PSI - Issue 83

Davide D’Andrea et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 83 (2026) 256–264

263

the AM material exhibits a lower fatigue limit and a steeper slope, indicating reduced fatigue resistance and a more sensitive life reduction with increasing stress compared to the traditionally manufactured steel (Garcias et al., (2021)). It is also worth noting that CA tests on AM steel evidenced a large dispersion in results due to the presence of defects (Sanaei & Fatemi, (2021)).

Table 4. Estimated phase III number of cycles.

Phase III’s cycles, Δ N c [//]

Maximum Stress [MPa]

Step_AISI316L_trad01

Step_AISI316L_trad02

Step_AISI316L_AM01

Step_AISI316L_AM02

340 330 320 310 300 290 280 270

-

-

3178 4121 5653 8555

- -

5729 9587

6536

10920 28678

3140 3989 5300 7578

25356

-

-

16106 82945

12490 30652

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. a) Plastic work ratio and b) IR derived SN curve comparison between traditionally manufactured and AM specimens

5. Conclusions The methodology proposed by Risitano et al., (2015) has been applied to two specimens batch obtained by turning and SLM process. RTM gave insights into fatigue life of AISI316L, highlighting the differences between the material obtained by the two beforementioned manufacturing process. A fatigue limit reduction of 9.4 % was observed for the