4.7 Article

Grain refinement limit and mechanical properties of 6063 alloy inoculated by Al-Ti-C (B) master alloys

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLOYS AND COMPOUNDS
卷 594, 期 -, 页码 7-11

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2014.01.145

关键词

6063 Aluminum alloy; Al-Ti-C (B) master alloy; Heterogeneous nucleation; Grain refinement limit; Mechanical properties

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51071097]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB825702]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The grain refinement limit of 6063 alloy inoculated by Al-5Ti-0.25C and Al-5Ti-1B master alloys and the impact of grain size on the mechanical properties, including the tensile strength and hardness, are investigated in the present article. It is revealed that the smallest average grain size of 6063 alloys refined by these two master alloys is the same under the present experimental condition, thus the grain refinement limit of 6063 alloy is 40 lm. However, the limit addition of the two master alloys corresponding to the grain refinement varies at 2.0 wt.% and 3.0 wt.% for Al-5Ti-0.25C and Al-5Ti-1B, respectively, and the grain refining performance of the former is much better than that of the later one before reaching the refinement limit. Furthermore, the mechanical properties of 6063 alloy are also improved first with the grain refinement, but turn to decrease after the same 1.5 wt.% addition both for Al-5Ti-0.25C and Al-5Ti-1B. The highest ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and hardness (HB) of 6063 alloy obtained by the refinement of Al-5Ti-0.25C and Al-5Ti-1B are 271 MPa, 81.7 and 250 MPa, 80, respectively. Thus the UTS and hardness of 6063 alloy refined by the former master alloy are also much higher than those refined by the later one. It is worthy to note that the 6063 alloys with the smallest average grain size did not behave the highest mechanical properties and the possible mechanisms are also discussed. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据