Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T09:34:02.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In situ fracture observations of distinct interface types within a fully lamellar intermetallic TiAl alloy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2020

Michael Burtscher*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science, Chair of Materials Physics, Montanuniversität Leoben, Jahnstraße 12, Leoben 8700, Austria
Markus Alfreider
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science, Chair of Materials Physics, Montanuniversität Leoben, Jahnstraße 12, Leoben 8700, Austria
Klemens Schmuck
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science, Chair of Materials Physics, Montanuniversität Leoben, Jahnstraße 12, Leoben 8700, Austria
Helmut Clemens
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science, Chair of Physical Metallurgy and Metallic Materials, Montanuniversität Leoben, Roseggerstraße 12, Leoben 8700, Austria
Svea Mayer
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science, Chair of Physical Metallurgy and Metallic Materials, Montanuniversität Leoben, Roseggerstraße 12, Leoben 8700, Austria
Daniel Kiener
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science, Chair of Materials Physics, Montanuniversität Leoben, Jahnstraße 12, Leoben 8700, Austria
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: michael.burtscher@unileoben.ac.at

Abstract

Intermetallic γ-TiAl-based alloys are commonly used as structural materials for components in high-temperature applications, although they generally suffer from a lack of ductility and crack resistance at ambient temperatures. Within this study, the process-adapted 4th generation TNM+ alloy, exhibiting a fully lamellar microstructure, was examined using notched micro-cantilevers with defined orientations of lamellar interfaces. These configurations were tested in situ using superimposed continuous stiffness measurement methods during loading with simultaneous scanning electron microscopy observations. Subsequently, the video signal was used for visual crack length determination by computer vision and compared to values calculated from in situ changes in stiffness data. Applying this combinatorial approach enabled to determine the J-integral as a measure of the fracture toughness for microstructurally different local crack propagation paths. Thus, distinct differences in conditional fracture toughness could be determined from 3.7 MPa m1/2 for γ/γ-interface to 4.4 MPa m1/2 for α2/γ-interface.

Information

Type
Invited Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020, published on behalf of Materials Research Society by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1: (a) Overview of three cantilevers with an angle of 29.6° to the hosting sample taken in the scanning electron microscope (SEM) with secondary electron (SE) contrast. The original α2/γ colony is visible in BSE contrast and highlighted with gray contrast for better visibility. (b) SEM-SE side view of a notched TNM+ cantilever with designated α2 and γ lamellae parallel to the expected crack propagation plane. (c) Sketches of the two different cantilever types, including their lamellar orientation of α2 and γ-phase as tested herein.

Figure 1

TABLE 1: Summary of the tested cantilevers including their dimensions [see Fig. 1(b)], orientation dependency of the α2/γ interfaces to the expected crack plane (type (II) or (L)) and deviation angle φ of α2/γ lamellae to the desired orientation.

Figure 2

Figure 2: (a) Measured force- and dynamic compliance over displacement data, determined during the in situ CSM experiment of (II)_C2 cantilever within the SEM. The gap between (2) and (3) indicates unstable crack growth along an α2/γ interface. In (b), selected frames of the recorded video depict the evident states: (1) prior loading, (2) directly before unstable crack growth, (3) directly after unstable crack growth, and (4) at the end of the in situ experiment are shown.

Figure 3

Figure 3: (a) Force–displacement and (b) J-integral over crack length data from micro-cantilever experiments with parallel orientation of the tested interfaces to the notch. Black arrows indicate minor force drops in (a) and non-fatal fracture events in (b).

Figure 4

TABLE 2: Calculated fracture toughness and J-integral (J) values of tested cantilevers.

Figure 5

Figure 4: Force–displacement data of cantilevers exhibiting their expected crack propagation plane perpendicular to the α2/γ lamellae. Therein, distinct force drops without simultaneous crack growth are marked by arrows, indicating the positions of respective data points from Table 2.

Figure 6

Figure 5: Sketch of the observed crack path along different interface types as well as a side view of the cantilever (top) and SEM-SE images of the corresponding fractured surfaces (bottom) are displayed. (a), The fracture along a γ/γ interface, (b) an α2/γ interface, (c) an α2/γ interface as well as an α2 lamella, and (d) the simultaneous crack propagation along a globular γ grain and γ/γ interface are depicted. Arrows indicate cleaved interfaces as described in detail within the respective section.

Figure 7

Figure 6: For specimen (L)_C1 (a) a sketch of the observed crack path through γ lamellae with (b) the corresponding fractured surface and (c) a side view showing the crack path are displayed. Since the type (L) cantilevers were located at the same position within the α2/γ colony, corresponding lamellae were tested and only one representative sketch and fractured surface are displayed.

Figure 8

Figure 7: (a) Force–time data and (b) crack length–time data, determined by CSM and CV, of the (II)_C2 cantilever are displayed. Furthermore, positions from 1–4 marked in (a) and (b) correspond to the detailed SEM images in (c). These micrographs represent side-view snapshots of the in situ SEM video and contain two horizontal lines to highlight crack growth during the experiment. Given angles indicate the bending angle in contrast to the unloaded cantilever.

Figure 9

Figure 8: (a) Force–time data and (b) smoothed crack length–time data, determined by CSM and CV, of the (L)_C2 cantilever are displayed. Further, positions from 1–4 are marked in (a) and (b) corresponding to detailed images in (c). These micrographs are side-view snapshots of the in-situ SEM video and contain two horizontal lines to indicate crack growth during the experiment. Furthermore, the displayed bending angle indicates the deviation from the initial orientation of the cantilever in the advance of the experiment. In (c) (4), a black arrow denotes the presence of a band-like structure, visible on the cantilever's surface. Within the supplementary material (Supplementary Fig. S2), an SE SEM image displays the band-like structure in higher resolution and magnification.

Supplementary material: PDF

Burtscher et al. supplementary material

Burtscher et al. supplementary material 1

Download Burtscher et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 240.2 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Burtscher et al. supplementary material

Burtscher et al. supplementary material 2

Download Burtscher et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 3.4 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Burtscher et al. supplementary material

Burtscher et al. supplementary material 3

Download Burtscher et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 1.8 MB