4.7 Article

A study of the composition dependence of the rapid hardening phenomenon in Al-Cu-Mg alloys using diffusion couples

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2012.03.043

关键词

Diffusion couples; Al-Cu-Mg alloys; Age hardening; Solute clustering; Atom probe tomography

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) through the ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals
  2. ARC
  3. Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) nodes at The University of Sydney
  4. University of New South Wales

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A diffusion couple approach is demonstrated for the combinatorial study of the compositional dependence of the rapid hardening phenomena in Al-Cu-Mg alloys. A series of Al-Cu/Al-Cu-Mg and Al-Mg/Al-Cu-Mg diffusion couples have been successfully fabricated to contain a gradient in Mg or Cu concentration, respectively. The effects of both total solute content and Cu:Mg ratio of the rapid hardening phenomena are considered. The rapid hardening response has been monitored by measuring the hardness profile across the diffusion gradients before and after artificial ageing. The composition profiles were quantitatively verified by electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) and the microstructure of the ternary end members has been characterised using atom probe tomography (APT). It is demonstrated that a critical Cu content exists, above which the rapid hardening phenomena diminishes. A change in the chemistry of the Cu-Mg clusters that form, and which are thought to determine the rapid hardening increment, also occurs with changes in the bulk alloy chemistry. The results suggest that Cu-Mg clusters rich in Mg have greater strengthening potency and this is consistent with recent suggestions by Marceau et al. The need for the development of combinatorial approaches to characterisation (microstructural and mechanical) for the full utilisation of such approaches in physical metallurgy is emphasised. (C) 2012 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