Notch sensitivity of combined mode I–II fracture behaviour of a rolled magnesium alloy
Source abstract
Abstract
Fatigue pre-cracked four-point bend specimens of a rolled AZ31 Mg alloy are loaded asymmetrically and their mixed-mode (I and II) fracture behaviour is contrasted with pre-notched samples. In-situ mapping of displacement and strain fields is performed through optical imaging coupled with digital image correlation analysis. The fracture surface morphology and the deformed microstructure are also studied. The fracture toughness Jc for both types of specimens is highest for mode I and drops steeply with increase in mode II component. Furthermore, at the same level of mode-mixity, Jc for the notched samples is between two to three times the value pertaining to pre-cracked specimens. This is primarily attributed to quasi-brittle failure, irrespective of mode-mixity, for the latter, whereas the former display a combination of ductile and brittle fracture surface features. At the crack-initiation stage, more profuse tensile twinning is perceived at the far-edge of the ligament in the notched specimens, which also contributes to the observed toughness enhancement.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Magnesium Alloys: Properties and Applications · Aluminum Alloys Composites Properties · Advanced Welding Techniques Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
School of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
Department of Materials Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
Funding
Indian Institute of Science · Institute of Eminence
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. C. Blawert, N. Hort, and K.U. Kainer, Automotive applications of magnesium and its alloys. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 39 (2004), pp. 851–865.
2. 10.1016/j.jallcom.2005.07.07310.1016/j.jallcom.2005.07.073 ↗
3. 10.1080/0950083080253771810.1080/09500830802537718 ↗
4. 10.1080/09500839.2010.50844410.1080/09500839.2010.508444 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.msea.2013.10.01810.1016/j.msea.2013.10.018 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.msea.2016.01.10310.1016/j.msea.2016.01.103 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.msea.2016.08.09510.1016/j.msea.2016.08.095 ↗
8. 10.1007/s11661-014-2211-710.1007/s11661-014-2211-7 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.actamat.2016.03.06110.1016/j.actamat.2016.03.061 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.actamat.2015.04.05410.1016/j.actamat.2015.04.054 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.11.02710.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.11.027 ↗
12. 10.1016/0022-5096(94)90001-910.1016/0022-5096(94)90001-9 ↗
13. K. Tohgo, A. Otsuka, and H.W. Gao, The behavior of ductile crack initiation from a notch under mixed-mode loading. Proc. Far East Fract. Gr. Work 37 (1988), pp. 101–108.
14. 10.1016/S1359-6454(99)00015-410.1016/S1359-6454(99)00015-4 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.msea.2011.04.01310.1016/j.msea.2011.04.013 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.actamat.2020.03.02310.1016/j.actamat.2020.03.023 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.jmps.2021.10471710.1016/j.jmps.2021.104717 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.actamat.2017.01.01510.1016/j.actamat.2017.01.015 ↗
19. 10.1007/s10704-019-00369-710.1007/s10704-019-00369-7 ↗
20. ASTM E1820-08a, Standard test method for measurement of fracture toughness. ASTM Int. (2009), pp. 1–8.
21. 10.1016/j.actamat.2020.10.05910.1016/j.actamat.2020.10.059 ↗
22. C. Gandhi, and M.F. Ashby, Fracture-mechanism maps for materials which cleave: F.C.C., B.C.C. and H.C.P. metals and ceramics. Acta Metall. 27 (1979), pp. 1565–1602.
23. ASTM E562-19, Standard test method for determining volume fraction by systematic manual point count. ASTM Int. (2019), pp. 1–7.
24. 10.1016/0022-5096(68)90021-510.1016/0022-5096(68)90021-5 ↗
25. 10.1007/s10704-022-00656-w10.1007/s10704-022-00656-w ↗
26. 10.1007/s10704-015-0063-910.1007/s10704-015-0063-9 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.ijplas.2017.06.00410.1016/j.ijplas.2017.06.004 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.jmps.2022.10492310.1016/j.jmps.2022.104923 ↗