PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 5, 2026steel research international0 citations

Microstructural Evolution and Springback Mechanism of 304/201/304 Stainless Steel Composite Plate in Single‐Pass Roll Bending

View Full Paper
WZWeiguang ZhouXWXiaocong WangSXSensen Xue

Key Points

  • To investigate the springback mechanism in stainless steel composite plates during roll bending.
  • Conducted finite element simulations of single-pass roll bending on composite plates
  • Performed experiments at forming angles of 15°, 25°, and 45°
  • Characterized microstructural evolution using electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD)
  • Identified phase transformation through X-ray diffraction (XRD) and vibrating sample magnetometry (VSM)
  • Plastic deformation is mainly governed by dislocation slip with no significant martensitic transformation
  • Increased forming angle leads to decreased grain size and increased low-angle grain boundaries
  • Higher geometrically necessary dislocation density and microhardness are found on the outside of the plates
  • Springback shifts from positive at 15° to negative values at larger angles, indicating pronounced effects at greater forming angles

Abstract

Springback in metal composite plates is more complex than that of single metals because of interlayer property differences and interface effects. This study investigates single‐pass V‐shaped roll bending of 304/201/304 stainless steel composite plates at forming angles of 15°, 25°, and 45° through finite element simulation and experiments. Electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) characterizes microstructural evolution to clarify the springback mechanism, while X‐ray diffraction (XRD) and vibrating sample magnetometry (VSM) identify the phase transformation mechanism. Results show that dislocation slip governs plastic deformation, and no significant martensitic transformation occurs. As the forming angle increases, average grain size, 60°/ twin boundaries, and average grain boundary misorientation decrease, whereas low‐angle grain boundaries (LAGBs) increase, indicating intensified deformation. At the same angle, the outside exhibits higher geometrically necessary dislocation (GND) density, greater microhardness, and a larger increase in transverse plastic strain than the inside, confirming more severe deformation and hardening. This imbalance restricts the elastic recovery of the inside during unloading, causing it to experience a reaction force from the outside and undergo slight additional deformation. Consequently, the springback shifts from a positive 0.08° at 15° to negative values of −0.33° at 25° and −1.00° at 45°, becoming increasingly pronounced with larger forming angles.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zhou et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d1fe18a79560c99a0a4a02https://doi.org/10.1002/srin.70463
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Springback Prediction Performance and Experimental Analysis in the V-bending Process of SCGADUB1180 Advanced High-Strength Steel2024 · 3 citations
  2. 2Enhancement of Strength and Ductility in STS304/1050Al/STS304 Composite Plates by Controlling Hot-Rolling Speed2026
  3. 3Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Springback Characteristics in DP450, DP600, DP800, and DP1000 Dual-Phase Steels for Automotive Industry2026
  4. 4Analytical Approach to Investigate the Effects of Through-Thickness Stress on Springback in Bending of Isotropic Sheet Metal2024 · 1 citations
  5. 5Deformation inhomogeneity of the stainless steel/low carbon steel composite2024