Martensitic interfaces and transformation crystallography in Pu–Ga alloys
Source abstract
Abstract
The face-centered cubic (δ) to monoclinic (α) martensitic transformation in Pu–Ga is unusual because it produces a relative large change of volume up to 20%. Moreover, the transformation crystallography is not predicted satisfactorily by the classical phenomenological theories of martensite crystallography, which is based on the hypothesis that the habit plane is an invariant plane of the total shape change. In this study we use the recently developed topological model where the habit plane, i.e., the interface between the parent and martensite phases, is envisaged as a semi-coherent configuration with coherent terraces reticulated by a network of disconnections or transformation dislocations, and defects producing lattice-invariant deformation. The authors show explicitly that this network not only accommodates the coherency strains, so that no long-range strain field arises, but also produces diffusionless transformation by motion of the disconnections across the interface. It was show that the predicted habit plane inclination with respect to the parent and martensite phases in a Pu–Ga alloy is in good agreement with published experimental observations when the lattice-invariant deformation is \( (201)\alpha /[10\overline{2} ]\alpha \) twinning, as observed experimentally.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Shape Memory Alloy Transformations · Magnetic Properties of Alloys · Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (18)
Show source-provided references
1. Hecker SS, Harbur DR, Zocco TG (2004) Prog in Mat Sci 49:42910.1016/S0079-6425(03)00032-X ↗
2. Mitchell JN, Stan M, Schwartz DS, Boehlert CJ (2004) Metall Mat Tran 35A:226710.1007/s11661-006-0206-8 ↗
3. Choudry MA, Crocker AG (1985) J Nucl Mater 127:11910.1016/0022-3115(85)90344-7 ↗
4. Adler PH, Olson GB, Margolies DS (1986) Acta Metall 34:205310.1016/0001-6160(86)90264-6 ↗
5. Wechsler MS, Lieberman DS, Read TA (1953) Trans AIME 197:1503
6. Bowles JS, Mackenzie JK (1954) Acta Metall 2:12910.1016/0001-6160(54)90102-9 ↗
7. Pond RC, Hirth JP (1994) Solid State Phys 47:28710.1016/S0081-1947(08)60641-4 ↗
8. Hirth JP, Pond RC (1996) Acta Mater 44:474910.1016/S1359-6454(96)00132-2 ↗
9. Pond RC, Hirth JP, Ma X, Chai YW (2007) In: Nabarro FRN, Hirth JP (eds) Dislocations in solids, vol 13. Elsevier, Amsterdam
10. Pond RC, Ma X, Hirth JP (2008) J Mater Sci 43:3881. doi: 10.1007/s10853-007-2158-910.1007/s10853-007-2158-9 ↗
11. Olsen CE (1989) J Nucl Mater 168:32610.1016/0022-3115(89)90598-9 ↗
12. Lawson AC, Roberts JA, Martinez B, Richardson JW Jr (2002) Philos Mag 82B:183710.1080/13642810208222945 ↗
13. Crocker AG (1971) J Nucl Mater 41:16710.1016/0022-3115(71)90077-8 ↗
14. Zocco TG, Sheldon RI, Stevens MF, Rizzo HF (1989) J Nucl Mater 165:23810.1016/0022-3115(89)90201-8 ↗
15. Zocco TG, Stevens MF, Adler PH, Sheldon RI, Olson GB (1991) Acta Metall Mater 38:227510.1016/0956-7151(90)90094-W ↗
16. Crocker AG (1965) J Nucl Mater 16:30610.1016/0022-3115(65)90119-4 ↗
17. Hirth JP, Mitchell JN, Schwartz DS, Mitchell TE (2006) Acta Mater 54:191710.1016/j.actamat.2005.12.030 ↗
18. Pond RC, Celotto S, Hirth JP (2003) Acta Mater 51:538510.1016/S1359-6454(03)00395-1 ↗