Tensile Flow Behavior of Tungsten Heavy Alloys Produced by CIPing and Gelcasting Routes
Present work describes the flow behavior of tungsten heavy alloys with nominal compositions 90W-7Ni-3Fe, 93W-4.9Ni-2.1Fe, and 95W-3.5Ni-1.5Fe (wt pct) produced by CIPing and gelcasting routes. The overall microstructural features of gelcasting are finer than those of CIPing alloys. Both the grain size of W and corresponding contiguity values increase with increase in W content in the present alloys. The volume fraction of matrix phase decreases with increase in W content in both the alloys. The lattice parameter values of the matrix phase also increase with increase in W content. The yield strength (σYS) continuously increases with increase in W content in both the alloys. The σYS values of CIPing alloys are marginally higher than those of gelcasting at constant W. The ultimate tensile strength (σUTS) and elongation values are maximum at intermediate W content. Present alloys exhibit two slopes in true stress–true plastic strain curves in low and high strain regimes and follow a characteristic Ludwigson relation. The two slopes are associated with two deformation mechanisms that are occurring during tensile deformation. The overall nature of differential curves of all the alloys is different and these curves contain three distinctive stages of work hardening (I, II, and III). This suggests varying deformation mechanisms during tensile testing due to different volume fractions of constituent phases. The slip is the predominant deformation mechanism of the present alloys during tensile testing.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by DRDO and The Director, Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory for his kind encouragements. The authors also thank members of Analytical Chemistry, Electron Microscopy, Mechanical Behavior, Mechanical Engineering, and Powder Metallurgy Groups of DMRL for their kind help.
- 2.W. Lanz, W. Odermett, G. Whelraunch: Kinetic energy projectiles: development history, state of the art, trends, 19th International Symposium on blastic, Interlaken, Switzerland. 2001.Google Scholar
- 5.Zhang Ke, Ge Chang Chun: Materials Science Forum, 2007, vols. 534-536, pp. 1285-1288.Google Scholar
- 7.M.A. Janney: U.S. Pat. No. 4,894,194, 1990.Google Scholar
- 8.M.A. Janney and O.O. Omatete: U.S. Pat. No. 5,028,362, 1991.Google Scholar
- 9.O.O. Omatete, M.A. Janney, and R.A. Strehlow: American Ceramic Society Bulletin, 1991, vol. 70(10), pp. 1641-1649.Google Scholar
- 10.A. Panchal and U. Ravi Kiran: Tech. Rep., DRDO-DMRL-PMG-094, 2015Google Scholar
- 11.H.S. Song and E.P. Kim: U.S. Pat. No. 5,956,559, 1999.Google Scholar
- 15.ASTM E8M-04, Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 2005, vol. 03.01, pp. 86–109.Google Scholar
- 16.K. Eun-Pyo, H. Moon-Hee, H.I. Moon: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1999, vol. 30A, pp. 627-632.Google Scholar
- 18.R.M. German, L.L. Bourguignon, B.H. Rabin: J. Met., 1985, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 36-39.Google Scholar
- 27.R.M. German and L.L. Bourguignon: Proc. Semin. Powder Metall. Def. Technol. 1984, pp. 117–131.Google Scholar
- 31.G.E. Dieter: Mechanical Metallurgy, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
- 36.C.W. Shao, F. Shi, W.W. Guo and X.W. Li: Metall. Trans., 2015, vol. 56, pp. 46 – 53.Google Scholar