Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:29:58.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dislocation emission criterion: Grain boundary effect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Sham-Tsong Shiue ,
Tong-Yi Zhang  and
Sanboh Lee
Sham-Tsong Shiue
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, Republic of China
Tong-Yi Zhang
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Sanboh Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, National Tsing Hua University, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan, Republic of China
Get access

Abstract

Based on the results of Shiue and Lee [J. Appl. Phys. 70, 2947 (1991)], the effect of plastic zone and grain boundary on the dislocation emission criterion was investigated. The emission criterion is based on the concept of spontaneous emission. The critical stress intensity factor for dislocation emission increases with the increasing size of dislocation-free zone and the number of piled-up dislocations in the plastic zone, but decreases with increasing grain size. The ductile versus brittle behavior of material was determined by the competition of critical stress intensity factors for dislocation emission and crack propagation. A material with larger grain size is easier to emit dislocation and allows more dislocations to be piled up, so that it behaves more ductile.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 8 , Issue 8 , August 1993 , pp. 1853 - 1857
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Shiue, S.T. and Lee, S., J. Appl. Phys. 70, 2947 (1991).Google Scholar
2Armstrong, R.W., J. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1, 251 (1966).Google Scholar
3Kelly, A., Tyson, W.R., and Cottrell, A.H., Philos. Mag. 15, 567 (1967).Google Scholar
4Bilby, B.A., Cottrell, A.H., and Swinden, K.H., Proc. R. Soc. London A 272, 304 (1963).Google Scholar
5Rice, J.R. and Thomson, R., Philos. Mag. 29, 73 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Majumdar, B.S. and Burns, S.J., Acta Metall. 29, 578 (1981); Int. J. Fracture 21, 229 (1983).Google Scholar
7Chang, S.J. and Ohr, S.M., J. Appl. Phys. 52, 7174 (1981); J. Appl. Phys. 53, 5645 (1982); Int. J. Fracture 23, R3 (1983).Google Scholar
8Dai, S.H. and Li, J.C.M., Scripta Metall. 16, 183 (1982).Google Scholar
9Ohr, S. M., J. Mater. Sci. Eng. 72, 1 (1985).Google Scholar
10Rice, J. R., J. Mech. Phys. Solids 40, 239 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Schoeck, G., Philos. Mag. 63, 111 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Brock, L. M., Int. J. Eng. Sci. 27, 1479 (1989).Google Scholar
13Zhou, S.J. and Thomson, R., J. Mater. Res. 6, 639 (1991).Google Scholar
14Zhang, T.Y., Z. Metallk. 81, 63 (1990).Google Scholar
15Shiue, S.T. and Lee, S., Philos. Mag. 61, 85 (1990).Google Scholar
16Byrd, P. F. and Friedman, M. D., Handbook of Elliptic Integrals for Engineers and Physicists (Springer, Berlin, 1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar