4.7 Article

Evaluation of thermal aging activation energies based on multi-scale mechanical property tests for an austenitic stainless steel weld beads

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2022.142629

关键词

Thermal aging embrittlement; Mechanical property; Activation energy; Austenitic stainless steel weld; Spinodal decomposition

资金

  1. Nuclear Safety Research Program through the Korea Foundation Of Nuclear Safety (KoFONS) - Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) of the Republic of Korea [2103078-0121-SB110, 1805005-0421-WT112]
  2. Korea Foundation of Nuclear Safety (KoFONS) [2103078-0121-SB110] 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

The long-term thermal aging behavior of a 316L austenitic stainless steel welds was investigated using different mechanical property testing methods. The activation energies were estimated and discussed in relation to the contribution of embrittled 6-ferrite to fracture and deformation.
The long-term thermal aging behavior of a 316L austenitic stainless steel welds containing similar to 12% of 6-ferrite was investigated using the nano-scale (nanopillar compression), micro-scale (micro-hardness and small punch), and macro-scale (tensile and J-R) mechanical property testing methods. Specimens were aged at 343, 375, and 400 degrees C for up to 20,000 h. The thermal aging activation energies were estimated based on the various mechanical test results using two fitting methods. The activation energies vary from 124 to 300 kJ/mol, depending on fitting and mechanical testing methods. Among the mechanical properties, the nanopillar and J-R test results showed similar activation energies lower than those from other mechanical properties. The similarities and discrepancies among the estimated activation energies were discussed in view of the contribution of embrittled 6-ferrite to the fracture and deformation of test specimens.

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