4.6 Article

Experiment and non-local crystal plasticity finite element study of nanoindentation on Al-8Ce-10Mg alloy

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2021.111233

关键词

Al-Ce-Mg alloys; Nanoindentation; Crystal plasticity; Geometrically necessary dislocations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, nanoindentation experiments and crystal plasticity finite element model were used to investigate the single-crystal properties and sensitivity of parameters of cerium and magnesium strengthened aluminum alloys. Satisfactory matching between experiment and simulation was obtained for each individual grain. The dependence of hardness on indent depth, as well as the effect of grain orientation and neighboring grains to nanoindentation behavior, were discussed.
Cerium and magnesium strengthened aluminum alloys, or Al-Ce-Mg, is a recently developed alloy family that exhibits good mechanical properties at elevated temperatures (similar to 300 degrees C). To examine the single-crystal properties of Al-Ce-Mg alloys, nanoindentation experiments are conducted in this study. A crystal plasticity finite element model (CPFEM) with the evolution of geometrically necessary dislocations (GNDs) is applied to simulate the indentation in individual grains. A parametric study is carried out to investigate the sensitivity of each crystal plasticity model parameter to the indentation behavior. The highly sensitive parameters are calibrated by matching the indentation load-depth curves, while the rest parameters are obtained from bulk polycrystal uniaxial tension tests. Overall, satisfactory matching between experiment and simulation is obtained for each individual grain. The calculated hardness, as determined from the experiment, shows the dependence on indent depth, which is captured by the GND model. Furthermore, the effect of grain orientation and neighboring grains to nanoindentation behavior have been discussed with the comparison between the simulation and experiments.

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

4.6
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