4.7 Article

Cu addition effects on TRIP to TWIP transition and tensile property improvement of ultra-high-strength austenitic high-Mn steels

期刊

ACTA MATERIALIA
卷 166, 期 -, 页码 246-260

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2018.12.044

关键词

Austenitic high-Mn steel; Transformation-induced plasticity (TRIP); Twinning-induced plasticity (TWIP); Serrated flow; TRIP to TWIP transition; (Mn,Cu)-segregated band

资金

  1. Brain Korea 21 PLUS Project for Center for Creative Industrial Materials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Austenitic high-Mn steels have been nominated as desirable ultra-high-strength cold-rolled steels whose mechanical properties are greatly improved by powerful deformation mechanisms of transformation and twinning-induced plasticity (TRIP and TWIP). In this study, an austenitic high-Mn TRIP steel was suggested to achieve a good strength-ductility balance, and 1-2 wt.% Cu was added as an element for increasing stacking fault energy (SFE) as well as an austenite stabilizer to exploit a transition from TRIP to TWIP. The non-Cu-added steel showed the highest yield and tensile strengths (502 MPa and 1137 MPa, respectively) and the lowest elongation (34.6%) with a serrated flow. Yield and tensile strengths decreased with increasing Cu content, while the elongation was the highest in the 1%-Cu-added steel. TRIP and TWIP mechanisms showed good agreements with calculated SFEs in consideration of (Mn,Cu)-segregated bands. In the non-Cu-added steel, the TRIP occurred step by step as localized deformation bands passed through the specimen gage section to activate the serrated flow, which were reduced (or improved) by the transition from TRIP to TWIP with increasing Cu content. In the 1%-Cu-added steel, overall tensile properties were improved (yield strength; 461 MPa, tensile strength; 1093 MPa, elongation; 65.1%) as both TRIP and TWIP were well homogenized to produce synergic effects. (C) 2018 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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