4.7 Article

Flow behavior and fracture of Al-Mg-Si alloy at cryogenic temperatures

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S1003-6326(21)65522-X

关键词

cryogenic temperature; aluminum alloy; flow behavior; strain rate sensitivity; work-hardening behavior; Johnson-Cook model; fracture

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2014/15091-7, 2016/10997-0]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico - Brazil (CNPq) [449009/2014-9]
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brazil (CAPES) [001]
  4. CNPq [153181/2013-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The tensile and fracture behaviors of AA6061 alloy at cryogenic temperatures were studied, revealing suppression of PLC and DSA effects at 77K compared to 173K and 298K. The alloy exhibited increased strength, uniform elongation, strain-hardening exponent, etc., at 77K due to reduced dynamic recovery rate.
The tensile and fracture behaviors of AA6061 alloy were investigated in order to provide quantitative data about this alloy at cryogenic temperatures. Specimens of AA6061 alloy were solution heat treated before tensile tests at 298, 173 and 77 K and tested at strain rates in the range from 0.1 to 0.0001 s(-1). The results indicate the suppression of the Portevin-Le Chatelier (PLC) effect and dynamic strain aging (DSA) at 77 K. In contrast, at 298 K, a remarkable serrated flow, characteristic of the PLC effect, is observed. Furthermore, the tensile behavior at 77 K, compared with that observed at 173 and 298 K, shows a simultaneous increase in strength, uniform elongation, modulus of toughness, strain-hardening exponent and strain rate sensitivity, which is related to a decrease in the dynamic recovery rate at low temperature. These responses are reflected on the fracture morphology, since the dimple size decreases at 77 K, while the area covered by dimples increases. Comparisons of the Johnson-Cook model show that a good agreement can be obtained for tests at 173 and 77 K, in which DSA is suppressed.

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