4.7 Article

The influence of Cu content and Mg/Si ratio on the strength and formability in Al-Mg-Si-Cu alloys

期刊

MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION
卷 205, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.matchar.2023.113355

关键词

Al-Mg-Si-Cu alloys; Composition; Formability; Strength; Microstructure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The strength and formability of four 6000 series alloys were studied in relation to the Mg/Si ratio and Cu content. The results showed that alloy composition affects these properties through microstructural factors such as intermetallic particles, grain size, texture, and precipitates. Higher Mg and Cu contents led to lower yield strength in one temper condition but higher strength after paint baking. The Mg-rich alloys exhibited better formability due to the lower fraction of coarse intermetallic particles controlled by the Mg/Si ratio.
The effects of Mg/Si ratio and Cu content on the strength and formability of four 6000 series alloys with Mg-rich and high Cu content were investigated by means of three-point bending testing, tensile testing and hardness measurement, scanning electron microscope and transmission electron microscope. It was addressed that alloys composition affects strength and formability by microstructure including intermetallic particles, grain size, texture and precipitates. The high Mg and Cu contents lead to lower yield strength in T4P temper but higher strength after paint baking due to the formation of large numbers of Cu-containing precipitates. The Mg-rich alloys show better formability which is attributed to the lower fraction of coarse alpha-AlFe(MnCu)Si intermetallic particles (controlled by the Mg/Si ratio) in these alloys. Additionally, high intensity Cube texture in Si-poor alloys, a feature that is also harmful to hemming performance, was found to compete with particle-stimulated nucleation (PSN). This observation indicates that the influence of coarse intermetallic particles on formability is greater than texture in Mg-rich alloys.

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