Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-29T23:49:17.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Aluminum Grain Boundary Misorientation on Penetration by Gallium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

R. C. Hugo  and
R. G. Hoagland
R. C. Hugo
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164–2920
R. G. Hoagland
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164–2920
Get access

Extract

Materials that undergo intergranular degradation processes, such as Stress Corrosioi Cracking (SCC) or certain types of Liquid Metal Embrittlement (LME), show variations in sus ceptibility with grain boundary character Samples with high fractions of “special” boundaries i.e. highly periodic boundaries with low-S Coincidence Site Lattices (CSL), exhibit higher resis tance to these types of attack[l,2]. Very useful comparisons have been drawn between low periodicity boundaries and high-periodicity boundaries; however, few attempts have been mad to date to explain variations in behavior between various “general” boundaries. The presen study employs the LME of aluminum by liquid gallium in an attempt to elucidate the variation in structure and properties of general grain boundaries.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 492: Symposium S – Microscopic Simulation of Interfacial Phenomena in Solids… , 1997 , 249
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1998

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 Watanabe, T., Mat. Sci Forum 126–128, p. 295 (1993).Google Scholar
2 Aust, K.T., Erb, U. and Palumbo, G., Mat. Sci & Engr. A176, p. 329 (1994).Google Scholar
3 Pond, R.C. and Vitek, V., Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 357, p. 453 (1977).Google Scholar
4 Hugo, R.C. and Hoagland, R.G., Scripta Mat., In press.Google Scholar
5 Thomas, L.E., Hugo, R.C. and Stanley, J.T., Microscopy and Microanalysis 3, supplement 2, p. 1017,(1997).Google Scholar
6 Lange, F.F., Acta Met. 15, 311 (1967).Google Scholar
7 Ercolessi, F. and Adams, J. B., Europhys. Let. 26, p 583 (1994).Google Scholar