Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T08:32:46.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of x-ray elastic constants using an in situ pressing device

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

D. H. J. Teeuw  and
J. Th. M. De Hosson
D. H. J. Teeuw
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Physics, Materials Science Centre, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands
J. Th. M. De Hosson
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Physics, Materials Science Centre, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands
Get access

Extract

The experimental determination of x-ray elastic constants are performed by in situ measurements of the dependence of the strain state in selected crystallites for different applied external compressive stresses. The use of compressive applied stresses instead of tensile applied stresses is of interest for x-ray elastic constant determinations for materials which exhibit brittle crack-like behavior, which cannot be loaded to high tensile stresses in, for example, four-point bending devices. The x-ray elastic constants for {146} α–Al2O3 are determined with the pressing device and compared to calculated as well as experimentally determined values which were tested in tensile loading devices.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 13 , Issue 7 , July 1998 , pp. 1757 - 1760
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Noyan, I. C. and Cohen, J. B., Residual Stress (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Eigenmann, B. and Macherauch, E., Mat.-wiss. u. Werkstofftech. 26, 199–216 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Sue, J. A., Surf. Coat. Technol. 54/55, 154–159 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Kurita, M., Nondestr. Test. Eval. 8–9, 681–697 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Amos, D., Eigenmann, B., and Macherauch, E., Z. Metallkd. 5, 317–1323 (1994).Google Scholar
6.Cullity, B. D., Elements of X-ray Diffraction (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1978).Google Scholar
7.Sloof, W. G., Kooi, B. J., Delhez, R., de Keijser, Th. H., and Mittemeijer, E. J., J. Mater. Res. 6, 1440–1457 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Tanaka, K. and Yamamoto, Y., ICRS2, edited by Beck, G.et al. (Elsevier Applied Science, New York, 1989), pp. 328–334.Google Scholar