Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T04:59:17.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nondestructive evaluation of cavitation in an Al–Mg material deformed under creep conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Eric M. Taleff
Affiliation:
Texas Materials Institute, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712
Teodoro Leon-Salamanca
Affiliation:
Reinhart and Associates, Inc., Suite 173, P.O. Box 9802, Austin, Texas 78766
Richard A. Ketcham
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712
Reuben Reyes
Affiliation:
Aerospace Engineering Learning Resource Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712
William D. Carlson
Affiliation:
Texas Materials Institute and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712
Get access

Extract

Cavitation was examined in an Al–Mg solid-solution alloy deformed in tension at 400 °C under conditions providing solute-drag creep, which can produce tensile ductilities from 100% to over 300%. Two nondestructive evaluation techniques were employed to measure the extent of cavitation: ultra-high-resolution x-ray computed tomography and pulse-echo ultrasonic evaluation. Subsequent to nondestructive evaluation, the sample was sectioned for examination by standard metallographic techniques. Metallographic examination confirmed that both nondestructive techniques accurately indicated the extent of cavitation. Ultrasonic testing provided a practical means of distinguishing material with cavities from that without cavities. Ultrahigh- resolution x-ray computed tomography provided an accurate three-dimensional image of internal cavitation.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

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.Taleff, E.M., Lesuer, D.R., and Wadsworth, J., Metall. Mater. Trans. 27A, 343 (1996).Google Scholar
2.Taleff, E.M., Henshall, G.A., Nieh, T.G., Lesuer, D.R., and Wadsworth, J., Metall. Mater. Trans. 29A, 1081 (1998).Google Scholar
3.Taleff, E.M. and Nevland, P.J., JOM 51, 34 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Ketcham, R.A. and Carlson, W.D., Computers and Geosciences (in press).Google Scholar
5.Withjack, E.M., SPE Formation Evaluation 3, 696 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Wellington, S.L. and Vinegar, H.J., J. Petrol. Technol. 39, 885 (1987).Google Scholar
7.Taleff, E.M., Henshall, G.A., Lesuer, D.R., and Nieh, T.G., in Aluminum Alloys: Their Physical Properties and Mechanical Properties (ICAA4), edited by Sanders, T.H. and Starke, E.A. Jr., (Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 1994), p. 338.Google Scholar
8.Taleff, E.M., Henshall, G.A., Lesuer, D.R., Nieh, T.G., and Wadsworth, J., in Superplasticity and Superplastic Forming, edited by Ghosh, A.K. and Bieler, T.R. (TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1995), p. 3.Google Scholar
9.Taleff, E.M., Henshall, G.A., Lesuer, D.R., Nieh, T.G., and Wadsworth, J., in Aluminum and Magnesium for Automotive Applications, edited by Bryant, J.D. and White, D.R. (TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1995), p. 125.Google Scholar
10.Taleff, E.M., Lesuer, D.R., Syn, C.K., and Henshall, G.A., in Recent Advances in Fracture, edited by Mahidhara, R.K., Geltmacher, A.B., Matic, P., and Sadananda, K. (TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1997), p. 295.Google Scholar
11.Metals Handbook, Desk Edition, edited by Boyer, H.E. and Gall, T.L. (American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1985), p. 36–16.Google Scholar
12.Lian, S. and Suery, M., Mater. Sci. Technol. 2, 1093 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Nieh, T.G., Lesuer, D.R., and Syn, C.K., Mater. Sci. Eng. A202, 43 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Meyers, M.A., Dynamic Behavior of Materials (Wiley, New York, 1994), pp. 38, 42.Google Scholar
15.Ying, C.F. and Truell, R., J. Appl. Phys. 27, 1086 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Adler, L., Rose, J.H., and Mobley, C., J. Appl. Phys. 59, 336 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Adler, L. and Wang, S-W., in Analytical Ultrasonics in Materials Research and Testing (NASA Scientific and Technical Information Branch, Washington, DC, 1986), p. 75.Google Scholar
18.Adler, L., in The Evaluation of Materials and Structures by Quantitative Ultrasonics: International Centre for Mechanical Sciences, Courses and Lectures–No. 330, edited by Achenbach, J.D. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993), p. 161.Google Scholar
19.Gubernatis, J.E. and Domany, E., Wave Motion 6, 579 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Kinney, J.H., Breuning, T.M., Starr, T.L., Haupt, D., Nichols, M.C., Stock, S.R., Butts, M.D., and Saroyan, R.A., Science 260, 789 (1993).Google Scholar
21.Flannery, B.P., Deckman, H.W., Roberge, W.G., D'Amico, K.L.. Science 237, 1439 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Coker, D.A., Torquato, S., and Dunsmuir, J.H., J. Geophys. Res. 101, 17497 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar