PSI - Issue 79

Volodymyr Hutsaylyuk et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 79 (2026) 501–507

504

Fig. 2. The characteristic engineering stress–strain curves obtained for monotonic and combined loading of Aluminum 2024-T3 specimens.

SEM and TEM examinations revealed clear microstructural transformation associated with the impulse application. Under monotonic tensile loading, the material exhibited a typical lamellar substructure aligned with the loading direction. After combined loading, however, the substructure transformed into a banded pattern, accompanied by local flow channels and signs of dynamic rearrangement of dislocations, confirming activation of additional slip systems. Fracture surface analysis (Figure 3) showed that reference specimens failed through a typical intergranular mechanism with elongated dimples and clear grain boundary separation. In contrast, specimens subjected to combined loading demonstrated partial delamination of bands, intense grain deformation near the surface, and signs of shear localization.

Fig. 3. Fracture surface SEM analysis of 2024-T3 aluminum alloy: a, c, e) after monotonic tension; b, d, f) after combined loading