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. (November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Revilla, Reynier I.; Van Calster, Matthieu; Raes, Marc; Arroud, Galid; Andreatta, Francesco; Pyl, Lincy; Guillaume, Patrick; De Graeve, Iris
• Is Part Of: Corrosion science. Volume 176(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-11
• Subjects: Additive manufacturing -- 316L stainless steel -- Selective laser melting -- Laser metal deposition; Corrosion and anti-corrosives -- Periodicals; 620.11223
• DOI: 10.1016/j.corsci.2020.108914
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0010-938X

Abstract

Highlights: AM 316 L microstructure consists of cells network with elemental enrichment at borders. Cells border is highly corrosion resistant; limiting penetration of attack into metal. Cells present on LMD specimens were about 10 times larger than those in SLM samples. LMD, SLM and wrought 316 L had similar corrosion potential and passive current density. Potential passivity range was found to be in the order: SLM > LMD > wrought material. 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.