4.7 Article

The effect of twin-twin interactions on the nucleation and propagation of {10(1)over-bar2} twinning in magnesium

期刊

ACTA MATERIALIA
卷 61, 期 10, 页码 3549-3563

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2013.02.030

关键词

Deformation twinning; Twin boundary; Slip; EBSD; Twin-twin hardening

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CMMI-1235009, CMMI-1234103, CMMI-1235259]
  2. Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems (CAVS) at Mississippi State University
  3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences
  4. DOE [DE-AC52-06NA25396]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electron backscattered diffraction serial image analyses on AM30 magnesium alloy compressed under profuse {10 (1) over bar2} twinning conditions at different strain levels suggest that twin nucleation and twin propagation rates strongly depend on the number of activated twins in a given grain. This behavior was identified by comparing the twin growth evolution in two grains with roughly the same high Schmid factors for twinning. One grain deformed by a single twin variant, while in the other grain, two intersecting twin variants grew at approximately the same rate. The twin thickening rate was higher in the predominant twinning condition, but the nucleation rate was substantially faster in the two variant twinning condition. The overall volume fraction of twins, however, was approximately the same in both grains, despite the difference in twin microstructure. According to the theory by Christian and Mahajan, there is a higher stress for nucleation than for propagation, and because of the Hall-Petch effect associated with twin segmentation, it is suggested that the grain with two variants should undergo a higher hardening rate than that with a single variant. These observations correspond to some of the most important characteristics of twin twin hardening, which must be addressed in crystal plasticity simulations. (C) 2013 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