4.7 Article

Investigation and mean-field modelling of microstructural mechanisms driving the tensile properties of dual-phase steels

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2021.141532

关键词

Tensile property; Dual-phase; Modelling; Strain-hardening; Martensite

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Hy-MFC model was developed to predict the tensile properties of dual-phase steels based on microstructure parameters. It can be used for a wide range of steels and allows for alloy design and production-line monitoring. By considering the prior austenitic grain size and martensite composition, the model showed good agreement with experimental data, particularly for steels with various martensite fractions. Additionally, electron backscatter diffraction monitoring during tensile tests helped understand the interactions necessary for macroscopic hardening in dual-phase steels, with a proposed hybrid scaling transition law for small deformations.
A hybrid composite medium-field (Hy-MFC) model was developed to predict the tensile properties of dual-phase steels under monotonic loading based on physical parameters of the microstructure (phase fraction, chemical composition, and grain size of each phase). The Hy-MFC model is intended to be applicable to a wide range of fully ferritic to fully martensitic steels, particularly for alloy design and production-line monitoring. Accounting for the prior austenitic grain size as well as the chemical composition of martensite in the model resulted in good agreement between the modelling and experimental data for the investigated industrial and ternary steels with various martensite fractions. In addition, electron backscatter diffraction monitoring performed during tensile tests allowed to understand the different interactions necessary to reproduce the macroscopic hardening of dualphase steels. In particular, a hybrid scaling transition law was proposed to reproduce the strain-hardening rate for small deformations for bi-percolant microstructures.

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