Cargando…
Comparison of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for 316L Stainless Steel
In additive manufacturing (AM), the technology and processing parameters are key elements that determine the characteristics of samples for a given material. To distinguish the effects of these variables, we used the same AISI 316L stainless steel powder with different AM techniques. The techniques...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8585356/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34772039 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14216504 |
_version_ | 1784597670015270912 |
---|---|
author | Bedmar, Javier Riquelme, Ainhoa Rodrigo, Pilar Torres, Belen Rams, Joaquin |
author_facet | Bedmar, Javier Riquelme, Ainhoa Rodrigo, Pilar Torres, Belen Rams, Joaquin |
author_sort | Bedmar, Javier |
collection | PubMed |
description | In additive manufacturing (AM), the technology and processing parameters are key elements that determine the characteristics of samples for a given material. To distinguish the effects of these variables, we used the same AISI 316L stainless steel powder with different AM techniques. The techniques used are the most relevant ones in the AM of metals, i.e., direct laser deposition (DLD) with a high-power diode laser and selective laser melting (SLM) using a fiber laser and a novel CO(2) laser, a novel technique that has not yet been reported with this material. The microstructure of all samples showed austenitic and ferritic phases, which were coarser with the DLD technique than for the two SLM ones. The hardness of the fiber laser SLM samples was the greatest, but its bending strength was lower. In SLM with CO(2) laser pieces, the porosity and lack of melting reduced the fracture strain, but the strength was greater than in the fiber laser SLM samples under certain build-up strategies. Specimens manufactured using DLD showed a higher fracture strain than the rest, while maintaining high strength values. In all the cases, crack surfaces were observed and the fracture mechanisms were determined. The processing conditions were compared using a normalized parameters methodology, which has also been used to explain the observed microstructures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8585356 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85853562021-11-12 Comparison of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for 316L Stainless Steel Bedmar, Javier Riquelme, Ainhoa Rodrigo, Pilar Torres, Belen Rams, Joaquin Materials (Basel) Article In additive manufacturing (AM), the technology and processing parameters are key elements that determine the characteristics of samples for a given material. To distinguish the effects of these variables, we used the same AISI 316L stainless steel powder with different AM techniques. The techniques used are the most relevant ones in the AM of metals, i.e., direct laser deposition (DLD) with a high-power diode laser and selective laser melting (SLM) using a fiber laser and a novel CO(2) laser, a novel technique that has not yet been reported with this material. The microstructure of all samples showed austenitic and ferritic phases, which were coarser with the DLD technique than for the two SLM ones. The hardness of the fiber laser SLM samples was the greatest, but its bending strength was lower. In SLM with CO(2) laser pieces, the porosity and lack of melting reduced the fracture strain, but the strength was greater than in the fiber laser SLM samples under certain build-up strategies. Specimens manufactured using DLD showed a higher fracture strain than the rest, while maintaining high strength values. In all the cases, crack surfaces were observed and the fracture mechanisms were determined. The processing conditions were compared using a normalized parameters methodology, which has also been used to explain the observed microstructures. MDPI 2021-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8585356/ /pubmed/34772039 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14216504 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Bedmar, Javier Riquelme, Ainhoa Rodrigo, Pilar Torres, Belen Rams, Joaquin Comparison of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for 316L Stainless Steel |
title | Comparison of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for 316L Stainless Steel |
title_full | Comparison of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for 316L Stainless Steel |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for 316L Stainless Steel |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for 316L Stainless Steel |
title_short | Comparison of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for 316L Stainless Steel |
title_sort | comparison of different additive manufacturing methods for 316l stainless steel |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8585356/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34772039 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14216504 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bedmarjavier comparisonofdifferentadditivemanufacturingmethodsfor316lstainlesssteel AT riquelmeainhoa comparisonofdifferentadditivemanufacturingmethodsfor316lstainlesssteel AT rodrigopilar comparisonofdifferentadditivemanufacturingmethodsfor316lstainlesssteel AT torresbelen comparisonofdifferentadditivemanufacturingmethodsfor316lstainlesssteel AT ramsjoaquin comparisonofdifferentadditivemanufacturingmethodsfor316lstainlesssteel |