Fig. 1. The microstructures of the laminated Al with different rc/f (C80, C40 and C10): (a) IPF maps observed along ND; (b) The statistical distribution of grain sizes of FLs; (c) {111} Pole figures of FLs; (d) Misorientation angles distributions of FLs and CLs.

Fig. 2. (a) Engineering tensile stress-strain curves of laminated Al with different rc/f (C80, C40 and C10) and homogeneous Al, FG and CG, (b) yielding strength and fracture elongation of the present laminated Al compared with other data from homogeneous commercial pure Al [[58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]].

Fig. 3. The local strain εxx evolution of laminated Al (a) C10, (b) C40 and (c) C80, compared with (d) FG and (e) CG. The average strains of the entire analyzed regions are shown at the top right corners of each map.

Fig. 4. The semi-quantitative evaluation of the strain localization. The STD of εxx in the regions of interest (ROIs) are compared: (a) FLs in LAs and FG, (b) CLs in LAs and CG. The value of ROI-STD reflects the degree of strain localization.

Fig. 5. The local strain εyy evolution of LAs, (a) C10, (b) C40 and (c) C80. The average strains of the whole analyzed regions are shown at the top right corners of each map.

Fig. 6. The distribution evolution of εyy along ND direction: (a) C10, (b) C40, (c) C80.

Fig. 7. The μCT observation of fractured C10 and C80: (a) 3D rendering of samples, (b) 3D rendering of cracks, (c) 2D projections on TD-ND plane.

Fig. 8. The distribution of cracks volume fraction with increasing distance away from the fracture surface.

Fig. 9. 2D cross-sectional fracture morphology of C10 (a, b) near the fracture surface (<300 μm) and (c, d) away from the fracture surface (800-1100 μm).

Fig. 10. 2D cross-sectional fracture morphology of C40 (a, b) near the fracture surface (< 300 μm) and (c, d) away from the fracture surface (800-1100 μm).

Fig. 11. 2D cross-sectional fracture morphology of C80 (a, b) near the fracture surface (< 300 μm) and (c, d) away from the fracture surface (800-1100 μm).

Fig. 12. Schematic diagram of plasticity instability criterion induced by the interfacial microcracks in the layered structure.

Fig. 13. Variation of ${{\sigma }_{\text{n}}}\left( \theta \right)/\sigma _{\text{y}}^{\text{loc}}\left( \theta \right)$ for different constituent layers, (a) as a function of layer thickness ratio and (b) length-diameter ratio of microcracks, r. (c) Schematic diagram of interfacial microcrack instability for C80, C40 and C10.