1. Microstructure and corrosion behavior of 316L stainless steel prepared using different additive manufacturing methods: A comparative study bringing insights into the impact of microstructure on their passivity
- Author
-
Marc Raes, Lincy Pyl, Matthieu Van Calster, Reynier I. Revilla, Iris De Graeve, Galid Arroud, Patrick Guillaume, Francesco Andreatta, Materials and Chemistry, Electrochemical and Surface Engineering, Applied Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials and Constructions, Acoustics & Vibration Research Group, In-Situ Electrochemistry combined with nano & micro surface Characterization, and Architectural Engineering
- Subjects
Materials science ,Chemistry(all) ,Additive manufacturing ,020209 energy ,General Chemical Engineering ,Passivity ,Oxide ,02 engineering and technology ,Corrosion ,chemistry.chemical_compound ,Materials Science(all) ,316L stainless steel ,Laser metal deposition ,Selective laser melting ,0202 electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering ,General Materials Science ,Metallurgy ,General Chemistry ,021001 nanoscience & nanotechnology ,Microstructure ,chemistry ,Chemical Engineering(all) ,Manufacturing methods ,0210 nano-technology ,Current density - Abstract
This work compares the microstructure and corrosion resistance of 316 L stainless steel samples prepared using two different additive manufacturing methods: selective laser melting (SLM), and laser metal deposition (LMD). A wrought material was used as reference. The specimens showed marked differences in their microstructure, as a result of the specific manufacturing conditions. All samples displayed similar corrosion potential and passive current density values. However, variations were seen in their potential passive range (SLM > LMD > Wrought). The wider passivity of the SLM specimen can be associated with its finer microstructure, which leads to a more stable native oxide.
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF