Effects of Quenching Methods and Aging Processes on the Crushing Properties and Microstructure of Al–Zn–Mg Alloy Thin-Walled Square Extrusions

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In this study, the effects of different (online quenching and offline quenching) quenching methods and aging processes (T6and T73) on the crashworthiness and microstructural evolution of three Al–Zn–Mg alloys (G1–G3) were studied by conductingtensile test and axial compression tests at room temperature, combined with optical metallography, electron back scattereddiffraction, and transmission electron microscopy microstructural observations. The obtained results revealed that thecrushing properties of three different Al–Zn–Mg alloys subjected to different quenching methods and aging processes weresignificantly different. Their crushing energy absorption of are ranked as follows: G1 > G3 > G2. The highest total energyabsorption gap (between T6 and T73) is the G1 alloy, and the lowest one is the G3 alloy. The largest total energy absorptiongap between the two quenching methods is the G3 alloy, and the smallest one is the G1 alloy. The G2 alloy with the largesttotal amount of Zn + Mg has the highest number density of matrix precipitates, the largest precipitate gap (between T6 andT73) and the smallest precipitate gap between the two quenching methods. The G3 alloy with the largest Zn/Mg ratio hasthe smallest number density of matrix precipitates, the minimum precipitation gap (between T6 and T73) and the maximumprecipitation gap between the two quenching methods. The G1 alloy with the lowest Zn/Mg ratio has the smallest size ofgrain boundary precipitates and PFZ width, while their largest values are obtained for the G3 alloy with the maximum Zn/Mg ratio. As a crushing resistant structural material, the crushing properties is improved without reducing the strength. Theratio of Zn/Mg should be controlled within the range of 4.57–6.15, while the total amount of Zn + Mg should be controlledwithin the range of 6.18–7.01.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 M. Langseth, 32 : 127-, 1998

2 A. K. Vasudevan, 35 : 1193-, 1987

3 G. B. Burger, 35 : 23-, 1995

4 J. Shin, 698 : 577-, 2017

5 W. S. Miller, 280 : 37-, 2000

6 A. Azarniya, 781 : 945-, 2019

7 J. Zhou, 13 : 401-, 2013

8 H. Nikkhah, 119 : 412-, 2017

9 M. Kathiresan, 154 : 106793-, 2020

10 X. Zhang, 84 : 263-, 2014

11 E. Acar, 142 : 227-, 2019

12 C. P. Kohar, 95 : 17-, 2016

13 W. Zhang, 146 : 103725-, 2020

14 Y. Fu, 29 : 217-, 2019

15 Y. Wang, 792 : 139807-, 2020

16 H. Guo, 13 : 4971-, 2020

17 Z. Zhang, 785 : 139394-, 2020

18 F. Jiang, 854 : 157272-, 2021

19 G. Sun, 64 : 62-, 2014

20 L. Li, 742 : 102-, 2018

21 W. Yang, 85 : 752-, 2015

22 Y. Wang, 54 : 323-, 1978

23 P. Bai, 508 : 23-, 2009

24 J. Wang, 25 : 101376-, 2020