4.7 Article

Ultra-high strength and plasticity mediated by partial dislocations and defect networks: Part I: Texture effect

期刊

ACTA MATERIALIA
卷 185, 期 -, 页码 181-192

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2019.11.049

关键词

Multilayers; Twin boundaries; Stacking faults; Phase transformation; Molecular dynamic simulations

资金

  1. NSF [DMR 1642759]
  2. NSFDMR [1508484]
  3. DOE-OBES [DE-SC0016337]
  4. U.S. Office of Naval Research [N00014-17-1-2087]
  5. Core facility for Advanced Computing and Data Science at the University of Houston
  6. Division Of Materials Research
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1508484] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deformation mechanisms governing the strength of nanostructured metallic multilayers have been studied extensively. In general, size effect is the most effective way to tailor the mechanical strength of multilayers. Here we report that three Cu/Co multilayer systems with identical layer thickness but different types of layer interfaces exhibit drastically different mechanical behavior. In situ micropillar compression tests inside a scanning electron microscope show that coherent FCC (100) and (110) Cu/Co multilayer systems have low yield strength of about 600 MPa, and prominent shear instability. In contrast, the incoherent Cu/ HCP Co multilayers show much greater yield strength, exceeding 2.4 GPa, and significant plasticity manifested by a cap on the deformed pillar. Molecular dynamics simulations reveal an unexpected interplay among pre-existing twin boundaries in Cu, stacking faults in HCP Co, and incoherent layer interfaces, which leads to partial dislocation dominated high strength and outstanding plasticity. This study provides fresh insights for the design of strong, deformable nanocomposites by using a defect network consisting of twin boundaries, stacking faults and layer interfaces. (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