International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Fatigue

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

Fatigue crack growth characterization of Inconel 718 after additive

manufacturing by laser powder bed fusion and heat treatment
Konrad Gruber a, *, Patrycja Szymczyk-Ziółkowska a, Szymon Dziuba b, Szymon Duda b,
Paweł Zielonka b, Stanislav Seitl c, Grzegorz Lesiuk b
a
Centre for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies – Fraunhofer Project Centre (CAMT-FPC), Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and
Technology, Lukasiewicza 5 St., 50-371 Wroclaw, Poland
b
Department of Mechanics, Materials Science and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wrocław University of Science and Technology,
Smoluchowskiego 25 St., 50-372 Wrocław, Poland
c
Institute of Physics of Materials, Czech Academy of Science, Žižkova 22, Brno 616 00, Czech Republic

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Numerous studies were conducted on the tension–compression fatigue behavior of Inconel 718 (IN718) fabri­
Inconel 718 cated with laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). Contrary, only a few fatigue crack growth rate (FCGR) studies are
Laser powder bed fusion available in the literature. Considering the above, LPBF manufactured IN718 is heat treated in variants including
Hot isostatic pressing
(H) and excluding (A) hot isostatic pressing. FCGR tests are performed at stress ratios R = 0.1 and R = 0.5. Both
Fatigue crack growth rate
Mean stress effect
variants show similar FCGR and fracture modes at both stress ratios, despite a significant difference in ductility.
Furthermore, A and H show similar FCGR at R = 0.1 and better performance at R = 0.5 compared to wrought
IN718.

resulting from the solidification process during LPBF manufacturing [5]:

1. Introduction
Inconel 718 (IN718, Alloy 718, UNS NO7718) is one of the most
widely used nickel superalloys. For example, Inconel 718 stands for 34%
of the weight of modern turbine engines [1]. Inconel 718 is character­
ized by a unique combination of properties: good susceptibility to pre­
cipitation strengthening through heat treatment, fair weldability, and
good processability by additive manufacturing. In IN718, coherent γ” is
the main strengthening phase, unlike other popular nickel alloys that are
strengthened primarily by the γ’ phase [2]. Hence, IN718 owes its
technological properties and broad applicability, as it can be processed
by forging, casting, and welding. Its properties and microstructure can
be modified for a specific application using post-process treatment.
At the same time, Inconel 718 is a difficult-to-machine alloy [3].
Therefore, using layer-by-layer manufacturing offers excellent oppor­
tunities to reduce the time, cost, and complexity of manufacturing
processes for Inconel 718 parts. Adapting the laser powder bed fusion
(LPBF) process is desirable, among others, in the aerospace industry [4].
However, additively manufactured Inconel 718 is not used as often as
wanted, especially in applications where the material operates under
cyclical loads. This is due to the number of hard-to-remove defects
porosity, microstructural texture, anisotropy of properties, micro­
segregation, and residual stress.
Using LPBF fabricated Inconel 718 generates several technological
challenges, for example, selecting a heat treatment (HT) right for a given
application. In the literature, different approaches can be found.
Microstructure evolution of LPBF fabricated IN718 alloy is driven by a
high temperature gradient and a high cooling rate, resulting in direc­
tional non-equilibrium solidification of the alloy [6]. The solidification
mechanism causes obvious defects, such as residual stress and pores.
However, the microstructural features obtained can be considered de­
fects in one application and advantages in another. Recent studies show
that if the high dislocation density induced by the LPBF process is
retained after the heat treatment process, the dislocation cells increase
the strength and elongation of the alloy [7] and improve its creep per­
formance [8].
Additively manufactured materials are generally less repeatable and
characterized by a shorter fatigue life than their wrought counterparts
[9]. The size and location of critical-size defects lead to fatigue life
scatter. The cause is the aforementioned process-induced defects, mainly
lack of fusion (LOF) pores, gas pores, and extended surface features.
Such defects arise in certain regions of the material. Its size, quantity,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: konrad.gruber@pwr.edu.pl (K. Gruber).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.107287
Received 28 June 2022; Received in revised form 16 September 2022; Accepted 18 September 2022
Available online 23 September 2022
0142-1123/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. Gruber et al.
Nomenclature
Symbols and abbreviated terms
Symbol Designation
α Normalized crack length
γ′ Gamma prime phase in nickel-based superalloys – Ni3(Al,
Ti)
γ“ Gamma double prime phase in nickel-based superalloys –
Ni3Nb
δ Delta phase in nickel-based superalloys (orthorhombic) –
Ni3Nb
ΔF Applied range of force
ΔK Stress intensity factor range
ΔKth Stress intensity factor near-threshold range
A4 Elongation at Fracture
A variant Heat treatment variant A (excluding Hot Isostatic
Pressing)
AB As-built material – raw LPBF manufactured material
AMS Aerospace Material Specifications – SAE International
standard
ASTM ASTM International – international standards organization
C, m experimentally determined Paris law constants
CT specimen Compact Tension specimen
and location (e.g., surface, subsurface, bulk) are random, as a solidifi­
cation of the AM material is subjected to constant condition change
caused by local powder layer fluctuations, process parameters and
scanning strategy or size of the fabricated part. Finally, process-induced
defects are considered potential crack initiation sites, having a major
influence on the fatigue life of AM materials. In connection with the
above, great attention is paid to studying process–structure–-property
relationships in additively manufactured alloys.
Recent studies show that the fatigue life of additively manufactured
materials can be predicted by studying process-induced defects [10,11].
In this approach, the initial size, morphology, and location of the defect
are closely related to the resulting fatigue life. In paper [10], fatigue
curves of AM materials are approximated based on computer tomogra­
phy data and experimental fatigue data. Using extreme value statistics
theory and Kitagawa-Takahashi diagrams, fatigue curves are success­
fully predicted for AlSi10Mg LPBF fabricated with different specimen
sizes and processing parameters. The authors of the paper [11] use a
similar approach to predict the total fatigue life of the IN718 manu­
factured with LPBF. Authors consider that, as in AM materials, defects
already exist (e.g., LOF and gas pores), then crack growth-based fatigue
data can be applied to predict S/N fatigue curves when the defect sta­
tistic is known. The authors show that by knowing the statistical range of
defect size and its variation in LPBF IN718, fatigue life can be accurately
predicted using a crack growth model based on the FCGR experiment
[11]. In the other study [9], fatigue crack growth simulations, adopting
the NASGRO equation, successfully predicted the fatigue life of LPBF
fabricated 17–4 PH stainless steel. The model captures the difference in
fatigue life of a net-shaped material, characterized by large surface and
subsurface defects (up to 250 µm), and a surface-machined material,
where cracks are initiated from smaller subsurface pores (20–30 µm).
The fatigue properties of LPBF IN718 are of great interest in the field
of AM [12]. Literature reports indicate inferior fatigue properties of
LPBF IN718 to wrought IN718 [13], pointing to LOF pores, process-
induced residual stress, and as-built surface as the primary influence
factors. Uniform AM defects, such as gas porosity and surface micro­
cracks, have only a minor effect on Inconel 718 fabricated with LPBF
[14] in the as-built state. However, the presence of large pores, espe­
cially the lack of fusion pores, is significant for tension–compression
fatigue life, especially in the low cycle region [15]. Furthermore, fatigue
2
International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287
C&W Cast & Wrought material
FCGR Fatigue Crack Growth Rate
HIP Hot Isostatic Pressing
H variantHeat treatment variant H (including Hot Isostatic
Pressing)
HT Heat Treatment
HV (HV0.5) Vickers Hardness (Vickers Hardness under 0.5 kg load)
IN625 Inconel 625 alloy
IN718 Inconel 718 alloy
LCMS Laser Confocal Scanning Microscope
LOF Lack of Fusion pore/pores
LPBF Laser Powder Bed Fusion
t CT specimen thickness
PBF-LB/M Powder Bed Fusion – Laser Beam/Metals (as in ASTM
standards)
PSD Powder Size Distribution
R R-ratio (stress ratio of fatigue loading)
RoA Reduction of Area
SEM Scanning Electron Microscopy
S/N Stress/Number of Cycles to failure curve
UTS Ultimate Tensile Strength
W CT specimen width
YS Yield Strength
life deterioration due to defects is more noticeable at room temperature
compared to elevated temperatures [16], especially after heat treatment
[17]. Machined LPBF IN718 show 2-times higher fatigue strength in
notched specimens, when fully heat treated, compared to non-machined
and heat treated LPBF IN718 [18]. The load-to-build orientation also
influences the fatigue behavior of LPBF IN718. Vertically oriented and
loaded samples show inferior properties to their horizontally built and
loaded counterparts [13].
As mentioned earlier, the unpredictability of the size and location of
critical-size defects leads to fatigue life scatter. Defect control is highly
important when the goal is not the highest possible strength, but the
lowest possible probability of unexpected failure. For this purpose, one
of the primary recipients of LPBF technology, i.e., the aerospace in­
dustry, uses a hot isostatic pressing (HIP) process to densify the alloy
post-LPBF. HIP process can reduce the porosity of IN718 alloy from 7%
to 8% to ≤0.01% [1]. Simultaneously, HIP process leads to homogeni­
zation and recrystallization of LPBF fabricated IN718. HIP also leads to
the removal of process-induced dislocation cells, so their influence on
mechanical properties disappears. Controlling time, pressure, and tem­
perature allows one to produce materials and elements with properties
much different from before HIP [19]. The change in microstructure and
the improvement in tensile properties and tensile fracture mode of
IN718 powder are influenced by selecting the proper process tempera­
ture [20]. The porosity in Inconel 718 superalloy is a function of soaking
time and temperature during HIP treatment. The article [19] shows a
reduction in porosity of 78% after 2 h, 84% after 3 h, and 86% after HIP
treatment for 4 h.
Furthermore, after HIP, the mode of compact tensile fracture changes
from interparticle-dominant fracture to fully dimpled ductile fracture.
Increasing HIP temperature increases the decoupling of the prior grain
boundaries with the carbide particles. However, a high temperature and
sufficient soak time must be used. Another significant result of HIP
process is grain boundary evolution, resulting in a large amount of Ʃ3
twin boundaries [21]. The (1 1 1) type planes are easy-slip planes in
nickel alloys, parallel to which the twin boundaries are formed. Ac­
cording to the literature, twin boundaries are potential crack initiation
sites [22], especially in the high cycle fatigue region of LPBF fabricated
IN718 with a high density of twin boundaries [23]. Controlled δ phase
distribution at the grain boundaries can improve the fatigue resistance
K. Gruber et al.
of the IN718 alloy when tested at elevated temperatures [24]. This was
also confirmed for LPBF IN718, as δ phase precipitates at grain bound­
aries reduced the crack propagation rate in the intergranular fracture
regime at 550 ◦ C. These results were compared to the homogenized
material, free form δ phase precipitates. However, in most cases, the
δ phase should be generally avoided. The δ phase implies a loss of
strengthening capability caused by a reduction in γ” phase precipitates
(both phases are Nb-based) and increased susceptibility to hot cracking
[25]. The HIP process can lead to δ phase presence, as suggested by the
TTT and CCT curves, so to avoid δ phase precipitates, an additional
solution step after HIP could be necessary [5]. Therefore, the impact of
hot isostatic pressing can be positive or negative depending on the initial
condition of the material (e.g., dislocation density, porosity), HIP pa­
rameters, or fatigue loading conditions.
Consequently, experimental FCGR campaigns for AM materials
should be of great interest, as expanded knowledge on this topic can
improve the understanding and predictability of AM materials under
fatigue loads. While numerous publications deal with standard fatigue
(tension–compression) of LPBF fabricated IN718, as highlighted in re­
views [12,13], exploring various fatigue parameters, regimens and
materials’ conditions, only a few papers consider fatigue crack growth.
According to available data, LPBF IN718 in the as-built condition has a
similar long crack growth resistance to forged IN718 but exhibits a
significant difference in the threshold region [26]. It was also found that
the application of standard solution annealing for wrought IN718
(980 ◦ C/1h) prior to ageing leads not only to a lower threshold but also
to higher fatigue crack propagation compared to forged IN718 [27]
when tested at low stress ratios [28]. The use of HIP can substantially
improve fatigue crack growth thresholds, but mainly by relieving re­
sidual stresses rather than homogenizing the microstructure [28].
Due to the characteristic microstructure of LPBF fabricated
Inconel 718, different heat treatment parameters are recommended than
those used for cast and wrought IN718. One of the examples is the ASTM
F3055-14a standard [29] dedicated to LPBF IN718. The main difference
is the stress relief step prior to the standard heat treatment. In addition, a
higher temperature is used in the solution annealing step. Therefore, in
this study Inconel 718 samples were manufactured by laser powder bed
fusion and heat treated post-process in two variants as recommended by
ASTM F3055-14a. Additionally, one HT variant included HIP, and the
second excluded it. Therefore, in this work, the effect of such heat
treatments on the fatigue crack growth rate of LPBF fabricated IN718 is
investigated and discussed.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Laser powder bed fusion process
The samples are manufactured using the SLM 280 2.0 dual PBF-LB/M
system (SLM Solutions Group AG, Germany) from Inconel 718 powder
supplied by SLM Solutions Group AG. The machine uses a fiber laser
(1070 nm) with a maximum power of 700 W and a focus diameter of
100 µm. The powder is delivered in a nominal powder size distribution
(PSD) of 10–45 µm and chemical composition according to the ASTM
B637-18 standard [30] (Table 1).
For process qualification purposes, the powder is characterized in
terms of morphology (Fig. 1a) with the use of SEM EVO MA25 scanning
electron microscope (Carl Zeiss AG, Germany) and PSD (Fig. 1b) with
the use of the HELOS H3776 and RODOS/T4/R4 laser diffraction system
(Sympatec GmbH, Germany). The powder meets the criteria allowing
use in the LPBF process: most powder particles are characterized by a
Table 1
Inconel 718 powder chemical composition according to powder delivery certificate (% wt.).
Ni Cr Fe C Ti Al Nb
52.83 18.97 Bal. 0.04 0.96 0.60 5.05 + Ta
3
International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287
spherical/spheroidal shape, and the measured PSD is close to the nom­
inal distribution.
Simple plates are vertically built in a single LPBF build job to prepare
fatigue crack growth rate (FCGR) CT samples (Fig. 1c). Plates are built
on a 100 mm × 100 mm × 20 mm Inconel 625 build platform and in an
atmosphere of technical argon (purity class 4.6). The build platform is
heated during the LPBF process to 200 ◦ C and cooled after the process to
room temperature inside the LPBF machine.
To manufacture samples, a set of previously established process pa­
rameters and scanning strategy is used (7 mm stripes distance and 67◦
layer-by-layer scan vector rotation). The main process parameters used
are shown in Table 2. The scan strategy is shown in Fig. 1d.
2.2. Heat treatment and hot isostatic pressing
Two variants of heat treatment are performed according to the ASTM
F3055-14a standard [29]. Variant A consists of three steps: stress relief
annealing, solution annealing, and ageing. Variant H consists of four
steps: stress relief annealing, hot isostatic pressing, solution annealing,
and ageing. Heat treatment cycles are performed in a TAV H3S 1600
vacuum furnace (TAV Vacuum Furnaces SPA, Italy). The hot isostatic
pressing process is performed in an EPSI 150–300–2000 hot isostatic
press (EPSI NV, Belgium). The heat treatment and the hot isostatic
processing parameters used in the study for both variants are shown in
Table 3.
2.3. Fatigue crack growth rate experiment
The fatigue crack growth rate experiment is performed using the
ASTM E647 standard [31]. CT specimens are designed and prepared for
the experimental campaign from previously laser powder bed fused
plates, as shown in Fig. 2.
Notch was prepared using an electro-discharge machine (EDM).
Before proper testing, all specimens are pre-cracked, keeping the initial
ΔK lower than 15 MPa√m and R = 0.1. The samples are loaded so that
the minimum working loads are not exceeded in the appropriate testing
phase. Possibly, it could occur due to the plastic zone on the top of the
crack. Therefore, the length of the pre-cracks and the trial conditions are
controlled. Then, in the proper part of the test, the constant ΔF pro­
cedure is used within the validity range of the Paris equation. Each
configuration, A and H, is tested in constant load amplitude mode for
two different stress ratios, R = 0.1 and R = 0.5 (f = 12.5 Hz). The crack
length is monitored using the compliance method and periodically
controlled using a remote microscope, as shown schematically in Fig. 3.
The stress intensity factor (SIF) is calculated using the formula [25] – Eq.
(1):
ΔF (2 + α) [ ]
ΔK = √̅̅̅̅̅ 0.886 + 4.64α − 13.32α2 + 14.72α3 − 5.6α4 . (1)
t W (1 − α)1.5
In Eq. (1), α is the normalized crack length, a/W with a as the actual
crack length registered during the proper phase of the test, ΔF is the
applied range of force, t is the thickness of the specimen, and
W represents specimen width.
2.4. Microscopic observations
Metallographic samples are prepared following the standard prepa­
ration procedure. After grinding and polishing, the metallographic
samples are etched with fresh Glyceregia (5 ml of HNO3, 10 ml of
Mo Si Co Mn Cu P N
2.99 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.004 <0.01
K. Gruber et al. International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287

Fig. 1. Laser powder bed fusion process: (a) Inconel 718 powder morphology, SEM/BSE; (b) Inconel 718 powder size distribution; (c) LPBF build platform layout; (d)
LPBF scanning strategy.

Table 2
Laser powder bed fusion process parameters and scanning strategy parameters.
Layer thickness Laser power Scanning speed Hatch distance Boundary count Scanning strategy Stripe width Scan vector rotation

30 µm 300 W 1300 mm/s 120 µm 2 Stripes 7 mm 67◦

Table 3
Heat treatment steps and corresponding process parameters.
Variant Stress Hot isostatic Solutioning3 Ageing4
relief1 pressing2

A 1065 ◦ C/ n/a 1065 ◦ C/1 h 720 ◦

C/8 h to
1.5 h 620 ◦
C/10 h
H 1065 ◦ C/ 1150 C/4 h/
◦
1065 C/1 h
◦
720 ◦
C/8 h to
1.5 h 100 MPa 620 ◦
C/10 h
1
Stress relief before sample removal (cut-off), cooling with furnace under argon
atmosphere; 2Heating and cooling rate of 600 ◦ C / h under argon atmosphere;
3
Cooling under argon atmosphere at 10 bar abs; 4Cooling under argon atmo­
sphere at 1 bar abs.

glycerol, 15 ml of HCl). The etchant is prepared no more than 15 min

before use. For porosity investigations, samples are not etched. An
Olympus LEXT OLS4000 (Olympus Corp., Japan) laser confocal scan­
ning microscope (LCSM) is used to study the general microstructure,
determine the porosity of samples, and measure the surface roughness of
the crack paths. Porosity is assessed in polished cross-sections of A and H
samples prepared after FCGR tests on a plane parallel to the build di­
rection (Fig. 1b – ZY plane). Stitched LCSM images are binarized, and
porosity is derived using the particle count module in ImageJ software
Fig. 2. Schematic of the CT specimen for the FCGR test (all dimensions in mm).
(dev. Wayne Rasband, NIH, USA). Surface roughness is measured using
stitched 3D LCSM images of crack surfaces taken along the entire crack
length. For each variant, five sampling segments over the entire thick­
ness of the sample, with a length of 8 mm, are determined in the two
areas of each sample, corresponding to low and high ΔK values. A

4
K. Gruber et al.
Fig. 3. Scheme of an automated FCGR measurement stand.
Gaussian filter is applied. According to the ISO 4288:1996 standard, λc
= 8 mm, λs = 2.5 µm and λf = 0.125 mm filters are set. Based on the
obtained profiles, Rz, Ra, and Rq surface roughness parameters are
calculated using LCSM microscope software. A HITACHI S-3400 N
(Hitachi, Japan) scanning electron microscope is used to study micro­
structures and fractures.
3. Results
3.1. Microstructure
In the as-built condition (Fig. 4a), the material assembles typical
features of the laser powder bed fusion fabricated Inconel 718. These
are: columnar γ grains elongated in the build direction, with a large
portion of internal low-angle boundaries and separated by high-angle
grain boundaries, and fusion lines outlining laser track interfaces.
Additionally, an internal dendritic-cellular substructure separated by
low-angle misorientation packages is present. This non-equilibrium
microstructure results from a high-temperature gradient and a high
cooling rate during the LPBF process and is caused by the track-by-track
and layer-by-layer solidification sequence. The intercellular boundaries
are decorated with (Nb, Ti)C carbides and small precipitates of the Laves
phase [21]. Due to the LPBF process and the resulting microstructure
features, the LPBF Inconel 718 is characterized by a high residual stress
level. The residual stress level is higher than in other frequently used
LPBF materials, including titanium and aluminum alloys [32]. The re­
sidual stress of LPBF IN718 can be up to 1.5 times its yield strength
under built conditions [33].
Inconel 718 microstructure after the LPBF process is very well
described in the literature, for example, in terms of its
Fig. 4. Micrographs of LPBF fabricated Inconel 718 (build direction marked by arrows), LCSM: (a) as-built; (b) variant A; (c) variant H.
5
International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287
process–structure–property relationship [7] and the resulting mechani­
cal properties [13]. Furthermore, the microstructure of the as-built
samples is discussed in more detail in the previous article, where the
samples are produced with the same powder bath, process parameters,
and nearly the same machine setup [21]. Therefore, the as-built
microstructure will not be described further.
The variant H heat treatment adds only one step to variant A, but the
resulting microstructures are significantly different from each other. The
main task of HIP is to remove defects that arise in the LPBF process, such
as process-induced LOF and gas pores. Nevertheless, as a side effect, it
also produces a different microstructure. This microstructure is caused
by a high temperature and pressure of hot isostatic pressing (1150 ◦ C at
100 MPa) and a soak time of 4 h. Therefore, variant H (Fig. 4c) provides
the necessary conditions for recrystallization and homogenization,
while variant A (Fig. 4b) is only sufficient to remove dendritic-cellular
microsegregation. Variant H is characterized by a high number of
annealing Ʃ3 twin boundaries (approx. 60% of all grain boundaries
[21]), while in variant A, only some regions show annealing twins. The
columnar character of the as-built material remains mostly untouched
after variant A of the heat treatment.
The other difference between the A and H variants is found at the
grain boundaries. In the case of variant A, regions of high micro­
segregation are found in the form of a eutectic mixture (Fig. 5a). These
regions are the result of the formation of a liquid film during [34]
heating and cooling in the heat treatment process and are accompanied
by (Nb, Ti)C carbides (Fig. 5c-f). The presence of these regions results
from insufficient annealing time and temperature compared to the
microsegregation resulting from the LPBF process and is seen mainly at
the tips of columnar grains and fusion lines. On the other hand, an
additional HIP process results in an annealing time and a temperature
high enough to remove all of the microsegregation resulting from the
LPBF process. Therefore, such regions do not appear in H samples
(Fig. 5b). Simultaneously, the H variant is also characterized by the
presence of (Nb, Ti)C carbides (Fig. 5g-h), the size of which will depend,
inter alia, on the initial microsegregation in the regions of their occur­
rence. In connection with the above, carbides concentrate near the grain
boundaries and in other regions enriched in Nb and Ti because of the
solidification path of the alloy during the LPBF process.
Hot isostatic pressing is used to reduce porosity in LPBF materials. In
this case, the porosities of variants A and H were low. Only a small
number of pores were observed during the microstructural investigation
(Fig. 5k). Porosity was evaluated after FCGR testing using cross-sections
of CT specimens. In Fig. 5l, the exemplar cross-section used for variant H
is shown. Porosity was determined, on average, at 0.057% for variant A
and 0.010% for variant H. Furthermore, the average pore size for variant
A was measured at ≈20 µm, compared to ≈8 µm for variant H.
Such significant microstructural differences have an impact on the
K. Gruber et al. International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287

Fig. 5. Micrographs of LPBF fabricated Inconel 718 (build direction marked by arrows), SEM/BSE: (a) variant A; (b) variant H; (c–f) EDS mapping of variant A –
microsegregation region at the grain boundary and (Nb, Ti)C carbides; (g–j) EDS chemical composition mapping of variant H – (Nb, Ti) C carbides; (k) variant A –
exemplar pore; (l) variant H – exemplar cross-section used for porosity determination.

tensile properties of the material. The main visible difference is found At the same time, variant H’s ultimate tensile strength (UTS) is
within the elongation (A4). The elongation of variant A is two times less higher, but the yield strength (YS) is lower than A. These differences are
than the elongation of variant H (Table 4). Significant differences are only about 5%. These factors contribute to the higher YS to UTS ratio of
also found in the reduction of area (RoA), which is more than 30% variant A. Similarly to the as-built condition, microstructural and tensile
higher for the H variant, and hardness, which is 50 HV0.5 higher for the properties are studied more carefully in the previous papers for variants
A variant. The hardness of variant A is higher than for the solution A and H. For more information, please refer to [36] for variant A and
annealed and aged C&W (cast and wrought) IN718 (430–460 HV) [13], [21] for variant H.
and the hardness of variant H is comparable to C&W IN718. Several
factors are responsible for the higher hardness of variant A [7,21,35]:
3.2. Fatigue crack growth
residual microsegregation, residual dislocation network caused by
former dendritic-cellular segregation, non-recrystallized microstructure
Fig. 6 presents FCGR results for the A and H material configurations
containing a high number of low-angle grain boundaries, increased
obtained for the stress ratio R = 0.1 (Fig. 6a) and the stress ratio R = 0.5
effectiveness of solution annealing as lower niobium content is trapped
(Fig. 6b).
in carbides, leading to more effective γ’’/γ’ phases precipitation during
The crack propagation law can be described based on the Paris law
the ageing of variant A.
[37]:
da
Table 4 = C(ΔK)m (2)
dN
Tensile properties of Inconel 718 after heat treatment variants A and H as in
[21,36]. where C, m – experimentally determined constants, ΔK – stress intensity
Variant E YS UTS A4 RoA YS/ HV0.5 factor range. Paris law (2) constants for both material configurations are
[GPa] [MPa] [MPa] [%] [%] UTS collected in Table 5.
A [36] 200 ± 1206 1364 12.8 25.7 0.88 479–497 The mean fatigue crack growth rate of variants A and H in both
10 ± 10 ± 28 ± 2.6 ± 5.7 loading conditions is nearly identical. In the lower stress ratio (R = 0.1),
H [21] 201 ± 1145 1393 26.9 38.5 0.82 434–436 variant A exhibits a slightly lower crack growth rate, but it is only seen
3 ±6 ±3 ± 0.4 ± 2.2
after the clear kink point at ≈ΔK-40 MPa√m. If the impact of the

6
K. Gruber et al.
Fig. 6. FCGR results for IN718 (A) and (H) obtained for: (a) R = 0.1; (b) R = 0.5; (c) comparison of the results for both stress ratios.
Table 5
Paris law constants for the A and H material configurations.
Variant C m
A (R = 0.1) 2× 10− 9
9
H (R = 0.1) 1× 10−
9
A (R = 0.5) 7× 10−
8
H (R = 0.5) 1× 10−
constant C and m on the crack propagation law is compared at R = 0.1,
the calculated crack growth rate values almost cancel out. For the higher
stress ratio (R = 0.5), the mean crack propagation rate of variant A is
slightly higher (both the C and m values contribute). Furthermore,
variant A exhibits noticeable irregular crack growth in the higher stress
ratio (R = 0.5). The highest deviation from the trend was observed at
≈ΔK-23 MPa√m, where crack propagation accelerates. Although for
other ΔK values, the opposite effect of crack growth rate deceleration is
also observed (≈ΔK-33 MPa m). However, all other samples also showed
somewhat erratic crack propagation, but the effect is less pronounced
than for variant A with a stress ratio of R = 0.5. Finally, based on
experimental results, a noticeable influence of the mean stress effect is
found, reflected in the constant C shifting towards higher values for the
higher stress ratio. An exemplary illustration of this effect is shown in
Fig. 6c. Therefore, the mean crack growth rate is 2-times higher for
samples tested in the stress ratio R = 0.5 compared to R = 0.1 for both
the A and H material configurations.
3.3. Fractography
A scanning electron microscopy study of the fatigue crack path was
performed for R = 0.1 samples. In Fig. 7 are shown the fractograms for
the configuration of material A (Fig. 7a and b) and H (Fig. 7c and d)
obtained for low ΔK values (15–18 MPa√m). Noticeable is a similar
mechanism of fatigue crack growth. For both modes of materials, crys­
tallographic facets can be seen.
Faceted fractograms no longer exist for higher ΔK values (≈50
MPa√m) shown in Fig. 8. On the other hand, clearly visible fatigue
striations with secondary cracks, characteristic of the high tensile mode
crack growth mechanism, were observed in both, A (Fig. 8a and b) and H
(Fig. 8c and d) material configurations.
In Fig. 9, fracture profiles are presented for variants A and H at R =
0.1, at ΔK values corresponding to the fractograms in Figs. 7 and 8. For
variant A, the fatigue crack propagates transgranularly (Fig. 9a and b).
There is no clear influence of the characteristic LPBF microstructure or
International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287
the effect of ΔK values on crack propagation. Additionally, small sec­
ondary cracks are not related to microstructural characteristics. The
crack path is smooth and transgranular for variant H at low ΔK values. It
reassembles variant A (Fig. 9c). A higher number of secondary cracks of
2.96 larger size are also found in the lower ΔK region. As the value of ΔK
increases (Fig. 9d), the crack profile of the variant H shows more
3.20
2.85 apparent changes in the direction of crack propagation from one grain to
2.66
another.
Crack path surface roughness is presented in Fig. 10. Regardless of
the HT variant and applied stress ratio, average crack surface roughness
represented by Ra and Rq parameters is higher in the area corresponding
to low ΔK values compared to the crack area roughness corresponding to
high ΔK values by ≈3-5 µm. However, a deviation from the above trend
is recorded by looking at the Rz parameter for the A and H variants tested
at the R = 0.1 stress ratio (Fig. 10a). The Rz values are higher in the areas
corresponding to low ΔK values compared to the areas of high ΔK
values. It may be related to the first stage of crack development corre­
sponding to the lowest ΔK values since the Rz parameter is sensitive to
singular deviations from the roughness profile.
Furthermore, there is no significant difference between the crack
surface roughness of variants A and H, regardless of the applied stress
ratio. This is opposite to the micrographs in Fig. 9b and d, showing
minor differences in the crack profile between A and H at high ΔK
values. However, surface roughness better represents the whole fracture
morphology than crack cross-section micrographs.
Moreover, the crack surface roughness is higher for samples R = 0.1,
where Ra is measured at ≈20 µm in the area of low ΔK values, compared
to Ra≈15 µm in the area of low ΔK values for samples R = 0.5. The same
trend is present when the roughness of the crack surface is measured in
the area with high ΔK values. This difference is best visible when one
looks at the Rz parameter. Not only do R = 0.1 samples show >50 µm
higher Rz values, but the standard deviation of the average surface
roughness is much lower (Fig. 10a and d).
4. Discussion
The findings conclude that the H variant is more ductile than the
A variant. It results from several factors: the crystallographic texture of γ
grains and the low angle grain boundaries maintained in variant A
compared to recrystallized grains with a high number of twins in the H
variant; residual microsegregation in variant A compared to homoge­
nized H variant; different effectiveness of precipitation of strengthening
γ’’/γ’ phases during ageing, caused by a higher concentration of
niobium in the γ matrix of variant A, compared to higher niobium
7
K. Gruber et al.
Fig. 7. Fractograms for A and H material configurations – corresponding to low ΔK-15–20 MPa√m (crack growth and build directions marked by arrows); (a and b)
variant A; (c and d) variant H.
trapping in (Nb, Ti)C carbides for variant H. As a result, the A variant is
characterized by a higher YS, a higher YS/UTS ratio, and higher hard­
ness. On the contrary, variant H presents a higher elongation (A4) and a
higher reduction of area (RoA). Despite such differences, both material
configurations should show low residual stresses [21]. It results from
equal stress relief before applying the LPBF build platform cut-off
(Table 3).
On the other hand, in the FCGR test at relatively low ΔK values (but
higher than the threshold region > ΔK-15 MPa√m), there is no differ­
ence in the kinetics of fatigue crack growth (fracture modes are similar).
FCGR plots, micrographs, fractograms and crack surface roughness pa­
rameters indicate a similar crack growth mechanism for both material
variants (A and H) and stress ratios (R = 0.1 and R = 0.5). Both variants
present a transgranular crystallographic fracture mode at low ΔK values
that changes to a crack-blunting fatigue mechanism, as evidenced by
fatigue striations as ΔK values increase.
The literature reports a high correlation between crack surface
roughness, loading conditions [38], and fracture modes [39]. In this
work, different crack growth mechanisms for low and high ΔK values
are also revealed by the roughness of the fracture surface (Ra, Rq), which
is higher in the areas of the fractures corresponding to low ΔK values and
lower in the areas of the fractures corresponding to high ΔK values
(Fig. 10). The effect is present for both material configurations (A and H)
and stress ratios (R = 0.1 and R = 0.5). Furthermore, the crack rough­
ness is higher for R = 0.1 (Ra≈20 µm at low ΔK values) compared to the
lower crack roughness for R = 0.5 (Ra≈15 µm at low ΔK values). It is
8
International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287
believed to be connected with more demanding load conditions,
resulting in faster crack growth and less disturbed from the primary
fracture mode. Finally, Rz roughness is higher for low ΔK values at R =
0.1 (Fig. 10a), but not at R = 0.5 (Fig. 10d). Contrary to the above­
mentioned, average surface roughness (Ra, Rq), that shows higher
roughness at high ΔK values. However, since FCGR plots are not linear
in the lowest ΔK region of 15–20 MPa√m (Fig. 6c) and the Rz parameter
is sensitive to singular profile deviations, singular crack profile peaks
due to unstable crack growth may be captured by the Rz parameter.
A similar crack growth mechanism, transgranular crystallographic
fracture mode changing to a crack-blunting fatigue mechanism as ΔK
values increase, is found within the wrought Inconel 718 [40,41]. It
concludes that in the studied case, the laser powder bed fusion pro­
cessing of Inconel 718 did not affect the crack growth mechanism for
this alloy system. However, it should be noted that both variants have
undergone heat treatment, which has been verified [21] to have a low
residual stress level after the LPBF process. Based on the experimental
results presented in this work, it can be stated that HIP does not
significantly influence the crack propagation mechanism in the Paris
regime for the LPBF fabricated stress relieved and heat treated Inconel
718.
Although variant A is not subjected to HIP densification, it should
also be noted that it presents a high density: the porosity of variants A
and H is below 0.1%. Therefore, no significant differences are found due
to the porosity difference for the fatigue crack growth rate in the Paris
regime and at R = 0.1. Similar conclusions were drawn for the Inconel
K. Gruber et al.
Fig. 8. Fractograms for A and H material configuration – corresponding to high ΔK ~ 50 MPa√m (crack growth and build directions marked by arrows); (a and b)
variant A; (c and d) variant H.
625 alloy [42]. In the cited study, the clear difference was not found
until the LPBF sample exhibited much higher porosity (2.67% for the
non-HIP variant and 0.4% after HIP), resulting in a similar crack growth
rate but a much more irregular FCGR plot profile. It is believed to be
associated with the detect-induced crack retardation effect. The present
study found a similar irregularity in the FCGR plot for variant A at the
stress ratio R = 0.5 (Fig. 6b). It can be suspected that this effect is more
pronounced for higher stress ratios. Variant A can also exhibit a lack of
fusion pore clusters [36] due to the LPBF stripe scanning strategy used to
fabricate FCGR plates (Fig. 1). However, such defects are distributed
randomly. Their number is relatively small for the entire volume of the
material (Fig. 5l). Therefore, the LOF clusters may not have appeared
near the crack path for the other tested samples.
In Fig. 11, fatigue crack growth rates for variants A and H are
compared with the FCGR results found in the literature
[27,28,40,41,43,44] for wrought, and LPBF fabricated Inconel 718.
Literature results are additionally categorized in terms of applied heat
treatment. In Fig. 11a, the stress ratio of the FCGR tests is R = 0.1, and
the results are compared with LPBF fabricated IN718. All the studies
cited reported similar crack propagation within the Paris regime (>ΔK-
15 MPa√m). The variants A and H (at R = 0.1) investigated in the
present study also match the results found in the literature. It should be
noted that variant A show a slower crack growth rate below ΔK-15
MPa√m. Variants A and H compared to wrought IN718 (Fig. 11b) at R
= 0.1 also shows similar FCGR between wrought IN718, especially in the
Paris regime and at the medium values of ΔK (ΔK-20–40 MPa√m).
9
International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287
The main difference between the material states is found within the
crack initiation phase. As-built LBPF IN718 shows the lowest ΔKth values
[26], followed by samples heat treated according to the AMS 5663
standard [27,28]. The highest values are displayed for the HIP material
configuration [11,28]. According to the literature, HIP treatment in­
fluences the crack initiation phase for LPBF fabricated IN718 (short
crack propagation – near-threshold regime) [28]. Similar conclusions
were drawn for IN625 [42], where a higher ΔKth was demonstrated for
HIP material configuration [42]. There are two reasons provided in the
literature to explain this effect. For IN625, it was discussed to be con­
nected to residual porosity (both for HIP and non-HIP variants). How­
ever, porosity-accelerated crack nucleation was only valid for the
highest level of investigated porosities (2.67% before HIP and 0.4% after
HIP). The other reasons for the lower ΔKth are residual stresses and
reduced crack path roughness. According to [28], reduced crack path
roughness induces crack closure. Additionally, residual stresses remain
in the material after low-temperature heat treatment, such as in the AMS
5663 standard. In the AMS 5663 heat treated samples, the stress profile
varied along the crack path, with a local maximum tensile stress of
≈900 MPa. In contrast, residual stresses were almost nonexistent for the
HIP variant (1120 ◦ C/4 h/100 MPa), as described in the same work [28].
It should be noted that although the near-threshold range was not tested
in the current work, both A and H material configurations were stress
relieved at high temperatures and should not be susceptible to showing
low ΔKth values.
Despite the similar crack growth mechanisms presented by all the
K. Gruber et al. International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287

Fig. 9. Micrographs of the cracked area for the A and H material configurations, LCSM (crack growth direction marked by arrows); (a) variant A corresponding to
low ΔK-15–20 MPa√m; (b) variant A corresponding to high ΔK-50 MPa√m; (c) variant H corresponding to low ΔK-15–20 MPa√m; (d) variant H corresponding to
high ΔK-50 MPa√m.

Fig. 10. Results of the crack surface roughness measurements by LCSM corresponding to low and high ΔK values – each value is an average of the five elementary
segments; (a-c) surface roughness of variants A and H tested at stress ratio R = 0.1; (d-e) surface roughness of variants A and H tested at stress ratio R = 0.5.

10
K. Gruber et al. International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287

Fig. 11. FCGR results for IN718 (A) and (H) compared to the literature results: (a) at R = 0.1 to LPBF at R = 0.1 [28,40,43,44]; (b) at R = 0.1 to wrought Inconel 718
at R = 0.1 [27,28,40,41]; (c) at R = 0.5 to LPBF and wrought at R = 0.5 [28,40,43,44].

discussed results, some trends can be found. Suppose that one considers More visible differences between the results discussed can be
the above discussion on ΔKth, IN718 condition (heat treatment, residual distinguished for the FCGR test with a higher stress ratio R = 0.5
stress, defects) and the values of Paris law constants C and m (Table 6). (Fig. 11c). Under more demanding test conditions, both variants A and H
In that case, C values tend to be highest, and m values tend to be lowest show better performance – slower FCGR than LPBF fabricated Inconel
for the as-built (AB) LPBF IN718, followed by non-stress relieved LPBF 718 (from literature) and wrought Inconel 718. Only one of the FCGR
IN718 (AMS), stress relieved LPBF IN718 (HIP, A, and H variants), and plots discussed (for wrought IN718 [44]) is close to the A and H variants.
ending at wrought IN718. It concludes that if Inconel 718 is tested at a The available data makes it difficult to define from where these differ­
low stress ratio (like R = 0.1), the material condition (heat treatment) ences came. For IN718, LPBF manufactured, all FCGR tests cited were
and the manufacturing process (wrought or LPBF) do not significantly performed on CT samples manufactured in the same LPBF build orien­
affect FCGR in the Paris regime but do affect the constants of the Paris tation as in the current study. However, despite ASTM standardization,
equation. Over the above, the disturbance of material continuity (re­ each result was achieved using samples of different sizes and pro­
sidual stress, defects) will be most pronounced in the crack initiation portions. Furthermore, the LPBF fabrication processes were not iden­
phase. tical. Nevertheless, the most significant differences were recorded
between materials after different post-process heat treatments.
As considered earlier, the fatigue crack propagates in a transgranular
Table 6 fashion. In the case of variants A and H, heat treatment procedures were
Paris law constants for variants A and H compared to the literature (R = 0.1,
developed to deal with the specific microstructure of LPBF fabricated
room temperature, for LPBF fabricated material – build direction parallel to
Inconel 718 [5,21]. Solution annealing after stress relief or HIP allows
crack growth as in this work).
microsegregation, Laves, and δ phases to dissolve. Therefore, the ma­
Paris A H LPBF LPBF LPBF Wrought terial is homogeneous within the grains, resulting in a proper dispersion
constant (AB) (AMS) (HIP) (AMS) [11]
[26] [28] [28]
of the γ′′ /γ′ phases, which are responsible for strengthening the alloy γ
phase matrix. In such an approach, the significant microstructural dif­
C 2× 1× 4.5 × 3.68 × 2.01 × 1.55 ×
ferences between variants A and H should have a minor effect on FCGR.
10− 9 10− 9 10− 8 10− 8 10− 9 10− 10
m 2.96 3.20 2.3 2.28 3.14 3.7 In contrast, homogeneously strengthened γ phase grains in variants A

11
K. Gruber et al.
and H could significantly influence FCGR. The difference in ductility and
microstructure can be as important for crack propagation as the pres­
ence of process-induced defects. On the one hand, there is a dislocation
network, and the strengthening effectiveness in variant A is higher
compared to variant H. On the other hand, the eutectic mixture and
residual pores are unfavorable for variant A compared to the densified
and homogenized variant H. Therefore, variants A and H could show
similar crack growth rates tested at high and low stress ratios, despite
significantly different microstructures.
At the same time, the abovementioned could explain the higher fa­
tigue crack growth rates of the cited literature results for the LPBF
fabricated IN718 and tested at stress ratios R ≥ 0.5. All the results in the
literature do not consider high-temperature solution annealing after
LPBF. Recent studies show that [45] cooling of the alloy after treatment
at HIP-high temperatures may cause γ′ and γ′′ precipitation, or even
precipitation of δ and Laves phases. Therefore, additional solution
annealing with rapid cooling (≤7 K/s [45]) is required to remove un­
wanted phases that trap niobium, weaken the effects of ageing, and
therefore negatively affect the homogeneous strengthening of γ phase
grains.
In the case of wrought Inconel 718, the size and type of FCGR sam­
ples varied. In addition, the condition of the material varied. Typical
aerospace grade IN718 forgings are hot worked and show large δ phase
precipitates (Ni3Nb), as the hot working temperature is in the range of δ
phase precipitation [17,46]. Solution annealing above the δ phase
dissolution temperature (1005–1015 ◦ C) is recommended to avoid δ and
release trapped niobium [5,6]. The temperatures used in the AMS 5663
standard are thus low. Therefore, due to the transgranular character of
the crack growth, the FCGR at the stress ratio R = 0.5 could be worse for
the wrought IN718, and the LPBF fabricated IN718 if no proper solution
annealing is provided for a homogeneous strengthening of γ phase
grains. Further investigation is needed to confirm these conclusions.
The experimental FCGR campaign was performed, and the following
discussion led to the conclusion that the fatigue life of Inconel 718
fabricated by LPBF and its predictability lie within the initial crack
initiation phase. Fatigue crack growth (Paris regime) in LPBF IN718 is
not very dependent on the material manufacturing path, minor process-
induced defects, or subsequent heat treatment. On the contrary, typical
AM defects: porosity, microsegregation, non-uniform surface, and high
residual stress, as well as location, quantity, and distribution of these
defects, are the main fatigue life differentiators in Inconel 718 fabricated
by LPBF. Defects induce low ΔKth and higher scatter in fatigue life.
Cracks initiate faster, are less predictable, and less load is needed for
their initiation. Simultaneously, the presented work suggests that the
heat treatment process, which leaves the LPBF-characteristic, but ho­
mogeneous microstructure (variant A), performs at least on a similar
level in terms of fatigue crack growth rate compared to that of the
wrought and HIP-ed (variant H) counterparts.
5. Conclusions
The article presents findings on the fatigue crack growth rate (FCGR)
of additively manufactured Inconel 718 (IN718). FCGR samples are
fabricated by laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) and are subjected to post-
process heat treatment in two variants: without (variant A) and with hot
isostatic pressing (variant H). Several conclusions are drawn:
• Variant H is significantly more ductile than variant A. It results from
crystallographic texture, residual microsegregation, and precipita­
tion effectiveness of γ’’ and γ’ phases.
• Variant A is characterized by a higher yield strength (YS) and
hardness. Variant H presents higher elongation (A4) and reduction of
area (RoA). Both variants, A and H, show a low residual stress level.
• Despite differences in microstructures and tensile properties, the
fatigue crack growth rate of variants A and H in the stable growth
region (above ΔK ≈ 15–20 MPa√m) is similar. The fracture mode
12
International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287
changes from a transgranular crystallographic fracture (at low ΔK >
15–20 MPa√m) to a crack-blunting mechanism (at high ΔK ≈ 50
MPa√m).
• The fatigue crack growth rate of variants A and H, tested at stress
ratio R = 0.1, is comparable to those found in the literature for as-
built LPBF IN718, heat treated LPBF IN718, and wrought IN718.
• A similar fatigue crack growth rate increase is found for variants A
and H when the stress ratio increases from R = 0.1 to R = 0.5.
• Both variants A and H show better performance (lower FCGR) at the
stress ratio R = 0.5 compared to those found in the literature for as-
built LPBF IN718, heat treated LPBF IN718, and wrought IN718.
• In variant A, the LPBF-characteristic but homogeneous microstruc­
ture is retained. Variant A performs at least on a similar level in terms
of fatigue crack growth rate compared to its wrought and hot
isostatically pressed counterparts.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Centre for Research and
Development in Poland (Grant No. TECHMATSTRATEG1/347514/7/
NCBR/2017).
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Kelkar R, Andreaco A, Ott E, Groh J. Alloy 718: laser powder bed additive
manufacturing for turbine applications. In: Proc 9th int symp superalloy 718 deriv.
The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society; 2018. p. 53–68. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-89480-5_3.
[2] Patel S, DeBarbadillo J, Coryell S. Superalloy 718: evolution of the alloy from hight
to low temp application. In: Proc 9th int symp superalloy 718deriv, The Minerals,
Metals & Materials Society; 2018. p. 23–49. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-89480-5_2.
[3] Paulonis DF, Schirra JJ. Alloy 718 at pratt & whitney-historical perspective and
future challenges. Superalloys 2001;718:13–23. https://doi.org/10.7449/2001/
Superalloys_2001_13_23.
[4] Gruber K, Ziółkowski G, Pawlak A, Kurzynowski T. Effect of stress relief and
inherent strain-based pre-deformation on the geometric accuracy of stator vanes
additively manufactured from inconel 718 using laser powder bed fusion. Precis
Eng 2022;76:360–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2022.04.007.
[5] Gruber K, Stopyra W, Kobiela K, Madejski B, Malicki M, Kurzynowski T.
Mechanical properties of Inconel 718 additively manufactured by laser powder bed
fusion after industrial high-temperature heat treatment. J Manuf Process 2022;73:
642–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.11.053.
[6] Chlebus E, Gruber K, Kuźnicka B, Kurzac J, Kurzynowski T. Effect of heat treatment
on the microstructure and mechanical properties of Inconel 718 processed by
selective laser melting. Mater Sci Eng A 2015;639:647–55. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.msea.2015.05.035.
[7] Gallmeyer TG, Moorthy S, Kappes BB, Mills MJ, Amin-Ahmadi B, Stebner AP.
Knowledge of process-structure-property relationships to engineer better heat
treatments for laser powder bed fusion additive manufactured Inconel 718. Addit
Manuf 2020;31:100977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100977.
[8] Pröbstle M, Neumeier S, Hopfenmüller J, Freund LP, Niendorf T, Schwarze D, et al.
Superior creep strength of a nickel-based superalloy produced by selective laser
melting. Mater Sci Eng A 2016;674:299–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
msea.2016.07.061.
[9] Romano S, Nezhadfar PD, Shamsaei N, Seifi M, Beretta S. High cycle fatigue
behavior and life prediction for additively manufactured 17-4 PH stainless steel:
effect of sub-surface porosity and surface roughness. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2020;
106:102477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2020.102477.
[10] Niu X, Zhu S-P, He J-C, Liao D, Correia JAFO, Berto F, et al. Defect tolerant fatigue
assessment of AM materials: size effect and probabilistic prospects. Int J Fatigue
2022;160:106884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.106884.
[11] Yadollahi A, Mahtabi MJ, Khalili A, Doude HR, Newman JC. Fatigue life prediction
of additively manufactured material: effects of surface roughness, defect size, and
shape. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2018;41(7):1602–14. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ffe.12799.
K. Gruber et al.
[12] Sanchez S, Smith P, Xu Z, Gaspard G, Hyde CJ, Wits WW, et al. Powder Bed Fusion
of nickel-based superalloys: a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2021;165:103729.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2021.103729.
[13] Hosseini E, Popovich VA. A review of mechanical properties of additively
manufactured Inconel 718. Addit Manuf 2019;30:18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2019.100877.
[14] Kantzos C, Pauza J, Cunningham R, Narra SP, Beuth J, Rollett A. An investigation
of process parameter modifications on additively manufactured inconel 718 parts.
J Mater Eng Perform 2019;28(2):620–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-018-
3612-3.
[15] Wan H-Y, Zhou Z-J, Li C-P, Chen G-F, Zhang G-P. Enhancing fatigue strength of
selective laser melting-fabricated inconel 718 by tailoring heat treatment route.
Adv Eng Mater 2018:6. <https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.201800307>.
[16] Jouiad M, Marin E, Devarapalli RS, Cormier J, Ravaux F, Le Gall C, et al.
Microstructure and mechanical properties evolutions of alloy 718 during
isothermal and thermal cycling over-aging. Mater Des 2016;102:284–96. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.04.048.
[17] Popovich VA, Borisov EV, Heurtebise V, Riemslag T, Popovich AA, Sufiiarov VS.
Creep and thermomechanical fatigue of functionally graded inconel 718 produced
by additive manufacturing. In: The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, editor.
TMS 2018 147th Annu. Meet. Exhib. Suppl. Proc., Cham: Springer International
Publishing; 2018, p. 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72526-0_9.
[18] Witkin DB, Patel DN, Bean GE. Notched fatigue testing of Inconel 718 prepared by
selective laser melting. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2019;42(1):166–77. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12880.
[19] Chang S-H, Lee S-C, Tang T-P, Ho H-H. Influences of soaking time in hot isostatic
pressing on strength of inconel 718 superalloy. Mater Trans 2006;47(2):426–32.
https://doi.org/10.2320/matertrans.47.426.
[20] Chang L, Sun W, Cui Y, Yang R. Influences of hot-isostatic-pressing temperature on
microstructure, tensile properties and tensile fracture mode of Inconel 718 powder
compact. Mater Sci Eng A 2014;599:186–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
msea.2014.01.095.
[21] Gruber K, Dziedzic R, Kuźnicka B, Madejski B, Malicki M. Impact of high
temperature stress relieving on final properties of Inconel 718 processed by laser
powder bed fusion. Mater Sci Eng A 2021;813:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
msea.2021.141111.
[22] Miao J, Pollock TM, Wayne Jones J. Microstructural extremes and the transition
from fatigue crack initiation to small crack growth in a polycrystalline nickel-base
superalloy. Acta Mater 2012;60(6-7):2840–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
actamat.2012.01.049.
[23] Balachandramurthi AR, Moverare J, Dixit N, Deng D, Pederson R. Microstructural
influence on fatigue crack propagation during high cycle fatigue testing of
additively manufactured Alloy 718. Mater Charact 2019;149:82–94. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.matchar.2019.01.018.
[24] Koul AK, Immarigeon JP. Effect of Microstructure on Fatigue Crack Growth Rate of
Alloy 718 at 650 ◦ C. Superalloys 1989, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society;
1989. p. 697–712. <https://doi.org/10.7449/1989/Superalloys_1989_697_712>.
[25] Azadian S, Wei L-Y, Warren R. Delta phase precipitation in inconel 718. Mater
Charact 2004;53(1):7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2004.07.004.
[26] Konečná R, Kunz L, Nicoletto G, Bača A. Long fatigue crack growth in Inconel 718
produced by selective laser melting. Int J Fatigue 2016;92:499–506. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.03.012.
[27] Kim S, Choi H, Lee J, Kim S. Room and elevated temperature fatigue crack
propagation behavior of Inconel 718 alloy fabricated by laser powder bed fusion.
Int J Fatigue 2020;140:105802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105802.
[28] Ostergaard HE, Pribe JD, Tarik Hasib M, Paradowska AM, Siegmund T, Kruzic JJ.
Near-threshold fatigue crack growth in laser powder bed fusion produced alloy
718. Int J Fatigue 2022;163:107041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2022.107041.
13
International Journal of Fatigue 166 (2023) 107287
[29] ASTM International. Standard specification for additive manufacturing nickel alloy
(UNS N07718) with powder bed fusion (F3055 − 14a); 2021. <https://doi.org/
10.1520/F3055-14AR21>.
[30] ASTM International. B637: specification for precipitation-hardening and cold
worked nickel alloy bars, forgings, and forging stock for moderate or high
temperature service. ASTM Int 2018;7. https://doi.org/10.1520/B0637-18.2.
[31] ASTM International. Standard test method for measurement of fatigue crack
growth rates (E647 − 15); 2015. <https://doi.org/10.1520/E0647-15E01.2>.
[32] Dunbar AJ, Denlinger ER, Gouge MF, Simpson TW, Michaleris P. Comparisons of
laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing builds through experimental in
situ distortion and temperature measurements. Addit Manuf 2017;15:57–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.03.003.
[33] DebRoy T, Wei HL, Zuback JS, Mukherjee T, Elmer JW, Milewski JO, et al. Additive
manufacturing of metallic components – process, structure and properties. Prog
Mater Sci 2018;92:112–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.001.
[34] Acoff VL, Thompson RG. Characterization of constitutional liquid film migration in
nickel-base alloy 718. IBM J Res Dev 2000;44(5):668–80. https://doi.org/
10.1147/rd.445.0668.
[35] Fayed EM, Shahriari D, Saadati M, Brailovski V, Jahazi M, Medraj M. Influence of
homogenization and solution treatments time on the microstructure and hardness
of inconel 718 fabricated by laser powder bed fusion process. Materials (Basel)
2020;13:23. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13112574.
[36] Ziółkowski G, Gruber K, Tokarczyk E, Roszak R, Ziegenhorn M. X-ray computed
tomography for the ex-situ mechanical testing and simulation of additively
manufactured IN718 samples. Add Manuf 2021;45:102070. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.addma.2021.102070.
[37] Paris P, Erdogan F. A Critical analysis of crack propagation laws. ASME J Basic Eng
1963;85:528–33. <https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1115/1.3656900>.
[38] Macek W, Marciniak Z, Branco R, Rozumek D, Królczyk GM. A fractographic study
exploring the fracture surface topography of S355J2 steel after pseudo-random
bending-torsion fatigue tests. Meas J Int Meas Confed 2021;178:109443. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2021.109443.
[39] Macek W, Martins RF, Branco R, Marciniak Z, Szala M, Wroński S. Fatigue fracture
morphology of AISI H13 steel obtained by additive manufacturing. Int J Fract
2022;235(1):79–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-022-00615-5.
[40] Mercer C, Soboyejo ABO, Soboyejo WO. Micromechanisms of fatigue crack growth
in a forged Inconel 718 nickel-based superalloy. Mater Sci Eng A 1999;270(2):
308–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(99)00214-2.
[41] Osinkolu GA, Onofrio G, Marchionni M. Fatigue crack growth in polycrystalline IN
718 superalloy. Mater Sci Eng A 2003;356(1-2):425–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0921-5093(03)00156-4.
[42] Poulin J-R, Kreitcberg A, Brailovski V. Effect of hot isostatic pressing of laser
powder bed fused Inconel 625 with purposely induced defects on the residual
porosity and fatigue crack propagation behavior. Addit Manuf 2021;47:102324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.102324.
[43] Kim S, Goto M, Kim S. Effect of powder recycling on environment-assisted fracture
of inconel 718 alloy fabricated by laser powder bed fusion. Metall Mater Trans A
Phys Metall Mater Sci 2022;53(1):211–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-021-
06514-z.
[44] Duan C, Chen X, Li R. The numerical simulation of fatigue crack propagation in
Inconel 718 alloy at different temperatures. Aerosp Syst 2020;3(2):87–95. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s42401-020-00044-z.
[45] Zhao Y, Hao L, Zhang Q, Xiong W. Phase transformations during continuous
cooling in Inconel 718 alloys manufactured by laser powder bed fusion and suction
casting. Mater Charact 2022;185:111764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matchar.2022.111764.
[46] Special Metals Corporation. INCONEL® Alloy 718 Data Sheet, 2007. <https://
www.specialmetals.com/documents/technical-bulletins/inconel/inconel-alloy-
718.pdf> [accessed June 23, 2022].