4.5 Review

A Review of Fatigue Behavior in Nanocrystalline Metals

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL MECHANICS
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 5-23

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11340-009-9301-2

关键词

Fatigue; Nanocrystalline; Alloy; Ultra-fine grained; Failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanocrystalline metals have been shown to exhibit unique mechanical behavior, including break-down in Hall-Petch behavior, suppression of dislocation-mediated plasticity, induction of grain boundary sliding, and induction of mechanical grain coarsening. Early research on the fatigue behavior of nanocrystalline metals shows evidence of improved fatigue resistance compared to traditional microcrystalline metals. In this review, experimental and modeling observations are used to evaluate aspects of cyclic plasticity, microstructural stability, crack initiation processes, and crack propagation processes. In cyclic plasticity studies to date, nanocrystalline metals have exhibited strongly rate-dependent cyclic hardening, suggesting the importance of diffusive deformation mechanisms such as grain-boundary sliding. The cyclic deformation processes have also been shown to cause substantial mechanically-induced grain coarsening reminiscent of coarsening observed during large-strain monotonic deformation of nanocrystalline metals. The crack-initiation process in nanocrystalline metals has been associated with both subsurface internal defects and surface extrusions, although it is unclear how these extrusions form when the grain size is below the scale necessary for persistent slip band formation. Finally, as expected, nanocrystalline metals have very little resistance to crack propagation due to limited plasticity and the lack of crack path tortuosity among other factors. Nevertheless, like bulk metallic glasses, nanocrystalline metals exhibit both ductile fatigue striations and metal-like Paris-law behavior. The review provides both a comprehensive critical survey of existing literature and a summary of key areas for further investigation.

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

4.5
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