Process-microstructure-corrosion of additively manufactured steels: a review

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research outputs on the topic of “metal additive manufacturing” (a) documents by year, and (b) documents by subject area (Adapted with permission from^[3]).

Figure 2. Schematic design of (a) water atomization, and (b) gas atomization processes of metal powder (Reproduced with permission from^[22,31]).

Figure 3. Gas atomization techniques based on melting mechanisms and gas nozzle design (Reproduced with permission from^[29]).

Figure 4. (a) Capillary waves causing the liquid stream atomization on the top surface of the transducer Horn, and (b) a layout of the UA setup (Reproduced with permission from^[36]).

Figure 5. (a) Schematic layout of the rotating disk atomization of liquid stream, and (b) droplet formation during the CA process (Reproduced with permission from^[47]).

Figure 6. (a) the Fe-Ni-Cr Isopleth at 19% Cr showing various solidification paths,^[68] (b) solidification modes in austenitic stainless steels,^[68] (c and d) EBSD phase maps and corresponding inverse pole figure maps of virgin and reused 316 L stainless steel powders (Reproduced with permission from^[74]).

Table 1. Various types of powder morphology in ASTM B243.^[89]

Morphology	Definition
Acicular	Needle-shaped
Flake	Flat or scale-like, whose thickness is small compared with other dimensions
Granular	Almost equidimensional, nonspherical shapes
Irregular	Lacking symmetry
Needles	Elongated and rod-like
Nodular	Irregular, having knotted, rounded, or similar shaped
Platelet	Composed of flat particles having considerable thickness
Plates	Flat particles of metal powder having considerable thickness
Spherical	Globular-shaped

Figure 7. SEM micrographs and optical Appearance (in the insets) of 316 L stainless steel powder produced by (a) GA-, and (b) WA-techniques (Reproduced with permission from^[93]).

Figure 8. Gas atomized 316 L stainless steel (a) virgin powder, (b) recycled powder after EBM cycle,^[97] and (c,d) small satellites and surface defects in 304 L stainless steel powder (Reproduced with permission from^[99]).

Table 2. Conventional techniques for powder size measurement relevant to AM.^[88,111]

Technique	Materials	Resolution	Particle size range	Advantages	Disadvantages
Sieve analysis	Solids	Bin size: Dependent on size separation of sieves	20 $\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m}$–125 $\mathrm{mm}$	Applicable to broad size range, Minimal sample preparation, Low cost	Not able to analyze the shape, Longer measurement time, Prone to blinding, Broad uncertainties in particles with large aspect ratio
Microscopy	Depends on microscope	$d=\frac{0.61\lambda }{NA}$ d: resolution distance λ: light source wavelength NA: numerical aperture	Determined by system resolution	Allows qualitative and quantitative observation of particle shape, Great flexibility for particle size and shape analyses	Costly in fine particles, Requirement of SEM and TEM sample preparation, More efforts than the optical microscopy
LD	Solids	Dependent on instrument design and data analysis algorithm	0.04 $\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m}$–8000 $\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m}$	Short analysis time, Highly repeatable results, No need for skilled labor	Emergence of error in non-spherical particles, Dependency of measurements on instrument design, Difficulty in detection of agglomerates

Figure 9. (a) Particle size distribution of gas atomized AISI H13 tool steel powder, and (b) the SEM-SE micrograph (Reproduced with permission from^[109]).

Figure 10. Bottom-up diagram presenting the effect of powder properties on the properties of the bulk powder, in-process performance, and the as-built product (Reproduced with permission from^[114]).

Figure 11. Illustration of two techniques that measure the apparent density: (a) a Scott volumeter, and (b) an Arnold meter (Reproduced with permission from^[13]).

Figure 12. An interplay among the terms “flowability,” “flow properties,” and respective parameters (Reproduced with permission from^[114]).

Table 3. Degrees of powder flowability in terms of the Hausner ratio.^[88]

Flow description	Excellent	Good	Fair	Passable	Poor	Very poor	Non-flowable
HR	1.00–1.11	1.12–1.18	1.19–1.25	1.26–1.34	1.35–1.45	1.46–1.59	≥1.60

Table 4. Gas concentration and porosity level in rapidly solidified 304 SS metal powder.^[127]

Atomization technique	Atomization gas	Helium content $(\mathrm{at}.\mathrm{ppm})$	Argon content $\left(\mathrm{at}.\mathrm{ppm}\right)$	Nitrogen content $(\mathrm{at}.\mathrm{ppm})$	Oxygen content $(\mathrm{at}.\mathrm{ppm})$	Mean particle size $(\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m})$	Porosity
CA	He	8	<0.1	ND	600	80	Low
IGA	Ar	ND	2.5	250	700	70	High
IGA	He	1.5	<0.1	ND	1100	60	None
IGA	Ar	ND	4.6	1200	900	50	High
IGA	N	ND	<0.1	5800	850	50	None

CA: centrifugal atomization; IGA: inert gas atomization; *ND: Not determined.

Figure 13. Schematic Illustration of the bag break-up or folding mechanisms during the powder production (Adapted with permission from^[126]).

Figure 14. Ishikawa diagram of processing parameters controlling the properties of LPBF product (Reproduced with permission from^[131]).

Figure 15. (a) Complete-fusion criterion relied on melt pool geometry, where $M_d$ and $M_d^0$ are the melt pool depth and the minimum ELT to have complete fusion (Adapted with permission from^[132]), (b) a relationship between the AM product quality and the optimum laser energy density,^[130] (c) transverse section of a single-track cladding layer of 1Cr18Ni9Ti stainless steel at ELT of 60, 80, and 100 $\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m},$^[137] (d) bridge-like sample before and after detachment from the substrate.^[140]

Table 5. Specifications of beam sources used in AM.^[141]

Energy source	CO2 laser	Nd-YAG laser	Yb-fiber laser	Excimer laser
Application	SLA, SLM, SLS, LENS	SLM, SLS, LENS	SLM, SLS, LENS	SLA
Efficiency	5–20%	Lamp pump: 1–3% Diode pump: 10–20%	10–30%	1–4%
Output power ($\mathrm{CW}$)	Up to 20 $\mathrm{kW}$	Up to 16 $\mathrm{kW}$	Up to 10 $\mathrm{kW}$	Avg: 300 $\mathrm{W}$
Operation wavelength	9.4, 10.6 $\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m}$	1.06 $\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m}$	1.07 $\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m}$	193, 248, 308 $\mathrm{nm}$ (ArF, KrF, XeCl, respectively)
Operation mode	CW and pulse	CW and Pulse	CW and pulse	Pulse
Pump source	Electrical discharge	Flashlamp or laser diode	Laser diode	Excimer recombination via electrical discharge
Pulse duration	Hundreds $\mathrm{ns}$-tens $\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{s}$	Few $\mathrm{ns}$-tens $\mathrm{ms}$	Tens $\mathrm{ns}$-tens $\mathrm{ms}$	Tens $\mathrm{ns}$
Beam quality factor ($\mathrm{mm}.\mathrm{mrad}$)	3–5	0.4–20	0.3–4	160 × 20 (Vertical × Horizontal)
Fiber delivery	Impossible	Possible	Possible	Possible
Maintenance periods	2000 $\mathrm{h}$	200 $\mathrm{h}$ (Lamp life) 10,000 $\mathrm{h}$ (Diode life)	25,000 $\mathrm{h}$	10^8–10^9 pulses (Thyratron life)

SLA: stereolithography; SLM: selective laser melting; SLS: selective laser sintering; LENS: laser engineered net shaping.

Figure 16. (a) Various types of power-density distribution,^[144] (b) energy density vs. laser power at three types of melt zone profile, 0: no deposition, 1: low substrate wetting between a melt bead and the substrate, 2: good substrate wetting by a melt bead showing no substrate penetration, 3: shallow substrate penetration with conduction mode laser melting, 4: Intermediate substrate penetration, 5: deep substrate penetration with key-hole laser melting, and (c) solidification microstructure of the melt pool at different energy densities and powers, 0: no fusion, 1: equiaxed, 2: equiaxed-columnar, 3: columnar (Reproduced with permission from^[145]).

Figure 17. (a) How the scanning speed affects the deposition shape of a single track in 316 L stainless steel,^[150] (b,c) Macrohardness and relative density variations in 18Ni-300 steel samples at various scanning speeds and layer thicknesses (t) (Reproduced with permission from^[161]).

Figure 18. Effect of hatch spacing on (a) cooling rate of the melt pools, and (b) LOF voids percentage in 316 L stainless steel (Reproduced with permission from^[164]).

Figure 19. Layout of different scanning strategies (Reproduced with permission from^[165]).

Figure 20. (a–c) Residual stresses and deformation contours, (d) max S11 and S22 stresses, (e) max deflection magnitude at various scanning strategies (Reproduced with permission from^[165]).

Table 6. Summary on the effect of scan strategy on the properties of AM steels.^[167]

Material	Scan strategy	YS ($\mathrm{MPa}$)	UTS ($\mathrm{MPa}$)	El (%)	HV ($\mathrm{kg}/{\mathrm{mm}}^2$)	Avg. austenite (vol%)
DMLS 18Ni-300 steel^[^95^]	0°	720 ± 7	1021 ± 28	19 ± 0.70	380 ± 7	60
	90°	753 ± 10	1082 ± 62	17.5 ± 1.0	399 ± 4	10.3
LPBF 17-4 stainless steel^[^148^]	90 BF-F	810 ± 15	948 ± 36	4.8 ± 1.1	350.2 ± 11.7	27.2 ± 6.5
	0 BF-F	873 ± 10	951 ± 17	5.3 ± 2.7	346.7 ± 22.4	43.6 ± 7.9
	90 BF-T	773 ± 3	1043 ± 2	17.6 ± 2.6	355.3 ± 19.8	25.5 ± 2.6
	0 BF-T	866 ± 10	935 ± 8	3.3 ± 0.6	350.3 ± 18.8	69.9 ± 9.7
	Hexagon	798 ± 21	798 ± 21	15.8 ± 3.5	346.3 ± 13.8	58.3 ± 2.1
	Concentric middle	824 ± 30	824 ± 30	4.2 ± 2.4	356.1 ± 012.8	82.4 ± 5.3
	Concentric edges					50.3 ± 7.6

Figure 21. (a,b) Schematic Representations of process by-products and spherical particles formed through redeposition of them,^[170] and (c–e) the effect of normal gas flow velocity on porosity level, melt pool width and penetration (1–9 correspond to location numbers on the build plate given in legend) (Reproduced with permission from^[172]).

Figure 22. (a,b) Melt pool shape in the LPBF SS 316 L printed via Gaussian and elliptical beam profiles, respectively, (c–g) ALE3D-assisted FE simulation of a melt track fused using Gaussian, transverse elliptical, longitudinal, annular, and Bessel beam profiles, respectively (mean beam diameter: 100 $\mathrm{\mu }\mathrm{m},$ laser power: 550 $\mathrm{W},$ scanning speed: 1800 $\mathrm{mm}/\mathrm{s},$ domain size: 250 × 250 × 750 ${\text{μm}}^3$) (Reproduced with permission from^[180]).

Figure 23. Grain morphology over a cross-section of melt track roots at (a-c) various laser powers (C-M: circular-medium size beam profile) and (d-f) various beam profiles where the equiaxed area is 2%, 28%, and 77% for the C-M, LE-M, and T E-M, respectively (C: circular, LE: longitudinal elliptical, TE: transverse elliptical) (Reproduced with permission from^[145]), (g,h) optical micrographs of melt pools in samples scanned parallel and perpendicular to shielding gas direction, respectively, and (i,j) their corresponding IPF maps (Reproduced with permission from^[183]).

Figure 24. A Schematic layout of typical microstructures obtained after LPBF and DED processing of various steels, ret.: retained, GB: grain boundary, $\alpha :$ ferrite – bcc, ${\alpha }^{\prime }:$ martensite – bcc/bct, $\gamma :$ austenite – fcc (Adapted with permission from^[64]).

Figure 25. (a) A schematic layout of grain morphology evolution in a solidifying single melt pool (Adapted with permission from^[156]), (b) a lateral section of a direct-energy-deposited specimen of SS 316L (Reproduced with permission of [215]), (c, d) solute banding lines (red arrows) in the LPBF SS 316L (Reproduced with permission from^[212]).

Figure 26. (a,b) IPF maps of AM SS 316 L printed under 1000 and 400 $W$ beam powers, respectively,^[210] (c,d) effect of ultrasound treatment on ${\Delta T}_C$ magnitude (CS zone), epitaxial columnar growth, cavitation effect, and columnar-to-equiaxed transition time ($T_E,\mathrm{ }{T}_A:$ equilibrium liquidus-, and actual temperatures, ${\mathrm{\Delta }T}_C,{\mathrm{\Delta }T}_n:$ constitutional-, and nucleation undercooling, $t:$ time),^[219] (e–g) IPF maps of AM Fe-Ti alloy containing 2, 5, 7.5 wt.% Ti, respectively (Reproduced with permission from^[222]).

Figure 27. Role of $\dot{T}$ in determining (a) width, and (b) length of columnar grains in SS 316 L alloy produced by various AM techniques (Reproduced with permission from^[230]).

Figure 28. (a–d) Top and side views of the LPBF 18Ni-300 maraging steel produced via laser remelting under pure N₂ atmosphere. Dark and white arrows respectively show the white parent powder embedded into the dark grey oxides, and TiN inclusions, (e) Top-view SEM micrograph of the LPBF 18Ni-300 maraging steel that shows heavily cracked inclusions. Single melting under oxygen rich N₂ atmosphere was employed,^[232] (f) role of $\dot{T}$ in Sn-Mn inclusions size in conventionally cast, and LMD SS 316 L (Reproduced with permission from^[235]).

Figure 29. (a–c) Top and side views of a melt track showing variation in $G,$ $R,$ solidification mode, and grain size across fusion zone (Adapted with permission from^[236]), (d) cross-section micrographs of WAAM HSLA showing grain coarsening along the building direction (Q-PF: quasi-polygonal ferrite) (Adapted with permission from^[238]).

Figure 30. Effect of scanning speed, scan strategy, and preheating temperature on grain size and other microstructural features of the LPBF X30Mn21 AHSS (Adapted with permission from^[239]).

Figure 31. The microstructural features of the as-built and heat-treated LPBF 316 L samples (Reproduced with permission from^[251]).

Figure 32. Microstructure of the LPBF 316 L at conditions of (a) as-built, (b,c) solution-annealing treatment at 800 °C and 1000 °C, respectively, (d,e) SEM images of the samples solution treated at 800 °C and 1000 °C, respectively, and (f) load-displacement curves plotted via automatic ball indentation (ABI) testing (Reproduced with permission from^[252]).

Figure 33. SEM micrographs of worn surfaces in (a) as-built sample, and (b, c) heat-treated samples tested at wear-test temperatures of 800 °C and 1000 °C, respectively (Reproduced with permission from^[252]).

Figure 34. Orientation-imaging maps of the as-deposited and heat-treated (HT) GMA-AM 316 L: (a) as-deposited, (b) HT at 1000 °C for 1 h, WQ, (c) HT at 1100 °C for 1 h, WQ, and (d) HT at 1200 °C for 1 h (Reproduced with permission from^[253]).

Figure 35. A comparison between cellular structures in AM 316 L steel: (a) as-built, (b) heat treated at 800 °C for 1 h, (c, d) SEM and bright field TEM images of the sample heat treated at 900 °C, (e,f) EBSD phase map and grain orientation map of the sample heat treated at 1100 °C, and (g) tensile stress–strain curves of the as-built and heat-treated (HT) samples (HT was annealing at 1100 °C for 1 h) (Reproduced with permission from^[254]).

Figure 36. Cross-sectional SEM micrographs of (a) as-built, and (b) heat-treated samples, and (c, d) higher magnifications of Figure 36(b) (etched by ralph reagent) (Reproduced with permission from^[260]).

Figure 37. EBSD orientation maps of (a) as-built, (b) solution-annealed, (c) solution-annealed-aged samples, (d) distribution of grain boundary corresponding to the areas shown in Figure 37(a,e) grain boundary maps of the areas shown in Figure 37(b) (color Code for the grain boundaries are: Green: 2°–15°, red: 15°–50°, and blue: 50°–180°) (Reproduced with permission from^[269]).

Figure 38. Fatigue life in the LPBF 17-4 PH samples at various heat treatment and manufacturing conditions (Reproduced with permission from^[264]).

Figure 39. SEM Fractographs of the 15-5 PH samples after impact testing: (a) as-built, (b) solution-annealed, (c,d) H900, and (e,f) H1150 conditions (Reproduced with permission from^[271]).

Figure 40. Bright-field TEM micrographs of (a,b) heat-treated LPBF 15-5 PH, (c) heat-treated wrought 15-5 PH, (d) HE-XRD profiles of heat-treated LPBF 15-5 PH samples at different applied strains (in these profiles, austenite and martensite are marked in green and red colors, respectively) (Reproduced with permission from^[272]).

Figure 41. SEM micrographs of the LPBF CX parts in (a,b) as-built, (c) heat-treated conditions, (d,e) cyclic polarization measurements of heat-treated LPBF CX, and quench-tempered 420 stainless steels, respectively (Reproduced with permission from^[276]).

Figure 42. (a–d) inverse pole figure maps, (e–h) corresponding phase maps of the as-built and solution annealed samples, and (i) stress-strain curves of the as-built and annealed S31803 DSS samples (Reproduced with permission from^[279]).

Figure 43. Contour curves of the LPBF MS1 samples mechanically tested (a) R_p0.2: yield strength; (b) R_m: tensile strength; (c) a_t: total % of elongation; (d) HV: Vickers hardness; and (e) ΔR: planar anisotropy estimated at 1.5% axial strain (Reproduced with permission from^[284]).

Figure 44. Atom probe tomography of the precipitates Ni₃Ti (η type) and Fe₇Mo₆ (μ phase) formed in the LPBF MS1 maraging steel aged for 2 h at 510 °C (Reproduced with permission from^[80]).

Figure 45. Plots of da/dN vs. ΔK at different (a) heat treatments, and (b) number of overload cycles (Reproduced with permission from^[290]).

Figure 46. SEM micrographs of the samples subjected to different post treatments of (a) SR, (b) SR + HT, and (c) SR + HIP + HT, (d) large porosity in SR sample (Reproduced with permission from^[295]).

Figure 47. SEM micrographs of LPBF H13 samples after various heat-treatment processes of (a,b) tempering processes at 600 °C and 700 °C, respectively, and (c) austenitizing at temperature of 1040 °C followed by quenching in oil (Reproduced with permission from^[298]).

Figure 48. OM images of ODS samples produced at different laser powers of (a,b) 1200 W, (c,d) 1600 W, (e, f) 2000 W, and (g, h) 1200 W – HIP. TEM micrographs of the oxides in ODS alloy produced using various laser powers of (i) 1200 W, (j) 1600 W, (k) 2000 W, and (l) 1200 W – HIP (Reproduced with permission from^[305]).

Figure 49. A scheme of cathodic, anodic, passive and transpassive regions used to identify the localized corrosion parameters (Reproduced with permission from^[321]).

Figure 50. Cumulative charge of metastable pit vs. the frequency of the metastable pit (sample 4 has the highest fraction of porosity, while sample 7 has the lowest value. Wrought sample has no porosity) (Reproduced with permission from^[343]).

Figure 51. A scheme of the effect of gas porosity on the pitting mechanism in the LPBF 316 L stainless steel (Reproduced with permission from^[344]).

Figure 52. Corrosion mechanisms of stainless steels produced via powder metallurgy: (a) initial state with an intact passive layer on the pore’s surface, (b) beginning of the dissolution, (c) further dissolution as active-passive cells are formed, and (d) further progression of dissolution (Reproduced with permission from^[345]).

Figure 53. SEM micrographs of the surfaces in the LPBF 316 L stainless steel immersed into a solution at different times: (a) surface perpendicular to build direction (top sample) after a short time of immersion, (b) the surface parallel to build direction (side sample) after a short time of immersion, (c) the top sample after 20-day immersion, (d) the side sample after 20-day immersion, and (e) EDS maps of an area Pitted (Reproduced with permission from^[346]).

Figure 54. SEM micrographs of the inclusions before Exposing to 6 wt. % ferric chloride solution (left column) and after that (right column). the chemical composition of the inclusions is shown schematically in the middle column in which green color represents the manganese chromite, blue color is manganese silicate, yellow color is silicon oxide, and red color is MnS (Reproduced with permission from^[360]).

Figure 55. FIB cross sections that show the typical corrosion morphology at grain boundaries in (a–c) commercial, and (d–g) LPBF 316 L stainless steels. The high-magnified subfigures (b,c,f,g) are corresponding to the white rectangles marked in subfigures (a,d,e) (Reproduced with permission from^[361]).

Figure 56. The EDS and SKPFM measurements of the LPBF 15-5 PH parts: (a) microstructure of the at sample, (b) higher magnification of the area marked in (a), (c) the SKPFM profile corresponding to b), and (d) the potential-distance data in different areas (Reproduced with permission from^[317]).

Figure 57. (a) SEM image of MPBs in the LPBF 316 L sample, and (b) a pit formed on a MPB (Reproduced with permission from^[369,373]).

Figure 58. (a) Distinguishable areas of “A” and “B” at each side of MPBs, and (b) BSE image with higher magnification of cellular subgrains in the LPBF 316 L sample (Reproduced with permission from^[350]).

Figure 59. SEM images of corroded surfaces in (a–c) as-built sample, (d–f) laser polished sample, immersed into 0.4 Mol/L HCl solution (various magnifications), (g,h) corrosion mechanism in the as-built and laser polished samples, respectively (Reproduced with permission from^[311]).

Figure 60. (a,b) BSE images of the columnar cells’ boundaries and the melt pool traces through the y-z plane, (c) corresponding Crystal orientation map along the z-axis, (d–f) {001} pole figures of the points C, D, and E in (b), respectively, where the arrows indicate the direction of cell orientation (green: ±45°-oriented cells, red: vertically-oriented cells), and (g) corresponding potentiodynamic polarization curves of the CLMs and the wrought counterpart (reference plate) immersed into 0.9 wt.% NaCl solution at 37 °C (Reproduced with permission from^[313]).

Figure 61. IPF maps of 316 L stainless steels at conditions of (a) Quenched, (b) SLM-120 W, (c) SLM-150 W, (d) SLM-195 W, (e) SLM-220 W, and (f) corresponding grain size distribution maps (Reproduced with permission from^[394]).

Figure 62. Mott-Schottky plot at frequency of 1 kHz measured in the cathodic direction. The area between two dotted lines shows a difference between the slope of plots through the passive region. Inset shows a difference in n-type region for different samples (Reproduced with permission from^[396]).

Figure 63. (a–c) Optical micrographs of three planes “A,” “B,” and “C” in the LPBF 316 L stainless steel along the building direction, (d–f) corresponding IPF maps of planes “A,” “B,” and “C,” respectively, (g) the grain distribution map, and (h) potentiodynamic polarization plots of planes “A,” “B” and “C.” (Reproduced with permission from^[397]).

Figure 64. (a,b) Misorientation maps of grain boundary in the LPBF CX sample obtained from the top and side planes, respectively, (c) corresponding grain size distribution map, and (d) the CPP curves of the top and side planes (Reproduced with permission from^[78]).

Figure 65. (a) Scheme of a PEMFC with a complex structure,^[398,399] (b,c) bright-field TEM of the surface in the wrought 316 L stainless steel after hydrogen charging at 50 mA/cm² for 4 h, (d) the electronic diffraction pattern of the area marked in (b), (e,f) bright-field TEM of the surface in the LPBF 316 L stainless steel after hydrogen charging at 50 mA/cm² for 4 h (Reproduced with permission from^[398]).

Figure 66. (a,b) Inverse pole figures of the LPBF stainless steel and particle-reinforced composite produced by the LPBF process, respectively, (c,d) the grain size distribution of the LPBF stainless steel and the LPBF composite, respectively, and (e) corresponding CPP curves of both Materials (Reproduced with permission from^[400]).

Figure 67. (a) Grain boundary map of a SCC in the LPBF 316 L steel, and (b) SCC crack growth of un-recrystallized (stress-relieved at 650 °C), partially-recrystallized (heat-treated at 955 °C), and fully-recrystallized (HIP + SA) LPBF components (all tests are through the x-z orientation with no primary cold working) (Reproduced with permission from^[402]).

Figure 68. Bright-field transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of (a) LPBF and (b) TM 304 L stainless steel after irradiation. Different depths of the cross-section are shown for the LPBF sample (a1–a3) and the TM sample (b1–b3). (c) Illustration of frank dislocation loops observed in LPBF and TM 304 L stainless steel following irradiation at the peak damage region. The size distribution of dislocation loops in LPBF and TM 304 L stainless steel, irradiated with 2 MeV protons to a dosage of 0.18 dpa at 360 °C, is presented (Reproduced with permission from^[403]).

Figure 69. Surface morphology of the oxide scale formed on (a1,a2) irradiated LPBF samples, (b1,b2) irradiated TM samples, (c1,c2) unirradiated LPBF samples, and (d1,d2) unirradiated TM samples after corrosion for 454 h in simulated primary water of a pressurized water reactor (PWR) at 320 °C (Reproduced with permission from^[403]).

Scopus Preview – Scopus – Welcome to Scopus. n.d. https://www.scopus.com/home.uri. (accessed May, 2023).

 Google Scholar

Asgarian, A.; Wu, C.; Li, D.; Bussmann, M.; Chattopadhyay, K.; Lemieux, S.; Girard, B.; Lavallee, F.; Paserin, V. Experimental and Computational Analysis of a Water Spray; Application to Molten Metal Atomization. Conference: POWDERMET, San Antonio, TX, USA, 2018.

 Google Scholar

de León, G. P.; Lamberti, V. E.; Seals, R. D.; Abu-Lebdeh, T. M.; Hamoush, S. A. Gas Atomization of Molten Metal: Part I. Numerical Modeling Conception. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2016, 9, 303–322. doi:10.3844/ajeassp.2016.303.322

 Google Scholar

Dietrich, S.; Wunderer, M.; Huissel, A.; Zaeh, M. F. A New Approach for a Flexible Powder Production for Additive Manufacturing. Procedia Manuf. 2016, 6, 88–95. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2016.11.012

 Google Scholar

Wisutmethangoon, S.; Plookphol, T.; Sungkhaphaitoon, P. Production of SAC305 Powder by Ultrasonic Atomization. Powder Technol. 2011, 209, 105–111. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2011.02.016

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Purwanto, H.; Mizuochi, T.; Akiyama, T. Prediction of Granulated Slag Properties Produced from Spinning Disk Atomizer by Mathematical Model. Mater. Trans. 2005, 46, 1324–1330. doi:10.2320/matertrans.46.1324

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Di Schino, A.; Mecozzi, M. G.; Barteri, M.; Kenny, J. M. Solidification Mode and Residual Ferrite in Low-Ni Austenitic Stainless Steels. J. Mater. Sci. 2000, 35, 375–380. doi:10.1023/A:1004774130483

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Heiden, M. J.; Deibler, L. A.; Rodelas, J. M.; Koepke, J. R.; Tung, D. J.; Saiz, D. J.; Jared, B. H. Evolution of 316L Stainless Steel Feedstock Due to Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 25, 84–103. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.019

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ASTM. B243: Standard Terminology of Powder Metallurgy. 2019. doi:10.1520/B0243-19.

 Google Scholar

Scipioni Bertoli, U.; Guss, G.; Wu, S.; Matthews, M. J.; Schoenung, J. M. In-Situ Characterization of Laser-Powder Interaction and Cooling Rates through High-Speed Imaging of Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing. Mater. Des. 2017, 135, 385–396. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2017.09.044

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hryha, E.; Shvab, R.; Gruber, H.; Leicht, A.; Nyborg, L. Surface Oxide State on Metal Powder and Its Changes during Additive Manufacturing: An Overview. Proc. Euro PM 2017 Int. Powder Metall. Congr. Exhib., 2018.

 Google Scholar

Morrow, B. M.; Lienert, T. J.; Knapp, C. M.; Sutton, J. O.; Brand, M. J.; Pacheco, R. M.; Livescu, V.; Carpenter, J. S.; Gray, G. T. Impact of Defects in Powder Feedstock Materials on Microstructure of 304L and 316L Stainless Steel Produced by Additive Manufacturing. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2018, 49, 3637–3650. doi:10.1007/s11661-018-4661-9

 Google Scholar

Sutton, A. T.; Kriewall, C. S.; Leu, M. C.; Newkirk, J. W. Powder Characterisation Techniques and Effects of Powder Characteristics on Part Properties in Powder-Bed Fusion Processes. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2017, 12, 3–29. doi:10.1080/17452759.2016.1250605

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sutton, A. T.; Kriewall, C. S.; Leu, M. C.; Newkirk, J. W. Powders for Additive Manufacturing Processes: Characterization Techniques and Effects on Part Properties, Solid Free. Fabr. 2016 Proc. 26th Annu. Int. Solid Free. Fabr. Symp. – An Addit. Manuf. Conf., 2016; pp 1004–1030.

 Google Scholar

Fonseca, E. B.; Gabriel, A. H. G.; Araújo, L. C.; Santos, P. L. L.; Campo, K. N.; Lopes, E. S. N. Assessment of Laser Power and Scan Speed Influence on Microstructural Features and Consolidation of AISI H13 Tool Steel Processed by Additive Manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 34, 101250. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2020.101250

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vock, S.; Klöden, B.; Kirchner, A.; Weißgärber, T.; Kieback, B. Powders for Powder Bed Fusion: A Review. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 4, 383–397. doi:10.1007/s40964-019-00078-6

 Google Scholar

Cooke, A.; Slotwinski, J. Properties of Metal Powders for Additive Manufacturing: A Review of the State of the Art of Metal Powder Property Testing. Addit. Manuf. Mater. Stand. Test. Appl. 2012, 7873, 21–48. doi:10.6028/NIST.IR.7873.

 Google Scholar

Dunning, J. S.; Doan, R. C. Microstructural Characteristics and Gas Content of Rapidly Solidified Powders. J. Mater. Sci. 1994, 29, 4268–4272. doi:10.1007/BF00414209

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rabin, B. H.; Smolik, G. R.; Korth, G. E. Characterization of Entrapped Gases in Rapidly Solidified Powders. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 1990, 124, 1–7. doi:10.1016/0921-5093(90)90328-Z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Leach, R.; Carmignato, S. Precision Metal Additive Manufacturing, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2020. doi:10.1201/9780429436543.

 Google Scholar

Oliveira, J. P.; Lalonde, A. D.; Ma, J. Processing Parameters in Laser Powder Bed Fusion Metal Additive Manufacturing. Mater. Des. 2020, 193, 108762. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108762

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yakout, M.; Cadamuro, A.; Elbestawi, M. A.; Veldhuis, S. C. The Selection of Process Parameters in Additive Manufacturing for Aerospace Alloys. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 92, 2081–2098. doi:10.1007/s00170-017-0280-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ma, M.; Wang, Z.; Gao, M.; Zeng, X. Layer Thickness Dependence of Performance in High-Power Selective Laser Melting of 1Cr18Ni9Ti Stainless Steel. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2015, 215, 142–150. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.07.034

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Safronov, V. A.; Khmyrov, R. S.; Kotoban, D. V.; Gusarov, A. V. Distortions and Residual Stresses at Layer-by-Layer Additive Manufacturing by Fusion. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Trans. ASME 2017, 139, 3–8. doi:10.1115/1.4034714

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Majumdar, J. D.; Manna, I. Laser-Assisted Fabrication of Materials, 1st ed.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg, 2013. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28359-8.

 Google Scholar

Peretyagin, P. Y.; Zhirnov, I. V.; Vladimirov, Y. G.; Tarasova, T. V.; Okun’kova, A. A. Track Geometry in Selective Laser Melting. Russ. Eng. Res. 2015, 35, 473–476. doi:10.3103/S1068798X15060143

 Google Scholar

Roehling, T. T.; Wu, S. S. Q.; Khairallah, S. A.; Roehling, J. D.; Soezeri, S. S.; Crumb, M. F.; Matthews, M. J. Modulating Laser Intensity Profile Ellipticity for Microstructural Control during Metal Additive Manufacturing. Acta Mater. 2017, 128, 197–206. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2017.02.025

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scipioni Bertoli, U.; Wolfer, A. J.; Matthews, M. J.; Delplanque, J. P. R.; Schoenung, J. M. On the Limitations of Volumetric Energy Density as a Design Parameter for Selective Laser Melting. Mater. Des. 2017, 113, 331–340. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2016.10.037

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kempen, K.; Yasa, E.; Thijs, L.; Kruth, J. P.; Van Humbeeck, J. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Selective Laser Melted 18Ni-300 Steel. Phys. Procedia 2011, 12, 255–263. doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2011.03.033

 Google Scholar

Mukherjee, T.; Wei, H. L.; De, A.; DebRoy, T. Heat and Fluid Flow in Additive Manufacturing – Part II: Powder Bed Fusion of Stainless Steel, and Titanium, Nickel and Aluminum Base Alloys. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2018, 150, 369–380. doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2018.04.027

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cheng, B.; Shrestha, S.; Chou, K. Stress and Deformation Evaluations of Scanning Strategy Effect in Selective Laser Melting. Addit. Manuf. 2016, 12, 240–251. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2016.05.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kudzal, A.; McWilliams, B.; Hofmeister, C.; Kellogg, F.; Yu, J.; Taggart-Scarff, J.; Liang, J. Effect of Scan Pattern on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufactured 17-4 Stainless Steel. Mater. Des. 2017, 133, 205–215. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2017.07.047

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Anderson, I. E.; White, E. M. H.; Tiarks, J. A.; Riedemann, T.; Byrd, D. J.; Anderson, R. D.; Regele, J. D. Fundamental Progress toward Increased Powder Yields from Gas Atomization for Additive Manufacturing. Adv. Powder Metall. Part Mater. 2017 - Proc. 2017 Int. Conf. Powder Metall. Part. Mater., 2017, 138–146.

 Google Scholar

Bi, G.; Sun, C. N.; Gasser, A. Study on Influential Factors for Process Monitoring and Control in Laser Aided Additive Manufacturing. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2013, 213, 463–468. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2012.10.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ladewig, A.; Schlick, G.; Fisser, M.; Schulze, V.; Glatzel, U. Influence of the Shielding Gas Flow on the Removal of Process by-Products in the Selective Laser Melting Process. Addit. Manuf. 2016, 10, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2016.01.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reijonen, J.; Revuelta, A.; Riipinen, T.; Ruusuvuori, K.; Puukko, P. On the Effect of Shielding Gas Flow on Porosity and Melt Pool Geometry in Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 32, 101030. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2019.101030

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Matthews, M. J.; Roehling, T. T.; Khairallah, S. A.; Tumkur, T. U.; Guss, G.; Shi, R.; Roehling, J. D.; Smith, W. L.; Vrancken, B. K.; Ganeriwala, R. K.; McKeown, J. T. Controlling Melt Pool Shape, Microstructure and Residual Stress in Additively Manufactured Metals Using Modified Laser Beam Profiles. Procedia CIRP 2020, 94, 200–204. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2020.09.038

 Google Scholar

Andreau, O.; Koutiri, I.; Peyre, P.; Penot, J. D.; Saintier, N.; Pessard, E.; De Terris, T.; Dupuy, C.; Baudin, T. Texture Control of 316L Parts by Modulation of the Melt Pool Morphology in Selective Laser Melting. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2019, 264, 21–31. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.08.049

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bajaj, P.; Hariharan, A.; Kini, A.; Kürnsteiner, P.; Raabe, D.; Jägle, E. A. Steels in Additive Manufacturing: A Review of Their Microstructure and Properties. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2020, 772, 138633. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2019.138633

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ghoncheh, M. H.; Sanjari, M.; Cyr, E.; Kelly, J.; Pirgazi, H.; Shakerin, S.; Hadadzadeh, A.; Amirkhiz, B. S.; Kestens, L. A. I.; Mohammadi, M. On the Solidification Characteristics, Deformation, and Functionally Graded Interfaces in Additively Manufactured Hybrid Aluminum Alloys. Int. J. Plast. 2020, 133, 102840. doi:10.1016/j.ijplas.2020.102840

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hung, C. H.; Chen, W. T.; Sehhat, M. H.; Leu, M. C. The Effect of Laser Welding Modes on Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of 304L Stainless Steel Parts Fabricated by Laser-Foil-Printing Additive Manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2021, 112, 867–877. doi:10.1007/s00170-020-06402-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kurzynowski, T.; Gruber, K.; Stopyra, W.; Kuźnicka, B.; Chlebus, E. Correlation between Process Parameters, Microstructure and Properties of 316 L Stainless Steel Processed by Selective Laser Melting. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2018, 718, 64–73. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2018.01.103

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Niendorf, T.; Leuders, S.; Riemer, A.; Richard, H. A.; Tröster, T.; Schwarze, D. Highly Anisotropic Steel Processed by Selective Laser Melting. Metall. Mater. Trans. B 2013, 44, 794–796. doi:10.1007/s11663-013-9875-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Todaro, C. J.; Easton, M. A.; Qiu, D.; Brandt, M.; StJohn, D. H.; Qian, M. Grain Refinement of Stainless Steel in Ultrasound-Assisted Additive Manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2021, 37, 101632. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2020.101632

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ikehata, H.; Mayweg, D.; Jägle, E. Grain Refinement of Fe–Ti Alloys Fabricated by Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Mater. Des. 2021, 204, 109665. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109665

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ma, M.; Wang, Z.; Zeng, X. A Comparison on Metallurgical Behaviors of 316L Stainless Steel by Selective Laser Melting and Laser Cladding Deposition. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2017, 685, 265–273. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2016.12.112

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Thijs, L.; Van Humbeeck, J.; Kempen, K.; Yasa, E.; Kruth, J. P. Investigation on the Inclusions in Maraging Steel Produced by SLM. Int. Conf. Adv. Res. Virtual Rapid Prototyp., 2011; pp 297–304.

 Google Scholar

Eo, D. R.; Park, S. H.; Cho, J. W. Inclusion Evolution in Additive Manufactured 316L Stainless Steel by Laser Metal Deposition Process. Mater. Des. 2018, 155, 212–219. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2018.06.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kou, S. Welding Metallurgy; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, 2003. doi:10.1002/0471434027.

 Google Scholar

Rodrigues, T. A.; Duarte, V.; Avila, J. A.; Santos, T. G.; Miranda, R. M.; Oliveira, J. P. Wire and Arc Additive Manufacturing of HSLA Steel: Effect of Thermal Cycles on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 27, 440–450. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2019.03.029

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Köhnen, P.; Létang, M.; Voshage, M.; Schleifenbaum, J. H.; Haase, C. Understanding the Process-Microstructure Correlations for Tailoring the Mechanical Properties of LPBF Produced Austenitic Advanced High Strength Steel. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 30, 100914. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2019.100914

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tascioglu, E.; Karabulut, Y.; Kaynak, Y. Influence of Heat Treatment Temperature on the Microstructural, Mechanical, and Wear Behavior of 316L Stainless Steel Fabricated by Laser Powder Bed Additive Manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2020, 107, 1947–1956. doi:10.1007/s00170-020-04972-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Benarji, K.; Kumar, Y. R.; Jinoop, A. N.; Paul, C. P.; Bindra, K. S. Effect of Heat-Treatment on the Microstructure, Mechanical Properties and Corrosion Behaviour of SS 316 Structures Built by Laser Directed Energy Deposition Based Additive Manufacturing. Met. Mater. Int. 2021, 27, 488–499. doi:10.1007/s12540-020-00838-y

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, X.; Li, J.; Cheng, X.; Wang, H.; Huang, Z. Effect of Heat Treatment on Microstructure, Mechanical and Corrosion Properties of Austenitic Stainless Steel 316L Using Arc Additive Manufacturing. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2018, 715, 307–314. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2017.10.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Saeidi, K.; Gao, X.; Lofaj, F.; Kvetková, L.; Shen, Z. J. Transformation of Austenite to Duplex Austenite-Ferrite Assembly in Annealed Stainless Steel 316L Consolidated by Laser Melting. J. Alloys Compd. 2015, 633, 463–469. doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2015.01.249

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alam, M. K.; Mehdi, M.; Urbanic, R. J.; Edrisy, A. Mechanical Behavior of Additive Manufactured AISI 420 Martensitic Stainless Steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2020, 773, 138815. doi:10.1016/J.MSEA.2019.138815.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sun, Y.; Hebert, R. J.; Aindow, M. Effect of Heat Treatments on Microstructural Evolution of Additively Manufactured and Wrought 17-4PH Stainless Steel. Mater. Des. 2018, 156, 429–440. doi:10.1016/J.MATDES.2018.07.015.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yadollahi, A.; Shamsaei, N.; Thompson, S. M.; Elwany, A.; Bian, L. Effects of Building Orientation and Heat Treatment on Fatigue Behavior of Selective Laser Melted 17-4 PH Stainless Steel. Int. J. Fatigue 2017, 94, 218–235. doi:10.1016/J.IJFATIGUE.2016.03.014.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sarkar, S.; Mukherjee, S.; Kumar, C. S.; Kumar Nath, A. Effects of Heat Treatment on Microstructure, Mechanical and Corrosion Properties of 15-5 PH Stainless Steel Parts Built by Selective Laser Melting Process. J. Manuf. Process 2020, 50, 279–294. doi:10.1016/J.JMAPRO.2019.12.048.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nong, X. D.; Zhou, X. L.; Li, J. H.; Wang, Y. D.; Zhao, Y. F.; Brochu, M. Selective Laser Melting and Heat Treatment of Precipitation Hardening Stainless Steel with a Refined Microstructure and Excellent Mechanical Properties. Scr. Mater. 2020, 178, 7–12. doi:10.1016/J.SCRIPTAMAT.2019.10.040.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shahriari, A.; Ghaffari, M.; Khaksar, L.; Nasiri, A.; Hadadzadeh, A.; Amirkhiz, B. S.; Mohammadi, M. Corrosion Resistance of 13wt.% Cr Martensitic Stainless Steels: Additively Manufactured CX versus Wrought Ni-Containing AISI 420. Corros. Sci. 2021, 184, 109362. doi:10.1016/J.CORSCI.2021.109362.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hengsbach, F.; Koppa, P.; Duschik, K.; Holzweissig, M. J.; Burns, M.; Nellesen, J.; Tillmann, W.; Tröster, T.; Hoyer, K. P.; Schaper, M. Duplex Stainless Steel Fabricated by Selective Laser melting - Microstructural and Mechanical Properties. Mater. Des. 2017, 133, 136–142. doi:10.1016/J.MATDES.2017.07.046.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mooney, B.; Kourousis, K. I.; Raghavendra, R. Plastic Anisotropy of Additively Manufactured Maraging Steel: Influence of the Build Orientation and Heat Treatments. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 25, 19–31. doi:10.1016/J.ADDMA.2018.10.032.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bodziak, S.; Al-Rubaie, K. S.; Valentina, L. D.; Lafratta, F. H.; Santos, E. C.; Zanatta, A. M.; Chen, Y. Precipitation in 300 Grade Maraging Steel Built by Selective Laser Melting: Aging at 510 °C for 2 h. Mater. Charact. 2019, 151, 73–83. doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2019.02.033

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Santos, L. M. S.; Borrego, L. P.; Ferreira, J. A. M.; de Jesus, J.; Costa, J. D.; Capela, C. Effect of Heat Treatment on the Fatigue Crack Growth Behaviour in Additive Manufactured AISI 18Ni300 Steel. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2019, 102, 10–15. doi:10.1016/J.TAFMEC.2019.04.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Åsberg, M.; Fredriksson, G.; Hatami, S.; Fredriksson, W.; Krakhmalev, P. Influence of Post Treatment on Microstructure, Porosity and Mechanical Properties of Additive Manufactured H13 Tool Steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2019, 742, 584–589. doi:10.1016/J.MSEA.2018.08.046.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Krell, J.; Röttger, A.; Geenen, K.; Theisen, W. General Investigations on Processing Tool Steel X40CrMoV5-1 with Selective Laser Melting. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2018, 255, 679–688. doi:10.1016/J.JMATPROTEC.2018.01.012.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shi, Y.; Lu, Z.; Xu, H.; Xie, R.; Ren, Y.; Yang, G. Microstructure Characterization and Mechanical Properties of Laser Additive Manufactured Oxide Dispersion Strengthened Fe-9Cr Alloy. J. Alloys Compd. 2019, 791, 121–133. doi:10.1016/J.JALLCOM.2019.03.284.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ASTM G3. Standard Practice for Conventions Applicable to Electrochemical Measurements in Corrosion Testing. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, 2019; Vol. 03.02. Figs 2, 3 and 4 used with permission.

 Google Scholar

Sander, G.; Thomas, S.; Cruz, V.; Jurg, M.; Birbilis, N.; Gao, X.; Brameld, M.; Hutchinson, C. R. On the Corrosion and Metastable Pitting Characteristics of 316L Stainless Steel Produced by Selective Laser Melting. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2017, 164, C250–C257. doi:10.1149/2.0551706jes.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Duan, Z.; Man, C.; Dong, C.; Cui, Z.; Kong, D.; Wang, L.; Wang, X. Pitting Behavior of SLM 316L Stainless Steel Exposed to Chloride Environments with Different Aggressiveness: Pitting Mechanism Induced by Gas Pores. Corros. Sci. 2020, 167, 108520. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2020.108520.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Geenen, K.; Röttger, A.; Theisen, W. Corrosion Behavior of 316L Austenitic Steel Processed by Selective Laser Melting, Hot-Isostatic Pressing, and Casting. Mater. Corros. 2017, 68, 764–775. doi:10.1002/maco.201609210.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kazemipour, M.; Mohammadi, M.; Mfoumou, E.; Nasiri, A. M. Microstructure and Corrosion Characteristics of Selective Laser-Melted 316L Stainless Steel: The Impact of Process-Induced Porosities. JOM 2019, 71, 3230–3240. doi:10.1007/s11837-019-03647-w.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Laleh, M.; Hughes, A. E.; Xu, W.; Cizek, P.; Tan, M. Y. Unanticipated Drastic Decline in Pitting Corrosion Resistance of Additively Manufactured 316L Stainless Steel after High-Temperature Post-Processing. Corros. Sci. 2020, 165, 108412. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2019.108412.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Laleh, M.; Hughes, A. E.; Xu, W.; Haghdadi, N.; Wang, K.; Cizek, P.; Gibson, I.; Tan, M. Y. On the Unusual Intergranular Corrosion Resistance of 316L Stainless Steel Additively Manufactured by Selective Laser Melting. Corros. Sci. 2019, 161, 108189. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2019.108189.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, L.; Dong, C.; Man, C.; Kong, D.; Xiao, K.; Li, X. Enhancing the Corrosion Resistance of Selective Laser Melted 15-5PH Martensite Stainless Steel via Heat Treatment. Corros. Sci. 2020, 166, 108427. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2019.108427.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shifeng, W.; Shuai, L.; Qingsong, W.; Yan, C.; Sheng, Z.; Yusheng, S. Effect of Molten Pool Boundaries on the Mechanical Properties of Selective Laser Melting Parts. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2014, 214, 2660–2667. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.06.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhou, C.; Hu, S.; Shi, Q.; Tao, H.; Song, Y.; Zheng, J.; Xu, P.; Zhang, L. Improvement of Corrosion Resistance of SS316L Manufactured by Selective Laser Melting through Subcritical Annealing. Corros. Sci. 2020, 164, 108353. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2019.108353.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mohd Yusuf, S.; Nie, M.; Chen, Y.; Yang, S.; Gao, N. Microstructure and Corrosion Performance of 316L Stainless Steel Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting and Processed through High-Pressure Torsion. J. Alloys Compd. 2018, 763, 360–375. doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.05.284.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, L.; Richter, B.; Zhang, X.; Ren, X.; Pfefferkorn, F. E. Modification of Surface Characteristics and Electrochemical Corrosion Behavior of Laser Powder Bed Fused Stainless Steel 316L after Laser Polishing. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 32, 101013. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2019.101013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sun, S. H.; Ishimoto, T.; Hagihara, K.; Tsutsumi, Y.; Hanawa, T.; Nakano, T. Excellent Mechanical and Corrosion Properties of Austenitic Stainless Steel with a Unique Crystallographic Lamellar Microstructure via Selective Laser Melting. Scr. Mater. 2019, 159, 89–93. doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2018.09.017.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kong, D.; Ni, X.; Dong, C.; Lei, X.; Zhang, L.; Man, C.; Yao, J.; Cheng, X.; Li, X. Bio-Functional and anti-Corrosive 3D Printing 316L Stainless Steel Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting. Mater. Des. 2018, 152, 88–101. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2018.04.058.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cruz, V.; Chao, Q.; Birbilis, N.; Fabijanic, D.; Hodgson, P. D.; Thomas, S. Electrochemical Studies on the Effect of Residual Stress on the Corrosion of 316L Manufactured by Selective Laser Melting. Corros. Sci. 2020, 164, 108314. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2019.108314.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin, K.; Gu, D.; Xi, L.; Yuan, L.; Niu, S.; Lv, P.; Ge, Q. Selective Laser Melting Processing of 316L Stainless Steel: Effect of Microstructural Differences along Building Direction on Corrosion Behavior. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 104, 2669–2679. doi:10.1007/s00170-019-04136-9.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shahriari, A.; Khaksar, L.; Nasiri, A.; Hadadzadeh, A.; Amirkhiz, B. S.; Mohammadi, M. Microstructure and Corrosion Behavior of a Novel Additively Manufactured Maraging Stainless Steel. Electrochim. Acta 2020, 339, 135925. doi:10.1016/j.electacta.2020.135925

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kong, D.; Dong, C.; Ni, X.; Zhang, L.; Luo, H.; Li, R.; Wang, L.; Man, C.; Li, X. Superior Resistance to Hydrogen Damage for Selective Laser Melted 316L Stainless Steel in a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Environment. Corros. Sci. 2020, 166, 108425. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2019.108425.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mo, J.; Dehoff, R. R.; Peter, W. H.; Toops, T. J.; Green, J. B.; Zhang, F. Y. Additive Manufacturing of Liquid/Gas Diffusion Layers for Low-Cost and High-Efficiency Hydrogen Production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 3128–3135. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.12.111.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, Y.; Song, B.; Ming, J.; Yan, Q.; Wang, M.; Cai, C.; Zhang, C.; Shi, Y. Corrosion Mechanism of Amorphous Alloy Strengthened Stainless Steel Composite Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting. Corros. Sci. 2020, 163, 108241. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2019.108241.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lou, X.; Song, M.; Emigh, P. W.; Othon, M. A.; Andresen, P. L. On the Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Behaviour in High Temperature Water of 316L Stainless Steel Made by Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing. Corros. Sci. 2017, 128, 140–153. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2017.09.017.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jiang, M.; Liu, H.; Qiu, S.; Min, S.; Gu, Y.; Kuang, W.; Hou, J. Irradiation Damage and Corrosion Performance of Proton Irradiated 304 L Stainless Steel Fabricated by Laser-Powder Bed Fusion. Mater. Charact. 2023, 202, 113023. doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2023.113023.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar