Fatigue Crack Initiation and Growth in Nanocrystalline Ni at Multiple Length‐Scales
Source abstract
Abstract
The presented study focuses on the analysis of fatigue crack growth rate (FCGR) in focused ion beam‐notched microcantilevers prepared from nanocrystalline (NC) Ni as a model material. The results are directly compared to the previously obtained data on NC Ni with mesoscale and macroscale test specimens. The fatigue crack growth threshold Δ K th range was measured to be in the range of 1.5–2.3 MPa·m −1/2 in microscale samples. This value compares well with macroscopic samples showing Δ K th ≈ 2 MPa·m −1/2 measured for R = 0.1 and R = 0.7. Due to the microcantilever width and thickness of ∼5 µm, such microscale specimens do not exhibit any crack closure effects, and the fatigue crack growth initiation threshold is identical to the effective threshold. However, the effect of previous loading history was shown to have a noticeable effect on the crack growth rate after growth initiation, associated with the change of crack tip geometry and formation of surface extrusions/intrusions at the crack tip. It was also observed that the methodology for the Δ K ‐driven FCGR testing in cantilevers with microscopic dimension is limited to small Δ K (<2 MPa·m 1/2 ), as it does not sufficiently describe the fatigue process at higher Δ K due to considerable sample plasticity.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Microstructure and mechanical properties · Ion-surface interactions and analysis · Nanowire Synthesis and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Materials Science Montanuniversität Leoben Leoben Austria
Materials Science and Methods (MWW) Saarland University Saarbruecken Germany
Funding
DFG · FWF Austrian Science Fund
References (59)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1126/science.109899310.1126/science.1098993 ↗
2. 10.1038/s41467‐020‐16384‐510.1038/s41467‐020‐16384‐5 ↗
3. 10.1021/nl201890s10.1021/nl201890s ↗
4. 10.1016/j.cossms.2023.10110810.1016/j.cossms.2023.101108 ↗
5. 10.1002/mawe.20110071510.1002/mawe.201100715 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.actamat.2023.11887810.1016/j.actamat.2023.118878 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.actamat.2023.11950210.1016/j.actamat.2023.119502 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.actamat.2013.10.00210.1016/j.actamat.2013.10.002 ↗
9. J.Saenz An Introduction to Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) 2011.
10. 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2009.03.00510.1016/j.pmatsci.2009.03.005 ↗
11. 10.1007/BF0241052210.1007/BF02410522 ↗
12. 10.1557/s43578‐020‐00041‐010.1557/s43578‐020‐00041‐0 ↗
13. 10.1016/0956‐7151(94)90502‐910.1016/0956‐7151(94)90502‐9 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.actamat.2005.05.03610.1016/j.actamat.2005.05.036 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2011.01.00510.1016/j.pmatsci.2011.01.005 ↗
16. 10.31399/ASM.HB.V19.978162708193110.31399/ASM.HB.V19.9781627081931 ↗
17. 10.1023/A:101865591705110.1023/A:1018655917051 ↗
18. ASTM International “ASTM E399‐12 Standard Test Method for Linear‐Elastic Plane‐Strain Fracture Toughness K Ic of Metallic Materials (2012) https://doi.org/10.1520/E0399‐12.10.1520/E0399 ↗
19. ISO 12135 Metallic Materials‐Unified Method of Test for the Determination of Quasistatic Fracture Toughness Matériaux métalliques‐Méthode Unifiée d’essai Pour LA détermination De LA ténacité Quasi Statique (2002).
20. 10.1016/j.matdes.2024.11288010.1016/j.matdes.2024.112880 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.eng.2024.12.01110.1016/j.eng.2024.12.011 ↗
22. 10.1557/jmr.2017.35310.1557/jmr.2017.353 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.msea.2023.14545210.1016/j.msea.2023.145452 ↗
24. 10.1146/annurev‐matsci‐080222‐10185910.1146/annurev‐matsci‐080222‐101859 ↗
25. 10.1115/1.365690010.1115/1.3656900 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.msea.2015.08.07110.1016/j.msea.2015.08.071 ↗
27. 10.1016/0001‐6160(69)90099‐610.1016/0001‐6160(69)90099‐6 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2017.08.04710.1016/j.scriptamat.2017.08.047 ↗
29. L.KunzandS.Fintová “Initiation of Fatigue Cracks in Ultrafine‐Grained Materials in High‐Cycle Fatigue Region ”Procedia Engineering74(2014):2–5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.213.10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.213 ↗
30. 10.1557/mrc.2020.3110.1557/mrc.2020.31 ↗
31. 10.1111/j.1460‐2695.1984.tb00411.x10.1111/j.1460‐2695.1984.tb00411.x ↗
32. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2005.07.02610.1016/j.ijfatigue.2005.07.026 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.proeng.2010.03.16710.1016/j.proeng.2010.03.167 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.actamat.2005.01.04110.1016/j.actamat.2005.01.041 ↗
35. 10.1557/jmr.2011.15610.1557/jmr.2011.156 ↗
36. 10.1046/j.1460‐2695.2002.00547.x10.1046/j.1460‐2695.2002.00547.x ↗
37. 10.1111/ffe.1257810.1111/ffe.12578 ↗
38. Anderson T. L. · 201710.1201/9781315370293 ↗
39. 10.3390/ma1517611410.3390/ma15176114 ↗
40. 10.1016/0036‐9748(82)90448‐310.1016/0036‐9748(82)90448‐3 ↗
41. 10.1016/0022‐5096(77)90028‐X10.1016/0022‐5096(77)90028‐X ↗
42. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.12.00210.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.12.002 ↗
43. 10.1111/ffe.1213110.1111/ffe.12131 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.09.03210.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.09.032 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.10891410.1016/j.matdes.2020.108914 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.matdes.2024.11303810.1016/j.matdes.2024.113038 ↗
47. 10.1179/imtr.1984.29.1.44510.1179/imtr.1984.29.1.445 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.mtla.2018.09.01110.1016/j.mtla.2018.09.011 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.actamat.2017.07.03010.1016/j.actamat.2017.07.030 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2015.09.01410.1016/j.scriptamat.2015.09.014 ↗
51. A. international · 2018
52. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.09.01510.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.09.015 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2015.08.02310.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2015.08.023 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.msea.2007.01.04610.1016/j.msea.2007.01.046 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.actamat.2013.03.00810.1016/j.actamat.2013.03.008 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.02.01210.1016/j.matdes.2017.02.012 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.actamat.2022.11781310.1016/j.actamat.2022.117813 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.06.03410.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.06.034 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.tsf.2009.07.14310.1016/j.tsf.2009.07.143 ↗