4.7 Article

The influence of alloy composition on residual stresses in heat treated aluminium alloys

期刊

MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION
卷 105, 期 -, 页码 47-55

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.matchar.2015.04.017

关键词

Residual stress; Neutron and X-ray diffraction; Heat treatable aluminium alloys; Hot hardness

资金

  1. European Commission under the 6th Framework Programme project known as COMPACT [AST4-CT-2005-516078]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The as quenched properties of eight different heat treatable aluminium alloys are related to residual stress magnitudes with the objective being to establish if there is a relationship between the residual stress and the as quenched alloy hardness and strength. Near surface residual stresses were assessed with X-ray diffraction using both the established sin(2)psi method and the more recent cos a. technique. Through thickness residual stresses were also characterised using neutron diffraction. The alloys were chosen to encompass a wide range of strengths. The low to medium strength alloys were 6060 and 6082, medium to high strength 2618A, 2014A, 7075, 7010 and two variants of 7449, while the very high strength alloy was the powder metallurgy alloy N707. To assess the as quenched strength, dynamic hardness and tensile properties were determined from samples tested immediately after quenching to minimise the influence of precipitation hardening by natural aging. In addition, hot hardness measurements were made in situ on samples cooled to simulate quench paths. Within the experimental constraints of the investigation, the distribution of residual stress through the thickness was found to follow the same pattern for all the alloys investigated, varying from tensile in the interior to surface compression. The influence of alloy strength was manifested as a change in the observed residual stress magnitudes, and surface residual stresses were found to vary linearly with as quenched hardness and strength. (C) 2015 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