Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T07:16:56.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Interfaces in the Room Temperature Mechanical Behavior of Directionally Solidified β+ γ- Ni70Al30 and β+ (γ+γ)- Ni50Fe30Al20 Alloys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1992

A. Misra ,
R.D. Noebe  and
R. Gibala
A. Misra
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2136
R.D. Noebe
Affiliation:
NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH 44135.
R. Gibala
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2136
Get access

Abstract

We have shown previously that directionally solidified β+γ-Ni70Al30 and β+(γ+γ)-Ni50Fe30Al20 alloys with quasi-lamellar microstructures exhibit up to 10% tensile ductility at 300 K. The ductility enhancement was partly attributed to a slip transfer mechanism which is favored by the Kurdjumov-Sachs orientation relationship and strong interphase interface that shows no debonding. The slip systems in the β phase were of the type {110}<001> even though the loading axis was parallel to the <001> growth direction in β. In the present investigation, an electron microscopy study of the β / γ and β / (γ + γ) interfaces has been conducted to understand the interfacial structure and its relation to room temperature mechanical properties. Furthermore, the stress concentration at the interface is treated analytically to understand how {110}<001> slip occurs in the β phase, even though the loading axis is along <001>.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 288: Symposium L – High-Temperature Ordered Intermetallic Alloys V , 1992 , 483
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

REFERENCES

1. Ashby, M.F., Blunt, F.J. and Bannister, M., Acta Met., 39, 2575 (1991).Google Scholar
2. Noebe, R.D., Misra, A. and Gibala, R., ISIJ International, 31, 1172 (1991).Google Scholar
3. Misra, A., Noebe, R.D. and Gibala, R., in Intermetallic Matrix Composites II, ed. by Miracle, D.B., Anton, D.L. and Graves, J.A. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 273, Pittsburgh, PA 1992) pp. 205–210. Google Scholar
4. van der Merwe, J.H., Shiflet, G.J. and Stoop, P.M., Met. Trans., 22A, 1165 (1991).Google Scholar
5. Rigsbee, J. M. and Aaronson, H.I., Acta Met., 27, 351 (1979).Google Scholar
6. Shiflet, G. J., in Structure and Properties of Interfaces in Materials, ed. by Clark, W.A.T., Dahmen, U. and Briant, C.L. (Mater.Res.Soc.Proc. 238, Pittsburgh, PA 1992) pp. 53–63.Google Scholar
7.CryatalKit, Software by Kilaas, Roar, Total Resolution, Berkeley,CA.Google Scholar
8. Zhou, D.S. and Shiflet, G.J., Met. Trans., 22A, 1349 (1991).Google Scholar
9. Noebe, R.D. and Gibala, R., Scripta Met., 20, 1635 (1986).Google Scholar
10. Miracle, D.B., Acta Met., 39, 1457 (1991).Google Scholar
11. Livingston, J.D. and Chalmers, B., Acta Met., 5, 322 (1957).Google Scholar
12. Shen, Z., Wagoner, R.H. and Clark, W. A. T., Scripta Met., 20, 921 (1986).Google Scholar
13. Chou, Y. T., Acta Met., 13, 779 (1965).Google Scholar