Impact of Surface Roughness on the Yield Drop of Hot‐Rolled AZX311 Mg Alloy
Source abstract
Abstract
Surface roughness control is crucial for optimizing the mechanical performance of magnesium alloys in various industrial applications. This study investigates the influence of surface roughness on the mechanical behavior of hot‐rolled AZX311 Mg alloy. Uniform scratches are made on the gauge length perpendicular to the loading direction by mechanical grinding using P‐2400 grit‐size sandpaper on one set of samples, while another set retains a polished surface. Uniaxial tensile tests reveal a significant decrease in yield strength for the rough‐surfaced samples compared to the polished samples. Surface profilometry confirms higher Ra values for the rough‐surfaced samples, indicating a noticeably rougher surface compared to the smoother polished samples. The rough surface exhibits V‐notch irregularities, acting as stress concentrators during mechanical loading, in contrast to the smoother profile of the polished samples. This behavior is corroborated by Vickers hardness testing, which shows the highest hardness values near the scratched surfaces indicating localized deformation and strain‐hardening effects.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Magnesium Alloys: Properties and Applications · Aluminum Alloy Microstructure Properties · Aluminum Alloys Composites Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical Engineering Incheon National University Incheon 22012 Republic of Korea
Research Institute for Engineering and Technology Incheon National University Incheon 22012 Republic of Korea
School of Chemical Engineering Sungkyunkwan University Suwon 16419 Republic of Korea
Funding
Incheon National University
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.04.03110.1016/j.jallcom.2019.04.031 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.addma.2022.10286410.1016/j.addma.2022.102864 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.msea.2024.14613710.1016/j.msea.2024.146137 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.actamat.2016.11.02010.1016/j.actamat.2016.11.020 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.17263010.1016/j.jallcom.2023.172630 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.16982810.1016/j.jallcom.2023.169828 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.10943810.1016/j.matdes.2020.109438 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.jma.2021.11.02910.1016/j.jma.2021.11.029 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.10639210.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106392 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2019.05.03510.1016/j.surfcoat.2019.05.035 ↗
11. 10.3390/met1005065110.3390/met10050651 ↗
12. 10.1007/s40995‐024‐01701‐010.1007/s40995‐024‐01701‐0 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.06.05010.1016/j.jmrt.2022.06.050 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.mtla.2021.10130010.1016/j.mtla.2021.101300 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.mtla.2023.10178710.1016/j.mtla.2023.101787 ↗
16. 10.3390/met1312196210.3390/met13121962 ↗
17. 10.1007/s12540-023-01612-610.1007/s12540-023-01612-6 ↗
18. Lyakishev N. · Mashinostroenie (Moscow) · 1996 · 1 · 996
19. 10.1007/s11665-021-05814-010.1007/s11665-021-05814-0 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.msea.2021.14107510.1016/j.msea.2021.141075 ↗
21. 10.1023/A:102593921839210.1023/A:1025939218392 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.msea.2022.14350010.1016/j.msea.2022.143500 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.jma.2022.10.00310.1016/j.jma.2022.10.003 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.02.06310.1016/j.jmrt.2024.02.063 ↗
25. Wang Q. · J. Magnesium Alloys · 2022
26. 10.1016/j.matchar.2023.11340310.1016/j.matchar.2023.113403 ↗
27. Chaudry U. M. · Mater. Sci. Technol. · 2024 · 026708362412519
28. 10.1016/j.matdes.2024.11306210.1016/j.matdes.2024.113062 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.jma.2023.09.02310.1016/j.jma.2023.09.023 ↗
30. 10.1002/adem.20190090810.1002/adem.201900908 ↗
31. 10.1002/adem.20180092010.1002/adem.201800920 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.07.02010.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.07.020 ↗
33. 10.1007/s12289-020-01576-710.1007/s12289-020-01576-7 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.electacta.2018.02.00110.1016/j.electacta.2018.02.001 ↗
35. 10.1149/2.1131409jes10.1149/2.1131409jes ↗
36. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.01.11710.1016/j.jmrt.2023.01.117 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.jma.2021.01.00910.1016/j.jma.2021.01.009 ↗