Microstructural effects on fracture toughness in AA7010 plate (original) (raw)

Abstract

The influence of recrystallization and quench rate after solution treatment on the fracture toughness of 7010 aluminum plate has been studied in longitudinal-transverse (L-T) and short-longitudinal (S-L) orientations for T76-type heat treatments. Extensive fractographic analysis was carried out to identify the failure mechanisms, including simultaneous scanning electron microscope (SEM) observation of fracture surfaces and underlying microstructures. A slow quench rate was strongly detrimental because it modified the dominant failure mode from a relatively high energy primary void growth mechanism to lower energy transgranular shear and grain boundary ductile failure in the L-T and S-L orientations, respectively. Low energy failure was associated with coarse precipitation during the quench in both L-T and S-L orientation tests, with intragranular and intersubgranular particles contributing to L-T quench sensitivity, and intergranular particles contributing to S-L sensitivity. Partial recrystallization was generally detrimental, with recrystallized grains being shown to be a preferential crack path. The commonly supposed susceptibility of recrystallized grains to intergranular failure did not explain this behavior, particularly in fast quench materials, as recrystallized grains primarily failed by transgranular void growth from the large intermetallics with which they were intrinsically associated. Exceptional S-L orientation quench sensitivity was observed in unrecrystallized material and attributed to a synergistic interaction between heterogeneous boundary precipitation and the specific location of coarse intermetallics along grain boundaries in the unrecrystallized condition. Quantitative assessment of individual contributions to overall fracture resistance is discussed for cases where multiple failure mechanisms occur, highlighting the importance of interacting and noninteracting mechanisms.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What microstructural factors influence fracture toughness in AA7010-T76 plates?add

The study identifies coarse precipitation on grain boundaries and intragranular precipitates as critical factors affecting fracture toughness, with varying effects based on quench conditions and recrystallization levels.

How does the quench rate affect fracture toughness in high-strength aluminum alloys?add

Decreasing quench rates result in a significant toughness reduction of around 20% across examined microstructures, showing a 33% drop in toughness for unrecrystallized material compared to a 23% drop for partially recrystallized material.

What is the impact of recrystallization on the fracture mechanisms of AA7010?add

Recrystallization consistently detracts from toughness by promoting intergranular failure, yet its influence varies between orientations, with transgranular failure predominant in both fast and slow quench conditions.

What role do intermetallics play in fracture toughness performance of AA7010 materials?add

Intermetallics serve as void initiation sites, affecting fracture properties negatively; variations in intermetallic content correspond to an approximate 4% estimated impact on toughness.

What experimental methodologies were employed to analyze fracture toughness in AA7010 plates?add

The research utilized standardized monotonic tensile tests and toughness assessments in accordance with ASTM E646 and E399, integrating optical microscopy and SEM for microstructural analysis.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (32)

  1. G.T. Hahn and A.R. Rosenfield: ASTM STP 432, 1968, pp. 5-32. the L-T orientation, and intergranular heterogeneous pre- 5.
  2. G.G. Garrett and J.F. Knott: Metall. Trans. A, 1978, vol. 9A, pp. cipitation in the S-L orientation. A simple linear summa- 1187-1201.
  3. D. Broek: Eng. Fract. Mech., 1973, vol. 5, pp. 55-66.
  4. resistance in the L-T orientation was shown to rationalize
  5. C.Q. Chen and J.F. Knott: Met. Sci., 1981, vol. 15, pp. 357-64.
  6. A.K. Vasudevan and R.D. Doherty: Acta Metall., 1987, vol. 35, pp. quench sensitivity in partially recrystallized material pro- 1193-219.
  7. vided variations in subgrain size were taken into account.
  8. M. Gra ¨f and E. Hornbogen: Acta Metall., 1977, vol. 25, pp. 877-89.
  9. Partial recrystallization had a detrimental effect on the 10. O.E. Alarcon, A.M. Nazan, and W.A. Monteiro: Mater. Sci. Eng., fracture toughness in the L-T orientation for both quench 1991, vol. 138, pp. 275-85.
  10. E. Di Russo: Metall. Sci. Technol., 1986, vol. 4, pp. 37-48. conditions and in the S-L orientation for the fast quench 12. R.C. Dorward and D.J. Beerntsen: Metall. Trans. A, 1995, vol. 26A, condition. This effect could not be attributed to intergran- pp. 2481-84.
  11. ular failure only. As such, a direct interaction is proposed 13. G.M. Ludtka and D.E. Laughlin: Metall. Trans. A, 1982, vol. 13A, between the local presence or absence of substructure pp. 411-25.
  12. around intermetallic clusters and their contribution to 14. D.S. Thompson and R.E. Zinkham: Eng. Fract. Mech., 1975, vol. 7, pp. 389-409.
  13. S.V. Kamat and J.P. Hirth: Acta Mater., 1996, vol. 44, pp. 201-8.
  14. In the S-L orientation, a high quench sensitivity was 16. J.K. Park and A.J. Ardell: Metall. Trans. A, 1983, vol. 14A, pp. identified in the unrecrystallized microstructure. This was 1957-65.
  15. attributed to the synergistic location of intermetallics and 17. D.S. Thompson, B.S. Subramanya, and S.A. Levy: Metall. Trans., 1971, vol. 2, pp. 1149-60.
  16. W.M. Garrison, Jr. and N.R. Moody: J. Phys. Chem. Solids, 1987, quench material, highlighting the role of micromechani- vol. 48, pp. 1035-74.
  17. cal interactions that may occur between failure modes.
  18. J.D. Embury and E. Nes: Z. Metallkd., 1974, vol. 65, pp. 45-57.
  19. K. Welpman, A. Gysler, and G. Lutjering: Z. Metallkd., 1980, vol. 71, pp. 7-14.
  20. J.F. Knott: Met. Sci., 1980, vol. 14, pp. 327-36.
  21. J.T. Staley: Mater. Sci. Tech., 1987, vol. 3, pp. 923-35. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
  22. R.J. McElroy and Z.C. Szkopiak: Int. Met. Rev., 1972, vol 17, pp. The authors wish to acknowledge the support of Pechiney 175-89.
  23. M. Sugamata, C.P. Blankenship, Jr., and E.A. Starke Jr.: Mater. Sci. CRV in carrying out this research. Eng., 1993, vol. A163, pp. 1-10.
  24. A. Deschamps and Y. Brechet: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1998, vol. A251, pp. 200-7.
  25. J.-C. Ehrstrom: Pechiney CRV, Voreppe, France, private communica- tion, 1997.
  26. D.S. Thompson: Metall. Trans. A, 1975, vol. 6A, pp. 671-83.
  27. T. Kirman: Metall. Trans., vol. 2, pp. 1761-70.
  28. I. Sinclair and P.J. Gregson: Mater. Sci. Forum, 1997, vol. 242, pp.
  29. G.T. Hahn and A.R. Rosenfield: Metall. Trans. A, 1975, vol. 6A, pp. 653-68. 175-80.
  30. A.M. Gokhale, N.U. Deshpande, D.K. Denzer, and J. Liu: Metall.
  31. J.R. Rice and M.A. Johnson: Inelastic Behavior of Solids, McGraw- Hill, New York, NY, 1970, pp. 641-72.
  32. Mater. Trans. A, 1998, vol. 29, pp. 1203-10.