1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Formation and evolution of craters in carbon steels during low-energy high-current pulsed electron-beam treatment
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1116/1.3207948
/content/avs/journal/jvsta/27/5/10.1116/1.3207948
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/avs/journal/jvsta/27/5/10.1116/1.3207948

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Optical micrographs of the untreated (a) 45#, (b) T8, and (c) T10 steel samples.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Optical micrographs taken on the LEHCPEB-treated T8 samples with (a) 5, (b) 10, and (c) 25 pulses.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Typical surface micrographs of the LEHCPEB-treated T8 steel samples: (a) OM, 5 pulses, (b) SEM, 5 pulses, (c) OM, 25 pulses, and (d) SEM, 25 pulses.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Evolution of crater density with the number of pulses on the LEHCPEB-treated carbon steels.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Crater size distributions of the LEHCPEB-treated T8 samples with (a) 5, (b) 10, and (c) 25, pulses.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Laser three-dimensional images taken on the surface of T8 samples treated by LEHCPEB with (a) 5 and (b) 25 pulses.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Evolution of surface roughness vs number of pulses for 45#, T8, and T10 steel samples.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Typical optical cross-sectional micrographs of the treated samples (etched in 4% alcohol solution): (a) 45#-1, (b) 45#-3, and (c) T8-1. The melted layer is “white” because it is weakly etchable (Ref. 6 ) and the heat-affected zone shows a dark color.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Measured melted layer depth of the three kinds of steel under different LEHCPEB numbers of pulses.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Calculated temperature profile (a) and melting procedure [(b) and (c)] of 45# sample treated by LEHCPEB with one pulse, energy density being about .

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Schematic illustration of (a) formation of a pool of melt in the subsurface layer and (b) eruption, formation of a crater and removal of the melted layer. (c) Cross-sectional OM image of the 45# sample after ten pulses, showing the funnel-like crater morphology.

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

Schematic illustration of melted layer depth and electron-beam energy deposition in steels when the melted layer is thin (a) and when the melted layer is thick (b).

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

LEHCPEB treatment parameters for the three kinds of carbon steels.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Evolution of values vs number of pulses for all the treated samples.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Evolution of average crater depth vs number of pulses for all the treated samples.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Evolution of melted layer depth vs number of pulses for all the treated samples.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/avs/journal/jvsta/27/5/10.1116/1.3207948
2009-08-25
2014-04-17
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Formation and evolution of craters in carbon steels during low-energy high-current pulsed electron-beam treatment
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/avs/journal/jvsta/27/5/10.1116/1.3207948
10.1116/1.3207948
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM