4.6 Article

Grain Boundary Character Distributions in Nanocrystalline Metals Produced by Different Processing Routes

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11661-015-3274-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation through a CAREER Award [DMR-1255305]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Science and Engineering [SCW0939]
  4. Livermore Graduate Scholar Program at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1255305] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Materials Research [1255305] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanocrystalline materials are defined by their fine grain size, but details of the grain boundary character distribution should also be important. Grain boundary character distributions are reported for ball-milled, sputter-deposited, and electrodeposited Ni and Ni-based alloys, all with average grain sizes of similar to 20 nm, to study the influence of processing route. The two deposited materials had nearly identical grain boundary character distributions, both marked by a Sigma 3 length percentage of 23 to 25 pct. In contrast, the ball-milled material had only 3 pct Sigma 3-type grain boundaries and a large fraction of low-angle boundaries (16 pct), with the remainder being predominantly random high angle (73 pct). These grain boundary character measurements are connected to the physical events that control their respective processing routes. Consequences for material properties are also discussed with a focus on nanocrystalline corrosion. As a whole, the results presented here show that grain boundary character distribution, which has often been overlooked in nanocrystalline metals, can vary significantly and influence material properties in profound ways. (C) The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and ASM International 2015

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据