2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.109405
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Primary creep regeneration in 10%Cr martensitic steel: In-situ and ex-situ microstructure studies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
2
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…6b) shows an overall high dislocation density (of the order of 10 15 m 2 ), comparable to other measurements in similar materials [22,23]. The dislocations are mainly concentrated along lath boundaries, typical to martensitic steels [22]. On the other hand, no significant local increase of the dislocation density is measured in the plasticized zone located between the cracks.…”
Section: Main Textsupporting
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…6b) shows an overall high dislocation density (of the order of 10 15 m 2 ), comparable to other measurements in similar materials [22,23]. The dislocations are mainly concentrated along lath boundaries, typical to martensitic steels [22]. On the other hand, no significant local increase of the dislocation density is measured in the plasticized zone located between the cracks.…”
Section: Main Textsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The estimated ρ GND map (Fig. 6b) shows an overall high dislocation density (of the order of 10 15 m 2 ), comparable to other measurements in similar materials [22,23]. The dislocations are mainly concentrated along lath boundaries, typical to martensitic steels [22].…”
Section: Main Textsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…In the unloading process, the stress-strain curve diverges from a straight line. The diverged strain is the pseudoelasticity ε pe , which is due to back transformation from ε-martensite to γ-austenite and a reversible motion of Schockley partial dislocations upon unloading [23,[29][30][31]. After pre-straining, the specimen was re-loaded to 1% and unloaded (black line) to evaluate E SMA (κ 1 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Retesting, on the contrary, involves reloading the same (previously tested) disc after DIC imaging for subsequent testing under the same conditions as prior testing. Although fewer specimens are required through disc reuse, softening or hardening effects on creep strain development are of concern [26]. For both methods, the test is stopped when the load is removed, followed by gradual cooling and removal of the crept disc for DIC imaging.…”
Section: Ex Situ Specimen Loading Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the retested sample accelerates into the tertiary regime within 3250 s (0.9 h) whereas the interrupted sample (curve (f) in Figure 5, for instance) remained in the primary creep regime for > 6000 s (1.67 h) of testing. This is possibly due to softening effects brought about by primary creep regeneration which causes increased creep rates following an unloading-loading cycle (point (b) in Figure 6a, for instance) as a result of a reduction in dislocation densities [26]. Speckle pattern quality completely degrades for highly strained areas as in the case of Figure 5c where a flat disc of new X20 was subjected to creep loading prior to any preforming.…”
Section: Interrupted Tests Versus Retestsmentioning
confidence: 99%