Next Article in Journal
Tailoring the Microstructure of Porous Carbon Spheres as High Rate Performance Anodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries
Previous Article in Journal
Novel 3D-Printed Biocarriers from Aluminosilicate Materials
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of the Gas-Atomization Pressure and Annealing Temperature on the Microstructure and Performance of FeSiBCuNb Nanocrystalline Soft Magnetic Composites
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 16
Issue 13
10.3390/ma16134827
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Mo Particles Addition on the Microstructure and Properties of 316 L Stainless Steels Fabricated by Laser Powder Bed Fusion

by
Bolin Li
1,2,
Shuai Zhang
1,2,
Shenghai Wang
1,2,
Li Wang
1,2,
Yinchuan He
1,2,
Yaning Cui
1,2,
Dan Liu
3 and
Mingxu Wang
1,2,*
1
School of Mechanical, Electrical & Information Engineering, Shandong University, Weihai 264209, China
2
Weihai Institute of Industrial Technology, Shandong University, Weihai 264209, China
3
Weihai Wanfeng Magnesium Industry Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd., Weihai 263200, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2023, 16(13), 4827; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16134827
Submission received: 4 June 2023 / Revised: 2 July 2023 / Accepted: 3 July 2023 / Published: 5 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Structure and Performance of Nanoparticle Improved Ferrous Alloys)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Application of the 316 L stainless steel (SS) is limited by its relatively low wear resistance, insufficient strength, and poor corrosion resistance in special environments. To this end, effects of Mo particles addition on the microstructure, mechanical properties, and corrosion resistance of the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) 316 L SS are investigated in this study. The results show that the addition of Mo particles from 0 wt.% to 10 wt.% can modify the crystal orientation and improve the strength, wear resistance, and corrosion resistance of LPBF 316 L SSs. Particularly, the LPBF 316 L SS forms a biphasic structure with a similar ratio of α-Fe to γ-Fe with 5 wt.% Mo addition. As a result, the corresponding samples possess both the excellent toughness of austenitic SSs and the high strength and corrosion resistance of ferrite SSs, which reaches a high tensile strength of about 830 MPa, together with a low friction coefficient of 0.421 μ. Since the Mo particles addition is beneficial to increase the content of Cr2O3 on the samples surface from 13.48% to 22.68%, the corrosion current density of 316 L SS decreases by two orders of magnitude from 569 nA to 6 nA, while the mechanical properties remain favorable. This study is expected to serve as a reference for the preparation of LPBF SSs with excellent integrated performance.

1. Introduction

The 316 L stainless steel (SS) has been widely used in machinery, aerospace, and biomedical industry, etc., because of its good ductility, shipping, biomedical, oxidation resistance, and relatively low cost [1]. However, the relatively low strength and localized corrosion susceptibility of the 316 L SS hinders its further structural applications, particularly in the biomedical industry field [2]. Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) [3] is promising to improve the strength and corrosion resistance of the 316 L SS, as it is able to refine the grains and prevent the formation of detrimental intermetallic phases due to the extremely high cooling rate. Meanwhile, LPBF parts show lower friction resistance compared with the same material produced by a traditional process [4]. Therefore, LPBF 316 L SS is commonly used in many applications, such as heat exchanger, jet engines, and biomedical parts. Nevertheless, the wear resistance, strength, and corrosion resistance of the LPBF 316 L SS cannot meet the requirements in special environments [5,6,7]. Therefore, the performance of LPBF 316 L SSs needs to be further improved.
In recent years, LPBF has been used to prepare coatings to improve the wear resistance and corrosion resistance of 316 L SS due to its layered manufacturing characteristics. Yazici et al. [8] studied the structural, mechanical, and tribological properties of Ti and TiN coatings on 316 L SS by LPBF. However, it is difficult to ensure comprehensive coverage of coatings for complex components in LPBF. Coatings typically occur only on the surface of SS. Due to poor wetting between the coating and the substrate, as well as difficulties in uniform diffusion of elements, metal intermetallic compounds and defects such as cracks often form at the interface.
Furthermore, doping reinforced particle is widely adopted to improve the performance of LPBF 316 L SS due to its ability to directly improve the quality of the formed components without the need for complex coating processes. Han et al. [9] found that the strength of LPBF 316 L SS can be improved by using graphene without affecting ductility. However, the increase in strength is not significant enough to meet the demands of special industrial environments. Some ceramic particles such as TiN [10], TiC [11], SiC [12], have been proven to enhance the strength and wear resistance. The results demonstrated that the improved compressive yield strength mainly originated from the effect of grain boundary strengthening and Orowan strengthening. Song et al. [13] found that Cr3C2 addition significantly improved the strength of LPBF iron-based materials. However, a large number of cracks and pores resulted in a lower elongation rate of the material. In general, adding ceramic particles can cause a significant spheroidization effect, which has a negative impact on the tensile performance. Meanwhile, the agglomeration of the ceramic particles and the poor interfacial wettability between ceramic particles and the substrate generally causes many defects and cracks, which severely deteriorates the corrosion resistance of the LPBF 316 L SS [14]. Hence, some metal particles are added instead. Fang et al. [15] used a powder mixture of 310 S and 430 SS to prepare γ-Fe composite materials through LPBF. However, the increase in strength of the formed LPBF SS was not significant due to the limited strength of SS materials. Ghayoor et al. [16] improved the mechanical performance of 304 L SS by adding Y. However, the addition of Y to the 304 L matrix resulted in the significant balling effect, thus the improvement in strength is not significant. Sun et al. [17] found that the addition of TiAl in LPBF 316 L SS led to an improvement in the yield strength and ultimate tensile strength. This improvement can be attributed to the refined recrystallized grain structure and the development of a high density of γ-TiAl nanoparticles, which effectively act as barriers to dislocation motion. However, due to the lighter weight of TiAl, segregation occurs at the bottom of the molten pool, resulting in a less significant increase in strength. In comparison with compounds, single-element particles have better electrical conductivity, single structure, and unexpected combinatorial properties. Quan et al. [18] found both electrical conductivity and corrosion resistance of the LPBF 316 L SS were improved after the Ag addition. However, due to the weak interfacial bonding, Ag aggregations tended to split away from the 316 L SS, resulting in the formation of pores. Therefore, the improvement in corrosion resistance is not significant. Yin et al. [19] found that the addition of W particles can improve the mechanical properties of the 316 L SS. However, the addition of W made it difficult to uniformly passivated films form on the surface of 316 L SS which leads to less significant improvement in corrosion resistance. Zhang et al. [20] found that the strength, hardness, and corrosion resistance of LPBF 316 L SS can be improved by the addition of iron-based amorphous alloys. The enhancements of properties are contributed to the oxygen purification of Y element and solid solution of Co and Mo elements, as well as the grain refinement strengthen with the introduction of the amorphous alloy. However, due to the high proportion of Fe in the amorphous material, the improvement in corrosion resistance is not significant. Therefore, we urgently need to find one more kind of reinforcing particles to effectively improve the comprehensive performance of LPBF 316 L SS.
Mo shows high mechanical strength and thermal conductivity [21,22], and the concentration of Mo cations can range from 1 to 20 at.% in passive films [23], indicating Mo particles are promising to improve the performance of the LPBF 316 L SS. However, the impact of Mo’s addition on the strength, wear resistance, and corrosion resistance of LPBF 316 L SS is not clear. In this work, effects of the Mo-particle content on the crystallographic orientation, mechanical properties, tribological properties, and corrosion resistance of the LPBF 316 L SS are systematically investigated. The results highlight the capability of processing stainless steel materials with excellent performance via LPBF to circumvent the harsh requirements on traditional materials.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. LPBF Facility and Printing Procedure

The gas-atomized 316 L SS powders with D50 = 39 μm (Sandvik International Trading, Sandviken, Sweden) and Mo powders with D50 = 7 μm (Avimetal Am Tech Co, Ltd., Beijing, China) were mixed for 6 h by a three-dimensional motion mixing machine (GH-17L, Nan Fang Powder Equipment Factory, Wenling, China) to ensure they were fully mixed. The particle size distribution of the powders was tested using a laser particle size analyzer (Bettersize2600, Bettersize Instruments Ltd., Dandong, China). In order to systematically investigate the effect of excessive Mo addition on LPBF 316 L SS, specimens with 0, 3, 5, 7, and 10 wt.% Mo addition prepared by the SLM 125 HL (SLM Solutions Inc., Lubeck, Germany) were named as S0, S3, S5, S7, and S10, respectively. The LPBF device and LPBF sample are shown in Figure 1. The LPBF process was performed with oxygen content below 200 ppm. Based on a series of preliminary experiments, the samples were manufactured with a set of LPBF processing optimal parameters listed in Table 1. Moreover, the laser scanning angle between adjacent layers is set to be 33°. Moreover, the substrate is preheated to 120 ℃ to reduce thermal stress and ensure good mechanical stability.

2.2. Microstructural Observation

The scanning electron microscopy (SEM; Nova NanoSEM450, FEI Sirion, Hillsboro, OR, USA) was used to observe the microstructure, while phase identification was performed by X-ray diffraction (XRD; Rigaku, Tokyo, Japan). Moreover, compositions of the passive films were analyzed by the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS; ESCALAB 250Xi spectrometer, Thermo Scientific Co. Ltd., Waltham, MA, USA).

2.3. Mechanical Properties Testing

The relative density was measured by an electronic densitometer (ZMD-2, Fangrui Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China) based on the Archimedes principle [24]. Moreover, relative densities of all samples were found to be above 98% in this study. The universal testing machine and tensile sample are shown in Figure 2. The mechanical properties were measured through tensile test running under the universal testing machine (Exceed E45, MTS systems Co. Ltd., Shenzhen, China). Moreover, as shown in the Figure 3a, wear tests were carried out using a friction and wear tester (TRB3, Anton Paar Co. Ltd., Graz, Austria). As shown in Figure 2b, a linear reciprocating dry friction wear test method was adopted, where the grinding ball with a diameter of 6 mm is used. The worn surfaces were characterized by the optical microscope (OM, VK-X1000, Keyence, Osaka, Japan) and SEM. In addition, the cross-sectional area of wear tracks was determined by the average value of from four measurements long −X, +X, −Y, and +Y directions, respectively. Moreover, the friction experiment is conducted at room temperature, with a load of 2 N and a frequency of 6 Hz.

2.4. Electrochemical Testing

The electrochemical station (VersaSTAT 3F, Ametek Co. Ltd., California, USA) and electrochemical samples were shown in Figure 4. To minimize errors arising from the varying formation times of passivation films, electrochemical samples are prepared concomitantly. To ensure the reproducibility, all the measurements were repeated at least 3 times under 20 ± 2 °C.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Phase Analysis

To identify the phase structure, XRD patterns of the samples are presented in Figure 5. One sees from Figure 5 that with the increasing Mo content, the phase transformation occurs from γ-Fe for S0 to α-Fe for S10. Especially, both phases are contained in S5. The phase transformation can be attributed to the change of the chemical composition and cooling rate [25]. During the solidification process, more MoCx forms and segregates at the grain boundaries due to the strong affinity and the co-segregation between Mo and C [26] with the increasing Mo addition, which results in a reduction in C concentration within the 316 L matrix, and then promotes the generation of α-Fe with lower C than γ-Fe. Meanwhile, the thermal conductivity of Mo (142 W·m−1·K−1) is about 10 times higher than that of 316 L SS (14 W·m−1·K−1) [27,28]. The thermal conductivity of the hybrid powder increases with the increasing Mo addition, which results in a higher cooling rate. Furthermore, the high cooling rate leads to the formation of the α-Fe [29]. Moreover, the increasing Mo addition results in the larger lattice distortion of the matrix due to the relatively large atomic diameter, which causes higher tensile stress within the matrix and in turn promotes the stress-induced transformation from γ-Fe to α-Fe [30].

3.2. General Microstructure

The duplex SS has been proven to combine the excellent toughness and weldability of γ-Fe with the high strength and chloride corrosion resistance of α-Fe [31]. Thus, the S5 containing the duplex phase is compared with S0 in this work. Moreover, the tissue structures for S0 and S5 are shown in Figure 6. One sees from Figure 6a,d that there are a lot of irregular grains in S0 and S5, which results from the rapid heating/cooling rate of the LPBF technique (>105 K/s). Figure 6b,e shows that the addition of Mo tends to increase the dislocation density of the LPBF 316 L. While the mean grain size is largely decreased from 18 μm for S0 to 3 μm for S5, as shown in Figure 6c,f. The formed preferential MoxC in the molten pool can supply effective heterogeneous nucleation during the solidification process, which results in the grain refinement [32]. Moreover, the higher cooling rate caused by the increasing Mo addition can also play a key role in the grain refinement.

3.3. Tensile Properties

Tensile tests are conducted to investigate the effect of Mo particles on the mechanical properties of 316 L SS. Tensile properties of the LPBF samples are shown in Figure 7, where one sees that the ultimate tensile strength increases with increasing Mo addition, from 710 MPa for S0 to 963 MPa for S10. Moreover, the significant increase in strength with more than 3 wt.% Mo particles addition can be attributed to the formation of brittle α-Fe. While the insignificant decrease in elongation when the Mo addition exceeds 5 wt.% results from the grain refinement, as it can improve both the strength and plasticity of the material [33]. Considering that S5 has both good plasticity and strength, we believe that S5 shows the best comprehensive tensile properties in this study.

3.4. Fracture Surface

To investigate fracture mechanism of S0, S3, S5, S7, and S10, the tensile fracture topography is shown in Figure 8. One sees from Figure 8 that S0, S3, S5, and S7 show small and deep dimples, indicating that all samples exhibit typical characteristics of ductile fracture. Moreover, the traces of brittle fracture for S10 can be seen in in Figure 8i, illustrating the combination of ductile fracture and brittle fracture. Moreover, the worsened plasticity can be attributed to the increasing number of defects. As shown in the insert of Figure 8e, several partially molten steel particles are found on the fracture surface. The surrounding surface of these particles did not show any pits. These partially molten areas formed at the interface between two layers are believed to represent a fundamental cause of the scattering in elongation to failure and premature fractures detected in tensile samples [34,35]. As shown in Figure 8g,f with the increasing Mo particle addition, the cracks easily propagate from the defects when the tips reach them, ultimately leading to sample fracture [36]. The addition of Mo can effectively refine the grain size. Moreover, the increase in the number of grains is advantageous for dispersing plastic deformation caused by external forces, thereby reducing stress concentration. In addition, the finer the grains, the larger the grain boundary area, which is less conducive to crack propagation. Therefore, the decrease in plasticity is not significant when the Mo addition exceeds 5 wt.%. Moreover, the enhancement of strength stems from the synergistic influence of fine grain strengthening, dislocation strengthening and solid solution strengthening. The solid solution of Mo atoms with large atomic radius in austenite leads to the precipitation of Ni and Cr elements at grain boundaries, which causes more pinning points, hinders the expansion of grain boundaries and refines grains. Thus, S10 should have a higher strength. Furthermore, similar element distribution is found for Mo and C as shown in the inset of Figure 8e, which confirmed the existence of MoCx to some extent.

3.5. Tribological Performance

To reveal the influence of Mo content on the wear resistance of 316 L SS, the relationship between the coefficient of friction and time and profiles of the cross section of the wear track for the samples are shown in Figure 9a,b. Moreover, the corresponding tribological characteristics of LPBF samples are listed in Table 2. One sees from Figure 9 and Table 2 that both the width and depth of the abrasion marks decrease as the Mo content increases, indicating that the addition of Mo can effectively improve the wear resistance. While the friction coefficient of the samples decreases firstly and then increases with the increasing Mo addition. The reduction in the friction coefficient of S3 and S5 can be mainly attributed to the enhancement of both the solid solution strengthening and refinement strengthening with the increasing Mo. Moreover, the increasing friction coefficient from S7 and S10 can be ascribed to the cracks revealed in Figure 8e,i. The emergence of flaws elevates the surface roughness, resulting in a certain escalation in the friction coefficient of S7 and S10. In contrast, S5 has the lowest coefficient of friction, while S10 has the lowest wear rate coefficient.

3.6. Worn Morphology

To further analyze the wear mechanism, wear patterns are obtained as shown in Figure 10. One sees from Figure 10 that the stripped worn debris is plowed along the direction of the slide, forming grooves of varying depths. The stripped material is crushed by the matrix and the grinding ball in the process of wear, forming the three-body friction of matrix, wear debris, and grinding ball. Moreover, the wear surfaces of specimen S0 shows a deep wear track with severe delamination. However, the worn surfaces of S3 and S5 are relatively smooth, with shallow grooves and covered by a thick uniform tribo-layer. While significant wear surface peeling can be found for S7 and S10. As shown in Figure 10b, the predominant forms of wear observed in S0 are adhesive and abrasive wear, along with oxidative wear resulting from increased temperatures during friction [37]. These types of wear are largely attributed to the low hardness of the material. In contrast, the wear morphology of S3 and S5 is characterized by mild abrasive plowing and oxidative wear, as illustrated in Figure 10d,f. The lack of discernible adhesive wear morphology observed in samples S3 and S5 can be attributed to the synergistic impact of solid solution strengthening, fine grain strengthening, and dislocation strengthening. As shown in Figure 9g–j, the surface peeling of S7 and S10 occurs during high-speed friction, which can be attributed to the inadequate welding properties and increased content of the brittleness α-Fe with the increasing Mo addition. The rough surface produced during the wear process resulted in an increase in the friction coefficient of S7 and S10.

3.7. Electrochemical Results

In order to evaluate the localized corrosion susceptibility of LPBF samples in a NaCl environment, potentiodynamic polarization curves are shown in Figure 11. As depicted in Figure 11, the addition of Mo can significantly enhance the resistance of 316 L SS against pitting corrosion. However, the corrosion current density first decreases and then increases slightly with the increasing Mo content. Moreover, the S5 shows the best corrosion resistance in this study, whose corrosion current density is about two orders of magnitude lower than that of S0. Meanwhile, there is almost no overlap between the cathode and anode branches for all the samples, indicating that the addition of Mo has a great impact on both the cathode and anode reaction. Researchers found that the corrosion current density is closely related to the composition of the surface passivation film [38]. Therefore, it can be inferred that the addition of Mo particles may improve the corrosion resistance by changing the composition of the passivation film.

3.8. Passive Film Characterization

Composition and structure are two key issues in passivated films, which have an essential impact on the corrosion properties of samples [39,40]. To investigate the influence of Mo particles on the surface passivation film, the XPS spectra and cationic fraction of S0 and S5 are shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13. Moreover, based on the integral areas of the corresponding peak, the oxide species in the passive film are calculated. One sees from Figure 12 that for both S0 and S5, the passive films are primarily composed of the oxides and hydroxides of Fe and Cr. As verified in Figure 12, there are four main peaks in the electronic orbit of Fe2p3/2, which correspond to the Fe (706.5 eV ± 0.1 eV), FeO (707.3 eV ± 0.1 eV), Fe2O3 (710.8 eV ± 0.1 eV), and FeOOH (714.2 eV ± 0.1 eV), respectively. Due to the rapid dissolution of Fe compounds in corrosion solution, the dissolution of passive films is quick when a large number of Fe compounds exist in passive films, leading to the poor corrosion resistance of passive films [41]. The addition of Mo reduces the proportion of iron compounds in the passivation film and improves corrosion resistance. As illustrated in Figure 12, there are three main peaks in the electronic orbit of Cr2p3/2, namely Cr (574.1 eV ± 0.1 eV), Cr2O3 (576.3 eV ± 0.1 eV), and Cr(OH)3 (577.1 eV ± 0.1 eV). Cr2O3 and Cr(OH)3 are the typical compounds of Cr in passive films of stainless steels. Compared with the Cr hydroxide, Cr2O3 is the main compound affecting the compactness and corrosion resistance of passive film [42]. Moreover, it can be found from Figure 13 that Mo addition can effectively improve the content of Cr2O3 in passivated films, which is consistent with the reported results [43]. This means that S5 has a denser passivation film and better corrosion resistance. Simultaneously, the inclusion of Mo can enhance the MoOx content within the passivation film [44], which can effectively inhibit the dissolution of Cr2O3. The ratio of the total hydroxides and total oxides in the passive films formed on S0 (approximately 0.165) is smaller than that in the passive film formed on S5 (nearly 0.245), which indicates that the passive film of S0 has a lower content of hydroxides than S5. According to the bilayer theory of passive film [45], Cr2O3 is the primary constitute of the inner layer, while unstable oxides and hydroxide of Fe and Cr(OH)3 are mainly distributed in the outer layer. It can be thus concluded that the Mo addition can promote the stable formation of the inner passivation film, which leads to improved charge transfer resistance and hinders further corrosion.

4. Conclusions

In order to improve the performance of 316 L SS and to serve guidance for the development of advanced materials, we fabricated a superior performing 316 L SS by adding Mo particles from 0 to 10 wt.% via the LPBF technique. Moreover, the corresponding microstructure, tensile properties, wear performance, and corrosion resistance of the samples have been analyzed. The conclusions are as follows:
  • With the increasing Mo particles addition, phase transformation occurs from γ-Fe for S0 to α-Fe for S10. Especially, both the phases are contained in S5. Moreover, the phase transformation can be attributed to the formation of MoCx and the increasing cooling rate as well as the increasing internal stress caused by Mo addition.
  • With the increasing Mo particles addition, the ultimate tensile strength of the LPBF 316 L SS increases monotonically, while the friction coefficient decreases firstly till 5 wt.% Mo addition and then increases. Moreover, S5 shows the best comprehensive mechanical performance in this study, which can be attributed to the synergistic impact of solid solution strengthening, fine grain strengthening, and dislocation strengthening, as well as the relatively low content of defects caused by Mo addition.
  • The addition of Mo can improve the corrosion resistance by increasing the content of Cr2O3 in the passivated film. Moreover, a low corrosion current up to 6 nA is achieved for S5, which has two orders of magnitude lower than that of S0. However, too much Mo particles (e.g., >5 wt.%) leads to the increase in defects. Therefore, S5 shows the best corrosion resistance in this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.L., S.W. and L.W.; Methodology, B.L., S.Z. and S.W.; Validation, S.Z., Y.H., Y.C. and M.W.; Formal analysis, S.Z., S.W., L.W., Y.H., Y.C. and M.W.; Investigation, B.L. and S.W.; Data curation, S.Z., Y.H., Y.C. and M.W.; Writing—original draft, B.L. and M.W.; Writing—review & editing, B.L., L.W., D.L. and M.W.; Supervision, S.W., L.W. and M.W.; Project administration, L.W.; Funding acquisition, M.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Shandong Provincial Natural Foundation of China (Grant No. ZR2022QE258 and ZR2020ME002).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data included in this study are available upon request by contact with the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Qiuhong Huo (Experimentalist), Yanqing Xin (Experimentalist) and Jun Mi (Experimentalist) for technical assistance. The authors are also grateful for the Physical-Chemical Test and Analysis Center of Shandong University at Weihai.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Huang, Y.; Yang, S.; Gu, J.; Xiong, Q.; Duan, C.; Meng, X.; Fang, Y. Microstructure and Wear Properties of Selective Laser Melting 316L. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2020, 254, 123487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Al-Mamun, N.S.; Mairaj Deen, K.; Haider, W.; Asselin, E.; Shabib, I. Corrosion Behavior and Biocompatibility of Additively Manufactured 316L Stainless Steel in a Physiological Environment: The Effect of Citrate Ions. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 34, 101237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Baker, M.A.; Castle, J.E. The Initiation of Pitting Corrosion at MnS Inclusions. Corros. Sci. 1993, 34, 667–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhu, Y.; Zou, J.; Chen, X.; Yang, H. Tribology of Selective Laser Melting Processed Parts: Stainless Steel 316L Under Lubricated Conditions. Wear 2016, 350–351, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Laleh, M.; Hughes, A.E.; Xu, W.; Gibson, I.; Tan, M.Y. Unexpected Erosion-Corrosion Behaviour of 316 L Stainless Steel Produced by Laser powder bed fusion. Corros. Sci. 2019, 155, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bidulsky, R.; Gobber, F.S.; Bidulska, J.; Ceroni, M.; Kvackaj, T.; Grande, M.A. Coated Metal Powders for Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) Processing: A Review. Metals 2021, 11, 1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhao, S.; Shen, X.; Yang, J.; Teng, W.; Wang, Y. Densification Behavior and Mechanical Properties of Nanocrystalline TiC Reinforced 316L Stainless Steel Composite Parts Fabricated by Laser powder bed fusion. Opt. Laser Technol. 2018, 103, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yazıcı, M.; Kovacı, H.; Yetim, A.F.; Çelik, A. Structural, Mechanical and Tribological Properties of Ti and TiN Coatings On 316L Stainless Steel. Ceram. Int. 2018, 44, 14195–14201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Han, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Jing, H.; Lin, D.; Zhao, L.; Xu, L.; Xin, P. Selective Laser Melting of Low-Content Graphene Nanoplatelets Reinforced 316L Austenitic Stainless Steel Matrix: Strength Enhancement without Affecting Ductility. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 34, 101381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tanprayoon, D.; Srisawadi, S.; Sato, Y.; Tsukamoto, M.; Suga, T. Microstructure and Hardness Response of Novel 316 L Stainless Steel Composite with TiN Addition Fabricated by LPBF. Opt. Laser Technol. 2020, 129, 106238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. AlMangour, B.; Baek, M.; Grzesiak, D.; Lee, K. Strengthening of Stainless Steel by Titanium Carbide Addition and Grain Refinement During Laser powder bed fusion. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2018, 712, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zou, Y.; Tan, C.; Qiu, Z.; Ma, W.; Kuang, M.; Zeng, D. Additively Manufactured SiC-reinforced Stainless Steel with Excellent Strength and Wear Resistance. Addit. Manuf 2021, 41, 101971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Song, B.; Wang, Z.; Yan, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Cai, C.; Wei, Q.; Shi, Y. Integral Method of Preparation and Fabrication of Metal Matrix Composite: Selective Laser Melting of In-Situ Nano/Submicro-Sized Carbides Reinforced Iron Matrix Composites. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2017, 707, 478–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Duan, Z.; Man, C.; Dong, C.; Cui, Z.; Kong, D.; Wang, L.; Wang, X. Pitting Behavior of LPBF 316 L Stainless Steel Exposed to Chloride Environments with Different Aggressiveness: Pitting Mechanism Induced by Gas Pores. Corros. Sci. 2020, 167, 108520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Kim, M.; Kim, H.; No, J.; Duan, Z.; Yuan, Q.; Suhr, J. An Austenite-Rich Composite of Stainless Steels with High Strength and Favorable Ductility Via Selective Laser Melting of a Powder Mixture. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2022, 855, 143891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ghayoor, M.; Lee, K.; He, Y.; Chang, C.; Paul, B.K.; Pasebani, S. Selective Laser Melting of Austenitic Oxide Dispersion Strengthened Steel: Processing, Microstructural Evolution and Strengthening Mechanisms. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2020, 788, 139532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sun, P.; Qiu, C. Influence of Addition of TiAl Particles on Microstructural and Mechanical Property Development in a Selectively Laser Melted Stainless Steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2021, 826, 141925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Quan, J.; Lin, K.; Gu, D. Laser powder bed fusion of Silver Submicron Powder Modified 316 L Stainless Steel: Influence of Silver Addition on Microstructures and Performances. Powder Technol. 2020, 364, 478–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yin, X.; Zhai, Q.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, K.; Meng, L.; Ma, Z.; Chen, G.; Wang, S.; Wang, L. Effect of Tungsten Particles on Microstructure and Properties of 316 L Stainless Steel Manufactured by selective laser melting. J. Manuf. Process. 2021, 68, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yan, Q.; Zhang, L.; Wang, M.; Song, B.; Shi, Y. Amorphous Alloy Strengthened Stainless Steel Manufactured by Selective Laser Melting: Enhanced Strength and Improved Corrosion Resistance. Scr. Mater. 2018, 148, 20–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cheng, P.M.; Zhang, G.J.; Zhang, J.Y.; Liu, G.; Sun, J. Coupling Effect of Intergranular and Intragranular Particles on Ductile Fracture of Mo-La2O3 Alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2015, 640, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, T.; Deng, H.W.; Xie, Z.M.; Liu, R.; Yang, J.F.; Liu, C.S.; Wang, X.P.; Fang, Q.F.; Xiong, Y. Recent Progresses on Designing and Manufacturing of Bulk Refractory Alloys with High Performances Based on Controlling Interfaces. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2020, 52, 29–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lutton Cwalina, K.; Demarest, C.R.; Gerard, A.Y.; Scully, J.R. Revisiting the Effects of Molybdenum and Tungsten Alloying on Corrosion Behavior of Nickel-Chromium Alloys in Aqueous Corrosion. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 2019, 23, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Giganto, S.; Martínez-Pellitero, S.; Barreiro, J.; Zapico, P. Influence of 17-4 PH Stainless Steel Powder Recycling on Properties of LPBF Additive Manufactured Parts. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2022, 16, 1647–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Guo, M.X.; Zhu, J.; Yi, L.; Wang, F.; Li, G.J.; Lei, R.S. Effects of Precipitation and Strain-Induced Martensitic Transformation of Fe-C Phases on the Mechanical Properties of Cu-Fe-C Alloy. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2017, 697, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sun, W.W.; Zurob, H.S.; Hutchinson, C.R. Coupled Solute Drag and Transformation Stasis During Ferrite Formation in Fe-C-Mn-Mo. Acta Mater. 2017, 139, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mirzababaei, S.; Doddapaneni, V.V.K.; Lee, K.; Paul, G.E.; Pirgazi, H.; Tan, K.; Ertorer, O.; Chang, C.; Paul, B.K.; Pasebani, S. Remarkable Enhancement in Thermal Conductivity of Stainless-Steel Leveraging Metal Composite via Laser Powder Bed Fusion: 316 L-Cu Composite. Addit. Manuf 2023, 70, 103576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mistarihi, Q.M.; Raj, V.; Kim, J.H.; Ryu, H.J. Thermal Conductivity of Mo-reinforced ZrO2 Composites Fabricated by Spark Plasma Sintering for Inert Matrix Fuels. Mater. Des 2017, 134, 476–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. AlMangour, B.; Grzesiak, D.; Yang, J. Selective laser melting of TiC reinforced 316L stainless steel matrix nanocomposites: Influence of starting TiC particle size and volume content. Mater. Des. 2016, 104, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Axen, N.; Zumgahr, K.H. Abrasive Wear of Tic-Steel Composite Clad Layers on Tool Steel. Wear 1992, 157, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, M.; Li, J.; Liu, H.; Wang, M.; Xing, S.; Zhao, Y. Achievement of High Strength-Ductility Combination in Austenitic and Ferritic Duplex Stainless Steel by Heterogeneous Deformation. J. Mater. Res. Technol 2022, 21, 943–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liao, J.; Liu, Z.; Ling, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Qiu, S.; Gu, J.; Li, J.; Dong, H.; Song, J.; Wang, T. Electronic and Surface Engineering of Mo Doped Ni@C Nanocomposite Boosting Catalytic Upgrading of Aqueous Bio-Ethanol to Bio-Jet Fuel Precursors. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 461, 141888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhai, W.; Zhu, Z.; Zhou, W.; Nai, S.M.L.; Wei, J. Selective laser melting of dispersed TiC Particles Strengthened 316 L Stainless Steel. Compos. Part B Eng. 2020, 199, 108291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bidulský, R.; Bidulská, J.; Gobber, F.S.; Kvačkaj, T.; Petroušek, P.; Actis-Grande, M.; Weiss, K.; Manfredi, D. Case Study of the Tensile Fracture Investigation of Additive Manufactured Austenitic Stainless Steels Treated at Cryogenic Conditions. Materials 2020, 13, 3328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Casati, R.; Lemke, J.; Vedani, M. Microstructure and Fracture Behavior of 316L Austenitic Stainless Steel Produced by Selective Laser Melting. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2016, 32, 738–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hu, Z.; Zhu, H.; Nie, X.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, H. On the role of atmospheric oxygen into mechanical properties and fracture behavior of selective laser melted AlCu5MnCdVA. Mater. Des 2018, 150, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, H.; Ramezani, M.; Li, M.; Ma, C.; Wang, J. Tribological Performance of Selective Laser Melted 316 L Stainless Steel. Tribol. Int. 2018, 128, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Toor, I. Mott-Schottky Analysis of Passive Films on Si Containing Stainless Steel Alloys. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2011, 158, C391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Olsson, C.O.A.; Landolt, D. Passive Films on Stainless Steels—Chemistry, Structure and Growth. Electrochim. Acta 2003, 48, 1093–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schultze, J.W.; Lohrengel, M.M. Stability, Reactivity and Breakdown of Passive Films. Problems of Recent and Future Research. Electrochim. Acta 2000, 45, 2499–2513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Xu, Q.; Jiang, D.; Zhou, J.; Qiu, Z.; Yang, X. Enhanced Corrosion Resistance of Laser Additive Manufactured 316L Stainless Steel by Ultrasonic Surface Rolling Process. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2023, 454, 129187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gui, Y.; Zheng, Z.J.; Gao, Y. The Bi-Layer Structure and the Higher Compactness of a Passive Film on Nanocrystalline 304 Stainless Steel. Thin Solid Films 2016, 599, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, D.G.; Wang, J.D.; Chen, D.R.; Liang, P. Molybdenum Addition Enhancing the Corrosion Behaviors of 316 L Stainless Steel in the Simulated Cathodic Environment of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell. Int. J. Hydrog. Energ. 2015, 40, 5947–5957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jinlong, L.; Tongxiang, L.; Chen, W. Surface Enriched Molybdenum Enhancing the Corrosion Resistance of 316 L Stainless Steel. Mater. Lett. 2016, 171, 38–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Man, C.; Dong, C.; Cui, Z.; Xiao, K.; Yu, Q.; Li, X. A Comparative Study of Primary and Secondary Passive Films Formed on AM355 Stainless Steel in 0.1 M NaOH. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2018, 427, 763–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 16 04827 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) LPBF device, (b) LPBF sample.
Figure 1. (a) LPBF device, (b) LPBF sample.
Materials 16 04827 g001
Materials 16 04827 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Universal testing machine, (b) the sample for tensile test.
Figure 2. (a) Universal testing machine, (b) the sample for tensile test.
Materials 16 04827 g002
Materials 16 04827 g003 550
Figure 3. (a) Friction and wear tester, (b) the grinding ball fixture that holds a ball with a diameter of 6 mm, (c) the sample for friction test.
Figure 3. (a) Friction and wear tester, (b) the grinding ball fixture that holds a ball with a diameter of 6 mm, (c) the sample for friction test.
Materials 16 04827 g003
Materials 16 04827 g004 550
Figure 4. (a) Electrochemical station, (b) the sample for electrochemical test.
Figure 4. (a) Electrochemical station, (b) the sample for electrochemical test.
Materials 16 04827 g004
Materials 16 04827 g005 550
Figure 5. XRD patterns of the LPBF samples.
Figure 5. XRD patterns of the LPBF samples.
Materials 16 04827 g005
Materials 16 04827 g006 550
Figure 6. Inverse pole figure (a,d), Kernel-average-misorientation map (b,e), and grain size distribution (e,f) of the LPBF samples. S0: (a–c), S5: (d–f).
Figure 6. Inverse pole figure (a,d), Kernel-average-misorientation map (b,e), and grain size distribution (e,f) of the LPBF samples. S0: (a–c), S5: (d–f).
Materials 16 04827 g006
Materials 16 04827 g007 550
Figure 7. Tensile curves of the LPBF samples.
Figure 7. Tensile curves of the LPBF samples.
Materials 16 04827 g007
Materials 16 04827 g008 550
Figure 8. Tensile fracture topography. (a,b) S0, (c,d) S3, (e,f) S5, (g,h) S7, and (i,j) S10.
Figure 8. Tensile fracture topography. (a,b) S0, (c,d) S3, (e,f) S5, (g,h) S7, and (i,j) S10.
Materials 16 04827 g008
Materials 16 04827 g009 550
Figure 9. (a) The relationship between the coefficient of friction and time for LPBF samples, (b) the sectional profile of wear tracks of LPBF samples.
Figure 9. (a) The relationship between the coefficient of friction and time for LPBF samples, (b) the sectional profile of wear tracks of LPBF samples.
Materials 16 04827 g009
Materials 16 04827 g010 550
Figure 10. SEM images of wear tracks for the LPBF samples. (a,b) S0, (c,d) S3, (e,f) S5, (g,h) S7, (i,j) S10.
Figure 10. SEM images of wear tracks for the LPBF samples. (a,b) S0, (c,d) S3, (e,f) S5, (g,h) S7, (i,j) S10.
Materials 16 04827 g010
Materials 16 04827 g011 550
Figure 11. Potentiodynamic polarization curves of LPBF samples.
Figure 11. Potentiodynamic polarization curves of LPBF samples.
Materials 16 04827 g011
Materials 16 04827 g012 550
Figure 12. The detailed XPS spectra of Mo 3d3/2 (a,b), Cr 2p3/2 (c,d), and Fe 2p3/2 (e,f) of the passive films formed on S0 and S5.
Figure 12. The detailed XPS spectra of Mo 3d3/2 (a,b), Cr 2p3/2 (c,d), and Fe 2p3/2 (e,f) of the passive films formed on S0 and S5.
Materials 16 04827 g012
Materials 16 04827 g013 550
Figure 13. Cationic fraction in the passive film formed on S0 (a) and S5 (b).
Figure 13. Cationic fraction in the passive film formed on S0 (a) and S5 (b).
Materials 16 04827 g013
Table
Table 1. The LPBF processing parameters of samples.
Table 1. The LPBF processing parameters of samples.
SamplesPower
(W)		Scanning Speed (mm/s)Layer Thickness (mm)Laser Energy (J/mm3)
S02008000.0369
S32158000.0375
S52258000.0378
S72358000.0382
S102508000.0387
Table
Table 2. Tribological properties of samples.
Table 2. Tribological properties of samples.
SpecimensFrictions Coefficient (μ)Wear Depth (μm)Wear Width (μm)Wear Track Area (μm2)
S00.47347 ± 2.41018 ± 4233,839 ± 342
S30.43221 ± 1.7820 ± 2910,915 ± 247
S50.42118 ± 1.6650 ± 339592 ± 153
S70.47914 ± 2.1585 ± 276738 ± 324
S100.4939 ± 1.4473 ± 355382 ± 173
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, B.; Zhang, S.; Wang, S.; Wang, L.; He, Y.; Cui, Y.; Liu, D.; Wang, M. Effects of Mo Particles Addition on the Microstructure and Properties of 316 L Stainless Steels Fabricated by Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Materials 2023, 16, 4827. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16134827

AMA Style

Li B, Zhang S, Wang S, Wang L, He Y, Cui Y, Liu D, Wang M. Effects of Mo Particles Addition on the Microstructure and Properties of 316 L Stainless Steels Fabricated by Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Materials. 2023; 16(13):4827. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16134827

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Bolin, Shuai Zhang, Shenghai Wang, Li Wang, Yinchuan He, Yaning Cui, Dan Liu, and Mingxu Wang. 2023. "Effects of Mo Particles Addition on the Microstructure and Properties of 316 L Stainless Steels Fabricated by Laser Powder Bed Fusion" Materials 16, no. 13: 4827. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16134827

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop