J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

Review
REVIEW

Additive manufacturing of steels: a review

of achievements and challenges
Nima Haghdadi1,*, Majid Laleh2,3, Maxwell Moyle1, and Sophie Primig1,*

1
School of Materials Science and Engineering, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
2
School of Engineering, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, VIC 3216, Australia
3
Institute for Frontier Materials, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, VIC 3216, Australia

Received: 30 March 2020 ABSTRACT

Accepted: 17 July 2020 Metal additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, is a disruptive
Published online: manufacturing technology in which complex engineering parts are produced in
26 August 2020 a layer-by-layer manner, using a high-energy heating source and powder, wire
or sheet as feeding material. The current paper aims to review the achievements
 The Author(s) 2020 in AM of steels in its ability to obtain superior properties that cannot be
achieved through conventional manufacturing routes, thanks to the unique
microstructural evolution in AM. The challenges that AM encounters are also
reviewed, and suggestions for overcoming these challenges are provided if
applicable. We focus on laser powder bed fusion and directed energy deposition
as these two methods are currently the most common AM methods to process
steels. The main foci are on austenitic stainless steels and maraging/precipita-
tion-hardened (PH) steels, the two so far most widely used classes of steels in
AM, before summarising the state-of-the-art of AM of other classes of steels. Our
comprehensive review highlights that a wide range of steels can be processed by
AM. The unique microstructural features including hierarchical (sub)grains and
fine precipitates induced by AM result in enhancements of strength, wear
resistance and corrosion resistance of AM steels when compared to their con-
ventional counterparts. Achieving an acceptable ductility and fatigue perfor-
mance remains a challenge in AM steels. AM also acts as an intrinsic heat
treatment, triggering ‘in situ’ phase transformations including tempering and
other precipitation phenomena in different grades of steels such as PH steels
and tool steels. A thorough discussion of the performance of AM steels as a
function of these unique microstructural features is presented in this review.

Handling Editor: P. Nash.

Nima Haghdadi, Majid Laleh and Maxwell Moyle contributed equally and are therefore listed in alphabetical order.

Address correspondence to E-mail: nima.haghdadi@unsw.edu.au; s.primig@unsw.edu.au

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-020-05109-0
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 65

Introduction performance parts with reduced weight. Considering

that steel is a 100% recyclable metal, AM can there-
Overview of additive manufacturing fore play a key role in the circular economy by pro-
of alloys and steels ducing high added-value products from recycled
powders and enabling reuse of AM by-products in
Additive manufacturing (AM), commonly known as new products [11].
3D printing, has recently gained huge interest in both Although AM has recently undergone significant
academia and industry, with its market value development, it still has not been widely adopted by
expected to reach $21 billion by the end of 2020 [1]. many industry sectors. If we consider the cost of a
AM refers to a family of layer-upon-layer building final product as a function of material cost, tooling
technologies capable of producing geometrically cost, equipment cost, and overhead cost, further work
intricate parts in a single step [2]. The idea of using a and progress is needed for AM to outperform tradi-
high-energy beam, such as a laser beam, to manu- tional manufacturing in terms of material cost,
facture objects of any given geometry using powder equipment cost and overhead cost, as described in
material was first patented by Pierre Ciraud in 1973 detail in [12]. Another critical issue is the fact that
[3]. The invention of laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) despite AM’s physical metallurgy commonalities to
dates back to 1996, when a research project at the phenomena observed during casting, welding, pow-
Fraunhofer Institute for Laser Technology (Froun- der metallurgy and thermo-mechanical processing,
hofer ILT) yielded the corresponding first patent DE many of the established textbook theories for tradi-
19649865 [4]. Since the invention of the first AM tional manufacturing might fail in AM [13]. A full
machine in Austin, TX almost 34 years ago [5], there understanding of microstructure and property evo-
has been great progress in both the development of lution during AM to achieve reproducibility and to
various processing techniques and understanding the improve the technology to the point of gaining
processing–microstructure–property relationships in industry acceptance is, therefore, the current scope
AM. Once the underlying microstructural evolution for AM researchers. AM of steel looks to be still in its
during AM is understood in more detail, manufac- middle stages of maturity and adoption, where new
turers will be enabled to systematically optimise the grades of steel more suitable for AM and with better
AM processing parameters towards superior prop- performances are expected to be designed in the
erties of engineering parts. future. An overview of how current AM steels com-
AM has been successfully implemented to different pete with conventionally processed steels in terms of
metallic systems over time, including Ti alloys, Ni- performance would, therefore, provide invaluable
based superalloys, Al alloys, and steels [6]. Various insight for the ongoing research in AM of steels.
groups of metals and alloys can now be processed via
AM, with steels currently accounting for about 1/3 of Aim and structure of this review
all publications in the metals AM literature. How-
ever, this is still only a too small share given that Overall, an extensive effort has been made on
almost 80% (weight per cent) of all the metallic parts investigating the mechanical and corrosion proper-
for engineering purposes are made of steel. Steels are ties of AM metals and alloys. There have been a
still mainly processed through conventional routes number of papers reviewing the processing–mi-
including casting, forming, and machining [7]. crostructure–properties in AM including mechanical
Although the sustainability of AM is discussed con- properties [14–16] and corrosion behaviour [17, 18] of
troversially in the literature [8, 9], reductions in additively manufactured metals. The two most com-
greenhouse gas emissions could potentially be prehensive currently available reviews on AM of
achieved by producing complex-shaped steel parts steels are by Fayazfar et al. [14] and Bajaj et al. [19].
through AM, which avoids significant emissions Fayazfar et al. [14] comprehensively summarised the
from conventional energy-inefficient production processing of steels through different powder-based
routes [10]. Further, AM unlocks unprecedented AM technologies. These authors went through the
design freedom (e.g. complex geometries or hollow basics of powder bed, powder-fed and binder jetting
structures that are difficult to make through con- AM processes for steels and discussed the solidifi-
ventional manufacturing), translating into high- cation microstructure of AM steels. Bajaj et al. [19]
66 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

reviewed the evolution of steel microstructures dur- mechanical [25, 26] and corrosion properties [27] that
ing AM. These authors gave an overview over the are difficult/impossible to achieve through tradi-
different series of steels in use in AM processes and tional manufacturing. In this regard, understanding
reviewed the microstructure– properties relationship the microstructural evolution during AM is essential.
in these steels. However, neither of these valuable The thermal history to which a metal is exposed
reviews focused on how and where AM could enable during AM is very different from that of conventional
manufacturing of steel parts with superior properties manufacturing. AM microstructures are formed
compared to conventional subtractive manufactur- through rapid solidification rates (dT/dt: 103–108 K/
ing. This is the focus of the current review. s)1 [28], high thermal gradients (dT/dx: 103–107 K/
Appreciating the unique microstructural charac- m), and significant thermal gyrations caused by the
teristics of AM steels compared to the conventionally melting and deposition of several subsequent layers
processed steels and despite considerable progress [29–31]. All of these processing parameters affect the
made in understanding these microstructural fea- evolution of key microstructural features including
tures, there is a lack of overview on how these will the solidification morphology, segregation, cells,
potentially result in advanced properties. The current grain structure (size and shape), crystallographic
review intends to fill this gap by providing a com- texture, microstructure stability, secondary phases,
prehensive summary of the unique properties of AM defects and inclusions. In AM microstructures,
steels currently reported in the literature. We mainly solidification cells are subgrains, very similar in ori-
concentrate on mechanical, corrosion and wear entation, delineated by segregation of alloying ele-
properties of steels where relevant data are available. ments and dislocation accumulation at their
Occasionally, other properties such as magnetic boundaries [19]. Grains are defined by their distinct
properties and hydrogen embrittlement are discussed orientation separated by high angle grain boundaries.
if they are important properties of the corresponding AM microstructures exhibit a variety of grain
steel grade. However, we do not include AM steel morphologies. An example of this difference is pre-
composites such as AM oxide dispersion strength- sented in Fig. 1 for 316L stainless steel. In this regard,
ened (ODS) [20–22] and WC dispersed maraging fine equiaxed grains at the melt pool boundaries are
steels [23, 24]. We also do not discuss the details of observed from the transverse direction (plane per-
different AM processes (for a detail overview on this pendicular to the building direction), where grains
please see [14]), and we intend to discuss the are columnar inside the individual melt pools
microstructural evolution during AM only briefly, if (Fig. 1a). In contrast to the transverse plane, large
necessary, in order to explain differences in columnar grains along the building direction are
properties. commonly reported for AM, as shown in Fig. 1b. This
After a few necessary notes on typical AM columnar grain morphology has been attributed to
microstructures, we will start with the two most supercooling conditions inherent to AM that may
popular steels in the AM context, i.e. austenitic change the solidification mode from planar to
stainless steels (with the vast body of literature on columnar and/or an epitaxial growth [32]. The cool-
316L) and maraging/precipitate hardening (PH) ing rate and extent of re-melting of the previous layer
steels. Then we will continue to discuss a variety of during LPBF are the main determining factors in
other types of steels that have been processed by AM controlling the grain size. For instance, very large,
so far. These include duplex stainless steels, ferritic– columnar grains with high aspect ratio for LPBF 316L
martensitic steels, carbon-bearing tool steels and stainless steel are formed as a result of epitaxial
transformation-/twinning-induced plasticity (TRIP/ growth when using a high laser power (Fig. 1c) [33].
TWIP) steels. In general, if not epitaxially grown, grains in LPBF
steels have been reported to be fine, a distinct feature
A few notes on typical AM microstructures compared to their conventional counterparts [15],

With the ability to build material through successive 1

Note that although being mentioned in several publications,
adding of layers with thicknesses of a few tens of these values mostly go back to simulation studies and not
microns on top of each other, AM is capable of pro- experiments. Even if experimentally achieved, values as high
as 108 K/s are most probably valid for high-conductivity
ducing site-specific microstructures with tailored materials like Al and not for steels.
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 67

Figure 1 Typical grain structure of a LPBF 316L austenitic power along the building direction, indicating more elongated,
stainless steel acquired by electron back-scattered diffraction columnar grains compared to those in the specimen processed with
(EBSD) analysis. a An inverse pole figure (IPF) map of a LPBF lower laser power in (a). IPF map of a conventionally processed
316L austenitic stainless steel processed with a 150 W laser power 316L austenitic stainless steel is also presented in (d) for
along the building direction, x–z plane. b IPF map of the same comparison purposes. a, b and d have the same scale bars. a, b,
specimen shown in (a) but from the transverse (perpendicular to d are adapted from Ref. [36] and c from Ref. [33], with
the building) direction, x–y plane. c IPF map of another LPBF permission.
316L austenitic stainless steel processed with a 1000 W laser

which is a result of the rapid solidification during common types of defects introduced during AM of
LPBF. The as-built texture depends mostly on the metals. Two types of pores have been reported in the
melt pool size, direction of the local heat flow and literature: (1) spherical or gas-induced pores and (2)
competitive grain growth occurring during manu- non-spherical or process-induced pores. The former
facturing [34]. One can control the texture in AM ones are believed to be due to the trapped gasses
through imposing a change in the scanning strategy, among the powder particles, which are released
for example rotations between different layers and/ during melting and then locked-in during solidifica-
or the so-called point heat source strategy in which tion. Another origin of spherical pores arises from
the melted area is patterned in ‘points’, leaving some gases being trapped inside the powder feedstock
space between individual points [35]. during the preparing process of the powder materi-
AM has made great progress over the past years in als. This entrapped gas is then transferred into the
terms of producing high-density parts; however, part and leads to formation of gas-induced porosity
defect formation remains a challenge [37]. Porosities, [38]. On the other hand, non-spherical pores, also
delamination and balling are known as the most known as irregular-shaped, lack-of-fusion (LOF) or
68 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

process-induced pores are generally formed when Austenitic stainless steels

the applied laser energy density is not sufficient to
completely melt the powder bed. This leads to for- Austenitic stainless steels are one of the most widely
mation of un-melted powder particles trapped inside used group of industrial alloys owing to their excel-
of these pores. Furthermore, high laser energy den- lent corrosion resistance, biocompatibility and duc-
sities have also been observed to induce irregular- tility, which make them suitable candidates for
shaped pores during a process known as keyhole applications in various industries such as biomedical,
formation [39]. aerospace, defence, oil & gas, petrochemical and
Delamination, which is defined as the separation of more. These steels are the most widely used class of
adjacent layers within an AM part, is mainly due to steels in AM. Here, AM has been shown to provide
the incomplete melting of adjacent layers [40]. As some promising properties while many challenges
opposed to LOF that is a microscopic internal defect remain. There are a large number of papers on AM of
and can be eliminated through post-processing pro- austenitic stainless steels in the literature. Going
cesses, delamination is a macroscopic crack-like through all of them individually would make this
defect which cannot be repaired by post-processing section too lengthy. Therefore, we will review the
[41]. Thus, careful adjusting of process parameters is trends with their advances and challenges in terms of
necessary in order to avoid delamination. The balling mechanical and corrosion properties. It should be
phenomenon is another severe processing defect in noted here that most of the literature on AM of aus-
AM parts [42]. Balling occurs when the melt pool tenitic stainless steels focuses on the grade of 316L,
loses its continuity owing to the Plateau–Rayleigh the most common material of choice for many
instability and then segregates into individual industrial applications. However, other kinds of
spherical islands [43, 44]. This can be mainly attrib- austenitic stainless steels like the 304L grade will also
uted to the high viscosity of the liquid, which in turn be reviewed here if any achievements or challenges
leads to significant suppression of liquid flow and in different properties have been reported. The most
insufficient wetting of the powder surface by the important difference between 316L and 304L is in
liquid. Powder particles then tend to agglomerate their chemical compositions, where almost 2 wt% Mo
due to surface tension, and consequently the balling is added to 316L to improve its corrosion resistance.
phenomenon occurs. Increasing the laser power or
decreasing the scanning speed can help to reduce Mechanical properties
balling phenomena during AM [31].
Microstructures far from the equilibrium condi- Given their unique microstructures, AM austenitic
tions are produced in AM parts due to the rapid stainless steels show interesting behaviour in tensile
solidification rates [31]. For instance, a very fine cel- testing different from the conventionally produced
lular microstructure with cell sizes of 1 lm or less is parts. For instance, LPBF has shown to produce 316L
usually obtained in AM austenitic stainless steels, as stainless steel that is stronger than its wrought/cast
shown in Fig. 2a, b. Some elements like Cr and Mo counterpart (ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of
have been reported to segregate at cell walls, as 640–700 MPa for LPBF compared to 450–555 MPa for
shown in the transmission electron microscopy conventional; yield strength (YS) of 450–590 MPa for
(TEM) and energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) LPBF compared to 160–365 MPa for conventional)
maps in Fig. 2c. Inclusions are believed to play a while still remaining ductile (elongation of 36-59% for
prominent role in a range of properties of AM steels LPBF compared to 30-43% for conventional) [50, 51].
[45]. For example, oxide inclusions have been com- An example of such superior tensile properties for
monly reported in AM austenitic stainless steels and LPBF 316L stainless steel compared to its conven-
are shown to be spherical in shape with dimensions tional counterpart is presented in Fig. 3a. This is
between a few tens of nanometres and a few microns mainly attributed to the presence of numerous nano-
and mainly enriched in O, Mn and Si (Fig. 2c) inclusions that hinder dislocation movements, and a
[46–48]. This is in contrast to the larger ([ 1 lm) and large density of low angle grain boundaries. The
irregular-shaped oxide inclusions in conventional exceptional combination of strength and ductility in
austenitic stainless steels [49]. 316L austenitic stainless steel is a great achievement
for AM considering the limitation of conventional
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 69

Figure 2 Non-equilibrium microstructure in LPBF 316L stainless cell walls. Spherical dark regions in (c) are nano-inclusions that are
steel. a, b Bright-field TEM images of the solidification cells enriched with Mn, Si and O. Images are adapted from Ref. [43]
within the grains at low and high magnification. c EDS analysis with permission.
showing the segregation of alloying elements like Mo and Cr at

manufacturing in overcoming the strength–ductility dry sliding conditions and to even maintain this
dilemma [50, 51]. trend at high temperatures up to 400 C [54], as
There are reports on LPBF 316L austenitic stainless depicted in the coefficient of friction versus sliding
steel showing a good fatigue performance, compa- distance curves in Fig. 3c, d. This is attributed to the
rable to its conventionally processed counterpart [52]. role of the cellular sub-grains within the microstruc-
LPBF 304 austenitic stainless steel also exhibits a ture of the AM 316L austenitic stainless steel in
comparable fatigue resistance in high-cycle regimes resisting against subsurface deformation through
and an even slightly higher fatigue resistance in low- hindering dislocation movement. A similar conclu-
cycle-fatigue regimes [53], as presented in strain-life sion has been made for better tribological behaviour
fatigue curves in Fig. 3b. AM 316L stainless steel has of LPBF 316L austenitic stainless steel under wet
been shown to have a better wear resistance than its wear test in a simulated body solution [28].
conventional counterpart at room temperature under
70 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

Figure 3 Representative unique mechanical properties of AM austenitic stainless steel with wrought 304L stainless steel. c Wear
austenitic stainless steel. a Tensile engineering stress–strain curve behaviour of LPBF 316L austenitic stainless steel displayed as
for LPBF 316L austenitic stainless steel, indicating the capability coefficient of friction (COF) versus sliding distance compared to
of AM in producing stainless steel with simultaneously enhanced (d) conventional 316 L stainless steel, showing a comparable wear
strength and ductility. The minimum requirements for tensile resistance for LPBF 316L austenitic stainless steel at temperatures
properties for 316L stainless steel are indicated by dashed yellow up to 400 C. a is adapted from Ref. [51], b from Ref. [53] and c,
lines. b Comparison of strain-life fatigue behaviour of LPBF 304L d from Ref. [54], with permission.

Corrosion properties since S is generally added to stainless steel as an

alloying element with the aim of improving
It is generally accepted that the corrosion properties machinability [58]. Changing the chemical composi-
of stainless steels are dependent on their tion of MnS inclusions, e.g. by replacing Mn in the
microstructure and chemical composition. Phases sulphide by Cr, has been shown to be a useful
such as d-ferrite, metallic/non-metallic inclusions method in enhancing the pitting corrosion resistance
and precipitates in the steel can all affect its corrosion though not in severe corrosive environments like
resistance. The effects of microstructural features of ferric chloride solutions [59]. Reducing the size of
AM stainless steel, which are in turn dependent upon MnS inclusions through rapid solidification [60] or
the AM processing conditions, on their corrosion laser surface re-melting [61] has also been found to
characteristics will be discussed in the following. improve the pitting corrosion resistance. In this
Sulphide inclusions, particularly manganese sul- respect, AM has been shown to be capable of pro-
phide (MnS), are detrimental to pitting corrosion ducing austenitic stainless steels with excellent pit-
resistance of all grades of stainless steels [55–57]. ting corrosion resistance [62, 63], as presented in
Elimination of such harmful MnS inclusions is not Fig. 4a. This is mainly attributed to the rapid
practical in conventional subtractive manufacturing,
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 71

(b)
(a)

(c)
(d) (e)

(f) (g)

Figure 4 Representative unique corrosion characteristics of AM LPBF 316L austenitic stainless steel at both transverse and
austenitic stainless steel. a Potentiodynamic polarisation curves building planes relative to the conventional 316L austenitic
recorded in 0.1 M NaCl solution, indicating an exceptionally stainless steel. For sensitisation purpose, the specimens were
higher pitting corrosion resistance for LPBF (= selective laser heat-treated at 700 C for 60 h followed by water quenching. d–
melting, SLM) 316L austenitic stainless steel compared to a g Post-DL-EPR images of the corroded grain boundaries acquired
wrought sample. b Potentiostatic polarisation curves recorded by focused ion beam SEM from d, e conventional and f, g LPBF
using a jet impingement setup in a 0.6 M NaCl solution containing 316L austenitic stainless steel specimens, indicating an extensive
2.5 wt% sand particles, showing a lower erosion-corrosion intergranular corrosion for conventional 316L austenitic stainless
resistance for LPBF 316L austenitic stainless steel compared to steel, while much shallower corrosion along grain boundaries is
its conventional counterpart. c Double-loop electrochemical detected for LPBF 316L austenitic stainless steel. a is adapted
potentiokinetic reactivation (DL-EPR) test recorded in 0.5 M from Ref. [62], b from Ref. [63], c, g from Ref. [36], with
H2SO4 ? 0.01 M KSCN, along with the degree of sensitisation permission.
values (inset), showing a substantially higher IGC resistance for

solidification inherent to AM that limits the forma- Laleh et al. [63] report an unexpected lower erosion-
tion of MnS inclusions [64, 65]. corrosion resistance for LPBF 316L austenitic stainless
Given the excellent pitting corrosion resistance and steel (Fig. 4b), which is due to the weaker repassi-
high hardness and wear resistance, as discussed vation ability in LPBF 316L austenitic stainless steel
previously, AM austenitic stainless steel is expected compared to its conventionally processed counter-
to exhibit an enhanced erosion-corrosion resistance part. This is in good agreement with other studies
compared to its conventional counterpart. However, [62, 66, 67]. The mechanism behind this behaviour is
72 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

still unclear; however, the presence of internal this phenomenon is still not clear in the literature and
porosities and the inhomogeneous microstructure of needs to be clarified in future work.
AM steel are supposed to be the major factors. In this
regard, a recent study by Kong et al. [68] shows a Challenges
similar repassivation potential for LPBF 316L auste-
nitic stainless steel to its conventional counterpart by Despite the above-mentioned promising properties
eliminating the porosity content (\ 0.03 vol%). offered by AM, there are still many important chal-
Intergranular corrosion (IGC) of stainless steel is a lenges inherent to AM of austenitic stainless steels
localised form of corrosion that proceeds along the that hinder their widespread industrial application.
grain boundaries and usually happens during expo- The most important challenges that AM currently
sure to high temperatures (between 500 and 800 C) encounters in austenitic stainless steels manufactur-
or welding [69, 70]. Formation of secondary precipi- ing will be reviewed in the following. They include
tates like Cr-rich carbides, r and v phases along the residual stresses, anisotropy, formation of pores and
grain boundaries leaves the adjacent areas more post-processing via heat treatments.
susceptible to corrosion during subsequent exposure The sharp thermal gradients associated with AM
to corrosive environments. IGC of AM stainless steel generate large residual stresses that cause part dis-
is still under dispute. Some studies report an accel- tortion [75, 76]. This will subsequently affect
erated interfacial corrosion in LPBF 316L [71, 72] mechanical properties, decrease the stress corrosion
while some others show an opposite behaviour [36]. cracking resistance [77–79] or even deteriorate final
The enhanced IGC resistance of the LPBF 316L aus- geometry [80] of the parts. Preheating the build
tenitic stainless steel (Fig. 4c–g) is attributed to the substrate or feedstock material is the most common
presence of a large volume of low angle grain way to decrease temperature gradients and, thus,
boundaries and twin boundaries [36], which are reduce residual stresses [81]. Controlling the scan-
believed to be not susceptible to IGC. The existing ning strategy is another approach to reduce residual
disagreement in the IGC behaviour of AM stainless stresses [82–84]. Other than these ‘in situ’ methods
steels could be related to the sensitisation conditions for controlling residual stresses, heat treatment post-
(heat treatment temperature, cooling conditions) processing has also been reported to be beneficial in
and/or IGC test method. terms of releasing residual stresses [85].
It has been shown that LPBF 316L austenitic Anisotropy in AM is a critical issue and can be
stainless steel has a superior hydrogen damage categorised into two types: first, anisotropy that
resistance compared to its conventional counterpart arises from building a part in different directions and
[73], indicating that LPBF 316L austenitic stainless second, anisotropy that arises from property mea-
steel could be an option for using in hydrogen fuel surements along different axes. It has been well
cells. This behaviour is mainly attributed to the lower understood that the building direction (the acute
degree of austenite to martensite transformation and, angle between the long axis of the fabricating part
thus, lower volume fraction of martensite in LPBF and the horizontal plane) can cause anisotropy in the
316L austenitic stainless steel upon exposure to 4 h microstructure and mechanical properties of AM
hydrogen charging, as the martensite phase has a austenitic stainless steel parts [86–88]. The columnar
poorer corrosion resistance than austenite in these grain structure and strong crystallographic texture
steels. A similar conclusion has been made by Baek along the building direction have been known as
et al. [74] who report a higher resistance to hydrogen major contributing factors to anisotropy in the
embrittlement under high-pressure H atmosphere for mechanical properties of AM austenitic stainless steel
AM 304L austenitic stainless steel compared to its parts [89]. For instance, it has been shown that the
conventional counterpart, which is mainly discussed UTS in horizontally built specimens (loading direc-
based on the stability of the austenite phase that does tion parallel to the layers in the microstructure) is
not transform to martensite phase under load stress. almost 20% higher compared to that of the vertically
These results indicate an ability of the AM austenitic built specimens [88]. This behaviour is related to the
stainless steel to resist again phase transformation preferential formation of defects between the suc-
during H charging; however, the mechanism behind cessive layers during AM fabrication, which there-
after results in a decreased strength when the loading
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 73

direction is perpendicular to the layers. Anisotropy As an example, in terms of corrosion properties,

has not been reported as a critical issue in corrosion solution annealing heat treatment at a temperature
properties of AM austenitic stainless steel as long as range between 1010 and 1120 C has generally been
high-density specimens are produced. The focus in used for conventional austenitic stainless steel to
the literature is on the response of the different planes increase corrosion resistance through dissolving car-
(i.e. transverse and building planes) against various bides into the solid solution of the c matrix [100, 101].
kinds of corrosion, and most of the studies report A summary of dependence of pitting potential for
similar corrosion characteristics in terms of pitting LPBF 316L austenitic stainless steel on the post-pro-
[27, 67, 90] and intergranular [36] corrosion resis- cessing heat treatment is presented in Table 1. This
tances at all planes. It has also been shown that the table summarises a wide range of post-processing
building direction does not have a significant influ- heat treatments (temperature, holding time and
ence on the tribological performance of the LPBF cooling conditions) used in the literature. In most of
316L austenitic stainless steel under dry sliding wear cases, heat treatment above 1000 C leads to a
test [91]. decrease in the pitting corrosion resistance, suggest-
Different types of pores have been reported in AM ing that the commonly used solution annealing heat
austenitic stainless steels [41, 67–73]. LOF pores are treatment for conventional austenitic stainless steels
shown to be more detrimental to wear properties may not be applicable for AM 316L austenitic stain-
[66, 92, 93], fatigue resistance [94, 95] and corrosion less steel.
resistance [96–98] than spherical gas pores, since they It has been shown that heat treatments at temper-
act as the crack initiation site during tensile testing atures above 1000 C drastically decrease the pitting
and pit formation site upon immersion in a corrosive corrosion resistance [64, 68, 102], indicating that such
environment. Examples of pit development at the heat treatments are not practical for AM austenitic
sites of LOF pores in AM austenitic stainless steels stainless steel in applications where high resistance to
when subjected to corrosive environments are pre- pitting corrosion is required. There is still no agree-
sented in Fig. 5, indicated by potentiodynamic ment on the mechanism behind the drastic decline in
polarisation tests and three-dimensional computed pitting corrosion resistance after subjecting to tem-
tomography analysis. They show that the pitting peratures above 1000 C, although some authors
corrosion resistance will decrease in the presence of believe that formation of detrimental MnS inclusions
LOF pores because of their susceptibility to act as the is responsible for this phenomenon [64] while others
pit formation sites. Spherical gas pores have also been propose that release of compressive residual stresses
classified as open and covered pores based on their leads to such behaviour [102]. Apparently, a heat
geometry at the top external surface. Open spherical treatment at high temperatures leads to the par-
gas pores are found to be less susceptible to stable pit tial/complete transformation of some existing inclu-
formation compared to the semi-covered ones, which sions to inclusions with different chemical
is attributed to the differences in the ions diffusion compositions, and even the formation of some new
rates upon exposure to corrosive environments [99]. inclusions that were not present in the as-built con-
Interaction between the heat source and feedstock dition [48, 64]. The mechanism behind the inclusion
material during AM leads to a large number of rapid transformation under such high-temperature heat
heating and cooling cycles, which might result in a treatments remains unclear.
microstructure far from the equilibrium conditions.
In this regard, post-processing treatments including
stress relief heat treatment and hot isostatic pressing Maraging and precipitate hardening
(HIP) have been commonly used to eliminate these stainless steels
issues. Current standards for the heat treatment of
austenitic stainless steels have all been developed for Introduction
the cast and wrought materials and not optimised for
AM parts. Examining the effect of such heat treat- A number of steels have been developed which can
ments on the properties of the AM parts and opti- undergo age hardening through the precipitation of
mising heat treatment routes for AM products is phases other than carbides. Two such classes of alloys
therefore essential. that have been extensively analysed for their
74 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

(a) (b) Entry External

Point Surface
s E1
E
2

(c) E Before (d) After

1 E (e) Before (f)
E2
After
1 E2
E
E1 1

41

Hatch Plane Build Direction

Figure 5 The role of LOF pores in pitting corrosion of AM only entry point E1 can be seen from this perspective. c Shows two
austenitic stainless steels. a Potentiodynamic polarisation curves major LOF structures in off-white and cyan. d Shows that after
obtained using a micro-electrochemical cell in 0.6 M NaCl corrosion these structures are connected via the LOF pores
solution for LPBF 304L stainless steels, showing that the testing indicating propagation of corrosion within the structure. e,
areas containing LOF pores have lower pitting corrosion resistance f Shows the LOF structure within the powder bed plane before
than the areas with no pores. b–f Three-dimensional computed and after corrosion, respectively. The spacing between two linear
tomography imaging of an LPBF 316L austenitic stainless steel features is around 40 lm which is slightly larger than the powder
specimen before and after one-week immersion into 6 wt% ferric bed thickness of 30 lm. Entry points E1 and E2 are also shown.
chloride solution, indicating the development of corrosion within a f After corrosion, all these independent features have the same
LOF pore. b General overview of the target LOF pore. The colour indicating that they are joined. The white ellipse indicates
external surface is indicated by the dashed white line. The entry where the corrosion has propagated from the off-white LOF
points into the LOF structure are also indicated by the labels E1 structure to the cyan LOF structure. a is adapted from Ref. [97]
and E2. c, d LOF pore before and after corrosion, respectively; and b–f from Ref. [96], with permission.

suitability for production through AM are precipita- have a low C content, in order to suppress carbide
tion hardening (PH) stainless steels and maraging precipitation [7], which is particularly detrimental to
(i.e. martensitic and aging) steels. Although PH corrosion resistance in stainless steels [105]. Marten-
stainless steels may also have matrix phases that are sitic PH stainless steels have moderate Ni content
austenitic or semi-austenitic [105], the only PH (4–11 wt%) [105] whilst maraging steels have higher
stainless steels discussed in this section are classified Ni content (17–25 wt%) [7]. After quenching from the
as martensitic, as these are the most widely resear- austenite phase field, the room temperature
ched in the field of AM. Both alloy classes exhibit microstructure of these alloys is mainly martensitic
similar precipitate strengthening behaviour. They but may contain some retained austenite depending
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 75

Table 1 Influence of post-processing heat treatment on the pitting corrosion resistance of LPBF 316L austenitic stainless steel

Material Temperature Holding time Cooling Pitting potential Testing solution Refs.
(C) (min) condition (V)

LPBF 316L 400 240 – 0.83 ± 0.05 0.58% w/V NaCl [102]
650 120 0.9 ± 0.15
1100 5 0.67 ± 0.1
As-built – – 0.85 ± 0.01
316L
LPBF 316L 1200 120 Water 0.9 0.04 M H3BO3 and 0.04 M [68]
As-built – – – 0.9 Na2B4O7
10H2O
316L
LPBF 316L 950 240 Furnace 0.794 ± 0.010 3.5 wt% NaCl [103]
1100 60 0.337 ± 0.004
As-built – – – 0.122 ± 0.002
316L
LPBF 316L 1100 5 – 0.56 ± 0.07 0.6 M NaCl [65]
As-built – – 0.74 ± 0.02
316L
LPBF 316L 1050 30 Water 0.70 ± 0.05 3.5 wt% NaCl [104]
1050 240 0.61 ± 0.02
1050 120 0.60 ± 0.02
1200 30 0.40 ± 0.00
1200 240 0.30 ± 0.02
1200 120 0.30 ± 0.05
As-built – – – 0.98 ± 0.1
316L
LPBF 316L 900 15 Water 0.70 ± 0.12 0.6 M NaCl [64]
900 60 0.65 ± 0.1
1000 15 0.65 ± 0.1
1000 60 0.75 ± 0.1
1100 15 0.45 ± 0.12
1100 60 0.45 ± 0.0.07
1200 15 0.45 ± 0.1
1200 60 0.35 ± 0.13
As-built – – – 0.72 ± 0.1
316L

on the composition of the steel in question and the corrosion resistance. In conventional processing, after
temperature to which it is quenched [7]. The high being cast, 17-4 PH parts are subjected to a solution
strength of these precipitation hardening steel classes annealing heat treatment. This is typically at 1040 C
has led to their use as tools. Furthermore, the high for 1 h, although longer solution annealing times are
strength-to-weight ratio and decent toughness of required for thicker samples [108]. After solution
maraging steels are particularly desirable for appli- annealing and quenching to room temperature, the
cations in the aerospace (from landing gear compo- martensitic microstructure is supersaturated in Cu.
nents to aircraft fittings), automotive and defence From this condition, referred to as condition A, the
[106, 107]. part undergoes a thermal aging treatment to induce
The most commonly used PH stainless steel in AM precipitation of Cu-rich precipitates on the nanoscale.
research so far has been 17–4 PH stainless steel due to The most commonly applied aging treatment to 17–4
its good printability and diverse range of applica- PH is at 482 C for 1 h, as this has been shown to
tions, owing to its combination of high strength and generate the highest strength in such parts [108]. This
76 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

is referred to as the H900 condition. In this condition, Mechanical properties

the UTS of parts is typically around 1380 MPa [109].
15–5 PH stainless steel is a similar alloy to 17–4 PH. For simplicity, the American Society for Metals
Although much less commonly used, this alloy has (ASM) standard wrought tensile properties for the
also been assessed for applicability for AM in a alloys discussed in this section are presented in
number of studies. Whilst it is still a martensitic Table 2 for comparison to the properties exhibited by
precipitate hardening stainless steel, changes to the AM produced parts of these steels.
alloy composition allow it to have a greater wrought
toughness than 17–4 PH due to the diminished levels 15–5 PH stainless steel
of d-ferrite within the microstructure [110]. The
kinetics of Cu precipitation are very similar to 17–4 AM is able to generate improvements upon the
PH, resulting in both alloys reaching peak age hard- mechanical properties of conventionally processed
ening after the H900 heat treatment [111]. 15–5 PH stainless steel. Comparing LPBF and con-
A maraging steel that has been widely discussed ventionally manufactured 15–5 PH, distinct differ-
for its applicability for AM is the 18Ni 300 maraging ences of the martensitic microstructure are observed,
steel. After quenching from the austenite phase field with the AM material showing shorter and narrower
to form a martensitic microstructure, aging at tem- martensitic laths [121]. AM material has been shown
peratures between 400 and 500 C causes the pre- to have * 34% greater UTS of 830 MPa at 593 C but
cipitation of Ni3(Ti, Mo) and then Fe7Mo6 phases over 50% lower ductility, at 9% elongation to failure,
[112–114]. After aging at 482 C for 6 h, the UTS of than the wrought material [121, 122]. In another
18Ni 300 maraging steel parts can exceed 2200 MPa study on 15-5 PH samples produced by LPBF after an
[115]. This high strength has allowed this alloy to be age hardening heat treatment, it has been shown that,
used in a range of military and aerospace compared to the ASM wrought properties of 15–5 PH
applications. (listed in Table 2), horizontally built samples show
Another important precipitate hardening stainless a * 10% increase in YS with vertically built samples
steel, identified in recent research for its applicability showing a * 6% decrease in YS. Regardless of build
to additive manufacturing, is CX stainless steel. This orientation, the UTS increases by a similar margin
material was recently developed and commercially compared to wrought values (* 11% for horizontal
produced as a powder by EOS GmbH [116]. CX builds, * 12% for vertical builds). These samples
stainless steel parts produced using LPBF can exhibit have been shown to fail predominantly by cleavage
superior toughness to LPBF 17–4 PH and 316L steels fracture [122, 123]. The fracture toughness from a
in the as-built condition, perhaps paving the way for Charpy impact test for LPBF 15-5 PH stainless steel
the replacement of these steels with CX in certain has been measured to be 10.85 ± 1.20 J/cm2, well
applications [117]. Thermal aging treatments per- within the standards for wrought samples
formed at 530 C for 3 h result in the formation of (9.4–18.6 J/cm2) [123, 121]. It has also been found that
rod-/needle-shaped NiAl-based nanoprecipitates the microhardness of LPBF 15–5 PH stainless steel is
within the martensitic matrix both with and without greater than that of the wrought material, with the
a preceding solutionising heat treatment [118, 119]. hardness in transverse direction of the AM samples
With these heat treatments, LPBF-produced CX being 500 HV 0.5 [121]. This is 56% greater than the
stainless steel can be fabricated with UTS of up to wrought material.
1601 MPa [118]. Due to the relative lack of literature Cyclic loading is inherent in many desired appli-
discussing it, CX steel will not be discussed further in cations for PH stainless steels. Therefore, a compo-
the following section. nent’s fatigue performance is one of the most
This section will summarise the literature assessing important concerns in the AM of these steels. Fatigue
the influence of the production of PH stainless steels tests have shown 15–5 PH samples fabricated by
and maraging steels by AM on their properties. Most LPBF to have a 20% reduced fatigue endurance limit
of this literature has focused on 17–4 PH for PH as compared to wrought samples [122, 124]. This is
stainless steels and 18Ni 300 for maraging steels. attributed to the poor surface finish resultant from
the LPBF process [125]. Significant improvement in
fatigue life can be achieved by surface machining of
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 77

Table 2 Standard tensile properties (YS, UTS and elongation to failure) for the steels discussed in this section when manufactured by
conventional methods as stated in the ASM handbook

Alloy YS/MPa UTS/MPa Elongation to failure Source

17–4 PH (H900) minimum properties 1170 1310 10 [120]

17–4 PH (H900) 1055 1380 15 [108]
15–5 PH (H900) 1170 1310 6–10 [120]
18Ni 300 (solution annealed) 760–895 1000–1170 6–15 [108]
18Ni 300 (peak age-hardened) 2000 2050 7 [108]

the AM samples to remove surface defects [125, 126], treatments and compares the results to data for
but not to the point of improving upon wrought wrought samples in condition A (YS = 824 MPa,
properties. This supports the observation that surface UTS = 1121 MPa, Elongation to failure = 10%). An
defects are the most detrimental to the fatigue per- alternative post-build solution annealing treatment
formance of AM 15–5 PH stainless steel [110]. How- developed by these researchers results in a YS [ 90%
ever, an optimisation of process parameters of wrought samples. For comparison, the AM sam-
combined with surface machining has produced 15–5 ples in the as-built and condition A states show YS
PH samples with fatigue performances well compa- of * 55% that of wrought samples. Samples treated
rable to those of wrought components [110]. with this new processing route also show a greater
The high-temperature creep performance of addi- UTS and a diminished ductility as compared to
tively manufactured PH stainless steels has not been wrought samples. The general effect of post-build
extensively studied. An improvement in creep life heat treatments on the microstructure is illustrated in
of * 17% in LPBF 15–5 PH samples compared to Fig. 7, showing several different morphologies
wrought samples at 530 C has been shown [121]. obtained in 17–4 PH stainless steel. The melt pool
The reason for this difference is not yet fully boundaries and cellular solidification structure are
understood. clearly visible in the as-built microstructure (Fig. 7a),
but after homogenising and solution annealing (i.e.
17–4 PH stainless steel being treated to condition A), this solidification
structure is removed. The resultant microstructure
A reduced ductility as compared to wrought parts is (Fig. 7b) is comparable to the wrought microstructure
an issue for AM 17–4 PH stainless steel. In both (Fig. 7c). Other studies have also shown these distinct
condition A and the H900 condition, the strength of microstructural changes in AM 17–4 with heat treat-
AM produced 17–4 PH samples has been found to be ment [137, 138], with these changes generating
superior to conventionally produced samples but the increases in strength for AM 17–4 parts [127, 139].
elongation to failure is inferior [127]. This result The characteristics of the powder feedstock used to
persists in both low strain rate (quasi-static) and high produce additively manufactured parts also have an
strain rate (dynamic) tensile testing, which can be impact on the mechanical performance [140]. It has
seen in the strain curves in Fig. 6 [127]. Many studies been found that by changing the 17–4 PH powder
into AM 17–4 PH stainless steel parts have also and/or adjusting the laser energy density, tensile
shown increased strength [128–132] and reduced properties comparable to or greater than wrought
ductility [129, 130, 133–135] as compared to wrought samples can be produced [140]. Pasebani et al. [131]
parts. Increased strength is cited to be due to the show a significant effect of producing 17–4 PH parts
refined microstructure of AM parts [127] and reduced by LPBF from gas-atomised or water-atomised pow-
ductility is generally attributed to porosity resultant der to conventional part production and different
from the AM process [129, 136]. post-production heat treatments on the mechanical
A study by Lass et al. [134] analyses the tensile properties. Using a suitable energy density during
properties of a number of LPBF-fabricated 17–4 PH part production, LPBF parts produced from the gas-
samples with differing post-processing heat atomised powders, solution annealed at 1051 C for
78 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

Figure 6 Stress vs strain curves for LPBF (with loading direction stainless steel. a Low strain rate, quasi-static tensile test results.
parallel to the X–Y plane, normal to the building direction), shown b High strain rate dynamic tensile test results. Adapted from Ref.
in black, and conventionally produced, shown in red, 17–4 PH [127] with permission.

Figure 7 Optical micrographs of 17-4 PH stainless steel taken parallel to the building direction and the rolling direction for
microstructures. (a) As-built by LPBF. (b) After a post-build the LPBF and wrought samples, respectively. Adapted from Ref.
homogenisation treatment. (c) Wrought. These micrographs were [141] with permission.

45 min and aged at 482 C for 1 h, show the greatest structure. The properties of the parts produced from
strength; comparable YS (consistently within 5%) and water atomised powder, although still inferior
superior UTS (up to 4.4%) than the ASM reported (* 15% reduced YS and * 4% reduced UTS) are
data for wrought samples (from [120] in Table 2). comparable to the wrought properties. This is sig-
Solution annealing at 1315 C for 1 h before aging nificant due to the relatively low cost of production of
results in significantly improved YS and UTS for water atomised powder compared to gas atomised
parts produced from water atomised powder. This is powder [131].
attributed to refinement in the martensitic lath
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 79

The presence of austenite within the microstructure LPBF produced samples in this comparison are able
has been observed to greatly affect the mechanical to produce YS or UTS comparable to those of the
properties of 17–4 PH due to the transformation of wrought samples in the H900 condition. The varia-
austenite to martensite during mechanical testing tion in mechanical properties is attributed to the fact
[142–144]. AM samples of 17–4 PH with a greater that LPBF samples show a greater level of retained
austenite content exhibit greater ductility and austenite as well as porosity within the microstruc-
capacities for work hardening in the same way as ture [136]. It is important to note that the presence of
TRIP-assisted steels [139, 145]. 17–4 PH parts with the austenite in precipitate hardening steels affects their
greatest levels of austenite in the microstructure are hardenability as solute atoms may be more soluble in
generally in the AM or directly aged (i.e. aged with- austenite than in either ferrite or martensite, which
out a solution annealing treatment after fabrication) inhibits their ability to form precipitates upon aging
conditions [127, 143]. The results of Lebrun et al. [142] [142]. Absence of precipitation in austenitic regions of
show that such samples give comparable ductility to the microstructure has been observed both in 17–4
wrought standards [108]. For instance, the as-built PH [142] and 18Ni 300 maraging steels [147]. Atom
specimen in this study has a 36% volume fraction of probe analysis of 18Ni 300 maraging steel given in
retained austenite and a 16.2% elongation to failure, Fig. 9 shows this effect. Figure 9a, b shows marten-
the expected ASM wrought elongation to failure sitic areas of microstructures, each after some form of
being 15% (Table 2). Austenite retention during LPBF thermal aging. Intermetallic precipitates form as
in 17-4 PH has also shown increased ductility in shown by the enclosed iso-concentration surfaces.
compression as well as tension [146]. Figure 8a shows Contrastingly, the atom probe dataset shown in
the AM microstructure of LPBF produced 17–4 PH, Fig. 9c exhibits an interface between an austenitic
whilst Fig. 8b shows the distribution of phases within and a martensitic area of the microstructure in an AM
microstructure, showing an increased presence of produced sample. The total absence of precipitation
austenite along melt pool boundaries. in the austenite as compared to the martensite is
A comparison of the microstructure and mechani- apparent.
cal properties of 17–4 PH when produced by LPBF as The atmosphere in which AM is carried out has
well as by conventional methods shows significant also been shown to affect the properties of AM 17–4
variation between the tensile properties achieved in PH stainless steel. A study into the effect of building
all cases [136]. However, none of the results from atmosphere on mechanical properties of 17–4 PH
stainless steel when produced by directed energy
deposition (DED), an AM technique where the metal
powder is fed directly into the melt pool without the
need to form a powder bed, has been conducted by
Wang et al. [148]. Two chamber atmospheres have
been considered in this study, Ar and air. Whilst the
UTS of all the samples produced by AM are lower
than that of conventionally produced samples [108],
an increase in strength is noted for the samples pro-
cessed in air, namely the UTS of air processed sam-
ples after heat treatment reaches 1145 MPa. This
represents a 7% increase in the Ar processed sample
in the same condition. Further analysis of the
microstructure led the authors to conclude that this is
due to dispersion strengthening effect of amorphous
oxides and solution strengthening of N resultant
Figure 8 EBSD maps for 17–4 PH stainless steel manufactured
by LPBF. a Image quality map and b Phase Map. Approximate
from processing in air. Furthermore, it has been
locations of melt pool boundaries are shown by dashed black shown that [149] printing in an N2 atmosphere, pro-
lines. The apparent difference in melt pool shape between layers is ducing an austenitic microstructure, leads to 17–4 PH
due to a 90 rotation in the scanning strategy. Image courtesy of parts with comparable UTS and ductility to wrought
Maxwell Moyle and Sophie Primig (UNSW Sydney).
80 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

Figure 9 Atom probe tomography conducted on 18Ni 300 DED-produced material showing the difference in precipitation
maraging steel. a DED (= LMD) produced material versus behaviour between austenite and martensite. Adapted from Ref.
b conventionally produced material. (c) Another data set from [147] with permission.

parts due to significant strain hardening during Figures 11 and 12 show scatter plots composed of
plastic deformation in tensile testing [149]. data from literature showing the UTS and elongation
The scatter graph in Fig. 10 shows a number of until failure, respectively, against the measured
different combinations of UTS and ductility for austenite volume fraction of additively manufactured
additively manufactured 17–4 PH stainless steel 17–4 PH stainless steel. Figure 11 shows no strong
reported. This figure also shows the properties for dependence of UTS on the austenite volume fraction,
conventionally manufactured 17–4 PH samples to with a UTS range of around 700 MPa displayed
which the AM properties are compared in the liter- across the austenite content range. Considering the
ature. It should be noted when viewing this fig- datapoints taken from individual sources, both pos-
ure that the parameters of the AM process, surface itive (Hsu, 2019 [143]) and negative (Lass, 2019 [134])
treatments and post-build aging treatments vary correlations between UTS and austenite volume
between each study and between samples in the fraction can be seen. This demonstrates that the UTS
same study. From this figure, it can be seen that there is dependent on factors other than the austenite
is both a wide range of properties that have been content. The large variation in UTS is caused, in part,
achieved in the AM of this alloy and a wide range of by the difference in printing parameters as well as the
reported wrought properties. It can also be seen that differing post-build thermal treatments. This results
without optimisation of the AM process as well as in differing levels of Cu precipitation within the
post-build treatments, the resulting material can have microstructure. Examining individual datasets in
very poor strength and/or ductility. However, this Fig. 12, it can be seen that many show clear correla-
plot does highlight that with the optimisation, com- tions between elongation to failure and austenite
parable or even enhanced properties compared to volume fraction, which is in agreement with obser-
wrought values are possible. The combination of vations of the presence of austenite increasing the
excellent UTS and ductility achieved by Facchini ductility due to the TRIP effect [139, 145].
et al. [145] is partly due to the high levels of austenite Comparable microhardness to wrought samples
within the microstructure of the material produced, (* 450 HV 0.5) can be achieved during the LPBF of
which undergoes a strain induced transformation to 17–4 PH with appropriate process parameters opti-
martensite during tensile testing. Rafi et al. [139] also misation and heat treatment [129] as well as chamber
attribute the large ductility of their as-built sample to gas [150]. 17–4 PH samples produced by atomic dif-
this effect. It is to be noted that the results by Dobson fusion AM have also been investigated [151]. In the
et al. [149] are presented in engineering stress. as-printed state and following any heat treatment
investigated, atomic diffusion additively
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 81

Figure 10 Scatter plot showing ranges of ultimate tensile stress and elongation to failure reported in literature for 17–4 PH stainless steel
samples made by additive manufacturing, along with the properties of wrought samples to which they were compared
[108, 109, 129–131, 134–136, 139, 142, 143, 145, 148, 149, 152–157].

manufactured samples have shown inferior hardness AM samples only show fatigue limits of 300 MPa.
to cast samples. This reduction in fatigue strength is attributed to
The wear performance of LPBF 17–4 PH stainless defects and poor surface finish [109, 158]. LPBF 17–4
steel parts relative to wrought parts has been shown PH samples exhibit a lower fatigue strength than
to be dependent on the dominant wear mechanism. wrought samples even after solution quenching as
When tested dry, conventionally manufactured AM samples have a lower resistance to crack initia-
specimens show a greater wear rate than LPBF pro- tion due to the presence of defects [158]. However,
duced samples. This is a result of the finer LPBF samples interestingly show a lower rate of
microstructure and greater hardness of LPBF sam- crack growth than conventionally produced samples.
ples. However, in the lubricated condition, LPBF This is attributed to the effect of crack deflection and
samples show a higher wear rate. This has been crack branching observed in AM and not wrought
attributed to the fact that lubrication changes the samples [158].
dominant wear mechanisms from adhesion to surface Some studies into the fatigue behaviour of AM
fatigue and abrasion [144, 154]. 17–4 PH stainless steel have analysed the effect of
As is also the case for monotonic mechanical subsequent heat treatments on the fatigue perfor-
properties, the most widely investigated precipitation mances of these samples [132]. It has been deter-
hardening steel for its resistance for failure under mined that after solution annealing and aging, 17–4
cyclic loading after production by AM has been 17–4 LPBF parts still show lower fatigue strengths than
PH. A study by Carneiro et al. [135] compares the wrought samples following the same thermal treat-
fatigue behaviour of LPBF 17–4 PH to conventionally ment [132]. Yadollahi et al. [87] also report that the
manufactured samples. The conventionally manu- fatigue strength of their LPBF 17–4 PH samples is far
factured samples have a fatigue endurance limit lower than wrought material which is attributed to
(greatest stress amplitude of cyclic loading at which the defects resultant from the LPBF process. The
the sample will never fail) of 640 MPa whilst for the authors report that solution heat treating and aging
82 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

Figure 11 Scatter plot showing ranges of ultimate tensile stress against volume fractions of austenite reported in literature for 17–4 PH
stainless steel samples made by additive manufacturing [129, 132, 134, 142, 143, 145, 152, 153].

Figure 12 Scatter plot showing ranges of elongation to failure against volume fraction of austenite reported in literature for 17–4 PH
stainless steel samples made by additive manufacturing [129, 132, 134, 142, 145, 152, 153].

the samples to the H900 condition results in to be due to the hardening caused by the heat treat-
improved fatigue resistance in ‘low-cycle’ fatigue but ment resulting in an increased sensitivity to impuri-
worsens the ‘high cycle’ fatigue lives. This is thought ties. This sensitivity is less pronounced in the low-
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 83

cycle regime. This effect is not seen in wrought Figure 13 is a scatter plot showing the combina-
samples [87, 159]. A similar effect is also observed in tions of UTS and ductility for additively manufac-
the analysis of the LPBF 15–5 PH alloy [126]. tured 18Ni 300 maraging steel samples from
literature. As is the case with Fig. 10, it is important
18Ni 300 maraging steel to consider that different process parameters and
treatments have been used to produce each data
Changing the processing parameters towards point. It is particularly apparent from this figure, the
achieving highest density has been an important difference in strength between samples that did or
means to achieve optimum properties in this grade of did not undergo an aging heat treatment, with those
steel. A study by Casalino et al. [160] shows that that did being grouped together on the scatter plot at
optimisation of the density of the resultant parts from a much higher UTS. This plot also shows the scale of
the LPBF processing of 18Ni 300 maraging steel can improvement in mechanical properties that can be
result in advanced strength. The parts which have the achieved by optimising the AM part production
maximum density (q = 99.7%) show a UTS of process.
1192 MPa and an elongation to failure of 8%, an In a study on the production of 18Ni 300 maraging
improvement upon the typical solution annealed UTS steel by LPBF and DED, Jägle et al. [147] compare the
of 18Ni 300 maraging steel in the solution annealed build hardness values as a function of build height to
condition and within the range of ductility (Table 2). conventionally processed material in the solution
As with the 17–4 PH alloy system, post-build heat annealed and quenched conditions (i.e. with little to
treatments have been shown to increase the no precipitation). The LPBF and conventionally pro-
mechanical properties of 18Ni 300 maraging steel. duced material give similar hardness values, around
Kempen et al. [161] have produced 18Ni 300 marag- 310 HV 10. In the DED-produced material, however,
ing steel by LPBF with a UTS of 2217 MPa following the hardness is distinctly greater, around 360–420 HV
solution and aging heat treatments. This is even 10, except for the topmost layers. Atom probe anal-
superior to the ATI datasheet reported values for the ysis reveals that this is because early stages of pre-
standard wrought UTS of this alloy in the same cipitation already occur in the as-built DED sample.
condition of * 2210 MPa [162]. It has been also This is resultant from the cyclic reheating of already
found that the best tribological performance and UTS solidified layers of material as new layers are
for LPBF 18Ni 300 maraging steel both occur after the deposited during the DED process, which explains
same thermal treatment [163]. With the appropriate why the hardening effect is not observed in the top-
selection of process parameters and building strategy most layers of the builds. This effect must also take
[164, 165], it is feasible to produce 18Ni 300 maraging place in LPBF, though it is clearly not as significant.
steel samples with YS and UTS comparable and even This is likely due to the fact that the melt pool is
superior to those of the ASM standard wrought smaller and the scan speed is higher in LPBF than in
properties (shown in Table 2) in both the solution DED which led to a reduced thermal amplitude of
treated and aged conditions [108, 164, 165]. It is cyclic reheating [147].
generally the case that the ductility of LPBF samples All materials tested by Jägle et al. [147] have been
is inferior to those exhibited by wrought samples, but then aged to induce precipitate hardening. At the
in some cases they can be comparable. As is also the peak aged state, the conventionally produced mate-
case for the 17–4 PH alloy system, many studies into rial is the hardest due to the greater presence of
the AM of 18Ni 300 maraging steel have also shown retained austenite in the AM produced samples,
comparable or increased strength but reduced duc- which is cited to be due to chemical inhomogeneity
tility in comparison to wrought data from literature from the AM processes [147]. Other studies which
[106, 112, 161, 166–168]. The increase in strength is have observed large levels of retained austenite in
attributed to aging during the LPBF process due to AM produced steel attribute this to the large solidi-
cyclic reheating of the metal as well as the fine fication undercooling [145] and microstructural
resultant solidification structure [106, 161]. The refinement stabilising austenite [139] during the AM
decrease in ductility is attributed to the presence of process.
defects in AM parts [167]. AM produced 18Ni 300 maraging steel has also
been analysed for its fatigue properties [171]. LPBF
84 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

Figure 13 Scatter plot

showing ranges of ultimate
tensile stress and elongation to
failure reported in literature for
18Ni 300 maraging steel
samples made by additive
manufacturing, along with the
properties of wrought samples
to which they were compared
[108, 112, 161, 166–170].

samples show lower fatigue lives than wrought ones melt pool boundaries. Samples that undergo a solu-
[167] with fatigue cracks in these specimens initiating tion heat treatment before aging exhibit fully
at subsurface lack-of-fusion defects or cluster defects martensitic microstructures, comparable to those of
[167, 171, 172]. It has also been found that the number traditionally manufactured 15–5 PH parts. The large
of mechanical cycles until the elastic and plastic austenite content in non-solution-treated samples
strains become equal, known as the transition life, of leads to greater corrosion resistance than solution-
AM 18Ni 300 maraging steel samples is extremely treated samples due to the greater surface potential of
low as compared to wrought samples [172]. In sum- austenite than martensite.
mary, the main factor limiting the adoption of addi-
tively manufactured PH steels in applications which 17–4 PH stainless steel
require high levels of fatigue performances is the
presence of defects resultant from the AM process As a stainless steel, corrosion resistance is an
which act as favourable sites for crack initiation important property in 17–4 PH stainless steel. A
under cyclic loading, which have been widely study by Schaller et al. [174] shows that the LPBF
observed in the published literature 17–4 PH steel exhibits a reduced corrosion resistance
[95, 124, 135, 158, 167, 171]. compared to conventionally produced material. This
is attributed to the greater level of porosity in the
Corrosion resistance LPBF samples. In particular, the presence of
pores [50 lm in diameter gives rise to active corro-
15–5 PH stainless steel sion whilst passive behaviour persists around regions
of pores \10 lm [174]. Contrastingly, the study by
Due to its high Cr content, 15–5 PH is expected to Stoudt et al. [141] notes that 17–4 PH samples pro-
have high levels of corrosion resistance. In corrosive duced by LPBF exhibit on average less negative pit-
environments, a passive oxide layer (Cr2O3) forms on ting potentials than wrought samples which shows a
the surface of the steel, protecting the bulk from greater level of corrosion resistance. This is attributed
further corrosion. It is, therefore, important to deter- to two main factors. The first is that the AM process
mine the effect of AM on the corrosion resistance of produces a more homogeneous distribution of ele-
parts made of this alloy. A study by Li et al. [173] ments within the microstructure, making the com-
report a high volume fraction of austenite in the LPBF ponents more resistant to localised attack in corrosive
samples, especially after aging without a prior solu- environments. The second is that during the AM
tion heat treatment, distributed strongly around the
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 85

process (and subsequent heat treatments if applica- size/grain boundary area. All of these parameters are
ble) N is absorbed which results in a more highly dependent on the AM processing parameters
stable passive film. as well as powder feedstock conditions (argon or
The laser power during production as well as dif- nitrogen atomised), which make it difficult to reach a
ferent 17–4 PH feedstock powders can also influence conclusion on what parameter is more important in
the corrosion resistance of the resulting parts. For evaluating the corrosion resistance.
instance, LPBF parts can have a lower corrosion
current in NaCl (meaning a greater corrosion resis-
tance) than wrought samples (0.9 ± 0.1 lA), with the Other steels
lowest corrosion current exhibited by an LPBF part
being * 0.1 lA [175]. However, parts that, as a result Duplex stainless steels
of their fabrication route, have lower than * 97%
density show significantly lower corrosion resis- Duplex stainless steels (DSSs) have microstructures
tances than wrought parts, with further reductions in of essentially equal fractions of d-ferrite and austen-
density leading to even more diminished corrosion ite. This unlocks a wide range of attractive properties
resistances [175]. This is cited to be due to the stag- such as high strength, good ductility and excellent
nation of the NaCl within surface pores, leading to a corrosion resistance for applications in oil & gas,
breakdown of the passive Cr2O3 layer. petrochemical, construction, marine, and desalina-
The effect of post-build thermal processing also tion [177]. The current challenge with DSSs is their
affects the corrosion behaviour of LPBF 17–4 PH complex microstructural evolution where various
stainless steel [176]. Solution heat treatment has little further deleterious phases may be precipitated dur-
effect on the general corrosion properties. Pitting ing multistep conventional processing, impacting the
potential is found to be higher in the as-built condi- properties of these steels. AM can overcome the
tion, which is attributed to the increased presence of current challenges inherent to complex multistep
higher angle grain boundaries and greater dislocation traditional processing of DSSs. Most of the work
densities [175]. In the re-austenised condition, LPBF published until now on AM of DSSs is on the
steel exhibits greater corrosion resistance than microstructure evolution during AM and post-heat
wrought samples. This is associated with the greater treatment of 2205 and 2507 grades. 2205 is the most
Mn and S content of the wrought material, as the common grade of duplex stainless steels, containing
formation and subsequent dissolution of MnS 22% Cr, 3.2% Mo and 5% Ni (wt%), offering high
nanoparticles leads to localised S enrichment on the strength, good weldability and excellent pitting and
sample surface leading to destabilisation of the pas- crevice corrosion resistance. 2507 is a super-duplex
sive film. However, re-austenised LPBF samples have stainless steel, containing 25% Cr, 4% Mo and 7% Ni
a microstructure comprised of fine martensitic laths (wt%), that possesses an excellent combination of
resulting in a high grain boundary density. This leads strength and corrosion resistance. This makes it an
to a reduced resistance to pitting in comparison to the ideal candidate for aggressive environments such as
wrought material. warm seawater and acids for examples in offshore oil
Overall, the corrosion resistance of PH stainless & gas infrastructures [178]. Two types of the AM
steels is still a matter of debate. Porosity has been methods, i.e. LPBF and DED have mainly been
found to play a detrimental role in the pitting cor- employed for DSSs. The microstructures obtained
rosion resistance. In the case of high-density materi- through these techniques have been reported to be
als, it has generally been shown that AM PH stainless different. LPBF parts show mostly a ferritic
steels exhibit an improved pitting corrosion resis- microstructure with high strength but poor ductility,
tance compared to their conventional counterparts. necessitating further heat treatments, while DED-
However, the extents of this improvement reported produced ones exhibit a considerable fraction of
in the open literature are inconclusive. There are a austenite offering higher ductility at the expense of
number of factors that must be considered when strength. This is mainly due to the significant differ-
discussing the corrosion resistance, including the ence in the cooling rates between these two process-
amount of retained austenite, size and content of ing methods.
secondary precipitates/inclusions, and grain
86 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

2507 Alloy 2205 Alloy

It has been shown by Davidson et al. [179] that LPBF The challenge with AM of 2205 has been mostly
2507 DSS offers higher hardness (380–440 HV) than around achieving desirable volume fraction of
that achieved in wrought alloy, particularly demon- austenite and ferrite. For example, a work by
strating an improvement in hardness with reducing Hengsbach et al. [184] demonstrates that an almost
the laser energy density. This is mainly due to a fully (99%) ferritic structure is obtained for 2205 DSS
corresponding decrease in the austenite content. through LPBF. Such structures offer a high strength
Similar improvements in strength can be achieved in of * 940 MPa and an elongation of 12%. This
a LPBF 2507 DSS using a bidirectional scanning pat- enhanced strength compared to the wrought condi-
tern with a constant 45 angle rotation between sub- tion (* 620 MPa) is attributed to the high density of
sequent layers [180]. The observed superior YS and dislocations and nitrides in the LPBF microstructure.
UTS of 1214 MPa and 1321 MPa, respectively, might It has been found that a post-heat treatment at
be due to several factors. One is the unique mosaic- 900–1200 C is needed for austenite to precipitate out
type microstructure (Fig. 14) in which grains in each of the ferritic matrix, with the highest volume fraction
‘tessera’ have a different crystallographic orientation of austenite (34%) achievable at 1000 C (Fig. 15).
compared to the grains inside adjacent tesserae. Also, Annealing decreases the UTS to the range of
the high concentration of dislocations inside the 720–770 MPa, but significantly increases the elonga-
material restricts further dislocation movement and tion with the highest elongation value obtained at
imposes hardening effect. Moreover, nano-oxide 1000 C (28%). This implies that an increase in
inclusions and chromium nitride precipitates can austenite volume fraction through adjusting the post-
inhibit free dislocation slip/glide and contribute to a AM heat treatment time/temperature might be a
hardening effect. Finally, the solubility of N in the major means for enhanced ductility.
ferrite structure steel leads to solid solution Similar observations have been seen in other works
strengthening. too, where for example, Papula et al. [185] show a
A post-heat treatment of LPBF 2507 DSS can impart post-annealing of LPBF 2205 DSS at 1050–1100 C for
UTS values (920 MPa) higher than that of as-cast and 5–60 min is needed to bring its ductility back to the
solution-treated (* 600–800 MPa) [181]. This is due wrought level (i.e. elongation [ 40%). The pitting
to precipitation of Mo-/Cr-rich intermetallic phases corrosion resistance substantially increases after
(mainly r and v). LPBF 2507 possesses a annealing [185]. This is because annealing reduces
metastable ferritic microstructure that partially the residual stresses within the build and changes the
transforms to austenite during heat treatment. A residual stress state of the surface layers from tensile
promising sliding wear resistance of the heat-treated to compressive, causing improvements in both duc-
LPBF 2507 parts at 800 C has been reported mainly tility and pitting corrosion resistance.
due to the high hardness induced by the precipitation It has been shown that in contrast to the LPBF,
of intermetallics and formation of iron oxides acting DED duplex stainless steel products show a mixture
as a third body lubricant. of austenite and ferrite in the as-built condition, with
Remarkably, magnetic properties of LPBF 2507 DSS intragranular austenite particles preferentially
are also promising, as reported by Davidson et al. nucleating on the inclusions [186]. Austenite content
[182], where a saturation magnetism (Ms) value of increases with the laser energy density. The volume
110.9 Am2/kg, which is more than twice of that of the fraction of austenite also increases with the N level.
wrought specimen (45.1 Am2/kg), can be achieved. The higher the N content, the higher the hardness
The anisotropy in grain structure of LPBF 2507 DSS, mostly due to the pronounced solid solution hard-
however, leads to a directional specific saturation ening effect by N.
magnetism. Super DSS deposited by LPBF enhances
the corrosion of substrate [183]. An enhancement of Ferritic/martensitic steels
the pitting corrosion resistance with decreasing the
laser scan speed is observed which is related to a Different grades of low-carbon ferritic and marten-
reduction in both surface roughness and the size of sitic steels can be processed by AM for applications
columnar grains in the deposited layer. where wear and corrosion resistance are needed.
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 87

Figure 14 a Optical
microscopy images of LPBF
2507 DSS and b EBSD Euler
angle map of the same
microstructure showing the
single-phase ferritic structure
with a mosaic-type
macrostructure. Adapted from
Ref. [180] with permission.

These include parts such as medical tools, bearings steel in both building and normal to building direc-
and blades as well as pumps, valves and shafts. It has tions without compromising ductility and impact
been shown that AM products can achieve tensile toughness [189].
strength, corrosion and magnetic properties equiva- Post-AM heat treatment can significantly affect the
lent or superior to those of wrought and conven- mechanical performance of some other grades of
tionally processed samples. Poor ductility and martensitic/ferritic steels. For instance, as shown by
toughness as well as anisotropy are, however, the Sridharan et al. [190] for both HT9 (a 12%Cr–1%Mo
remaining challenges with AM of these steels. One of martensitic stainless steel widely used in turbines
these steels that has been studied in the context of and boilers in fossil-fired power plants and nuclear
AM is grade 420, a general-purpose medium C energy systems) [191] and P91 ferritic-martensitic
martensitic stainless steel with excellent hardenabil- steel (9%Cr–1%Mo steel mostly used in nuclear fis-
ity and acceptable corrosion resistance. For example, sion reactors) [192], a post-heat treatment reduces the
an improvement in both tensile properties and cor- YS and UTS but improves the ductility, at room and
rosion resistance of 420 stainless steels in both AM warm working temperatures (330 and 550 C). As
and post-heat-treated conditions has been observed another example, Liu et al. [193] reports that the
with the addition of Nb and Mo [187]. A summary of impact toughness of an AM 300 M ultra-high
comparison of Nb/Mo AM 420 steel with the AM 420 strength steel (a modified version of 4340 steel with Si
steel without Nb/Mo and wrought 420 steel is given added to enhance hot working) is extremely low (9 J/
in Table 3. The enhancement of the mechanical cm2), while a post-deposition heat treatment can
properties is attributed to the formation of a recover the toughness to * 25 J/cm2. The extremely
martensitic microstructure containing nanoscale car- low toughness in the as-built condition is attributed
bide such as NbC. Such phases are not observed in to the coarse size of ‘effective microstructure unit’
the AM 420 stainless steel without Nb/Mo. where coarse epitaxial primary austenite columnar
High strength is achievable also for 420 stainless grains result in coarse martensite packets in the as-
steel via LPBF (UTS of 1670 MPa, YS of 600 MPa and deposited condition. In another study by Sridharan
elongation of 3.5%) [188]. The UTS achieved is much et al. [194], AM HT9 steel shows superior tensile
higher than the value reported for the wrought properties (YS = 1043 MPa, UTS = 1168 MPa and
material (800 MPa). The elongation is, however, elongation at fracture = 14.2%) compared to its
lower than wrought 420 stainless steel. A post-AM wrought counterpart (YS = 800 MPa, UTS = 950
tempering heat treatment at 400 C for 15 min can MPa and elongation at fracture = 10–16%). A post-
yield an extremely high UTS of 1800 MPa and YS of process heat treatment of the AM samples results in
1400 MPa. Tempering also enhances the elongation properties in the range of normalised and tempered
to * 25% that is about 5 times of elongation in the HT9. This is mainly because a higher austenitising
LPBF condition. The enhanced mechanical properties temperature and a lower tempering temperature
is attributed to the transformation of retained results in a fine dispersion of the carbide structure
austenite to martensite during tensile testing. Simi- and a fine-grained lath martensite, maximising ten-
larly, there are also observations of higher YS and sile properties.
UTS in LPBF 4140 steel compared to the wrought
88 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

Figure 15 EBSD maps: a–d IPF maps, e–h phase maps of the LPBF 2205 steel in the as-built and post-AM heat-treated conditions (for
5 min). Adapted from Ref. [184] with permission.

Table 3 Mechanical and corrosion properties of 420 stainless steel with and without Nb/Mo. Data from Ref. [187] with permission

Material 420 stainless steel with Nb and Mo 420 stainless steel 420 stainless steel wrought

condition As-printed Heat-treated As-printed Heat-treated Hardened

Density (g/cm3) 7.69 7.69 7.67 7.67 N/A

UTS (MPa) 1320 1750 1050 1520 * 1600
YS (MPa) 1065 1280 850 950 * 1300
Elongation (%) 4.0 9.0 2.5 6.3 * 14
Hardness (Rc) 52 51 55 53 * 50
Corrosion current (lA/cm2) 1.5 1.8 2.85 3.5 2.1
Corrosion potential (V) - 0.42 - 0.32 - 0.39 - 0.42 - 0.4
Breakdown potential (V) 0.03 0.2 0.05 0.22 0.15
Polarisation resistance (X/cm2) 24200 23800 17100 16800 18700
Corrosion rate (lm/year) 16 18 28 35 23

Thermal cycles during AM may result in unex- 24CrNiMoY steel, with an increase in the number of
pected microstructures. For instance, in an LPBF thermal cycles, the microstructure changes from a
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 89

martensitic one to a bainitic one [195]. For the bainitic decreases the temperature gradient facilitating the
microstructure, the laser energy density significantly formation of fine equiaxed grains.
affects the microstructure and mechanical properties. AM can result in advanced properties in 24CrNi-
Decreasing the laser energy density from 210 to MoY steel, too [202]. The strength of AM 24CrNiMoY
140 J/mm3 reduces the bainite lath width from 1.7 to parts are mainly controlled by the size of the bainitic
0.6 lm. A general Hall–Petch like trend of increasing laths where the finer the bainitic ferrite lath bundle,
the YS with decreasing bainite lath size is, in turn, the higher the YS [202]. The excellent hardness and
observed. Promising tensile properties with about tensile properties of this alloy in the LPBF condition
5–10% improvement compared to the as-cast material is attributed to the dominance of supersaturated solid
can be achieved in 24CrNiMo steel fabricated via solution, dislocation and subgrain cell structures in
DED, too [196]. Interestingly, the substrate tempera- the microstructure.
ture during DED can significantly change the It is worth noting that there have also been reports
microstructure constituents, texture and grain size. showing poor mechanical properties of fer-
With the increase of substrate temperature from RT ritic/martensitic steel AM products compared to the
to 400 C, the microstructure changes from fully wrought samples. For example, ultra-high-strength
martensitic to a mixture of martensite and lower martensitic stainless steel AerMet100 processed with
bainite. Correspondingly, grain size (texture inten- DED shows lower tensile strength and ductility than
sity) decreases from 30 lm (16.0) to 13 lm (4.7). its wrought counterpart [203]. There is also an ani-
Promising microstructure and tensile properties sotropy in tensile properties especially in elongation
can be achieved in reduced activation fer- where longitude (L) direction showed 12.3% elonga-
ritic/martensitic (RAFM) steel (used mainly as tion while transverse (T) direction only showed 4.6%.
structural material for fusion reactors [197]) pro- This is justified considering the applied tensile stress
duced by LPBF using two scanning strategies of (1) being perpendicular to the prior austenite grain
bidirectional scanning without and (2) with 45 boundary (locations prone to crack propagation) in T-
deviation from X/Y-axis and 90 rotation [198]. Both direction. At the L-direction, however, the applied
strategies result in advanced tensile properties of tensile stress was parallel to the grain boundary
YS = 893–911 MPa, UTS = 1008–1047 MPa and elon- causing high crack propagation resistance through
gation = 15.0–18.7%, which is a much higher combi- grain interior bainitic microstructures. An anisotropy
nation compared to that in LPBF China low activation has also been observed in the UTS and elongation of
martensitic steel [199] and conventionally processed China Low Activation Martensitic steel processed by
RAFM steels [200]. The enhanced strength is attrib- LPBF [199]. The tempering of the martensitic struc-
uted to the grain refinement, and the acceptable duc- ture resulted from LPBF enhances ductility at the
tility is ascribed to morphology of grains that change expense of strength. The LPBF steel shows a low
the fracture mode to transgranular ductile. A very impact toughness of 10 J which is less than 5% of that
interesting change in the grain morphology of the of the same steel in the wrought condition.
steel (from columnar-like to rhombus-shaped) is Silicon steels have also been processed by AM
observed with the change of scanning strategy showing promising magnetic properties. While con-
(Fig. 16), though these changes do not profoundly ventional processing is limited to electrical steels of
affect the strength. less than * 3.5 wt% Si due to workability limita-
The inhomogeneity and the in situ heat treatment tions, Garibaldi et al. [204] report that a Fe-6.9 wt% Si
inherited from the AM can be used as a means to can be successfully produced by LPBF. This is out-
enhance mechanical properties of martensitic/ferritic standing as the electrical resistivity, and hence power
steels. For example, as reported by Jiang et al. [201], losses, scale strongly with the Si content. Post-AM
LPBF can be used to create a heterogeneous multi-/ annealed parts can achieve excellent quasi-static
bimodal microstructure in a RAFM S209 steel magnetic properties (maximum relative permeability
resulting in superior properties of YS of 1053 MPa of 24,000 and coercivity of 16 A/m) which is as good
and elongation of * 17%. This is mainly attributed to as commercial high Si electrical steels such as JNEX
the refined grains and fine martensite laths as a result Super Core developed by JFE Steel [204]. This has
of increasing the energy density during LPBF, which obvious benefits for processing novel core geome-
tries, especially in applications where complex
90 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

Figure 16 Microstructures of the LPBF RAFM steel processed by region in each view: a, e three-dimensional view of optical
bidirectional scanning a–d without and e–h with 45 deviation microstructures, b–d and f–h EBSD IPF maps in different views.
from X/Y-axis and 90 rotation SS-XY45 examined at the central Adapted from Ref. [198] with permission.

geometrical core design is advantageous, while the also contribute to cracking as the components show a
employment of a laminated core is not viable due to slightly higher brittleness at lower energy densities.
structural integrity concerns or is not strictly neces- Another example of successful AM of HSLA has been
sary (e.g. in some synchronous rotor cores). This reported by Rodrigues et al. [206] who have pro-
behaviour is attributed to stress relief (up to 900 C) cessed HSLA steel with WAAM. This method of AM
and grain growth (900–1150 C) that reduce the is, however, outside the scope of this review.
density of lattice defects. Lattice defects are known to
hinder magnetic domain wall motion through a Carbon bearing tool steels
pining effect [204].
Tool steels are a family of high C and alloy steels
High-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steels comprising carbide-forming elements such as Cr, V,
Mo and W that are used to make tools such as drills,
HSLA steels have been successfully processed via hobs, punches, dies, etc. These steels are of excellent
AM for different applications such as tooling indus- hardness, wear resistance and resistance to high-
tries and defence. Their properties have been repor- temperature softening. They are usually heat treated
ted to be affected by the laser energy density and the to achieve a hard matrix with a dispersion of both
distance from the substrate. For example, as shown coarse and fine carbides, providing improved wear
by Jelis et al. [205], for AM HSLA steels used in resistance and hot hardness [207]. In general, AM
defence applications, a desirable fine martensitic processing of these steels is challenging. Firstly, these
structure as a result of the rapid cooling of the melt steels are of high strength and low toughness that
pool can be achieved. The porosity increases and the makes them susceptible to cracking during cooling
morphology of the pores becomes more irregular as down. Furthermore, it has been reported that C in
the energy density is decreased, which in turn these steels can segregate to the melt surface, reduc-
increases the propensity to cracking. The brittle ing wettability [208]. This together with the severe
martensitic microstructure of the component may thermal gradient during AM result in thermal
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 91

stresses, that leads to cracking [209]. Despite such Similar to LPBF, DED-processed H13 possess a
challenges, there are reports on successful AM of martensite plus retained austenite microstructure.
these steels in the literature. H13 fabricated by DED, however, experiences an
During AM, due to the high cooling rate, these extensive intrinsic heat treatment (IHT) during
steels solidify as martensite supersaturated in C and deposition resulting in an in situ tempering of
retained austenite. Every solidified layer is, however, martensite. This is the reason why tensile strength
affected by melting and heating of the neighbouring and elongation of DED H13 is comparable to quen-
layers. In the case of an overlap, solidified layers can ched and tempered H13 [215].
be remelted multiple times by the melting of adjacent Preheating of the base plate is a critical step in
tracks. If a layer is distant from the melt pool, it might successful AM of H13. The properties of AM H13 are,
be heated to temperatures above austenite transfor- in turn, highly dependent on the base plate preheat
mation temperature, but not melting point. This will temperature. Preheating above the martensite start
cause reaustenitisation of martensite. Distant further temperature (MS), i.e. * 300 C, is expected to
from the melt pool, the heat will be only enough for change the microstructure to a bainitic one [214]. For
tempering of martensite, carbon partitioning and example, preheating of building plate to 400 C
carbide precipitation. This implies that the retained during LPBF of H13 steels can increase the UTS and
austenite, martensite and carbide characteristics all hardness to the values higher than those in the
depend on the heating/cooling cycle that each part of wrought condition [214]. This implies that preheating
the build experiences during AM. might eliminate the need for the additional post-
treatment. At preheating temperatures lower than
H13 Ms, an improvement in resistance to cracking is
observed despite martensite still being formed. This
Most of the studies on AM of C bearing tool steels is mostly attributed to the reduced residual stresses
have been focused on H13, the most common grade [216].
of hot working tool steels. This Cr steel with the Other processing parameters also affect the
nominal composition of 0.40C, 0.40Mn, 1.00Si, 5.25Cr, microstructure properties of AM H13. For instance,
1.35Mo, 1.00V (wt%) offers excellent hot hardness Lee et al. [217] show an epitaxial growth in the
and thermal fatigue resistance in wrought condition. building direction for the H13 tool steels where
The microstructure of AM H13 consists of cells and columnar grains mostly comprise of martensite with
dendrites with retained austenite regions observed in a low amount of retained austenite, together with MC
the interdendritic areas [210, 211] (Fig. 17). Carbon (V-rich) and M2C (Mo-rich) carbides (Fig. 18).
enrichment results in retained austenite stabilisation Supercooling of H13 with high laser scan speed
at room temperature [210]. The size of the cells increases the number of nucleation sites, resulting in
depends on the cooling rate with larger cells a reduction in the diameter of columnar grains. No
observed in DED samples compared to LPBF samples martensitic phase transformation is observed during
[211]. tensile loading and porosity, pore size and pore types
LPBF H13 steel shows hardness values higher than are the main parameters affecting the tensile prop-
their as-quenched wrought counterparts [195]. For erties. In AISI H13 and D2 tool steels fabricated by
instance, Yan et al. [212] report in situ tempering of DED, as shown by Park et al. [218], hardness
martensite during LPBF of H13 where the LPBF decreases with an increase in the energy input. This is
product exhibits higher hardness (57 HRC) compared in part due to higher secondary dendrite arm spac-
to the conventionally processed H13 (45 HRC). In ings with energy input due to decreased cooling rate.
addition to the fine martensite and the tempering The other possible mechanism is decrement of C
effect, the high compressive residual stress of the content with higher laser energy density as at higher
LPBF product also contributes to this high hardness. laser energy densities, a longer time and a larger area
The YS and UTS of LPBF H13 is, however, in general is available for reaction of C with O.
lower than wrought H13 after conventional heat The processing parameters control the mechanical
treatment. This is mainly due to the inherent brittle- performance of H13 tool steels. As shown by Pelliz-
ness of martensitic structure in thee alloys and the zari et al. [219] in an LPBF H13, the fracture tough-
defect and porosities induced by AM [213, 214]. ness increases with volume energy density. This is
92 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

Figure 17 a Optical
micrograph of LPBF H13
showing periodic layers in
response to chemical etching.
b Higher magnification SEM
micrograph showing the
cellular/dendritic structure, c,
d EBSD band contrast and
phase map of LPBF H13
showing the precipitation of
austenite at the cellular
boundaries. Adapted from Ref.
[211] with permission.

because higher energy densities reduce the porosity surface resulted from insufficiently melted powder
and unmelted particles, i.e. the flaws governing the and insufficient layer connection. In addition to the
crack propagation mechanisms. Other processing surface effects, AM parts suffer from a higher density
parameters such as building direction and different of volume defects such as pores and cavities, a
thermal cycles have a less pronounced effect com- lamellar structure and a higher O content compared
pared to the energy density. An interesting point, to its wrought counterpart, all of which limit the
mentioned in [219], is that the formation of secondary fatigue resistance. The other challenge with the LPBF
cracks perpendicular to the principal ones produces a of H13 is the inhomogeneity throughout the built. As
decrease in the driving force for the main crack shown by Deirmina et al. [211] in the LPBF H13, the
propagation, which results in improved fracture as-built microstructure consists of a partially tem-
toughness. This effect is more pronounced in the pered martensite and a much higher amount (up to
tempered condition compared to the quench-tem- 19 vol%) of retained austenite compared to the
pered condition, due to more pronounced precipita- quenched steel (retained austenite \ 2 vol%), leading
tion of carbides network at the prior melt boundaries to a much stronger secondary hardening during
which promotes the formation of secondary cracks, tempering. These authors report that LPBF produces
as well as due to the generally finer microstructures a heterogeneous cellular/dendritic microstructure
of tempered parts. showing segregation of the heavy alloying elements
Wear and fatigue performance as well as inhomo- at the melt pool boundaries and micro-segregation at
geneity of the properties across the builds are the the cellular boundaries as a result of rapid solidifi-
remaining challenges in AM of H13. Although Riza cation. A partial non-uniform tempering is observed
et al. [220] report a satisfactory wear behaviour for mostly due to the heat transfer from the solidifying
DED H13 tool steel, the wear resistance is still lower layer to the previous layers, resulting in a heteroge-
than the wrought counterpart. This is more critical in neous hardness distribution.
the context of fatigue performance. The LPBF H13
parts show inferior fatigue behaviour for a number of
reasons [221]. The most important reason is the low
surface quality due to the porosity and cavities at the
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 93

Figure 18 EBSD IPF, phase (red: martensite and green: austenite) reconstructed maps showing V- and Mo-rich carbides in the LPBF
and grain orientation spread (GOS) maps, b TEM, STEM and H13 steel. Adapted from Ref. [217] with permission.
high-resolution TEM images and c atom probe tomography-

H11 presumably bainitic microstructure evidenced by a

hardness of * 642 HV1. Post-process annealing at
H11 is another popular type of tool steel with less V 550 C for 2 h increases the hardness to * 678 HV1
than the H13 grade. Lower V contents increase the because of the decomposition of residual austenite
toughness at the expense of wear resistance [207]. and precipitation of secondary carbides. Interest-
Applying post-build heat treatment and modification ingly, the tensile properties in the direction parallel to
of the composition of H11 steel can result in high- the building direction does not change after post-
performance AM products. As reported by Huber process heat treatment showing that LPBF material
et al. [222], LPBF of H11 tool steel results in a does not require a quench-hardening step to reach
94 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

tensile properties needed for tooling applications. and carbides. Compared to the as-cast state, the
The wear resistance of lean H11 (L-H11) in the LPBF martensite content in the LPBF specimens is lower
condition is much higher than the conventionally while the carbide content is higher. A lower ductility
quench-tempered L-H11 steel [223]. Such improve- compared to the as-cast condition is achieved due to
ment of the wear resistance is, however, not observed a higher fraction of brittle carbides, rough surface of
for the H11 steel after LPBF. This might imply that the LPBF products and internal stresses caused by the
the leaner compositions could be suitable for the rapid cooling during the LPBF process.
LPBF manufacturing of complex and large tool steel A significant enhancement of wear resistance in
parts owing to their high toughness and high damage LPBF samples is achievable compared to the cast
tolerance to residual stresses and processing defects. alloy in FeCrMoVC alloy [226]. This is in line with
The compressive performance of AM processed their higher hardness and compressive strength
H11 can be comparable to the wrought condition compared to the cast samples. The intrinsic heat
[224]. A compressive strength (1770 MPa) compara- treatment has been observed in some other tool steels
ble to that of conventionally processed parts too. For example, LPBF can create a heterogenous
(1810 MPa) is obtained, which shows that material microstructure of fresh martensite and tempered
undergoes an in situ hardening during AM followed martensite in X65MoCrWV3-2 tool steel [227]. The
by natural tempering. A further tempering of AM tempering is a result of the moderate heat produced
parts can result in YS of * 1630 MPa and UTS during the melting of the subsequent layers, while
of * 2130 MPa, showing a considerably better per- fresh martensite is formed as a result of partial
formance compared to the conventionally processed reaustenitisation of the already-solidified material.
samples. This implies that AM might potentially Such tempering effect could potentially eliminate the
eliminate the pre-austenitisation step of hardening. need for further tempering treatment, although such
By tempering of the AM parts only, the mechanical claim might be too optimistic. This can be, however,
properties could outperform those of conventionally seen in LPBF M2 steel for example in the work by
processed material. Kempen et al. [228] where a high hardness is
achieved in situ without a need for any further aging
Other C bearing tool steels heat treatment.
A TRIP effect can enhance the mechanical proper-
Further efforts have been taken to apply post-AM ties of AM tool steels. As AM might result in a sig-
heat treatments to achieve mechanical properties nificant volume fraction of retained austenite in these
superior to that in wrought conditions in other tool steels, the transformation-induced plasticity resulted
steels. M2 high-speed steel sample processed by from austenite to martensite transformation can open
LPBF consist of supersaturated martensite, retained new pathways for obtaining a desirable combination
austenite and M2C-type carbides [225]. Heat treat- of strength and ductility in these steels. As an
ment at 560 C causes tempering of the martensite example, FeCrMoVWC steel processed by LPBF
and precipitation of further carbides. In both AM and shows higher compressive and tensile strength as
heat-treated conditions, adhesive wear is the main well as higher fracture strain [229] compared to its
sliding wear mechanism. cast counterpart [230]. This enhanced mechanical
In some of the studies in the literature, the in situ performance is due to several factors such as nano-
heat treatment that tool steels experience during AM sized carbides (M2C), solid solution effect and above
has been considered as the reason behind their these, TRIP effect of the retained austenite.
acceptable mechanical properties without any need
for further heat treatments. One example is the high- Transformation/twinning induced plasticity
strength Fe85Cr4Mo8V2C1 (element contents in wt%) (TRIP/TWIP) steels
tool steel processed by LPBF [209], where an excellent
combination of mechanical properties including a TRIP/TWIP steels are attractive due to their high
hardness of 900 HV 0.1, compressive strength of * work hardening rates, making them ideal candidates
3800 MPa and fracture strain of * 15% can be for applications such as automotive and defence
achieved. This is due to a fine, homogeneous where a high post-yield plasticity and energy
microstructure composed of martensite, austenite absorption capacity is desired. These steels are
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 95

basically austenitic and go through twinning and/or

a martensitic phase transformation during deforma-
tion. There are only few papers focusing on the TRIP
and TWIP effects in AM-processed austenitic base
steels. Most of these works show enhanced tensile
properties mainly due to the opportunities existing in
AM to locally change the chemistry and in turn
stacking fault energy that controls the deformation
mechanism.
Heterogenous (location dependent) TRIP and
TWIP effects can be observed in DED high Mn steel
due to the heterogeneity in the chemical composition
that affects the stacking fault energy and the domi-
nant deformation mechanism (Fig. 19) [231]. This is
in contrast to what is observed in the same alloy
produced via conventional processing or LPBF. Figure 19 A schematic showing how the variation in local
Notably, such heterogeneity does not affect the chemical composition during LPBF (= SLM) and DED (= LMD)
macroscopic deformation behaviour. It has also been of the same steel changes the stacking fault energy and, in turn, the
found that increasing the Al content during DED activation of TRIP/TWIP effects. The point cloud covers both
decreases the work hardening rate. This is mainly intra- and interdendritic regions, while the bold dot represents the
due to an increase in the stacking fault energy with mean chemical composition. Adapted from Ref. [231] with
permission.
Al content that shifts the deformation mechanism
from twinning to the cross-slip. Through site-specific
excellent ductility is due to a secondary hardening
change in the chemical composition during AM, one
effect by the martensite formed during tensile
can induce site-specific deformation mechanisms. For
deformation, as martensite can accommodate more
example, X30MnAl23-1 is of a chemical composition
load compared to austenite, resulting in an increased
that yields a stacking fault energy value low enough
plasticity.
to activate the TWIP effect only while avoiding the
The TWIP effect can be activated in LPBF 316L
TRIP effect. This results in high specific energy
austenitic stainless steel [234]. This has been attrib-
absorption and predictable compressive deformation
uted to the role of N that decreases the stacking fault
behaviour as no brittle martensite is formed during
energy of 316L steel into the TWIP region. Twinning-
straining. Such capabilities to design microstructures
induced plasticity can override the detrimental effect
and in turn micro-deformation mechanisms are
of porosity and other defects on ductility of AM
promising for high Mn steel, considering the diffi-
samples. The synergy between the TWIP effect and
culties associated with their conventional processing.
the high strength resulting from hierarchical fine
Other studies show that high Mn steels processed
subgrains can offer new windows for AM austenitic
with LPBF possess strength levels higher than the
stainless steels. Generally, the TRIP effect is a main
conventionally processed steels at the expense of
factor in advanced properties of AM tool steels and
elongation [232]. The presence of e- and a’-martensite
PH/maraging steels with significant volume of
as well as the high density of dislocations provide
retained austenite. This has been discussed in sec-
high strength while porosities and impurities typical
tions on tool steels and PH/maraging steels.
of AM deteriorate the formability. The same work
hardening rate is achieved for these steels irrespec-
tive of their fabrication route, with both TWIP and
Concluding remarks
TRIP effects. An anisotropy in the tensile properties
of these AM steels is, however, observed which is This review highlights that AM is capable of fabri-
mainly due to the anisotropic texture and elongated cating parts made of various common grades of steels
grain morphology. The TRIP effect can impart a that can have properties comparable and superior to
surprisingly high elongation to a LPBF 304L steel their conventionally processed counterparts. These
despite the observation of porosities [233]. Such
96 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

achievements, together with the geometrical flexibil- presence of austenite that transforms to marten-
ity, rapid production and the possibility to design the site during mechanical testing (a TRIP-assisted
microstructure via targeted optimisation of printing effect).
parameters, pave the way towards much more • The wear performance of AM 17–4 PH stainless
widespread application of AM techniques in the steel depends on the wear mechanism. When
future of steel production. A wide range of steels can tested dry, AM products show better wear prop-
nowadays be processed by AM with near-to-100% erties due to the finer microstructure and higher
density. The main conclusions from the existing lit- hardness. However, in the lubricated condition,
erature on AM steels can be summarised as follows: the AM samples show a higher wear rate as
Austenitic stainless steels lubrication changes the dominant wear mecha-
nisms from adhesion to surface fatigue and
• Austenitic stainless steels are the most widely
abrasion.
used class of steels in AM. They offer an excep-
• The high austenite content in non-solution-treated
tional combination of strength and ductility due to
AM PH steels causes greater corrosion resistance
nano-inclusions and low angle grain (cell) bound-
than solution treated samples, due to the greater
aries that hinder dislocation movements. These
surface potential of austenite than martensite.
microstructural features also result in good wear
• LPBF PH steels exhibit a reduced corrosion
and fatigue properties as well as resistance to H
resistance compared to conventionally produced
embrittlement, comparable to wrought
materials due to their greater level of porosity. In
conditions.
particular, the presence of pores [ 50 lm in
• AM enhances the pitting corrosion resistance of
diameter trigger active corrosion whilst passive
these steels mainly due to the rapid solidification
behaviour persists around regions of
inherent to AM that limits the formation of MnS
pores \ 10 lm.
inclusions. Erosion–corrosion and intergranular
• AM can act as intrinsic heat treatment, triggering
corrosion behaviour of these steels in AM condi-
‘in situ’ phase transformations including temper-
tions are still a matter of debate.
ing and other precipitation phenomena. This
• Residual stresses, anisotropy and formation of
offers potential to eliminate some of the tradi-
pores are the current challenges of AM of
tional heat treatments needed for certain grades of
austenitic stainless steels. Moreover, most of the
steels such as PH stainless steels and tool steels.
current standard heat treatments might not be
applicable to the AM stainless steels, and opti- Other steels
mising heat treatment routes for AM products
• Two types of the AM methods, i.e. LPBF and DED
seems essential.
have mainly been employed for duplex stainless
Maraging/PH stainless steels steels, and the microstructures obtained through
these techniques are different. LPBF parts show
• The most commonly used PH stainless steel in
mostly a ferritic microstructure with high strength
AM so far is 17–4 PH stainless steel, due to its
but poor ductility, necessitating further heat
high printability and diverse range of
treatments, while DED-produced parts exhibit a
applications.
considerable fraction of austenite offering higher
• AM 17–4 and 15–5 PH stainless steels as well as
ductility at the expense of strength.
18Ni 300 maraging steels offer high strength due
• Annealing of AM duplex stainless steel decreases
to their refined microstructures, while ductility is
the UTS, but increases the elongation and pitting
reduced due to porosity resultant from the AM
corrosion resistance. The volume fraction of
process.
austenite and hardness both increase with the
• Fatigue resistance of both 15–5 and 17–4 PH steels
N level.
in AM conditions is poor compared to the
• Different grades of ferritic/martensitic steels can
wrought conditions, mostly due to the poor
be successfully processed via AM. The processing
surface finish resulting from the AM process.
parameters such as substrate temperature as well
• AM 17–4 PH steels can show promising
as post-AM heat treatment significantly change
strength/ductility combinations due to the
the microstructure and properties of these steels.
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 97

• Silicon steels of up to 6.9 wt% Si have been steels due to the heterogeneity in the chemical
successfully processed by AM showing promising composition that affects the stacking fault
magnetic properties. In order to achieve excellent energy.
quasi-static magnetic properties, annealing of AM
Steels are the most prominent structural engineer-
products is necessitated to reduce the density of
ing materials used by mankind, owing to their
lattice defects.
countless design opportunities on offer via systematic
• AM processing of carbon bearing tool steels is
control of allotropic transformations during thermal
challenging due to their susceptibility to cracking.
treatments. This implies that severe temperature
This is due to low toughness, segregation of C to
gradients and exceptionally high cooling rates as well
the melt surface that reduces wettability and
as the inherent chemical heterogeneities in AM
severe thermal gradients during AM.
unlock the potential to generate unique microstruc-
• H13 is the most common tool steel in the AM
tures in steels. Further, the unique microstructural
context. LPBF and DED-processed H13 possess a
evolution during AM will necessitate the develop-
martensite plus retained austenite microstructure.
ment of new post-processing heat treatment sched-
H13 fabricated by DED experiences an extensive
ules that might be different from the ones developed
intrinsic heat treatment during deposition result-
for conventional processing routes. There are still
ing in an in situ tempering of martensite.
some downsides and limitations with AM of steels
• Preheating of the base plate is a critical step in
such as residual stresses, poor surface quality,
successful AM of tool steels. The properties of AM
microstructural inhomogeneity and anisotropy. Some
H13 are, in turn, highly dependent on the base
properties of the AM steel parts remain puzzling, and
plate preheat temperature.
more research needs to be done.
• Wear and fatigue performance as well as inho-
While the future of steel AM is bright, more work is
mogeneity of the properties across the builds is
needed in order for AM to replace conventional
the main challenges in AM of tool steels. The most
processing of steels in more areas. Perhaps the most
important reason is the low surface quality due to
promising observation in steel AM is that unique
the porosity and cavities at the surface resulted
microstructures can be engineered that have not yet
from insufficiently melted powder and insuffi-
been achieved through conventional processing
cient layer connection. AM parts also suffer from a
routes. This highlights the potential of developing
higher density of volume defects such as pores
AM-specific steels that profit from the typical thermal
and cavities, lamellar structures and higher O
cycles associated with AM.
contents compared to their wrought counterparts.
• AM can potentially eliminate the pre-austenitisa-
tion step of hardening for C-bearing tool steels. By Acknowledgements
tempering of the AM parts only, the mechanical
properties can outperform those of conventionally Funding by the AUSMURI program, Department of
processed materials. Industry, Innovation and Science, Australia, is
• Generally, the TRIP effect is a major reason behind acknowledged. A/Prof Sophie Primig is supported
the advanced properties of AM tool steels and under the Australian Research Council’s DECRA
PH/maraging steels as a significantly higher (project number DE180100440) and the UNSW Sci-
volume of retained austenite is achieved in AM entia Fellowship schemes.
of these steels compared to conventional
processing.
• TRIP and TWIP effects can be induced in AM Funding
steels resulting in enhanced tensile properties.
This is mainly due to the opportunities existing in This study was funded by Department of Industry,
AM to locally change the chemistry and, in turn Innovation and Science, Australia, and Australian
stacking fault energy, that determines the pre- Research Council.
dominant deformation mechanism.
• Heterogenous (location dependent) TRIP and
TWIP effects can be observed in DED high Mn
98 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

Compliance with ethical standards [10] Huang R, Riddle M, Graziano D, Warren J, Das S, Nim-
balkar S, Cresko J, Masanet E (2016) Energy and emissions
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they saving potential of additive manufacturing: the case of
have no conflict of interest. lightweight aircraft components. J Clean Prod
135:1559–1570
Open Access This article is licensed under a Crea- [11] Fitzsimons L, McNamara G, Obeidi M, Brabazon D (2020)
tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, The circular economy: additive manufacturing and impacts
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution for materials processing. Encyclopedia of Renewable and
and reproduction in any medium or format, as long Sustainable Materials 1:81–92
as you give appropriate credit to the original [12] Bourell DL (2016) Perspectives on additive manufacturing.
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea- Annu Rev Mater Res 46:1–18
tive Commons licence, and indicate if changes were [13] Plotkowski A, Rios O, Sridharan N, Sims Z, Unocic K, Ott
made. The images or other third party material in this R, Dehoff R, Babu S (2017) Evaluation of an Al-Ce alloy
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons for laser additive manufacturing. Acta Mater 126:507–519
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to [14] Fayazfar H, Salarian M, Rogalsky A, Sarker D, Russo P,
the material. If material is not included in the article’s Paserin V, Toyserkani E (2018) A critical review of pow-
Creative Commons licence and your intended use is der-based additive manufacturing of ferrous alloys: process
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the parameters, microstructure and mechanical properties.
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission Mater Des 144:98–128
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of [15] Herzog D, Seyda V, Wycisk E, Emmelmann C (2016)
this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licen Additive manufacturing of metals. Acta Mater
ses/by/4.0/. 117:371–392
[16] Lewandowski JJ, Seifi M (2016) Metal additive manufac-
turing: a review of mechanical properties. Annu Rev Mater
References Res 46:151–186
[17] Sander G, Tan J, Balan P, Gharbi O, Feenstra D, Singer L,
[1] Niaki MK, Nonino F (2018) The management of additive
Thomas S, Kelly R, Scully J, Birbilis N (2018) Corrosion
manufacturing. Springer, Berlin, pp 973–978
of additively manufactured alloys: a review. Corrosion
[2] Gibson I, Rosen DW, Stucker B (2014) Additive manu-
74(12):1318–1350
facturing technologies. Springer, Berlin
[18] Kong D, Dong C, Ni X, Li X (2019) Corrosion of metallic
[3] Ciraud L (1973) A method and apparatus for making any
materials fabricated by selective laser melting. NPJ Mater
belongings from any fusible material. German patent
Degrad 3(1):1–14
application DE 19722263777A1
[19] Bajaj P, Hariharan A, Kini A, Kürnsteiner P, Raabe D, Jägle
[4] Meiners W, Wissenbach K, Gasser A (1996) Shaped body
EA (2019) Steels in additive manufacturing: a review of
especially prototype or replacement part production. DE
their microstructure and properties. Mater Sci Eng A
Patent 19649865
772:138633
[5] Deckard C (1986) Part generation by layer-wise selective
[20] Boegelein T, Dryepondt SN, Pandey A, Dawson K, Tatlock
laser sintering, MS. Univeristy of Texas-Austin, Austin
GJ (2015) Mechanical response and deformation mecha-
[6] Yap CY, Chua CK, Dong ZL, Liu ZH, Zhang DQ, Loh LE,
nisms of ferritic oxide dispersion strengthened steel struc-
Sing SL (2015) Review of selective laser melting: materials
tures produced by selective laser melting. Acta Mater
and applications. Appl Phys Rev 2(4):041101
87:201–215
[7] Bhadeshia H, Honeycombe R (2017) Steels: microstructure
[21] Shi Y, Lu Z, Yu L, Xie R, Ren Y, Yang G (2020)
and properties. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
Microstructure and tensile properties of Zr-containing
[8] Peng T, Kellens K, Tang R, Chen C, Chen G (2018) Sus-
ODS-FeCrAl alloy fabricated by laser additive manufac-
tainability of additive manufacturing: an overview on its
turing. Mater Sci Eng A 774:138937
energy demand and environmental impact. Addit Manuf
[22] Shi Y, Lu Z, Xu H, Xie R, Ren Y, Yang G (2019)
21:694–704
Microstructure characterization and mechanical properties
[9] Sreenivasan R, Goel A, Bourell DL (2010) Sustainability
of laser additive manufactured oxide dispersion strength-
issues in laser-based additive manufacturing. Phys Procedia
ened Fe–9Cr alloy. J Alloys Compd 791:121–133
5:81–90
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 99

[23] Yan X, Huang C, Chen C, Bolot R, Dembinski L, Huang R, [36] Laleh M, Hughes AE, Xu W, Haghdadi N, Wang K, Cizek
Ma W, Liao H, Liu M (2019) Additive manufacturing of P, Gibson I, Tan MY (2019) On the unusual intergranular
WC reinforced maraging steel 300 composites by cold corrosion resistance of 316L stainless steel additively
spraying and selective laser melting. Surf Coat Technol manufactured by selective laser melting. Corros Sci
371:161–171 161:108189
[24] Yan X, Chen C, Zhao R, Ma W, Bolot R, Wang J, Ren Z, [37] Zhang B, Li Y, Bai Q (2017) Defect formation mechanisms
Liao H, Liu M (2019) Selective laser melting of WC in selective laser melting: a review. Chin J Mech Eng
reinforced maraging steel 300: microstructure characteri- 30(3):515–527
zation and tribological performance. Surf Coat Technol [38] Zhao X, Chen J, Lin X, Huang W (2008) Study on
371:355–365 microstructure and mechanical properties of laser rapid
[25] Shi R, Khairallah SA, Roehling TT, Heo TW, McKeown forming Inconel 718. Mater Sci Eng A 478(1–2):119–124
JT, Matthews MJ (2020) Microstructural control in metal [39] Cunningham R, Zhao C, Parab N, Kantzos C, Pauza J,
laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing using laser Fezzaa K, Sun T, Rollett AD (2019) Keyhole threshold and
beam shaping strategy. Acta Mater 184:284–305 morphology in laser melting revealed by ultrahigh-speed
[26] Xu W, Lui E, Pateras A, Qian M, Brandt M (2017) In situ x-ray imaging. Science 363(6429):849–852
tailoring microstructure in additively manufactured Ti– [40] Li R, Liu J, Shi Y, Wang L, Jiang W (2012) Balling
6Al–4V for superior mechanical performance. Acta Mater behavior of stainless steel and nickel powder during
125:390–400 selective laser melting process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
[27] Sun S-H, Ishimoto T, Hagihara K, Tsutsumi Y, Hanawa T, 59(9–12):1025–1035
Nakano T (2019) Excellent mechanical and corrosion [41] Khairallah SA, Anderson A (2014) Mesoscopic simulation
properties of austenitic stainless steel with a unique crys- model of selective laser melting of stainless steel powder.
tallographic lamellar microstructure via selective laser J Mater Process Technol 214(11):2627–2636
melting. Scr Mater 159:89–93 [42] Khairallah SA, Anderson AT, Rubenchik A, King WE
[28] Bartolomeu F, Buciumeanu M, Pinto E, Alves N, Carvalho (2016) Laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing:
O, Silva F, Miranda G (2017) 316L stainless steel physics of complex melt flow and formation mechanisms of
mechanical and tribological behavior—a comparison pores, spatter, and denudation zones. Acta Mater
between selective laser melting, hot pressing and conven- 108:36–45
tional casting. Addit Manuf 16:81–89 [43] Gorsse S, Hutchinson C, Gouné M, Banerjee R (2017)
[29] Ma M, Wang Z, Zeng X (2017) A comparison on metal- Additive manufacturing of metals: a brief review of the
lurgical behaviors of 316L stainless steel by selective laser characteristic microstructures and properties of steels, Ti–
melting and laser cladding deposition. Mater Sci Eng A 6Al–4V and high-entropy alloys. Sci Technol Adv Mater
685:265–273 18(1):584–610
[30] Hooper PA (2018) Melt pool temperature and cooling rates [44] Godec M, Zaefferer S, Podgornik B, Šinko M, Tcherny-
in laser powder bed fusion. Addit Manuf 22:548–559 chova E (2020) Quantitative multiscale correlative
[31] Sun S, Brandt M, Easton M (2017) Powder bed fusion microstructure analysis of additive manufacturing of
processes: an overview, laser additive manufacturing. stainless steel 316L processed by selective laser melting.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 55–77 Mater Charact 160:110074
[32] Farshidianfar MH, Khajepour A, Gerlich AP (2016) Effect [45] Park JH, Kang Y (2017) Inclusions in stainless steels—a
of real-time cooling rate on microstructure in laser additive review. Steel Res Int 88(12):1700130
manufacturing. J Mater Process Technol 231:468–478 [46] Saeidi K, Kvetková L, Lofaj F, Shen Z (2015) Austenitic
[33] Niendorf T, Leuders S, Riemer A, Richard HA, Tröster T, stainless steel strengthened by the in situ formation of oxide
Schwarze D (2013) Highly anisotropic steel processed by nanoinclusions. RSC Adv 5(27):20747–20750
selective laser melting. Metall Mater Trans B [47] Saeidi K, Gao X, Zhong Y, Shen ZJ (2015) Hardened
44(4):794–796 austenite steel with columnar sub-grain structure formed by
[34] Liu J, To AC (2017) Quantitative texture prediction of laser melting. Mater Sci Eng A 625:221–229
epitaxial columnar grains in additive manufacturing using [48] Yan F, Xiong W, Faierson E, Olson GB (2018) Character-
selective laser melting. Addit Manuf 16:58–64 ization of nano-scale oxides in austenitic stainless steel
[35] Kirka MM, Lee Y, Greeley DA, Okello A, Goin MJ, Pearce processed by powder bed fusion. Scr Mater 155:104–108
MT, Dehoff RR (2017) Strategy for texture management in [49] Costa e Silva A (2018) Non-metallic inclusions in steels-
metals additive manufacturing. JOM 69(3):523–531 origin and control. J Mater Res Technol 3:283–299
100 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

[50] Wang YM, Voisin T, McKeown JT, Ye J, Calta NP, Li Z, of additively manufactured 316L stainless steel after high-
Zeng Z, Zhang Y, Chen W, Roehling TT (2018) Additively temperature post-processing. Corros Sci 165:108412
manufactured hierarchical stainless steels with high [65] Chao Q, Cruz V, Thomas S, Birbilis N, Collins P, Taylor A,
strength and ductility. Nat Mater 17(1):63–70 Hodgson PD, Fabijanic D (2017) On the enhanced corro-
[51] Sun Z, Tan X, Tor SB, Chua CK (2018) Simultaneously sion resistance of a selective laser melted austenitic stain-
enhanced strength and ductility for 3D-printed stainless less steel. Scr Mater 141:94–98
steel 316L by selective laser melting. NPG Asia Mater [66] Sun Y, Moroz A, Alrbaey K (2014) Sliding wear charac-
10(4):127–136 teristics and corrosion behaviour of selective laser melted
[52] Riemer A, Leuders S, Thöne M, Richard H, Tröster T, 316L stainless steel. J Mater Eng Perform 23(2):518–526
Niendorf T (2014) On the fatigue crack growth behavior in [67] Kazemipour M, Mohammadi M, Mfoumou E, Nasiri A
316L stainless steel manufactured by selective laser melt- (2019) Microstructure and corrosion characteristics of
ing. Eng Fract Mech 120:15–25 selective laser-melted 316L stainless steel: the impact of
[53] Pegues JW, Roach MD, Shamsaei N (2020) Additive process-induced porosities. JOM 71(9):3230–3240
manufacturing of fatigue resistant austenitic stainless steels [68] Kong D, Dong C, Ni X, Zhang L, Luo H, Li R, Wang L,
by understanding process-structure-property relationships. Man C, Li X (2020) The passivity of selective laser melted
Mater Res Lett 8(1):8–15 316L stainless steel. Appl Surf Sci 504:144495
[54] Alvi S, Saeidi K, Akhtar F (2020) High temperature tri- [69] Hopkinson B, Carroll K (1959) Chromium distribution
bology and wear of selective laser melted (SLM) 316L around grain boundary carbides found in austenitic stainless
stainless steel. Wear 448:203228 steel. Nature 184(4697):1479–1480
[55] Ryan MP, Williams DE, Chater RJ, Hutton BM, McPhail [70] Ĉı́hal V, Kašová I (1970) Relation between carbide pre-
DS (2002) Why stainless steel corrodes. Nature cipitation and intercrystalline corrosion of stainless steels.
415(6873):770 Corros Sci 10(12):875–881
[56] Meng Q, Frankel G, Colijn H, Goss S (2003) Metallurgy [71] Macatangay D, Thomas S, Birbilis N, Kelly R (2017)
(communication arising): stainless-steel corrosion and MnS Unexpected interface corrosion and sensitization suscepti-
inclusions. Nature 424(6947):389–390 bility in additively manufactured austenitic stainless steel.
[57] Frankel G (1998) Pitting corrosion of metals a review of the Corrosion 74(2):153–157
critical factors. J Electrochem Soc 145(6):2186–2198 [72] Man C, Duan Z, Cui Z, Dong C, Kong D, Liu T, Chen S,
[58] Newman RC (2002) Beyond the kitchen sink. Nature Wang X (2019) The effect of sub-grain structure on inter-
415(6873):743–744 granular corrosion of 316L stainless steel fabricated via
[59] Sedriks A (1983) Role of sulphide inclusions in pitting and selective laser melting. Mater Lett 243:157–160
crevice corrosion of stainless steels. Int Met Rev [73] Kong D, Dong C, Ni X, Zhang L, Luo H, Li R, Wang L,
28(1):295–307 Man C, Li X (2020) Superior resistance to hydrogen
[60] Searson P, Latanision R (1986) A comparison of the general damage for selective laser melted 316L stainless steel in a
and localized corrosion resistance of conventional and proton exchange membrane fuel cell environment. Corros
rapidly solidified AISI 303 stainless steel. Corrosion Sci 166:108425
42(3):161–168 [74] Baek S-W, Song EJ, Kim JH, Jung M, Baek UB, Nahm SH
[61] Stewart J, Williams D (1992) The initiation of pitting cor- (2017) Hydrogen embrittlement of 3-D printing manufac-
rosion on austenitic stainless steel: on the role and impor- tured austenitic stainless steel part for hydrogen service. Scr
tance of sulphide inclusions. Corros Sci 33(3):457–474 Mater 130:87–90
[62] Sander G, Thomas S, Cruz V, Jurg M, Birbilis N, Gao X, [75] Shiomi M, Osakada K, Nakamura K, Yamashita T, Abe F
Brameld M, Hutchinson C (2017) On the corrosion and (2004) Residual stress within metallic model made by
metastable pitting characteristics of 316L stainless steel selective laser melting process. CIRP Ann 53(1):195–198
produced by selective laser melting. J Electrochem Soc [76] Mercelis P, Kruth JP (2006) Residual stresses in selective
164(6):C250–C257 laser sintering and selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp J
[63] Laleh M, Hughes AE, Xu W, Gibson I, Tan MY (2019) 12(5):254–265
Unexpected erosion-corrosion behaviour of 316L stainless [77] De Bruycker E, Montero Sistiaga M, Thielemans F, Van-
steel produced by selective laser melting. Corros Sci meensel K (2017) Corrosion testing of a heat treated 316l
155:67–74 functional part produced by selective laser melting. Mater
[64] Laleh M, Hughes AE, Xu W, Cizek P, Tan MY (2019) Sci Appl 8:223–233
Unanticipated drastic decline in pitting corrosion resistance
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 101

[78] Lou X, Song M, Emigh PW, Othon MA, Andresen PL steel manufactured by selective laser melting. Mater Corros
(2017) On the stress corrosion crack growth behaviour in 70(9):1633–1645
high temperature water of 316L stainless steel made by [91] Li H, Ramezani M, Li M, Ma C, Wang J (2018) Tribo-
laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Corros Sci logical performance of selective laser melted 316L stainless
128:140–153 steel. Tribol Int 128:121–129
[79] Lou X, Andresen PL, Rebak RB (2018) Oxide inclusions in [92] Carlton HD, Haboub A, Gallegos GF, Parkinson DY,
laser additive manufactured stainless steel and their effects MacDowell AA (2016) Damage evolution and failure
on impact toughness and stress corrosion cracking behav- mechanisms in additively manufactured stainless steel.
ior. J Nucl Mater 499:182–190 Mater Sci Eng A 651:406–414
[80] Zaeh MF, Branner G (2010) Investigations on residual [93] Zhu Y, Zou J, Chen X, Yang H (2016) Tribology of
stresses and deformations in selective laser melting. Prod selective laser melting processed parts: stainless steel 316 L
Eng Res Devel 4(1):35–45 under lubricated conditions. Wear 350:46–55
[81] Kruth J-P, Deckers J, Yasa E, Wauthlé R (2012) Assessing [94] Shrestha R, Simsiriwong J, Shamsaei N (2019) Fatigue
and comparing influencing factors of residual stresses in behavior of additive manufactured 316L stainless steel
selective laser melting using a novel analysis method. Proc parts: effects of layer orientation and surface roughness.
Inst Mech Eng Pt B J Eng Manuf 226(6):980–991 Addit Manuf 28:23–38
[82] Kruth J-P, Froyen L, Van Vaerenbergh J, Mercelis P, [95] Yadollahi A, Shamsaei N (2017) Additive manufacturing of
Rombouts M, Lauwers B (2004) Selective laser melting of fatigue resistant materials: challenges and opportunities. Int
iron-based powder. J Mater Process Technol J Fatigue 98:14–31
149(1–3):616–622 [96] Laleh M, Hughes AE, Yang S, Li J, Xu W, Gibson I, Tan
[83] Wu AS, Brown DW, Kumar M, Gallegos GF, King WE MY (2019) Two and three-dimensional characterisation of
(2014) An experimental investigation into additive manu- localised corrosion affected by lack-of-fusion pores in 316L
facturing-induced residual stresses in 316L stainless steel. stainless steel produced by selective laser melting. Corros
Metall Mater Trans A 45(13):6260–6270 Sci 165:108394
[84] Cheng B, Shrestha S, Chou K (2016) Stress and deforma- [97] Schaller RF, Mishra A, Rodelas JM, Taylor JM, Schindel-
tion evaluations of scanning strategy effect in selective laser holz EJ (2018) The role of microstructure and surface finish
melting. Addit Manuf 12:240–251 on the corrosion of selective laser melted 304L. J Elec-
[85] Lou X, Othon MA, Rebak RB (2017) Corrosion fatigue trochem Soc 165(5):C234–C242
crack growth of laser additively-manufactured 316L stain- [98] Melia MA, Nguyen H-DA, Rodelas JM, Schindelholz EJ
less steel in high temperature water. Corros Sci (2019) Corrosion properties of 304L stainless steel made by
127:120–130 directed energy deposition additive manufacturing. Corros
[86] Shamsaei N, Yadollahi A, Bian L, Thompson SM (2015) Sci 152:20–30
An overview of direct laser deposition for additive manu- [99] Duan Z, Man C, Dong C, Cui Z, Kong D, Wang X (2020)
facturing; part II: mechanical behavior, process parameter Pitting behavior of SLM 316L stainless steel exposed to
optimization and control. Addit Manuf 8:12–35 chloride environments with different aggressiveness: pitting
[87] Yadollahi A, Shamsaei N, Thompson SM, Elwany A, Bian mechanism induced by gas pores. Corros Sci 167:108520
L (2017) Effects of building orientation and heat treatment [100] Davis JR (1997) ASM specialty handbook: heat-resistant
on fatigue behavior of selective laser melted 17-4 PH materials. ASM International, Cleveland
stainless steel. Int J Fatigue 94:218–235 [101] Padilha AF, Plaut RL, Rios PR (2006) Stainless steel heat
[88] Mertens A, Reginster S, Contrepois Q, Dormal T, Lemaire treatment, steel heat treatment. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
O, Lecomte-Beckers J (2014) Microstructures and pp 706–751
mechanical properties of stainless steel AISI 316L pro- [102] Cruz V, Chao Q, Birbilis N, Fabijanic D, Hodgson P,
cessed by selective laser melting. Trans Tech Publ, Mater Thomas S (2019) Electrochemical studies on the effect of
Sci Forum, pp 898–903 residual stress on the corrosion of 316L manufactured by
[89] Kok Y, Tan XP, Wang P, Nai M, Loh NH, Liu E, Tor SB selective laser melting. Corros Sci 164:108314
(2018) Anisotropy and heterogeneity of microstructure and [103] Zhou C, Hu S, Shi Q, Tao H, Song Y, Zheng J, Xu P, Zhang
mechanical properties in metal additive manufacturing: a L (2020) Improvement of corrosion resistance of SS316L
critical review. Mater Des 139:565–586 manufactured by selective laser melting through subcritical
[90] Andreatta F, Lanzutti A, Vaglio E, Totis G, Sortino M, annealing. Corros Sci 164:108353
Fedrizzi L (2019) Corrosion behaviour of 316L stainless
102 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

[104] Kong D, Dong C, Ni X, Zhang L, Yao J, Man C, Cheng X, steel processed by selective laser melting (SLM). Mater Sci
Xiao K, Li X (2019) Mechanical properties and corrosion Eng A 781:139227
behavior of selective laser melted 316L stainless steel after [119] Chang C, Yan X, Bolot R, Gardan J, Gao S, Liu M, Liao H,
different heat treatment processes. J Mater Sci Technol Chemkhi M, Deng S (2020) Influence of post-heat treat-
35(7):1499–1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2019.03. ments on the mechanical properties of CX stainless steel
003 fabricated by selective laser melting. J Mater Sci
[105] McGuire MF (2008) Stainless steels for design engineers. 55:8303–8316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-020-04566
ASM International, Cleveland -x
[106] Yasa E, Kempen K, Kruth J, Thijs L, Van Humbeeck J [120] AH (1990) Volume, 1: properties and selection: irons,
(2010) Microstructure and mechanical properties of steels, and high-performance alloys; American Society for
maraging steel 300 after selective laser melting. In: Solid Metals; ASM International; The Materials Information
freeform fabrication symposium proceedings, pp 383–396 Company: Almere, The Netherlands
[107] Malakondaiah G, Srinivas M, Rao PR (1995) Basic studies [121] Roberts D, Zhang Y, Charit I, Zhang J (2018) A compar-
leading to the development of an ultrahigh strength, high ative study of microstructure and high-temperature
fracture toughness low-alloy steel. Bull Mater Sci mechanical properties of 15-5 PH stainless steel processed
18(4):325–341 via additive manufacturing and traditional manufacturing.
[108] Committee AH (1991) ASM Handbook Volume 4 Heat Prog Addit Manuf 3(3):183–190
Treating, ASM Standards. American Society for Metals, [122] Rafi HK, Starr TL, Stucker BE (2013) A comparison of the
Materials Park tensile, fatigue, and fracture behavior of Ti–6Al–4V and
[109] https://www.aksteel.com/sites/default/files/2018-01/155ph2 15–5 PH stainless steel parts made by selective laser
01706.pdf melting. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 69(5–8):1299–1309
[110] Croccolo D, De Agostinis M, Fini S, Olmi G, Bogojevic N, [123] Sagar S, Zhang Y, Wu L, Park H-Y, Lee J-H, Jung Y-G,
Ciric-Kostic S (2018) Effects of build orientation and Zhang J (2018) Room-temperature charpy impact property
thickness of allowance on the fatigue behaviour of 15–5 PH of 3d-printed 15–5 stainless steel. J Mater Eng Perform
stainless steel manufactured by DMLS. Fatigue Fract Eng 27(1):52–56
Mater Struct 41(4):900–916 [124] Spierings AB, Starr TL, Wegener K (2013) Fatigue per-
[111] Palanisamy D, Senthil P, Senthilkumar V (2016) The effect formance of additive manufactured metallic parts. Rapid
of aging on machinability of 15Cr–5Ni precipitation hard- Prototyp J 19:88–94
ened stainless steel. Arch Civ Mech Eng 16(1):53–63 [125] Sarkar S, Kumar CS, Nath AK (2019) Effects of different
[112] Casati R, Lemke JN, Tuissi A, Vedani M (2016) Aging surface modifications on the fatigue life of selective laser
behaviour and mechanical performance of 18-Ni 300 steel melted 15–5 PH stainless steel. Mater Sci Eng A
processed by selective laser melting. Metals 6(9):218–230 762:138109
[113] Jägle EA, Sheng Z, Wu L, Lu L, Risse J, Weisheit A, Raabe [126] Sarkar S, Kumar CS, Nath AK (2019) Effects of heat
D (2016) Precipitation reactions in age-hardenable alloys treatment and build orientations on the fatigue life of
during laser additive manufacturing. JOM 68(3):943–949 selective laser melted 15–5 PH stainless steel. Mater Sci
[114] Sha W, Cerezo A, Smith G (1993) Phase chemistry and Eng A 755:235–245
precipitation reactions in maraging steels: part IV. Discus- [127] Lebrun T, Tanigaki K, Horikawa K, Kobayashi H (2014)
sion and conclusions. Metall Mater Trans A Strain rate sensitivity and mechanical anisotropy of selec-
24(6):1251–1256 tive laser melted 17–4 PH stainless steel. Mech Eng J
[115] www.aksteel.com/sites/default/files/2018-01/174ph201706. 1(5):SMM0049
pdf [128] Kumpaty S, Kamara S, Tomlin B, Yoo J, Kumpaty H,
[116] https://cdn0.scrvt.com/eos/1801f2663ea474ba/efe087ff3ca Anderson D, Govindaraju M, Kanoongo N, Balasubrama-
d/StainlessSteel-CX-M280_Material_data_sheet_09-15_en. nian K (2013) Effect of heat treatment on mechanical/
pdf metallurgical properties of direct metal laser sintered 17–4
[117] Asgari H, Mohammadi M (2018) Microstructure and precipitate hardened stainless steel. Advanced Materials
mechanical properties of stainless steel CX manufactured Research, Trans Tech Publ, 2013, pp 795–801
by direct metal laser sintering. Mater Sci Eng A 709:82–89 [129] Mahmoudi M, Elwany A, Yadollahi A, Thompson SM,
[118] Yan X, Chen C, Chang C, Dong D, Zhao R, Jenkins R, Bian L, Shamsaei N (2017) Mechanical properties and
Wang J, Ren Z, Liu M, Liao H (2020) Study of the microstructural characterization of selective laser melted
microstructure and mechanical performance of CX stainless 17–4 PH stainless steel. Rapid Prototyp J 23:280–294
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 103

[130] Auguste P, Mauduit A, Fouquet L, Pillot S (2018) Study on of additively manufactured 17–4 PH stainless steel. JOM
17–4 PH stainless steel produced by selective laser melting. 69(3):506–515
UPB Sci Bull Ser B-Chem Mater Sci 80:197–210 [142] LeBrun T, Nakamoto T, Horikawa K, Kobayashi H (2015)
[131] Pasebani S, Ghayoor M, Badwe S, Irrinki H, Atre SV Effect of retained austenite on subsequent thermal pro-
(2018) Effects of atomizing media and post processing on cessing and resultant mechanical properties of selective
mechanical properties of 17–4 PH stainless steel manu- laser melted 17–4 PH stainless steel. Mater Des 81:44–53
factured via selective laser melting. Addit Manuf [143] Hsu T-H, Chang Y-J, Huang C-Y, Yen H-W, Chen C-P, Jen
22:127–137 K-K, Yeh A-C (2019) Microstructure and property of a
[132] Nezhadfar P, Shrestha R, Phan N, Shamsaei N (2019) selective laser melting process induced oxide dispersion
Fatigue behavior of additively manufactured 17–4 PH strengthened 17–4 PH stainless steel. J Alloys Compd.
stainless steel: synergistic effects of surface roughness and 803:30–41
heat treatment. Int J Fatigue 124:188–204 [144] AlMangour B, Yang J-M (2016) Improving the surface
[133] Ghayoor M, Badwe SB, Irrinki H, Atre SV, Pasebani S quality and mechanical properties by shot-peening of 17–4
(2018) Water atomized 17–4 PH stainless steel powder as a stainless steel fabricated by additive manufacturing. Mater
cheaper alternative powder feedstock for selective laser Des 110:914–924
melting. Mater Sci Forum Trans Tech Publ, pp 698–703 [145] Facchini L, Vicente N Jr, Lonardelli I, Magalini E, Robotti
[134] Lass EA, Stoudt MR, Williams ME (2019) Additively P, Molinari A (2010) Metastable austenite in 17–4 precip-
manufactured nitrogen-atomized 17–4 PH stainless steel itation-hardening stainless steel produced by selective laser
with mechanical properties comparable to wrought. Metall melting. Adv Eng Mater 12(3):184–188
Mater Trans A 50(4):1619–1624 [146] Ponnusamy P, Masood S, Ruan D, Palanisamy S, Rashid
[135] Carneiro L, Jalalahmadi B, Ashtekar A, Jiang Y (2019) RR, Mohamed OA (2017) Mechanical performance of
Cyclic deformation and fatigue behavior of additively selective laser melted 17–4 PH stainless steel under com-
manufactured 17–4 PH stainless steel. Int J Fatigue pressive loading. In: Solid freeform fabrication symosium
123:22–30 proceedings, pp 321–331
[136] Yadollahi A, Shamsaei N, Thompson SM, Elwany A, Bian [147] Jägle EA, Sheng Z, Kürnsteiner P, Ocylok S, Weisheit A,
L (2015) Mechanical and microstructural properties of Raabe D (2017) Comparison of maraging steel micro-and
selective laser melted 17–4 PH stainless steel. In: ASME nanostructure produced conventionally and by laser addi-
2015 international mechanical engineering congress and tive manufacturing. Materials 10(1):8–22
exposition, American Society of Mechanical Engineers [148] Wang D, Chi C, Wang W, Li Y, Wang M, Chen X, Chen Z,
Digital Collection Cheng X, Xie Y (2019) The effects of fabrication atmo-
[137] Cheruvathur S, Lass EA, Campbell CE (2016) Additive sphere condition on the microstructural and mechanical
manufacturing of 17-4 PH stainless steel: post-processing properties of laser direct manufactured stainless steel 17–4
heat treatment to achieve uniform reproducible PH. J Mater Sci Technol 35(7):1315–1322. https://doi.org/
microstructure. JOM 68(3):930–942 10.1016/j.jmst.2019.03.009
[138] Sun Y, Hebert RJ, Aindow M (2018) Effect of heat treat- [149] Dobson S, Vunnam S, Frankel D, Sudbrack C, Starr T
ments on microstructural evolution of additively manufac- (2019) Powder variation and mechanical properties for slm
tured and wrought 17-4PH stainless steel. Mater Des 17–4 ph stainless steel. In: Solid freeform fabrication 2019:
156:429–440 proceedings of the 30th annual international, pp 478–493
[139] Rafi HK, Pal D, Patil N, Starr TL, Stucker BE (2014) [150] Nezhadfar PD, Masoomi M, Thompson S, Phan N,
Microstructure and mechanical behavior of 17–4 precipi- Shamsaei N (2018) Mechanical properties of 17–4 PH
tation hardenable steel processed by selective laser melting. stainless steel additively manufactured under Ar and N2
J Mater Eng Perform 23(12):4421–4428 shielding gas. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual interna-
[140] Irrinki H, Jangam JSD, Pasebani S, Badwe S, Stitzel J, Kate tional solid freeform fabrication, Austin, TX, USA, 13–15
K, Gulsoy O, Atre SV (2018) Effects of particle charac- [151] Condruz MR, Paraschiv A, Puscasu C (2018) Heat treat-
teristics on the microstructure and mechanical properties of ment influence on hardness and microstructure of ADAM
17–4 PH stainless steel fabricated by laser-powder bed manufactured 17–4 PH, Turbo 1:39–45
fusion. Powder Technol 331:192–203 [152] Murr LE, Martinez E, Hernandez J, Collins S, Amato KN,
[141] Stoudt MR, Ricker RE, Lass E, Levine LE (2017) Influence Gaytan SM, Shindo PW (2012) Microstructures and prop-
of postbuild microstructure on the electrochemical behavior erties of 17–4 PH stainless steel fabricated by selective laser
melting. J Mater Res Technol 1(3):167–177
104 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

[153] Kudzal A, McWilliams B, Hofmeister C, Kellogg F, Yu J, laser melted maraging steel with different build directions.
Taggart-Scarff J, Liang J (2017) Effect of scan pattern on Sci Technol Adv Mater 19(1):746–758
the microstructure and mechanical properties of powder [165] Tan C, Zhou K, Ma W, Zhang P, Liu M, Kuang T (2017)
bed fusion additive manufactured 17–4 stainless steel. Microstructural evolution, nanoprecipitation behavior and
Mater Des 133:205–215 mechanical properties of selective laser melted high-per-
[154] Sanjeev K, Nezhadfar P, Phillips C, Kennedy M, Shamsaei formance grade 300 maraging steel. Mater Des 134:23–34
N, Jackson R (2019) Tribological behavior of 17–4 PH [166] Monkova K, Zetkova I, Kučerová L, Zetek M, Monka P,
stainless steel fabricated by traditional manufacturing and Daňa M (2019) Study of 3D printing direction and effects
laser-based additive manufacturing methods. Wear of heat treatment on mechanical properties of MS1
440:203100 maraging steel. Arch Appl Mech 89(5):791–804
[155] Caballero A, Ding J, Ganguly S, Williams S (2019) [167] Damon J, Hanemann T, Dietrich S, Graf G, Lang K-H,
Wire ? Arc additive manufacture of 17–4 PH stainless Schulze V (2019) Orientation dependent fatigue perfor-
steel: effect of different processing conditions on mance and mechanisms of selective laser melted maraging
microstructure, hardness, and tensile strength. J Mater steel X3NiCoMoTi18-9-5. Int J Fatigue 127:395–402
Process Technol 268:54–62 [168] Kučerová L, Zetková I, Jandová A, Bystrianský M (2019)
[156] Sung H-J, Ha TK, Ahn S, Chang YW (2002) Powder Microstructural characterisation and in-situ straining of
injection molding of a 17–4 PH stainless steel and the effect additive-manufactured X3NiCoMoTi 18-9-5 maraging
of sintering temperature on its microstructure and steel. Mater Sci Eng A 750:70–80
mechanical properties. J Mater Process Technol [169] Bai Y, Yang Y, Wang D, Zhang M (2017) Influence
130:321–327 mechanism of parameters process and mechanical proper-
[157] Bhambroo R, Roychowdhury S, Kain V, Raja V (2013) ties evolution mechanism of maraging steel 300 by selec-
Effect of reverted austenite on mechanical properties of tive laser melting. Mater Sci Eng A 703:116–123
precipitation hardenable 17–4 stainlesssteel. Mater Sci Eng [170] A.M.-p.P.d. bulletin, https://www.aksteel.com/sites/default/
A 568:127–133 files/2018-01/155ph201706.pdf
[158] Akita M, Uematsu Y, Kakiuchi T, Nakajima M, Kawaguchi [171] Meneghetti G, Rigon D, Gennari C (2019) An analysis of
R (2016) Defect-dominated fatigue behavior in type 630 defects influence on axial fatigue strength of maraging steel
stainless steel fabricated by selective laser melting. Mater specimens produced by additive manufacturing. Int J Fati-
Sci Eng A 666:19–26 gue 118:54–64
[159] Yadollahi A, Shamsaei N, Thompson SM, Elwany A, Bian [172] Branco R, Costa JD, Berto F, Razavi SMJ, Ferreira JAM,
L, Mahmoudi M (2015) Fatigue behavior of selective laser Capela C, Santos L, Antunes F (2018) Low-cycle fatigue
melted 17–4 PH stainless steel. In: Proceedings of 26th behaviour of AISI 18Ni300 maraging steel produced by
international solid freeform fabrication symposium, Austin, selective laser melting. Metals 8(1):32–46
TX [173] Wang L, Dong C, Man C, Kong D, Xiao K, Li X (2020)
[160] Casalino G, Campanelli S, Contuzzi N, Ludovico A (2015) Enhancing the corrosion resistance of selective laser melted
Experimental investigation and statistical optimisation of 15–5PH martensite stainless steel via heat treatment. Corros
the selective laser melting process of a maraging steel. Opt Sci 166:108427
Laser Technol 65:151–158 [174] Schaller RF, Taylor JM, Rodelas J, Schindelholz EJ (2017)
[161] Kempen K, Yasa E, Thijs L, Kruth J-P, Van Humbeeck J Corrosion properties of powder bed fusion additively
(2011) Microstructure and mechanical properties of selec- manufactured 17–4 PH stainless steel. Corrosion
tive laser melted 18Ni-300 steel. Phys Procedia 12:255–263 73(7):796–807
[162] https://www.atimetals.com/Products/Documents/datasheet [175] Irrinki H, Harper T, Badwe S, Stitzel J, Gulsoy O, Gupta G,
s/stainless-specialty-steel/specialtysteel/ati_c-200-250-300- Atre SV (2018) Effects of powder characteristics and pro-
350_tds_en1_v1.pdf cessing conditions on the corrosion performance of 17–4
[163] Yin S, Chen C, Yan X, Feng X, Jenkins R, O’Reilly P, Liu PH stainless steel fabricated by laser-powder bed fusion.
M, Li H, Lupoi R (2018) The influence of aging tempera- Progress Addit Manuf 3(1–2):39–49
ture and aging time on the mechanical and tribological [176] Alnajjar M, Christien F, Barnier V, Bosch C, Wolski K,
properties of selective laser melted maraging 18Ni-300 Fortes AD, Telling M (2020) Influence of microstructure
steel. Addit Manuf 22:592–600 and manganese sulfides on corrosion resistance of selective
[164] Tan C, Zhou K, Kuang M, Ma W, Kuang T (2018) laser melted 17–4 PH stainless steel in acidic chloride
Microstructural characterization and properties of selective medium. Corros Sci 168:108585
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 105

[177] Gunn R (1997) Duplex stainless steels: microstructure, [192] Yvon P (2016) Structural materials for generation IV
properties and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam nuclear reactors. Woodhead Publishing, Sawston
[178] https://www.materials.sandvik/en/ [193] Liu F, Lin X, Shi J, Zhang Y, Bian P, Li X, Hu Y (2019)
[179] Davidson K, Singamneni S (2016) Selective laser melting Effect of microstructure on the Charpy impact properties of
of duplex stainless steel powders: an investigation. Mater directed energy deposition 300 M steel. Addit Manuf
Manuf Process 31(12):1543–1555 29:100795
[180] Saeidi K, Kevetkova L, Lofaj F, Shen Z (2016) Novel [194] Sridharan N, Gussev MN, Field KG (2019) Performance of
ferritic stainless steel formed by laser melting from duplex a ferritic/martensitic steel for nuclear reactor applications
stainless steel powder with advanced mechanical properties fabricated using additive manufacturing. J Nucl Mater
and high ductility. Mater Sci Eng A 665:59–65 521:45–55
[181] Saeidi K, Alvi S, Lofaj F, Petkov VI, Akhtar F (2019) [195] Xi L, Chen S, Wei M, Liang J, Liu C, Wang M (2019)
Advanced mechanical strength in post heat treated SLM Microstructural evolution and properties of 24CrNiMoY
2507 at room and high temperature promoted by alloy steel fabricated by selective laser melting. J Mater
hard/ductile sigma precipitates. Metals 9(2):199–209 Eng Perform 28(9):5521–5532
[182] Davidson KP, Singamneni S (2017) Magnetic characteri- [196] Kang X, Dong S, Wang H, Yan S, Liu X, Xu B (2020)
zation of selective laser-melted Saf 2507 duplex stainless Inhomogeneous microstructure and its evolution of laser
steel. JOM 69(3):569–574 melting deposited 24CrNiMo steel: from single-track to
[183] Murkute P, Pasebani S, Isgor OB (2019) Electrochemical bulk sample. Mater Sci Eng A 772:138795
investigation of super duplex stainless steel cladded carbon [197] Tanigawa H, Gaganidze E, Hirose T, Ando M, Zinkle S,
steel manufactured via powder bed selective laser melting. Lindau R, Diegele E (2017) Development of benchmark
In: CORROSION 2019, NACE international reduced activation ferritic/martensitic steels for fusion
[184] Hengsbach F, Koppa P, Duschik K, Holzweissig MJ, Burns energy applications. Nucl Fusion 57(9):092004
M, Nellesen J, Tillmann W, Tröster T, Hoyer K-P, Schaper [198] Liu C, Tong J, Jiang M, Chen Z, Xu G, Liao H, Wang P,
M (2017) Duplex stainless steel fabricated by selective laser Wang X, Xu M, Lao C (2019) Effect of scanning strategy
melting-Microstructural and mechanical properties. Mater on microstructure and mechanical properties of selective
Des 133:136–142 laser melted reduced activation ferritic/martensitic steel.
[185] Liu H, Feng X (2013) Effect of post-processing heat Mater Sci Eng A 766:138364
treatment on microstructure and microhardness of water- [199] Huang B, Zhai Y, Liu S, Mao X (2018) Microstructure
submerged friction stir processed 2219-T6 aluminum alloy. anisotropy and its effect on mechanical properties of
Mater Des 47:101–105 reduced activation ferritic/martensitic steel fabricated by
[186] Iams A, Keist J, Palmer T (2020) Formation of austenite in selective laser melting. J Nucl Mater 500:33–41
additively manufactured and post-processed duplex stain- [200] Mao C, Liu C, Yu L, Li H, Liu Y (2018) Mechanical
less steel alloys. Metall Mater Trans A 51(2):982–999 properties and tensile deformation behavior of a reduced
[187] Nath SD, Clinning E, Gupta G, Wuelfrath-Poirier V, activated ferritic-martensitic (RAFM) steel at elevated
L’Espérance G, Gulsoy O, Kearns M, Atre SV (2019) temperatures. Mater Sci Eng A 725:283–289
Effects of Nb and Mo on the microstructure and properties [201] Jiang M, Chen Z, Tong J, Liu C, Xu G, Liao H, Wang P,
of 420 stainless steel processed by laser-powder bed fusion. Wang X, Xu M, Lao C (2019) Strong and ductile reduced
Addit Manuf 28:682–691 activation ferritic/martensitic steel additively manufactured
[188] Saeidi K, Zapata DL, Lofaj F, Kvetkova L, Olsen J, Shen Z, by selective laser melting. Mater Res Lett 7(10):426–432
Akhtar F (2019) Ultra-high strength martensitic 420 stain- [202] Zuo P, Chen S, Wei M, Zhou L, Liang J, Liu C, Wang M
less steel with high ductility. Addit Manuf 29:100803 (2019) Microstructure evolution of 24CrNiMoY alloy steel
[189] Wang W, Kelly S (2016) A metallurgical evaluation of the parts by high power selective laser melting. J Manuf Pro-
powder-bed laser additive manufactured 4140 steel mate- cess 44:28–37
rial. JOM 68(3):869–875 [203] Ran X, Liu D, Li A, Wang H, Tang H, Cheng X (2016)
[190] Sridharan N, Field K (2019) A road map for the advanced Microstructure characterization and mechanical behavior of
manufacturing of ferritic-martensitic steels. Fusion Sci laser additive manufactured ultrahigh-strength AerMet100
Technol 75(4):264–274 steel. Mater Sci Eng A 663:69–77
[191] Davis J, Michel D (1984) Proceedings of the topical con- [204] Garibaldi M, Ashcroft I, Lemke J, Simonelli M, Hague R
ference on ferritic alloys for use in nuclear energy tech- (2018) Effect of annealing on the microstructure and
nologies, United States, The Metallurgical Society, Inc.
106 J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107

magnetic properties of soft magnetic Fe–Si produced via [218] Park JS, Park JH, Lee M-G, Sung JH, Cha KJ, Kim DH
laser additive manufacturing. Scr Mater 142:121–125 (2016) Effect of energy input on the characteristic of AISI
[205] Jelis E, Kerwien S, Ravindra NM, Clemente M (2014) H13 and D2 tool steels deposited by a directed energy
Development of low alloy high strength steel process deposition process. Metall Mater Trans A 47(5):2529–2535
parameters for direct metal laser sintering. Mater Sci [219] Pellizzari M, Furlani S, Deirmina F, Siriki R, AlMangour B,
Technol 1:2011–2018 Grzesiak D (2019) Fracture toughness of a hot work tool
[206] Rodrigues TA, Duarte V, Avila JA, Santos TG, Miranda R, steel fabricated by laser-powder bed fusion additive man-
Oliveira J (2019) Wire and arc additive manufacturing of ufacturing. Steel Res Int 91:1900449
HSLA steel: effect of thermal cycles on microstructure and [220] Riza SH, Masood S, Wen C (2015) A study on wear
mechanical properties. Addit Manuf 27:440–450 behaviour of laser direct metal deposited high strength H13
[207] Roberts GA, Kennedy R, Krauss G (1998) Tool steels. tool steel. Manuf Sci Technol 3(4):182–188
ASM International, Cleveland [221] Dörfert R, Zhang J, Clausen B, Freiße H, Schumacher J,
[208] Wright CS, Youseffi M, Akhtar S, Childs T, Hauser C, Fox Vollertsen F (2019) Comparison of the fatigue strength
P (2006) Selective laser melting of prealloyed high alloy between additively and conventionally fabricated tool steel
steel powder beds. Mater Sci Forum Trans Tech Publ, 1.2344. Addit Manuf 27:217–223
pp 516–523 [222] Huber F, Bischof C, Hentschel O, Heberle J, Zettl J, Nag-
[209] Sander J, Hufenbach J, Giebeler L, Wendrock H, Kühn U, ulin KY, Schmidt M (2019) Laser beam melting and heat-
Eckert J (2016) Microstructure and properties of FeCr- treatment of 1.2343 (AISI H11) tool steel–microstructure
MoVC tool steel produced by selective laser melting. Mater and mechanical properties. Mater Sci Eng A 742:109–115
Des 89:335–341 [223] Casati R, Coduri M, Lecis N, Andrianopoli C, Vedani M
[210] Ren B, Lu D, Zhou R, Li Z, Guan J (2019) Preparation and (2018) Microstructure and mechanical behavior of hot-
mechanical properties of selective laser melted H13 steel. work tool steels processed by selective laser melting. Mater
J Mater Res 34(8):1415–1425 Charact 137:50–57
[211] Deirmina F, Peghini N, AlMangour B, Grzesiak D, Pel- [224] Junker D, Hentschel O, Schramme R, Schmidt M, Merklein
lizzari M (2019) Heat treatment and properties of a hot M (2017) Performance of hot forging tools built by laser
work tool steel fabricated by additive manufacturing. Mater metal deposition of hot work tool steel X37CrMoV5-1. In:
Sci Eng A 753:109–121 Proceedings of the laser in manufacturing conference
[212] Yan J, Zheng D, Li H, Jia X, Sun J, Li Y, Qian M, Yan M [225] Zhang M, Chen C, Qin L, Yan K, Cheng G, Jing H, Zou T
(2017) Selective laser melting of H13: microstructure and (2018) Laser additive manufacturing of M2 high-speed
residual stress. J Mater Sci 52(20):12476–12485. https://d steel. Mater Sci Technol 34(1):69–78
oi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-1380-3 [226] Sander J, Hufenbach J, Giebeler L, Bleckmann M, Eckert J,
[213] Holzweissig MJ, Taube A, Brenne F, Schaper M, Niendorf Kühn U (2017) Microstructure, mechanical behavior, and
T (2015) Microstructural characterization and mechanical wear properties of FeCrMoVC steel prepared by selective
performance of hot work tool steel processed by selective laser melting and casting. Scr Mater 126(1):41–44
laser melting. Metall Mater Trans B 46(2):545–549 [227] Boes J, Röttger A, Theisen W (2019) Processing of
[214] Mertens R, Vrancken B, Holmstock N, Kinds Y, Kruth J-P, X65MoCrWV3-2 cold work tool steel by laser powder bed
Van Humbeeck J (2016) Influence of powder bed preheat- fusion. Steel Res Int 91:1900445
ing on microstructure and mechanical properties of H13 [228] Kempen K, Vrancken B, Buls S, Thijs L, Van Humbeeck J,
tool steel SLM parts. Phys Procedia 83:882–890 Kruth J-P (2014) Selective laser melting of crack-free high
[215] Xue L, Chen J, Wang S-H (2013) Freeform laser consoli- density M2 high speed steel parts by baseplate preheating.
dated H13 and CPM 9V tool steels. Metallogr Microstruct J Manuf Sci Eng 136(6):061026
Anal 2(2):67–78 [229] Sander J, Hufenbach J, Bleckmann M, Giebeler L, Wen-
[216] Krell J, Röttger A, Geenen K, Theisen W (2018) General drock H, Oswald S, Gemming T, Eckert J, Kühn U (2017)
investigations on processing tool steel X40CrMoV5-1 with Selective laser melting of ultra-high-strength TRIP steel:
selective laser melting. J Mater Process Technol processing, microstructure, and properties. J Mater Sci
255:679–688 52(9):4944–4956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-016-073
[217] Lee J, Choe J, Park J, Yu J-H, Kim S, Sung H (2019) 1-9
Microstructural effects on the tensile and fracture behavior [230] Hufenbach J, Kohlar S, Kühn U, Giebeler L, Eckert J
of selective laser melted H13 tool steel under varying (2012) Microstructural and mechanical characterization of
conditions. Mater Charact 155:109817 an ultra-high-strength Fe 86.7 Cr 4.4 Mo 0.6V 1.1W 2.5 C
J Mater Sci (2021) 56:64–107 107

4.7 alloy. J Mater Sci 47(1):267–271. https://doi.org/10.10 [233] Polatidis E, Čapek J, Arabi-Hashemi A, Leinenbach C,
07/s10853-011-5794-z Strobl M (2020) High ductility and transformation-induced-
[231] Kies F, Köhnen P, Wilms MB, Brasche F, Pradeep KG, plasticity in metastable stainless steel processed by selec-
Schwedt A, Richter S, Weisheit A, Schleifenbaum JH, tive laser melting with low power. Scr Mater 176:53–57
Haase C (2018) Design of high-manganese steels for [234] Pham M, Dovgyy B, Hooper P (2017) Twinning induced
additive manufacturing applications with energy-absorption plasticity in austenitic stainless steel 316L made by additive
functionality. Mater Des 160:1250–1264 manufacturing. Mater Sci Eng A 704:102–111
[232] Haase C, Bültmann J, Hof J, Ziegler S, Bremen S, Hinke C,
Schwedt A, Prahl U, Bleck W (2017) Exploiting process- Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
related advantages of selective laser melting for the pro- regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
duction of high-manganese steel. Materials 10(1):56–69 institutional affiliations.