4.7 Article

Strain hardening in bent copper foils

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE MECHANICS AND PHYSICS OF SOLIDS
卷 59, 期 9, 页码 1731-1751

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmps.2011.06.001

关键词

Bauschinger effect; Kinematic hardening; Geometrically necessary dislocations; Strain gradient plasticity; Crystal plasticity

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [21560076]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21560076] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of systematic tensile and microbend tests were conducted on copper foil specimens with different thicknesses. The specimens were made of a copper foil having almost unidirectional crystal orientations that was considered to be nearly single-crystal. In order to investigate the effects of slip system interactions, two different crystal orientations relative to the tensile direction were considered in the tests: one is close to coplanar double-slip orientation, and the other is close to the ideal cube orientation (the tensile direction nearly coincides to [0 0 1]) that yields multi-planar multi-slip deformation. We extended the microbend test method to include the reversal of bending, and we attempted to divide the total amount of strain-hardening into isotropic and kinematic hardening components. In the tensile tests, no systematic tendency of size dependence was observed. In the microbend tests, size-dependent kinematic hardening behavior was observed for both the crystal orientations, while size dependence of isotropic hardening was observed only for the multi-planar multi-slip case. We introduce an extended crystal plasticity model that accounts for the effects of the geometrically necessary dislocations (GNDs), which correspond to the spatial gradients of crystallographic slips. Through numerical simulations performed using the model, the origin of the size-dependent behavior observed in the microbend tests is discussed. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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