| Literature DB >> 29772661 |
Lei Zhang1,2, Yue-Hua Liu3, Kai-Yu Luo4, Yong-Kang Zhang5, Yong Zhao6, Jian-Yun Huang7, Xu-Dong Wu8, Chuang Zhou9.
Abstract
Tensile property was one important index of mechanical properties ofEntities:
Keywords: cavitation erosion; fracture morphology; laser shock processing; laser weldment; tensile property
Year: 2018 PMID: 29772661 PMCID: PMC5978182 DOI: 10.3390/ma11050805
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1The dimension of the sample (unit: mm).
Testing parameters in cavitation erosion tests
| Output Power (W) | Frequency (kHz) | Diameter of Vibrating Horn (mm) | Pulsed Mode | Total Testing Time (h) | Temperature (°C) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| On-Time (s) | Off-Time (s) | ||||||
| 840 | 20 | 20 | 1.5 | 3 | 6 | 20 | |
Figure 2The process sequence graph.
Mass loss of original tensile sample (S1), tensile sample without LSP after CE (S2), and tensile sample with LSP after CE (S3)
| Group | Sample | Without LSP Impacts (S2) | With LSP Impacts (S3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mass before CE (g) | First sample | 51.633 | 51.631 |
| Second sample | 51.628 | 51.622 | |
| Third sample | 51.636 | 51.630 | |
| Mean values | 51.63 | 51.63 | |
| Mass after CE (g) | First sample | 51.598 | 51.624 |
| Second sample | 51.603 | 51.614 | |
| Third sample | 51.611 | 51.625 | |
| Mean values | 51.60 | 51.62 | |
| Mass loss (g) | First sample | 0.035 | 0.007 |
| Second sample | 0.025 | 0.008 | |
| Third sample | 0.025 | 0.005 | |
| Mean values | 0.03 | 0.01 |
Figure 3Engineering stress–strain curves of original tensile sample (S1), tensile sample without LSP after CE (S2), and tensile sample with LSP after CE (S3).
Elongation and area reduction of original tensile sample (S1), tensile sample without LSP after CE (S2), and tensile sample with LSP after CE (S3)
| Tensile Property | Sample | Original Tensile Sample (S1) | Tensile Sample without LSP after CE (S2) | Tensile Sample with LSP after CE (S3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elongation | First sample | 0.708 | 0.523 | 0.689 |
| Second sample | 0.702 | 0.522 | 0.691 | |
| Third sample | 0.690 | 0.529 | 0.699 | |
| Mean values | 0.70 | 0.52 | 0.69 | |
| Area reduction | First sample | 0.411 | 0.282 | 0.340 |
| Second sample | 0.412 | 0.281 | 0.342 | |
| Third sample | 0.416 | 0.288 | 0.343 | |
| Mean values | 0.41 | 0.28 | 0.34 |
Figure 4Macroscopic fracture morphology: (a) original tensile sample (S1); (b) tensile sample without LSP after CE (S2); (c) tensile sample with LSP after CE (S3).
Figure 5High magnification SEM micrographs of local regions in the yellow square (A), (B), and (C) in Figure 4: (a) original tensile sample (S1); (b) tensile sample without LSP after CE (S2); (c) tensile sample with LSP after CE (S3).
Figure 6Micrographs of fracture morphology in the fiber zone: (a) original tensile sample (S1); (b) tensile sample without LSP after CE (S2); (c) tensile sample with LSP after CE (S3).
Figure 7Morphology of the dimples in the fracture surface: (a,b) original tensile sample (S1); (c,d) tensile sample without LSP after CE (S2); (e,f) tensile sample with LSP after CE (S3).
Figure 8SEM morphology observation of cross sections: (a) in the LWZ without LSP [3]; (b) in the HAZ without LSP [3]; (c) fracture location; (d) in the LWZ with LSP [3]; (e) in the HAZ with LSP [3].
Figure 9TEM observations and EBSD analysis: (a–c) in the welding zone with LSP [25]; (d–f) in the HAZ with LSP [25]; (g,h) EBSD inverse pole figures without and with LSP [26].