The mechanical size effect as a mean-field breakdown phenomenon: Example of microscale single crystal beam bending
Source abstract
Abstract
Single crystalline copper beams with thicknesses between 0.7 and 5 μm are manufactured with a focused ion beam technique and bent in a nanoindenter. The yield strengths of the beams show a mechanical size effect (smaller-is-stronger). The geometrically necessary dislocation (GND) densities estimated from misorientation maps do not explain the observed size effect. Also, accumulation of GNDs principally requires pre-straining. We hence introduce a mean-field breakdown theory and generalize it to small-scale mechanical tests other than bending. The mean-field breakdown limit is defined in terms of a microstructural correlation measure (characteristic dislocation bow-out length) below which the local availability of dislocation sources and not the density of GNDs dominates the mechanical size effect. This explains why a size dependence can occur for samples that are not pre-strained (by using a very small critical strain to define the yield strength). After pre-straining, when GNDs build up, they can contribute to the flow stress. The mean-field breakdown theory can also explain the large scatter typically observed in small-scale mechanical tests as the availability of sufficiently soft sources at scales around or below the correlation length does not follow statistical laws but highly depends on the position where the probe is taken.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Microstructure and mechanical properties · Fusion materials and technologies · Ion-surface interactions and analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (52)
Show source-provided references
1. Fleck · Acta Metall · 1994 · 42 · 47510.1016/0956-7151(94)90502-9 ↗
2. Nix · Thin Solid Films · 2007 · 515 · 315210.1016/j.tsf.2006.01.030 ↗
3. Uchic · Mater Sci Eng · 2005 · 400 · 26810.1016/j.msea.2005.03.082 ↗
4. Volkert · Philos Mag · 2006 · 86 · 556710.1080/14786430600567739 ↗
5. Uchic · Scripta Mater · 2006 · 54 · 75910.1016/j.scriptamat.2005.11.016 ↗
6. Stölken · Acta Mater · 1998 · 46 · 510910.1016/S1359-6454(98)00153-0 ↗
7. He · Mater Sci Eng · 2006 · 423 · 13410.1016/j.msea.2005.10.081 ↗
8. Dehm · Adv Eng Mater · 2006 · 8 · 103310.1002/adem.200600153 ↗
9. Motz · Acta Mater · 2005 · 53 · 426910.1016/j.actamat.2005.05.036 ↗
10. Motz · Acta Mater · 2008 · 56 · 194210.1016/j.actamat.2007.12.053 ↗
11. Gong · Acta Mater. · 2009 · 57 · 569310.1016/j.actamat.2009.07.064 ↗
12. Greer · Phys Rev B · 2006 · 73 · 24541010.1103/PhysRevB.73.245410 ↗
13. Uchic · Science · 2004 · 305 · 98610.1126/science.1098993 ↗
14. Benzerga · Scripta Mater · 2006 · 54 · 193710.1016/j.scriptamat.2006.02.003 ↗
15. Choi · Scripta Mater · 2007 · 57 · 84910.1016/j.scriptamat.2007.06.057 ↗
16. Raabe · Acta Mater · 2007 · 55 · 456710.1016/j.actamat.2007.04.023 ↗
17. Maass · Scripta Mater · 2008 · 59 · 47110.1016/j.scriptamat.2008.04.034 ↗
18. Zaafarani · Acta Mater · 2008 · 56 · 3110.1016/j.actamat.2007.09.001 ↗
19. Zaafarani · Acta Mater · 2006 · 54 · 186310.1016/j.actamat.2005.12.014 ↗
20. Rester · Acta Mater · 2007 · 55 · 642710.1016/j.actamat.2007.08.001 ↗
21. Demir · Acta Mater · 2009 · 57 · 55910.1016/j.actamat.2008.09.039 ↗
22. Gerberich · J Appl Mech · 2002 · 69 · 43310.1115/1.1469004 ↗
23. Weber · Adv Eng Mater · 2008 · 8 · 37
24. Nix · J Mech Phys Solids · 1998 · 46 · 41110.1016/S0022-5096(97)00086-0 ↗
25. Greer · Acta Mater · 2005 · 53 · 182110.1016/j.actamat.2004.12.031 ↗
26. Espinosa · J Mech Phys Sol · 2004 · 52 · 66710.1016/j.jmps.2003.07.001 ↗
27. Greer · Appl Phys · 2005 · 80 · 162510.1007/s00339-005-3204-6 ↗
28. Gao · Naturwissenschaften · 1999 · 86 · 50710.1007/s001140050665 ↗
29. Parthasarathy · Scripta Mater · 2007 · 56 · 31310.1016/j.scriptamat.2006.09.016 ↗
30. Taupin · Phys Rev Lett · 2007 · 99 · 15550710.1103/PhysRevLett.99.155507 ↗
31. Gruber · Acta Mater · 2008 · 56 · 187610.1016/j.actamat.2007.12.043 ↗
32. Kiener · Acta Mater · 2008 · 56 · 58010.1016/j.actamat.2007.10.015 ↗
33. Norfleet · Acta Mater · 2008 · 56 · 298810.1016/j.actamat.2008.02.046 ↗
34. Maass · Appl Phys Lett · 2007 · 91 · 13190910.1063/1.2784938 ↗
35. Maass · Appl Phys Lett · 2008 · 92 · 07190510.1063/1.2884688 ↗
36. Motz · Acta Mater · 2009 · 57 · 174410.1016/j.actamat.2008.12.020 ↗
37. Cao · Scripta Mater · 2008 · 59 · 21910.1016/j.scriptamat.2008.03.010 ↗
38. Budiman · Acta Mater · 2008 · 56 · 60210.1016/j.actamat.2007.10.031 ↗
39. Deshpande · J Mech Phys Solids · 2005 · 53 · 266110.1016/j.jmps.2005.07.005 ↗
40. Balint · Mater Sci Eng · 2006 · 14 · 409
41. Dehm · Prog Mater Sci · 2009 · 54 · 66410.1016/j.pmatsci.2009.03.005 ↗
42. Mecking · Scripta Mater · 1970 · 4 · 42710.1016/0036-9748(70)90078-5 ↗
43. Kocks · Prog Mater Sci · 2003 · 48 · 17110.1016/S0079-6425(02)00003-8 ↗
44. Roters · Acta Mater · 2000 · 48 · 418110.1016/S1359-6454(00)00289-5 ↗
45. Hemker · Nat Mater · 2008 · 7 · 9710.1038/nmat2103 ↗
46. Afrin · Scripta Mater · 2006 · 54 · 710.1016/j.scriptamat.2005.09.019 ↗
47. Frick · Mater Sci Eng · 2008 · 489 · 31910.1016/j.msea.2007.12.038 ↗
48. Zhang · Scripta Mater · 2006 · 54 · 18110.1016/j.scriptamat.2005.06.043 ↗
49. Kocks · 1998
50. Maass · Acta Mater · 2009 · 57 · 599610.1016/j.actamat.2009.08.024 ↗
51. Maass · Phys Rev Lett · 2007 · 99 · 14550510.1103/PhysRevLett.99.145505 ↗
52. von Blanckenhagen · Model Simul Mater Sci Eng · 2001 · 9 · 15710.1088/0965-0393/9/3/303 ↗