Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Review examines surface mechanisms affecting fatigue in metal additive manufacturing, highlighting design implications.
Purpose This study aims to critically examine the role of surface and near-surface integrity in governing the fatigue performance and surface integrity of metal additive manufacturing (AM) components, with emphasis on surface-driven failure mechanisms. Design/methodology/approach The study investigates recent literature on metal AM surface science by organizing developments around governing surface and subsurface mechanisms rather than individual processing routes. Advances in three-dimensional topography analysis, residual stress characterization and subsurface microstructural evaluation are assessed alongside the influence of post-processing techniques, including machining, heat treatment and mechanical surface treatments. Findings Metal AM processes inherently generate non-equilibrium surface conditions characterized by high roughness, defect populations, residual stress gradients and heterogeneous microstructures, which critically control fatigue crack initiation. Post-processing strategies significantly modify these surface states by reducing defects, strain hardening and redistributing stress, thereby enhancing fatigue resistance. However, limitations remain in quantitatively linking surface metrics to long-term structural performance. Originality/value This review provides a mechanism-oriented and transdisciplinary perspective that integrates AM, surface engineering and fatigue mechanics. By reframing surface integrity as a controlling design variable rather than a secondary outcome of processing, it offers a structured framework for predictive, performance-based surface engineering in AM metals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
KORKMAZ et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: