4.7 Article

Precipitation formation on Σ5 and Σ7 grain boundaries in 316L stainless steel and their roles on intergranular corrosion

期刊

ACTA MATERIALIA
卷 210, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2021.116822

关键词

Stainless steel; Coincidence site lattice (CSL); Faceting; GB energy anisotropy

资金

  1. Nippon Steel Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In sensitized AISI 316L stainless steel samples attacked by an HF solution, it was found that Sigma 7 grain boundaries always show corrosion while Sigma 5 grain boundaries never do. The distinct corrosion behavior is related to the different precipitation behavior and surface features exhibited by the two types of grain boundaries.
In sensitized (700 degrees C for 10 h) AISI 316L stainless steel samples attacked by an HF solution, coincidence site lattice (CSL) Sigma 7 grain boundaries (GBs) always show corrosion while Sigma 5 GBs never do. This distinct corrosion behaviour can be related to the distinct precipitation behaviour of the different GBs, which itself depends on the GB characters. It is found that Sigma 5 GBs, although being curved both macro- and microscopically, neither show facets nor precipitates. The amount of segregation is enhanced in sensitized Sigma 5 GBs compared to solution-annealed ones. In contrast, Sigma 7 GBs show clear faceting in both the solution-annealed and sensitized state, with one facet orientation showing strong segregation while the other not. GB energy anisotropy is applied to explain the faceting phenomenon. The formation of two kinds of precipitates, i.e., C14 Laves phase and M23C6 carbide, holding responsible for two distinct morphologies of corrosion, are believed to be both linked to intensive faceting and the anisotropic segregation of Sigma 7 GBs. For the carbide, a preferred {111} orientation out of all Sigma 7 facets measured by trace analyses is presumed to facilitate its nucleation. (C) 2021 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据