4.7 Article

In-situ EBSD study of deformation behavior of retained austenite in a low-carbon quenching and partitioning steel via uniaxial tensile tests

期刊

MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION
卷 118, 期 -, 页码 431-437

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.matchar.2016.06.020

关键词

Electron bacic-scattered diffraction; Grain rotation; Transformation; True strain

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council [201406460053]
  2. H. Nakashima laboratory of Kyushu University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through using in-situ electron back-scattered diffraction and uniaxial tensile tests, this work mainly focuses on the deformation behavior of retained austenite (RA) in a low-carbon quenching and partitioning (Q&P) steel. In this paper, three different types of RA can be distinguished from different locations, respectively, RA grains at the triple edges, twinned austenite and RA grains positioned between martensite. The results have shown that grains at the triple edges and twinned austenite could transform easily with increasing strain, i.e. are less stable when compared with RA grains distributed between martensite that could resist a larger plastic deformation. Meanwhile, the strain leads to rotations of RA grains distributed at the triple edges and between martensite. Moreover, RA grains with a similar orientation undergone similar rotations with the same true strain. These RA grains rotated along a specific slip plane and slip direction and the grain rotation is taken as a significant factor to improve the ductility of steel. In addition, grain sizes of RA decreased gradually with an increase of true strain and smaller (0-02 mu m) grains were more capable of resisting the deformation. According to kernel average mis-orientation (KAM) analysis, it can be found that strain distribution is preferentially localized near martensite-austenite phase boundaries and in the interior of martensite. The average KAM values increased continuously with increasing true strain. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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