J. Inst. Eng. India Ser.
D
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40033-023-00497-4
REVIEW PAPER
Processing Techniques, Microstructural and Mechanical
Properties of Additive Manufactured 316L Stainless Steel: Review
Sumit K. Sharma1 · Abhinav Kumar Singh1 ·
Rohit Kumar Mishra1 · Amarish Kumar Shukla2 ·
Chaitanya Sharma3
Received: 18 March 2023 / Accepted: 23 May 2023
© The Institution of Engineers (India) 2023
Abstract The 316L stainless steel owing to its good com-
bination of mechanical properties, corrosion resistance,
fabricability, and weldability finds applications in pharma-
ceutical, food, and other industries where high corrosion
resistance is of prime importance. Nowadays, this alloy is
finding increasing favor to produce orthopedic implants
using modern techniques like additive manufacturing. In the
past, several manufacturing methods have been widely used
in the field of aerospace, naval, automobile, biomedical, and
other industrial sectors. Traditional methods of manufactur-
ing are the most adaptable and cost-effective of all the pro-
cesses that have been developed; however, these techniques
have limitations to manufacturing complicated design and
waste management. In recent years, the additive manufactur-
ing technique is widely used in handling complicated geo-
metrical structures. Additive manufacturing technology has
seen a major transformation in the manufacturing world as
a result of recent technological advancements. In additive
manufacturing, the development process began with poly-
mers, progressed to composites, and finally to nanocompos-
ites. Additive manufacturing offers a small waste production
management solution with improved procedures. Additive
manufacturing outperforms conventional methods to fabri-
cate high-quality and intricate stainless steel, difficult-to-
develop machine components. This paper aims to discuss the
principal of various traditional and additive manufacturing
* Chaitanya Sharma
chaitanya.sharmaji@gmail.com
1
Department of Metallurgical Engineering, BIT Sindri,
Jharkhand 828123, India
2
Indian Maritime University, Kolkata Campus, Kolkata,
West Bengal 700088, India
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, BIT Sindri,
Jharkhand 828123, India
techniques used for creating many grades of stainless steel.
Consequently, the microstructural and mechanical proper-
ties of steels have been examined and compared for various
applications, like orthopedic implants, and other engineering
applications.
Keywords Additive manufacturing · Selective laser
melting · Electron Beam melting · Microstructure ·
Mechanical Properties
Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM), sometimes referred to as 3D
printing, is a process of creating three-dimensional objects
by adding layer by layer. The process begins with a digital
design, which is then sliced into multiple layers. The pro-
cess then adds material layer by layer, following the design
(computer-aided design model) and creating the final object
[1]. Additive manufacturing has many advantages over tra-
ditional manufacturing methods, including the ability to
develop complex shapes, reduce waste, and decrease lead
times. Additive manufacturing technology is now widely
employed in a variety of industries, including automotive,
aerospace, architectural, pharmacy, and health care [2, 3].
Realizing an accurate and personalized therapeutic remedy
is now more important than ever because of its benefits
of precision, fast prototyping, and personalization. There
are several types of additive manufacturing technologies,
including fused deposition modelling (FDM), stereolithog-
raphy (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), and electron
beam melting (EBM) [4]. Each technology uses a differ-
ent material and method to build the object layer by layer.
Additive manufacturing has the potential to revolutionize
the manufacturing industry by making it easier and cheaper
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

to produce customized and complex parts, it is also being
explored for its potential to create new materials and struc-
tures that cannot be produced using traditional manufactur-
ing methods [5].
Stainless steels have austenitic microstructure, and it
is widely accepted in several industries such as chemical
processing plants, steam generator tubes, fusion plants, and
nuclear reactors due to their excellent mechanical proper-
ties and corrosion resistance at elevated temperatures, good
fabricability, and weldability [6–8]. This alloy is ideal for
various applications due to alloying elements like chromium
(Cr), nickel (Ni), and molybdenum (Mo). The Cr forms a
persistent protective passive layer of C ­ r2O3 over the sur-
face due to reaction with the environment and Mo forms
a MoS (or other) at high temperatures which makes stain-
less steel corrosion resistant [9]. Furthermore, elements
(such as nickel) give hardness and improve high and low
temperature strength, as well as corrosion resistance [10].
The biggest issue with stainless steel is sensitization, which
occurs due to prolonged exposure of stainless steel to high
temperatures causing carbide and other undesirable phases
to develop along grain boundaries when exposed to tempera-
tures between 600 and 900 °C and results in corrosion failure
in this reduced region [11, 12].
In the present work, the study mainly focuses on non-
computational aspects of additive manufacturing of stainless
steel (316L) parts, i.e., manufacturing by different AM tech-
niques, post-treatment and their effects on microstructural
and mechanical properties.
Principles and Processes of Additive
Manufacturing
Additive manufacturing (AM) is an advanced manufactur-
ing approach that encompasses all techniques that include
layer-by-layer deposition of material based on pre-defined
CAD data to create 3D objects [13, 14]. 3D printing, rapid
prototyping, and freeform fabrication are all terms used to
describe this process. Traditional manufacturing procedures,
such as metal cutting, metal forming, and casting, have
design constraints that are addressed with additive manu-
facturing. Complex net shape metal parts can be created in a
fraction of the time, with more accuracy and reduced mate-
rial waste and cost. As a result, its application has found
its way into industries such as aerospace, naval, medicinal,
and automotive [13]. Figure 1 shows the detailed processing
steps of additive manufacturing techniques.
According to ISO/ASTM standards, there are seven types
of additive manufacturing [15], which include:
(a) Binder Jetting (BJ)
(b) Directed Energy Deposition (DED)
13
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
Fig. 1  Flowchart depicting the essential steps in the additive manu-
facturing process
(c) Sheet Lamination (SL)
(d) Material Extrusion (ME)
(e) Material Jetting (MJ)
(f) Vat Photopolymerization (VPP)
(g) Powder Bed Technology (Selective Laser Melting
(SLM) and Electron Beam Melting (EBM)).
This work aims to study the microstructure and mechan-
ical properties of bio-implants that one can expect while
building them with different AM techniques. The focus is
given on four major AM techniques, which may produce
metallic parts and are completely based on the previous
research. Further in this work, a detailed explanation, of the
difference between BJ, SLM, EBM and DMLS, and differ-
ent powder manufacturing processes for these techniques is
also reported.
(a) Binder Jetting: In this, binding liquid is selectively
deposited to join the powdered material together to
form the object as per the CAD model [15].
(b) Selective Laser Melting: A laser beam fuses layer of
metal powder selectively based on CAD design. A melt
pool is formed which then solidifies to create desired
parts and components [13].
(c) Electron Beam Melting: High power electron beam
melts powdered material(s) in a vacuum for making 3D
metallic objects/parts [16].
(d) Direct Metal Laser Sintering: In this, laser beam
heats the powder bed enough to let the particles fuse
together in a definite pattern [17]
Stainless steels have been widely used in the automotive
industry, marine components, wastewater treatment, food
processing, chemical and petrochemical industry, jet engine
parts, etc., due to their remarkable properties such as excel-
lent mechanical properties, high corrosion resistivity, low
maintenance, easy fabrication, cost-efficient, and recycla-
bility [18–20]. It also finds application in the nuclear sector
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
such as in making components for reactor pressure vessels
[16]. A wide range of applications can be found in the bio-
medical sector also. Ti and its alloys are also used in the
biomedical field as they also enable the cell (osteoblast cell)
proliferation and differentiation required for bone growth
[21]. Figure 2 shows various AM fabricated products.
Table 1 shows the comparison of tensile properties of
some important biomaterials and their application in the
different parts of biomedical sector. From Table 1, it is
observed that the material 316L stainless steel is mostly
used for cardiovascular, orthopedic, dentistry and crani-
ofacial applications because of it having good mechanical
properties and biocompatibility.
For fabrication of 316L stainless steel parts, the majority
of literature has used Powder Bed Technology such as selec-
tive laser melting (SLM) and electron beam melting (EBM)
[13, 14, 16, 24–26], but techniques such as binder jetting and
direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) have also been used in
some work [17, 27]. From the literature, it has been observed
that different AM processes develop distinct microstructures,
which leads to differences in 316L stainless steel character-
istics [17, 27]. It has also been observed that qualities in the
microstructural and mechanical properties are varied even
for the same process. Because the components produced
have anisotropy in the construction direction, therefore use
of appropriate AM techniques is essential depending on the
application [4]. For example, if the created product is to be
employed in a biomedical or electrochemical application,
Fig. 2  Shows various AM fabricated products. a Nozzle for oil tanker developed by metal powder bed fusion [22]. b Wing bracket used in air-
bus A350XWB [23]
Table 1  Comparison of Tensile Materials Tensile properties
properties of some important
biomaterials Elastic
modulus
(GPa)
316L SS [18] 193
Ti-6AI-4 V [21] 116
Pure Ti, grade 4 [21] 110
then it is made utilizing the binder jetting technique because
it has a higher porosity density than techniques like SLM and
EBM [28]. Similarly, when operating in a highly demand-
ing setting, such as a nuclear power plant, techniques such
as SLM or EBM are preferred owing to different functional
requirements [25]. SLM process can develop tensile residual
stresses in SS 316L. SLM induces residual stresses and part
flaws, which consequently affect the mechanical properties
and fatigue performance of the parts produced [29]. Due
to the layer-by-layer deposition method used in additive
manufacturing (AM), residual strains are frequently encoun-
tered. Depending on their amount and direction, residual
stresses can have either a favorable or detrimental impact
on the mechanical characteristics of AM parts. In the case
of 316L stainless steel, residual stresses can have effects
such as distortion, cracking, and increased hardness which
may result in increased wear resistance and reduced ductil-
ity. However, the heat treatment method relieves stress, and
residual stresses and improves the overall mechanical prop-
erties of the material. Yakout et al. [30] studied the effect of
thermal properties on residual stresses in SLM of stainless
steel 316L, Ti-6Al-4 V, and Invar 36. And they reported that
the distortions and residual stresses of SS 316L were lower
than those of Ti-6Al-4 V while it is higher than the Invar
36. They investigated the mechanism of residual stress dur-
ing the SLM process. They reported that the coefficient of
thermal expansion and thermal diffusivity affect the thermal
stresses [30].
Application
YS (MPa) UTS (MPa) Cardio- Orthopedic Dentistry Craniofacial
vascu-
lar
190 490 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
795 860 ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓
485 550 ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓
13

Material and Powder Preparation
Stainless Steel 316L (SS 316L)
Different types of stainless steel are used in industries
according to the requirements. SS316L is a modification
of SS316 where letter L denotes lesser carbon in SS 316L
(≤ 0.03) than SS 316 (≤ 0.08). Both the steel had almost
similar Mn (≤ 2%), P (≤ 0.045), and N (≤ 0.10) amounts and
slight variation in the amount of Si, Mo, Cr and Ni. SS316L
had slightly higher Si and Cr and lower Ni and S than SS316.
These steels have high corrosion resistivity due to the forma-
tion of adherent chromium-rich oxide film on the surface.
The SS 316L owing to its good combination of mechani-
cal properties, fabricability, and weldability finds applica-
tions in pharmaceutical, food, and other industries where
high corrosion resistance is of prime importance. Nowadays,
this alloy is finding increasing favor to produce orthopedic
implants using modern techniques like additive manufac-
turing. During welding, the decreased carbon concentration
in SS 316L results in diminishing detrimental carbide pre-
cipitation. When exposed to high temperatures, carbon is
pulled out of the alloy and reacts with chromium to form
chromium carbide. This lowers the wt.% of chromium in the
steels as well as corrosion resistance and other properties
but improves weldability. The mechanical properties of SS
316L created by various AM techniques are explicitly dis-
cussed in this study [31, 32]. The melting range for SS316L
is 1390–1440 °C. The modulus of elasticity, density, specific
heat, thermal conductivity and electrical resistivity of this
alloy is 200 GPa, 0.285 g/cm3, 450 J/Kg°K, 14.6 W/m°K
and 74 µΩ-cm, respectively, at 20 °C [30, 33].
The orthopedic implants are medical devices that aid in
the support or replacement of fractured bones in the body.
The presence of mixed iron and chromium oxide improves
the stability of SLM 316 stainless steels as compared to
wrought stainless steel samples, which improves the adhe-
sion of star shaped osteoblast cells (cells that form new
bones) and so supports their better proliferation [34]. The
stability and rigidity of bone fixation are intimately related
to the fracture healing process [35].
Powder Preparation for AM Technique
The powder preparation of material is required before any
processing of additive manufacturing, since the shape and
size of the powder have an impact on both the manufactur-
ing process and the characteristics of the final product. For
different procedures, different powder sizes are required.
Binder jetting and EBM use coarse powder than SLM and
DMLS [36]. The size range of powder for BJ, EBM, SLM
and DMLS varies from 0.2–200 µm, 50–150 µm, 10–45 µm
and 10–30 µm, respectively [37]. The use of fine powder for
13
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
laser-based techniques is essential to ensure complete melt-
ing as lasers are less powerful than electron beams.
For the production of metal powder, for above AM
techniques, mainly five methods are followed and briefly
describe in the preceding paragraph:
(a) Solid-State Reduction: Crushed metal ore is reduced
into sponge metal cake in a reducing atmosphere of car-
bon and oxygen in the furnace. This is then crushed and
sieved to obtain irregular metal powder, non-metallic
components are then separated to improve the purity
of metal powder. The quality of the metal powder is
determined by the purity of the reduced metal therefore
the ore must be extremely pure in order to produce the
desired result. Aside from ore purity, the shape and size
of the ore particles also influence the shape and size of
the produced metal powder.
(b) Electrolysis: Conducting metals such as copper, iron,
chromium, and others can be powdered and put on elec-
trodes. After that, the powder metal is washed, dried,
and crushed to obtain a powder with the desired parti-
cle size. The composition, concentration of electrolyte,
temperature, and current employed all are important
process parameters and influence the quality of the
powder. The quality of the metal powder is further
improved by post-processing, such as washing, drying,
and crushing. Because this procedure uses current, it is
not widely employed.
(c) Chemical Methods: By the action of suitable chemi-
cals, powder is obtained. These methods include pre-
cipitation of desired metal using appropriate reagents
or reduction of metal oxide either by thermal decompo-
sition or by reducing agents. Powder produced has con-
trolled particle size and shape. Depending on whether
powder is produced using oxide reduction or solution
precipitation, powder obtained can be spongy or nar-
row shaped. After milling and annealing, purity > 99%
can be obtained.
(d) Gas Atomization Process: This is the most preferred
technique, so in this work, this method is described
in greater detail as compared to others. Sketch of the
gas atomization process is shown in Fig. 3. It has been
noted from the literature that this process is primarily
employed for the manufacture of powder [16]. It is a
physical method in which molten metal from a tundish
is poured through a nozzle. This metal steam is hit by
jets of non-reacting gases like argon, neon, etc. at high
pressure. The collision of high velocity gas jets and
flowing metal stream results in atomization of met-
als into spherical droplets. Water is used to cool down
these droplets, which then solidify and are collected.
Powders produced by gas atomization have spherical
shape, high cleanliness, fine, and homogeneous micro-
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Fig. 3  Schematic of the gas

atomization process [16]

structure. Figure 4a and b shows the SEM morphology
of precursor powder produced by gas atomization pro-
cess for application in EBM.
(e) Vacuum Induction Melting (VIM) Gas Atomization:
This method is similar to gas atomization process, but
here the melting is done in a vacuum chamber to avoid
the dissolution of atmospheric gases. As a vacuum is
involved, the purity of the powder obtained is greater
than the gas atomization process. Generally used when
very high purity of metal powder is the main criterion.

Fig. 4  a SEM morphology of SS 316L precursor powder granules produced by gas atomization process [25], and b SEM image of precursor
powder [16]

13

The process is typically employed in the production of
cobalt, nickel, and iron-based powders because it offers
good productivity at a reasonable operating cost.
Additive Manufacturing Processes
The additive manufacturing techniques used for creating
metallic components are described briefly in preceding
paragraph.
(a) Binder Jetting: It is a non-thermal method for creating
3D metallic, polymeric, and ceramic objects [15]. A
binding liquid is applied selectively to link the mate-
rial powder together by generating voxels to build the
object in this method. In the case of 316L stainless
steel, a water-based binder consisting of ethylene glycol
monobutyl ether and ethylene glycol is utilized [27]
The schematic of binding jetting process is shown in
Fig. 5. A thin layer of precursor powder (SS 316L powder)
is deposited on the print bed and rolled to maintain uniform
thickness. The inkjet print head dispenses the binder onto the
deposited powder layer using the pre-defined CAD design of
the product to be made. Selective application of binding liq-
uid is essential to generate voxels and link discrete particles
of material powder together. Different binders such as water
based and chemicals are used for different materials in this
process to impart desired properties in the products. In the
case of 316L stainless steel, a water-based binder consist-
ing of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether and ethylene glycol
is utilized [27].
Fig. 5  The formation of voxels
in binder jetting process [16,
27]
13
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
The job-box or the building platform is lowered, a new
layer of powder is spread, and binding liquid is again selec-
tively dispensed. The process continues till the desired
object is obtained. As this process is non-thermal, therefore
object manufactured is free from residual stresses [27, 28].
The finished object is obtained after curing and sintering
cycle. During sintering, porosity reduction and dimensional
shrinkage take place which significantly affects the dimen-
sional accuracy and part quality [28].
(b) Selective Laser Melting: It is one of the most widely
used methods for producing 3D components. In con-
trast to Binder Jetting, it is a thermal process and uses a
laser beam as the heat source to fuse metal powder. Fig-
ures 6 and 7 displays the schematic of laser-based AM
techniques viz. SLM and DMLS [38]. Layer-by-layer
fabrication of metallic components is done directly
from 3D CAD data [13]. The metal powder is applied
to the construction platform using a feeder, and the
recoater ensures uniformity of powder material thick-
ness. The powder layer is selectively fused and melted
by the laser source, and the melt pool then solidifies to
form shape of 3D parts.
A new powder layer is deposited after the platform is
lowered by one layer of thickness [13]. This layer is metal-
lurgically bonded to the prior layer after being selectively
melted [13]. The method is repeated until a component with
a near-net shape is obtained [14]. Because heat is involved,
there will be some residual stress in the printed components.
The residual stress in the printed parts can be reduced by,
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Fig. 6  Schematic diagram of

SLM process [16, 39]

Fig. 7  Illustration of direct

metal laser sintering [43, 44]

pre-heating the build platform to around 200 °C before the
process run, i.e., deposition of next powder layer [40]. The
microstructure and attributes of the constructed component
vary depending on process parameters such as laser power,
scan speed, layer thickness, and laser source type, such vari-
ation is seen in the case of other AM techniques also. The
process parameters of different lasers used for SLM are
enlisted in Table 2.
Under the influence of surface tension, the laser molten
tracks shorten during the SLM process, lowering the surface
energy [41]. As a result, during the SLM process, the ball-
ing phenomena are very easily created, which can enhance

13
 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Table 2  Process parameters of Laser power (W) Scan speed (mm/s) Layer thickness Type of laser used References
laser melting (mm)

100–200 50–800 0.05–0.5 Fiber Laser [41]

103 425 0.03 Yb-fiber laser [42]
200 1600 0.05 Laser beam [14]
– 1000 0.08–0.3 Laser beam [13]
400 – 0.03 Yttrium fiber laser [24]

the roughness of the surface and lead to poor mechanical

qualities [41].

(b) Direct Metal Laser Sintering: DMLS technique

builds parts layer by layer by selectively fusing and
solidifying small layers of loose powder granules’ with
a scanning laser beam [36]. The fundamental difference
between SLM and DMLS is that in this method, pow-
der particles are not melted but rather sintered together.
Sintering is the process of bonding granules together
at a high temperature through solid-state diffusion at
temperatures below the melting point of the material
[28]. Figure 7 shows the schematic of direct metal laser
sintering process.
(c) Electron Beam Melting (EBM): It is also a member
of the powder bed thermal AM technology family. This
approach is comparable to SLM, but there are differ-
ences in the machine configuration and process set-
tings, and as a result, the microstructure and qualities
of the components generated are also different [16].
This procedure is carried out under a vacuum to avoid
the loss of electrons due to ionization. The layout of the
process is shown in Fig. 8.

An electron gun is used to create the high-power elec-
trons and focus lens concentrates them into high density
electron beam needed for this operation [25, 46, 47]. A layer
of metallic powder particles is also placed uniformly over
the constructing platform during this operation. The powder
layer is preheated with a defocused electron beam at around
800°C to gently bind the powder granules together at the
start of this procedure. Then, a high-energy electron beam
scans the powder’s surface, causing local heating owing
to conversion of the electrons’ kinetic energy into thermal
energy. The energy is higher than SLM so peak process-
ing temperature can reach 800°C, melting powder granules
based on CAD design [16, 25]. More layers are applied,
and the procedure is repeated until the desired outcome, i.e.,
the thickness of the product is achieved. Here, too much,
residual stress accumulates in the printed products.
In comparison to SLM, this technique requires less energy
because it does not involve melting. Components produced
Fig. 8  Illustrate the layout of EBM [16, 45]
are less porous than those manufactured by SLM process and
have low residual stresses.
Microstructure and Mechanical Properties
Microstructure Evaluation
The oscillating thermal gradient during AM techniques
results in the formation of gamma austenite and delta ferrite
in the SS 316L final products. This is contrary to the product
fabricated using traditional techniques. Description of the
possible microstructure that one can expect in the manufac-
tured product through different AM methods is given below.

13
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
(a) Microstructure evaluation in Binder Jetting (BJ)
Austenitic phase is the major microstructural phase present
in steel parts created using binder jet technology and is in
accordance with earlier research. In contrast to cellular and
columnar grains found in other procedures, the shape of the
developed product is formed by randomly oriented equi-
axed grains [16, 17, 48]. A consistent and compact equiaxed
microstructure is a typical characteristic of this process [48].
There was no discernible texture in the morphology. In the
absence of local melting, fine holes emerge in a stochasti-
cally distributed pattern [27, 28, 48]. The resulting product
has a higher porosity than those made by laser or electron
beam melting processes [27]. Before sintering, the relative
density of the produced product was found to be 50–60% of
its theoretical value. Porous zones, according to studies, have
smaller diameter grains than other places. These pores may
be large enough to allow binder liquid to pass through. Dur-
ing sintering, the molecules of liquid binder harden, generat-
ing massive, separated structures [48]. Sintering also causes
alloying elements like Cr and Mo to precipitate in the region
near to grain boundaries, as well as inside grains [27, 28].
These separated structures can also include a lot of carbon
and oxygen. The amount of Cr or Mo in these precipitates
determines their shape hence resulting mechanical proper-
ties of products. Higher Cr content results in angular and
elongated morphology, while higher Mo content results in
solitary, smaller lamellar structures [48].
(b) Microstructure evaluation in Selective Laser Melt-
ing (SLM)
Although studies confirm the existence of austenite, which
is expected in the final product, minor amounts of delta fer-
rite and lath martensite are also present in the matrix [18].
According to x-ray diffraction analysis, the BCC ferrite
phase at high temperatures shows an uneven needle shape
morphology [18]. Because of the high temperature needed
in the procedure, delta ferrite formed in the SLM created
steel parts. They shift to the gamma austenite phase during
rapid solidification, but complete conversion does not occur
[49]. They are discovered to be stochastically distributed and
give soft austenitic matrix with strength. The final product’s
chemical composition is comparable to that of the precursor
powder, except for a little increase in Ni concentration [50].
The transmission electron microscope microstructure shows
a presence of large number of spherical Cr and Mn silicate
particles [49].
Thermal gradient and solidification front growth rate are
shown to be the causes of fine cellular dendritic morphol-
ogy [40] as revealed in SEM images [14, 18, 40, 49, 50].
SLM produced products frequently have this microstructure.
Their forms are determined by the number of grains in the
vicinity [18]. Microstructure contains a small number of
column-shaped grains in addition to cellular grains [49].
There are well-shaped and well-arranged subgrains in these
grains. Dislocations accumulate around cells, resulting in
thick, knotted borders [49]. Molybdenum (Mo) separated
subgrain barriers, which are thicker than grain boundaries,
can also be seen in the microstructure [26, 49]. These Mo
atoms also aid in the production of dislocations, which can
improve the product’s hardness [18, 49]. Figure 9 shows the
Mo precipitation on cellular subgranules.
Stresses created during heat cycles can also result in
dense twisted networks of dislocations. They can clump
together, thickening subgrain boundaries. Microstructure has
anisotropy, which is dependent on process parameters [50].
The optical images indicate that these melt ponds are semi-
circular in shape [9]. Inadequate energy input can also cause
irregularly shaped pores to grow through layers. The average
porosity of SLM product was found to be 0.82 ± 0.36 percent
[14]. This suggests a higher relative density of SLM prod-
ucts. According to the image processing method described
in [50], the relative density is 99.9%. The porosity of SLM
316L is greatly reduced after re-melting [24].
(c) Microstructure evaluation in Electron Beam Melt-
ing (EBM)
The occurrence of the FCC austenitic phase (99.5%)
with traces of ferrite and cementite has been confirmed
by numerous studies using X-ray diffraction and electron
back scattered diffraction (EBSD) analysis in EBM created
steel parts [16]. In general, created parts have alloying
elements (such as Cr, Ni, Mo, and others) content similar
to that of base powder however a considerable decline of
around 0.2% in Mo content in the final product [25, 50] is
also observed. In comparison to laser-based approaches,
this is due to a faster evaporation rate of powder granules
Fig. 9  Shows the SLM cellular subgrains with Mo precipitation [18]
13

at significantly higher temperatures [25]. The microstruc-
ture of EBM manufactured components is not continuous;
rather, a gradual fluctuation in microstructure is visible
over successive layers, and this difference becomes more
noticeable with distance [16, 25]. Cell-like grains with
evidence of melt pools can be seen in the upper layer of
manufactured components, which is common for SLMed
components as well. These cellular structures gradually
fade away, and prominent grain boundaries take their place
[16, 25, 50]. These boundaries are reported to be located
in space between melt pools, grains, and subgrains [16].
The columnar grain boundaries are reported to elongate
through successive layers and parallel to the fabrication
direction [16, 25, 50]. These granules can grow to mil-
limeter size and are thought to be caused by significant
temperature gradients [25]. Large melt pools and a rapid
manufacturing process, according to the literature, con-
tribute to the growth of such grains [27]. The presence
of irregular subgrains in the inner sections of columnar
grains has been confirmed by SEM images [25]. Fig-
ure 10a shows the SEM micrographs of top cross section
revealing the grain and structure.
These subgrains are caused by variations in solidification
during manufacturing. Precipitates high in Cr and Mo have
also been found, mostly along grain boundaries and occa-
sionally inside the grains. These precipitates contain 27.6
wt.% Cr and 8.6 wt.% Mo, according to EDS findings. The
alteration in microstructure is largely due to molybdenum
agglomeration [17]. Figure 10b illustrates the presence of
precipitates both inside the grain and at the grain boundary.
In this electron beam melting phenomenon, temperature gra-
dient vacillation plays an essential role [16, 25, 50]. Despite
the fact that EBM can achieve a density of > 99%, studies
have found some randomly distributed big crescent shaped
Fig. 10  a Scanning electron micrograph of top crosssection revealing the grain structure [25], b EDS mapping of precipitates both inside grain
and at the grain boundaries [25]
13
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
pores. These are the results of a lack of energy inputs at a
local level [16, 50].
(d) Microstructure evaluation in Direct Metal Laser
Sintering (DMLS)
Similar to other AM techniques, e.g., binder jetting and
SLM, DMLS shows the presence of an austenitic phase in
the microstructure of final parts. SEM data show that the
grains of DMLS manufactured products are finer and tinier
than those formed by hot rolling [17]. These grains have
a similar cellular, branching structure to the SLMed prod-
uct. According to studies, the form and size of these grains
are the primary factors influencing the final component’s
hardness and yield strength [27]. Their broad boundaries
prevent dislocations from moving, causing them to pile up,
and resulting in increased strength and hardness. However, a
significant decrease in ductility value has also been reported
as a result of this grain structure [17]. The microstructure
has long, column-shaped grains in addition to conventional
cellular grains [17, 27, 36, 51, 52]. These grains have the
same structure as EBM treated powders and are elongated
in the built direction. Equiaxed grains, in addition to cellular
and columnar grains, have been identified in the microstruc-
ture [52].
In the XZ plane, due to anisotropy caused by layer-by-
layer deposition of material, mostly columnar grains with
some fractions of equiaxed grains can be seen, whereas, in
the XY plane, the concentration of columnar and equiaxed
grains is virtually opposite [52]. Grain morphology shifts
from columnar in the XZ plane to equiaxed in the XY plane
[52]. In the DMLS process, pores are common despite the
high density [17, 27, 36, 51]. If the residual powder grains
are large enough, they can acquire gaps in the pores and
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
contribute to the product density. The high temperature gen-
erated by the laser causes the formation of Mo-rich precipi-
tates, primarily at grain boundaries [52]. These precipitates
are known to be the primary cause of component corrosion
resistance degradation. The half-cylindrical shape of the
melt pools is due to the laser beam’s Gaussian energy den-
sity distribution [51]. Powder granules go through numer-
ous heat cycles during DMLS, resulting in significant sur-
face roughness [52]. These temperature cycles are one of the
key reasons for the microstructure difference between AM
and conventional hot rolled products [17].
Mechanical Properties
Mechanical properties of AM-created steel products are
influenced by the microstructure, shape and size of the
grains, flaws within the microstructure, shape and size
of the pores, and the direction of the material’s develop-
ment [25, 26, 28, 36]. In the case of EBM, the difference
between the expected yield strength value (190 MPa) and
the experimentally obtained yield strength value (253 MPa)
can be explained by columnar growth along the building
direction, similar to other methods like SLM and DMLS,
as well as other factors like the pinning effect of the sub-
grains and crescent like defects [25]. However, with the BJ
approach, a relatively small equiaxed grain microstructure
yields isotropic characteristics, which means that mechani-
cal properties are similar in all directions, regardless of the
constructed direction [28]. DMLS samples, in contrast to BJ,
demonstrate that the weakest direction is along the building
direction (perpendicular to the sintered direction) [36].
Detailed comparison of mechanical properties of 316L
SS produced using additive manufacturing techniques, and
other processes such as metal injection molding (MIM) and
wrought 316L SS are shown in Table 3. From the table, it
has been observed that the hardness of SLMed (as received)
316L SS is higher (95 HRB) compared to samples prepared
using different procedures. BJ 316L SS and MIM 316L SS
both have a hardness of roughly 66 HRB, which is the lowest
of all the processes. However, adding additives like B, BC,
Table 3  Mechanical properties of additively manufactured SS316L along with some other methods
Sample Tensile strength YS (MPa)
(MPa)
BJ 316L 517 214
EBM at Room Temperature 509 ± 3 253 ± 3
DMLS 518 288
MIM 316L 520 175
SLM (as received) – 637.9 ± 11.3
1050ºC,2 h 428.8 ± 8.4
1200ºC,2 h 415.7 ± 9.1
Wrought 316L – 327
and BN to the BJ process resulted in a significant improve-
ment in hardness at various sintering temperatures [28]. At
1050 °C, an increase in heat treatment duration resulted in
a modest drop in microhardness, which accelerated as the
temperature approached 1200 ºC [26]. From the table, it has
also been observed that the as-received SLMed SS 316L
has the highest ultimate tensile strength of 751 MPa, which
is much greater than other samples such as DMLS, EBM,
and wrought SS 316L. The severe dislocation density seen
in SLMed SS 316L can explain its high ultimate tensile
strength and maximum yield strength. However, the drop in
dislocation density caused by heat treatment can lower the
material’s ultimate tensile strength and yield strength [26].
In the instance of DMLS, a significant amount of lessening
was observed when the direction of ultimate tensile strength
measurement was changed, which can be attributed to weak-
ness in the direction perpendicular to the sintered layer once
again [36].
Increase in the final density of BJ 316L SS printed parts
consequently improves elongation and maximum strength.
Pores are a high-stress concentration defect that contributes
to crack formation. Sintering the sample at a higher tempera-
ture reduced pores and improves mechanical characteristics
viz. maximum strength and elongation [28]. Even though
the presence of columnar grains in EBM 316L SS makes it
easier for dislocations to move along the built direction, and
defects like crescent degrade the strength and mechanical
properties, the material has a higher ductility (EBM 316L
SS has the highest elongation (59%) when compared to other
samples), which can be attributed to a large number of extra
boundaries [25].
Figure 11 shows the stress versus strain graph of (a)
SLMed 316L SS sample and (b) the DMLS 316L SS speci-
men, before and after heat treatment. From the figure, it has
been observed that the elongation of the SLMed SS 316L
remained unchanged after a 2-h heat treatment at 1050 °C.
However, after a 2-h heat treatment at 1200 °C, the ductility
was increased to the same level as wrought SS 316L [26].
DMLS SS 316L had a ductility that was halfway between
BJ SS 316L and MIM (as sintered) SS 316L. A linear
UTS (MPa) Elongation at Hardness References
break (%) (HRB)
– 43 66 [28]
509 59 ± 3 85 [25, 27]
482 47.4 77 [53]
– 50 67 [28]
751.6 ± 15.9 53.7 95 [26]
672.8 ± 13.4 43.9
683.9 ± 16.4 51.6
620 53 – [16, 53]
13

Fig. 11  Stress vs. strain graph of (i) SLMed 316L SS sample before and after heat treatment [26]. (ii) DMLS 316L SS specimen, Tensile test
performed a parallel to the sintered surface b perpendicular to the sintered surface [36]
elastic behavior at a small strain was observed along the
sintered layer, however, a significant fall in tensile strength
was observed in the direction perpendicular to the sintered
layer, which can be attributed to the fact that this direction
is the weakest in DMLS created parts as shown in Fig. 11
[36]. Defects such as crescents and precipitates reduce the
material’s tensile strength in the perpendicular direction,
although this can be mitigated by reducing the layer thick-
ness in the EBM samples. This could explain why additive
produced materials have a low tensile strength in the build-
ing direction [25].
From the above discussion, it could be concluded that the
addition of additives, heat treatment and processing methods
affects the hardness, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength
and ductility of the additively manufactured SS316L. The
stress vs. strain graph confirmed that the tensile properties
were affected by the heat treatment, sintering parameters and
processing methods of SS316L.
Conclusion
The demand for the utilization of additive manufacturing
technology has significantly increased recently for a variety
of industrial applications. The use of additive manufacturing
techniques has various benefits, including a high production
rate, the creation of complicated items, flexibility and preci-
sion in part design, quick production, and minimal by-prod-
uct waste. The different additive manufacturing techniques
and microstructural and mechanical properties of stainless
steel components have all been studied in recent work. The
addition of additives, heat treatment and processing methods
affects the microstructure, hardness, yield strength, ultimate
13
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
tensile strength and ductility of the additively manufactured
SS316L. Additive manufacturing is a high efficiency tech-
nique in terms of strength and defects free to develop a large-
scale stainless steel component as compared to conventional
manufacturing techniques. Regardless, there is still a need
to develop additive manufacturing technology by lowering
manufacturing costs, facilitating mass production, and devel-
oping big stainless steel components. The aforementioned
limitations of additive manufacturing techniques of various
stainless steel constructions will be soon removed with an
increase in the invention of numerous effective state-of-the-
art engineering software, robots in manufacturing, and smart
manufacturing.
Funding No financial grant was received from any funding agency.
Declarations
Conflict of interest Authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. C. Culmone, G. Smit, P. Breedveld, Additive manufacturing of
medical instruments: A state-of-the-art review. Addit Manuf. 27,
461–473 (2019)
2. A. Vanderploeg, S.-E. Lee, M. Mamp, The application of 3D
printing technology in the fashion industry. Int J Fash Des Tech-
nol Educ. 10, 170–179 (2017)
3. V.C. Lee, Medical applications for 3D printing: Current and pro-
jected uses. P T. 39, 704–711 (2014)
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
4. S. K. Sharma, R. Mandal, A. K. R. Shukla, Processing techniques,
principles, and applications of additive manufacturing. Addit
Manuf Adv Mater Des Tech., pp 187–202 (2023).
5. J. P. Iannotti, S. Weiner, E. Rodriguez et al., Three-Dimensional
Imaging and Templating Improve Glenoid Implant Positioning.
JBJS. 97 (2015).
6. R. Song, J. Xiang, D. Hou, Characteristics of mechanical proper-
ties and microstructure for 316L Austenitic Stainless Steel. J Iron
Steel Res Int. 18, 53–59 (2011)
7. M. Ma, Z. Wang, D. Wang et al., Control of shape and perfor-
mance for direct laser fabrication of precision large-scale metal
parts with 316L Stainless Steel. Opt Laser Technol. 45, 209–216
(2013)
8. F. Xie, X. He, S. Cao et al., Structural and mechanical characteris-
tics of porous 316L stainless steel fabricated by indirect selective
laser sintering. J Mater Process Technol. 213, 838–843 (2013)
9. A.K. Shukla, D. Gond, D. Puri, Effect of cold working on hot cor-
rosion behavior of 9 Cr–1 Mo ferritic steel in 75 wt% Na2SO4 +
25 wt% K2SO4 molten salt environment at 900 °C. Trans Indian
Inst Met. 69, 1049–1057 (2016)
10. S. Basak, S.K. Sharma, M. Mondal et al., Electron beam surface
treatment of 316L austenitic stainless steel: improvements in hard-
ness, wear, and corrosion resistance. Met Mater Int. 27, 953–961
(2020)
11. S. Fan, L. Jia, X. Lyu et al., Experimental investigation of austen-
itic stainless steel material at elevated temperatures. Constr Build
Mater. 155, 267–285 (2017)
12. C. Doerr, J.Y. Kim, P. Singh et al., Evaluation of sensitization
in stainless steel 304 and 304L using nonlinear Rayleigh waves.
NDT E Int. 88, 17–23 (2017)
13. I. Tolosa, F. Garciandía, F. Zubiri et al., Study of mechanical
properties of AISI 316 stainless steel processed by “selective laser
melting”, following different manufacturing strategies. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol. 51, 639–647 (2010)
14. S.M. Yusuf, Y. Chen, R. Boardman et al., Investigation on porosity
and microhardness of 316L stainless steel fabricated by selective
laser melting. Metals (Basel). 7, 1–12 (2017)
15. I. Gibson, D. Rosen, B. Stucker et al., Development of Additive
Manufacturing Technology (Springer International Publishing,
Addit Manuf Technol. Cham, 2021), pp.23–51
16. J. Olsén, Z. Shen, L. Liu et al., Micro- and macro-structural het-
erogeneities in 316L stainless steel prepared by electron-beam
melting. Mater Charact. 141, 1–7 (2018)
17. J. Gale, A. Achuhan, Application of ultrasonic peening during
DMLS production of 316L stainless steel and its effect on material
behavior. Rapid Prototyp J. 23, 1185–1194 (2017)
18. W.M. Tucho, V.H. Lysne, H. Austbø et al., Investigation of effects
of process parameters on microstructure and hardness of SLM
manufactured SS316L. J Alloys Compd. 740, 910–925 (2018)
19. R. E. Avery, S. Lamb, C. A. Powell, et al. Stainless steel for pota-
ble water treatment plants (PWTP)—Guidelines. Nickel Dev Insti-
tute, New York, pp 1–8.
20. J. Coykendall, M. Cotteleer, L. Holdowsky et al., 3D opportunity
in Aerospace and Defense. Deloitte Univ Press. 1–28 (2014).
21. F. Trevisan, F. Calignano, A. Aversa et al., Additive manufactur-
ing of titanium alloys in the biomedical field: processes, properties
and applications. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 16, 57–67 (2018)
22. M. Ziółkowski, T. Dyl, Possible applications of additive manufac-
turing technologies in shipbuilding: A review. Machines. 8, 1–34
(2020)
23. J. Michelle, Additive Manufacturing in aerospace is growing. 3D
natives, Business, News, Res (2021).
24. A. Riemer, S. Leuders, M. Thöne et al., On the fatigue crack
growth behavior in 316L stainless steel manufactured by selec-
tive laser melting. Eng Fract Mech. 120, 15–25 (2014)
25. Y. Zhong, L.E. Rännar, L. Liu et al., Additive manufacturing of
316L stainless steel by electron beam melting for nuclear fusion
applications. J Nucl Mater. 486, 234–245 (2017)
26. D. Kong, C. Dong, X. Ni et al., Mechanical properties and cor-
rosion behavior of selective laser melted 316L stainless steel
after different heat treatment processes. J Mater Sci Technol. 35,
1499–1507 (2019)
27. M. Nastac, R. Lucas, A. Klein, Microstructure and mechanical
properties comparison of 316L parts produced by different addi-
tive manufacturing processes. In: Proc 28th Annu Int Solid Free
Fabr Symp. 332–341 (2017).
28. S. Mirzababaei, S. Pasebani, A review on binder jet additive man-
ufacturing of 316L stainless steel. J Manuf Mater Process. 3, 8–12
(2019)
29. M. Yakout, M.A. Elbestawi, S.C. Veldhuis, On the characteri-
zation of stainless steel 316L parts produced by selective laser
melting. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 95, 1953–1974 (2018)
30. M. Yakout, M.A. Elbestawi, S.C. Veldhuis et al., Influence of ther-
mal properties on residual stresses in SLM of aerospace alloys.
Rapid Prototyp J. 26, 213–222 (2020)
31. S.K. Sharma, C. Sharma, Processing techniques, microstructural
and mechanical properties of wire arc additive manufactured
stainless steel: a review. J Inst Eng Ser C. 31, 1–15 (2022)
32. A.U. Rehman, F. Pitir, M.U. Salamci, Full-field mapping and flow
quantification of melt pool dynamics in laser powder bed fusion
of SS316L. Materials (Basel). 14, 16–19 (2021)
33. M.F. Mat, Y.H.P. Manurung, N. Muhammad et al., Grain growth
prediction of bead-on-plate with filler wire SS316L using FEM.
IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 834, 12009 (2020)
34. M.J.K. Lodhi, K.M. Deen, M.C. Greenlee-Wacker et al., Addi-
tively manufactured 316L stainless steel with improved corrosion
resistance and biological response for biomedical applications.
Addit Manuf. 27, 8–19 (2019)
35. B. Niculescu, C. I. Faur, T. Tataru et al., Investigation of biome-
chanical characteristics of orthopedic implants for tibial plateau
fractures by means of deep learning and support vector machine
classification. Appl Sci. 10 (2020).
36. D. Gu, Y. Shen, Processing conditions and microstructural fea-
tures of porous 316L stainless steel components by DMLS. Appl
Surf Sci. 255, 1880–1887 (2008)
37. S. Y. Chin, V. Dikshit, B. Meera Priyadarshini et al., Powder-
based 3D printing for the fabrication of device with micro and
mesoscale features. Micromachines. 11 (2020).
38. S.K. Sharma, K. Biswas, A.K. Nath et al., Microstructural charac-
terization of laser surface-melted Inconel 718. J Opt. 49, 494–509
(2020)
39. C. Tan, K. Zhou, W. Ma et al., Selective laser melting of high-per-
formance pure tungsten: parameter design, densification behavior
and mechanical properties. Sci Technol Adv Mater. 19, 370–380
(2018)
40. J. Suryawanshi, K.G. Prashanth, U. Ramamurty, Mechanical
behavior of selective laser melted 316L stainless steel. Mater Sci
Eng A. 696, 113–121 (2017)
41. R. Li, J. Liu, Y. Shi et al., Balling behavior of stainless steel and
nickel powder during selective laser melting process. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol. 59, 1025–1035 (2012)
42. A.B. Spierings, T.L. Starr, K. Wegener, Fatigue performance of
additive manufactured metallic parts. Rapid Prototyp J. 19, 88–94
(2013)
43. S. Listani, S. Mirzababaei, S. Pasebani et al., Additive manufac-
turing of 316L stainless steel by electron beam melting for nuclear
fusion applications. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 486, 234–245
(2017)
13

44. L. Jiao, Z. Y. Chua, S. K. Moon et al., Femtosecond laser produced
hydrophobic hierarchical structures on additive manufacturing
parts. Nanomaterials. 8 (2018).
45. J. Wroe, Introduction to additive manufacturing technology: a
guide for designers and engineers. Eur Powder Metall Assoc.,
28–34 (2015).
46. S.K. Sharma, K. Biswas, J. Dutta Majumdar, Studies on electron
beam surface remelted Inconel 718 Superalloy. Met Mater Int. 27,
5360–5373 (2020)
47. S.K. Sharma, K. Biswas, J.D. Majumdar, Effect of heat input on
mechanical and electrochemical properties of electron-beam-
welded Inconel 718. J Mater Eng Perform. 29, 1706–1714 (2020)
48. C. P. Allen, Investigation of the structure and corrosive properties
of additively manufactured stainless steel 316L by binder jetting
and supersolidus liquid phase sintering. 3(2) (2016)
49. Z. Sun, X. Tan, S.B. Tor et al., Selective laser melting of stainless
steel 316L with low porosity and high build rates. Mater Des. 104,
197–204 (2016)
50. Y. Zhong, L.E. Rännar, S. Wikman et al., Additive manufacturing
of ITER first wall panel parts by two approaches: Selective laser
melting and electron beam melting. Fusion Eng Des. 116, 24–33
(2017)
13
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
51. M. Sugavaneswaran, A.V. Jebaraj, M.D.B. Kumar et al., Enhance-
ment of surface characteristics of direct metal laser sintered stain-
less steel 316L by shot peening. Surfaces Interfaces. 12, 31–40
(2018)
52. M. Ghasri-Khouzani, H. Peng, R. Attardo et al., Direct metal
laser-sintered stainless steel: comparison of microstructure and
hardness between different planes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 95,
4031–4037 (2018)
53. J.R.J. Michla, R. Nagarajan, S. Krishnasamy et al., Conventional
and additively manufactured stainless steels: a review. Trans
Indian Inst Met. 74, 1261–1278 (2021)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.