| Literature DB >> 32714729 |
Hosni Idrissi1,2, Vahid Samaee2, Gunnar Lumbeeck2, Thomas van der Werf1,2, Thomas Pardoen1, Dominique Schryvers2, Patrick Cordier3,4.
Abstract
The determination of the mechanical properties of serpentinites is essential toward the understanding of the mechanics of faulting and subduction. Here we present the first in situ tensile tests on antigorite in a transmission electron microscope. A push-to-pull deformation device is used to perform quantitative tensile tests, during which force and displacement are measured, while the evolving microstructure is imaged with the microscope. The experiments have been performed at room temperature on 2 × 1 × 0.2 μm3 beams prepared by focused ion beam. The specimens are not single crystals despite their small sizes. Orientation mapping indicated that several grains were well oriented for plastic slip. However, no dislocation activity has been observed even though the engineering tensile stress went up to 700 MPa. We show also that antigorite does not exhibit a purely elastic-brittle behavior since, despite the presence of defects, the specimens accumulate permanent deformation and did not fail within the elastic regime. Instead, we observe that strain localizes at grain boundaries. All observations concur to show that under these experimental conditions, grain boundary sliding is the dominant deformation mechanism. This study sheds a new light on the mechanical properties of antigorite and calls for further studies on the structure and properties of grain boundaries in antigorite and more generally in phyllosilicates. ©2020. The Authors.Entities:
Keywords: antigorite; grain boundary sliding; nanomechanical testing; rheology; transmission electron microscopy
Year: 2020 PMID: 32714729 PMCID: PMC7375155 DOI: 10.1029/2019JB018383
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Geophys Res Solid Earth ISSN: 2169-9313 Impact factor: 3.848
Figure 1In situ TEM nanomechanical testing (a) optical image of the PTP device used for quantitative in situ TEM tensile experiments. The compression, with the diamond flat puncher indenter, of the semicircular end on the left opens the middle gap shown in (b) and (c), inducing uniaxial tension in the test specimen; (b) scanning electron microscope (SEM) image showing the transfer of a FIB‐prepared specimen onto the PTP device; (c) SEM image showing the specimen mounted in the middle gap using electron beam‐deposited platinum (Pt); (d) SEM measurements of the cross‐sectional area of the tensile test specimen after fracture. Two antigorite samples (Ant624‐10 and AntCu65) have been used to prepare the in situ TEM specimens; see section 2 for more details.
Figure 2Ant624‐10‐01 experiment. (a) Specimen mounted on the PTP device before deformation. White arrowheads indicate nanoscale planar defects. Two dislocations named D1 and D2 are indicated by white arrows. (b) Orientation map (210 × 370 pixels) obtained in the area delimited by the red rectangle in (a); inverse pole figure (IPF) along the direction normal to the figure plane. Low‐angle (<15°) grain boundaries are drawn with red lines; high‐angle grain boundaries are drawn with black lines. (c) Specimen after fracture in Cycle 5 in (e). (d) Schmid factors for the [100](001), [010](001), , and slip systems. (e) Engineering stress‐strain curves corresponding to the successive five deformation cycles applied until fracture (always drawn with starting deformation set to 0).
Elastic Properties of Antigorite Determined by the In Situ PTP Experiments
| Specimen | Apparent Young | Apparent Poisson ratio |
|---|---|---|
| Ant624‐10‐01 | 42.5 | 0.20 |
| AntCU65‐01 | 19.8 | 0.22 |
| Ant624‐10‐02 | 30.6 | 0.21 |
Figure 3In situ tensile test on the AntCU65‐01 specimen. (a) TEM micrograph of the specimen before deformation. (b) Orientation map (270 × 460 pixels) obtained in the area delimited by the red rectangle in (a); IPF along the direction normal to the figure plane. Low‐angle (<15°) grain boundaries are drawn with red lines; high‐angle grain boundaries are drawn with black lines. (c) Area delimited by black square in (a) before sliding at 225 MPa in Cycle 5 in (f). Note the bright contrast at the grain boundary indicated by GB when compared to (a). (d) Same area after fracture at GB. (e) Schmid factors for the [100](001), [010](001), and slip systems. (f) Engineering stress‐strain curves for the successive six deformation cycles applied until fracture.
Figure 4In situ tensile test on the Ant624‐10‐02 specimen showing the effect of loading rate on the tensile response. (a) Engineering stress‐strain curves for the successive 11 deformation cycles applied until fracture. Changes of loading rate (alternating from 1 to 5 μN/s) are presented in the lower right inset. “S” and “F” refer to cycles with “slow” and “fast” loading rates, respectively. (b) BF‐TEM image of the specimen mounted on the PTP device before deformation. Preexisting damages at GBs are indicated by white arrows.
Figure 5(a–f) In situ tensile test on the Ant624‐10‐02 specimen. Snapshots from the in situ TEM movie during deformation cycles in Figure 4a. Sliding GBs are indicated by white arrowheads.
Figure 6Evolution with increasing deformation of the transmitted beam intensity across the grain boundary GBF (white line at GBF in Figure 5a) at which failure ultimately occurred in specimen Ant624‐10‐02. The curves (a to f) refer to the corresponding snapshots in Figures 5a–5f. The gradual increase of the maximum intensity in the graph can be explained by the grain boundary sliding mechanism as shown in the right inset. Indeed, the interaction area (delimited by the red squares) between the parallel electron beam (black vertical parallel dash lines) and the GB gradually decreases with increasing deformation leading to a gradual increase of the maximum intensity transmitted at the GB. The maximum intensity shown by Curve f belongs to the transmitted beam without the presence of the sample, hence after fracture opening (Figure 5f).