Materials Science Forum Submitted: 2024-09-21

ISSN: 1662-9752, Vol. 1140, pp 19-28 Revised: 2024-11-13

doi:10.4028/p-LmBt23 Accepted: 2024-11-14
© 2024 Trans Tech Publications Ltd, All Rights Reserved Online: 2024-12-19

Comparative Analysis of Microstructure in Ferritic Steel Fabricated by

Conventional and Additive Manufacturing Processes
Minh-Thuyet NGUYEN1,a*
1
School of Materials Science and Engineering, Hanoi University of Science and Technology,
Hanoi, Vietnam
a
*thuyet.nguyenminh@hust.edu.vn

Keywords: Ferritic 439 stainless steel, Additive manufacturing, Microstructure, Hardness

Abstract. Ferritic 439 stainless steels, known as iron–chromium alloys with chromium content
between 11% and 30%, have been extensively used worldwide due to their good corrosion resistance,
good formability, high-temperature oxidation resistance, and lower cost compared to austenitic
stainless steels. Conventional production processes for these steels, such as melting, casting, and
rolling, are predominantly employed due to the material's difficult formability and machinability,
especially when producing complex shapes. However, additive manufacturing (AM) offers new
processing opportunities. AM technology, specifically Selective Laser Melting (SLM), fuses metallic
powders using a precisely focused and controlled laser beam, enabling the production of highly
complex parts with high precision. In this work, we present a comparison of ferritic 439 stainless steel
manufactured using SLM technology with conventionally manufactured one, focusing on their
microstructure, phase, and mechanical properties. The results reveal that SLM significantly increases
material strength and hardness due to notable differences in microstructure fineness and phase
composition. The rapid solidification during the SLM process results in a microstructure for the as-
printed ferritic 439 stainless steel that significantly differs from that of conventionally manufactured
ferritic 439 stainless steel. This distinctive microstructure in the additively manufactured product is
likely responsible for various other differences in material behavior.

Introduction
Ferritic stainless steels are widely utilized in various industrial applications due to their excellent
corrosion resistance, high-temperature strength, and good formability [1, 2]. Among them, ferritic 439
stainless steel stands out as a popular choice, known for its superior performance in corrosive
environments and high-temperature applications [2-4]. Ferritic 439 stainless steel finds widespread
applications across various sectors, including automotive, architectural, kitchenware, and industrial
equipment manufacturing. Its excellent corrosion resistance, coupled with good formability and
weldability, makes it an ideal choice for components exposed to harsh operating conditions, such as
exhaust systems, heat exchangers, and architectural claddings. Additionally, its magnetic properties
render it suitable for electromagnetic applications, further expanding its utility in diverse industries [3-
6].
Traditionally, the fabrication of ferritic 439 stainless steel has primarily relied on a conventional
route encompassing melting, casting, hot rolling, and annealing processes [4, 6, 8]. Initially, raw
materials consisting of iron, chromium, and additional alloying elements are melted within a furnace
to produce a molten alloy. This molten metal is subsequently cast into ingots or billets before
undergoing hot rolling to attain the desired thickness and shape. To optimize the material's
microstructure and mechanical properties for specific applications, annealing treatments are then
implemented. These processes have been widely employed for several decades and are well-
established within the industry.
In recent years, additive manufacturing (AM) has emerged as a transformative technology
disrupting traditional manufacturing paradigms. Unlike conventional subtractive processes, AM
constructs components layer-by-layer directly from digital design data [9, 10]. Within the realm of

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications Ltd, www.scientific.net. (Research Gate for subscription journals-24/04/25,12:31:07)
20 Structural and Building Materials, and Applied Chemistry

steel, AM techniques such as selective laser melting (SLM) and electron beam melting (EBM) offer
distinct advantages, including the creation of complex geometries with minimal material waste [9-12].
Among these, SLM has garnered significant attention for its precision in fabricating intricate
structures directly from digital designs. This process involves selectively melting successive metal
powder layers using a high-powered laser beam, resulting in fully dense, near-net-shape components
with minimal material waste. Applying SLM to fabricate ferritic 439 stainless steel represents a
paradigm shift in this alloy's manufacturing. By circumventing the limitations of conventional
methods, SLM offers rapid prototyping, design flexibility, and on-demand production capabilities.
Furthermore, SLM's inherent ability to achieve fine microstructural control and tailored mechanical
properties presents opportunities to optimize ferritic 439 stainless steel performance for specific
applications [11-14]. However, challenges such as microstructure, porosity, defects, and unwanted
phases can significantly impact the performance of AM components. Consequently, understanding
microstructure evolution during solidification and solid-state phase transformations within the SLM
process is crucial. Microstructure development during solidification is influenced by the thermal field,
which is governed by processing conditions [15-18]. While numerous studies have investigated the
impact of process parameters on microstructure formation in other stainless steel grades, such as 316,
research on AM-produced ferritic 439 stainless steel remains limited [8-14].
This work delves into the microstructure and mechanical properties of SLM-fabricated ferritic 439
stainless steel. For comparison, the characteristics of conventionally manufactured commercial ferritic
439 stainless steels are also examined. Given that mechanical properties are influenced by
microstructure, phase assembly, and physical properties, these aspects were investigated prior to
evaluating hardness.

Materials and Experimental Procedures

Powder materials and SLM processing

Fig. 1. SEM image of 439 steel powder and powder size distribution.
Nitrogen-gas atomized spherical ferritic 439 stainless steel powder served as the feedstock material
for selective laser melting (SLM). The powder's chemical composition was (wt.%): 17.5 Cr, 1.1 Ti,
0.12 C, 0.75 Si, 1.0 Mn, 0.15 Al, 0.04 P, 0.03 S, 0.008 O, with the balance being Fe. The spherical
powder particles exhibited a diameter ranging from 15 to 45 μm (figure 1), suitable for SLM processing
[19, 20].
Laser melting was conducted using a MetalSys 150 system (WinforSys co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do,
South Korea) equipped with an air-cooled ytterbium fiber laser (YLR-200-AC-Y11 IPG Ytterbium
Fiber Laser). Operating at a wavelength of 1075 nm with a maximum power of 200 W, the laser
 Materials Science Forum Vol. 1140 21

produced a focal spot size of approximately 90 μm. Cubic samples measuring 10 x 10 x 10 mm were
printed on a stainless steel substrate without support structures. Each layer involved depositing and
distributing powder on the build platform, followed by laser fusion of the powder granules to create
the initial layer. The SLM process employed a meander scanning pattern with a scanning speed of
1000 mm/s and a hatching space of 70 μm for each layer. Subsequent layers were formed by lowering
the build platform by 40 μm (layer thickness) and adding fresh powder, repeating this process until
the part was fully constructed. A schematic representation of the laser scanning process and the built
part is provided in figure 2. Post-printing, samples were sectioned using wire-cut electrical discharge
machining.
For the conventional ferritic 439 stainless steel, a commercial sample was utilized for investigation.
Sample dimensions were prepared to match those of the printed parts.

Fig. 2. Schematic of the laser scanning and the building part in SLM process
Characterization methods
In this study, the microstructure, morphology, and elemental distribution were characterized using
optical microscopy (OM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray
spectroscopy (EDS). To enhance detail visibility for OM and SEM observations, all samples were
polished and chemically etched in a HCl-HNO3-H2O solution. Phase analysis was conducted using
X-ray diffraction (XRD) with CuKα radiation over a 2θ range of 10° to 100° at room temperature.
Finally, the Vickers hardness (HV) of the samples was measured by Vickers microhardness tester
(HVLPAK2000) at load force (200 gf) and a dwell time (10 seconds) at room temperature, with five
repeat tests to ensure data reliability.

Results and Discussion

Phase analysis
The phase formation of both conventional and SLM-processed ferritic steel samples was investigated
using XRD, as shown in Figure 3. According to the literature, JCPDS card 06-0696 was used for
ferrite identification [21]. The XRD patterns of the powder, as-printed, and commercial samples in
this study indicate a single-phase body-centered cubic (BCC) structure for all samples. The primary
peaks correspond to the (110), (200), and (211) reflections. No additional peaks or peak shifts were
observed in the XRD patterns, suggesting no change in lattice parameter before or after SLM for
either the 439 steel or the conventional samples. However, there is the slight split peak observed in
the (211) plane of SLMed sample during XRD testing may indicate subtle internal stresses or
microstructural differences between the conventional and SLM processed samples.
22 Structural and Building Materials, and Applied Chemistry

Fig. 3. XRD patterns of (a) Powder, (b) the SLMed sample, and (c) commercial sample.
It is noted that, the (211) reflection plane, characteristic of BCC ferritic steel, often shows sensitivity
to residual stresses, which may arise during rapid cooling in the SLM process. In contrast,
conventionally processed ferritic steels, typically cooled more slowly, experience lower levels of
thermal stress. The split peak in the SLM-processed sample suggests that the rapid cooling rates
inherent to the process may cause slight variations in lattice spacing within the crystal structure. These
variations lead to local strain, which manifests as peak splitting in XRD, particularly in higher-index
planes like (211). This phenomenon aligns with previous literature, where split peaks in XRD patterns
are frequently linked to non-uniform residual stresses or crystallographic texture variations. In this
case, the BCC structure remains unchanged, and the lattice parameter does not appear to shift.
However, the peak split is an indicator of microstructural stresses or defects introduced by the unique
thermal cycles of SLM [8-11, 20].
Microstructure characteristics
The microstructures and morphologies of the samples were characterized using optical microscopy
(OM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Figure 4 presents the OM image of the conventional
ferritic 439 stainless steel sample, revealing a coarse-grained microstructure composed solely of
ferrite phase within coarse equiaxed grains. This microstructure is typical of conventionally
manufactured 439 steel, resulting from solidification and subsequent deformation processes [22, 23].
Notably, the microstructure of conventional ferritic 439 stainless steel remains consistent across
different cross-sectional planes.
 Materials Science Forum Vol. 1140 23

Fig. 4. OM image of the conventional 439 steel sample.

In contrast, selective laser melting (SLM) produces samples with varying microstructures
depending on the observed cross-sectional surface. Given the SLM process builds up the sample
layer-by-layer in the z-direction while completing each layer in the x-y plane (Figure 2),
microstructures were examined from both top-view (building direction) and side-view (transverse
direction) perspectives.
Figure 5(a) and 5(b) display the OM images of the SLMed sample at the top-view and side-view
surfaces, respectively. These images represent the typical microstructure for a meander scanning
pattern with a 90° rotation between layers [24, 25]. The top-view exhibits a chessboard structure,
characterized by uniform tesserae approximately 70-90 μm in size, corresponding to the SLM
hatching space. While grains appear rectangular or circular on the top-view cross-section, higher
magnification (Figure 6(a)) reveals smaller grains (<5 μm) at chessboard boundaries. The side-view
OM images show wide, elongated columnar grains aligned with the build direction, extending across
multiple layers (Figure 5(b)). Higher magnification (Figure 6(b)) confirms the parallel grain
arrangement with thin, highly columnar shapes, indicating growth along melt-pool centers.

Fig. 5. OM images the SLMed sample at (a) top-view and (b) side-view surfaces.
24 Structural and Building Materials, and Applied Chemistry

Fig. 6. High magnification OM images of (a) top-view and (b) side-view sufaces.

The unique microstructure of the as-printed samples compared to conventional ones arises from the
rapid melting and solidification inherent to the SLM process. Cyclic thermal stresses, steep thermal
gradients, directional heat flow, and high cooling rates (~106 K/s) [8, 9, 17, 25] significantly influence
microstructure, grain size, and solidification morphology. Limited elemental segregation is confined
to a fine solidification structure due to rapid cooling. Grain growth during SLM follows either
epitaxial or competitive growth mechanisms. Epitaxial growth occurs when grains inherit the
orientation of the substrate layer, resulting in columnar grains spanning several layers due to limited
nucleation. In contrast, competitive growth favors grains with optimal alignment to the thermal
gradient, leading to their faster growth and a less uniform microstructure [25-28]. The observed
alternating microstructure in SLM samples reflects the interplay between these growth mechanisms,
distinguishing it from the conventional ferritic 439 stainless steel.

Fig. 7. SEM image of the SLMed 439 sample.

The SEM analysis was conducted on the printed 439 steel sample, with results shown in Figure 7.
The image reveals grains with varying orientations (indicated by light and dark contrast) distributed
within the chessboard areas (figure 7(a)). In the figure 7(b), very small granular structures resembling
hair-like formations are observed on the ferrite matrix. Initially, these structures were suspected to be
carbides. However, EDS analysis (Figure 8) did not show any evidence of carbide presence, as the
elemental distribution was uniform across all regions. This finding suggests that these structures
likely formed through a different mechanism during the printing process, warranting further
investigation in future studies.
 Materials Science Forum Vol. 1140 25

Fig. 8. EDS mapping images of the SLMed sample.

Mechanical properties
The microhardness of both the laser-melted and conventional samples was measured. Hardness
values were averaged over five measurements, as presented in Table 1. The microhardness of the
laser-melted ferritic 439 stainless steel sample was determined to be 344 HV, approximately twice
that of the conventional ferritic 439 stainless steel specimen [29]. This hardness enhancement may be
attributed to factors such as the unique chessboard microstructure, characterized by differently
oriented grains in each tessera, and the high concentration of fine grains at tessera boundaries, which
can contribute to improved mechanical properties via the Hall-Petch effect [30, 31].
26 Structural and Building Materials, and Applied Chemistry

Table 1. The hardness values of the samples

Average
Testing times 1 2 3 4 5
(HV)
SLMed sample 347.7 346.8 341.7 340.8 341.7 343.74
Conventional
155.4 149.3 152.3 151.2 149.7 151.58
sample

Conclussions
This comparative analysis underscores the significant impact of fabrication processes on the
microstructure and hardness of ferritic 439 stainless steel. Conventional methods yield a coarser,
equiaxed grain structure, while SLM produces a unique texture influenced by the laser scanning
strategy and the interplay between epitaxial and competitive growth mechanisms. The top-view
microstructure exhibits a chessboard pattern with 70-90 µm tesserae containing rectangular or circular
grains with varying crystallographic orientations. Long columnar grains, extending up to five layers,
align with the build direction and traverse in-layer melt pools. SLM samples exhibited superior
mechanical properties, achieving a microhardness of 344 HV, significantly exceeding the 152 HV of
conventional ferritic steel.
Our work demonstrates the critical importance of understanding microstructural variations to
optimize manufacturing processes for desired mechanical properties. Future research should explore
the influence of different SLM process parameters on the microstructure and mechanical behavior of
ferritic steel.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the SAHEP project for performing the
equipments and tesing analyses at School of Materials Science and Engineering, Hanoi University of
Science and Technology.
Author would like to thank Prof. Jin-Chun Kim (Ulsan University, Korea) for supporting the samples
preparation.

References
[1] J.W. Fu, F. Li, J.J. Sun, K. Cui, X.D. Du, Y.C. Wu, Effect of crystallographic orientations on
the corrosion resistance of Fe-17Cr ferritic stainless steel, J. Electroanal. Chem, 841 (2019)
56–62.
[2] H.H. Lu, W.Q. Li, L.Y. Du, H.K. Guo, W. Liang, W.G. Zhang, Z.G. Liu, The effects of
martensitic transformation and (Fe, Cr)23C6 precipitation on the properties of transformable
ferritic stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 754 (2019) 502–511.
[3] Wang. W, Zhao. S, Tang. X, Chen. C, Stainless steel catalyst for air pollution control: structure,
properties, and activity. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(2022) 55367–55399.
[4] K.A. Cashell, N.R. Baddoo, Ferritic stainless steels in structural applications, Thin-Walled
Structures, 83 (2014), 169-181.
[5] Minh-Thuyet Nguyen, Van-Trung Trinh, Heat treatment for microstructure stabilizing of
biomedical Ti-6Al-4V alloy fabricated by selective laser melting. MM Science Journal,
October 2024.
[6] Schürmann, E., & Talha, M. Stainless Steel - Characteristics, Corrosion Resistance and
Applications. IntechOpen (2019).
 Materials Science Forum Vol. 1140 27

[7] Loto, R. T., & Stokes, J. Corrosion resistance study of 439L ferritic stainless steel subjected to
high temperature variation. Cogent Engineering, 8 (2021).
[8] Xiaoguang Ma, Jingwei Zhao, Wei Du, Xin Zhang, Zhengyi Jiang, Effects of rolling processes
on ridging generation of ferritic stainless steel, Materials Characterization, 137(2018) 201-211.
[9] Frazier, W.E. Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review. J. of Materi Eng and Perform, 23
(2014) 1917–1928.
[10] Gibson I, Rosen D, Stucker B, Khorasani M, Additive manufacturing technologies, Springer
Charm (2021).
[11] Herzog. D, Seyda. V, Wycisk. E, Emmelmann. C, Additive manufacturing of metals, Acta
Materialia, 117 (2016) 371–392.
[12] Hengsbach F et al. Duplex stainless steel fabricated by selective laser melting – microstructural
and mechanical properties. Materials Design, 133 (2017) 136–142.
[13] Sun Z et al. Simultaneously enhanced strength and ductility for 3D-printed stainless steel 316L
by selective laser melting. NPG Asia Materials, 10 (2018) 127–136.
[14] Karlsson D et al. Additive manufacturing of the ferritic stainless steel SS441. Additive
Manufacturing, 36 (2020) 101580.
[15] Oliveira JP, LaLonde AD, Ma J. Processing parameters in laser powder bed fusion metal
additive manufacturing. Mater Des., 193 (2020) 108762.
[16] Wang H, Chen L, Dovgyy B, et al. Micro-cracking, microstructure and mechanical properties
of HastelloyX alloy printed by laser powder bed fusion: as-built, annealed and hot-isostatic
pressed. Addit Manuf., 39 (2021) 101853.
[17] Pham M-S, Dovgyy B, Hooper PA, et al. The role of side-branching in microstructure
development in laser powder-bed fusion, Nat Commun., 11 (2020) 749.
[18] Polonsky AT, Lenthe WC, Echlin MP, et al. Solidificationdriven orientation gradients in
additively manufactured stainless steel, Acta Mater., 183 (2020) 249–260.
[19] Joon-Phil Choi, Gi-Hun Shin, Hak-Sung Lee, Dong-Yeol Yang, Sangsun Yang, Chang-Woo
Lee, Mathieu Brochu, Ji-Hun Yu, Evaluation of Powder Layer Density for the Selective Laser
Melting (SLM) Process, Materials Transactions, 58 (2017), 294-297.
[20] Christopher Pleass, Sathiskumar Jothi,Influence of powder characteristics and additive
manufacturing process parameters on the microstructure and mechanical behaviour of Inconel
625 fabricated by Selective Laser Melting, Additive Manufacturing, 24 (2018) 419-431.
[21] Zhao L, Zhang H, Xing Y, et al. Studies on the magnetism of cobalt ferrite nanocrystals
synthesized by hydrothermal method. J Solid State Chem., 181 (2008) 245–252.
[22] Xiawei Cheng, Zhengyi Jiang, Brian J. Monaghan, et al., Breakaway oxidation behaviour of
ferritic stainless steels at 1150°C in humid air, Corrosion Science, 108 (2016) 11-12.
[23] C. Gaona Tiburcio, F.H. Eslupiñán López, P. Zambrano Robledo, J.A. Cabral, M.C. Barrios
Durtewitz, F. Almeraya Calderon, Electrochemical Corrosion of Ferritic 409 and 439 Stainless
Steels 409 and 439 in NaCl and H2SO4 solutions, International Journal of Electrochemical
Science,11 (2016) 1080-1091.
[24] P.F. Jiang, C.H. Zhang, S. Zhang, J.B. Zhang, J. Chen, H.T. Chen, Additive manufacturing of
novel ferritic stainless steel by selective laser melting: Role of laser scanning speed on the
formability, microstructure and properties, Optics & Laser Technology, 140 (2021) 107055.
28 Structural and Building Materials, and Applied Chemistry

[25] Dovgyy, B., Simonelli, M., & Pham, M. S. Alloy design against the solidification cracking in
fusion additive manufacturing: an application to a FeCrAl alloy, Materials Research Letters, 9
(2021) 350–357.
[26] Hooper PA. Melt pool temperature and cooling rates in laser powder bed fusion. Addit Manuf.,
22 (2018) 548– 559.
[27] De A, Walsh CA, Maiti SK, et al. Prediction of cooling rate and microstructure in laser spot
welds, Sci Technol Weld Join., 8 (2003) 391–399.
[28] Das D, Pratihar DK, Roy GG. Cooling rate predictions and its correlation with grain
characteristics during electron beam welding of stainless steel, Int J Adv Manuf Technol., 97
(2018) 2241–2254.
[29] Tanure, L. P. de A. R., Alcântara, C. M. de ., Oliveira, T. R. de ., Santos, D. B., & Gonzalez,
B. M., Microstructure, Texture and Microhardness Evolution during Annealing Heat Treatment
and Mechanical Behavior of the Niobium-Stabilized Ferritic Stainless Steel ASTM 430 and
Niobium-Titanium-Stabilized Ferritic Stainless Steel ASTM 439: a Comparative Study.
Materials Research, 20 (2017) 1650–1657.
[30] Wang, Y., Wang, Yt., Li, Rd. et al. Hall-Petch relationship in selective laser melting additively
manufactured metals: using grain or cell size?, Journal of Central South University, 28 (2021)
1043–1057.
[31] Fengxia Wei, Baisong Cheng, Li Tian Chew, Jing Jun Lee, Kok Heng Cheong, Jiang Wu, Qiang
Zhu, Cheng Cheh Tan, Grain distribution characteristics and effect of diverse size distribution
on the Hall–Petch relationship for additively manufactured metal alloys, Journal of Materials
Research and Technology, 20 (2022) 4130-4136.