Length scales in crystal plasticity
Source abstract
Abstract
Significant effects of sample dimension on the yield strength of metallic crystals have been known for more than 50 years when researchers identified this phenomenon in metallic whiskers. These sample-size effects are once again attracting great interest with the discovery of the indentation size effect and the enhanced yield strength found for sub-micrometer diameter focused ion beam (FIB)-machined metallic pillars. Here, we discuss these issues and suggest mechanisms that may be responsible for the observed behaviors. In the case of FIB-machined pillars we draw an analogy between the yield strength of these structures and the fracture strength of glass rods and suggest that the experimentally observed yield behavior in these pillars is consistent with that expected from extreme value statistics. Additionally, we revisit the topic of surface effects in crystal plasticity and suggest a new mechanism via which a free surface could act as a measurable source of hardening for a crystal that has a bulk interior free of defects such as dislocations or grain boundaries. Finally we suggest experimental approaches that can be used to test the ideas discussed herein.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Microstructure and mechanical properties · Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques · Force Microscopy Techniques and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. 1958
2. Uchic · Science · 2004 · 305 · 98610.1126/science.1098993 ↗
3. Greer · Acta Mater · 2005 · 53 · 182110.1016/j.actamat.2004.12.031 ↗
4. Greer · Appl Phys A · 2005 · 80 · 162510.1007/s00339-005-3204-6 ↗
5. Volkert CA, Lilleodden ET. Philos Mag, in press.
6. Volkert CA, Lilleodden ET, Kramer D, Weissmuller J. submitted for publication.
7. Hirth · 1963 · 218
8. Nabarro · Adv Phys · 1952 · 1 · 26910.1080/00018735200101211 ↗
9. Duxburry · 1990 · 189
10. Li · Phys Rev Lett · 1992 · 68 · 116810.1103/PhysRevLett.68.1168 ↗
11. Webb · J Appl Phys · 1965 · 36 · 21410.1063/1.1713879 ↗
12. Weertman · Phys Rev · 1957 · 107 · 125910.1103/PhysRev.107.1259 ↗
13. Brenner · J Appl Phys · 1956 · 27 · 148410.1063/1.1722294 ↗
14. Gibson · 1988
15. Mehl · Phys Rev B · 2000 · 61 · 489410.1103/PhysRevB.61.4894 ↗
16. Cammarata · Annu Rev Mater Sci · 1994 · 24 · 21510.1146/annurev.ms.24.080194.001243 ↗
17. Agrait · Phys Rev Lett · 1995 · 74 · 399510.1103/PhysRevLett.74.3995 ↗
18. Coura · Nano Lett · 2004 · 4 · 118710.1021/nl049725h ↗
19. Gall · Nano Lett · 2004 · 4 · 243110.1021/nl048456s ↗
20. Rubio · Phys Rev Lett · 1996 · 76 · 230210.1103/PhysRevLett.76.2302 ↗
21. Rubio-Bollinger · Phys Rev Lett · 2001 · 87 · 026101-110.1103/PhysRevLett.87.026101 ↗
22. Marszalek · PNAS · 2000 · 97 · 628210.1073/pnas.97.12.6282 ↗
23. 1977
24. Nabarro · 1977 · 49
25. Kukta · Phys Rev Lett · 2002 · 88 · 186102-110.1103/PhysRevLett.88.186102 ↗
26. Fleck · J Mech Phys Solids · 1993 · 41 · 182510.1016/0022-5096(93)90072-N ↗
27. Nix · J Mech Phys Solids · 1998 · 46 · 41110.1016/S0022-5096(97)00086-0 ↗
28. Gerberich · J Appl Mech · 2002 · 69 · 43310.1115/1.1469004 ↗