Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T05:29:06.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Atomistic Simulations of Dislocation-Interface Interactions in the Cu-Ni Multilayer System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Satish I. Rao  and
Peter M. Hazzledine
Satish I. Rao
Affiliation:
Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, AFRL/MLLM, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433
Peter M. Hazzledine
Affiliation:
UES, Inc., Dayton, OH 45432
Get access

Abstract

Multilayered Cu-Ni has a peak yield strength four orders of magnitude higher than either Cu or Ni because the multitude of interfaces obstruct glissile dislocations. The barrier strengths of the interfaces may be traced to four mismatches across an interface: modulus, lattice parameter, chemical and slip geometry. This paper describes sample embedded atom method (EAM) simulations of dislocations crossing interfaces, designed to separate the effects of the four mismatches. The results confirm some classical calculations and emphasize the importance of three new effects (i) an interface-chemical effect in which dislocations are trapped by core spreading in the interface, (ii) a coherency-chemical effect caused by coherency strains changing effective stacking fault energies and (iii) a coherency-modulus effect in which coherency strains change elastic moduli (and hence the Koehler stress) significantly.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 578: Symposia A/C – Multiscale Phenomena in Materials - Experiments in Modeling , 1999 , 389
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. Freund, L. B., J. Appl. Mech. 54, 553 (1987)Google Scholar
2. Embury, J. D. and Hirth, J. P., Acta Met. Mat. 42, 2051 (1994)Google Scholar
3. Anderson, P. M. and Li, C., Nanostr. Mater. 5, 349 (1995)Google Scholar
4. Rao, S. I., Hazzledine, P. M. and Dimiduk, D. M., MRS Symp. Proc. 362, 67 (1995)Google Scholar
5. Lehoczky, S. L., J. Appl. Phys. 49, 5479 (1978)Google Scholar
6. Kelly, A., Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A322, 409 (1987)Google Scholar
7. Koehler, J. S., Phys. Rev. B2, 547 (1970)Google Scholar
8. Frank, F. C. and Merwe, J. H. van der, Proc. Roy. Soc. A198, 216 (1949)Google Scholar
9. Escaig, B., in Dislocation Dynamics edited by Rosenfield, A. R., Hahn, G. T., Bement, A. L., Jaffee, R. I. (McGraw Hill, New York, 1968), p. 655.Google Scholar
10. Daw, M. S. and Baskes, M. I., Phys. Rev. B29, 6443 (1984)Google Scholar
11. Rose, J. H., Smith, J. R., Guinea, F. and Ferrante, J., Phys. Rev. B29, 2963 (1984)Google Scholar
12. Voter, A. F. and Chen, S. P., MRS Symp. Proc. 82, 175 (1987)Google Scholar