Three alternative experimental methods to determine the antiphase-boundary energies of the ?? precipitates in superalloys

D Baither, Christian Rentenberger, Hans-Peter Karnthaler, E Nembach

    Publications: Contribution to journalArticlePeer Reviewed

    Abstract

    The {111} antiphase-boundary (APB) energies ? of the L12 long-range-ordered ?? phases that precipitation strengthen the commercial nickel-based superalloys Nimonic PE16 and Nimonic 105 were measured by three independent methods. ? was derived, firstly, from the dependence of the critical resolved shear stress on the dispersion of the ?? precipitates in these superalloys, secondly, from the minimum size of Orowan dislocation loops which can be sustained by ?? precipitates and, thirdly, from the separations of the superpartial dislocations bounding APB faults in the single-phase ?? alloys. The latter method is based on state-of-the-art transmission electron microscopy investigations and is considered as the most direct. The results determined by the three different methods show (with one exception) satisfactory agreement. This proves the validity of all three experimental approaches and thus supports the theoretical models on which the first two methods are based. Since ? governs the strength of superalloys, this parameter is of utmost importance.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1795-1805
    Number of pages11
    JournalPhilosophical Magazine A : Physics of Condensed Matter, Structure, Defects and Mechanical Properties
    Volume82
    Issue number9
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2002

    Austrian Fields of Science 2012

    • 1030 Physics, Astronomy

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Three alternative experimental methods to determine the antiphase-boundary energies of the ?? precipitates in superalloys'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this