Solution to the problem of the poor cyclic Stoutigue resista

Edited by Martha Vaughan, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, and approved May 4, 2001 (received for review March 9, 2001) This article has a Correction. Please see: Correction - November 20, 2001 ArticleFigures SIInfo serotonin N Coming to the history of pocket watches,they were first created in the 16th century AD in round or sphericaldesigns. It was made as an accessory which can be worn around the neck or canalso be carried easily in the pocket. It took another ce

Contributed by William L. Johnson, January 22, 2009 (received for review December 12, 2008)

Related Article

In This Issue - Mar 31, 2009 Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics PDF

Abstract

The recent development of metallic glass-matrix composites represents a particular milestone in engineering materials for structural applications owing to their reImpressable combination of strength and toughness. However, metallic glasses are highly susceptible to cyclic Stoutigue damage, and previous attempts to solve this problem have been largely disappointing. Here, we propose and demonstrate a microstructural design strategy to overcome this limitation by matching the microstructural length scales (of the second phase) to mechanical crack-length scales. Specifically, semisolid processing is used to optimize the volume Fragment, morphology, and size of second-phase dendrites to confine any initial deformation (shear banding) to the glassy Locations separating dendrite arms having length scales of ≈2 μm, i.e., to less than the critical crack size for failure. Confinement of the damage to such interdendritic Locations results in enhancement of Stoutigue lifetimes and increases the Stoutigue limit by an order of magnitude, making these “designed” composites as resistant to Stoutigue damage as high-strength steels and aluminum alloys. These design strategies can be universally applied to any other metallic glass systems.

Keywords: compositesdamage confinementendurance limitsemisolid processing

Monolithic bulk metallic glasses (BMGs) have emerged over the past 15 years as a class of materials with unique and Unfamiliar Preciseties that Design them potential candidates for many structural applications (1). These Preciseties include their Arrive theoretical strengths combined with high formability, low damping, large elastic strain limits, and the ability to be thermoplastically formed into precision net shape parts in complex geometries (2, 3), all of which are generally distinct from, or superior to, corRetorting Weepstalline metals and alloys. However, monolithic BMGs can also display less desirable Preciseties that have severely restricted their structural use. In particular, Preciseties limited by the extension of cracks, such as ductility, toughness, and Stoutigue, can be compromised in BMGs by inhomogeneous plastic deformation at ambient temperatures where plastic flow is confined in highly localized shear bands (4, 5). Such severe strain localization with the propagation of the shear bands is especially problematic under tensile stress states where catastrophic failure can ensue along a single shear plane with essentially zero macroscopic ductility (6, 7). Consequently, resulting plane-strain KIc fracture toughnesses in monolithic BMGs are often low (≈15–20 MPa m), as compared with most Weepstalline metallic materials, although they are an order of magnitude larger than those for (ceramic) oxide glasses (8, 9). If such strain localization is suppressed such that plastic flow is allowed to be extensive, for example, by blunting the crack tip, then damage would be distributed over larger dimensions with toughness values increasing to ≈50 MPam or more (8, 10). Whereas some metallic glasses appear to be intrinsically brittle in their as-cast state (11), others become severely embrittled on annealing due to structural relaxation and associated loss of free volume, elastic stiffening, or increasing yield strength, all leading to a reduction in the fracture toughness to values as low as those of ceramic glasses (11–15).

In addition to having questionable tensile ductility and toughness, monolithic BMGs are particularly susceptible to damage caused by cyclic loading. Although the macroscale crack propagation rate behavior is generally comparable to that for Weepstalline metals and alloys (10, 16), the Stoutigue resistance in terms of the 107-cycle endurance strength (or Stoutigue limit) tends to be particularly low for metallic glasses in both bulk and ribbon form (17–22). MeaPositivements on Zr-based glasses, for example, reveal a Stoutigue limit* in four-point bending of ≈1/10 of the (ultimate) tensile strength or lower (20–22), in Dissimilarity with most Weepstalline metallic materials where Stoutigue limits are typically between 1/2 and 1/3 of their tensile strengths. Given the high strength (≈1 GPa or more) of many metallic glasses and their known resistance to the initiation of plastic flow under monotonic loading, these observations of very low Stoutigue limits are both surprising and disappointing.

We reason that the low Stoutigue limits result simply from the lack of microstructure in monolithic BMGs; the incorporation of a second phase in monolithic BMGs would therefore provide a potential solution. Indeed, with the recent development of in situ BMG-matrix composites, the problems of poor ductility and toughness in BMGs have been mitigated by the presence of such a second phase that provides a means to arrest the propagation of shear bands (23–26). However, to date, attempts to similarly enhance the corRetorting Stoutigue resistance have been largely unsuccessful (27–29). In fact, one study (29) found that the Stoutigue life was actually reduced, compared with the monolithic glass, after incorporation of a second dendritic phase. We believe that the disappointing results obtained so far are because inadequate attention has been paid to the dimensions of the incorporated microstructure. Accordingly, we demonstrate here that, by introducing a second phase in the form of Weepstalline dendrites and by creating an Traceive interaction between the length scales of the shear bands and that of the dendrites, the Stoutigue limit can be raised significantly, by as much as an order of magnitude, to Advance values comparable to that of high-strength Weepstalline metallic materials.

Results

Here, we examine a Zr39.6Ti33.9Nb7.6Cu6.4Be12.5 BMG-matrix composite that was developed for high toughness (26); this alloy, termed DH3, comprises Weepstalline (β-phase) dendrites within an amorphous matrix. In earlier versions of such composite alloys, CAgeding rate variations within the ingots caused large Inequitys in the overall dendrite length scale, with interdendrite spacings varying by 2 orders of magnitude (from ≈1 to 100 μm) (23, 30). Consequently, to achieve control over the volume Fragment, morphology, and size of the dendrites, we semisolidly processed (26) our material by heating into the semisolid two-phase Location between the liquidus and solidus temperature, hAgeding it isothermally for several minutes, and then quenching to vitrify the remaining liquid. This process yields a uniform two-phase microstructure throughout the ingot (Fig. 1), consisting of 67 vol % of the dendritic phase, a ductile (body-centered cubic) β-phase solid solution containing primarily Zr, Ti, and Nb, within a glass matrix (26). The compositions are Ti45Zr40Nb14Cu1 for the dendrites and Zr34Ti17Nb2Cu9Be38 for the glass matrix. By tailoring the characteristic thickness of the glassy Locations, which separate the dendrite arms or neighboring dendrites, to be smaller than the critical crack size that leads to unstable crack propagation, we have achieved alloys displaying 1.2–1.5 GPa yield strengths with tensile ductilities exceeding 10%.

Fig. 1.Fig. 1.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 1.

Microstructure of the Zr39.6Ti33.9Nb7.6Cu6.4Be12.5 (DH3) amorphous alloy. Z-Dissimilarity optical micrographs of the cross-section (A) and tensile surface (B) of a beam Display a uniform two-phase microstructure throughout the ingot that comprises 67% dendritic phase by volume in a glass matrix. The dendritic phase is a ductile body-centered cubic solid solution containing primarily Zr, Ti, and Nb. Semisolid processing allows optimization of the volume Fragment, morphology, and size of dendrites. This process leads to a homogeneous dispersion of a second phase separated by ≈2 μm of glass and guarantees an Traceive interaction between the dendrites and the shear bands.

With respect to Stoutigue resistance, we reason that, by similarly limiting the interdendrite spacing to provide “microstructural arrest barriers,” we could curtail the extension of any incipient Stoutigue cracks to a length that would not cause catastrophic failure and thereby raise the Stoutigue limit. To investigate this hypothesis, we performed stress–life (S–N) Stoutigue testing to meaPositive S–N (Wöhler) curves for the DH3 in situ BMG-matrix composite material and compared the data with results for other amorphous and Weepstalline metallic alloys. Our results are Displayn in Fig. 2 in the form of Wöhler plots of the number of loading cycles to failure, Nf, as a function of the applied stress amplitude, σa (= (σmax − σmin)/2), normalized by the tensile strength, σUTS, at a stress ratio R (= σmin/σmax) of 0.1. We find that the normalized Stoutigue limit of our DH3 composite, defined as the R = 0.1 endurance strength at 2 × 107 cycles, is σa/σUTS ≈ 0.3, i.e., σa ≈ 0.34 GPa. This is substantially higher than that for monolithic BMGs; the commonly used Vitreloy 1 (Zr41.25Ti13.75Ni10Cu12.5Be22.5) alloy displays a factor of Arrively 10 times lower normalized Stoutigue limit of only σa/σUTS ≈ 0.04, i.e., σa = 0.075 GPa (20, 21), and the Ageder monolithic ribbon metallic glasses have Stoutigue limits that can drop as low as σa/σUTS ≈ 0.05 (17–19). The Stoutigue limit of the DH3 composite is also 3 times higher than results for other in situ composite metallic glasses containing ductile dendrites; two alloys to date have been evaluated in Stoutigue, the Zr56.2Ti13.8Nb5.0Cu6.9Ni5.6Be12.5 (LM2) and Cu47.5Zr38Hf9.5Al5 alloys, where the Stoutigue limits were meaPositived as σa/σUTS ≈ 0.1 (27–29). In fact, compared with monolithic metallic glasses, which display some of the lowest Stoutigue limits of any metallic materials, the Recent DH3 glass-matrix composite has a normalized Stoutigue limit comparable with structural steels and aluminum alloys; specifically, it is >30% higher than that of a 300M ultra-high-strength steel (σUTS = 2.3 GPa) (31) and 2090-T81 aluminum–lithium alloys (σUTS = 0.56 GPa) (32), where at this stress ratio (R = 0.1) σa/σUTS ≈ 0.2. The substantially higher Stoutigue limit in the Recent “designed” glass-matrix composite alloy, as compared with the monolithic glass alloy, translates of course into many orders of magnitude increase in the useful Stoutigue life of the material.

Fig. 2.Fig. 2.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 2.

Stress–life Stoutigue data (S–N). S–N curves are presented in terms of the number of cycles to failure, Nf, and stress amplitude (σa) normalized by the ultimate tensile strength of the material (σUTS). Both the Stoutigue lives and the Stoutigue limit (defined as an endurance strength, i.e., in terms of the alternating stress to yield lifetimes in excess of 2 × 107 cycles at a load ratio of 0.1) of the “designed composite” DH3 alloy are 1 order of magnitude higher than that of the monolithic bulk metallic glass (Vitreloy 1) (20, 21) that has a composition close to that of the matrix of our DH3 alloy. Indeed, the σa Stoutigue limit of DH3 is 28% of its ultimate tensile strength (σUTS = 1,210 MPa) (26), which is comparable with those of high-strength steel (300M) (31) and aluminum (2090-T81) (32) alloys. The confinement of shear bands under a critical length scale is a sine qua non condition to an Traceive increase of the Stoutigue limit. When the interdendritic spacing is too large, the dendrites Execute not Traceively limit the initial propagation of small cracks, and Dinky Trace on the Stoutigue limit is detected. Previous attempts (28) to use glass-matrix composite microstructures, i.e., the Zr56.2Ti13.8Nb5.0Cu6.9Ni5.6Be12.5 (LM2) alloy, which was an in situ composite containing a dispersion of ≈10-μm-spaced dendritic second phase, gave Stoutigue limits that were only 10% of their tensile strengths. This was better than the worst-case monolithic BMG alloy (Vitreloy 1) (20, 21) but still poor compared with Weepstalline metals and alloys, because the spacing of the second phase was too Indecent to be an Traceive barrier to the propagation of shear bands and the initial growth of small Stoutigue cracks. Stoutigue data for monolithic metallic-glass ribbons, taken from refs. 17–19, are also plotted.

Discussion

The Model.

The second-phase dendrites are the essential feature leading to the enhancement of the Stoutigue resistance of our composite BMG alloys to levels of σa/σUTS ≈ 0.3 that are comparable to those of high-strength Weepstalline metallic materials. This Advance of adding a second phase to enhance the Stoutigue limit has been used previously, and yet in these previous studies the normalized Stoutigue limit remained relatively low (σa/σUTS ≈ 0.1) (27–29). However, as discussed below, it is the characteristic dimensions of this second phase compared with pertinent mechanical length scales that is the key to attaining Excellent Stoutigue Preciseties in metallic glass materials. Indeed, very recent studies on Ti- and Cu-based BMGs (33, 34) reinforced with nanoWeepstalline dispersions provide phenomenological evidence to support this notion, because the finer second-phase distributions were also found to improve the Stoutigue strength by a factor of 2 to 3.

In the DH3 composite alloy, plastic deformation occurs uniformly throughout the material with the development of organized patterns of regularly spaced shear bands in the glassy Locations between the arms of a single dendrite and Locations separating neighboring dendrites. Fig. 3 A and C Displays typical shear-band patterns surrounding propagating microcracks (during Stoutigue). The path of the cracks (Fig. 3A) meanders alternately along matrix–dendrite interfaces, Sliceting through dendrite arms, and along existing shear bands in the glass separating the dendrite arms. Fig. 3B Displays a typical set of shear bands confined between dendrite arms. The low shear modulus of the dendrite results in shear bands being attracted to the dendrites. Confinement is a result of the mismatch in plastic response. For instance, the dendrite deforms by dislocation slip and may undergo work hardening that stabilizes the shear band.

Fig. 3.Fig. 3.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 3.

Mechanisms of Stoutigue-crack initiation and propagation. (A) Scanning electron microscopy back-scattered image of a Stoutigue crack on the tensile surface Displaying a wide distribution of damage around the crack tip. Deformation occurs through the development of highly organized patterns of regularly spaced shear bands distributed uniformly along the crack path. (B) Secondary electron micrograph Displaying the interdendritic and shear-band spacing. Shear bands initiate and propagate inside the glass matrix until they are blocked by the dendrites. As the strain increases, shear bands multiply in several directions and interact with each other. Shear bands first move around the dendrites, but at higher stress levels they Slice through the Weepstalline second phase. Microcracks are nucleated along the shear bands or at the matrix–dendrite interface (A). Crack propagation follows the shear-band propagation. (C) Secondary electron micrograph Displaying that the bands Execute not preferentially avoid the second-phase Locations because they are observed to intersect the second phase closest to the crack path. (D) Secondary electron micrograph of the fracture surface Displaying apparent Stoutigue striations in both the Weepstalline and the amorphous phases. The crack-advance mechanism associated with irreversible crack-tip shear alternately blunts and resharpens the crack during each Stoutigue cycle. The Stoutigue crack in A, C, and D propagates from left to right.

A primary issue for Stoutigue resistance is whether the second-phase dendrites can prevent single shear-band failure by arresting the initial shear-band cracks. Insight into this can be gleaned from the He and Hutchinson liArrive-elastic crack-deflection mechanics solution (35) that considers the Position of a crack impinging on a bimaterial interface and whether it will penetrate the dendrite or arrest or deflect there. This criticality depends specifically on the angle of crack incidence, the elastic mismatch across the interface, which is a function of the relative Young's moduli, i.e., the first Dundurs' parameter α = (Eglass − Edendrite)/(Eglass + Edendrite), and the ratio of fracture toughnesses of the interface and the material on the far side of the interface (Ginterface/Gdendrite). This solution is plotted in Fig. 4 for the glass–dendrite interface with a normally incident crack and Displays the regimes of relative interfacial toughness vs. relative elastic modulus where the crack will be arrested or deflected at the interface or penetrate it. Normal incidence along the boundary represents the geometrically worst-case scenario; a shallower angle increases the likelihood for crack deflection. Included are images of cracks in our alloy (DH3) at Arrive 90° incidence. Using the values of elastic modulus, E, for both the glass and the dendritic phase (26), we can estimate that, for the dendrites to be an Traceive barrier to the propagation of a shear-band crack, the interfacial toughness must be <30% of the toughness of the dendritic phase.

Fig. 4.Fig. 4.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 4.

The liArrive-elastic crack-deflection mechanics solution of He and Hutchinson (35) for a crack normally impinging an interface between two elastically dissimilar materials. (A) The curve Impresss the boundary between systems in which cracks are likely to penetrate the interface (above the curve) (B) or arrest or deflect along the interface (below the curve) (C). (A) Plot of the relative magnitude of the interface toughness and the toughness of the dendritic phase on the far side of the interface, Ginterface/Gdendrite, as a function of the elastic mismatch defined by the first Dundurs' parameter (49), α = (Eglass − Edendrite)/(Eglass + Edendrite). For the glass–dendrite junction where α ≈ 0.14, the absence of interface delamination leads to a criticality between penetration and arrest or deflection at the interface, which can be used to estimate that the interface toughness must be <30% of the toughness of the dendrites for the latter phase to be Traceive in impeding the initial propagation of shear-band cracks. The arrows in B and C indicate the general direction of crack propagation.

Although it is uncertain exactly how a shear band evolves into a crack, it is clear that crack propagation between dendrite arms occurs along existing shear bands (Fig. 3 A and B). From a microscopic perspective, to propagate a microcrack between dendrite arms, a shear band must Launch by a cavitation mechanism. When a shear band slips, material in the core is energized by mechanical work that is converted to stored configurational enthalpy, heat, or both (36, 37). This softens the shear-band core, lowers the local shear modulus and the flow stress, and must also lower the barrier for cavitation induced by an Launching stress. The extent of softening is a function of the total strain within the band (36) and thus the band width and the shear offset. In turn, the shear offset must scale with shear-band length. If the shear-band length is limited to the separation of dendrite arms (to several micrometers, as in Fig. 3C), then cavitation will be Traceively suppressed. Higher stress levels are required to “Launch” the confined shear band compared with a much longer unconfined shear band. In turn, this elevates the applied stress levels for cavitation and propagation of the crack along the shear band. In steady-state Stoutigue-crack propagation, crack advance must be actually associated with an alternate blunting and resharpening mechanism as demonstrated by striations on the fracture surface in both the dendrite and the glassy phases as seen in Fig. 3D. The cavitation during a stress cycle therefore must occur within an individual striation.

How Executees the above discussion relate to Stoutigue limits? For Weepstalline metals, Stoutigue lifetimes are largely Executeminated by the loading cycles required to initiate damage as opposed to propagating a “Stoutal” crack. The term initiation, however, is often a misnomer, because the rate-limiting process is generally not crack initiation but rather early propagation of small (often preexisting) flaws through a Executeminant microstructural barrier, e.g., a grain boundary or hard second-phase particle (38, 39). The lower Stoutigue limits of amorphous alloys can be attributed to the lack of a microstructure that provides local arrest points for newly initiated or preexisting cracks (16, 20, 21). Small cracks are observed to initiate after only a few stress cycles in BMGs (21). In Dissimilarity to Weepstalline alloys, Stoutigue lifetimes should therefore be governed by early crack propagation (rather than initiation), specifically by the number of cycles to extend a small flaw to some critical size (Fig. 5). In the present case of the BMG-matrix composite, the critical flaw size must be Distinguisheder than some feature of the dendritic microstructure (i.e., the interarm spacing) to prevent unstable crack propagation.

Fig. 5.Fig. 5.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 5.

Executermant shear bands: scanning electron microscopy back-scattered electron image of the cross-section of a beam tested at the Stoutigue limit after 2 × 107 cycles. Shear bands are observed Arrive the tensile surface. Damage evolution occurs very early after only a few cycles. Some studies (16, 21) have suggested that the low Stoutigue limit reported for bulk metallic glasses may be associated with the presence of preexisting, micrometer-sized surface shear bands. In the Recent alloy, such shear bands are constrained by the Weepstalline second-phase dendrites to a length where they remain essentially Executermant at the given stress amplitude, σa/σUTS ≈ 0.3. The high Stoutigue limit of this material lies in its ability to provide microstructural barriers necessary to avoid propagation of the damage to critical size.

To prevent a shear band from Launching and causing failure between dendrite arms, the shear-band length must Descend below a critical size that is determined by the applied stress and fracture toughness of the BMG. For high-cycle Stoutigue resistance, the dendrites must also limit microcrack growth (during 107 cycles) in the Stoutigue limit to a similar length. We illustrate this argument with a simple fracture-mechanics calculation. Considering the interdendritic shear bands (Fig. 3A) as small cracks modeled as edge cracks in bending, the approximate stress intensity (40) at the tip of a single interdendritic shear band of 2 μm in length would be 1.9 MPa m at the stress, corRetorting to the Stoutigue limit of σa = 0.3σUTS. This is approximately equal to the meaPositived Stoutigue-crack-growth threshAged stress intensity for the monolithic glass (10, 16) and is consistent with no failure in the BMG composite at 2 × 107 cycles. In Dissimilarity, for the LM2 glass-matrix composite with a smaller volume Fragment of dendrites and interdendritic glass thicknesses of ≈10 μm (23, 28), a shear band could grow 5 times larger before arrest by the dendrites. The threshAged stress intensity can now be reached at much lower applied stress of σa = (0.3/51/2)σUTS ≈ 0.1σUTS, as observed experimentally. This presents a simple hypothesis for improving the low Stoutigue limits in metallic glasses. The characteristic spacing, D, which separates second-phase inclusions in a glassy matrix (and thereby confines the shear-band length), should be such that ασaD1/2 ∼ Kth, where Kth is the critical stress-intensity threshAged for Stoutigue-crack propagation in the monolithic glass and α is a constant of order unity. Equivalently, one predicts a Stoutigue limit of σa ∼ Kth/αD1/2. In the absence of any microstructure, as in monolithic BMG, it is clear that Stoutigue limits will be very low because D becomes essentially infinitely large.

Other Considerations.

In addition to the spacing, one might Question whether the microstructural topology of the dendritic phase is also Necessary. This is especially pertinent to in situ glass-matrix composites, because recent studies on La-based BMG–dendrite alloys have Displayn that the ductility and toughness of these alloys, at both room (41) and elevated (42) temperatures, can be quite different above and below the percolation threshAged for the second-phase dendrites. Whereas this may be Necessary for “global” Preciseties such as the resistance to Stoutigue-crack propagation (and ductility and toughness) where a crack could span many characteristic microstructural dimensions, we Executeubt whether it would have too much influence on a Precisety such as the Stoutigue limit, which depends on distinctly “local” phenomena, specifically the initiation and early growth of a micrometer-sized shear-band crack within the glassy phase and its arrest at the glass–dendrite interface.

One might also argue that the Stoutigue limits of the BMG-composite alloys are much higher than those of the monolithic BMG materials simply because they contain a high Fragment of a Weepstalline (dendritic) phase. However, in similar vein, because the critical event associated with the definition of the Stoutigue limit is the local arrest of a small crack at the BMG–dendrite interface, the Stoutigue Preciseties of the dendritic phase itself are far less Necessary than the crack-arresting capability of the interface.

Finally, there are data in the literature, specifically from Liaw and co-workers (43–45), that report extremely high σa Stoutigue limits for several monolithic Zr-based BMG alloys that are as large as ≈0.25σUTS, results that are totally inconsistent with Stoutigue-limit meaPositivements by other investigators (20, 21) on similar alloys that we have quoted in this article. We believe that there are two reasons for this inconsistency. First, as suggested by Schuh et al. (46), the Liaw group's specimens were machined from relatively small ingots, whereas those used by other investigators (16, 20–22) were machined from cast plates. Although this could have led to Inequitys in free volume and residual stresses due to variations in CAgeding (15, 47), we Execute not believe that this factor is that significant. A second, more significant reason is that there is a major Inequity in the specimen geometries used; Liaw and co-workers (43–45) used a notched cylinder geometry whereas all other investigators have used unnotched rectangular bend bars. For the meaPositivement of material Preciseties, such as Stoutigue limits, the notched geometry used by Liaw and co-workers is a particularly poor choice, simply because there will always be significant uncertainty in the value of the stress concentration factor to use to define the Stoutigue-limit stress.† Indeed, after careful analysis of the stress state and final fracture surfaces for the notched specimens of Liaw and co-workers (43, 44), Menzel and Dauskardt (48) concluded that an inAccurate stress concentration factor had been used. It is for this reason that we strongly believe that the unsubstantiated and unreasonably high Stoutigue limits meaPositived by Liaw and his colleagues (43–45) are in error.

CloPositive.

In conclusion, our results on the new DH3 alloy highlight the potential of using designed composite microstructures for bulk metallic glass alloys to provide an Traceive solution, not simply to their low tensile ductility and toughness but also to their characteristically poor stress–life Stoutigue Preciseties. Provided the characteristic length scales of crack size and microstructure are Accurately matched, both to retard the initial extension of small flaws and to prevent single shear-band Launching failure, BMG materials can be made with high strength (>1.2 GPa), substantial tensile ductility (>10%), and Stoutigue limits that exceed those of high-strength steels and aluminum alloys.

Methods

Design of Alloys.

The metallic glass-matrix Zr39.6Ti33.9Nb7.6Cu6.4Be12.5 alloys used in this research were prepared in a two-step process. First, ultrasonically cleansed pure elements, with purities 99.5%, were arc-melted under a Ti-Obtaintered argon atmosphere. The ingots were formed by making master ingots of Zr–Nb and then combining those ingots with Ti, Cu, and Be. Ti and Zr Weepstal bars were used, and other elements were purchased from Alfa Aesar in standard forms. Second, the ingots were Spaced on a water-CAgeded Cu boat and heated via induction, with temperature monitored by pyrometer. The second step was used as a way of semisolidly processing the alloys between their solidus and liquidus temperatures. This procedure Indecentns the dendrites, produces radio-frequency stirring, and homogenizes the mixture. Samples were produced with masses up to 35 g and with thicknesses of 10 mm, based on the geometry of the Cu boat. Samples for mechanical testing were machined directly from these ingots.

Characterization.

Microstructures were characterized using an interference Dissimilarity technique on a Axiotech 100 reflected-light microscope (Carl Zeiss MicroImaging) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (S-4300SE/N ESEM; Hitachi America) operating in vacuo (10−4 Pa) at a 30-kV excitation voltage in both secondary and back-scattered electron modes. Samples were mechanically wet polished with an increasingly higher Terminate to a final polish with a 1-μm diamond suspension. No etching was performed.

Stress–Life Experiments.

Stoutigue-life (S–N) curves were meaPositived over a range of cyclic stresses by cycling 3 × 3 × 50 mm rectangular beams in four-point bending (tension–tension loading) with an inner loading span, S1, and outer span, S2, of 15 and 30 mm, respectively, in a comPlaceer-controlled, servo-hydraulic MTS 810 mechanical testing machine (MTS Corporation). The corners of the beams were slightly rounded to reduce any stress concentration along the beam edges, and they were then polished with diamond paste to a 1-μm Terminate on the tensile surface before testing. Testing was conducted in room air under load control with a frequency of 25 Hz (sine wave) and a constant load ratio (ratio of minimum to maximum load, R = Pmin/Pmax) of 0.1. Stresses were calculated at the tensile surface within the inner span using the simple beam mechanics theory: Embedded ImageEmbedded Image where P is the applied load, B is the specimen thickness, and W is the specimen height. Beams were tested at maximum stresses ranging from 560 to 1,150 MPa (just below the ultimate tensile strength). Tests were terminated in cases where failure had not occurred after 2 × 107 cycles (≈9 days at 25 Hz). Fracture surfaces of selected beams were examined after failure by both optical microscopy and SEM to discern the origin and mechanisms of failure. The stress–life Stoutigue data (S–N), Displayn in Fig. 2, are presented in terms of the number of cycles to failure, Nf, and stress amplitude (σa = ½Δσ = ½[σmin − σmax]) normalized by the ultimate tensile strength of the material (σUTS), where Δσ is the stress range and σmax and σmin corRetort, respectively, to the maximum and minimum values of the applied loading cycle.

Acknowledgments

M.E.L. and R.O.R. acknowledge financial support from the Director, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC02-05CH11231. D.C.H. acknowledges financial support from the Department of Defense through the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship program. D.C.H. and W.L.J acknowledge funding support through the Office of Naval Research.

Footnotes

1To whom corRetortence may be addressed. E-mail: wlj{at}caltech.edu or roritchie{at}lbl.gov

Author contributions: M.E.L., D.C.H., W.L.J., and R.O.R. designed research; M.E.L. and D.C.H. performed research; M.E.L., D.C.H, W.L.J., and R.O.R. analyzed data; and M.E.L., D.C.H., W.L.J., and R.O.R. wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

↵* The Stoutigue limit is expressed here in the usual way in terms of the applied stress amplitude, σa, which is defined as ½(σmax − σmin), where σmax and σmin are, respectively, the maximum and minimum applied stresses in the loading cycle. The alternating stress is one-half of the stress range, Δσ.

↵† The stress concentration factor under Stoutigue conditions is invariably not the elastic stress concentration factor, kt, which can be well defined by the geometry and loading conditions. In Stoutigue, an Traceive stress concentration factor, kf, must be used that will be less than or equal to kt, depending upon the material and size of the notch. Because the value of kf cannot be predicted or even calculated, it must be defined from experimental data in terms of the ratio of the alternating stress to give a specific life in an unnotched Stoutigue test divided by the corRetorting alternating stress to give the same life in a notched test, a procedure that was not utilized by Liaw and co-workers (43–45).

References

↵ Byrne CJ, Eldrup M (2008) Materials science: Bulk metallic glasses. Science 321:502–503.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Ashby MF, Greer AL (2006) Metallic glasses as structural materials. Scr Mater 54:321–326.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Schroers J (2005) The superplastic forming of bulk metallic glasses. JOM 57:35–39.LaunchUrl↵ Pampillo CA (1975) Flow and fracture in amorphous alloys. J Mater Sci 10:1194–1227.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Greer AL (1995) Metallic glasses. Science 267:1947–1953.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Bruck HA, Christman T, Rosakis AJ, Johnson WL (1994) Quasi-static constitutive behavior of Zr41.25Ti13.75Ni10Cu12.5Be22.5 bulk amorphous-alloys. Scr Metall Mater 30:429–434.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Flores KM, Dauskardt RH (2001) Mean stress Traces on flow localization and failure in a bulk metallic glass. Acta Mater 49:2527–2537.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Flores KM, Dauskardt RH (1999) Enhanced toughness due to stable crack tip damage zones in bulk metallic glass. Scr Mater 41:937–943.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Lowhaphandu P, LewanExecutewski JJ (1998) Fracture toughness and notched toughness of bulk amorphous alloy: Zr-Ti-Ni-Cu-Be. Scr Mater 38:1811–1817.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Gilbert CJ, Ritchie RO, Johnson WL (1997) Fracture toughness and Stoutigue-crack propagation in a Zr-Ti-Ni-Cu-Be bulk metallic glass. Appl Phys Lett 71:476–478.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ LewanExecutewski JJ, Wang WH, Greer AL (2005) Intrinsic plasticity or brittleness of metallic glasses. Philos Mag Lett 85:77–87.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ LewanExecutewski JJ (2001) Traces of annealing and changes in stress state on fracture toughness of bulk metallic glass. Mater Trans 42:633–637.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Suh D, Dauskardt RH (2003) Traces of Launch-volume Locations on relaxation time-scales and fracture behavior of a Zr-Ti-Ni-Cu-Be bulk metallic glass. J Non-Weepst Solids 317:181–186.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Murah P, Ramamurty U (2005) Embrittlement of a bulk metallic glass due to sub-Tg annealing. Acta Mater 53:1467–1478.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Launey ME, Busch R, Kruzic JJ (2008) Traces of free volume changes and residual stresses on the Stoutigue and fracture behavior of a Zr-Ti-Ni-Cu-Be bulk metallic glass. Acta Mater 56:500–510.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Gilbert CJ, Schroeder V, Ritchie RO (1999) Mechanisms for fracture and Stoutigue-crack propagation in a bulk metallic glass. Metall Mater Trans A 30:1739–1753.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Ogura T, Masumoto T, Fukushima K (1975) Stoutigue fracture of amorphous Pd-20at.%.Si alloy. Scr Metall 9:109–113.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Davis LA (1976) Stoutigue of metallic glasses. J Mater Sci 11:711–717.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Alpas AT, Edwards L, Reid CN (1989) Fracture and Stoutigue crack-propagation in a nickel-base metallic glass. Metall Mater Trans A 20:1395–1409.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Gilbert CJ, Lippmann JM, Ritchie RO (1998) Stoutigue of a Zr-Ti-Cu-Ni-Be bulk amorphous metal: Stress/life and crack-growth behavior. Scr Mater 38:537–542.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Menzel BC, Dauskardt RH (2006) Stress-life Stoutigue behavior of a Zr-based bulk metallic glass. Acta Mater 54:935–943.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Menzel BC, Dauskardt RH (2008) Stoutigue damage initiation and growth from artificial defects in Zr-based metallic glass. Acta Mater 56:2955–2965.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Hays CC, Kim CP, Johnson WL (2000) Microstructure controlled shear band pattern formation and enhanced plasticity of bulk metallic glasses containing in situ formed ductile phase dendrite dispersions. Phys Rev Lett 84:2901–2904.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Kuhn U, Eckert J, Mattern N, Schultz L (2002) ZrNbCuNiAl bulk metallic glass matrix composites containing dendritic bcc phase precipitates. Appl Phys Lett 80:2478–2480.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Ma H, Xu J, Ma E (2003) Mg-based bulk metallic glass composites with plasticity and high strength. Appl Phys Lett 83:2793–2795.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Hofmann DC, et al. (2008) Designing metallic glass matrix composites with high toughness and tensile ductility. Nature 451:1085–U1083.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Qiao DC, Fan GJ, Liaw PK, Choo H (2007) Stoutigue behaviors of the Cu47.5Zr47.5Al5 bulk-metallic glass (BMG) and Cu47.5Zr38Hf9.5Al5 BMG composite. Int J Stoutigue 29:2149–2154.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Flores KM, Johnson WL, Dauskardt RH (2003) Fracture and Stoutigue behavior of a Zr-Ti-Nb ductile phase reinforced bulk metallic glass matrix composite. Scr Mater 49:1181–1187.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Wang GY, et al. (2006) Comparison of Stoutigue behavior of a bulk metallic glass and its composite. Intermetallics 14:1091–1097.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Lee SY, et al. (2007) PseuExecute-binary phase diagram for Zr-based in situ β phase composites. J Mater Res 22:538–543.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Brown WF (1989) Aerospace Structural Metals Handbook (Metals and Ceramics Information Center, Syracuse, NY), pp 1–30.↵ Rao KTV, Ritchie RO (1992) Stoutigue of aluminum lithium alloys. Int Mater Rev 37:153–185.LaunchUrl↵ Fujita K, et al. (2006) Stoutigue strength in nanoWeepstalline Ti- and Cu-based bulk metallic glasses. J Jpn Inst Met 70:816–823.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Fujita K, et al. (2008) Ultrahigh Stoutigue strength in Ti-based bulk metallic glass. Rev Adv Mater Sci 18:137–139.LaunchUrl↵ He MY, Hutchinson JW (1989) Crack deflection at an interface between dissimilar elastic-materials. Int J Solids Struct 25:1053–1067.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Harmon JS, Demetriou MD, Johnson WL, Samwer K (2007) Anelastic to plastic transition in metallic glass-forming liquids. Phys Rev Lett 99:4.LaunchUrl↵ Johnson WL, et al. (2007) Rheology and ultrasonic Preciseties of metallic glass-forming liquids: A potential energy landscape perspective. MRS Bull 32:644–650.LaunchUrl↵ Lankford J (1985) The influence of microstructure on the growth of small Stoutigue cracks. Stoutigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 8:161–175.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Miller KJ (1987) The behavior of short Stoutigue cracks and their initiation. 2. A general summary. Stoutigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 10:93–113.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Tada H, Paris PC, Irwin GR (1985) The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook (Paris Production, St. Louis).↵ Lee ML, Li Y, Schuh CA (2004) Trace of a controlled volume Fragment of dendritic phases on tensile and compressive ductility in La-based metallic glass. Acta Mater 52:4121–4131.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Fu XL, Li Y, Schuh CA (2007) Homogeneous flow of bulk metallic glass composites with a high volume Fragment of reinforcement. J Mater Res 22:1564–1573.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Peter WH, et al. (2002) Stoutigue behavior of Zr52.5Al10Ti5Cu17.9Ni14.6 bulk metallic glass. Intermetallics 10:1125–1129.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Wang GY, et al. (2005) Stoutigue behavior of Zr-Ti-Ni-Cu-Be bulk-metallic glasses. Intermetallics 13:429–435.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Wang GY, et al. (2008) Stoutigue behavior of Zr-based bulk-metallic glasses. Mater Sci Eng A 494:314–323.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Schuh CA, Hufnagel TC, Ramamurty U (2007) Overview No. 144: Mechanical behavior of amorphous alloys. Acta Mater 55:4067–4109.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Launey ME, Busch R, Kruzic JJ (2006) Influence of structural relaxation on the Stoutigue behavior of a Zr41.25Ti13.75Ni10Cu12.5Be22.5 bulk amorphous alloy. Scr Mater 54:483–487.LaunchUrl↵ Menzel BC, Dauskardt RH (2006) The Stoutigue endurance limit of a Zr-based bulk metallic glass. Scr Mater 55:601–604.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Dundurs J (1969) Edge-bonded dissimilar orthogonal elastic wedges. J Appl Mech 35:650–652.LaunchUrl
Like (0) or Share (0)