Engineering Physics of High-Temperature Materials. Nirmal K. Sinha. Читать онлайн. Newlib. NEWLIB.NET

Автор: Nirmal K. Sinha
Издательство: John Wiley & Sons Limited
Серия:
Жанр произведения: Техническая литература
Год издания: 0
isbn: 9781119420460
Скачать книгу
This is essential to keep the number of material parameters as low as possible. To check the theoretical predictions, ideally experiments should be performed on specimens with exactly the same microstructure and chemical characteristics. In reality, it is impossible to have polycrystalline samples with exactly the same microstructure, i.e. the same number of grains, sizes, distribution, orientations, etc. CL creep tests are mostly carried out. Tests aimed at exploring the stress exponent (n min or n m) characterizing the dependence of steady state or minimum creep rate (mcr) on stress and temperature are therefore performed on different specimens with similar physical qualities. However, mcr may occur at a relatively large strain with evolved microstructure depending on the initial structures, stress, temperature, and test environment (air, gas, or vacuum). All the tests are different even though performed under similar conditions. Is it possible to use one specimen (i.e. constant microstructure) to perform a number of very short‐term creep tests and determine n v for viscous flow (dislocation creep)? The answer will be a quick “no,” “impossible.” This quick answer is based on classical approaches that have been taken for many decades. This is where a change in paradigm is required; Figures 1.41.7 are illustrations of this possibility using SRRT – a stylized name for a simple creep and recovery test originally developed for ice (Sinha 1978a), later coined by Sinha (2001), and used extensively for advanced aerospace alloys.

Schematic illustration of stress dependence of average viscous strain rate during primary creep and the corresponding minimum creep rate from short-term and long-term SRRTs on five different specimens of Waspaloy at 1005 K.

      Source: N. K. Sinha.

      An example of the above approach is illustrated in Figure 1.5. It shows that the “pseudo” or the average strain rate (ModifyingAbove epsilon With ampersand c period dotab semicolon Subscript normal v) during the first 200 s during the primary creep of the short test is 3.05 × 10−6 s−1. It may be safely assumed that “negligible” structural damage occurred in the specimen during this test. Now compare this ModifyingAbove epsilon With ampersand c period dotab semicolon Subscript normal v with the slightly lower ModifyingAbove epsilon With ampersand c period dotab semicolon Subscript normal v of 2.68 × 10−6 s−1 for the entire 2342 s of the long test performed on the same specimen. The difference is small, but may be linked to the expected structurally damaged state of the specimen undergoing tertiary creep. These two estimations are subjected to least experimental errors in comparison with the estimation of the minimum creep rate (mcr), as all experimentalists can understand. The mcr was estimated to be 2.8 × 10−6 s−1 that occurred at about 800 s as shown in Figure 1.5. No importance can be given to the fact that this value lies in between the other two values, but why is this numerically comparable to the average viscous strain rate during the primary creep? This similarity opens a floodgate of experimental possibilities and potentials of SRRT (presented in Chapters 49) and theoretical nightmares for materials scientists, in general, concentrating on numerous hypothesis on the generations, multiplications, annihilations, climb, etc. and hence interactions of matrix dislocations with grain boundaries during primary creep leading to steady‐state creep rate.

      Most fundamental studies have concentrated exclusively on “steady‐state” behavior and ignored the primary or the transient creep – which are of high importance for the engineering design of various components. These fundamental studies shaped the materials world, including the rock mechanics people, even though it is well known that earthquakes are linked to transient creep, which are known to depend on materials characteristics, temperatures, strain/stress rate, etc. As a consequence, most experimental investigations, undertaken to understand dependence of creep and failure on materials variables, reported only the characteristics of the mcr.

      The approach of opening the door for the “hindsight” described above was taken by the senior author while investigating high‐temperature rheo‐optical behavior of glass in connection with the thermal tempering of structural glass (Sinha 1971). On application of external forces, shearing between ordered (crystal‐like) and disordered zones may develop internal strain (stress) concentrations in silicate glasses with no long‐range orders in the matrices (see Section 2.4.2, “Structure of Real Glass”). These stress concentrations, in absence of any relaxation processes, could become the driving forces on unloading and generate delayed elastic effects in glass. The question is, what happens when the size of the “ordered zones” increases drastically at the cost of “disordered zones”? Do we end up with polycrystalline (ordered) materials with thin layers of grain boundaries (disordered)? Shearing between grain‐boundaries during loading could therefore develop stress concentrations (elastic distortion of the lattice) at triple boundaries