4.6 Article

Prediction models for the yield strength of particle-reinforced unimodal pure magnesium (Mg) metal matrix nanocomposites (MMNCs)

Journal

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE
Volume 48, Issue 12, Pages 4191-4204

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10853-013-7232-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Research Growth Initiative (RGI) Award from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM)
  2. U.S. Army Research Laboratory (US ARL) [W911NF-08-2-0014]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Particle-reinforced metal matrix nanocomposites (MMNCs) have been lauded for their potentially superior mechanical properties such as modulus, yield strength, and ultimate tensile strength. Though these materials have been synthesized using several modern solid- or liquid-phase processes, the relationships between material types, contents, processing conditions, and the resultant mechanical properties are not well understood. In this paper, we examine the yield strength of particle-reinforced MMNCs by considering individual strengthening mechanism candidates and yield strength prediction models. We first introduce several strengthening mechanisms that can account for increase in the yield strength in MMNC materials, and address the features of currently available yield strength superposition methods. We then apply these prediction models to the existing dataset of magnesium MMNCs. Through a series of quantitative analyses, it is demonstrated that grain refinement plays a significant role in determining the overall yield strength of most of the MMNCs developed to date. Also, it is found that the incorporation of the coefficient of thermal expansion mismatch and modulus mismatch strengthening mechanisms will considerably overestimate the experimental yield strength. Finally, it is shown that work-hardening during post-processing of MMNCs employed by many researchers is in part responsible for improvement to the yield strength of these materials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available