Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-m259h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-12T19:19:06.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of 316L Stainless Steel Fabricated Using Selective Laser Melting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2019

N. Iqbal ,
E. Jimenez-Melero ,
U. Ankalkhope  and
J. Lawrence
N. Iqbal*
Affiliation:
Institute for Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering, University of Coventry, CV6 5LZ, UK
E. Jimenez-Melero
Affiliation:
Materials Performance Centre, School of Materials, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
U. Ankalkhope
Affiliation:
Manufacturing Technology Centre, Ansty Park, Coventry, CV7 9JU, UK
J. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Institute for Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering, University of Coventry, CV6 5LZ, UK
*
*(Email: naveed.iqbal@coventry.ac.uk)
Get access

Abstract

The microstructure homogeneity and variability in mechanical properties of 316L stainless steel components fabricated using selective laser melting (SLM) have been investigated. The crack free, 99.9% dense samples were made starting from SS316L alloy powder, and the melt pool morphology was analysed using optical and scanning electron microscopy. Extremely fast cooling rates after laser melting/solidification process, accompanied by slow diffusion of alloying elements, produced characteristic microstructures with colonies of cellular substructure inside grains, grown along the direction of the principal thermal gradient during laser scanning. In some areas of the microstructure, a significant number of precipitates were observed inside grains and at grain boundaries. Micro hardness measurements along the build direction revealed slight but gradual increase in hardness along the sample height. Uniaxial tensile tests of as manufactured samples showed the effect of un-melted areas causing scatter in room-temperature mechanical properties of samples extracted from the same SLM build. The ultimate tensile strength (UTS) varied from 458MPa to 509MPa along with a variation in uniform elongation from 3.3% to 14.4%. The UTS of a sample exposed to the Cl- rich corrosion environment at 46oC temperature revealed a similar strength as of the original sample, indicating good corrosion resistance of SLM samples under those corrosion conditions.

Keywords

additive manufacturinghardnessporositysteelscanning electron microscopy (SEM)

Information

Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 4 , Issue 44-45: Characterization, Processing and Theory , 2019 , pp. 2431 - 2439
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Herzog, D., Seyda, V., Wycisk, E. and Emmelmann, C., Acta. Matter. 117, 371 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, D., Meiners, W., Wissenbach, K., and Poprawe, R., Int. Mater. Rev. 57, 133 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, Y, Zhou, C., and Behdad, S., Additive Manufacturing, 22, 230 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, W., J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 23, 1917 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simar, A., Godet, S. and Watkins, T., Materials Characterization, 143, 1 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, B. and Shen, Z., J. Asian Ceram. Soc., 1, 315 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lienert, T., Burgardt, P., Harada, K., Forsyth, R. and DebRoy, T., Scr. Mater. 71, 35 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemer, A., Leuders, S., Thöne, M., Richard, H., Tröster, T. and Niendorf, T., Eng. Fract. Mech., 120, 15 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verlee, B., Dormal, T. and Lecomte-Beckers, J., Powder Metall., 55, 260 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, Y., Liu, L., Wikman, S., Cui, D. and Shen, Z., J. Nucl. Mater. 470, 170 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koutny, D., Palousek, D., Pantelejev, L., Hoeller, C., Pichler, R., Tesicky, L., and Kaiser, J., Materials, 11(2), 298 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spierings, A. and Schneider, M., and Eggenberger, R.,Rapid Prototyping Journal 17(5), 380 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y. and Man, H., Surface and Coatings Technology, 132, 130 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galarraga, H., Lados, D. A., Dehoff, R., Kirka, M. and Nandwana, P., Additive Manufacturing, 10, 47 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, S., Chai, D., Yu, J., Ma, G., and Wu, D., Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 25, 220 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhaeghe, F., Craeghs, T., Heulens, J., Pandelaers, L., Acta. Mater., 57, 6006 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casati, R., Lemke, J., Vedani, M., Journal of Materials Science & Technology, 32, 738 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, M., Wang, M., Lou, X., Rebak, R. and Was, G., Journal of Nuclear Materials, 513, 33 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segura, I., Mireles, J., Bermudez, D., Terrazas, C., Murr, L., Li, K., Injeti, V., Misra, R. and Wicker, R., Journal of Nuclear Materials 507, 164 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saeidi, K., Gao, X., Zhong, Y, Shen, ZJ, Materials Science and Engineering: A 625, 221 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar