Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Surface Finishing Procedures on Corrosion Behavior of DMLS-AlSi10Mg_200C Alloy Versus Die-Cast A360.1 Aluminum

  • Aluminum and Magnesium: High Strength Alloys for Automotive and Transportation Applications
  • Published:
JOM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, the impact of surface finishing procedures on the corrosion resistance of an AlSi10Mg_200C alloy manufactured through direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) versus its die cast counterpart was investigated. The as-printed DMLS-AlSi10Mg_200C and as-cast A360.1 alloys were subjected to various surface finishing processes including grinding and sandblasting. The corrosion performance of the surfaces was then evaluated using a potentiodynamic polarization test and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy in an aerated 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution. The results highlighted the better corrosion resistance of DMLS-AlSi10Mg_200C than its cast counterpart with a similar surface finish. The grinding of both as-printed DMLS and as-cast samples was found to initially deteriorate the corrosion performance of the surface by exposing cathodic sites to the electrolyte. However, for longer immersion times and after complete repassivation of the surface, the ground surface showed the highest resistance to the selective attack. The sandblasting process was found to have a detrimental effect on the corrosion resistance of both alloys.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. W.J. Sames, F.A. List, S. Pannala, R.R. Dehoff, and S.S. Babu, Int. Mater. Rev. 61, 315 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. D. Herzog, V. Seyda, E. Wycisk, and C. Emmelmann, Acta Mater. 117, 371 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. B. Li, H. Wang, J. Jie, and Z. Wei, Mater. Des. 32, 1617 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. H. Asgari, C. Baxter, K. Hosseinkhani, and M. Mohammadi, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 707, 148 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. M. Cabrini, S. Lorenzi, T. Pastore, S. Pellegrini, E.P. Ambrosio, F. Calignano, D. Manfredi, M. Pavese, and P. Fino, Electrochim. Acta 206, 346 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. P. Fathi, M. Mohammadi, X. Duan, and A.M. Nasiri, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 259, 1 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. M. Cabrini, S. Lorenzi, T. Pastore, S. Pellegrini, D. Manfredi, P. Fino, S. Biamino, and C. Badini, J. Mater. Process. Tech. 231, 326 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. R.I. Revilla, J. Liang, S. Godet, and I. De Graeve, J. Electrochem. Soc. 164, C27 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. A. Leon and E. Aghion, Mater. Charact. 131, 188 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. ASTM-G5-82, Standard Reference Method for Making Potentiostatic and Potentiodynamic Anodic Polarisation Measurements, Annul B. ASTM Standards Vol. 03.02, Reapproved as ASTM-65-87 and as ASTM-65-94 (1982).

  11. K.S. Ferrer and R.G. Kelly, Corrosion 57, 110 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Z. Szklarska-Smialowska, Corros. Sci. 41, 1743 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. E. Onofre-Bustamante, M.A. Domínguez-Crespo, A.M. Torres-Huerta, A. Olvera-Martínez, J. Genescá-Llongueras, and F.J. Rodríguez-Gómez, J. Solid State Electrochem. 13, 1785 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. K. Jafarzadeh, T. Shahrabi, and M.G. Hosseini, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 24, 215 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  15. H.-S. Lee, J.K. Singh, M.A. Ismail, and C. Bhattacharya, Metals (Basel) 6, 55 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/met6030055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. R. Arrabal, B. Mingo, A. Pardo, M. Mohedano, E. Matykina, and I. Rodríguez, Corros. Sci. 73, 342 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful for the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) (Grant No. RGPIN-2017-04368) for sponsoring this work. M.M. specially thanks the New Brunswick Innovation Foundation (NBIF) (Grant No. RIF2017-071) for providing funding to conduct this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, A1B 3X5, Canada

    P. Fathi, X. Duan & A. M. Nasiri

  2. Marine Additive Manufacturing Centre of Excellence (MAMCE), University of New Brunswick, 3 Bailey Drive, P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, Canada

    M. Mohammadi

Authors
  1. P. Fathi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Mohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. X. Duan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. M. Nasiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. M. Nasiri.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fathi, P., Mohammadi, M., Duan, X. et al. Effects of Surface Finishing Procedures on Corrosion Behavior of DMLS-AlSi10Mg_200C Alloy Versus Die-Cast A360.1 Aluminum. JOM 71, 1748–1759 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-019-03344-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-019-03344-8

Search

Navigation