PSI - Issue 35

Joachim Koelblin et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 35 (2022) 168–172 Joachim Koelblin et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

170

3

using the same outlined approach. While Fig. 2b showed some offset in-between the two as-built samples, Fig. 2c shows that the tensile properties of both samples are comparable when machine compliance is removed from total elongation.

a

b

c

Z Y

Y

Y

X

X

X

Fig. 1. (a) Example of sliced and stacked XμCT dataset where the slices are perpendicular/normal to the applied loa d direction; (b) Single slice extracted from the XμCT dataset without any post - processing; (c) Threshold slice showing the extracted defects in white and remainder in black.

a

b

c

0 100 200 300 400

0 100 200 300 400

A-1 A-2

A-1 A-2

Z

0

0.5

1

0

1

2

3

Extension (mm)

Strain (%)

Nominal stress (MPa)

Nominal stress (MPa)

X

Fig . 2. (a) Cross -section which has been threshold and aligned with the load direction. Additional quivers indicate the calculated strain direction; (b) In-situ measurement of nominal stress vs. extension; (c) Nominal stress vs. strain calculated according to the outlined procedure.

a

b

100

100

50

50

0

0

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

5

10

15

20

Extension (mm)

Strain (%)

Nominal stress (MPa)

Nominal stress (MPa)

Fig. 3. (a) HIPped sample: In-situ measurement of nominal stress vs. extension; (b) HIPped sample: Nominal stress vs. strain calculated according to the outlined procedure.

a

b

100 150 200

100 150 200

0 50

0 50

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0 1 2 3 4 5

6

7

Extension (mm)

Strain (%)

Nominal stress (MPa)

Nominal stress (MPa)

Fig. 4. (a) HIPped + T6 sample: In - situ measurement of nominal stress vs. extension; (b) HIPped + T6 sample: Nominal stress vs. strain calculated according to the outlined procedure.

100 150 200 250 300

A-1 A-2 H-1 HT6

0 50

0 Nominal stress (MPa)

5

10

15

20

Strain (%)

Fig. 5. Summary of all in-situ nominal stress vs. strain curves.