Comparative Analysis of Mechanical Properties: Conventional vs. Additive Manufacturing for Stainless Steel 316L

• Published in: Materials Vol. 17; no. 19; p. 4808
• Main Authors: Sumanariu, Constantin Alex, Amza, Cătălin Gheorghe, Baciu, Florin, Vasile, Mihai Ion, Nicoara, Adrian Ionut
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 29.09.2024; MDPI
• Subjects: 3D printing; Additive manufacturing; Austenitic stainless steels; Comparative analysis; conventional manufacturing; Corrosion resistance; Corrosion resistant steels; Corrosion tests; Deformation; Ductility; Ductility tests; Elongated structure; Grain size; Grain structure; Heat treatment; Lasers; Manufacturers; Manufacturing; Mechanical properties; SEM analysis; Stainless steel; stainless steel 316L; Strain hardening; Tensile strength; Tensile tests; Ultimate tensile strength; Yield strength; Yield stress; SEM analysis; stainless steel 316L; conventional manufacturing; additive manufacturing; tensile strength; microstructural analysis; mechanical properties
• ISSN: 1996-1944; 1996-1944
• DOI: 10.3390/ma17194808

This research investigates the tensile strength and microstructural properties of stainless steel 316L, comparing samples fabricated using additive manufacturing (AM) to those produced via conventional manufacturing techniques such as forging and casting using stainless steel 316L for its mechanical performance and corrosion resistance. Tensile tests revealed that AM samples had an ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of 650 MPa, a yield strength of 550 MPa and an elongation at break of 20%, and conventionally manufactured samples achieved a UTS of 580 MPa, a yield strength of 450 MPa and a higher elongation at break of 35%. The reduced ductility of AM samples is offset by their higher strength. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis showed that AM samples had a refined grain structure, with grain sizes ranging from 1 to 5 µm, whereas conventionally produced samples exhibited larger grain sizes of 10 to 20 µm, contributing to their increased ductility. This shows that while AM processes can give a rather high strength, the ductility property is simpler to attain with casting. Further work is needed to investigate post-processing techniques like hot isotropic pressing (HIP) and heat treatments for enhancing the ductility of AM parts as well as mechanical properties.