PSI - Issue 41

S.V. Uvarov et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 41 (2022) 610–617 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

614

5

differences within the sample. This means that the scatter of the experimental microhardness data is random and reflects a slight inhomogeneity of the material.

Fig. 3. Microstructure of titanium specimens: (a) target with foil, impact zone, unetched, x100; (b) target with foil, impact zone, etched by Oberhofer’s reagent, x100; (c) target without foil, impact zone, unetched, x100; (d) target without foil, impact zone, etched by Oberhofer’s reagent, x100. Similar results were also obtained for vanadium samples (Fig. 7 and 8). It should be noted that the microhardness distribution of vanadium samples is more uniform than that of titanium samples. The results obtained show that the level of microhardness in the impact zone corresponds to the microhardness of the material not subjected to loading. 4. Conclusion Summarizing the results of the study of the microstructure and microhardness distribution of vanadium and titanium samples, we can conclude that the following scenarios are possible: 1. Changes in the material caused by shock-wave action using a laser are insignificant and the analysis methods used are not sensitive enough to detect them. 2. Induced changes are localized in very small volumes of material that did not fall into the investigated area. 3. The exposure regimes studied in the article do not cause significant changes in the structure of the target material.