Static recovery of A5083 aluminum alloy after a small deformation through various measuring approaches

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2021.06.053

Abstract

Abstract:

Static recovery was confirmed to be the dominant softening mechanism during annealing for the studied A5083 aluminum alloy. The kinetics of static recovery, described based on the activation parameters (activation energy and volume of static recovery) and the static softening fraction, were mainly studied through two thermomechanical tests, namely, double-pass compression and stress relaxation tests. A new approach was proposed to measure the static softening fraction in the stress relaxation test. In general, a higher temperature or strain rate accelerates static recovery, while interestingly, the effect of pre-strain on static recovery is opposite in cases with and without external stress, owing to the enhanced static recovery by external stress during annealing. In addition, microhardness tests and electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) characterization were also conducted to verify the accuracy of the results. The grain average misorientation approach based on EBSD characterization was confirmed to be effective in distinguishing and quantifying static recovery. It is noteworthy that the special stress hardening phenomenon occurring at 400 ℃ and 0.1/s is caused by strain aging, showing the complexity of the material behaviors after deformation of the studied aluminum alloy.

Key words: Aluminum alloy, Static recovery, Double-pass compression test, Stress relaxation test, Electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD), Grain average misorientation

Sheng Ding, Jingwei Zhang, Sabrina Alam Khan, Jun Yanagimoto. Static recovery of A5083 aluminum alloy after a small deformation through various measuring approaches[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2022, 104: 202-213.

Figures/Tables 13

Fig. 1. (a) EBSD orientation map of the homogenized microstructure of the studied aluminum alloy. (b) Misorientation angle and grain size distributions of initial microstructure.

Fig. 2. Experimental procedures of (a) the double-pass compression test and (b) the stress relaxation test.

Fig. 3. Stress-strain curves obtained from the double-pass compression test at different temperatures of (c) 350, (d) 400, and (e) 450 ℃; at different pre-strains of (b) 0.04 and (f) 0.12; and at different strain rates of (a) 0.1 and (g) 10/s.

Fig. 4. (a) Typical stress-strain curve and the subsequent stress relaxation curve obtained from the stress relaxation test. Stress relaxation curves under experimental conditions of different (b) temperatures, (c) pre-strains, and (d) strain rates.

Table 1 Utilized constants in the recovery model for the studied aluminum alloy.

Constants	k (J/K)	v_D (/s)	α	M	E (GPa)	b (nm)
Value	1.38×10^-23	8.74×10¹²	0.33	3.06	68	0.286

Table 2 Activation energy and activation volume of static recovery obtained from the double-pass compression and stress relaxation tests.

Temperature (℃), Strain rate (/s), pre-strain		350, 1, 0.08	400, 1, 0.08	450, 1, 0.08	400, 1, 0.04	400, 1, 0.12	400, 0.1, 0.08	400, 10, 0.08
DCT	Q₀ (kJ/mol)	134.30	149.78	146.01	139.02	162.36	/	136.36
DCT	V (b³)	39.33	71.16	138.90	68.60	95.99	/	25.44
SRT	Q₀ (kJ/mol)	138.60	151.20	147.28	150.91	149.25	/	143.07
SRT	V (b³)	26.13	79.9	178.78	75.51	78.73	/	54.22

Fig. 5. Static softening fractions under various experimental conditions of (a) temperatures, (b) pre-strains, and (c) strain rates obtained from double-pass compression tests; and (d) temperatures, (e) pre-strains, and (f) strain rates obtained from stress relaxation tests.

Fig. 6. GAM maps for samples deformed at 400 ℃, with a strain rate of 1/s and a pre-strain of 0.5 with different interpass time of (a) 0 s, (b) 1 s, and (c) 100 s in the DCT case. GAM maps for samples deformed at 400 ℃, with a strain rate of 1/s and a pre-strain of 0.08 with different interpass time of (d) 0 s, (e) 1 s, and (f) 100 s in the DCT case. (g) Evolution of GAM distributions in the case of recrystallization and recovery.

Fig. 7. GAM maps for samples deformed at 400 ℃, with the strain rate of 1/s and a pre-strain of 0.08 with different interpass time of (a) 0 s, (b) 1 s, and (c) 100 s in the SRT case. (d) Comparisons of GAM distributions between the DCT and SRT cases. Evolution of (e) microhardness, average grain size, and average GAM value, (f) average misorientation angle, and length of subgrains with misorientation angles within the range of 2° to 5° during static softening under the DCT and SRT cases.

Fig. 8. GAM maps for samples deformed at a strain rate of 1/s and a pre-strain of 0.08 under different temperatures and interpass time of (a) 350 ℃, 0 s, (b) 350 ℃, 100 s, (d) 450 ℃, 0 s, and (e) 450 ℃, 100 s in the DCT case. (c) Evolution of microhardness, average grain size, average GAM value, and (f) GAM distribution under the corresponding experimental conditions.

Fig. 9. GAM maps for samples deformed at 400 ℃ and with a strain rate of 1/s under different pre-strains and interpass time of (a) 0.04, 0 s, (b) 0.04, 100 s, (d) 0.12, 0 s, and (e) 0.12, 100 s in the DCT case. (c) Evolution of microhardness, average grain size, average GAM value, and (f) GAM distribution under the corresponding experimental conditions.

Fig. 10. GAM maps for samples deformed at 400℃ with a pre-strain of 0.08 under different strain rates and interpass time of (a) 0.1/s, 0 s, (b) 0.1/s, 100 s, (d) 10/s, 0 s, and (e) 10/s, 100 s in the DCT case. (c) Evolution of microhardness, average grain size, average GAM value, and (f) GAM distribution under the corresponding experimental conditions.

Fig. 11. Static softening fractions obtained from stress, microhardness and microstructure under the core experimental conditions in (a) double-pass compression test and (b) stress relaxation test.

References 44

[1]	B. Zhang, P.K. Liaw, J. Brechtl, J. Ren, X. Guo, Y. Zhang, J. Alloys Compd. 820 (2020) 153092, doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.153092. DOI URL
[2]	O. Engler, S. Miller-Jupp, J. Alloys Compd. 689 (2016) 998-1010, doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.08.070. DOI URL
[3]	Y. Gao, D. Feng, M. Moradi, C. Yang, Y. Jin, D. Liu, D. Xu, X. Chen, F. Wang, Corros. Sci. 180 (2021) 109188, doi: 10.1016/j.corsci.2020.109188. DOI URL
[4]	S. Toros, F. Ozturk, I. Kacar, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 207 (2008) 1-12, doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.03.057. DOI URL
[5]	S. Ding, S.A. Khan, J. Yanagimoto, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 728 (2018) 133-143, doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2018.05.025. DOI URL
[6]	H.J. McQueen, S. Spigarelli, M.E. Kassner, E. Evangelista, Hot Deformation and Processing of Aluminum Alloys, CRC Press, 2016, doi: 10.1201/b11227. DOI
[7]	C.K.C. Lieou, H.M. Mourad, C.A. Bronkhorst, Int. J. Plast. 119 (2019) 171-187, doi: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2019.03.005. DOI URL
[8]	Q. Luo, Y. Guo, B. Liu, Y. Feng, J. Zhang, Q. Li, K. Chou, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. (2020), doi: 10.1016/j.jmst.2020.01.022. DOI
[9]	Y. Pang, D. Sun, Q. Gu, K.C. Chou, X. Wang, Q. Li, Cryst. Growth Des. (2016), doi: 10.1021/acs.cgd.6b00187. DOI
[10]	Y. Pang, Q. Li, Scr. Mater. (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2016.12.015. DOI
[11]	Y. Guo, Q. Luo, B. Liu, Q. Li, Scr. Mater. (2020), doi: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2019.12.016. DOI
[12]	Y. Li, Y. Jiang, B. Liu, Q. Luo, B. Hu, Q. Li, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 65 (2021) 190-201, doi: 10.1016/j.jmst.2020.04.075. DOI URL
[13]	Y. Li, B. Hu, B. Liu, A. Nie, Q. Gu, J. Wang, Q. Li, Acta Mater. (2020), doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2020.01.039. DOI
[14]	T. Sakai, A. Belyakov, R. Kaibyshev, H. Miura, J.J. Jonas, Prog. Mater. Sci. 60 (2014) 130-207, doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2013.09.002. DOI URL
[15]	H. Stüwe, A. Padilha, F. Siciliano, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 333 (2002) 361-367, doi: 10.1016/S0921-5093(01)01860-3. DOI URL
[16]	A. Rollett, F. Humphreys, G.S. Rohrer, M. Hatherly, Elsevier, 2004, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044164-1.X5000-2. DOI
[17]	J. Tang, F. Jiang, C. Luo, G. Bo, K. Chen, J. Teng, D. Fu, H. Zhang, Int. J. Plast. 134 (2020) 102809, doi: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2020.102809. DOI URL
[18]	E.R. Sá, S.F. Rodrigues, C. Aranas, F. Siciliano, G.S. Reis, J.M. Cabrera-Marrero, E.S. Silva, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 (2020) 7807-7816, doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.05.066. DOI URL
[19]	N. Mavrikakis, C. Detlefs, P.K. Cook, M. Kutsal, A.P.C. Campos, M. Gauvin, P.R. Calvillo, W. Saikaly, R. Hubert, H.F. Poulsen, A. Vaugeois, H. Zapolsky, D. Mangelinck, M. Dumont, C. Yildirim, Acta Mater. 174 (2019) 92-104, doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2019.05.021. DOI
[20]	M. Winning, C. Schäfer, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 419 (2006) 18-24, doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2006.01.053. DOI URL
[21]	M. Džubinský, Z. Husain, W.M. Van Haaften, Mater. Charact. 52 (2004) 93-102, doi: 10.1016/j.matchar.2004.03.006. DOI URL
[22]	M. Zhang, A.F. Gourgues-Lorenzon, E.P. Busso, H. Luo, M. Huang, Acta Mater. 153 (2018) 23-34, doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2018.04.050. DOI URL
[23]	W.J. Zhang, U. Lorenz, F. Appel, Acta Mater. 48 (2000) 2803-2813, doi: 10.1016/S1359-6454(00)00093-8. DOI URL
[24]	A. Després, M. Greenwood, C.W. Sinclair, Acta Mater. 199 (2020) 116-128, doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2020.08.013. DOI URL
[25]	H. Mirzadeh, J.M. Cabrera, A. Najafizadeh, P.R. Calvillo, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 538 (2012) 236-245, doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2012.01.037. DOI URL
[26]	F. Cruz-Gandarilla, R.E. Bolmaro, H.F. Mendoza-león, A.M. Salcedo-Garrido, J.G. Cabañas-Moreno, J. Microsc. 275 (2019) 133-148, doi: 10.1111/jmi.12822. DOI URL
[27]	S. Ding, S.A. Khan, J. Yanagimoto, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 787 (2020) 139522, doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2020.139522. DOI URL
[28]	T. Suzuki, S. Takeuchi, H. Yoshinaga, Springer, 1991, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-75774-7. DOI
[29]	M. Verdier, Y. Brechet, P. Guyot, Acta Mater. 47 (1998) 127-134, doi: 10.1016/S1359-6454(98)00350-4. DOI URL
[30]	F. Tang, M. Hagiwara, J.M. Schoenung, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 407 (2005) 306-314, doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2005.07.056. DOI URL
[31]	F. Barlat, Int. J. Plast. 18 (2002) 919-939, doi: 10.1016/S0749-6419(01)00015-8. DOI URL
[32]	D.R. Chipman, J. Appl. Phys. 31 (1960) 2012-2015, doi: 10.1063/1.1735487. DOI URL
[33]	R.A. Petković, M.J. Luton, J.J. Jonas, Can. Metall. Q. 14 (1975) 137-145, doi: 10.1179/000844375795050201. DOI URL
[34]	H.L. Andrade, M.G. Akben, J.J. Jonas, Metall. Trans. A. 14 (1983) 1967-1977, doi: 10.1007/BF02662364. DOI URL
[35]	K.P. Rao, Y.K.D.V. Prasad, E.B. Hawbolt, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 300 (1998) 166-174, doi: 10.1016/s0924-0136(97)00414-7. DOI
[36]	A.I. Fernández, B. López, J.M. Rodríguez-Ibabe, Scr. Mater. 40 (1999) 543-549, doi: 10.1016/S1359-6462(98)00452-7. DOI URL
[37]	L.P. Karjalainen, J. Perttula, ISIJ Int. 36 (1996) 729-736, doi: 10.2355/isijinternational.36.729. DOI URL
[38]	L.P. Karjalainen, Mater. Sci. Technol. 11 (1995) 557-565 (United Kingdom)., doi: 10.1179/mst.1995.11.6.557. DOI URL
[39]	S. Vervynckt, K. Verbeken, P. Thibaux, Y. Houbaert, Steel Res. Int. 81 (2010) 234-244, doi: 10.1002/srin.200900126. DOI URL
[40]	G.P. Purja Pun, Y. Mishin, Acta Mater. 57 (2009) 5531-5542, doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2009.07.048. DOI URL
[41]	D. Yao, W. Zhao, H. Zhao, F. Qiu, Q. Jiang, Scr. Mater. 61 (2009) 1153-1155, doi: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2009.09.007. DOI URL
[42]	A. Smith, H. Luo, D.N. Hanlon, J. Sietsma, S. van der Zwaag, ISIJ Int. 44 (2004) 1188-1194. 10.2355/isijinternational.44.1188. DOI URL
[43]	L. Wu, Y. Li, X. Li, N. Ma, H. Wang, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 46 (2020) 44-49, doi: 10.1016/j.jmst.2019.11.032. DOI URL
[44]	H. Yu, Y. Xin, M. Wang, Q. Liu, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 34 (2018) 248-256, doi: 10.1016/j.jmst.2017.07.022. DOI URL