Evaluation of Microstructural Characteristics in Low-Cycle Fatigued Austenitic Stainless Steel Using X-Ray Line Profile Analysis

Abstract:

X-ray line profile analysis was performed to evaluate the microstructural characteristics of low-cycle fatigued austenitic stainless steel, AISI 316. Strains were frequently applied to the specimens with three levels of the total strain ranges, 0.01, 0.02, and 0.03. The dislocation densities at the number of cycles for each strain condition were obtained by X-ray line profile analysis. In the case that the strain range was small, that is Δε = 0.01, dislocation densities were slightly increased until 53% of life time with the cycles, and then decreased. In the case that the strain ranges were 0.02 and 0.03, the dislocation densities were steeply increased during the first stage of the life time until around 10%. However, the variations after n/N_f ≃ 10% were different each other. In the case of Δε = 0.02, dislocation density did not increase significantly until the end of the life. But in the case of Δε = 0.03, the dislocation density monotonously increased until the end of the life. These tendencies agreed with the variations of stress amplitude. The relationship between dislocation density and stress amplitude could be expressed as Δσ/2 = 1.14ρ^1/2 + 207 (Δσ [MPa], ρ^1/2 [m⁻²]).

• Periodical: Materials Science Forum (Volume 941)
• Pages: 376-381
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.941.376
• Online since: December 2018
• Authors: Masayoshi Kumagai*, Masatoshi Kuroda, Koichi Akita, Masayuki Kamaya, Shinichi Ohya
• Keywords: Austenitic Stainless Steel, Dislocation Density, Line Profile Analysis, Low-Cycle Fatigue, X-Ray Diffraction

References

[1] M. Mineur, P. Villechaise, and J. Mendez, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 286, 257–268 (2000).

[2] S.-G. Hong and S.-B. Lee, Int. J. Fatigue, 26, 899–910 (2004).

[3] S.G. Hong and S.B. Lee, J. Nucl. Mater., 340, 307–314 (2005).

[4] D. Ye, S. Matsuoka, N. Nagashima, and N. Suzuki, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 415, 104–117 (2006).

[5] T. Mayama, K. Sasaki, and M. Kuroda, Acta Mater., 56, 2735–2743 (2008).

[6] K.H. Nip, L. Gardner, C.M. Davies, and A.Y. Elghazouli, J. Constr. Steel Res., 66, 96–110 (2010).

[7] D. Ye, Y. Xu, L. Xiao, and H. Cha, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 527, 4092–4102 (2010).

[8] M.S. Pham and S.R. Holdsworth, Procedia Eng., 10, 1069–1074 (2011).

[9] M.S. Pham, C. Solenthaler, K.G.F. Janssens, and S.R. Holdsworth, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 528, 3261–3269 (2011).

[10] M. Kamaya and M. Kuroda, Mater. Trans., 52, 1168–1176 (2011).

[11] S.C. Roy, S. Goyal, R. Sandhya, and S.K. Ray, Nucl. Eng. Des., 253, 219–225 (2012).

[12] M.S. Pham, S.R. Holdsworth, K.G.F. Janssens, and E. Mazza, Int. J. Plast., 47, 143–164 (2013).

[13] M. Kuroda, M. Kamaya, T. Yamada, and K. Akita, Trans. JSME, 83, 1690–1694 (2013).

[14] M. Kuroda, M. Kamaya, T. Mori, and I. Takaharu, Trans. JSME, 79, 1690–1694 (2013).

[15] E.A. Soppa, C. Kohler, and E. Roos, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 597, 128–138 (2014).

[16] A. Sarkar, B.K. Kumawat, and J.K. Chakravartty, J. Nucl. Mater., 462, 273–279 (2015).

[17] J. Nellessen, S. Sandlöbes, and D. Raabe, Acta Mater., 87, 86–99 (2015).

[18] M. Kuroda, Y. Kazufumi, M. Kamaya, and T. Yamada, Trans. JSME, 79, 1102–1106 (2017).

[19] T. Ungár and A. Borbély, Appl. Phys. Lett., 69, 3173–3175 (1996).

[20] M. Kumagai, M. Imafuku, and S. Ohya, ISIJ Int., 54, 206–211 (2014).

[21] D. Akama, T. Tsuchiyama, and S. Takaki, J. Soc. Mater. Sci. Japan, 66, 522–527 (2017).

[22] M. Wilkens, Phys. Status Solidi, 2, 359–370 (1970).