4.7 Article

The quasi-static and dynamic response of fine-grained Mg alloy AMX602: An experimental and computational study

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2016.07.035

关键词

Magnesium alloy AMX602; Spinning water atomization process (SWAP); Grain refinement; Anisotropy; Twinning; Crystal plasticity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A high strength magnesium alloy, AMX602 (Mg-6%Al-0.5%Mn-2%Ca), was manufactured by the spinning water atomization process (SWAP) and extruded into bar and plate geometries. Microstructural analysis using electron backscatter diffraction revealed that the processing produces an alloy with grains between 0.5 and 5 mu m, with comparatively weak texture for Mg. The plate and bar had different textures-the former had a conventional hexagonal-close-packed (HCP) rolling texture and the latter a HCP extrusion texture. Quasi-static and dynamic compression experiments were performed to probe the material's mechanical behavior in the three processing directions. The experiments on each geometry revealed different anisotropic properties induced by a change in the active deformation mechanisms. The anisotropy was more pronounced at dynamic strain rates than quasi-static. A reduced-order crystal plasticity model that demarcates twinning, basal slip, and non-basal slip mechanisms was fit to the experimental data from the plate and bar. The model was consistent with experimental data and revealed that in the plate twinning dominated yielding in the extrusion and transverse directions, but slip dominated the normal direction. Yielding in the bar was dominated by twinning in the extrusion direction, but both slip and twinning were significant in the other two directions. The model showed the different anisotropic responses were due to the different textures produced during the processing of each geometry. Lastly, our data provided the basis for considering twinning to be rate insensitive in the model, which we confirm to be valid to at least 5000 s(-1). Published by Elsevier B.V.

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