0
SPECIAL SECTION ON NANOMATERIALS AND NANOMECHANICS

Effect of deformation path sequence on the behavior of nanoscale copper bicrystal interfaces

[+] Author and Article Information
Douglas E. Spearot

 G. W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 801 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332-0405

Karl I. Jacob

 School of Polymer, Textile and Fiber Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 801 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332-0295

David L. McDowell

 G. W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 801 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332-0405 Phone: (404) 894-5128 Fax: (404) 894-0186david.mcdowell@me.gatech.edu

Steven J. Plimpton

 Computation Biology and Evolutionary Computing, MS 1110, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185-1110

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 127(4), 374-382 (Dec 04, 2004) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1867983 History: Received July 22, 2004; Revised December 04, 2004

Molecular dynamics calculations are performed to study the effect of deformation sequence and history on the inelastic behavior of copper interfaces on the nanoscale. An asymmetric 45 deg tilt bicrystal interface is examined, representing an idealized high-angle grain boundary interface. The interface model is subjected to three different deformation paths: tension then shear, shear then tension, and combined proportional tension and shear. Analysis shows that path-history dependent material behavior is confined within a finite layer of deformation around the bicrystal interface. The relationships between length scale and interface properties, such as the thickness of the path-history dependent layer and the interface strength, are discussed in detail.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2005 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Asymmetric 45 deg tilt bicrystal interface model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Construction of the 45 deg asymmetric tilt interface. Lattice regions are rotated around the Z axis.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Schematic illustration of deformation paths for (a) calculations in which the final displacement of the loading planes is identical and (b) tension with preceding equilibrated shear deformation. See the text for specific strain magnitudes.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Deformed grain boundary interface region after (a) path A1, (c) path A2 and (e) path A3 for 20×20×20 interface model. The path-history dependent deformation layer is identified using the position deviation scalar quantity for comparisons between (b) deformation paths A2 and A1, (d) deformation paths A3 and A2, and (f) deformation paths A1 and A3.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Thickness of the path-history dependent deformation layer for interface model scale 20×20×20. There is no appreciable difference in the thickness of the deformation layer between each combination of deformation paths.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Thickness of the path-history dependent deformation layer for comparison between deformation paths A2 and A1. As the scale of the grain boundary interface model increases, the thickness of the deformation layer also increases.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Scale dependence of the thickness of the path-history dependent deformation layer for each combination of deformation paths.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Average normal stress versus normal displacement for paths A1, A2, and A3 for interface model scales (a) 20×20×20, (b) 30×30×30, and (c) 40×40×40. (d) Scale dependence of the peak tensile stress for each deformation path.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Emission of grain boundary partial dislocations during tensile deformation of the 20×20×20 interface model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Average shear stress versus tangential displacement for paths A1, A2, and A3 for interface model scales (a) 20×20×20, (b) 30×30×30, and (c) 40×40×40; (d) scale dependence of the peak shear stress for each deformation path

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Average normal stress versus normal displacement for 40×40×40 grain boundary interface model for paths B1, B2, B3, and B4. Note the reduction in interface strength for increasing magnitudes of preexisting shear deformation.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

(a) Tensile work of separation versus residual tangential interface displacement and (b) peak tensile stress versus residual tangential interface displacement showing scale dependence of the interface strength

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Calculation of the nanoporosity parameter for the 40×40×40 interface model for paths B1, B2, B3, and B4

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In