“…Parallel lines along the length of the samples correspond to the marks of the metalworking process. This process is characterized by a high degree of deformation and preferential orientation of the metal grains (Murty and Charit 2006). Fig.…”
The mechanical properties and good biocompatibility of zirconium and some of its alloys make these materials good candidates for biomedical applications. The attractive in vivo performance of zirconium is mainly due to the presence of a protective oxide layer. In this preliminary study, the surface of pure zirconium modified by anodisation in acidic media at low potentials to enhance its barrier protection given by the oxides and osseointegration. Bare, commercially pure zirconium cylinders were compared to samples anodised at 30 V through electrochemical tests and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). For both conditions, in vivo tests were performed in a rat tibial osteotomy model. The histological features and fluorochrome-labelling changes of newly bone formed around the implants were evaluated on the non-decalcified sections 63 days after surgery. Electrochemical tests and SEM images show that the anodisation treatment increases the barrier effect over the material and the in vivo tests show continuous newly formed bone around the implant with a different amount of osteocytes in their lacunae depending on the region. There was no significant change in bone thickness around either kind of implant but the anodised samples had a significantly higher mineral apposition, suggesting that the anodisation treatment stimulates and assists the osseointegration process. We conclude that anodisation treatment at 30 V can stimulate the implant fixation in a rat model, making zirconium a strong candidate material for permanent implants.
“…Parallel lines along the length of the samples correspond to the marks of the metalworking process. This process is characterized by a high degree of deformation and preferential orientation of the metal grains (Murty and Charit 2006). Fig.…”
The mechanical properties and good biocompatibility of zirconium and some of its alloys make these materials good candidates for biomedical applications. The attractive in vivo performance of zirconium is mainly due to the presence of a protective oxide layer. In this preliminary study, the surface of pure zirconium modified by anodisation in acidic media at low potentials to enhance its barrier protection given by the oxides and osseointegration. Bare, commercially pure zirconium cylinders were compared to samples anodised at 30 V through electrochemical tests and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). For both conditions, in vivo tests were performed in a rat tibial osteotomy model. The histological features and fluorochrome-labelling changes of newly bone formed around the implants were evaluated on the non-decalcified sections 63 days after surgery. Electrochemical tests and SEM images show that the anodisation treatment increases the barrier effect over the material and the in vivo tests show continuous newly formed bone around the implant with a different amount of osteocytes in their lacunae depending on the region. There was no significant change in bone thickness around either kind of implant but the anodised samples had a significantly higher mineral apposition, suggesting that the anodisation treatment stimulates and assists the osseointegration process. We conclude that anodisation treatment at 30 V can stimulate the implant fixation in a rat model, making zirconium a strong candidate material for permanent implants.
“…However, broadening anisotropy does limit the use of DPPA alongside other techniques in quantifying differences in the microstructure in different orientations. These differences are crucial to be able to understand plastic deformation in general, and to verify or otherwise plasticity models, as well as to understand the kinetics of recrystallization [76][77][78] and failure [79,80] of a material.…”
Diffraction peak profile analysis (DPPA) is a valuable method to understand the microstructure and defects present in a crystalline material. Peak broadening anisotropy, where broadening of a diffraction peak doesn't change smoothly with 2θ or d-spacing, is an important aspect of these methods. There are numerous approaches to take to deal with this anisotropy in metal alloys, which can be used to gain information about the dislocation types present in a sample and the amount of planar faults. However, there are problems in determining which method to use and the potential errors that can result. This is particularly the case for hexagonal close packed (HCP) alloys. There is though a distinct advantage of broadening anisotropy in that it provides a unique and potentially valuable way to develop crystal plasticity and work-hardening models. In this work we use several practical examples of the use of DPPA to highlight the issues of broadening anisotropy.
of 31where, D is the crystal size, K Sch is the Scherrer constant (often taken as 0.9 for spherical crystals), g is the reciprocal of the d-spacing of a peak, f m is a function related to the arrangement of dislocations (and represents how the arrangement of groups of dislocations influence their total strain), ρ is the dislocation density and C hkl is the average contrast factor of dislocations in grains that contribute to the hkl diffraction peak. In Equation 1 and other DPPA approaches, C hkl is assumed to be the only term that accounts for broadening anisotropy and its value is required to be able to obtain the dislocation density.TEM to be able to identify details of dislocations [15,16], especially in cases when g.b=0 does not lead to vanishing contrast or due to practicalities of rotating a sample. In the same manner, the diffraction broadening caused by a dislocation varies depending on the diffraction vector, and can be calculated by modelling the dislocation's displacement field. The contribution of a dislocation's displacement field to the broadening of different diffraction profiles is through what is known as the contrast (or orientation) factor of dislocations. The contrast factor of an individual dislocation is dependent on the angles between the diffraction vector and the vectors that define the dislocation: it's Burgers vector (b), slip plane normal (n), and dislocation line (s). The contrast factor of an individual dislocation can be calculated using the computer program ANIZC [17]. For example, the edge dislocation in Figure 2 has a contrast factor of 0.46 when g is [110] and parallel to the dislocations Burgers vector. The value is 0.00 when g is parallel to the slip line ([11 2]) and 0.05 when g is parallel to the slip plane normal ([1 11]).
“…The volume is compressed in the normal direction (ND), extended in the rolling direction (RD) and constrained from deforming in the transverse direction (TD). The velocity gradient tensor associated with PSC is: (Jiang et al, 2008;Jiang et al, 2007;Linga Murty and Charit, 2006;Philippe, 1994;Philippe et al, 1995;Zhu et al, 2005). Using the initial texture as input, these deformation textures have been successfully predicted using both mean-field polycrystal plasticity models (Knezevic et al, 2014e) as well as the crystal plasticity finite element model used here (Ardeljan et al, 2014a).…”
Section: A C C E P T E D Accepted Manuscriptmentioning
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.
