4.5 Article

The Effects of Recrystallization on Strength and Impact Toughness of Cold-Worked High-Mn Austenitic Steels

期刊

METALS
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/met9090948

关键词

high-Mn steel; cold-working; annealing; recrystallization; twinning

资金

  1. R&D Program of the Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [10080728]
  2. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [10080728] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-Mn austenitic steels have been recently developed for a storage or transportation application of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in cryogenic fields. Since the structural materials are subjected to extremely low temperature, it requires excellent mechanical properties such as high toughness strength. In case of high-Mn steels, twinning deformation during the cold-working process is known to increase strength yet may cause embrittlement of heavy deformed twin and anisotropic properties. In this study, a recrystallization process through appropriate annealing heat treatments after cold-working was applied to improve the impact toughness for high-Mn austenitic steels. Microstructure and mechanical properties were performed to evaluate the influence of cold-worked and annealed high-Mn austenitic steels. Mechanical properties, such as strength and impact toughness, were investigated by tensile and Charpy impact tests. The relationship between strength and impact toughness was determined by microstructure analysis such as the degree of recrystallization and grain refinement. Consequently, both elongation and toughness were significantly increased after cold-working and subsequent annealing at 1000 degrees C as compared to the as-received (hot-rolled) specimen. The cold-worked high-Mn steel was completely recrystallized at 1000 degrees C and showed a homogeneous micro-structure with high-angle grain boundaries.

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

4.5
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