A new model for evaluating the diffraction elastic constants of WC-Co

Liu, Li; Chen, Qiang; Zhu, Changjun; Chen, Kanghua

doi:10.1080/02670836.2019.1705047

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 36 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, for quick or quality control measurements, the X-ray elastic constants S hkl 1 and S hkl 2 can be assigned values picked from a handbook or computed using a simplified micromechanics model-such as the Reuss, Voigt, or Kröner model [9]. For accurate measurements, the X-ray elastic constants S hkl 1 and 1 2 S hkl 2 should be determined experimentally [10], for example, by following the procedure detailed in ASTM-E1426-14 [11]. The reason why standards recommend using experimentally determined values is that the X-ray elastic constants depend on the microstructure of the material and can vary from one specimen to the next, or even between regions of a specimen [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Simple Calibration Method to Consider Plastic Deformation Influence on X-ray Elastic Constant Based on Peak Width Variation

Gautier,

Faucheux,

Levieil

et al. 2024

Metals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sin²⁡ψ method is the general method for analyzing X-ray diffraction stress measurements. This method relies on the estimation of a parameter known as 12S2hkl, which is generally considered as a material constant. However, various studies have shown that this parameter can be affected by plastic deformation leading to proportional uncertainties in the estimation of stresses. In this paper, in situ X-ray diffraction measurements are performed during a tensile test with unloads on a low-carbon high-strength steel. The calibrated 12S2hkl parameter varies from 3.5×10−6 MPa−1 to 5.5 ×10−6 Mpa−1, depending on the surface condition and on the plastic strain state, leading to a maximum error on the stress level of 40% compared to reference handbook values. The results also show that plastic strain is responsible for 6 to 14% of the variation, depending on the initial surface sample condition. A method is then proposed to correct this variation based on the fit of the 12S2hkl evolution with respect to the peak diffraction width, the latter being an indication of the plasticity state. It is shown that the proposed methodology improves the applied stress increment prediction, although the absolute stress value still depends on pseudo-macrostresses that also vary with plastic strain.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%