2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2003.11.040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Yield maps for nanoscale metallic multilayers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Email: mughrabi@ww.uni-erlangen.de unpassivated; compare, for example, the work of Freund [1], Nix [2,3] or of Embury (to whom this article is dedicated) and Hirth [4]. The macroyielding of two-phase multilayered thin films [5] is another example of constrained dislocation glide. In many of the early studies only the behaviour of a single dislocation segment was considered.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Email: mughrabi@ww.uni-erlangen.de unpassivated; compare, for example, the work of Freund [1], Nix [2,3] or of Embury (to whom this article is dedicated) and Hirth [4]. The macroyielding of two-phase multilayered thin films [5] is another example of constrained dislocation glide. In many of the early studies only the behaviour of a single dislocation segment was considered.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some cases, yield is defined by the macroscopic stress to eliminate an alternating tensile/compressive stress state between A/B layers, arising from a mismatch in the stress-free lattice parameters of A and B layers [223,243,244]. Other models require overcoming the energetic force on dislocations arising from a mismatch in elastic modulus between A and B layers [190].…”
Section: Deformation Mechanismsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Others combine internal stress state with continuity of slip planes across the interface [246,247]. Deviations from estimates of strength due to lattice parameter and/or elastic modulus mismatch are sometimes attributed to an interfacial strength dependent on interfacial dislocation content, dislocation core spreading at interfaces, and continuity of slip planes across interface [230,231,243,248,249]. Estimates of core spreading and other effects vary and are difficult to correlate with experimental data [230,231,243,248].…”
Section: Deformation Mechanismsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This abrupt change is attributed to the inability of interfaces and grain boundaries to confine dislocation loops to diminishingly small volumes of material. Thus, ultimate strength at the nanometer scale and various simulations to model dislocation confinement (Gillard et al, 1994;Anderson and Li, 1995;Pant et al, 2003;Lamm and Anderson, 2004;Li and Anderson, 2005;Ghoniem and Han, 2005) hinge on the strength of grain boundaries or interfaces to slip transmission.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%