“…When compared on a resolved shear stress-shear strain basis, little difference in the magnitude of shock hardening was seen due to grain size or crystallographic orientation in the case of the two single crystals, although cell size was noted to be somewhat smaller in the single crystals. Compared to pure Ni, alloys such as Ni-20 pct Cr and Ni-16 pct Cr-7 pct Fe, were shown to display a greater propensity of deformation twinning, [18] consistent with the reduction of SFE, as discussed previously concerning copper-aluminum alloys. [4][5][6][7] The shock response of complex ordered Ni-based alloys, such as superalloys (i.e., Mar-M200), has been investigated only in terms of their shock response such as the Hugoniot elastic limit (HEL, the yield strength under 1-D strain) and spall (shock-induced tensile) strength.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…An explanation can be postulated from considering the deformation mechanisms operative in each material. In the case of pure Ni, shock-induced deformation has been shown by a number of authors [15,18] to occur via the formation of dislocations that relax into dislocation cells. Although Ni-60Co has not been investigated specifically in terms of its shockinduced microstructure using ''soft'' shock recovery methods, [17] other low-SFE materials such as copperaluminum alloys [4][5][6][7] have been examined in detail, and the importance of an increased incidence of deformation twinning consistent with the reduced SFE suggests itself.…”
The response of pure nickel (Ni), a binary Ni-60 at. pct cobalt (Co) alloy exhibiting a low stacking fault energy (SFE), and the ordered face-centered-cubic (fcc) alloy Ni-24Al-0.01B to shock loading has been studied using the technique of plate impact. Changes in the variation of mechanical properties with shock amplitude and pulse duration have been explained in terms of a shift from dislocation dominated to twin dominated plasticity in the case of the Ni-Co alloy and the increasing effect of brittle failure in the case of Ni 3 Al.
“…When compared on a resolved shear stress-shear strain basis, little difference in the magnitude of shock hardening was seen due to grain size or crystallographic orientation in the case of the two single crystals, although cell size was noted to be somewhat smaller in the single crystals. Compared to pure Ni, alloys such as Ni-20 pct Cr and Ni-16 pct Cr-7 pct Fe, were shown to display a greater propensity of deformation twinning, [18] consistent with the reduction of SFE, as discussed previously concerning copper-aluminum alloys. [4][5][6][7] The shock response of complex ordered Ni-based alloys, such as superalloys (i.e., Mar-M200), has been investigated only in terms of their shock response such as the Hugoniot elastic limit (HEL, the yield strength under 1-D strain) and spall (shock-induced tensile) strength.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…An explanation can be postulated from considering the deformation mechanisms operative in each material. In the case of pure Ni, shock-induced deformation has been shown by a number of authors [15,18] to occur via the formation of dislocations that relax into dislocation cells. Although Ni-60Co has not been investigated specifically in terms of its shockinduced microstructure using ''soft'' shock recovery methods, [17] other low-SFE materials such as copperaluminum alloys [4][5][6][7] have been examined in detail, and the importance of an increased incidence of deformation twinning consistent with the reduced SFE suggests itself.…”
The response of pure nickel (Ni), a binary Ni-60 at. pct cobalt (Co) alloy exhibiting a low stacking fault energy (SFE), and the ordered face-centered-cubic (fcc) alloy Ni-24Al-0.01B to shock loading has been studied using the technique of plate impact. Changes in the variation of mechanical properties with shock amplitude and pulse duration have been explained in terms of a shift from dislocation dominated to twin dominated plasticity in the case of the Ni-Co alloy and the increasing effect of brittle failure in the case of Ni 3 Al.
“…This capability advances the field of medicine with the invention of personalized biomedical devices such as hip replacement implants,134 dental implants,135 ingestible electronics,136–138 and magnetic resonance imaging compatible devices139 that can potentially address significant unmet clinical needs 50,140–142. This also enables the creation of complex 3D geometry for applications in the aerospace143,144 and automotive144 industries, which are otherwise challenging to fabricate and assemble through traditional methods. Further, 3D printing can also be used to augment traditional manufacturing in a hybrid additive‐subtractive six‐axis machining robot, which reduces production time and material cost 145…”
The synergistic integration of nanomaterials with 3D printing technologies can enable the creation of architecture and devices with an unprecedented level of functional integration. In particular, a multiscale 3D printing approach can seamlessly interweave nanomaterials with diverse classes of materials to impart, program, or modulate a wide range of functional properties in an otherwise passive 3D printed object. However, achieving such multiscale integration is challenging as it requires the ability to pattern, organize, or assemble nanomaterials in a 3D printing process. This review highlights the latest advances in the integration of nanomaterials with 3D printing, achieved by leveraging mechanical, electrical, magnetic, optical, or thermal phenomena. Ultimately, it is envisioned that such approaches can enable the creation of multifunctional constructs and devices that cannot be fabricated with conventional manufacturing approaches.
“…Here we must consider the competition between diffusional relaxation mechanisms and the nucleation of new dislocation loops. It has long been recognized that grain boundaries are the principal source for dislocations [34,35]; hence we expect dislocation generation to be relatively easy for particles near grain boundaries and thus produce AE upon melting. It can certainly be argued that not all grain boundaries provide effective sources for dislocation generation and the reader is referred to reference [36].…”
Section: B Cavitation Of Indium Particles Upon Quenching From Elevatmentioning
Acoustic emission is used here to study melting and solidification of embedded indium particles in the size range of 0.2 to 3 µm in diameter and to show that dislocation generation occurs in the aluminum matrix to accommodate a 2.5% volume change. The volume averaged acoustic energy produced by indium particle melting is similar to that reported for bainite formation upon continuous cooling. A mechanism of prismatic loop generation is proposed to accommodate the volume change and an upper limit to the geometrically necessary increase in dislocation density is calculated as 4.1 x 10 9 cm -² for the Al-17In alloy. Thermomechanical processing is also used to change the size and distribution of the indium particles within the aluminum matrix. Dislocation generation with accompanied acoustic emission occurs when the melting indium particles are associated with grain boundaries or upon solidification where the solid-liquid interfaces act as free surfaces to facilitate dislocation generation. Acoustic emission is not observed for indium particles that require super heating and exhibit elevated melting temperatures. The acoustic emission work corroborates previously proposed relaxation mechanisms from prior internal friction studies and that the superheat observed for melting of these micron-sized particles is a result of matrix constraint.
I. INTRODUCTIONRecent study of the aluminum-indium system has shown that equilibrium melting of the indium particles can be detected by acoustic emission (AE) techniques [1]. AE results from rapid energy release that creates elastic pressure waves in a material. According to literature, displacive solid-state transformations generate AE resulting from the shear mechanism of transformation and diffusive transformations normally occur too slowly to generate AE [2]. In steels, martensite [2] and bainite [3] generate AE, but formation of allotriomorphic ferrite or the eutectoid product pearlite does not [2]. Formation of Widmanstätten ferrite has been suggested to also generate AE [3]. Consequently, displacive or martensitic-like solid-state transformations are often distinguished from diffusion controlled phase transformations by the presence of AE [4]. However, liquid-solid transformations are also known to exhibit AE as the solid contracts, i.e. most materials exhibit AE upon solidification but not melting [5]. The exact cause of solidification AE is debated [6], but may be due to frictional noise between solid crystals [7], cluster addition or subtraction from the solid-liquid interface [8], or perhaps casting separation from the mold wall. AE is detected in crystallizing polymers due to cavitation in areas of occluded liquid where shrinkage stresses overwhelm the cohesive strength of the melt and void formation occurs [9].Acoustic emission is also detected during tensile tests for dislocation creation and motion associated with a yield point drop [10] and for void nucleation at nonmetallic inclusions during ductile fracture processes [11]. However, even a small amount of prior cold w...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.