Advances in Materials and Processing Technologies

ISSN: 2374-068X (Print) 2374-0698 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmpt20

Microstructural evolution and mechanical

properties of 316L stainless steel using multiaxial
forging

S.K. Rajput, Jitendra Kumar, Yashwant Mehta, Tarun Soota & K.K. Saxena

To cite this article: S.K. Rajput, Jitendra Kumar, Yashwant Mehta, Tarun Soota & K.K.
Saxena (2020): Microstructural evolution and mechanical properties of 316L stainless
steel using multiaxial forging, Advances in Materials and Processing Technologies, DOI:
10.1080/2374068X.2020.1728641

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2374068X.2020.1728641

Published online: 18 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmpt20
ADVANCES IN MATERIALS AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/2374068X.2020.1728641

Microstructural evolution and mechanical properties of 316L

stainless steel using multiaxial forging
S.K. Rajputa, Jitendra Kumara, Yashwant Mehtab, Tarun Sootaa and K.K. Saxena c

a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bundelkhand Institute of Engineering and Technology, Jhansi,
India; bDepartment of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Srinagar,
India; cDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, GLA University, Mathura, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In order to investigate the effect of multi-axial forging on microstruc- Accepted 30 January 2020
tural evolution and mechanical properties, warm multi-axial forging
KEYWORDS
(MAF) on stainless steel 316L is performed. MAF 316L stainless steel 316L stainless steel; warm
exhibits higher specific strength that is used in a wide number of multiaxial forging; grain
applications such as in body implants. In the present study, stainless refinement; microstructure
steel 316L was warm multi-axially forged at 600ºC for cumulative evolution; fractography
strains of 1.4, 2.8 and 4.2 and studied their microstructural evolution
and mechanical properties. Microstructural evolution was seen using
light optical microscopy and observed continuous reduction in grain
size with pass. The average grain size of the material is reduced from
37 µm to 8 µm after nine pass. The hardness of the material increased
due to combination of strain hardening and Hall-Petch strengthening.
Fracture type is clearly visible with the help of SEM. The size of the
dimples is continuously reducing with increasing pass, and peaks and
valleys are formed due to the introduction of some brittleness in the
material.

1. Introduction
Many metallic materials are used to manufacture biomedical instruments. Some metallic
materials show higher tensile strength, fracture toughness and fatigue behaviour as com-
pared to ceramics and polymers. Stainless steel is an iron-based alloy that contains mini-
mum 12% Cr. Chromium increases resistance to oxidation at higher temperatures and
promotes ferritic microstructure. Nickel is added in stainless steel that promotes an
austenitic microstructure, results increment in ductility and toughness. Stainless steel
316L is one of them that has better corrosion and wear resistance in saline environments;
thus, it is suitable for biomedical applications. Additionally, 316L stainless steel does not
exhibit ferromagnetism. This is a vital requirement in orthopaedic implant devices. High
strength 316L stainless steel will make suitable for these applications.
It is well known that the grain size is a major microstructural parameter in dictating the
properties of a polycrystalline material. At low temperatures, the strength generally follows the
Hall–Petch relationship and strength of the material increases with reduction in grain size.

CONTACT S.K. Rajput rajput_skumar@rediffmail.com Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bundelkhand

Institute of Engineering and Technology, Jhansi 284128, India
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. K. RAJPUT ET AL.

In order to achieve higher strength, various methods of grain refinement are available
nowadays. There are two methods for producing fine grains, i.e. bottom-up approach,
and top-down approach [1]. Bottom-up approach assembles polycrystalline metallic
materials layer-by-layer. The strength of the 316L stainless steel is low. It is well known
that as long as these steels do not undergo any phase transformation or heat treatment,
the strength cannot be changed to a large extent. Other than heat treatment, there are
several other methods by which the strength of the stainless steel can be improved.
Multiaxial forging (MAF) is one of the techniques for grain refinement which can
improve the mechanical properties of the material. MAF comes under the severe plastic
deformation (SPD) technique. Unlike the other strengthening techniques, the grain
refinement technique can improve the mechanical strength, as well as retain significant
ductility.
Fuloria et al. [2] investigated the mechanical and microstructural evolution of
Zircaloy-4 through multiaxial forging at cryogenic temperature (77 K) using a cumu-
lative strain of 1.48, 2.96, 4.44 and 5.91. The ultimate tensile strength was increased
from 474 MPa to 717 MPa and hardness increased from 190 VHN to 238 VHN.
Decrement in ductility was observed from 18% to 3.5% due to low strain hardening.
Rao et al. [3] performed the multiaxial forging on AA6061 alloy at cryo-temperature
and observed the increment in the mechanical properties, and also refined grain of an
average grain size of 250 nm was obtained. Belyakov et al. [4] performed multi-axial
compression on 304 type stainless steel at a temperature of 600°C and ultra-fine-grains
with grain size of about 0.25 µm are evolved. Torizuka et al. performed multi-pass
warm rolling on low carbon steel and concluded that tensile strength and lower yield
strength increased as a function of cumulative strain, very rapidly up to a strain of 0.7
and gradually increment thereafter up to a strain of 3.8. Uniform elongation sharply
decreases up to a strain of 0.7 beyond which it was constant [5]. Ren-bo et al. reported
that solution-treated specimens has more excellent combination of strength and elon-
gation than that of hot-rolled specimens. After the solution treatment, the ferrite
content decreases from 10% to 6% and showed better corrosion resistance [6].
Lichtenfeld et al. investigated the effect of strain rate on the stress-strain behaviour of
austenitic stainless steels and observed that ultimate tensile strength of material
increased from with strain rate [7]. Katiyar et al. performed warm multiaxial compres-
sion on high P steel and observed grain refinement and increment in tensile strength
and hardness [8]. Wang et al. conducted a study on an AISI 201 stainless steel multi-
axial compression using strain of 0.4 in each pass at 700°C. Author reported grain
refinement in the order of 1 µm after 15 pass [9]. Chen et al. observed a layered and
nanostructured (LN) stainless steel microstructure after warm rolling, and reported
yield strength in the range of 878–924 MPa, and ultimate tensile strength in the range of
929–1042 MPa [10]. Belyakov et al. performed multiaxial forging (MAF) on 304
stainless steel at 773 K. Author observed the increment in volume fraction of new
fine grains and the density of strain-induced grain boundaries with increasing forging
passes [4].
In this study, MAF of 316L stainless steel is performed at 600ºC to produce fine-
grained material. Evolution of microstructure produced during MAF is studied and
correlated them with their mechanical properties.
 ADVANCES IN MATERIALS AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES 3

Table 1. Chemical composition of 316L stainless steel.

Element C Mn Cu Si S P Cr Ni Mo Fe
wt% 0.025 1.733 0.38 0.24 0.018 0.019 17.83 10.44 2.79 balance

2. Material and methods

316L stainless steel was procured in the form of a bar having dimensions of 200 mm ×
300 mm × 25 mm. The chemical composition of the material was determined using spark
emission spectrometer and is shown in Table 1.
Specimens for multiaxial forging were cut in the form of cuboids having dimensions of
25 mm × 20.3 mm × 16.7 mm, to maintain a dimensional ratio of 1.5:1.22: 1.0. The
dimensional ratio did not change during the forging, while the loading (forging) direc-
tions were changed by 90° between passes (i.e. x-y, y-z and z-x). True strain of 0.4 was
applied at each pass. Multiaxial forging was performed at a temperature of 600ºC with the
help of a 1000 kN friction screw forging press. Before forging, the specimens were heated
to 600ºC for 1 h. Dies of the forging press were lubricated using solid graphite powder to
ensure relatively homogenous deformation even at large strains. Finally, after each strain
step, the specimens were quickly water quenched to retain their microstructure. The
specimens were deformed using 0, 3, 6, and 9 pass MAF corresponds to effective strains
of 0, 1.2, 2.4, and 3.6, respectively. Specimens were cut perpendicular to the last loading
direction for microstructural study, followed by mechanical polishing using different
grades of papers. To reveal the microstructures of as-received and forged specimens,
Marble’s etchant was used. Light optical microscope (Leica DMIL M LED) was used to
observe microstructures. Grain size was measured using the linear intercept method
because according to the ASTM E-112, the linear intercept method gives better accuracy
in comparison to the other available methods. To determine tensile and yield strength,
tensile tests were conducted using Instron-1195 screw-driven UTM machine at room
temperature. Dog bone shaped tensile specimens having a gauge length of 8 mm and
cross-sectional area of 1.5 mm × 0.75 mm [11] were prepared with the help of wire cut
EDM, for tensile tests. In order to record the fractographs and to determine the
mechanism of fracture, fractured specimens were observed on scanning electron micro-
scope (ZEISS EVO-50). Hardness was measured using Vicker’s hardness testing machine
(VM-50) using load 5 kg and dwell time 10 s.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Microstructural characterisation
As-received material 316L stainless steel consists of ferrite and austenite. In which about
90% or more austenite and 10% or less ferrite is present. The average grain size of the as-
received material is 37 µm as shown in Figure 1(a). When MAF is performed in the 316L
stainless steel samples then complex stresses are introduced into the microstructure of
the as-received samples because of the accumulation of strain after each pass in the x, y,
and z directions, respectively. This results in an increase in the dislocation density on the
grain boundaries. After the third pass, the deformed grain boundaries cross each other.
4 S. K. RAJPUT ET AL.

Figure 1. Microstructure of (a) as-received, (b) 3rd pass, (c) 6th pass, (d) 9th pass.

Refined grains are formed after the 3rd pass due to this phenomenon. After the 3rd pass,
the average grain size was 14 as shown in Figure 1(b).
The amount of grain boundaries is increased because of the large plastic strain during
forging. As a result, the grains become finer and reduce to about one-third in comparison
to the as-received material and after third pass. Now as the MAF passes are increased, the
strain values also increased. Due to the combined effect of the continuous application of the
effective strain and development of complex stresses, the density of the substructure
increased up to the sixth pass as shown in Figure 1(c). After the sixth pass, substructures
are more refined with dense uniform grain structure in the whole volume of the material.
This results in the formation of refined grains of the average grain size of 8 µm. Thus, the
grain size is reduced from the original grain size, i.e. 37 µm to 8 µm as shown in Figure 1(d).

3.2. Mechanical properties

Tensile test results show the effect of grain refinement on the mechanical properties of
MAF specimens. Tensile test confirms that the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of 316L
stainless steel increases with increase in multiaxial forging passes. This can be observed in
Figure 2. It is also clearly visible here that after the 3rd pass, the increment in the value of
UTS is very large in comparison to the increment after the 6th and 9th passes. The value
 ADVANCES IN MATERIALS AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES 5

Figure 2. Stress-True strain curve of 316L stainless steel.

of ultimate tensile strength is changed from 506 MPa for the as-received sample to 1060
MPa for the 9th pass MAF sample.
A considerable effect of the initial grain size on the curve is observed after the MAF
operations. The yield strength depends inversely on the initial grain size. The yield strength
(YS) of the smallest grain-sized sample differs by about four times from the YS of the samples
having the largest grains. There is a direct relationship between the amount of strain
hardening and grain size, the amount of strain hardening increases as the grain size decreases.
It is confirmed that the tensile strength follows a trend similar to that followed by the
hardness with increases in the MAF passes. It increases significantly between the starting
pass to the 3rd pass. Afterwards, it increases marginally from the 6th pass to the 9th pass.
With an increase in the number of MAF passes, the dislocation density increases resulting in
the formation of substructures. The elongation decreases from an initial 50% to 12% after the
9th pass (Figure 3). Work hardening is responsible for this decrease in elongation.
The increment in the ultimate tensile strength is also correlated to the microstructure of
MAF stainless steel samples (Figure 4). As the number of MAF passes is increased, the grain
sizes become finer and the volume of the grain boundaries increases. However, the increase
in the ultimate tensile strength is marginal after the 6th pass and up to the 9th pass, since the
increase in the volume of the grain boundaries in the microstructure is not as much as was
observed between the as-received material and the 3rd pass. Toughness of as-received
specimen is 3596 MJ/m3 and is reduced to 1441 MJ/m3 after 9th pass (Figure 5).
Fractographs were taken at different warm multiaxial forging passes. After the tensile
test, fractures surface are formed in the 316L stainless steel samples. It is clearly visible
from the image that the rough fracture is spread over almost the whole fracture surface
area along with the presence of large-sized dimples which are also called microvoids. The
fractograph revealed that the fracture for the as-received material is of a ductile nature.
Further, void initiating inclusions or impurities can be seen at the base of a few dimples
6 S. K. RAJPUT ET AL.

Figure 3. Bar graph of % elongation values for as-received and MAF specimens.

Figure 4. Bar graph of UTS values for as-received and MAF specimens.

(Figure 6(a)). Ductile fracture surface for the as-received specimen consists of copious
amounts of ductile dimples and a high amount of energy is absorbed to create such
fractures [12]. Here it is also correlated with the microstructure and the nature of true
stress-true strain curve is such that they all are corroborating each other. As the number
of multiaxial forging passes increase, the size of these dimples is reduced after the third
pass since the grain size is reduced when between zero pass to 3rd pass. A few impurities
can be observed in the fractograph. Further, the dimples display a range of sizes.
Figure 6(b) clearly shows that the sizes of the dimples are reducing. The reduction in
the size of these dimples indicates that there is also reduction in the ductility of the
specimen and as a result an increment in the brittleness is observed. This is also
 ADVANCES IN MATERIALS AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES 7

Figure 5. Bar graph of Toughness values for as-received and MAF specimens.

Figure 6. Fractograph of fractured specimen at (a) 0 pass, (b) 3rd pass, (c) 6th pass, and (d) 9th pass.

correlated with the true stress-true strain curve of stainless steel 316 L, when one moves
from 0 pass to 3rd pass. With further increase in the multiaxial forging passes, the SEM
images of the fractured surface of the tensile specimens show that the size of the dimples
is continuously reducing and cleavage (valley) type features are gradually increasing from
8 S. K. RAJPUT ET AL.

6th pass to 9th pass as is clearly seen in Figure 6(c,d), respectively. Small regions of
rupture can be seen between regions displaying dimples. The fractograph features are
also correlated with the microstructure of multiaxial forging processed specimen after
6th to 9th pass. It is observed that there is very less increment in the grain refinement.
The grain refinement improves the strength of the material because the increase in the
grain boundaries hinders dislocation movements. This increase corresponds with the
tensile test results where a rise in strength is observed. Further, hardness is improved
because of the reduction in ductility due to the obstruction of dislocation movement. It is
clearly visible from the SEM images that the ductility in the material is decreasing, and
brittleness and hardness in the material increasing from as-received specimen to the 9th
pass multiaxial forged specimen.
Vickers hardness is measured for all the multiaxial forged samples. Variation of
Vickers hardness number of 316L stainless steel with the number of passes of multiaxial
forged specimen for cumulative strain is shown in Figure 7. As in the case of micro-
structure evaluation the grains are getting refined from zero pass to 9th pass, here too the
same pattern is observed with the hardness, and is increasing rapidly from zero pass to
6th pass. Initially, at lower strain, the value of Vickers hardness increased rapidly with
MAF strain, i.e. from 230 VHN at an effective strain of 0, to 358 VHN at an effective
strain of 1.4. However, afterwards there is a marginal increment in the hardness value
ranging from 358 HV to 434 VHN as increased an effective strain 1.4 to 4.2.
This is attributed to a competition between the softening from reduction in dislocation
density and strengthening due to grain refinement. As the dislocation density of the material
decreases the strength of the material decreases, because now the dislocation movement is not
opposed by the grain boundaries which act as barriers in the material. It can also be seen from
the graph that the ultimate tensile strength is increased while the elongation decreased with
increase in multiaxial forging passes. The elongation is decreasing from 76% for zero effective

Figure 7. Average values of Vickers hardness at different MAF passes.

 ADVANCES IN MATERIALS AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES 9

strain specimens to 8% for 4.2 effective strain specimen. Wang et al. [9] also concluded that
the maximum grain refinement in multiaxial forging is achieved in the first 3 passes and after
that, it is observed that there is little marginal increment in the grain refinement. Further, the
mechanical properties are not much enhanced. The above literature also confirmed the
results as obtained by microstructure characterisation, tensile test and hardness test of
warm MAF processed 316L stainless steel specimens.

4. Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn after warm multiaxial forging of 316L stainless
steel.

(1) The grain size of austenitic 316L stainless steel was refined from the average grain
size of 37 µm to 8 µm after 9th pass. The grain size evolved as a result of increases
in dislocation density with increase in the cumulative strain.
(2) Ultimate tensile strength of 316L stainless steel is increased from 506 MPa to 1060
MPa after 9th pass. This is because of grain refinement and work hardening effect.
(3) Fractograph of fractured surface of tensile specimen after 3 pass shows dimpled
features. These microvoids show the ductile fracture behaviour in the specimen.
When one moves from the zero to 9 pass, the size of the dimples is decreased and
cleavage features increased.
(4) Vickers hardness value is increased from 230 VHN to 434 VHN, because of the
introduction of residual stresses with the increase in strain. Toughness is reduced
from 3596 MJ/m3 to 1441 MJ/m3 and percentage elongation is reduced from 74%
to 8% between as-received and 9th pass specimens.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
K.K. Saxena http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4064-5113

References
[1] Bowen JR, Prangnell PB, Humphreys FJ. Microstructural evolution during formation of
ultrafine grain structures by sever plastic deformation. Mater Sci Tech. 2000;16:1246–1250.
[2] Fuloria D, Goel S, Jayaganthan R, et al. Mechanical properties and microstructural evolution
of ultrafine grained Zircaloy-4 processed through multiaxial forging at cryogenic tempera-
ture, trans. Nonferrous Met Soc. 2015;25:2221–2229.
[3] Rao PN, Singh D, Jayaganthan R. Mechanical properties and microstructural evolution of Al
6061 alloy processed by multidirectional forging at liquid nitrogen temperature. Mater Des.
2014;56:97–104.
[4] Belyakov A, Tsuzaki K, Miura H, et al. Effect of initial microstructure on grain refinement in
a stainless steel by large strain deformation. Act Mater. 2003;51:847–861.
10 S. K. RAJPUT ET AL.

[5] Torizuka S, Ohmori A, Murty SVS, et al. Effect of strain on the microstructure and
mechanical properties of multi-pass warm caliber rolled low carbon steel. Scripta Mater.
2005;54:563–568.
[6] Song R, Xiang J, Hou D, et al. Characteristics of mechanical properties and microstructure
of 316L Austenitic stainless steel. Inter Jour Iron Steel Res. 2011;18:53–59.
[7] Lichtenfeld JA, Martin CM, Chester JVT. Effect of strain rate on stress-strain behavior of
alloy 309 and 304L austenitic stainless steel. Metall Mater Trans. 2006;37:148–160.
[8] Katiyar AK, Rajput SK, Mehta Y. Microstructural evolution of high phosphorus steel using
warm multiaxial deformation. Mater Today Proc. 2017;4(9):9380–9383.
[9] Wang B, Liu Z, Li J. Microstructure evolution in AISI-201 austenitic stainless steel during
the first compression cycle of multi-axial compression. Mater Sci Eng A. 2013;568:20–24.
[10] Chen AY, Shi SS, Tian HL, et al. Effect of warm deformation on microstructure and
mechanical properties of a layered and nanostructured 304 stainless steel. Mater Sci Eng
A. 2014;595:34–42.
[11] Srivastava S, Rajput SK, Kumar S, et al. Effect of heat treatment and uniaxial deformation on
thermal stability and wear behavior of AA 2014 alloy. Mater Today Proc. 2018;5:3610–3617.
[12] Rafi HK, Starr TL, Stucker BE. A comparison of the tensile, fatigue, and fracture behavior of
Ti-6Al-4V and 15-5 PH stainless steel. Int J Adv Manuf Tech. 2013;69:1112–1114.