Surface Roughening and Deformation of Grains during Uniaxial Tension of Polycrystalline Iron

Shimizu, Ichiro; Okuda, Takao; Abe, Takeji; Tani, Hideaki

doi:10.1299/jsmea.44.499

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The high likelihood for error in these surface roughness analyses raises questions about the validity of the linear relationship presumed between deformationinduced roughness of a free polycrystalline surface and plastic strain that prevails in the surface roughness literature. [8][9][10][11][12][13] The literature also indicates that when the complexities in the deformation process are properly considered, such as in the molecular dynamic simulation results reported by Perron et al, [14] the relationship between the computed surface roughness and strain is distinctly nonlinear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Relationship Between Deformation-Induced Surface Roughness and Plastic Strain in AA5052—Is it Really Linear?

Stoudt

Hubbard

Leigh

2011

Metall Mater Trans A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three different heat treatments of aluminum alloy AA5052 were subjected to various levels of uniaxial plastic strain. The resulting surfaces were then evaluated using both scanning laser confocal microscopy (SLCM) and stylus profilometry. Three regression approaches were used to assess the quality of a linear and a curvilinear fit for the roughness data as a function of true plastic strain. While there were differences among the regression results, the analyses revealed that a linear model was more statistically appropriate for the finest grain size. As the grain size increased, the surface morphology became more complex and a quadratic model became more suitable. Since the relative area fractions of grain boundary-localized roughness and slip-induced roughness are grain size dependent, the higher order fit between the roughness and plastic strain reflects substantial changes in the ratio of these areas. The differences between the SLCM and profilometry results were attributed to the natural filtering that occurs during contact profilometry. This filtering skewed the roughness data toward the largest surface displacements, thereby reducing the measurement fidelity to the point where the only possible outcome was the linear relationship.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Relationship Between Deformation-Induced Surface Roughness and Plastic Strain in AA5052—Is it Really Linear?

Stoudt

Hubbard

Leigh

2011

Metall Mater Trans A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the coarse grain, the scattering of the flow stress increases, along with the surface roughness [31]. In addition, a weak deformation of a coarse grain changes its orientation, with a large inclination angle from the normal direction [30]. The surface roughening behaviors have the same tendency both in Ra and Rz, with the same Dg and strain level, during the plastic deformation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The grain rotation caused by plastic deformation increases the surface roughness. Different deformation behaviors of individual grains increase the surface roughness of thin metal foils [30].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is very important to study thin metal foils with a Dg below 10 µm. Shimizu et al [30] concluded that grain deformation affects surface roughness behavior. Furthermore, a different single grain deformation increases the surface roughness in sheet metal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a very important factor in increasing the roughness of the metal surface. An inhomogeneous deformation inside the grain increases in proportion to the strain level, as shown by the average roughness of the grain [30]. When the inclination is large, the surface roughness becomes high.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of Martensitic Transformation and Grain Size on the Surface Roughening Behavior in SUS 304 and SUS 316 Thin Metal Foils

Aziz

Yang

2020

Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The surface roughening and martensitic phase transformation (MPT) of SUS 304 and SUS 316 were studied through two experiments: a uniaxial tensile stress test, repeated for five cycles, and an Scanning Electron Microscope–Electron Backscaterr Diffraction (SEM-EBSD) investigation. The MPT and martensitic volume fraction (Mf) were evaluated following the tensile test. The correlation between MPT, Mf, and surface roughening behavior was investigated. The experiment showed that an increase in the strain level from 0.4% to 1% increased the MPT and Mf, which transformed from a metastable austenitic phase in SUS 304. The increased strain level increased the surface roughening for various grain sizes (Dg), from fine grain (Dg < 3 μm) to coarse grain (Dg ≥ 3 μm). SUS 304 and SUS 316 are used so that the surface roughening mechanism between SUS 304 and SUS 316, with different phase conditions and at a similar Dg, can be determined. The results showed that the surface roughening increased for both fine and coarse grain at strain levels of 0.4% and 1%; however, a larger increase of surface roughening was obtained for coarse grain. In coarse grain, surface roughening increased significantly not only with a low MPT, but also with a low grain deformation. In coarse grain, the surface roughening increased proportionally to the strain level (εp) because of the low MPT and weak grain. In fine grain, the surface roughening did not increase proportionally to the εp because of the high MPT, which increased the grain strength in SUS 304. In the fine grain of SUS 304, the increase of surface roughening was nearly the same both at strain levels of 0.4% and 1%, because the MPT and Mf were nearly the same. The surface roughening with the same εp and almost the same Dg in SUS 304 and SUS 316 fine grain was nearly the same, because the grain deformation almost produced the same relative inclination between neighboring grains in the initial state direction to the surface. The inter-grain movement changed the grain orientation. Based on kernel average misorientation (KAM) mapping, the local grain misorientation in SUS 304 was higher than that in SUS 316. This indicated that the fine-grain SUS 304 is harder than the fine-grain SUS 316. There is no MPT in SUS 316 because of the higher austenitic phase, which is affected by the austenitic former, such as Ni.

show abstract

New strain-ratio-independent material constant of free surface roughening for polycrystal sheets in metal forming

Yamane

2021

CIRP Annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surface Roughening and Deformation of Grains during Uniaxial Tension of Polycrystalline Iron

Cited by 15 publications

References 4 publications

On the Relationship Between Deformation-Induced Surface Roughness and Plastic Strain in AA5052—Is it Really Linear?

On the Relationship Between Deformation-Induced Surface Roughness and Plastic Strain in AA5052—Is it Really Linear?

Effect of Martensitic Transformation and Grain Size on the Surface Roughening Behavior in SUS 304 and SUS 316 Thin Metal Foils

New strain-ratio-independent material constant of free surface roughening for polycrystal sheets in metal forming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About