International Journal Mechanical Engineering Research and Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) International Journal of of Mechanical Engineering

g Research and ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2, May-October (2011) Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2 May-October (2011), pp. 41-52 PRJ Publication, http://www.prjpublication.com/IJMERD.asp

IJMERD
PRJ PUBLICATION

MICROHARDNESS STUDIES ON AL-8MG ALLOYS TO ANALYZE THE DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR

Sagar Yanda, Swami Naidu Gurugubelli Department of Mechanical Engineering J N T U Kakinada Vizianagaram Campus Andhra Pradesh, India ABSTRACT Cylindrical samples of Al-8 wt pct Mg alloy were upset to 40% reduction followed by heat treatment at 2000C, 3500C and 4500C, respectively. Inhomogeneity in deformation due to friction at the platen interface and internal friction was studied by microhardness measurements in the roll direction. Results were quantified and analyzed by generating bar charts. Homogenized structures exhibit high and uniform hardness values compared to the as-cast ones. Retention of higher Mg concentrations in the solidsolution (making it supersaturated) with the cast-structures (chill-cast) is the reason for its greater in-homogeneity in deformation. Rejection of Mg from the supersaturated solidsolution followed by formation of Al3Mg2 is the reason for high hardness of homogenized structures. Upsetting followed by heat treatment not only enhances the uniformity in structure but also decreases the average hardness, with increasing heat treatment temperature. This could be attributed to the formation of new strain free grains and grain growth. A mathematical model has been developed and verified at other temperatures as well. Key words: Microhardness, homogeneity, heat treatment, deformation 1. INTRODUCTION Aluminum alloys are being considered for increased usage as structural materials for producing lightweight automobiles. Al-Mg alloys have a good combination of strength and formability. Commercial Al-Mg alloys of AA5000 series have excellent resistance to corrosion, mechanical strength, weldability and machinability. The strength of Al-Mg alloys is mainly due to solid solution strengthening and strain hardening. Increasing the Mg content in solid solution Al-Mg alloys enhances strongly the multiplication of mobile dislocations and decreases the trapping of mobile dislocations. This leads to the strong strengthening effect of Mg addition in Al-Mg alloy (Gyozo Horvath et al, 2007). The microstructure evolution and strain hardening have been investigated extensively in the case of Al-Mg alloys (Gubicza et al; 2004; Horvath et al, 2007; Hughes, 1993; Lukac, 1996; Malygin, 1990; Waldron, 1965). It was shown that the addition of Mg inhibits cell structure formation (Hughes, 1993; Waldron, 1965) . Increasing the Mg content in solid solution Al-Mg alloys enhances strongly the multiplication of mobile dislocations and decreases the trapping of mobile dislocations and the annihilation of immobile dislocations. This
41

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2, May-October (2011)

leads to the strong strengthening effect of Mg addition in Al-Mg alloys (Gyozo Harvath et at, 2007). Al-Mg alloys containing more than 3wt% Mg are susceptible to both intergranular corrosion and stress corrosion cracking when exposed to elevated temperatures (500C) in corrosive environments for sufficient length of time (Searls, Gouma and Bucheit, 2001). Hence these alloys have wide industrial applications at room temperature, though the formability of aluminum alloys at room temperature is generally lower than at both cryogenic and elevated temperatures. Aluminum alloys with high magnesium content show more serrated flow due to Luders banding (Yvind Ryen, 2006). Hence the homogeneity of deformation is studied based on the micro hardness measurements. Attempts have been made to observe the deformation behavior of as-cast and homogenized structures based on the micro-hardness measurements and the effect of heat treatment on upset structures in terms of homogeneity. A mathematical model is developed to design the deformation and heat treatment cycles to get the required hardness. 2. EXPERIMENT Pencil ingots of 100 mm x 10 mm of Al-8% Mg are produced by melting pure aluminum and magnesium in an induction heating furnace and cast in cast iron moulds at 6900C. Chemical composition of the alloy using optical emission spectrometer Q8 Magellan is given in table 1. Element Al Mg Fe Si Mn Ni Cu Zn P Weight% 92.23 7.573 0.124 0.050 0.018 0.0029 0.0012 <0.000010 <0.00010 Table 1. Chemical composition of Al-8Mg alloy. Cylindrical specimens of 1.5:1 aspect ratio are prepared from the as-cast ingot and ingots homogenized at 1000C for 24hours. Microstructures of the same are shown below, fig 1.
a b

10

10

Fig 1. Microstructures of Al-8Mg alloy, a. cast and b. homogenized Specimens are given 40% deformation in a hydraulic press at a strain rate of 1mm/min and are parted vertically (normal direction, ND) into two, fig 2. Microstructure of the parted surface in the rolling direction, RD, is shown as fig 3. Parted samples are heat-treated at 200 and 4500C for 1 hour and the microstructures are shown as fig 4. Hardness measurements are made using Vickers microhardness tester with a load of 100 g. applied for 15 seconds at an interval of 2 mm on the parted surface along rolling direction.

42

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2, May-October (2011)

ND

RD

a b c Fig 2. Photographs of the specimen, a. before upsetting, b. after upsetting and c. after parting 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 1 shows the cast and homogenized microstructures of Al-8Mg alloy. Cast structure exhibit super saturated solid solution of Mg in Al. The Hazier appearance is due to the chilling effect of the metal mold. Al-Mg system is characterized by the limited solid solubility of Mg (upto 17.4%) in solid Aluminum (Lyakishev, 1996), decreases with decrease in temperature. When the casting is homogenized at 1000C, Mg from the supersaturated solid solution comes out with some Al as Al3Mg2 (Hatch, 1993; Mundalfo, 1976), resulting fine Al3Mg2 particles in the microstructure of the homogenized sample. Formation of fine intermetallics enhances the hardness of matrix.

10

Fig 3. Microstructure of deformed Al-8Mg alloy, parted surface in rolling direction, RD

Figure 3 shows the microstructure of the 40% cold deformed sample. Aluminum alloys with high Mg content exhibit serrated flow due to Luders banding (Yvind Ryen, 2006). Mazilkin et.al (2007), have shown that the undeformed alloys with 10%Mg contain about 8%Mg in the solid solution. Due to deformation, the system passes to a state that is closer to thermodynamic equilibrium than the initial state was. The electron diffraction data (Mazilkin et al, 2007) has shown that the alloy structures in both the initial and deformed states contain intermediate phases, namely, the -phase (Al3Mg2). As the alloy is subjected to deformation, the supersaturated solid solution decomposes. Elongated grains are observed in the microstructure taken in the rolling direction for the deformed sample is shown in the figure. Since Mg atoms are highly diffusive in nature, the increased dislocation density due to deformation has shown thicker lines of diffused Mg along these dislocation populations. 43

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2, May-October (2011)

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 2 4 6 8 10 12

-10 87.4 87 75.8 83.9 100.9 80.9 80.9 100.9 83.9 75.8 87 87.4

-8 107.6 101.7 75.6 95.1 114.7 78.3 78.3 114.7 95.1 75.6 101.7 107.6

-6 79.3 78 90.5 94.7 83.2 89.9 89.9 83.2 94.7 90.5 78 79.3

Along X direction -4 -2 2 91.7 94 94 93.2 83.4 83.4 81.3 91.5 91.5 95.3 97.5 97.5 90.3 101.7 101.7 109.2 112.2 112.2 109.2 112.2 112.2 90.3 101.7 101.7 95.3 97.5 97.5 81.3 91.5 91.5 93.2 83.4 83.4 91.7 94 94

4 91.7 93.2 81.3 95.3 90.3 109.2 109.2 90.3 95.3 81.3 93.2 91.7

6 79.3 78 90.5 94.7 83.2 89.9 89.9 83.2 94.7 90.5 78 79.3

8 107.6 101.7 75.6 95.1 114.7 78.3 78.3 114.7 95.1 75.6 101.7 107.6

10 87.4 87 75.8 83.9 100.9 80.9 80.9 100.9 83.9 75.8 87 87.4

Table 2. Microhardness values of cast-deformed Al-8Mg alloy Tables 2 and 3 show the microhardness values along central cross-section in the rolling direction of the cast-deformed and homogenized-deformed samples. The average microhardness value obtained for the homogenized deformed sample is 95 VHN, which is higher than the average micro hardness of cast-deformed sample of 92 VHN. This increase in hardness is due to the formation of Al3Mg2 particles by the decomposition of Al-Mg supersaturated solid solution (Nebti, amana and Cizeron, 1995). More uniform microhardness measurements are obtained for the homogenized deformed sample than the cast-deformed one. Contour maps are developed using MATLAB to identify the zones of different deformation levels. Figures 4 and 5 show the contour maps developed for cast-deformed sample and homogenized deformed sample respectively. Hardness is higher in the central region, due to high plastic deformation achieved. Lower microhardness values are observed in the dead metal zone where the deformation is minimum due to high friction at the interface.

Along Y direction

Dead metal zone

Uniform deform zone

Dead metal zone

Fig 4. Contour map showing variation in deformation in cast-deformed sample.

44

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2, May-October (2011)

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 2 4 6 8 10 12

-10 94.4 84.8 79.6 77.7 97.6 97.9 97.9 97.6 77.7 79.6 84.8 94.4

-8 94.4 84.8 79.6 77.7 97.6 97.9 97.9 97.6 77.7 79.6 84.8 94.4

-6 93.6 78.8 97.7 117 116.1 104.6 104.6 116.1 117 97.7 78.8 93.6

Along X direction -4 -2 2 96 95.7 95.7 92.8 89.7 89.7 99.3 90.7 90.7 114.7 103.6 103.6 102.6 107.4 107.4 100 83.5 83.5 100 83.5 83.5 102.6 107.4 107.4 114.7 103.6 103.6 99.3 90.7 90.7 92.8 89.7 89.7 96 95.7 95.7

4 96 92.8 99.3 114.7 102.6 100 100 102.6 114.7 99.3 92.8 96

6 93.6 78.8 97.7 117 116.1 104.6 104.6 116.1 117 97.7 78.8 93.6

8 94.4 84.8 79.6 77.7 97.6 97.9 97.9 97.6 77.7 79.6 84.8 94.4

10 94.4 84.8 79.6 77.7 97.6 9.9 97.9 97.6 77.7 79.6 84.8 94.4

Along Y direction

Table 3 Microhardness values homogenized-deformed Al-8Mg alloy Figure 6 shows is the graphical representation of the above, ie., variation in the degree of homogeneity in deformation with cast and homogenized structures. The uniform deformation zone is higher for the homogenized-deformed sample than the cast-deformed one. Higher Mg concentrations with cast structures hinder the deformation as Mg atoms readily diffuses to the dislocations assisting the deformation. This leads to sluggish movement of the material with a variation from one region to the other. High hardness of the homogenized sample than the cast one is a signature of the above discussion.
Dead metal zone

Uniform deform zone

Dead metal zone

Fig 5: Contour map showing variation in deformation in homogenized-deformed sample.

45

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2, May-October (2011)

Fig 6. Bar charts showing degree of homogeneity in deformation, a. cast and b. homogenized Figure 7 shows the microstructure of upset samples heat treated at 2000C and 4500C. The structure shows spherical grains with uniform distribution of -phase. This is a signature of recrystallization. An increase in grain size and uniformity in distribution of -phase is observed with increase in heat-treatment temperature, which indicates the grain growth. Tables 4, 5 and 6 show the microhardness measurements taken along the central cross-section of the deformed samples after heat-treating at 2000C, 3500C and 4500C respectively for 1 hour. Figures 8, 9 and 10 show the corresponding contour maps developed for the above. With increase in heat treatment temperature the average hardness of the uniform deformation zone and the dead metal zone is decreased. The variation in the microhardness values between different zones of deformation is also decreased which indicates the stress reliving effect. In other words, the internal stresses developed in different regions of the component due to deformation are related to the extent of deformation. The average microhardness values are 80 VHN, 67 VHN and 65 VHN, respectively. With increase in the heat treatment temperature the average hardness is decreased, which corroborate the earlier discussion.
a b

10
0

10 46

Fig 7. Microstructures of Al-8Mg alloy, after heat treatment, 1 hour, a. 200 C and b. 4500C

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2, May-October (2011)

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 2 4 6 8 10 12

-10 67.4 60.3 86.8 74.7 98.4 88.2 88.2 98.4 74.7 86.8 60.3 67.4

-8 83.2 75.5 80.6 89.7 79.8 94 94 79.8 89.7 80.6 75.5 83.2

-6 74 68.7 75.6 77 70.8 96 96 70.8 77 75.6 68.7 74

Along X direction -4 -2 71.4 68.7 77.5 78.5 89.1 87.4 67.1 90.1 80.3 86.3 85.3 91.7 85.3 91.7 80.3 86.3 67.1 90.1 89.1 87.4 77.5 78.5 71.4 68.7

2 68.7 78.5 87.4 90.1 86.3 91.7 91.7 86.3 90.1 87.4 78.5 68.7

4 71.4 77.5 89.1 67.1 80.3 85.3 85.3 80.3 67.1 89.1 77.5 71.4

6 74 68.7 75.6 77 70.8 96 96 70.8 77 75.6 68.7 74

8 83.2 75.5 80.6 89.7 79.8 94 94 79.8 89.7 80.6 75.5 83.2

10 67.4 60.3 86.8 74.7 98.4 88.2 88.2 98.4 74.7 86.8 60.3 67.4

Along Y- direction

Table 4 Microhardness values, heat treated, 2000C, 1 hour

Fig 8. Contour map showing variation in deformation, heat-treated at 2000C, 1 hour.

-10 78.5 56.4 71.8 75.3 68.3 77.8 77.8 68.3 75.3 71.8 56.4 78.5 -8 77.2 58.8 60.8 54.6 41.6 70.6 70.6 41.6 54.6 60.8 58.8 77.2 -6 67.7 44.1 65.8 60.4 70.7 70 70 70.7 60.4 65.8 44.1 67.7 Along X direction -4 -2 84.7 81.3 60.5 77.2 63.3 70.4 79.4 64.7 60.8 63.7 78 65.6 78 65.6 60.8 63.7 79.4 64.7 63.3 70.4 60.5 77.2 84.7 81.3 2 81.3 77.2 70.4 64.7 63.7 65.6 65.6 63.7 64.7 70.4 77.2 81.3 4 84.7 60.5 63.3 79.4 60.8 78 78 60.8 79.4 63.3 60.5 84.7 6 67.7 44.1 65.8 60.4 70.7 70 70 70.7 60.4 65.8 44.1 67.7 8 77.2 58.8 60.8 54.6 41.6 70.6 70.6 41.6 54.6 60.8 58.8 77.2 10 78.5 56.4 71.8 75.3 68.3 77.8 77.8 68.3 75.3 71.8 56.4 78.5

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 2 4 6 8 10 12

Along Y direction

Table 5 Microhardness values, heat treated, 3500C, 1 hour

47

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2, May-October (2011)

Fig 9. Contour map showing variation in deformation, heat-treated at 3500C, 1 hour.

-10 61.8 73.1 64.5 56.3 70.4 75.8 75.8 70.4 56.3 64.5 73.1 61.8 -8 64 65.8 61.1 66.7 69.7 54.7 54.7 69.7 66.7 61.1 65.8 64 -6 82 45.2 68.3 59.7 82.8 58.2 58.2 82.8 59.7 68.3 45.2 82 Along X direction -4 -2 2 66.2 54.4 54.4 58.6 68 68 70.8 69.1 69.1 51.7 79.1 79.1 49.9 59.7 59.7 63.7 64 64 63.7 64 64 49.9 59.7 59.7 51.7 79.1 79.1 70.8 69.1 69.1 58.6 68 68 66.2 54.4 54.4 4 66.2 58.6 70.8 51.7 49.9 63.7 63.7 49.9 51.7 70.8 58.6 66.2 6 82 45.2 68.3 59.7 82.8 58.2 58.2 82.8 59.7 68.3 45.2 82 8 64 65.8 61.1 66.7 69.7 54.7 54.7 69.7 66.7 61.1 65.8 64 10 61.8 73.1 64.5 56.3 70.4 75.8 75.8 70.4 56.3 64.5 73.1 61.8

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 2 4 6 8 10 12

Along Y- direction

Table 6 Microhardness values, heat treated, 4500C, 1 hour

48

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2, May-October (2011)

Fig 10. Contour map showing variation in deformation, heat-treated at 4500C, 1 hour. Figure 11 shows is the graphical representation of the above, ie., variation in the degree of homogeneity in deformation with heat treatment. The higher the heat treatment temperature, the more is the homogeneity in the material. In other words, the average hardness is decreased and the homogeneity in the material is expanding with increasing the heat treatment temperatures.

a.

b.

49

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2, May-October (2011)

d. Fig 11. Barchart showing degree of homogeneity, a. deformed, b. heat treated 2000C, c. 3500C and d. 4500C Figure 12 shows the effect of heat treatment temperature on the hardness of the cold-worked sample. The hardness decreases with increasing temperature.

c.

Figure 12. Variation of microhardness with heat treatment temperature. A mathematical model is developed using the method of least squares. Considering the three average microhardness values as H1, H2 and H3 and corresponding temperatures as T1, T2 and T3 the following equations have been derived: (1) (2) are determined from experimentally obtained microhardness values H1, H2 and H3 at temperatures T1, T2 and T3 .

50

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2, May-October (2011)

Temperature(T) 200 350 450 ,

Micro hardness (H) 80 67 64

Log (H) 1.903089987 1.826074803 1.806179974 ,

T log(H) 380.6179974 639.1261811 812.7809883

T2 4000 122500 202500 ,

Substituting these values in equations (1&2) we will get the following equations. 5.535344764 = 3 log (a) + 1000 log (b) (3) 1832.525167 = 1000 log (a) + 36500 log (b) (4) Equations (3 & 4) are solved and the following relation is obtained between hardness and temperature. H = (94.98141844) (0.999084977)T Using the above equation one can determine the suitable heat-treating temperature to obtain a particular hardness value in a deformed Al-8%Mg alloy. The obtained equation is checked for validation by determining hardness measurements experimentally at temperatures 1500C and 3000C. The experimentally measured and mathematically calculated hardness values at 150C and 3000C are shown in table (7). A good agreement is observed between the experimentally measured and mathematically calculated hardness values. Temperature 0C 150 300 Experimental 87 77 Hardness Mathematical Model 83 72 Error percentage 4.5 6.5

Table 7: Validation of the mathematical model showing error percentage 4. CONCLUSIONS Present investigation is prediction of homogeneity in deformation based on microhardness measurements. The results obtained are summerized as follows: (1) Cast structures show more inhomogeneity in deformation than the homogenized ones. (2) Homogenization yield stable phases. Formation of Al3Mg2 during homogenization enhances hardness of the resultant matrix. (3) Higher the heat treatment temperature, lower is the hardness and more the uniformity in hardness / homogeneity in matrix. (4) A mathematical model has been developed and validated to design the temperatures to get required hardness Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the Department of Metallugical Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai and Naval Science and Technologcal Laboratoy, Viskhapatnam for providing facilites in carrying out this work. Special thanks are due to Sri Sambhi Reddy, Scientist-E, NSTL and Sri P Mallikarjuna Rao, Senior Research fellow, IIT Madras, Chennai for their valuable suggestions.

51

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research and Development (IJMERD), ISSN 2248 9347(Print) ISSN 2228 9355(Online), Volume 1, Number 2, May-October (2011)

REFERENCES 1. Gyozo Horvath. Nguyen, Q. Chinh. Jeno Gubicza and Janos Lendvai. (2007) Plastic instabilities and dislocation densities during plastic deformation in Al-Mg alloys, J. of Material Science and Engineering A, Vol. 445-446, pp.186-192 2. Searls, J. L. Gouma, P. I. Bucheit, R. G. (2001), Metall Mater Trans A, Vol. 32, pp. 2859. 3. Mazilkin, A. A. Stranmal. Protasova, S. G. Kogtenkova, O. A. and Valiev, R. Z.(2007), Published in Fizika Tverdoga, Vol.49, No. 5.5, pp. 824-829. 4. Nebti, S. Hamana, D. and Cizeron, G. (1995), Calorimetric study of pre-precipitation and precipitation in Al-Mg alloy, Acta metall.mater, Vol.43, No.9, pp.3583-3588. 5. Wei Wen. Morris, J. G. (2003) An investigation of serrated yielding in 5000 series aluminum alloys, Material Science and Engineering A, Vol.354, pp. 279-285 6. Lyakishev, N. P. (1996) Phase diagrams of Binary Metallic Systems, Vol. 1 (in Russian). 7. Hatch, J. E. (1993) Aluminum: Properties and physical metallurgy, ASM, Metals park, OH. 8. Mondolfo, L. F. (1976) Aluminum alloys: structure and properties, ( pp. 312-23), London: Butterworth and Co. 9. Waldron, G.W.J. (1965) Acta Metall. Vol. 13, pp. 897-906. 10. Hughes, D.A. (1993) Acta Metall. Mater.Vol. 41, pp. 1421-1430. 11. Malygin, G. A. (1990) Phys. Stat. Sol. (a), Vol. 119, pp. 423-435. 12. Lukac, P. (1996) Mater. Sci. Forum Vol. 217-222 , pp. 71-82. 13. Gubicza, J. Chinh, N. Q. Horita, Z. Langdon, T. G. (2004) Mater. Sci. Eng. A Vol. 387-389 pp. 55-59. 14. Horvath, G. Chinh, N. Q. Gubicza, J. (2007) Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol. 445-446, pp.186-192. 15. Yvind Ryen. Oscar Nijis. Emma, S. J. Olander. Holmedal, B. Hans-Erik Ekstrom. And Erikens, (2006) Metallurgical and materials transactions A, Vol.37A.

52