4.8 Review

Deformation twinning in nanocrystalline materials

期刊

PROGRESS IN MATERIALS SCIENCE
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 1-62

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2011.05.001

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Army Research Office [W911NF-09-1-0427, W911QX-08-C-0083]
  2. Australian Research Council [DP0772880]
  3. NSFC [11072243, 11021262]
  4. MOST [2010CB631004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanocrystalline (nc) materials can be defined as solids with grain sizes in the range of 1-100 nm. Contrary to coarse-grained metals, which become more difficult to twin with decreasing grain size, nanocrystalline face-centered-cubic (fcc) metals become easier 10 twin with decreasing grain size, reaching a maximum twinning probability, and then become more difficult to twin when the grain size decreases further, i.e. exhibiting an inverse grain-size effect on twinning. Molecular dynamics simulations and experimental observations have revealed that the mechanisms of deformation twinning in nanocrystalline metals are different from those in their coarse-grained counterparts. Consequently, there are several types of deformation twins that are observed in nanocrystalline materials, but not in coarse-grained metals. It has also been reported that deformation twinning can be utilized to enhance the strength and ductility of nanocrystalline materials. This paper reviews all aspects of deformation twinning in nanocrystalline metals, including deformation twins observed by molecular dynamics simulations and experiments, twinning mechanisms, factors affecting the twinning, analytical models on the nucleation and growth of deformation twins, interactions between twins and dislocations, and the effects of twins on mechanical and other properties. It is the authors' intention for this review paper to serve not only as a valuable reference for researchers in the field of nanocrystalline metals and alloys, but also as a textbook for the education of graduate students. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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