Determination of composition, residual stress and stacking fault depth profiles in expanded austenite with energy-dispersive diffraction

Abstract

A methodology is proposed combining the scattering vector method with energy dispersive diffraction for the non-destructive determination of stress- and composition-depth profiles. The advantage of the present method is a relatively short measurement time and avoidance of tedious sublayer removal; the disadvantage as compared to destructive methods is that depth profiles can only be obtained for depth shallower than half the layer thickness. The proposed method is applied to an expanded austenite layer on stainless steel and al- lows the separation of stress, composition and stacking fault density gradients.International audienceA methodology is proposed combining the scattering vector method with energy dispersive diffraction for the non-destructive determination of stress- and composition-depth profiles. The advantage of the present method is a relatively short measurement time and avoidance of tedious sublayer removal; the disadvantage as compared to destructive methods is that depth profiles can only be obtained for depth shallower than half the layer thickness. The proposed method is applied to an expanded austenite layer on stainless steel and al- lows the separation of stress, composition and stacking fault density gradients

Effects of laser shock peening on microstructure and residual stress evolution in Ti–45Al–2Cr–2Nb–0.2B alloy

“…7 more diffraction profiles can be added from the 2D image collected at χ = 35°by integrated from the same 2θ range and γ angle range from −7.5°to 27.5°over △γ = 5°. Thereby, a total of 18 diffraction profiles allow the Rietveld pattern fitting at γ angle range up to 90°for every sample [25][26][27][28].…”

New Developments of Multireflection Grazing Incidence Diffraction

“…austenitic steels). In this case the magnitude of the displacement depends on the probability of finding the stacking fault and on the reflection hkl used in the experiment [11]. In the absence of the second order incompatibility stresses it can be written [8]:…”

Determination of Stress Profiles in Expanded Austenite by Combining Successive Layer Removal and GI-XRD

“…Depth-resolved quantification of composition-induced stress profiles in expanded austenite with X-ray diffraction techniques is far from trivial, as in addition to a stress gradient, also gradients in composition and stacking-fault density affect the lattice spacing [7][8][9][10]. Both destructive and nondestructive measurement strategies and data correction procedures have been published in the latter years to unravel the contributions of stress, composition and stacking fault gradients on lattice spacing profiles in this system [7,9,10].…”

“…Both destructive and nondestructive measurement strategies and data correction procedures have been published in the latter years to unravel the contributions of stress, composition and stacking fault gradients on lattice spacing profiles in this system [7,9,10].…”

“…4 both the stress values and the strain-free lattice parameter can be obtained for each removal step, provided that the XECs are known [12]. The results obtained with the XECs previously applied [3,6,10] and based on the single crystal elastic constants of austenitic stainless and the Kröner-Eshelby GIM are shown in Figures 5 and 6.…”