Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A

, Volume 35, Issue 12, pp 3863–3866 | Cite as

Room-temperature cleavage fracture of FeMnAlC steels

  • O. Acselrad
  • L. C. Pereira
  • J. Dille
  • J. -L. Delplancke
Communications

Abstract

Alloys of the FeMnAlC system have been extensively studied in recent years, and perhaps their more attractive aspect is the possibility of obtaining different combinations of mechanical strength, ductility, and fracture toughness over a wide temperature range. For structural purposes, a good combination of mechanical strength and fracture toughness is desirable, and so far the most commonly used treatment is that involving quenching from temperatures within the austenitic field and subsequent aging for 15 hours within 500 °C to 600 °C. The resulting hardness and mechanical strength are high, but fracture behavior may be unacceptable for critical applications. Experiments concerning controlled cooling are under way, as an attempt to produce a good combination of strength and fracture toughness. In this communication, we discuss a specific feature of fracture behavior revealed by specimens submitted to one of the processing conditions under study.

Keywords

Fracture Toughness Material Transaction Austenitic Matrix Control Cool Apparent Fracture Toughness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    O. Acselrad, E.M. Silva, I.S. Kalashnikov, and L.C. Pereira: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2002, vol. 33A, pp. 3569–73.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Sato, K. Tagawa, and Y. Inoue: Scripta Metall., 1988, vol. 22 (6), pp. 899–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Sato, K. Tagawa, and Y. Inoue: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1989, vol. A111, pp. 45–50.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G.L. Kayak: Met. Sci. Heat Treatment, 1969, vol. 2, pp. 95–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    W.L. Server: J. Test. Eval., 1978, vol. 8, pp. 29–34.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L.D. Chumakova, I.S. Kalashnikov, and V.S. Litvinov: Phys. Met. Metallogr., 1989, vol. 67 (2), pp. 107–11.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Müllner, C. Sollenthaler, P.J. Uggowitzer, and M.O. Speidel: Acta Metall. Mater., 1994, vol. 42, pp. 2211–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Ishizaka, K. Orita, and K. Terao: J. Iron Steel Inst. Jpn. (Tetsu-to-Hagané), 1992, vol. 78, p. 1846.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Tomota, Y. Xia, and K. Inoue: Acta Mater., 1998, vol. 46, pp. 1577–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Tomota, Y. Xia, and K. Inoue: Acta Mater., 1998, vol. 46, pp. 3099–3108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.L. Tobler and D. Meyn: Metall. Trans. A, 1988, vol. 19A, pp. 1626–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International & TMS-The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Acselrad
    • 1
  • L. C. Pereira
    • 1
  • J. Dille
    • 2
  • J. -L. Delplancke
    • 2
  1. 1.the Metallurgy and Materials Engineering DepartmentFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.the Science des Matériaux et ElectrochimieUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations