4.7 Article

Comparison of sub-grain scale digital image correlation calculated using commercial and open-source software packages

期刊

MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION
卷 163, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.matchar.2020.110271

关键词

Plasticity; Slip; Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD); High Resolution Digital Image Correlation (HRDIC); Slip systems; HCP

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council UK (EPSRC) [EP/K034332/1, EP/I005420/1]
  2. Rolls-Royce
  3. EPSRC [EP/K034332/1, EP/I005420/1, EP/P025021/1, EP/S019367/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-resolution strain mapping is an increasingly prominent technique for characterising the deformation behaviour of metals. In this study, HRDIC analysis was performed on materials exhibiting either more or less intense planar slip, using different software packages to highlight any issues that might arise depending on the algorithm that is used to calculate the displacements. The differences between the algorithms were investigated using frequency distributions, strain profiling and Burgers vector direction analysis to determine their significance in terms of any subsequent interpretation of the data. A dilute zirconium alloy showed maximum strain concentrations of <4.5 and similar to previous comparison studies of different software packages on optical images, little difference was observed in the resulting strain maps. However, in a more highly alloyed two-phase titanium alloy with significant planar slip and strain values of up to 20 times the applied strain, one of the algorithms had difficulty tracking the features particularly at low strains when the difference between the strain in a slip trace is markedly higher than that in the neighbouring region. The consequences of inaccurate displacement data around a slip trace region were highlighted by an incorrect prediction of the Burgers vector when using the relative displacement ratio for slip system identification.

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