A comparison of adiabatic shear bands in wrought and additively manufactured 316L stainless steel using nanoindentation and electron backscatter diffraction

  • Jordan S. WeaverEmail author
  • Veronica Livescu
  • Nathan A. Mara
Metals & corrosion


The resistance of stainless steels to shear localization is dependent on processing and microstructure. The amount of research evaluating the shear response of additively manufactured (AM) stainless steels compared to traditionally manufactured ones is limited. To address this gap, experiments were performed on directed energy deposition AM as-built and wrought 316L stainless steel using a forced shear technique with a hat-shaped specimen and a Split-Hopkinson pressure bar. The resulting adiabatic shear bands were characterized with electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) and nanoindentation to quantify the changes in microstructure and deformation hardening across shear band regions and between the wrought and AM materials. Despite significant differences between the wrought and AM materials including the forced shear response, the postmortem states of work hardening due to the shear band deformation are nearly the same. The maximum nanoindentation stresses occurred in the shear band center with similar magnitudes and only minor differences away from the shear band. Although EBSD data cannot be resolved in the shear band center, misorientation trends, particularly grain reference orientation deviation, were found to closely resemble nanoindentation trends. The combination of EBSD misorientation and nanoindentation, which are linked through changes in dislocation density, is a viable protocol to quantify local changes to macroscopically applied deformation.



The authors acknowledge funding from Joint Munitions Program. This work was performed, in part, at the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, an Office of Science User Facility operated for the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science. The Los Alamos National Laboratory, an affirmative action equal opportunity employer, is operated by Triad National Security, LLC, for the National Nuclear Security Administration of the US Department of Energy under Contract #89233218CNA000001.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Supplementary material

10853_2019_3994_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23800 kb)


  1. 1.
    Kok Y, Tan XP, Wang P, Nai MLS, Loh NH, Liu E, Tor SB (2018) Anisotropy and heterogeneity of microstructure and mechanical properties in metal additive manufacturing: a critical review. Mater Des 139:565–586. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fayazfar H, Salarian M, Rogalsky A, Sarker D, Russo P, Paserin V, Toyserkani E (2018) A critical review of powder-based additive manufacturing of ferrous alloys: process parameters, microstructure and mechanical properties. Mater Des 144:98–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DebRoy T, Wei HL, Zuback JS, Mukherjee T, Elmer JW, Milewski JO, Beese AM, Wilson-Heid A, De A, Zhang W (2018) Additive manufacturing of metallic components—process, structure and properties. Prog Mater Sci 92:112–224. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xue Q, Gray GT (2006) Development of adiabatic shear bands in annealed 316L stainless steel: part I. Correlation between evolving microstructure and mechanical behavior. Metall Mater Trans A 37(8):2435–2446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dodd B (1992) Adiabatic shear localization: occurrence, theories, and applications. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xue Q, Gray G (2006) Development of adiabatic shear bands in annealed 316L stainless steel: part II. TEM studies of the evolution of microstructure during deformation localization. Metall Mater Trans A 37(8):2447–2458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xue Q, Cerreta EK, Gray GT (2007) Microstructural characteristics of post-shear localization in cold-rolled 316L stainless steel. Acta Mater 55(2):691–704. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wright SI, Nowell MM, Field DP (2011) A review of strain analysis using electron backscatter diffraction. Microsc Microanal 17(3):316–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pantleon W (2008) Resolving the geometrically necessary dislocation content by conventional electron backscattering diffraction. Scr Mater 58(11):994–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ruggles TJ, Fullwood DT (2013) Estimations of bulk geometrically necessary dislocation density using high resolution EBSD. Ultramicroscopy 133:8–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilkinson AJ, Meaden G, Dingley DJ (2006) High resolution mapping of strains and rotations using electron backscatter diffraction. Mater Sci Technol 22(11):1271–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhu C, Harrington T, Livescu V, Gray GT, Vecchio KS (2016) Determination of geometrically necessary dislocations in large shear strain localization in aluminum. Acta Mater 118:383–394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shen RR, Efsing P (2018) Overcoming the drawbacks of plastic strain estimation based on KAM. Ultramicroscopy 184:156–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhu C, Livescu V, Harrington T, Dippo O, Gray GT, Vecchio KS (2017) Investigation of the shear response and geometrically necessary dislocation densities in shear localization in high-purity titanium. Int J Plast 92:148–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pathak S, Stojakovic D, Kalidindi SR (2009) Measurement of the local mechanical properties in polycrystalline samples using spherical nanoindentation and orientation imaging microscopy. Acta Mater 57(10):3020–3028. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vachhani SJ, Kalidindi SR (2015) Grain-scale measurement of slip resistances in aluminum polycrystals using spherical nanoindentation. Acta Mater 90:27–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weaver JS, Jones DR, Li N, Mara N, Fensin S, Gray GT III (2018) Quantifying heterogeneous deformation in grain boundary regions on shock loaded tantalum using spherical and sharp tip nanoindentation. Mater Sci Eng A 737:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dziaszyk S, Payton EJ, Friedel F, Marx V, Eggeler G (2010) On the characterization of recrystallized fraction using electron backscatter diffraction: a direct comparison to local hardness in an IF steel using nanoindentation. Mater Sci Eng A 527(29):7854–7864. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shen RR, Ström V, Efsing P (2016) Spatial correlation between local misorientations and nanoindentation hardness in nickel–base alloy 690. Mater Sci Eng A 674:171–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guglielmi PO, Ziehmer M, Lilleodden ET (2018) On a novel strain indicator based on uncorrelated misorientation angles for correlating dislocation density to local strength. Acta Mater 150:195–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gray GT, Livescu V, Rigg PA, Trujillo CP, Cady CM, Chen SR, Carpenter JS, Lienert TJ, Fensin SJ (2017) Structure/property (constitutive and spallation response) of additively manufactured 316L stainless steel. Acta Mater 138:140–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Griffith M, Schlienger M, Harwell L, Oliver M, Baldwin M, Ensz M, Essien M, Brooks J, Robino C, Smugeresky EJ (1999) Understanding thermal behavior in the LENS process. Mater Des 20(2–3):107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morrow BM, Lienert TJ, Knapp CM, Sutton JO, Brand MJ, Pacheco RM, Livescu V, Carpenter JS, Gray GT (2018) Impact of defects in powder feedstock Materials on Microstructure of 304L and 316L stainless steel produced by additive manufacturing. Metall Mater Trans A 49(8):3637–3650. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yadollahi A, Shamsaei N, Thompson SM, Seely DW (2015) Effects of process time interval and heat treatment on the mechanical and microstructural properties of direct laser deposited 316L stainless steel. Mater Sci Eng A 644:171–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang Z, Palmer TA, Beese AM (2016) Effect of processing parameters on microstructure and tensile properties of austenitic stainless steel 304L made by directed energy deposition additive manufacturing. Acta Mater 110:226–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gray GT, Vecchio KS, Livescu V (2016) Compact forced simple-shear sample for studying shear localization in materials. Acta Mater 103:12–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bronkhorst CA, Cerreta EK, Xue Q, Maudlin PJ, Mason TA, Gray GT (2006) An experimental and numerical study of the localization behavior of tantalum and stainless steel. Int J Plast 22(7):1304–1335. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xue Q, Gray GT, Henrie BL, Maloy SA, Chen SR (2005) Influence of shock prestraining on the formation of shear localization in 304 stainless steel. Metall Mater Trans A 36(6):1471–1486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bachmann F, Hielscher R, Schaeben H (2010) Texture analysis with MTEX—free and open source software toolbox. In: Klein H, Schwarzer RA (eds) Solid state phenomena. Trans Tech Publication, Zurich, pp 63–68 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pathak S, Kalidindi SR (2015) Spherical nanoindentation stress–strain curves. Mater Sci Eng R 91:1–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kalidindi SR, Pathak S (2008) Determination of the effective zero-point and the extraction of spherical nanoindentation stress–strain curves. Acta Mater 56(14):3523–3532. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oliver WC, Pharr GM (2004) Measurement of hardness and elastic modulus by instrumented indentation: advances in understanding and refinements to methodology. J Mater Res 19(1):3–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bagherifard S, Slawik S, Fernández-Pariente I, Pauly C, Mücklich F, Guagliano M (2016) Nanoscale surface modification of AISI 316L stainless steel by severe shot peening. Mater Des 102:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tabor D (1956) The physical meaning of indentation and scratch hardness. Br J Appl Phys 7(5):159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Donohue BR, Ambrus A, Kalidindi SR (2012) Critical evaluation of the indentation data analyses methods for the extraction of isotropic uniaxial mechanical properties using finite element models. Acta Mater 60(9):3943–3952. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang YM, Voisin T, McKeown JT, Ye J, Calta NP, Li Z, Zeng Z, Zhang Y, Chen W, Roehling TT, Ott RT, Santala MK, Depond Philip J, Matthews MJ, Hamza AV, Zhu T (2017) Additively manufactured hierarchical stainless steels with high strength and ductility. Nat Mater 17:63–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gorsse S, Hutchinson C, Gouné M, Banerjee R (2017) Additive manufacturing of metals: a brief review of the characteristic microstructures and properties of steels, Ti–6Al–4V and high-entropy alloys. Sci Technol Adv Mater 18(1):584–610. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smith TR, Sugar JD, San Marchi C, Schoenung JM (2019) Strengthening mechanisms in directed energy deposited austenitic stainless steel. Acta Mater 164:728–740. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bronkhorst CA, Mayeur JR, Livescu V, Pokharel R, Brown DW, Gray GT (2019) Structural representation of additively manufactured 316L austenitic stainless steel. Int J Plast 118:70–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brown D, Adams D, Balogh L, Carpenter J, Clausen B, King G, Reedlunn B, Palmer T, Maguire M, Vogel S (2017) In situ neutron diffraction study of the influence of microstructure on the mechanical response of additively manufactured 304L stainless steel. Metall Mater Trans A 48(12):6055–6069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    O’Haver T (1997) A pragmatic introduction to signal processing. Accessed 9 Sept 2019
  42. 42.
    Patel DK, Kalidindi SR (2016) Correlation of spherical nanoindentation stress–strain curves to simple compression stress–train curves for elastic–plastic isotropic materials using finite element models. Acta Mater 112:295–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gao H, Huang Y, Nix WD, Hutchinson JW (1999) Mechanism-based strain gradient plasticity—I. Theory. J Mech Phys Solids 47(6):1239–1263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kubin L, Mortensen A (2003) Geometrically necessary dislocations and strain-gradient plasticity: a few critical issues. Scr Mater 48(2):119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lee S-J, Lee Y-K (2005) Quantitative analyses of ferrite lattice parameter and solute Nb content in low carbon microalloyed steels. Scr Mater 52(10):973–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Trimby PW (2012) Orientation mapping of nanostructured materials using transmission Kikuchi diffraction in the scanning electron microscope. Ultramicroscopy 120:16–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chen YH, Park SU, Wei D, Newstadt G, Jackson MA, Simmons JP, De Graef M, Hero AO (2015) A dictionary approach to electron backscatter diffraction indexing. Microsc Microanal 21(3):739–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Singh S, Guo Y, Winiarski B, Burnett TL, Withers PJ, De Graef M (2018) High resolution low kV EBSD of heavily deformed and nanocrystalline Aluminium by dictionary-based indexing. Sci Rep 8:10991.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, Materials Physics and Applications DivisionLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos AlamosUSA
  2. 2.MST-8: Materials Science in Radiation and Dynamic ExtremesLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos AlamosUSA
  3. 3.Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials ScienceUniversity of Minnesota-Twin CitiesMinneapolisUSA
  4. 4.Engineering LaboratoryNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations