4.7 Article

Effect of local stress fields on twin characteristics in HCP metals

期刊

ACTA MATERIALIA
卷 116, 期 -, 页码 143-154

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2016.06.042

关键词

Plasticity; Magnesium; Zirconium; Titanium; Anisotropy

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences (OBES) [FWP-06SCPE401]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the effect of nearest neighboring grains on the propensity for {1012} twin growth in Mg and Zr. Twin lamellae lying within one grain flanked by two neighboring grains with several orientations are considered. The fields of resolved shear stress on the twin system are calculated in the multicrystal using a three-dimensional full-field crystal plasticity Fast Fourier Transform approach. The calculations were carried out for Mg and Zr using slip threshold stresses corresponding to 300 K and 76 K, respectively, where twin activity is important. We show that the neighboring grain constraint tends to oppose further growth and that the critical applied stress needed to overcome this resistance depends on neighboring grain orientation, more strongly in Zr than in Mg. We also present results for a pair of adjacent and parallel twins at various spacings. It is found that their paired interaction increases the resistive forces for twin growth above that for an isolated twin. The critical spacing above which this enhanced resistance is removed is smaller for Zr than Mg. Our analysis reveals that these two disparate responses of Zr and Mg are both a consequence of the fact that Zr is elastically and plastically more anisotropic than Mg. Additional calculations carried out on Ti support this conclusion. These findings can help explain why, for the same grain size, more twins per grain form in Zr than in Mg, twins in Zr tend to be thinner than those in Mg, and the relationship between the thickness of the twin and its Schmid factor in Zr is not as strong as in Mg. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Acta Materialia Inc.

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

4.7
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