Search

Evolution of cube texture after annealing was investigated in severely cold and warm-rolled Al–2.5 wt.%Mg alloy without and with prior recovery treatments. The alloy was cold and warm-rolled at room temperature and at 473 K (200 °C), respectively, to 97% reduction in thickness and annealed at different temperatures ranging from 548 K (275 °C) to 673 K (400 °C). The warm-rolled material showed much stronger and sharper cube texture as compared to the cold-rolled material after different annealing treatments. However, prior recovery treatments at 473 K (200 °C) significantly diminished the strength of the cube texture in the warm-rolled material after annealing. In contrast, the strength of the cube component after annealing in the cold-rolled material was not significantly affected by the prior recovery treatments. The observed differences could be adequately explained by the preferential recovery and nucleation behavior of cube grains in different treated conditions.

Evolution of cube texture after annealing was investigated in severely cold and warm-rolled Al–2.5 wt.%Mg alloy without and with prior recovery treatments. The alloy was cold and warm-rolled at room temperature and at 473 K (200 °C), respectively, to 97% reduction in thickness and annealed at different temperatures ranging from 548 K (275 °C) to 673 K (400 °C). The warm-rolled material showed much stronger and sharper cube texture as compared to the cold-rolled material after different annealing treatments. However, prior recovery treatments at 473 K (200 °C) significantly diminished the strength of the cube texture in the warm-rolled material after annealing. In contrast, the strength of the cube component after annealing in the cold-rolled material was not significantly affected by the prior recovery treatments. The observed differences could be adequately explained by the preferential recovery and nucleation behavior of cube grains in different treated conditions.

Evolution of cube texture after annealing was investigated in severely cold and warm-rolled Al–2.5 wt.%Mg alloy without and with prior recovery treatments. The alloy was cold and warm-rolled at room temperature and at 473 K (200 °C), respectively, to 97% reduction in thickness and annealed at different temperatures ranging from 548 K (275 °C) to 673 K (400 °C). The warm-rolled material showed much stronger and sharper cube texture as compared to the cold-rolled material after different annealing treatments. However, prior recovery treatments at 473 K (200 °C) significantly diminished the strength of the cube texture in the warm-rolled material after annealing. In contrast, the strength of the cube component after annealing in the cold-rolled material was not significantly affected by the prior recovery treatments. The observed differences could be adequately explained by the preferential recovery and nucleation behavior of cube grains in different treated conditions.

Evolution of cube texture after annealing was investigated in severely cold and warm-rolled Al–2.5 wt.%Mg alloy without and with prior recovery treatments. The alloy was cold and warm-rolled at room temperature and at 473 K (200 °C), respectively, to 97% reduction in thickness and annealed at different temperatures ranging from 548 K (275 °C) to 673 K (400 °C). The warm-rolled material showed much stronger and sharper cube texture as compared to the cold-rolled material after different annealing treatments. However, prior recovery treatments at 473 K (200 °C) significantly diminished the strength of the cube texture in the warm-rolled material after annealing. In contrast, the strength of the cube component after annealing in the cold-rolled material was not significantly affected by the prior recovery treatments. The observed differences could be adequately explained by the preferential recovery and nucleation behavior of cube grains in different treated conditions.

Evolution of cube texture after annealing was investigated in severely cold and warm-rolled Al–2.5 wt.%Mg alloy without and with prior recovery treatments. The alloy was cold and warm-rolled at room temperature and at 473 K (200 °C), respectively, to 97% reduction in thickness and annealed at different temperatures ranging from 548 K (275 °C) to 673 K (400 °C). The warm-rolled material showed much stronger and sharper cube texture as compared to the cold-rolled material after different annealing treatments. However, prior recovery treatments at 473 K (200 °C) significantly diminished the strength of the cube texture in the warm-rolled material after annealing. In contrast, the strength of the cube component after annealing in the cold-rolled material was not significantly affected by the prior recovery treatments. The observed differences could be adequately explained by the preferential recovery and nucleation behavior of cube grains in different treated conditions.

Studio sull'evoluzione della nozione di pubblica amministrazione