AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems

Last updated on 6/17/2022

Modelers are invited to submit simulation results for any challenges they like before the deadline of 

23:59 (ET) on July 15, 2022. Tabulated results using the challenge-specific templates are required for 

most challenge problems and simulation results may be submitted here. An informational webinar for 

AMB2022-04 will be held on May 5, 2022, from 15:45 – 16:45 Eastern Time. The webinar registration 

link is here. After the webinar is completed, links to the recorded presentations and to a FAQ page will 

be added to the AMB2022-04 description page. Additional information may become available later so 

new versions of this document may be posted. Please check back occasionally.

All evaluations of submitted modeling results will be conducted by the AM-Bench 2022 organizing 

committee. Award plaques will be awarded at the discretion of the organizing committee. Because 

some participants may not be able to share proprietary details of the modeling approaches used, we are 

not requiring such details. However, whenever possible we strongly encourage participants to include 

with their submissions a .pdf document describing the modeling approaches, physical parameters, and 

assumptions used for the submitted simulations.

Please note that the challenge problems reflect only a small part of the validation measurement data 

provided by AM Bench for each set of benchmarks. The Measurement Descriptions section, below, 

describes the full range of measurements conducted.

AMB2022-04: Mechanical measurement extension to AMB2018-01: laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) 3D 

builds of nickel-based superalloy IN625 test objects. Detailed descriptions are found below, and 

simulation results may be submitted here.

Challenges

● Subcontinuum Mesoscale Tensile Test (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MeTT): Predict subcontinuum stress 

strain behavior, fracture location, and width reduction of as-built IN625 meso-scale specimens. 

See sections 3.2 and 4.1 for more details.

● Macroscale Tensile Tests at Different Orientations (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MaTO): Predict 

bulk/continuum stress strain behavior of as-built IN625 tensile specimens at different specimen 

tensile axis orientations with respect to the build direction. See sections 3.3 and 4.2 for more 

details.

● Macroscale Compression at Different Temperatures and Orientations (CHAL-AMB2022-04-

MaCTO): Predict bulk/continuum stress strain behavior of as built IN625 compression specimens 

at different specimen compression axis orientations with respect to the build at three 

temperatures. See sections 3.4 and 4.3 for more details.
AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems – PDF Copy

2

1. Overview and Basic Objectives

2. Build Process and Part Design

3. Measurement Descriptions

4. Benchmark Challenge Problems

5. Data to be Provided

6. References

_____________________________________________________________________________________

1. Overview and Basic Objectives

AMB2022-04 is a direct extension to the measurement data provided by AMB2018-01. For AMB2018-01, 

data were provided for laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) builds of IN625, including powder 

characterization, detailed information about the build process, in situ measurements during the build, 

ex situ measurements of the residual stresses, part distortion following partial cutting off the build plate, 

location-specific microstructure characterization, and microstructure evolution during a post build heat 

treatment. Here, these data are extended to include mechanical property data for the as-built material.

When the original AMB2018-01 specimens were produced, a full build plate of four bridge specimens 

was reserved for future use. For AMB2022-04, a set of compression measurements was conducted on 

test specimens extracted from the front section of a bridge specimen. In situ diffraction measurements 

of test specimens obtained from a 5 mm leg were carried out during compression testing at the Cornell 

High Energy Synchrotron Source (CHESS). In addition, two additional build plates of parts designed for 

mechanical testing were fabricated using the same build machine as AMB2018-01, the same alloy 

(different powder lot numbers), and the same bulk material scan pattern. These parts were used for 

macroscopic and mesoscopic mechanical testing, with additional characterization provided by X-ray 

Computed Tomography (XRCT) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). All of the mechanical test 

specimens were measured in the as-built state, with no residual stress anneal.

2. Build Process and Part Design

The build plate reserved from AMB2018-01 and the two new build plates of specimens for mechanical 

testing were all built on the same EOS M270.† The EOS M270 is referred to using the designation CBM, 

for commercial build machine. To the greatest extent possible, the build parameters and conditions were 

kept identical between the AMB2018 and AMB2022-04 builds, but new powder lots were required 

because there was insufficient IN625 powder remaining from AM Bench 2018. In situ thermography and 

thermocouple measurements were carried out during the AMB2018-01 build but these in situ 

measurements were not feasible during the fabrication of the two new build plates. However, in situ 

thermographic data results from other AMB2018-01 builds are described and linked in Heigel et al. 2020.

2.1 Reserved AMB2018-01 Build Plate

Full details of the build plate, part design, IN625 powder, build process, in situ monitoring, and ex situ 

measurements are available on the AMB2018-01 website here, and in Heigel et al. 2020. This build plate 

is designated AMB2018-625-CBM-B3.
AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems – PDF Copy

3

2.2 Mechanical Test Specimen Build Plates

The two new build plates are designated AMB2022-625-CBM-B1 and AMB2022-625-CBM-B2. Two lots of 

powder feedstock were used (B1 used lot M051701, and B2 used lot M341901). Both builds used the 

same laser power, scan speed, and spot size. Scan strategies varied by part.

2.2.1 Feedstock Material: The new AMB2022-04 builds were conducted using IN625 powder from 

two lots and the chemical compositions are provided in Table 1. The powders were kept sealed 

in the original shipment containers until use. Virgin powder was used for each build. 

Table 1: Powder characterization

M051701 M341901

Chemical Composition

- Values in this table are taken from vendor-supplied data 

sheets, which utilized ASTM E1479 (inductively-coupled

plasma atomic emission spectrometers) for all elements 

except for using ASTM E1019 (combustion) for C/S and 

ASTM E1019 (fusion) for O/N.

- All composition measurements are in mass (weight) 

percent.

Ni = Balance

Cr = 21.54

Fe = 0.78

Mo = 9.19

Nb = 4.13

Co = 0.18

Ti = 0.38

Al = 0.32

Si = 0.14

Mn = 0.05

P < 0.01

Ta = 0.02

C = 0.02

S < 0.005

O = 0.01

N = 0.01

Ni = Balance

Cr = 20.86

Fe = 0.62

Mo = 9.03

Nb = 3.95

Co = 0.17

Ti = 0.35

Al = 0.31

Si = 0.07

Mn = 0.04

P < 0.010

Ta < 0.01

C = 0.01

S < 0.005

O = 0.022

N = 0.008

2.2.2 Build parameters: The build parameters are identical to those used for AMB2018-01 and are 

listed in Table 2. 

Table 2: CBM build conditions. *Estimated

CBM build conditions

Infill laser power 195 W

Infill scan speed 800 mm/s

Contour laser power 100 W

Contour scan speed 900 mm/s

Support laser power 90 W

Support scan speed 450 mm/s

Hatch spacing 100 μm

Layer thickness 20 μm

Scan pattern Part dependent. See Section 2.4.

Infill laser diameter* 100 μm D4s

Contour and supports 

laser diameter*

80 μm D4s
AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems – PDF Copy

4

Inert gas Nitrogen

Oxygen level ≈ 0.5 %

2.2.3 Gas flow system: The CBM uses N2 gas with low velocity flow.

2.2.4 Substrates: Nickel alloy IN625 AM parts are built on a full size (252 mm x 252 mm) 1045 steel 

alloy build plate.

2.3 Part Layout and Specimen Naming Convention

2.3.1 AMB2018-625-CBM-B3

Figure 1 shows the design of the AMB2018-625-CBM-B3 build plate along with the part naming 

convention. The part that was used for this set of benchmark measurements is AMB2018-625-CBM-B3-

P3. Figure 2 shows the leg numbering convention used. The AMB2022-04 in situ X-ray diffraction 

measurements during mechanical testing were all conducted using material extracted from the 5 mm 

leg L4. This leg is designated AMB2018-625-CBM-B3-P3-L4.

Figure 1: Part numbering for reserved AM Bench 2018 build plate
AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems – PDF Copy

5

Figure 2: Leg numbering for reserved AM Bench 2018 bridge specimens

Leg L4 was used as source material for 15 “brick” compression specimens, measuring (2.5 x 1.0 x 1.0) 

mm. Nine specimens were oriented along the build direction (Z axis) and six were oriented along the 

length of the bridge specimen (X axis). Figure 3 shows a diagram of the sample cutting plan.

Figure 3: Diagram showing cutting plan for the 15 brick compression specimens
AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems – PDF Copy

6

Ten additional cylindrical mechanical test specimens were extracted using wire electrical discharge 

machining (EDM) from the front section of the part as shown in Fig. 4. Of these, 5 were oriented parallel 

to the build (Z) axis and 5 were oriented parallel to the Y axis. The sample ends were lapped flat and 

parallel to within 0.05 mm. The unique specimen IDs are made by appending the sample IDs in Fig. 4 

with the part ID. For example, AMB2018-625-CBM-B3-P3-V3 identifies the central vertical specimen 

and AMB2018-625-CBM-B3-P3-TT1 identifies the leftmost transverse specimen. A mechanical drawing

for the cylindrical specimens may be found here.

Figure 4: Cylindrical test specimen locations and sample IDs

2.3.2 AMB2022-625-CBM-B1

Figure 5 shows a diagram of the AMB2022-625-CBM-B1 build plate. This plate included 8 macroscale 

tensile specimens (T1-T8), 3 parts designed to provide material for mesoscale tensile specimens (TH1-3), 

and several additional parts for general purpose use. The part labels on Fig. 5 are appended to the build 

plate ID to provide unique identifiers for the individual parts. For example, AMB2022-625-CBM-B1-T7 

refers to the macroscale tensile specimen labeled T7 in Fig. 5.
AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems – PDF Copy

7

Figure 5: Diagram of AMB2022-625-CBM-B1 build plate

2.3.3 AMB2022-625-CBM-B2

Figure 6 shows a diagram of the AMB2022-625-CBM-B2 build plate. This plate included 3 additional 

macroscale tensile specimens (T1-T3), 40 parts produced using two different scan strategies that 

provided material for mesoscale directional tensile specimens (X.01-X-20, XY.01-XY.20), and two 

additional parts for general purpose use (C1-C2). The part labels on Fig. 6 are appended to the build 

plate ID to provide unique identifiers for the individual parts. For example, AMB2022-625-CBM-B2-X.12 

refers to the part labeled X.12 in Fig. 6.
AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems – PDF Copy

8

Figure 6: Diagram of AMB2022-625-CBM-B2 build plate

2.4 Scan Strategies

The scan strategy used for the reserved AMB2018-01-625-CBM-B3 build plate was thoroughly 

documented previously, with details available on the AMB2018-01 website here, and in Heigel et al. 

2020.

For the new AMB2022-625-CBM-B1 build plate, parts were built using the same pre-contour and 

alternating XY scan strategy used for the AMB2018-01 builds. However, for the macro-tensile bars the 

odd layers alternate between an A and B pattern as shown in Figure 7 where the scan pattern rotates 

180° between odd layers. Additionally, the three wall sizes in the thin wall design parts labeled TH1, 

TH2, and TH3 in Fig. 5 used an X-scan only. The supporting material was built using a default scan 

pattern with a 67° rotation between layers, 4 mm stripe width, and default skin post-contour (120 W, 

900 mm/s). A 100 mm stripe width was used for all the other parts. The parts were located such that the 

gage sections and thin walls do not contain stripe boundaries.

For the new AMB2022-625-CBM-B2 build plate, parts were built using the same pre-contour and 

alternating XY scan strategy used for the AMB2018-01 builds as well as an X-scan only strategy. The scan 

strategy for each block is indicated with an XY or X before the sample number. These 40 blocks do not 

contain stripe boundaries. The build terminated at a final layer height of 19.06 mm rather than the 

designed 20 mm due to not enough powder in the dispenser bin.
AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems – PDF Copy

9

Figure 7: Relative scan strategy orientations for example macro-tensile specimens and AMB2018-01 3D builds

3. Measurement Descriptions

3.1 Macroscale Tensile Tests at Different Crosshead Speeds of AMB2022-CBM-B1 Specimens T1-T8

Five ASTM E8 tensile specimens with a gauge width of 6 mm and a gauge thickness of 4 mm were tested 

in the as-built condition at room temperature. The specimens were additively manufactured oversized 

with a build height of ≈ 8.5 mm as shown in Fig. 5. The 4 mm thick specimens were EDM machined 1 mm 

below the top surface of the build. The gauge section of each sample was then machined using 

computer numerical control (CNC) milling to the dimensions reported in ASTM E8 for a 6 mm gauge 

width. Specimens T3, T4, and T6 were tested at a nominal strain rate of 10‐3s

-1 and specimens T5 and T7 

were tested at a nominal strain rate of 10-2s

-1 on a servo-hydraulic material testing machine using a 

constant crosshead displacement rate of 0.03175 mm/s and 0.3175 mm/s, respectively. Stereo digital 

image correlation (3D-DIC) was used to report a virtual extensometer strain for a 25.4 mm gauge length 

up to fracture. The 3D-DIC was measured on the surface that was closest to the top of the build. 

3.2 Subcontinuum Mesoscale Tensile Test of AMB2022-CBM-B1 Specimen TH1

This section is only a brief summary of the measurements for this challenge. Please see the NIST Public 

Data Repository for this challenge (https://doi.org/10.18434/mds2-2587) for more detailed information 

and all data†. One mesoscale tensile specimen (gauge dimensions approximately 0.2 mm x 0.2 mm x 

1 mm) was extracted from specimen AMB2022-625-CBM-B1-TH1 (Figure 5) and tested at room 

temperature using a quasistatic strain rate of 0.001/s to failure. Microstructure was measured using 

XRCT and SEM techniques on the specimen gauge section or adjacent material. Large-area electron 

backscatter diffraction was used to measure crystallographic texture and grain size/morphology of the 

entire gauge section and two orthogonal planes. Backscatter electron imaging was used to characterize 

the subgrain structure and assess recast layer thickness from electric discharge machining. High energy 

x-ray diffraction was used to estimate dislocation density. XRCT was used to analyze the pore 

population as well as uncertainty in cross-sectional area for stress calculations. Literature sources were 

used to estimate phase fraction, residual stress, and the single crystal C-tensor. 
AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems – PDF Copy

10

3.3 Macroscale Tensile Tests at Different Orientations of AMB2022-CBM-B2 Blocks X.01-X.20 and 

XY.01-XY.20

This section is only a brief summary of the measurements for this challenge. Please see the NIST Public 

Data Repository for this challenge (https://doi.org/10.18434/mds2-2588) for more detailed information 

and all data. Blocks were built with two different scan strategies (Figure 7): XY (blocks XY.01-XY.20 on 

Figure 6) and X-only (blocks X.01-X.20 on Figure 6). 96 tensile specimens were extracted from blocks at 

different orientations of the tensile axis with respect to the build direction to yield the following 

conditions: XY scan strategy (0, 30, 45, 60, and 90 orientation w.r.t. build direction) and X-only scan 

strategy (0, 60, 90 orientation w.r.t. build direction). Tensile testing was performed at room 

temperature using a quasistatic strain rate of 0.001/s to failure. Microstructure was measured using 

XRCT and SEM techniques on representative specimens of each scan strategy. Large-area electron 

backscatter diffraction was used to measure crystallographic texture and grain size/morphology for 

three orthogonal planes. Backscatter electron imaging was used to characterize the subgrain structure 

and assess recast layer thickness from electric discharge machining. High energy x-ray diffraction was 

used to estimate dislocation density. XRCT was used to analyze the pore population. Literature sources

were used to estimate phase fraction, residual stress, and the single crystal C-tensor. 

3.4 Compression measurements of AMB2018-625-CBM-B3 cylindrical specimens

The ten cylindrical compression specimens shown in Fig. 4 were tested at room temperature, 250 °C and 

500 °C using a quasistatic strain rate of 0.001/s. Testing was performed on a computer controlled 

electro-mechanical test machine1 with a high temperature environmental chamber installed. The 

specimens were loaded in a subpress between tungsten carbide platens. Dry film moly disulfide was 

used to lubricate the ends of the specimens for room temperature tests, whereas a boron nitride 

lubricant was used for the 250 °C and 500 °C specimens. Load was measured using the system load cell; 

an Epsilon model 7642† high temperature extensometer was used to measure relative displacement of 

the subpress platens. Elevated temperature tests were performed using a constant crosshead 

displacement rate. Specimens V3 and TT3 were tested in strain control which resulted in a faster 

displacement rate prior to yield. Temperature measurements were made with type K thermocouples 

and recorded with an external data acquisition system. One thermocouple was intrinsically welded to 

the subpress base. A metallic crimp of similar size to the specimen was attached to the tip of the second 

TC at the sub press. The TC at the subpress was then attached by weld to the top half of the subpress, 

using a steel wire. The largest masses within the test setup took about 2 h to get to temperature. A soak 

of 15 min to 20 min was performed before the start of each test. Data collection rate was set to 10 Hz 

with temperature data being collected at a rate of 1 Hz. All test specimens were successfully tested to 

about 30 % strain and manually unloaded at the same rate. 

3.5 Deformation with in-situ diffraction

A series of in situ diffraction measurements were performed during room and elevated temperature 

compression tests of `brick’ IN625 specimens at the Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source (CHESS). 

These data sets are being included in the AM Bench 2022 repositories but are not being used for the 

1

Instron Model No:1127 calibrated 06/25/20, tolerance ± 1% ; Epsilon Model 7642 calibration checked before use 

using Epsilon Displacement Calibrator A5414 calibrated 09/16/21, tolerance ± 1%.
AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems – PDF Copy

11

challenge problems. Specimens were extracted from Leg L4 of the AM bridge specimen (see above for 

description). A matrix of temperatures, RT, 250 °C, and 500 °C, and engineering strain rates, 10-4 1/s, 

10-3 1/s, and 10-2 1/s (build direction specimens only), were utilized for the compression tests to provide 

a wide range of data for model validation. The thermomechanical tests were performed at the FAST 

beamline (ID-3A) at CHESS using the RAMS2 load frame and furnace developed by the Air Force 

Research Laboratory in conjunction with CHESS. Prior to thermomechanical testing, a dummy IN625 

specimen extracted from material produced using the same build parameters as the AM Bench bridge 

specimen was used to calibrate the temperature of the RAMS2 furnace. Diffraction measurements were 

performed as the furnace was heated, and lattice expansion (i.e., coefficient of the thermal expansion) 

determined from these diffraction measurements was used to correlate the specimen temperature with 

reference furnace temperature. After furnace calibration, the thermomechanical test matrix was 

executed. For each specimen, pole figure measurements were collected prior to loading to characterize 

the local preferred crystallographic orientation of each specimen. Each specimen was then loaded to 

approximately 5 % engineering strain after accounting for machine compliance. During specimen 

loading, diffraction images were collected at a rate of 5 Hz for all tests. This imaging rate provided from 

50 to 5000 diffraction images per test depending on the engineering strain rate. Diffraction images were 

collected on a Dexela† 2923 area detector sitting 675 mm behind the specimen.

Macroscopic displacement and load applied were also measured simultaneously to diffraction 

measurements. All macroscopic loading data has been processed into the form of engineering stressstrain curves. From the diffraction images, lattice strains (directional elastic strains with contributions 

from crystallographic fibers of grain orientation) as a function of applied macroscopic strain were 

extracted along the loading and transverse-to-loading directions. In particular, lattice strains from 

representative (i.e., sufficient amounts of intensity along a sample direction of interest) sets of grains 

with the {111}, {200}, {220}, and {331} lattice planes along the loading and transverse-to-loading 

direction were collected.

4. Benchmark Challenge Problems

4.1 Subcontinuum Mesoscale Tensile Test (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MeTT)

This section is only a brief summary of this challenge. Please see the NIST Public Data Repository for this 

challenge (https://doi.org/10.18434/mds2-2587 ) for more detailed information and all data. All 

processing details, specimen preparation details, tensile test method details, and microstructure 

measurements are provided. Predictions are requested for the subcontinuum stress strain behavior,

fracture location, and width reduction of one as-built IN625 meso-scale specimen. 

4.2 Macroscale Tensile Tests at Different Orientations (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MaTTO)

This section is only a brief summary of this challenge. Please see the NIST Public Data Repository for this 

challenge (https://doi.org/10.18434/mds2-2588) for more detailed information and all data. All 

processing details, specimen preparation details, tensile test method details, and microstructure 

measurements are provided for both XY and X-only scan strategies. Additionally, true stress-true strain 

curves for all XY-scan strategy, 0 orientation specimens are provided. Predictions are requested for the 

bulk/continuum stress-strain behavior of as-built IN625 tensile specimens at different orientations (XY-
AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems – PDF Copy

12

scan strategy 30, 45, 60, 90 orientation w.r.t. build direction) and scan strategy (X-only scan strategy 

0, 60, and 90 orientation w.r.t. build direction). 

4.3 Macroscale Compression at Different Temperatures and Orientations (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MaCTO)

This challenge will be to predict the macroscopic stress-strain response of compression samples across a 

range of temperatures taken from the base leg of the IN625 AMB2018-01 build 

(https://www.nist.gov/ambench/amb2018-01-description) in both the build direction (Z-axis) and a 

transverse-build direction (Y-axis). The specific temperatures of interest are 298 K, 523 K, and 773 K. The 

template for submitting the simulation results may be found here.

Data provided will be compared against experimental tests described in Section 3.4 of this document. 

The exact comparison mapping is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Sample ID to experimental sample ID mapping

Sample ID BD-298K BD-523K BD-773K TD-298K TD-523K TD-773K

Experimental 

Sample ID

V3 V1 V2 TT3 TT1 TT2

Calibration data will be provided to users which corresponds to the build direction compression tests 

done at 298 K and 773 K. Please see the NIST Public Data Repository for this challenge 

(https://doi.org/10.18434/mds2-2681 ) for the calibration data. Users might also find the previously 

released and published information related to the AMB2018-01 build useful in completing this 

challenge.

5. Description and Links to Associated Data

5.1 Subcontinuum Mesoscale Tensile Test (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MeTT)

Please see the NIST Public Data Repository for this challenge (https://doi.org/10.18434/mds2-2587) for 

detailed information and all data.

5.2 Macroscale Tensile Tests at Different Orientations (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MaTTO)

Please see the NIST Public Data Repository for this challenge (https://doi.org/10.18434/mds2-2588) for 

detailed information and all data.

5.3 Macroscale Compression at Different Temperatures and Orientations (CHAL-AMB2022-04-MaCTO)

Please see the NIST Public Data Repository for this challenge (to be added when available) for detailed 

information and all data.
AMB2022-04 Benchmark Measurements and Challenge Problems – PDF Copy

13

6. References

Citations are provided throughout this document as hyperlinked URLs to the associated digital object 

identifier (DOI). Clicking this hyperlinked text should open the associated publication or cited source.

†Disclaimers

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document to describe an 

experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it 

intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the 

purpose. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) uses its best efforts to deliver high-quality 

copies of the AM Bench database and to verify that the data contained therein have been selected on 

the basis of sound scientific judgment. However, NIST makes no warranties to that effect, and NIST shall 

not be liable for any damage that may result from errors or omissions in the AM Bench databases.