4.7 Article

Investigation of work hardening behavior in multilayered steels architected by twinning induced plasticity steel and martensitic steel during uniaxial tension

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2021.140996

关键词

TWIP steel; Martensitic steel; Multilayered s t e e l; Work hardening; Uniaxial tension

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  2. Australian Academy of Science
  3. [15F15705]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the relationship between deformation twins and work hardening behaviors of TWIP steels by designing a new multilayered steel structure to eliminate the Portevin-Le Chatelier effect. It was found that deformation twins contribute to the higher toughness near the interface in TWIP steel layers and are the main reason for the improvement of the strength-ductility synergy of TWIP steels and MLS.
To realize deformation mechanisms of twinning induced plasticity (TWIP) steels is always challenging. It is because that two controversial theory (deformation twins induced dynamic Hall and Petch effect vs Portevin-Le Cha?telier effect) have been long existed and both are thought of contributing to the resulting work-hardening behavior during straining of TWIP steels. In this study, a new class of multilayered steel (MLS) architected by Fe?22Mn-0.6C (wt%) TWIP steel and martensitic steel alternatively was designed to eliminate the Portevin-Le Cha?telier (PLC) effect, in order to systematically study the relationship of deformation twins and the work hardening behaviors of TWIP steels. After tensile deformation, it was found that the fraction of twins contribute to the higher toughness near the area of the interface in TWIP steel layers annealed at two different temperatures, suggesting that the deformation twins occur more significantly near the interface. It was also found that deformation twins are the main reason resulting in the improvement of the strength-ductility synergy of TWIP steels as well as MLS.

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