4.7 Article

Effect of S phase characteristics on the formation of recrystallization textures of an Al-Cu-Mg alloy

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLOYS AND COMPOUNDS
卷 747, 期 -, 页码 293-305

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.02.338

关键词

Al-Cu-Mg alloys; Al2CuMg; Texture evolution; r-Goss; Sigma 9 boundary

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University [10500-502220001]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFB0300901]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51171209]
  4. Ministry of Education of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of S(Al2CuMg) phase size on the formation of texture in an Al-Cu-Mg alloy during annealing has been systemically examined using three dimensional Orientation Distribution Functions (ODFs), Electron Back Scattered Diffraction (EBSD), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). The results showed that in the region of sheet with the uniform fine S phase precipitates (1-4.5 mu m in size), Brass texture mainly transformed into Goss texture after annealing at 320 degrees C for 4 h. The preferred growth of Goss texture was attributed to the high mobility of Sigma 9 boundary between Brass and Goss grain. However, in the region of sheet containing intense coarse S phase precipitates (1-8 mu m), Brass texture mainly transformed into r-Goss texture after the same annealing condition. The large S phases with size of 4.5-8 mu m, were suggested to be responsible for the formation of r-Goss texture. Also, due to the particle stimulated nucleation (PSN) effect caused by these large S phases (4.5-8 mu m), the boundaries between Brass and r-Goss grains were non-CSL boundaries. Instead, the preferred growth of r-Goss grain was ascribed to the higher mobility of r-Goss grain boundary with misorientation angle of 26-43 degrees, than that of low (<26 degrees) and high (>43 degrees) angle boundaries. (c) 2018 Elsevier B.V. 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