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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bedmar, Javier, Riquelme, Ainhoa, Rodrigo, Pilar, Torres, Belen, Rams, Joaquin
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