Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Centro de Engenharia, Modelagem e Cincias Sociais Aplicadas (CECS), Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC), 09210-580 Santo Andr, SP, Brazil
Electrocell Ind. Com. Equip. Elet. LTDA, Centro de Inovao, Empreendedorismo e Tecnologia (CIETEC), 05508-000 So Paulo, SP, Brazil
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 10 April 2014
Accepted 5 June 2014
Available online 16 June 2014
Keywords:
Automotive body parts
Hot stamping
Materials selection
Ashby approach
Strain hardening exponent
Stacking fault energy
a b s t r a c t
Complex stamping operations are becoming widespread in the automotive industry to produce vehicle
body parts with adequate mechanical strength and reduced wall thickness. The need for weight reduction
drives the development of new metallic materials capable of achieving a good balance between formability and mechanical properties. Advanced high strength steels play a major role in this scenario. The aim of
this work was to develop a materials selection strategy for hot stamped automotive body parts using the
Ashby approach. The selection process was based on the formability of metallic alloys derived from two
fundamentals materials properties, the strain hardening exponent and the stacking fault energy.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Recent developments of structural parts for vehicle body shells
of automobiles have pursued weight reduction as a mean of attaining low fuel consumption levels and, therefore, mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions [1,2]. Advanced high strength steels
(AHSS) and aluminum alloys have concentrated most attention
towards this goal [35]. Stamping processes are employed in order
to achieve adequate mechanical strength at reduced wall thickness
and frequently complex geometries. Hot stamping has become
widespread for this purpose [6,7]. Formability is a crucial characteristic for the quality of stamped parts [8]. Stamping formability
is often evaluated based on the analysis of the maximum strains
that the material is able to sustain without fracture or wrinkle
[9]. It is well-known that process parameters such as initial blank
shape, blank holding force, lubrication, shape of the die, temperature and strain rate inuence the formability of metallic sheets.
Moreover, materials properties are also closely related to the formability of stamped parts [10]. In this context, strain hardening
parameters, especially the strain hardening exponent plays a major
role in the formability of metallic sheets [11,12]. In the same way,
the stacking fault energy (SFE), a more fundamental property,
strongly affects the deformation modes and, ultimately, the formability of metallic alloys [13]. These properties can be tailored by
properly designing the chemical composition of the alloy [14].
A huge amount of knowledge is already available regarding the
inuence of different alloying elements on the strain hardening
behavior of metallic materials [1517]. Although there is still much
to be learned, valuable information can be found in the current literature. Notwithstanding, this information is segregated in many
different reports. The condensation of this knowledge into a reliable technical criterion would be of great interest to guide the
development of new materials for stamped parts of automobiles.
Materials selection strategies can be employed to achieve this goal.
The Ashby approach is one of the most widespread materials selection methods for engineering materials. In spite of its limitations
for multi-criteria selection processes [18,19], it successfully applies
to a variety of engineering applications [2023]. Design criteria can
be promptly dened based on the understanding of the functional
requirements for the intended application and easily employed to
screen and rank different materials [24].
The aim of this work was to develop a materials selection strategy for hot stamped automotive stamped parts using the Ashby
approach. The methodology was based on establishing a reliable
design criterion to assess the formability of different metallic
alloys. The selection process is practiced mainly with advanced
high strength steel alloys which concentrate the most recent
developments for vehicle body parts. The strategy was based on
248
r K:e
alloys whereas carbon has the opposite effect [60,61]. The mechanisms that govern the dependence of SFE on specic alloying elements are quite complex. Several factors are involved such as
grain size, temperature and solute concentration. Magnetic and
chemical interactions are also important [61]. Several models have
been proposed by different authors in order to explain the effects
of alloying elements on the SFE of specic alloys. Some models
developed for advanced high strength steels intended for application as automobile body parts will be treated in more detail in this
work. Such models will serve to support the materials selection
strategy developed in the next section. The reader should be aware,
though, that it is not the aim of the present work to provide a
detailed review of the different models encountered in the literature. Notwithstanding, the references cited in this work will provide useful insights for the interested reader, especially regarding
the deformation mechanisms of advanced high strength steels.
3. Materials selection strategy for hot stamped automotive body
parts
Materials selection based on the Ashby approach is designdriven. It is an optimization method which can deal with conicting
objectives derived from multiple criteria in a relatively simple
manner. The selection process comprises a translation step in
which the function of the component is dened, as well as design
constraint(s) and the objective(s) which is(are) pursued. Moreover,
some variables can be let free for the designer to decide. The free
variables are normally related to geometric parameters of the component and the material with which the component will be manufactured. The following step is to screen out the materials that do
not meet the constraint(s) dened in the rst step. Next, the surviving candidates are ranked according to the objective(s). Documentation can be used to conrm the ranking established in the
previous, bringing in supporting information to the selection process about some characteristics which were not previously taken
into account, but are useful to guide the designer into a successful
decision [24]. This philosophy is developed in the present section.
3.1. Translation step
The function of the component is promptly dened from the
context of the present work as a metallic panel for stamped automotive body parts. The materials intended for such application
should be capable of being formed in complex shapes. Moreover,
high mechanical strength is needed to allow the forming of relatively thin sheets capable of withstanding the mechanical loads
without failure. The need for thin sheets is a must-attend criterion
of the automotive industry because of the growing pressure for
reduced fossil gas emissions achieved by decreasing fuel consumption due to reduced car body weight [62]. As a consequence, materials for this application are required to have a minimum tensile
strength. According to Altan [63] the minimum tensile strength
of high strength steels is 210 MPa. Moreover, structural applications of materials require fracture toughness, expressed as K1C, of
at least 20 MPa m1/2 [24]. It is assumed here that these are the constraints of our selection process regarding the minimum tensile
strength and fracture toughness of the stamped panels. Any material which does not obey these criteria should be screened out from
the selection process.
The objective of the selection process should now be dened.
This is a central point of the Ashby method as the candidates with
the best performance are selected based on the objective dened
during translation step. Formability is pivotal for the successful
design of hot stamped parts for the automotive industry [64].
The complexity of dening an absolute and measurable criterion
249
250
Table 1
Design requirements for hot stamped automotive body parts.
Design requirements
Function
Constraints
Objectives
Free variables
rT 6:14
after an initial austenitizing procedure. Phase transformation is
achieved by quenching the part in the stamping die while it is
formed. This process is called hot stamping which has become a
standard manufacturing method for complex stamped automotive
parts [70]. Cold stamping is also used but the intrinsic springback
of the stamped part poses some limitations on using the process
for ultra-high strength alloys [71]. Steels for these processes are
twin induced plasticity (TWIP) steels, transformation induced plasticity (TRIP) steels and boron-manganese steels [7275]. Materials
tested by different authors with regard to structural applications as
hot stamped automotive parts are presented in Table 2 along with
their chemical compositions. This list will serve as the basis for the
ranking strategy developed in the next section. Magnesium alloys,
cast irons, carbon steels, stainless steels, titanium alloys, refractory
metals and metal matrix composites are not reported for this
application due to intrinsic limitations on plastic deformation ability, mechanical strength and/or prohibitive costs. Thus, these alloys
will not be considered in the ranking step.
3.3. Ranking the surviving candidates
The Ashby approach proceeds with ranking the candidates that
passed the screening stage performed in Section 3.2. As mentioned
before, this step is based on the objective dened in Section 3.1
(Table 1). In this respect, the formability of the stamped part has
to be maximized. Up to now, though, the concept of formability
has not yet been dened in the context of the present selection
process. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 have introduced the basic concepts
of strain-hardening exponent (n) and stacking fault energy (SFE)
of metallic alloys. The relevance of these properties for the plastic
deformation of metallic materials has been highlighted by many
authors. High values of n and low values of SFE are associated with
enhanced ductility [16,52], thus favoring alloy formability. The
degree of work hardening increases for low values of SFE [117].
Thus, the merit index (MI) provided here will be based on both
the n and SFE values of the metallic alloys.
According to the Ashby approach, the performance of a component (P) for a given engineering application can be dened by a
proper mathematical expression with the general form shown in
Eq. (2) where F, G and M denotes functional requirements, geometric features and materials properties, respectively [24].
P f fF; G; Mg
It is generally agreed that the parameters shown in this equation are separable and it can be rewritten as displayed in Eq. (3)
where f1, f2 and f3 are separate functions.
P f1 F f2 G f3 M
bp
K en 6:14
c
bp
log e
n
n
n
This equation shows that the deformation (e) necessary to the onset
of twinning and, in turn, plastic deformation, is a function of the
stacking fault energy (c) and of the strain-hardening exponent (n)
of the austenitic alloy. Hence, would be desirable to minimize the
value of e to increase the formability of the austenitic alloy, since
plastic deformation would be more easily achieved, thus saving
energy during the stamping process. Thus, the last term in Eq. (6)
should be minimized to maximize alloy formability. In this respect,
the merit index (MI) of our selection process could be effectively
dened by choosing materials with low values of c and high values
of n. In this connection the MI can be dened as n/SFE. The ultimate
candidates are those which maximize the value of this ratio.
To support this analysis a new Ashby chart is shown in Fig. 2.
This chart brings the strain-hardening exponent in the abscissas
and the SFE in the ordinates. The small bubbles in Fig. 2 represent
some of the materials described in Table 2 which are identied
with superscripts referred to the reference from which each one
of them was consulted. It is important to mention that this chart
was not plotted using the CES Edupack 2009 software because this
version does not allow to incorporate additional information
besides those already available in its original database. Notwithstanding, it was plotted according to the same philosophy, according to the materials selection based on the Ashby approach and is
perfectly suited to the purposes of this text. Thus, in order to maximize the formability of the alloy one should seek for those materials which give the best compromise between the values of n and
SFE. The best candidates are, therefore, those which simultaneously maximize n and minimize SFE and are located in the bottom right region of the chart (search region). The ultimate
candidates are those which maximize the value of n/SFE. There
are a total of eleven materials in this chart: four 6XXX Al alloys,
three 5XXX Al alloys and four high-Mn steels. This is only a small
part of the candidates listed in Table 2. Such a reduced sampling
derives from the difcult task of encountering references in which
the authors simultaneously report the values of SFE and strain
hardening exponent of the stamping alloys. The isolated values of
251
Fig. 1. (a) Ashby chart for ultimate tensile strength versus fracture toughness; (b) the same chart shown in (a) after applying the constraints of the selection process.
252
Table 2
List of metallic alloys for stamped automotive parts tested by different authors.
References
Alloy
Aluminum alloys
[76]
[77,78]
[77]
[68]
[79]
[80,81]
[82,83]
[84]
[85]
Composition (wt.%)
AlMgSi
AA6111
AA5754
AA5083
AA6014
AA6016
6022
AA5182
6063
Si
Mg
Fe
Mn
Ti
Zn
Cu
Cr
Al
0.60
0.6 1.1
0.4
0.4
0.30.6
1.00
1.1
0.03
0.45
0.74
0.51.0
2.63.6
4.04.9
0.40.8
0.47
0.55
4.3
0.3
0.37
0.4
0.4
0.4
60.35
0.23
0.21
0.058
0.03
0.100.45
0.5
0.41,0
0.050.2
0.07
0.34
0.013
0.04
0.1
0.15
0.15
60.1
0.03
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.1
0.022
0.50.9
0.1
0.1
60.25
0.17
0.056
0.015
0.1
0.3
0.25
60.2
0.02
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Mo
Cr
Ni
Co
Nb
Al
Si
Cu
Mn
Fe
Ti
0.0048
<0.02
0.2
0.02
0.004
1.0
0.03
3.8
0.03
2.9
1.5
9
0.2
0.22
0.18
0.17
0.21
0.04
0.3
0.6
1.0
0.25
1.53
1.51
2.9
0.005
0.001
0.03
0.008
0.007
0.015
2.0
1.23
11
1.50
1.0
18.8
16
20
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
0.037
0.021
0.025
0.03
0.004
15.5
6.1
0.057
0.003
1.5
0.74
2.02
0.6
0.61
0.175
0.6
0.014
0.03
0.70
5.08
0.9
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.007
18
23.84
1.57
22
29.4
6.1
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
<0.01
2.29
2.74
0.038
0.08
0.08
0.08
2.68
2.76
0.00
2.97
5.86
5.20
0.005
0.006
0.01
0.11
0.6
0.28
0.24
0.52
0.005
0.005
0.60
0.63
0.60
0.06
0.626
2.60
2.30
1.19
0.013
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
3.03
3.04
0.007
0.007
0.006
28
25
27
14.30
23.7
1.67
22
Bal.
1.6
1.6
4.1
Bal.
Bal.
0.60
0.01
0.01
25.29
29.00
21.59
21.78
22.00
29.20
17.83
Bal.
Bal.
0.619
0.62
0.58
0.59
0.62
0.61
0.58
0.6
0.57
0.81
0.016
0.016
0.07
0.64
0.60
0.63
0.60
1.30
1.31
1.31
1.167
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.01
0.05
1.59
Bal.
0.060
0.036
0.008
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
Bal.
[98]
TWIP steels
<0.01
0.05
0.05
[99]
High-Mn steels
[100]
[101,105
107]
TWIP steel
TWIP steels
0.0075
0.0075
0.0079
[102]
[103]
T618
T618Al
T618Si
TWIP steels
[104]
[108]
TWIP steel
TWIP steels
0.012
0.019
0.029
1.43
0.01
1.54
0.03
0.02
0.96
2.02
2.0
[109]
FeMn alloys
[110]
[49]
[59]
TRIP steel
TWIP steel
High-Mn steels
[111]
TWIP steels
0.017
0.0075
0.0075
0.0079
2.4
2.40
0.00
2.97
5.86
[112]
[113]
TWIP steel
TWIP steels
<0.022
<0.18
<0.096
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.003
0.002
2.85
0.25
0.134
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
<0.006
0.00
1.50
3.04
17.73
17.65
17.51
17.
0.012
17.65
0.011
19.01
0.010
19.07
18
16.4
16.5
24.30
30.79
15.3
14
21.59
21.78
22.00
19.84
19.87
19.87
<0.018 19.90
22
28
19
24
24
27
(continued
on next page)
253
Mo
Cr
Ni
Co
Nb
Al
Si
Cu
Mn
Fe
Ti
[114]
TWIP steels
FeMnSi alloys
Bal.
[115,116]
TWIP steel
2.93
0.25
2.03
5.21
8.67
0.07
21.9
21.9
24.6
31.63
32.55
30.62
30.38
14.55
Bal.
[58]
0.45
0.59
0.59
0.96
0.64
0.67
0.79
0.71
Bal.
The atomic percentages of magnesium in the 5XXX alloys were calculated from the weight percentages displayed in Table 2.
6111[120]
120
SFE (mJ.m-2)
6016[118]
6022[119]
6063[121]
100
80
Search region
60
5754[122]
40
5083[124]
High Mn steel (22Mn-3Al)[99]
20
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
!2 3
5
For the 6XXX Al alloys the SFE values were determined based on
the work by Lee and Tang [127], according to Eq. (8) in which K is
the Petch constant, G is the shear modulus (G = 26 GPa), b is the
Burgers vector, m is the Poissons ratio (m = 0,33), a and d are constants (a = 339 lm1/2 and d = 2 m1/2/mJ m2 for FCC metals). The
values of K and b were taken from the work by Lee and Tang
[127]; they are referred to the 6061-T6 Al alloy and were used only
to give an estimation of the SFE values of the 6XXX presented in
Fig. 2. Although this procedure does not take into account different
K and b values for the different 6XXX alloys, it is adequate to our
purposes as it reveals the differences between SFE of 5XXX and
6XXX Al alloys. It is seen from Fig. 2 that the SFE values of 5XXX
are considerably lower than those of the 6XXX alloys. This is in
accordance with literature reports which point to a reduced SFE
as the Mg content increases for AlMg alloys [128]. The reader
should be aware, though, that the values derived from expressions
(7) and (8) are valid only when the models developed in references
[126,127] are valid. It is important to note, though, that different
models have been proposed by different authors and these values
can vary for a same material. Thus, they must be used as a general
guideline which is useful to visualize the signicant difference
between the SFEs of 5XXX and 6XXX Al alloys. However, these values are not absolute. Notwithstanding, they reliably point the
strong inuence of Mg on the SFE of Al alloys and give good basis
for the selection process developed here. The strain hardening
160
140
xMg =xMg
1 xMg =xMg
0.4
29.2Mn-5.2Al-0.6Si [100]
14.55Mn-2.93Al-0.07Si [115]
22Mn-6Al-0.6C [113]
27Mn-3.5Al-0.4C [113]
27Mn-4.1Al-0.52Si [50]
14Mn-0.64C-2.4Al-0.25Si [49]
22Mn-3Al [99]
22Mn-0.6C-3Al [59]
24Mn-0.7C [113]
24Mn-0.6C [113]
18Mn-0.6C-1.5Al [103]
18Mn-0.6C-1.5Al [102]
20Mn-3.0Cu-1.3C [111]
28Mn-1.6Al-0.28Si [50]
28Mn-0.3C [113]
22Mn-0.6C [113]
[111]
20Mn-1.5Cu-1.3C
24.6Mn-0.59C [114]
17Mn-0.8C [108]
[111]
20Mn-1.3C
22Mn-0.6C [59]
19Mn-0.6C [113]
25Mn-1.6Al-0.24Si [50]
21.9Mn-0.59C [114]
22Mn-0.6C [96]
18Mn-0.6C [102]
31.63Mn-0.96C-0.25Si [58]
18Mn-0.6C [104]
[114]
21.9Mn-0.45C [109]
30Mn-0.016C
32.55Mn-0.64C-2.03Si [58]
17Mn-0.6C [108]
18Mn-0.6C-1.5Si [102]
18Mn-0.6C [105]
18Mn-0.6C [103]
30.62Mn-0.67C-5.21Si [58]
30.38Mn-0.79C-8.67Si [58]
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
SFE (mJ.m-2)
Fig. 3. Bar chart showing values of SFE for some of the alloys presented in Table 2.
80
254
exponents of both the 5XXX and 6XXX Al alloys were taken from
the references indicated as superscripts above the alloy
designation.
Gb
a dc
2p1 m
For the high-Mn steels shown in Fig. 2 the SFE values and strain
hardening exponents were taken from the references indicated as
superscripts above the alloy designation.
As displayed in Fig. 2 the best candidates are found in the search
region at the bottom right part of the chart. The two ultimate
materials are the TWIP steel (18Mn1.5Al) and the high-Mn steel
(22 Mn0Al). It is important to observe that TWIP steels with
higher aluminum concentrations (22Mn3Al and 22Mn6Al) present progressively higher SFE values. According to Medvedeva et al.
[61], aluminum addition suppresses the transformation of austenite into martensite in TWIP steels, thus reducing the SFE. Therefore,
based on the MI dened above, it would be desirable to keep the
aluminum content of TWIP steels as low as possible in order to
increase its formability. The inuence of other important alloying
elements, such as manganese, carbon and silicon on the SFE of
high-Mn steels is not evident, though, from the results presented
in Fig. 2. One further step is necessary. Thus, additional information about the SFE of several high-Mn steels is provided in the
bar chart shown in Fig. 3. These steels were selected from Table 2
and the SFE values were taken from the references identied as
superscripts right after the identication of the steel type. The
materials are displayed in decreasing order of SFE. There are a total
of 37 steels in Fig. 3. It is seen that the 14 steels with the lowest SFE
do not present Al as an alloying element. The lowest SFE values are
for the TWIP steels 30.38Mn0.79C8.67Si and 30.62Mn0.67C
5.21Si. The common feature of these steels is the high manganese
and silicon contents. Silicon was reported to decrease the SFE of
TWIP steels. According to Jeong et al. [102], the SFE of a TWIP steel
decreased 4 mJ m2 per 1 wt.% Si. Mechanical twinning was
favored by adding silicon, therefore increasing the strain hardening
capability of the steels. In this respect, silicon can be considered
benecial to increase the formability of high strength steels for
stamped automotive parts. Manganese concentration is also of
prime importance and is considered to have a more complex inuence on the SFE values of iron-based alloys. A parabolic dependence on the manganese content has been reported by Aydin
et al. [14] and Medvedeva et al. [61]. The manganese content which
leads to the minimum SFE varies depending on the alloy composition. The increase of Mn content is reported to favor the TWIP
effect of high-Mn steels by decreasing SFE, giving exceptional
formability to the steel [129]. Carbon content, in turn, has an opposite effect, increasing SFE of these steels similarly to aluminum
[61]. It is seen from Fig. 3 that the 12 steels with the highest SFE
values have Al and or C in its composition. In this respect, it is
desirable to keep Al and C at a minimum in high strength steels
for automotive stamped parts and the Mn and Si contents as high
as possible. However, one should not neglect the overall mechanical behavior of the material. A suitable balance between yield
strength and ductility should be pursued. Hence, for example, aluminum has well-known benecial effects on the mechanical
behavior of high-Mn steels. As highlighted by Jin and Lee [103],
aluminum increases the yield stress by solid solution strengthening, stabilizes austenite against strain-induced martensitic transformation and retards hydrogen delayed fracture. Thus, although
formability is enhanced by avoiding aluminum addition to TWIP
steels, the overall mechanical behavior of stamped parts can be
improved by adding it to these materials. In this case, suitable
combinations of other alloying elements which strongly affect
the SFE of high strength steels should be carefully designed.
4. Conclusions
A criterion for selecting materials for hot stamped automotive
parts has been developed based on two fundamental concepts
related to the plastic deformation behavior of metallic materials:
the strain hardening exponent (n) and the stacking fault energy
(SFE). The strategy was based on the Ashby approach and a merit
index (MI) was proposed to rank the best candidates for this application. The MI was based on ratio n/SFE and gave suitable indications of the relative performances of different metallic alloys. The
best candidates were austenitic high-Mn steels, followed by
5XXX Al alloys and 6XXX Al alloys. The design of the alloy composition is crucial to obtain optimized formability. For the high-Mn
steels, besides the manganese concentration, silicon, aluminum
and carbon strongly affect the formability of the alloy. Increasing
manganese and silicon contents enhances formability whereas
increasing aluminum and carbon concentrations have an opposite
effect. For the aluminum alloys, magnesium content is crucial to
achieve enhanced formability.
References
[1] Karbasian H, Tekkaya AE. A review on hot stamping. J Mater Proc Technol
2010;210:210318.
[2] Caballero FG, Allain S, Cornide J, Velsquez P, Garcia-Marco C, Miller MK.
Design of cold rolled and continuous annealed carbide-free bainitic steels for
automotive application. Mater Des 2013;49:56780.
[3] Ying L, Lu J-D, Chang Y, Tang X-H, Hu P, Zhao K-M. Optimization evaluation
test of strength and toughness parameters for hot-stamped high strength
steels. J Iron Steel Res Int 2013;20:516.
[4] Meng Q, Wang B, Fu L, Zhou J, Lin J. The inuence of process parameters
during hot stamping of AA6111 aluminum alloy sheet. Adv Mater Res
2012;572:25560.
[5] Bouaziz O, Zuroband H, Huang M. Driving force and logic of development of
advanced high strength steels for automotive applications. Steel Res Int
2013;84:93747.
[6] Ghiotti A, Bruschi S, Pellegrini D. Inuence of die materials on the
microstructural evolution of HSS sheets in hot stamping. Key Eng Mater
2011;473:2018.
[7] Zhu B, Zhang YS, Li J, Wang H, Ye Z-C. Simulation research of hot stamping and
phase transition of automotive high strength steel. Mater Res Innovations
2011;15:s42630.
[8] Bariani PF, Bruschi S, Ghiotti A, Turetta A. Testing formability in the hot
stamping of HSS. Annals CIRP 2008;57:2658.
[9] Firat M. A nite element modeling and prediction of stamping formability of a
dual-phase steel in cup drawing. Mater Des 2012;34:329.
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
255
256
[106] Kim J, De Cooman BC. On the stacking fault energy of Fe-18 Pct Mn-0.6 Pct C-1.5
Pct Al twinning-induced plasticity steel. Metall Mater Trans A 2011;42A:9326.
[107] Kim J, Estrin Y, De Cooman BC. Application of a dislocation density-based
constitutive model Al-Alloyed TWIP steel. Metall Mater Trans A
2013;44A:416882.
[108] Koyama M, Sawaguchi T, Lee T, Lee CS, Tsuzaki K. Work hardening associated
with (-martensitic transformation, deformation twinning and dynamic strain
aging in Fe17Mn0.6C and Fe17Mn0.8C TWIP steels. Mater Sci Eng A
2011;528:73106.
[109] Liang X, McDermid JR, Bouaziz O, Wang X, Embury JD, Zurob HS.
Microstructural evolution and strain hardening of Fe24Mn and Fe30Mn
alloys during tensile deformation. Acta Mater 2009;57:397888.
[110] McGrath MC, Van Aken DC, Medvedeva NI, Medvedeva JE. Work hardening
behavior in steel with multiple TRIP mechanisms. Metall Mater Trans A
2013;44A:463443.
[111] Peng X, Zhu D, Hu Z, Yi W, Liu H, Wang M. Stacking fault energy and tensile
deformation behavior of high-carbon twinning-induced plasticity steels:
effect of Cu addition. Mater Des 2013;45:51823.
[112] Renard K, Jacques PJ. On the relationship between work hardening and
twinning rate in TWIP steels. Mater Sci Eng A 2012;542:814.
[113] Saeed-Akbari A, Mosecker L, Schwedt A, Bleck W. Characterization and
prediction of ow behavior in high-manganese twinning induced plasticity
steels: Part I. Mechanism maps and work-hardening behavior. Metall Mater
Trans A 2012;43A:1688704.
[114] Sato S, Kwon E-P, Imafuku M, Wagatsuma K, Suzuki S. Microstructural
characterization of high-manganese austenitic steels with different stacking
fault energies. Mater Charact 2011;62:7818.
[115] Van Tol RT, Zhao L, Schut H, Sietsma J. Investigation of deformation
mechanisms in deep-drawn and tensile-strained austenitic Mn-based
twinning induced plasticity (TWIP) steel. Metall Mater Trans A
2012;43A:30707.
[116] Van Tol RT, Kim JK, Zhao L, Sietsma J, De Cooman BC. -martensite formation
in deep-drawn Mn-based TWIP steel. J Mater Sci 2012;47:484550.
[117] Lee K-W, Kim K-H, Kim J-Y, Kwon D. Derivation of tensile ow characteristics
for austenitic materials from instrumented indentation technique. J Phys D:
Appl Phys 2008;41:074014.
[118] Len-Garca O, Petrov R, Kestens LAI. The role of Mg in void formation during
plastic
deformation
of
AA6016
aluminium
alloys.
http://
www.gruppofrattura.it/ocs/index.php/ICF/ICF12/paper/viewFile/1277/8979.
Accessed 04/07/2014.
[119] Brem JC, Barlat F, Dick RE, Yoon J-W. Characterizations of aluminum alloy
sheet materials. Numisheet 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.201134.
[120] Kim D, Lee W, Kim J, Kim C, Chung K. Formability evaluation of friction stir
welded 6111T4 sheet with respect to joining material direction. Int J Mech
Sci 2010;52:61225.
[121] Barsoum I, Khan F, Molki A, Seibi A. Modeling of ductile crack propagation in
expanded thin-walled 6063T5 aluminum tubes. Int J Mech Sci
2014;80:1608.
[122] Spencer K, Corbin SF, Lloyd DJ. The inuence of iron content on the plane
strain fracture behavior of AA 5754 AlMg sheet alloys. Mater Sci Eng A
2002;325:394404.
[123] Bhargava M, Tewari A, Mishra S. Strain path diagram simulation of AA 5182
aluminum alloy. Procedia Eng 2013;64:12528.
[124] Naka T, Torikai G, Hino R, Yoshida F. The effects of temperature and forming
speed on the forming limit diagram for type 5083 aluminummagnesium
alloy sheet. J Mater Proc Technol 2001;113:63853.
[125] Byun TS. On the stress dependence of partial dislocation separation and
deformation microstructure in austenitic stainless steels. Acta Mater
2003;51:306371.
[126] Morishige T, Hirata T, Uesugi T, Takigawa Y, Tsujikawa M, Higashi K. Effect of
Mg content on the minimum grain size of AlMg alloys obtained by friction
stir processing. Scr Mater 2011;64:3558.
[127] Lee W-S, Tang Z-C. Relationship between mechanical properties and
microstructural response of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy impacted at elevated
temperatures. Mater Des 2014;58:11624.
[128] Zolotorevsky NYu, Solonin AN, Churyumov AYu, Zolotorevsky VS. Study of
work hardening of quenched and naturally aged AlMg and AlCu alloys.
Mater Sci Eng A 2009;502:1117.
[129] Saeed-Akbari A, Imlau J, Prahl U, Bleck W. Derivation and variation in
composition-dependent stacking fault energy maps based on subregular
solution model in high-manganese steels. Metall Mater Trans A
2009;40:307690.
[130] Demeri MY. Twinning-induced plasticity steels. In: Advanced high-strength
steels (ASM International). ASM International. 2013. p. 13549.
[131] Santos DB, Gonzalez BM, Pereloma EV. Recrystallization and mechanical
behavior of high Mn and low C cold rolled and annealed steel with TWIP
effect. Mater Sci Forum 2012;715716:57984.
[132] Dini G, Najazadeh A, Ueji R, Monir-Vaghe SM. Tensile deformation
behavior of high manganese austenitic steel: the role of grain size. Mater
Des 2010;31:3395402.