Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T10:12:35.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Room temperature deformation mechanisms of Mg/Nb nanolayered composites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2018

Milan Ardeljan
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA
Marko Knezevic
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA
Manish Jain
Affiliation:
Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, USA
Siddhartha Pathak
Affiliation:
Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, USA
Anil Kumar
Affiliation:
Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
Nan Li
Affiliation:
Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
Nathan A. Mara
Affiliation:
Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
J. Kevin Baldwin
Affiliation:
Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
Irene J. Beyerlein*
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Materials Department, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: beyerlein@ucsb.edu

Abstract

In this work, the deformation mechanisms underlying the room temperature deformation of the pseudomorphic body centered cubic (BCC) Mg phase in Mg/Nb nanolayered composites are studied. Nanolayered composites comprised of 50% volume fraction of Mg and Nb were synthesized using physical vapor deposition with the individual layer thicknesses h of 5, 6.7, and 50 nm. At the lower layer thicknesses of h = 5 and 6.7 nm, Mg has undergone a phase transition from HCP to BCC such that it formed a coherent interface with the adjoining Nb phase. Micropillar compression testing normal and parallel to the interface plane shows that the BCC Mg nanolayered composite is much stronger and can sustain higher strains to failure than the HCP Mg nanolayered composite. A crystal plasticity model incorporating confined layer slip is presented and applied to link the observed anisotropy and hardening in the deformation response to the underlying slip mechanisms.

Information

Type
Invited Feature Paper - REVIEW
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2018 
Figure 0

FIG. 1. (a) and (b) HR-TEM images taken for the (a) 50 nm/50 nm HCP Mg/BCC Nb and (b) 5 nm/5 nm BCC Mg/BCC Nb. Taken with permission from Ref. 29. Initial pole figures of the XRD measured textures of (c) HCP Mg (50 nm) and (d) BCC Nb (5 and 50 nm) and BCC Mg (5 nm). At 5 nm layer thickness, BCC Nb and BCC Mg have the same initial texture.

Figure 1

FIG. 2. Hall–Petch plot of indentation hardness with bilayer thickness. The diamonds represent the bilayer thicknesses of 17, 11, and 4 nm nanocomposites, respectively, which were all fully BCC Mg/Nb. The square data point represents the 100-nm thick bilayer composite which was fully HCP Mg/Nb. Data shown using circles were taken from Ref. 46.

Figure 2

FIG. 3. Comparison of the engineering stress–strain responses between (a) Mg/Nb 5 nm/5 nm and (b) Mg/Nb 50 nm/50 nm multilayered nanocomposites with interfaces oriented normal (isostress) and parallel (isostrain) to the loading direction. (c) and (d) Two SEM images for each combination of layer thickness and orientation are shown below the stress–strain graphs displaying the pillar deformation at yield and after instability, [as indicated by the black dots on the stress–strain graph in (a)].

Figure 3

FIG. 4. TEM images after deformation of the (a) 50 nm HCP Mg/BCC Nb pillar and (b) 5 nm BCC Mg/BCC Nb pillar. The protruding parts in (a) are a result of TEM sample preparation. We note that in the in situ analysis during micropillar deformation that neither phase extruded.

Figure 4

TABLE I. Comparison of the micropillar compression response between 50 nm/50 nm and 5 nm/5 nm Mg/Nb nanocomposites in normal and parallel loading directions.

Figure 5

TABLE II. Calculated values for the lattice and elastic constants (in GPa) for the bulk BCC-Nb, HCP-Mg, and HCP-Nb obtained from DFT.

Figure 6

FIG. 5. Calculated GSFE curves from first-principles DFT method. (a) GSFE for slip systems within bulk BCC-Mg; (b) GSFE for slip systems within bulk HCP-Mg; (c) GSFE in the BCC-Nb‖BCC-Mg interface plane; (d) GSFE for slip in the BCC-Nb‖HCP-Mg interface plane. The glide directions for the interface plane in (c) and (d) are chosen with respect to crystallographic directions of BCC-Nb in the bilayer systems.

Figure 7

FIG. 6. The crystallographic orientation of the bilayer models to study the GSFE curve for slip systems at the (a) BCC-Nb‖BCC-Mg interface and (b) BCC-Nb‖HCP-Mg interface.

Figure 8

TABLE III. Calculated lowest peak on the GSFE curve and corresponding ISS value for slip systems in the bulk bcc-Mg, hcp-Mg; and for the slip system at the interface plane for BCC-Nb‖BCC-Mg and BCC-Nb‖HCP-Mg bilayer systems.

Figure 9

FIG. 7. The CPFE model meshes for the (a) 50–50 nm Mg/Nb composite and (b) 5–5 nm composite. Each model contains one layer each of Mg and Nb. Bottom images show zoomed-in view of the microstructures indicating different grain aspect ratios.

Figure 10

FIG. 8. Comparison between the measured true stress–true strain HCP Mg/BCC Nb micropillar compression responses and simulated elastic responses for 50/50 nm composites for (a) normal and (b) parallel cases. Comparison between the measured true stress–true strain BCC Mg/BCC Nb micropillar compression responses and simulated elastic responses for 5/5 nm composites for (c) normal and (d) parallel cases.

Figure 11

FIG. 9. Comparison of the predicted and measured stress–strain curves from micropillar compression for the (a) 50–50 nm Mg/Nb composites and (b) 5–5 nm BCC Mg/Nb composites.

Figure 12

TABLE IV. Model parameters used in the CPFE–CLS calculations shown in Figs. 9–11.

Figure 13

FIG. 10. Calculated slip activity for the 50–50 nm HCP Mg/BCC Nb composites.

Figure 14

FIG. 11. Calculated slip activity for the 5–5 nm BCC Mg/Nb composites.