps, and (c, f) grain boundary maps for IN625 replicate 1 at (a-c)
270
271
272
er
apex 2 and (d-f) apex 6. The maps show a common transgranular fracture mode that propagates close to the weld pool boundary,
with a high density of LAGB adjacent to the cracks (shown in green in c and f).
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep

273
274 Figure 9. (a, c) SEM-SE images and (b, d) IPF-Z maps of the region surrounding the hairline fractures at (a, b) apex 2 and (c, d)
275 apex 6 in IN625 replicate 1.
276
Pr

277 EDS mapping of the wide, transgranular fracture region of the crack at apex 2 (Figure 6e) reveals the
278 presence of interdendritic phases enriched with Mo, Nb, and Cr oriented orthogonally to the direction of
12

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
279 the fracture (Figure 10), further confirming the transgranular nature of the cracks. In contrast, the hairline

ed
280 region of these cracks at both apex 2 and 6 appears to propagate along these enriched interdendritic regions,
281 as seen in Figure 11 for the crack located at apex 2. However, the IPF-Z map of this region (Figure 9)
282 indicates that portions of this region may in fact propagate transgranularly as well.

iew
r ev
283
er
pe
284 Figure 10. (a) SEM-SE image and (b-e) corresponding EDS maps of a portion of the transgranular fracture for the crack observed
285 in IN625 replicate 1 at apex 2 in Figure 5. Phases enriched with Mo and Nb can be seen to be aligned orthogonally to the crack
286 direction.
ot
tn
rin
ep

287
288 Figure 11. (a) SEM-SE image and (b-e) corresponding EDS maps of the tip of the hairline fracture at apex 6 in IN625 replicate 1
289 in Figure 5 .
Pr

290

13

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
291 The results of the XRD analysis for IN625 are presented in Figure 12. In general, the phase results are

ed
292 consistent with what is expected for IN625, with peaks corresponding to the primary γ-Ni phase and minor
293 peaks that correspond to MC, M6C, or M23C6 carbides [19]. The precipitates in Figure 11 may be the
294 carbides observed in the XRD analysis, as MC, M6C, and M23C6 carbides in Inconel 625 are rich in Nb,
295 Mo, and Cr [19], or they may correspond to the Laves phase, which is also enriched with these elements
296 [20].

iew
ev
297

r
298 Figure 12. XRD analysis of IN625 replicate 1 sample.
299
300
301
302
3.3. Inconel 718 Benchmark Analysis
er
The optical microscopy cross section images at the apexes for the benchmark specimen produced with
IN718 can be seen in Figure 13. It can be seen from the figure that far fewer cracks were observed in the
pe
303 IN718 sample compared to the IN625 sample (Figure 5), which is in good agreement with the general
304 understanding that IN718 more resistant to SC than IN625 [13]. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in
305 instances where cracks were observed in the IN718 sample (e.g., apex 4 in Figure 13), the crack exhibits a
306 similar zig-zag propagation path as those observed in IN625, suggesting a similar crack mechanism.
307 However, these cracks were shorter than those observed in the IN625 sample and, as such, little information
308 on crack morphology could be gathered. It should be noted that lack of fusion pores can be seen above the
ot

309 apex in several micrographs. In addition to the overhanging geometry in this region, the IN718 sample was
310 printed using process parameters that were optimized for high density IN625. Consequently, the energy
311 density may not have been optimal for IN718. Nevertheless, by comparison of the IN625 and IN718
tn

312 benchmark samples, it appears that the design of the benchmark specimen is able to repeatedly produce
313 cracks with the same morphology at reliable pre-defined locations (i.e., at the leg apex) even for different
314 alloys within the same material class, and is able to demonstrate the effect of alloy composition on crack
315 susceptibility.
rin
ep
Pr

14

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
 ed
iew
r ev
316
317
318
319
er
Figure 13. Optical microscopy of cracks located in benchmark specimen samples produced using IN718. The cracks are not as
severe as those seen in IN625, but a general propagation path (zig-zag) similar to the previous fractures can be seen at apexes 1
and 4.
pe
320 3.4. Solidification simulations
321 Figure 14 presents the solidification path for both IN625 and IN718 in the form of the temperature vs. solid
322 fraction (T vs. fs curve). The solidification temperature range of IN625 was predicted to be greater than that
323 for IN718, and a broader range is generally associated with increased susceptibility to SC [21]. Several
324 minor phases were predicted to form toward the end of solidification (e.g., Laves, σ), which likely
ot

325 correspond to the interdendritic phases observed in Figure 11. It should be noted that since no carbon was
326 detected in the ICP-OES data in Table 1, the carbide phases identified in the XRD analysis (Figure 12) were
327 not predicted during solidification in Figure 14.
tn
rin
ep
Pr

15

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
 1400

ed
1350

1300

Temperature (°C)

iew
1250

1200

ev
1150
IN625 IN718
1100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
fs
328

r
329 Figure 14. Thermo-Calc predicted solidification behaviour of IN625 and IN718.
330
331
332
3.5. Thermomechanical simulations of L-DED er
The results of the Simufact simulation can be seen in Figure 15, in which the simulation has been frozen
pe
333 after printing of the layer that joins the apexes of the legs. It can clearly be seen in Figure 15 that stress (and
334 strain) localization occurs throughout the sample thickness at each of the apexes. To further understand the
335 local thermomechanical history at the apexes during printing, the temperature and equivalent stress history
336 at the nodes at the longitudinal centreline in the top layer shown in Figure 15 were extracted from the FE
337 simulation (Figure 16). For the sake of brevity and clarity, the thermomechanical histories for apex 2 and
338 apex 6 are presented below, as these were the focus of the microstructure characterization above.
ot

339 The temperature profile at each apex clearly demonstrates the repeated reheating and rapid cooling due to
340 the deposition of adjacent tracks and subsequent layers. It should be noted that apex 6 was deposited first
341 in the layer in which the apexes were first joined based on the scan strategy and layer sequence and,
tn

342 therefore, appears before apex 2 in the thermal history. Due to the tool path, as the deposition head travels
343 from one end of the specimen to the other and then returns at the end of the subsequent layer, one side of
344 the specimen will have one layer end and the next begin directly on top of it immediately, whereas the other
345 end of the sample will have a longer period of cooling between layers. This affects the period between
rin

346 reheating cycles and the cooling rate of each apex and is heavily impact by the scan strategy. By example,
347 from Figure 16, it can be seen that the time period between the initial deposition and subsequent re-heat
348 cycle at apex 2 is approximate 30 sec, whereas the difference between deposition and subsequent heating
349 at apex 6 is approx. 95 sec. It should also be noted that the peak temperature observed in the thermal history
350 in Figure 16, which corresponds to melting during deposition at each apex, is approximately 1085 °C to
ep

351 1100 °C. These values are below the Thermo-Calc-predicted liquidus temperature expected for the IN625
352 powder composition used in this study (Figure 14). It is expected that this discrepancy can be attributed to
353 two main causes. First, it is well known that the melting range of IN625 is highly sensitive to the exact
354 composition of the sample [22]. Thus, if the composition and corresponding melting temperature range of
Pr

355 the powder used in the current study does not exactly match the values used in the Simufact material
356 database, then the temperature could be underpredicted in the simulation. The Simufact material database
16

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
357 defines the solidus temperature for IN625 as 1137 °C the liquidus temperature as 1336 °C, so the peak

ed
358 temperature should have been above 1336 °C in the simulations. While some instances of lack of fusion
359 were noted in the printed samples (e.g., replicate 1 apex 1 and replicate 2 apex 7), high density and good
360 fusion were clearly observed in the samples, indicating that melting did of course occur during printing.
361 Secondly, it was noted in section 2.5.2 that the Advanced Thermal Cycle setting was used to reduce
362 computational demands by merging data for several timesteps in the calculations, which is expected to

iew
363 reduce the precision of the simulation predictions. Consequently, the simulation data is used here to
364 generally understand the thermomechanical history of the material with an expected level of inaccuracy.
365 The evolution of the equivalent stress at apex 2 and apex 6 can be seen in Figure 16. As previously noted,
366 apex 6 was printed before apex 2 and, as such, had a longer cooling period compared to apex 2 as the heat
367 sourced moved away towards the other side of the specimen, and then returned. This resulted in a larger

ev
368 difference in maximum and minimum temperatures experienced at apex 6 compared to apex 2, which in
369 turn resulted in a variance in stress experienced at each apex. Because there is a greater duration between
370 melting & re-heat at apex 6, it can cool more and, consequently, experiences more thermal contraction.
371 Moreover, the cooler underlying metal would have a higher strength compared to just-deposited material

r
372 (e.g., at apex 2), so the degree of restraint at apex 6 during the first re-heat is greater. These changes are
373 reflected by a greater equivalent stress at apex 6 compared to apex 2 in Figure 16. This highlights the impact
374 of scan strategy on the outcome of this specimen, as the direction of scanning can vary based on layer
375
376 er
number as well as the location along the specimen in a given layer. It should be noted that although stress
is predicted to be lower in apex 2, cracks were still observed at both locations.
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

17

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
 ed
iew
r ev
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep

377
378 Figure 15: Simufact Welding predicted (a) temperature, (b) equivalent stress, and (c) plastic strain at the completion of the layer
Pr

379 that connects each apex. Higher levels of stress and strain can be seen along the length of each apex. Red arrows in (a) show the
380 scan pattern orientation of this layer.

18

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
 (a) (b)

ed
1200 140 1200 140

1000 120 1000 120

100 100
Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°C)

iew
800 800

Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
80 80
600 600
60 60
400 400
40 40
200 200

ev
20 20

0 0 0 0
1000 1500 2000 1000 1500 2000
Time since beginning of print (s) Time since beginning of print (s)

r
Temperature Stress Temperature Stress
381
382 Figure 16. Simufact Welding simulated temperature and equivalent stress vs. print time for the FE node at (a) apex 2 and (b) apex
383
384

385
er
6. The effect of the scan strategy on the temperature profile and stress evolution can be seen in the difference in reheating
frequency at each apex as the layer number increases.

A brief study of the effect of the Advanced Thermal Cycle setting and its parameters was conducted in
pe
386 order to better understand the effect it may have had on the obtained results. For this investigation, a single
387 apex (i.e., two legs) of the benchmark was simulated using the same settings as the original, except for the
388 Advanced Thermal Cycle settings (i.e., the number of combined timesteps and the timestep length). The
389 parameter sets used for this study can be seen in Table 6, and due to the instability of some of the
390 simulations, the final status of the simulation is also included. The naming convention for the successful
391 parameter sets is presented as “x-y”, where ‘x’ is the number of combined timesteps and ‘y’ is the timestep
ot

392 length (e.g., 25-1 had 25 combined timesteps with a timestep length of 1 second). As seen in Table 6, not
393 only did some of the parameter sets fail to successfully simulate the process, the simulation which did not
394 use the Advanced Thermal Cycle at all also experienced significant instability due to extreme deformation
tn

395 of some elements and was unable to complete. This may be due to the complexity of the geometry,
396 limitations within the software, or deviations in mesh quality. These issues also occurred in parameter sets
397 that used fewer combined timesteps that more closely reflect the ‘true’ results. However, a greater number
398 of combined timesteps alleviated these issues and produced consistent simulation stability which may
rin

399 suggest that, for complex simulations, the Advanced Thermal cycle may not only be recommended to save
400 on processing requirements, but may be required to increase simulation stability at the cost of result
401 accuracy.

402
ep

403

404
Pr

405

19

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
406 Table 6. Parameters used to assess the effect of the advanced thermal cycle setting.

ed
Number of combined timesteps Timestep length (s) Simulation status
Setting deactivated Failure
25 1 Success
25 2 Success
25 3 Success

iew
20 1 Success
20 2 Success
20 3 Success
15 1 Failure
15 2 Failure
15 3 Failure
407

ev
408 It is important to note that when considering the timestep length, unlike most FE simulations, a shorter
409 timestep does not necessarily equal a greater level of accuracy. For the purpose of the Advanced Thermal
410 Cycle, the timestep length indicates the length of time that heating is applied to the combined timesteps

r
411 and, as such, this value is dependent on the process itself and the ideal length will vary between processes.
412 For similar simulations, the timestep length has a relatively small range of ideal values and does not require
413 a considerable amount of adjustment. Figure 17 presents the predicted temperature and stress recorded at
414
415
416
er
the same location of the full simulation (i.e., the apex of the leg intersection). As seen in Figure 17, the
effect of both the number of combined timesteps and the timestep length is minimal in terms of results
obtained from simulations in which the Advanced Thermal Cycle is enabled. However, due to the lack of
pe
417 data from a simulation without the Advanced Thermal Cycle setting enabled, it is difficult to confirm the
418 accuracy of the absolute values; nevertheless, the predicted temperature never reached the melting point of
419 IN625 in any of the simulations, so the absolute values from the simulations for this geometry can be
420 considered inaccurate, similar to the full simulation. Although the absolute values are not reliable, the
421 observed trends across parameter sets maintain a high level of consistency, with increases and decreases in
422 temperature and stress, occurring at the same times with relatively similar magnitudes. For this reason, the
ot

423 use of the predicted results as a comparative aid rather than a predictor of absolute values remains a
424 reasonable method of result analysis.
tn
rin
ep

425
Pr

426 Figure 17. Predicted (a) temperature and (b) stress of a single apex under different simulation settings.

20

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
427 4. Discussion

ed
428 4.1. Effectiveness of Benchmark Design
429 From the above analysis, the benchmark design successfully produced cracks that were easily observed
430 with optical microscopy in specific, pre-defined locations in the sample (i.e., at the apexes). It should be
431 noted that no clear relationship between crack severity and crack location was identified, even though the

iew
432 Simufact simulations indicated there was a difference in the thermomechanical history at each location.
433 Therefore, in order to develop a robust crack susceptibility index that accounts for both crack severity and
434 the local level of restraint, similar to the CRC test [6], modifications to the existing design are required. By
435 example, the leg widths could be varied across the width of the sample, to create asymmetrical and varying
436 levels of self-restraint on each of the apexes, similar to varying rod lengths in the CRC. Nevertheless, cracks
437 were observed in two separate IN625 samples, though the quantitative measurements of crack lengths were

ev
438 not exceptionally repeatable between the two replicate samples. However, it was found that the apex-to-
439 tip:total crack length ratio was consistently between 0.8 to 0.9 for all apexes across both replicates. From
440 the detailed EBSD analysis of the crack propagation, it was found that the cracks tend to follow melt pool
441 boundaries. Therefore, this ratio may serve as a method of quality control and crack quantification for

r
442 process optimization, as process parameters will affect the melt pool size and shape and, consequently, the
443 crack length and propagation path.
444
445
446
447
er
The design was also able to discriminate between materials, as fewer and less severe cracks were observed
in IN718 compared to IN625. This result is in general agreement with prior work that has shown IN718 to
be less crack susceptible than IN625 [13]. The composition effect on solidification crack susceptibility
(SCS) can also be assessed for the specific powder compositions used in this study, by using the Thermo-
pe
448 Calc data presented in Figure 14 and Kou’s SCS index [2,23]:

449 𝑆𝐶𝑆 = max | |𝑓 →𝑓

𝑑𝑇
𝑑 𝑓𝑠 𝑠 𝑠,𝑐𝑜
(eq. 1)

450 in which T is temperature, fs is the solid fraction, and fs,co is the solid fraction corresponding to dendrite
451 coalescence, which is generally assumed to occur around fs = 0.98. From the data in Figure 14, it was found
ot

452 that SCSIN625 = 10,089°C and SCSIN718 = 2,043°C, confirming greater susceptibility of IN625.
453 Robust crack quantification using the current design faces a few issues, namely the presence of other defects
tn

454 (i.e., voids) located around the crack site, which confounds the crack morphology and size. Another issue
455 is the varying width of the cracks, which may be due to the propagation of the crack into or out of the
456 observed plane, suggesting that the entire crack cannot be observed in a single plane and minor differences
457 in sample preparation can reveal or remove parts of the crack. This complicates measurement of crack
458 lengths, as distinct locations for the end of the crack are difficult to determine with cracks that transition
rin

459 from wide to hairline as they grow.

460 In summary, the existing benchmark provides a reliable method to generate cracks at predefined locations,
461 and the crack severity can be quantified fairly easily through optical microscopy. It also seems that the
462 dimensionless crack ratio identified here may provide a method to quantify the effect of process parameters
ep

463 on cracking, based on the change in melt pool geometry. The benchmark design also enables the
464 differentiation of crack susceptibility between different alloys. However, further improvements are needed
465 for the design. In particular, the benchmark would ideally vary the extent of restraint throughout the sample
466 to further differentiate crack susceptibility of materials and would have a robust way to deconvolute the
Pr

467 effect of other defects that may be present in the material. However, the most important consideration is
468 whether the results from this test are due to SC or another mechanism.
21

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
469 4.2. Crack Mechanism

ed
470 As previously noted, several crack mechanisms can occur during solidification and cooling of Ni
471 superalloys including SC, LC, and DDC. Each of these crack mechanisms corresponds to a particular
472 temperature range and each typically exhibit characteristic features [24,25]. In the case of SC, cracks occur
473 during the terminal stages of solidification between coherency and coalescence when liquid flow becomes

iew
474 interdendritic and, therefore, tend to exhibit a dendritic structure on the crack surface. Moreover, it is known
475 that SC tend to occur intergranularly, particularly at high angle grain boundaries and between coarse,
476 columnar grains [26–28]. The current analysis of the cracks at the apexes in the benchmark sample revealed
477 that the cracks were transgranular, resulting in a dimpled crack surface (Figure 7), and tended to have long
478 straight sections that did not follow grain boundaries. Rather, the cracks were found to propagate through
479 columnar grains near the melt pool boundaries (Figure 8), and a large amount of LAGB were identified

ev
480 along the crack surface suggesting that the regions experienced significant plastic deformation [29]. Carter
481 et al. [15] previously noted that such straight cracks are indicative of a solid-state fracture rather than SC.
482 The Simufact simulations also predicted that the local stress at the apexes could reach levels close to the
483 elevated temperature tensile strength of IN625, further supporting the likelihood of a solid-state crack. The
484 possibility of these larger transgranular cracks acting as initiation sites for SC in subsequently deposited

r
485 layers was also investigated. However, the EBSD and EDS analyses in Figure 9 and Figure 11, respectively,
486 revealed that the hairline cracks remained transgranular and did not have a strong relationship with the
487
488
489
er
location of interdendritic phases (i.e., final liquid during solidification).
Young et al. [30] suggested that DDC, which is a solid state crack occurring between ~0.5-0.8Tm, may
occur due to the presence of carbides precipitating at the grain boundaries, and Pereira et al. [31] noted the
pe
490 presence of carbides rich in Nb, Mo, and Cr in Inconel 625. The EDS maps shown in Figure 11 reveal the
491 presence of Nb, Mo, and Cr along the propagation path of these hairline fractures, and the XRD data in
492 Figure 12 contained peaks corresponding to carbides, even though no carbon was detected in the ICP-OES
493 analysis of the starting powder. However, DDC is also known to be an intergranular fracture mode, related
494 to grain boundary sliding and embrittlement [32].
ot

495 From the current set of results, it appears that the cracks observed within the benchmark sample are a ductile
496 fracture that occurs when the local stress at the apexes exceeds the elevated temperature tensile strength of
497 the material. Consequently, the existing benchmark design should be modified to reduce the localized stress
498 at these locations. The applied stress should be sufficiently high such that it could cause a shrinkage cavity
tn

499 of a critical size (governed by the Griffith criteria in fracture mechanics), to propagate as a crack along
500 interdendritic films [33], but remain below the elevated temperature tensile strength of the parent material.
501 As discussed previously, varying levels of self-restraint could be induced by varying geometric features in
502 the benchmark, such as the width of the legs, similar to the CRC and Houldcroft tests in casting and welding.
rin

503 5. Conclusions
504 A lack of methods to systematically quantify cracking presents a serious challenge to standardization and
505 widespread industrial adoption of AM. The objective of the current study was to develop a benchmark
506 specimen that could induce cracks at pre-defined locations that could be easily quantified to qualify
ep

507 materials and printing conditions. The main conclusions of this study are as follows:

508  A SC susceptibility test for AM can successfully utilise self-imposed stress to promote cracking
509 in specific regions. The benchmark design in the current study demonstrated the ability to do so in
510 multiple replicate samples and different alloys.
Pr

22

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
511  The benchmark developed in this study was able to demonstrate the effect of alloy composition on

ed
512 crack susceptibility, as IN718 exhibited less cracking than IN625.
513  Cracks were quantified with apex-to-tip and total crack length measurements. The ratio of these
514 two lengths showed consistency (0.8-0.9) which suggests this may be a dimensionless method of
515 quantification.
516  Cracks were found to form transgranularly and did not have a dendritic fracture surface. Moreover,

iew
517 it was found that the cracks propagated along the melt pool boundary, had a dimpled surface, and
518 LAGB were observed near the crack surface, all of which suggest that these cracks were the result
519 of ductile fracture, not SC. Simulation results also suggest high stress at the apex locations,
520 approaching the elevated tensile strength of IN625.
521  FE simulations for moderately complex geometries, such as the presented benchmark, are
522 computationally restrictive for DED processes. Simplifications are used to reduce computational

ev
523 demands, however, this sacrifices the accuracy of the predicted thermomechanical histories in the
524 part. Despite this, the results can be used as a comparative analysis of points in the same sample.
525 The current specimen design presented in this study is an initial effort toward the development of

r
526 standardized benchmarks for crack quantification. While some features of the test are promising (e.g.,
527 reliably producing cracks that can be quantified), further refinement or optimization of the design is
528 required to induce SC and to develop more robust crack susceptibility measures. Optimisation of the design
529
530

531
er
may include determination of ideal dimensions such as leg widths and heights, as well as the number of
legs such that the local stress can be reliably varied throughout the sample.

Acknowledgements
pe
532 The authors would like to acknowledge the financial assistance of NSERC Discovery Grant program
533 (RGPIN-2021-02892) and UBC Okanagan Aspire fund (AWD-016845). The authors of this paper would
534 also like to acknowledge the support of the following individuals and organisations: Dr. Sudip Shrestha and
535 the FiLTER laboratory for assistance with SEM, EDS, and EBSD imaging, Ms. Emma Pugsley of Liburdi
536 Automation Inc. for assistance in design optimisation and fabrication, and Dr. Matthew Brown of UBCO
ot

537 for performing XRD procedures and assisting with analysis.

tn
rin
ep
Pr

23

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
538 References

ed
539 [1] D.G. Eskin, Suyitno, L. Katgerman, Mechanical properties in the semi-solid state and hot tearing of
540 aluminium alloys, Prog. Mater. Sci. 49 (2004) 629–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-
541 6425(03)00037-9.
542 [2] S. Kou, A simple index for predicting the susceptibility to solidification cracking, Weld J. 94 (2015)
543 374–388.

iew
544 [3] M.J. Benoit, M. Mazur, M.A. Easton, M. Brandt, Effect of alloy composition and laser powder bed
545 fusion parameters on the defect formation and mechanical properties of Inconel 625, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
546 Technol. 114 (2021) 915–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-06957-z.
547 [4] C. Lundin, W. Savage, The Varestraint test, Weld. J. Res. Suppl. 44 (1965).
548 [5] International Organization for Standardization, ISO/TR 17641-3:2005 Destructive tests on welds in
549 metallic materials — Hot cracking tests for weldments — Arc welding processes — Part 3: Externally
550 loaded tests, (2005).

ev
551 [6] G. Cao, S. Kou, Hot cracking of binary Mg–Al alloy castings, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 417 (2006) 230–
552 238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2005.10.050.
553 [7] T. Kannengiesser, T. Boellinghaus, Hot cracking tests—an overview of present technologies and
554 applications, Weld. World. 58 (2014) 397–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-014-0126-y.

r
555 [8] A. Wall, M.J. Benoit, A Review of Existing Solidification Crack Tests and Analysis of Their
556 Transferability to Additive Manufacturing, J. Mater. Process. Technol. (2023).
557 [9] AMB2018-01 Description, NIST. (2018). https://www.nist.gov/ambench/amb2018-01-description
558
559
560
561
(accessed May 18, 2023).
er
[10]Y. Yang, M. Allen, T. London, V. Oancea, Residual Strain Predictions for a Powder Bed Fusion
Inconel 625 Single Cantilever Part, Integrating Mater. Manuf. Innov. 8 (2019) 294–304.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00144-5.
pe
562 [11]P.T. Houldcroft, A simple cracking test for use with argon-arc welding, Br. Weld. J. 2 (1955) 471–475.
563 [12]M. Mazur, M. Benoit, M. Easton, M. Brandt, Selective laser melting of Inconel 625 alloy with reduced
564 defect formation, J. Laser Appl. 32 (2020) 022058. https://doi.org/10.2351/7.0000093.
565 [13]C. Xia, S. Kou, Evaluating susceptibility of Ni-base alloys to solidification cracking by transverse-
566 motion weldability test, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 25 (2020) 690–697.
567 https://doi.org/10.1080/13621718.2020.1802897.
ot

568 [14]M. Rappaz, J.-M. Drezet, P. Grasso, A. Jacot, D. Stefanescu, Hot tearing and coalescence: Two deeply-
569 connected phenomena, Model. Cast. Weld. Adv. Solidif. Process. (2003).
570 [15]L. Carter, M. Attallah, R. Reed, Laser Powder Bed Fabrication of Nickel-base Superalloys: Influence
tn

571 of Parameters; Characterisation, Quantification and Mitigation of Cracking, (2012).

572 [16]F. Liu, X. Lin, C. Huang, M. Song, G. Yang, J. Chen, W. Huang, The effect of laser scanning path on
573 microstructures and mechanical properties of laser solid formed nickel-base superalloy Inconel 718, J.
574 Alloys Compd. 509 (2011) 4505–4509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.11.176.
575 [17]Q. Liu, L. Fang, Z. Xiong, J. Yang, Y. Tan, Y. Liu, Y. Zhang, Q. Tan, C. Hao, L. Cao, J. Li, Z. Gao,
rin

576 The response of dislocations, low angle grain boundaries and high angle grain boundaries at high strain
577 rates, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 822 (2021) 141704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2021.141704.
578 [18]L. Katgerman, D.G. Eskin, In Search of the Prediction of Hot Cracking in Aluminium Alloys, in: T.
579 Bollinghaus, H. Herold, C.E. Cross, J.C. Lippold (Eds.), Hot Crack. Phenom. Welds II, 2008.
580 [19]M. Rombouts, G. Maes, M. Mertens, W. Hendrix, Laser metal deposition of Inconel 625:
ep

581 Microstructure and mechanical properties, J. Laser Appl. 24 (2012) 052007.

582 https://doi.org/10.2351/1.4757717.
583 [20]B. Dubiel, J. Sieniawski, Precipitates in Additively Manufactured Inconel 625 Superalloy, Materials.
584 12 (2019) 1144. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12071144.
585 [21]T.C. Luskin, Investigation of weldability in high-Cr Ni-base filler metals, PhD Thesis, The Ohio State
Pr

586 University, 2013.

24

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352
587 [22]M. Cieslak, The welding and solidification metallurgy of alloy 625, Weld. J. Res. Suppl. 2 (1991) 49–

ed
588 56.
589 [23]S. Kou, A criterion for cracking during solidification, Acta Mater. 88 (2015) 366–374.
590 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2015.01.034.
591 [24]S. Kou, Solidification and liquation cracking issues in welding, (2003) 6.
592 [25]J. Yang, F. Li, Z. Wang, X. Zeng, Cracking behavior and control of Rene 104 superalloy produced by

iew
593 direct laser fabrication, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 225 (2015) 229–239.
594 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.06.002.
595 [26]Z. Zhou, L. Huang, Y. Shang, Y. Li, L. Jiang, Q. Lei, Causes analysis on cracks in nickel-based single
596 crystal superalloy fabricated by laser powder deposition additive manufacturing, Mater. Des. 160
597 (2018) 1238–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.10.042.
598 [27]Y. Chen, F. Lu, K. Zhang, P. Nie, S.R. Elmi Hosseini, K. Feng, Z. Li, Dendritic microstructure and hot
599 cracking of laser additive manufactured Inconel 718 under improved base cooling, J. Alloys Compd.

ev
600 670 (2016) 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.01.250.
601 [28]Q. Han, R. Mertens, M.L. Montero-Sistiaga, S. Yang, R. Setchi, K. Vanmeensel, B. Van Hooreweder,
602 S.L. Evans, H. Fan, Laser powder bed fusion of Hastelloy X: Effects of hot isostatic pressing and the
603 hot cracking mechanism, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 732 (2018) 228–239.

r
604 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2018.07.008.
605 [29]Fracture processes of aerospace materials, in: Introd. Aerosp. Mater., Elsevier, 2012: pp. 428–453.
606 https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857095152.428.
607
608
609
610
er
[30]G. Young, T. Capobianco, M. Penik, B. Morris, J. McGee, The Mechanism of Ductility Dip Cracking
in Nickel-Chromium Alloys, Weld. J.-N. Y.-. 87 (2008) 31.
[31]F.G.L. Pereira, J.M. Lourenço, R.M. do Nascimento, N.A. Castro, Fracture Behavior and Fatigue
Performance of Inconel 625, Mater. Res. 21 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5373-mr-2017-1089.
pe
611 [32]S.J. Luther, B.T. Alexandrov, S.L. McCracken, J.K. Tatman, Correlation of imposed mechanical
612 energy with ductility-dip cracking in a highly restrained weld of Alloy 52, J. Manuf. Process. 79 (2022)
613 767–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.05.027.
614 [33]Suyitno, W.H. Kool, L. Katgerman, Integrated Approach for Prediction of Hot Tearing, Metall. Mater.
615 Trans. A. 40 (2009) 2388–2400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-009-9941-y.
616
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

25

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537352