Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T02:00:11.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Precipitation and austenite reversion behavior of a maraging steel produced by selective laser melting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2014

Eric A. Jägle*
Affiliation:
Department Microstructure Physics and Alloy Design, Max-Planck-Institut für Eisenforschung GmbH, Düsseldorf 40237, Germany
Pyuck-Pa Choi
Affiliation:
Department Microstructure Physics and Alloy Design, Max-Planck-Institut für Eisenforschung GmbH, Düsseldorf 40237, Germany
Jan Van Humbeeck
Affiliation:
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, KU Leuven, Leuven 3001, Belgium
Dierk Raabe
Affiliation:
Department Microstructure Physics and Alloy Design, Max-Planck-Institut für Eisenforschung GmbH, Düsseldorf 40237, Germany
*
a) Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: e.jaegle@mpie.de

Abstract

Materials produced by selective laser melting (SLM) experience a thermal history that is markedly different from that encountered by conventionally produced materials. In particular, a very high cooling rate from the melt is combined with cyclical reheating upon deposition of subsequent layers. Using atom-probe tomography (APT), we investigated how this nonconventional thermal history influences the phase-transformation behavior of maraging steels (Fe–18Ni–9Co–3.4Mo–1.2Ti) produced by SLM. We found that despite the “intrinsic heat treatment” and the known propensity of maraging steels for rapid clustering and precipitation, the material does not show any sign of phase transformation in the as-produced state. Upon aging, three different types of precipitates, namely (Fe,Ni,Co)3(Ti,Mo), (Fe,Ni,Co)3(Mo,Ti), and (Fe,Ni,Co)7Mo6 (µ phase), were observed as well as martensite-to-austenite reversion around regions of the retained austenite. The concentration of the newly formed phases as quantified by APT closely matches thermodynamic equilibrium calculations.

Information

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2014 
Figure 0

FIG. 1.LM and SEM micrographs of an etched cross section of the material. The deposition tracks and the fine solidification cells are clearly visible. The arrows denote the SLM build direction.

Figure 1

TABLE I.Nominal composition of the maraging steel, together with the overall composition as measured by APT (relative accuracy approx. ±1%). Also given are the concentrations inside the three precipitate types as determined from proxigrams (Fig. 6, accuracy approx. ±2%), together with a Thermocalc equilibrium calculation for type (iii) precipitates (µ phase). All values are given in at.%.

Figure 2

FIG. 2.(a) Atom maps and (b) nearest-neighbour-distance distributions of the solute elements in an APT measurement of as-produced material. Note that in panel (a) only 30% of the captured Ni ions are shown and that the Ti and AL ions are displayed twice as large as the other ions.

Figure 3

FIG. 3.SEM micrograph of the microstructure after aging at 480 °C for 5 h. Horizontally in the middle, a layer boundary is visible. The development of new phases inside the solidification cells and in the space between cells is visible. The arrow denotes the SLM build direction.

Figure 4

FIG. 4.Slices of 10 nm thickness through an APT dataset of aged maraging steel showing the major solute atoms. Precipitates are clearly visible. Note that only 30% of the captured Ni ions are shown and that the Al ions are displayed twice as large as the other ions.

Figure 5

FIG. 5.The same dataset as in Fig. 4; three different isoconcentration surfaces (as specified in the figure) are shown.

Figure 6

FIG. 6.Proximity histograms from the same dataset as in Fig. 4, based on (from top to bottom) the Ti > Mo isosurface, on the Mo > 10% isosurface (after removing regions where Mo > 25%), and on the Mo > 25% isosurface. On the left-hand side, they show the composition of the martensite matrix; on the right-hand side, they show the concentrations inside the three kinds of precipitates. The error bars denote the counting error of the concentrations.

Figure 7

FIG. 7.(a) A part of an APT dataset, represented by a 26 at.% Ni isosurface. (b) A 1D-concentration profile taken along the cylinder in panel (a), together with concentrations calculated by Thermocalc, indicating austenite reversion during aging.

Supplementary material: Image

Supplementary Material

Supplementary information supplied by authors.

Download Supplementary Material(Image)
Image 710.3 KB