ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparative Analysis of Mechanical Properties: Conventional vs. Additive Manufacturing for Stainless Steel 316L.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Study of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods for H13 Tool Steel.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Analysing plate fixation of a comminuted fracture of the proximal ulna in relation to the elbow joint: a finite element study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Von Mises Stress in External Fixators for Open Tibial Fractures: A Comparative Study of ASTM F1541-02 and Tibia-Based Models in Indonesian Patients.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research investigates the tensile strength and microstructural properties of stainless steel 316L, comparing samples fabricated using additive manufacturing (AM) to those produced via conventional manufacturing techniques such as forging and casting using stainless steel 316L for its mechanical performance and corrosion resistance. Tensile tests revealed that AM samples had an ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of 650 MPa, a yield strength of 550 MPa and an elongation at break of 20%, and conventionally manufactured samples achieved a UTS of 580 MPa, a yield strength of 450 MPa and a higher elongation at break of 35%. The reduced ductility of AM samples is offset by their higher strength. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis showed that AM samples had a refined grain structure, with grain sizes ranging from 1 to 5 µm, whereas conventionally produced samples exhibited larger grain sizes of 10 to 20 µm, contributing to their increased ductility. This shows that while AM processes can give a rather high strength, the ductility property is simpler to attain with casting. Further work is needed to investigate post-processing techniques like hot isotropic pressing (HIP) and heat treatments for enhancing the ductility of AM parts as well as mechanical properties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.