| Literature DB >> 24637714 |
E-Wen Huang1, Junwei Qiao2, Bartlomiej Winiarski3, Wen-Jay Lee4, Mario Scheel5, Chih-Pin Chuang6, Peter K Liaw6, Yu-Chieh Lo7, Yong Zhang8, Marco Di Michiel5.
Abstract
In-situ synchrotron x-ray experiments have been used to follow the evolution of the diffraction peaks for crystalline dendrites embedded in a bulk metallic glass matrix subjected to a compressive loading-unloading cycle. We observe irreversible diffraction-peak splitting even though the load does not go beyond half of the bulk yield strength. The chemical analysis coupled with the transmission electron microscopy mapping suggests that the observed peak splitting originates from the chemical heterogeneity between the core (major peak) and the stiffer shell (minor peak) of the dendrites. A molecular dynamics model has been developed to compare the hkl-dependent microyielding of the bulk metallic-glass matrix composite. The complementary diffraction measurements and the simulation results suggest that the interface, as Maxwell damper, between the amorphous matrix and the (211) crystalline planes relax under prolonged load that causes a delay in the reload curve which ultimately catches up with the original path.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24637714 PMCID: PMC3957129 DOI: 10.1038/srep04394
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(a) The undeformed (Pt 1), the compressed (Pt 2), and the unloaded states (Pt 3) at which the diffraction measurements were made alongside the stress-strain compression curve. (b) The evolution (shown vertically) of the diffraction profile corresponding to strains in the loading direction upon compression and unloading. (c) The corresponding diffraction line profiles for Pt 1, Pt 2, and Pt 3. (d) A comparison of the (110) peak before (black) and during (red) compression with the split peaks labelled “” and “”. (e) The retention of the peak splitting upon unloading.
Figure 2Diffraction peak evolution (expressed in lattice strain) for the major peak (M) and the minor peak (m) for loading (filled symbols) and unloading (open symbols) for (a) (110), (b) (200), and (c) (211) and the corresponding changes in peak-widths for (d) (110), (e) (200), and (f) (211).
Figure 3Transmission electron microscopy and the associated chemical-profiling.
(a) TEM micrograph showing the phase boundaries and the line for chemical profiling (b) Line scan from the interior (most left) of the dendrite to the amorphous matrix (most right). (c) The chemical distribution of the major components (Ni, Nb and Zr) of the BMGMC along the scan line alongside corresponding TEM diffraction patterns.
Figure 4The measured loading-unloading responses of (a) the (110) and (b) the (211) shell (minor) diffraction peaks for lattice strain. The simulated compression-unloading loop of the lattice strain experienced stress: (c) before and (d) beyond yielding, respectively.