2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2017.08.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Overcoming the drawbacks of plastic strain estimation based on KAM

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Specifically, the average KAM KAM value represents the extent of plastic deformation. The higher the value, the more serious the plastic deformation [27,28]. As shown in Fig.…”
Section: Strain Distributionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Specifically, the average KAM KAM value represents the extent of plastic deformation. The higher the value, the more serious the plastic deformation [27,28]. As shown in Fig.…”
Section: Strain Distributionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…13(c) and (f). GOS figure is a favorable qualitative indicator to assess the plastic strain of material [24]. Furthermore, residual stress can be indirectly described by GOS to heterogeneous deformation of grains from high internal stress during welding [21].…”
Section: Grain Morphologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, several authors revisited the possibilities to measure dislocation densities using EBSD. Shen and Efsing, in there small review, [399] concluded that the metric ''grain orientation spread,'' GOS, gives more reliable results than the KAM approach. It should be mentioned here, however, that both, KAM and GOS, only quantify GND densities, which are, in principle, only a measure of the heterogeneity of strain and not of the true total strain in a given microstructure area.…”
Section: Dislocation Density Measurements In Dual-phase Steels Using mentioning
confidence: 99%