Structure and Mechanical Properties of Laser Powder Bed-Fused and Wrought PH13-8Mo-Type Precipitation Hardening Stainless Steels: Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work focuses on the structure and properties of a laser powder bed-fused (LPBF) precipitation hardening stainless steel and its chemically analogous wrought counterpart, both subjected to an identical combination of solution and aging treatments with the objective of maximizing the material hardness. It was observed that both the LPBF and wrought alloy follows similar evolution of their phase composition, microstructure, and mechanical properties throughout the different stages of the technological workflow. After a solution treatment at 850 °C for 0.5 h and an aging at 525 °C for 2 h, both alloys achieve their highest hardness of ~50 HRC. Notwithstanding this similarity, the LPBF alloy offers a finer microstructure and a lower amount of retained austenite than its wrought counterpart. This microstructure provides comparable strength characteristics to both the LPBF and wrought alloys, while offering a significantly higher ductility to the former as compared to the latter. The elongation at break of the LPBF alloy is, however, strongly build orientation-dependent, with a measured anisotropy of 23%. This anisotropy is caused by the presence of processing-induced pores (average pore size ~23 µm) in the LPBF alloy preferably distributed in planes oriented perpendicular to the build direction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".