Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:40:49.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Slip Transfer Across Interphase Boundaries in Directionally Solidified β+(γ+γ') Ni-Fe-Al Alloys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

A. Misra
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109–2136.
R. Gibala
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109–2136.
Get access

Abstract

The low ductility and toughness of β-NiAl alloys near room temperature pose major problems in their potential application as structural materials. The inability of the material to generate and move a sufficient density of dislocations at applied stresses below the fracture stress is the major cause for this inherent brittleness. A directionally solidified β+(γ+γ') composite of nominal composition Ni50Fe30Al20 (at.%) has been used to investigate the effect of interphase boundaries on the mechanical behavior of β phase. The composite exhibits 10% tensile elongation to fracture at room temperature. Observation of slip traces and dislocation substructures shows that the normally brittle β phase undergoes extensive plastic deformation afforded by slip transfer from the plastically soft (γ+γ') phase mixture across the semi-coherent β/(γ+γ') interface. The effect of the orientation relationship between the two phases and the interface strength on the transfer of slip across the interphase boundary is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

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

1. Werner, E. and Stuwe, H.P., Mat. Sci. Engg., 68, 175 (19841965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Hingwe, A.K. and Subramanian, K.N., J. Mater. Sci., 10, 183 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Shen, Z., Wagoner, R.H. and Clark, W.A.T.. Acta. Met., 36, 3231 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Lee, T.C., Robertson, I.M. and Birnbaum, H.K., Met. Trans., 21 A, 2293 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Ashby, M.F., in Strengthening Methods in Crystals, edited by Kelly, A. and Nicholson, R.B. (Wiley. New York, 1971), p. 137.Google Scholar
6. Funkenbusch, P.D. and Courtney, T.H., Acta. Met., 33, 913 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Sethi, V.K. and Gibala, R., Acta. Met., 25, 321 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Noebe, R.D. and Gibala, R., Scripta Met., 20, 1635 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Larsen, M., Misra, A., Hartfleld-Wunsch, S., Noebe, R.D. and Gibala, R., in Intermetallic Matrix Composites. edited by Anton, D.L. et al (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 194, Pitttsburgh, PA 1990) p. 191.Google Scholar
10. Ecob, R.C. and Ralph, B., Acta. Met, 29, 1037 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Huang, S.C., Field, R.D. and Krueger, D.D., Met. Trans., 21, 959 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar