Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:52:14.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Crystallographic Orientation of the Crack Plane and Crack Front on the Fracture of Tungsten Single Crystals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2012

V. Glebovsky ,
H. Fishmeister ,
J. Riedle ,
V. Semenov  and
P. Gumbsch
V. Glebovsky
Affiliation:
Institute of Solid State Physics, Chernogolovka, Russia
H. Fishmeister
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institute fuer Metallforschung, Stuttgart, Germany
J. Riedle
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institute fuer Metallforschung, Stuttgart, Germany
V. Semenov
Affiliation:
Institute of Solid State Physics, Chernogolovka, Russia
P. Gumbsch
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institute fuer Metallforschung, Stuttgart, Germany
Get access

Abstract

For fracture studies on oriented W monocrystalline specimens it is necessary to produce very sharp, stopped precracks, which presents difficulties in the case of W. The experimental procedure and technique to produce precracks is described. The fracture experiments gave strong indications for a preference of the {100} plane as cleavage plane. It was found that the {110} planes successfully resist crack propagation, although they are the planes with the lowest surface energy. The appearance of the {121} plane as a cleavage plane in our experiments makes further studies with oriented W monocrystalline samples necessary.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 367: Symposium P – Fractal Aspects of Materials , 1994 , 141
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

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

1. Griffith, A.A., Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 221, 163 (1921).Google Scholar
2. Acklund, G.J. and Finnis, M.W., Phil. Mag. A, 54, 301 (1986).Google Scholar
3. Hull, D., Beardmore, P. and Valentine, A.P., Phil. Mag. A, 12, 1021 (1965).Google Scholar
4. Glebovsky, V.G., Semenov, V.N. and Lomeyko, V.V., J. Crystal Growth 87, 142 (1988).Google Scholar
5. Glebovsky, V.G., Semenov, V.N. and Lomeyko, V.V., J. Less-Common Metals 117, 385 (1986).Google Scholar
6. Glebovsky, V.G., Shipilevsky, B.M., Kapchenko, I.V. and Kireyko, V.V., J. Alloys & Compounds 184 297 (1992).Google Scholar
7. Glebovsky, V.G., Kapchenko, I.V. and Shipilevsky, B.M., J. Alloys & Compounds 184, 305 (1992).Google Scholar
8. Feddern, G. and Macherauch, E., Zeitschrif. f. Metallkde. 64, 882 (1973).Google Scholar
9. Kohlhoff, S., Gumbsch, P. and Fischmeister, H.F., Phil. Mag. A, 64, 851 (1991).Google Scholar
10. Riedle, J., Wulff, J. and Schmauder, S., Engng. Fract. Mech., (1994) submitted.Google Scholar
11. Eriksson, K., Scand. J. Metallurgy 4, 182 (1975).Google Scholar
12. Miihkinen, V.T.T. and Pietikainen, J., Mat. Sci. Engng. 78, 45 (1986).Google Scholar
13. Diez, R., Hindenlang, U. and Kurz, A., “LARSTRAN 80 Documentation”, Lasso Engineering Association, Stuttgart (1988).Google Scholar