Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:06:17.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of annealing and specimen geometry on dynamic compression of a Zr-based bulk metallic glass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2011

George Sunny ,
John Lewandowski  and
Vikas Prakash
George Sunny
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7222
John Lewandowski*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7222
Vikas Prakash*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7222
*
a)This author was an editor of this focus issue during the review and decision stage. For the JMR policy on review and publication of manuscripts authored by editors, please refer to http://www.mrs.org/jmr_policy.
b) Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

High strain-rate compression experiments were performed with a split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) at 500–4000/s on cylindrical samples of a Zr-based bulk metallic glass (LM-1) in both the fully amorphous and annealed conditions. The effects of changes to the specimen geometry (i.e., L/D ratio) and the material heat treatment [i.e., annealing versus amorphous (as-received)], on the peak stress, strain-to-failure, and failure behavior were determined with the aid of an in situ video obtained by using a high-speed digital camera in conjunction with the split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB). Examination of the in situ video recordings and light optical microscopy showed that the failed samples revealed preferential failure initiating at the sample ends due to stress concentration at the sample-insert interface. A new insert design was developed using transient, elastic-plastic finite-element simulations to reduce the effects of these stress concentrations. SHPB testing, combined with in situ video, subsequently revealed that this new experimental configuration promoted failure within the gage length and away from the sample ends in the samples tested. Significant effects of specimen geometry, insert design, and annealing on the apparent values of the peak stress, strain-to-failure, and fracture behavior were exhibited.

Keywords

AmorphousAnnealingStress/strain relationship
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , September 2006 , pp. 389 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Peker, A. and Johnson, W.: A highly processable metallic glass: Zr41.25Ti13.75Cu12.5Ni10Be22.5. Appl. Phys. Lett. 63, 2342 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Lowhaphandu, P. and Lewandowski, J.J.: Fracture toughness and notched toughness of bulk amorphous alloy Zr-Ti-Ni-Cu-Be. Scripta Mater. 38, 1811 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Bruck, H.A.: Quasi-static and dynamic constitutive characterization of beryllium-bearing bulk metallic glasses. Ph.D. Thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA (1994).Google Scholar
4Lu, J.: Mechanical behavior of a bulk metallic glass and its composite over a wide range of strain rates and temperatures. Ph.D. Thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA (2002).Google Scholar
5Hufnagel, T.C., Jiao, T., Li, Y., Xing, L.Q., and Ramesh, K.T.: Deformation and failure of Zr57Ti5Cu20Ni8Al10 bulk metallic glass under quasi-static and dynamic compression. J. Mater. Res. 17, 1441 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Sunny, G., Lewandowski, J.J., and Prakash, V.: Effects of specimen geometry on high strain-rate behavior of a bulk metallic glass, in Proceedings of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (IMECE-2005) edited by American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Orlando, Florida, November 5–11, 2005.Google Scholar
7Subhash, G., Zhang, H., and Li, H.: Thermodynamic and mechanical behavior of hafnium/zirconium based bulk metallic glasses. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechanical Behavior of Materials (ICM-9) edited by American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Geneva, Switzerland, May 25–29, 2003.Google Scholar
8Sergueeva, A.V., Mara, N.A., Kuntz, J.D., Lavernia, E.J., and Mukherjee, A.K.: Shear band formation and ductility in a bulk metallic glass. Philos. Mag. 85, 2671 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Gilbert, C.J., Ager, J.W. III, Schroeder, V., Ritchie, R.O., Lloyd, J.P., and Graham, J.R.: Light emission during fracture of a Zr–Ti–Ni–Cu–Be bulk metallic glass. Appl. Phys. Lett. 74, 3809 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Suh, D. and Dauskardt, R.H.: The effect of atomic-scale open-volume on flow and fracture processes in a Zr-Ti-Ni-Cu-Be bulk metallic glass. In Proceedings of the Fall Materials Research Society Meeting, Boston, MA , December 2–6, 2002.Google Scholar
11Lewandowski, J.J.: Effects of annealing and changes in stress state on fracture toughness of bulk metallic glass. Mater. Trans. 42, 633 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Lewandowski, J.J., Wang, W.H., and Greer, A.L.: Intrinsic plasticity or brittleness of metallic glasses. Philos. Mag. Lett. 85, 77 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Lewandowski, J.J. and Lowhaphandu, P.: Effects of hydrostatic pressure on flow and fracture of a bulk amorphous metal. Philos. Mag. A 82, 3427 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Lowhaphandu, P.: Mechanical behavior of a Zr-based bulk metallic glass. Ph.D. Thesis, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (2000).Google Scholar
15Gray, G.T.: Classic Split-Hopkinson Bar testing, in Mechanical Testing and Evaluation Handbook Vol. 8 (American Society for Metals, Materials Park, OH, 2000), pp. 462–476.Google Scholar
16Frew, D., Forrestal, M., and Chen, W.: Pulse shaping techniques for testing brittle materials with a Split Hopkinson pressure bar. Exp. Mech. 42, 93 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Subhash, G. and Ravichandran, G.: Split-Hopkinson pressure bar testing of ceramics, in Mechanical Testing and Evaluation Handbook Vol. 8 (American Society for Metals, Materials Park, OH, 2000), pp 497–504.Google Scholar
18Chen, W., Subhash, G., and Ravichandran, G.: Evaluation of ceramic specimen geometries used in a Split-Hopkinson pressure bar. DYMAT Journal 1, 193 (1994).Google Scholar
19Sunny, G., Lewandowski, J.J., and Prakash, V.: Dynamic stress-strain response of Zr41.25Ti13.75Cu12.5Ni10Be22.5 bulk metallic glass, in Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Mechanics Portland, Oregon, June 6–9, 2005, Paper 324.Google Scholar
20Yang, B., Liu, C.T., Nieh, T.C., Morrison, M.L., Liaw, P.K., and Buchanan, R.A.: Localized heating and fracture criterion for bulk metallic glasses. J. Mater. Res. 21, 915 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Lewandowski, J.J. and Greer, A.L.: Temperature rise at shear bands in metallic glasses. Nat. Mater. 5, 15 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Zhang, Y. and Greer, A.L.: Thickness of shear bands in metallic glasses. Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 1 (2006).Google Scholar
23Zhang, Y., Stelmashenko, N.A., Barber, Z.H., Wang, W.H., Lewandowski, J.J., and Greer, A.L.: Local temperatures rises during mechanical testing of metallic glasses. J. Mater. Res. 22, 419 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Bruck, H.A., Christman, T., Rosakis, A.J., and Johnson, W.L.: Quasi-static constitutive behavior of Zr41.25Ti13.75Ni10Cu12.5Be22.5 bulk amorphous alloys. Scripta Metall. Mater. 30, 429 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T.: Empirical strength criteria for rock masses. J. Geotech. Eng. 106, 1013 (1980).Google Scholar