Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 54, Issue 5, pp 4366–4383 | Cite as

Characterization of hot deformation behavior and constitutive modeling of Al–Mg–Si–Mn–Cr alloy

  • Shuhui Liu
  • Qinglin Pan
  • Hang Li
  • Zhiqi Huang
  • Kuo Li
  • Xin He
  • Xinyu Li
Metals
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

To characterize the hot deformation behavior of commonly used aluminum alloy, a homogeneous Al–Mg–Si–Mn–Cr alloy was analyzed by thermal simulation test at deformation temperature range of 653–803 K and strain rate range of 0.01–10 s−1. The flow stresses were predicted by modified Johnson–Cook model, modified Zerilli–Armstrong model and strain-compensated Arrhenius model. The results show that the three models are able to predict the flow behavior of the alloy. Strain-compensated Arrhenius model has the best simulation ability in predicting flow stresses, while the modified Johnson–Cook model has lower prediction accuracy and the modified Zerilli–Armstrong model has poorer predictive ability at low strain rates. Microstructure evolution shows that subgrain boundaries form at original grain boundaries at first, moving toward to the center of the deformed grains. The dislocation density decreases, while the number and the size of subgrains increase with the decreasing Zener–Hollomon (Z) parameter. Both dynamic recovery (DRV) and dynamic recrystallization take place in hot deformation process. DRV is considered to be the primary dynamic softening mechanism throughout the entire hot deformation range. Continuous dynamic recrystallization and discontinuous dynamic recrystallization operate concurrently at low strain rates and high temperatures. The relationship of subgrain size and predicted flow stress is presented. Moreover, activation volume is introduced to reveal the thermal activation mechanism during hot deformation.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Science and Technology Major Project of Hunan Province [Grant No. 2016GK1004] and Guangdong Province [Grant No. 2016B090931001].

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Miller WS, Zhuang L, Bottema J et al (2000) Recent development in aluminium alloys for the automotive industry. Mater Sci Eng, A 280:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abid T, Boubertakh A, Hamamda S (2010) Effect of pre-aging and maturing on the precipitation hardening of an Al–Mg–Si alloy. J Alloys Compd 490:166–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kumar V, Kumar D (2017) Investigation of tensile behaviour of cryorolled and room temperature rolled 6082 Al alloy. Mater Sci Eng, A 691:211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Remøe MS, Marthinsen K, Westermann I et al (2017) The effect of alloying elements on the ductility of Al–Mg–Si alloys. Mater Sci Eng, A 693:60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lodgaard L, Ryum N (2000) Precipitation of dispersoids containing Mn and/or Cr in Al–Mg–Si alloys. Mater Sci Eng, A 283:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin YC, Chen X-M (2011) A critical review of experimental results and constitutive descriptions for metals and alloys in hot working. Mater Des 32:1733–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhu Z, Lu Y, Xie Q et al (2017) Mechanical properties and dynamic constitutive model of 42CrMo steel. Mater Des 119:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Le C, Changyu Z, Jian P et al (2017) Fields–Backofen and a modified Johnson–Cook model for CP-Ti at ambient and intermediate temperature. Rare Metal Mat Eng 46:1803–1809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang J, Zhao G, Chen L et al (2016) A comparative study of several constitutive models for powder metallurgy tungsten at elevated temperature. Mater Des 90:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhao Y, Sun J, Li J et al (2017) A comparative study on Johnson–Cook and modified Johnson–Cook constitutive material model to predict the dynamic behavior laser additive manufacturing FeCr alloy. J Alloys Compd 723:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin YC, Chen X-M, Liu G (2010) A modified Johnson–Cook model for tensile behaviors of typical high-strength alloy steel. Mater Sci Eng, A 527:6980–6986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maheshwari AK, Pathak KK, Ramakrishnan N et al (2009) Modified Johnson–Cook material flow model for hot deformation processing. J Mater Sci 45:859–864.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-009-4010-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang K, Li X, Li Q et al (2017) Hot deformation behavior and microstructural evolution of particulate-reinforced AA6061/B 4 C composite during compression at elevated temperature. Mater Sci Eng, A 696:248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang W, Pan Q, Sun Y et al (2018) Study on hot compressive deformation behaviors and corresponding industrial extrusion of as-homogenized Al–7.82Zn–1.96 Mg–2.35Cu–0.11Zr alloy. J Mater Sci 53:11728–11748.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-018-2388-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    He A, Xie G, Zhang H et al (2014) A modified Zerilli–Armstrong constitutive model to predict hot deformation behavior of 20CrMo alloy steel. Mater Des 56:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gurusamy MM, Rao BC (2017) On the performance of modified Zerilli–Armstrong constitutive model in simulating the metal-cutting process. J Manuf Process 28:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang H, Wen W, Cui H et al (2009) A modified Zerilli–Armstrong model for alloy IC10 over a wide range of temperatures and strain rates. Mater Sci Eng, A 527:328–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Samantaray D, Mandal S, Borah U et al (2009) A thermo-viscoplastic constitutive model to predict elevated-temperature flow behaviour in a titanium-modified austenitic stainless steel. Mater Sci Eng, A 526:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paturi UMR, Narala SKR, Pundir RS (2014) Constitutive flow stress formulation, model validation and FE cutting simulation for AA7075-T6 aluminum alloy. Mater Sci Eng, A 605:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang K, Logé RE (2016) A review of dynamic recrystallization phenomena in metallic materials. Mater Des 111:548–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ezatpour HR, Haddad Sabzevar M, Sajjadi SA et al (2014) Investigation of work softening mechanisms and texture in a hot deformed 6061 aluminum alloy at high temperature. Mater Sci Eng, A 606:240–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Poletti C, Rodriguez-Hortalá M, Hauser M et al (2011) Microstructure development in hot deformed AA6082. Mater Sci Eng, A 528:2423–2430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kai X, Chen C, Sun X et al (2016) Hot deformation behavior and optimization of processing parameters of a typical high-strength Al–Mg–Si alloy. Mater Des 90:1151–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xiao G, Yang Q, Li L (2016) Modeling constitutive relationship of 6013 aluminum alloy during hot plane strain compression based on Kriging method. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China 26:1096–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li B, Pan Q, Yin Z (2014) Characterization of hot deformation behavior of as-homogenized Al–Cu–Li–Sc–Zr alloy using processing maps. Mater Sci Eng, A 614:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yang Q, Yang D, Zhang Z et al (2016) Flow behavior and microstructure evolution of 6A82 aluminium alloy with high copper content during hot compression deformation at elevated temperatures. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China 26:649–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mohamed FA, Langdon TG (1974) Deformation mechanism maps based on grain size. Metall Trans 5:2339–2345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dong Y, Zhang C, Zhao G et al (2016) Constitutive equation and processing maps of an Al–Mg–Si aluminum alloy: determination and application in simulating extrusion process of complex profiles. Mater Des 92:983–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang X, Zhang H, Han Y et al (2010) Hot deformation behavior of 2026 aluminum alloy during compression at elevated temperature. Mater Sci Eng, A 527:485–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gourdet S, Montheillet F (2003) A model of continuous dynamic recrystallization. Acta Mater 51:2685–2699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Orlová A, Dobeš F (2004) On the stress–subgrain size relationships derived from the composite model of dislocation structure. Mater Sci Eng, A 381:171–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Orlova A (1996) On the applied stress dependence of the subgrain size. Mater Sci Eng, A 220:117–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee WS, Tang ZC (2014) Relationship between mechanical properties and microstructural response of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy impacted at elevated temperatures. Mater Des 58:116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li Z, Wang B, Zhao S et al (2017) Dynamic deformation and failure of ultrafine-grained titanium. Acta Mater 125:210–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gurrutxaga-Lerma B, Balint DS, Dini D et al (2015) The mechanisms governing the activation of dislocation sources in aluminum at different strain rates. J Mech Phys Solids 84:273–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Meyers MA (2002) Constitutive description of dynamic deformation physically-based mechanisms. Mater Sci Eng, A 322:194–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Voyiadjis GZ, Abed FH (2005) Microstructural based models for bcc and fcc metals with temperature and strain rate dependency. Mech Mater 37:355–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Niewczas M, Jobba M, Mishra RK (2015) Thermally activated flow of dislocations in Al–Mg binary alloys. Acta Mater 83:372–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Light Alloy Research InstituteCentral South UniversityChangshaChina
  2. 2.School of Materials Science and EngineeringCentral South UniversityChangshaChina
  3. 3.Suntown Technology Group Co., Ltd.ChangshaChina
  4. 4.Guangdong Fenglu Aluminum Industry Co., Ltd.FushanChina

Personalised recommendations