4.7 Article

On the measurement of dislocations and dislocation substructures using EBSD and HRSD techniques

期刊

ACTA MATERIALIA
卷 175, 期 -, 页码 297-313

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2019.05.036

关键词

Dislocation density; Metal plasticity; Electron back-scatter diffraction (EBSD); High-resolution synchrotron diffraction (HRSD); Peak broadening

资金

  1. DOE Office of Science [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  2. NSERC Discovery Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The accumulation of the dislocations and development of dislocation structures in plastically deformed Ni201 is examined using dedicated analyses of Electron Back-Scatter Diffraction (EBSD) acquired orientation maps, and High-Resolution Synchrotron Diffraction (HRSD) acquired patterns. The results show that the minimum detectable microstructure-averaged (bulk) total dislocation density (rho(T)) measured via HRSD is approximately 1E13 m(-2), while the minimum GND density (rho(G)) measured via EBSD is approximately 2E12 m(-2) - the EBSD technique being more sensitive at low plastic strain. This highlights complementarity of the two techniques when attempting to quantify amount of plastic deformation (damage) in a material via a measurement of present dislocations and their structures. Furthermore, a relationship between EBSD-measured rho(G) and the size of HRSD-measured Coherently Scattering Domains (CSDs) has been mathematically derived - this allows for an estimation of the size of CSDs from EBSD-acquired orientation maps, and conversely an estimation of rho(G) from HRSD-measured size of CSDs. The measured evolution of rho(T), and rho(G) is compared with plasticity theory models - the current results suggest that Ashby's single-slip model underestimates the amount of ONDs (rho(G)), while Taylor's model is correctly predicting the total amount of dislocation (rho(T)) present in the material as a function of imparted plastic strain. (C) 2019 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by 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

4.7
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