Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 2544–2563 | Cite as

Formation of stress- and thermal-induced martensitic nanostructures in a single crystal with phase-dependent elastic properties

  • Mahdi JavanbakhtEmail author
  • Mojtaba Adaei
Metals & corrosion

Abstract

In the present paper, the effect of phase-dependent elastic properties on martensitic phase transformations (PTs) in a single crystal is investigated using the phase field approach. The simplest phase dependence of elastic properties is defined by different Young’s moduli for austenite (A) and martensite (M), and its effect is investigated for thermal- and stress-induced propagation of an A–M interface. The phase dependence of elastic properties is then included using the quadratic elastic energy with two constants different for A and martensitic variants. The coupled system of phase field and elasticity equations is solved using the nonlinear finite element method, and various examples of PTs are studied. A planar A–M interface propagation is studied under different thermal and mechanical loadings. It is revealed that the effect of phase-dependent elastic properties is more pronounced when thermal strain is included due to the interplay of elastic, transformational and thermal strains. The thermal-induced growth of a martensitic nucleus and the effect of periodic boundary conditions on the nucleus growth are investigated for both phase-independent (PI) and phase-dependent (PD) elastic properties with thermal strain and without it. Martensitic PTs with two variants are studied under different loadings using a one-fourth model and symmetric boundary conditions to reduce the effect of stress concentrations. Martensitic PTs with two variants are also studied in the presence of two circular holes for both the PI and PD elastic properties. This pronounces the significant effect of heterogeneous stress concentration and the size on the PTs. The effect of phase-dependent elastic properties is also studied on twinning in a martensitic grain embedded inside an austenitic matrix under overcooling. The obtained results reveal a significant effect of phase-dependent elastic properties on different types of martensitic PTs and remarkably change the interpretation of structural transformations at the nanoscale.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The help of Isfahan University of Technology is gratefully acknowledged.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Jacobs AE, Curnoe SH, Desai RC (2003) Simulations of cubic-tetragonal ferroelastics. Phys Rev B 68:224104Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jin YM, Artemev A, Khachaturyan AG (2001) Three-dimensional phase field model of proper martensitic transformation. Acta Mater 49:2309–2320Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen LQ (2002) Phase-field models for microstructure evolution. Annu Rev Mater Res 32:113–140Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levitas VI, Lee DW, Preston DL (2010) Interface propagation and microstructure evolution in phase field models of stress-induced martensitic phase transformations. Int J Plasticity 26:395–422Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levitas VI, Javanbakht M (2011) Phase-field approach to martensitic phase transformations: effect of martensite–martensite interface energy. Int J Mater Res 102:652–665Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seol DJ, Hu SY, Li YL, Chen LQ, Oh KH (2003) Cubic to tetragonal martensitic transformation in a thin film elastically constrained by a substrate. Met Mater Int 9:221–226Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rasmussen KO, Lookman T, Saxena A, Bishop AR, Albers RC, Shenoy SR (2001) Three-dimensional elastic compatibility and varieties of twins in martensites. Phys Rev Lett 87:055704Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denoual C, Caucci AM, Soulard L, Pellegrini YP (2010) Phase-field reaction-pathway kinetics of martensitic transformations in a model Fe3Ni alloy. Phys Rev Lett 105:035703Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clayton JD, Knap J (2011) A phase field model of deformation twinning: nonlinear theory and numerical simulations. Phys D 240:841–858Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levitas VI, Roy AM, Preston DL (2013) Multiple twinning and variant-variant transformations in martensite: phase-field approach. Phys Rev B 88:054113Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang YU, Jin YM, Khachaturyan AG (2003) Phase field microelasticity modeling of dislocation dynamics near free surface and in heteroepitaxial thin films. Acta Mater 51:4209–4223Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hu SY, Li YL, Zheng YX, Chen LQ (2004) Effect of solutes on dislocation motion: a phase-field simulation. Int J Plast 20:403–425Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodney D, LeBouar Y, Finel A (2003) Phase field methods and dislocations. Acta Mater 51:17–30Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang YU, Li J (2010) Phase field modeling of defects and deformation. Acta Mater 58:1212–1235Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levitas VI, Javanbakht M (2012) Advanced phase field approach to dislocation evolution. Phys Rev B 86:140101Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Slutsker J, Thornton K, Roytburd AL, Warren JA, McFadden GB (2006) Phase field modeling of solidification under stress. Phys Rev B 74:014103Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farrahi GH, Javanbakht M, Jafarzadeh H (2018) Phase field modeling of crack growth and analytical treatment on the parameters. Contin Mech Therm.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00161-018-0685-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levitas VI, Jafarzadeh H, Farrahi GH, Javanbakht M (2018) Thermodynamically consistent and scale-dependent phase field approach for crack propagation allowing for surface stresses. Int J Plast 111:1–35Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farrahi GH, Javanbakht M, Jafarzadeh H (2018) Phase field modeling of crack growth and analytical treatment on the parameters. Contin Mech Therm.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00161-018-0685-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Msekh MA, Silani M, Jamshidian M, Areias PM, Zhuang X, Zhuang X, Zi G (2016) Predictions of J integral and tensile strength of clay/epoxy nanocomposites material using phase field model. Compos Part B Eng 93:97–114Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levitas VI, Warren JA (2016) Phase field approach with anisotropic interface energy and interface stresses: large strain formulation. J Mech Phys Solids 91:94–125Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mamivand M, Asle Zaeem M, Hel Kadiri (2013) A review on phase field modeling of martensitic phase transformation. Comp Mater Sci 77:304–311Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Finel A, Bouar YL, Gaubert A, Salman U (2010) Phase field methods: microstructures, mechanical properties and complexity. C R Phys 11:245–256Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Artemev A, Jin Y, Khachaturyan AG (2001) Three-dimensional phase field model of proper martensitic transformation. Acta Mater 49(7):1165–1177Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levitas VI, Preston DL (2002) Three-dimensional Landau theory for multivariant stress-induced martensitic phase transformations. I. Austenite-martensite. Phys Rev B 66:134206Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Levitas VI, Preston DL (2002) Three-dimensional Landau theory for multivariant stress induced martensitic phase transformations. II. Multivariant phase transformations and stress space analysis. Phys Rev B 66:134207Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Levitas VI, Preston DL, Lee DW (2003) Three-dimensional Landau theory for multivariant stress-induced martensitic phase transformations. III. Alternative potentials, critical nuclei, kink solutions, and dislocation theory. Phys Rev B 68:134201Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hu SY, Henager CH, Chen LQ (2010) Simulations of stress-induced twinning and de-twinning: a phase field model. Acta Mater 58:6554–6564Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Levitas VI, Lee DW (2007) Athermal resistance to interface motion in the phase-field theory of microstructure evolution. Phys Rev Lett 99:245701Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang W, Jin YM, Khachaturyan AG (2007) Phase field microelasticity modeling of heterogeneous nucleation and growth in martensitic alloys. Acta Mater 49:565–574Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Levitas VI, Javanbakht M (2010) Surface tension and energy in multivariant martensitic transformations: phase-field theory, simulations, and model of coherent interface. Phys Rev Lett 105:165701Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Levitas VI, Javanbakht M (2011) Surface-induced phase transformations: multiple scale and mechanics effects and morphological transitions. Phys Rev Lett 107:175701Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Levitas VI, Levin VA, Zingerman KM, Freiman EI (2009) Displacive phase transitions at large strains: phase-field theory and simulations. Phys Rev Lett 103:025702Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Levitas VI (2013) Phase-field theory for martensitic phase transformations at large strains. Int J Plast 49:85–118Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Javanbakht M, Barati E (2016) Martensitic phase transformations in shape memory alloy: phase field modeling with surface tension effect. Comp Mater Sci 115:137–144Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mirzakhani S, Javanbakht M (2018) Phase field-elasticity analysis of austenite–martensite phase transformation at the nanoscale: finite element modeling. Comput Mater Sci 154:41–52Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    De Suvranu (2017) A phase-field model for shock-induced α-γ phase transition of RDX. Int J Plast 88:140–158Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schoof E, Schneider D, Streichhan N, Mittnacht T, Selzer M, Nestler B (2018) Multiphase-field modeling of martensitic phase transformation in a dual-phase microstructure. Int J Solids Struct 134:181–194Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Segawa M, Yamanaka A, Nomoto S (2017) Multi-phase-field simulation of cyclic phase transformation in Fe-C-Mn and Fe-C-Mn-Si alloys. Comp Mater Sci 136:67–75Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Levitas VI (2014) Phase field approach to martensitic phase transformations with large strains and interface stresses. J Mech Phys Solids 70:154–189Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Levin VA, Levitas VI, Zingerman KM, Freiman EI (2013) Phase-field simulation of stress-induced martensitic phase transformations at large strains. Int J Solids Struct 50:2914–2928Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yamanaka A, Takaki T, Tomita Y (2010) Elastoplastic phase-field simulation of martensitic transformation with plastic deformation in polycrystal. Int J Mech Sci 55:245–250Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kundin J, Raabe D, Emmerich H (2011) A phase-field model for incoherent martensitic transformations including plastic accommodation processes in the austenite. J Mech Phys Solids 59:2082–2102Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mamivand M, Zaeem MA, Kadiri HE, Chen LQ (2013) Phase field modeling of the tetragonal-to-monoclinic phase transformation in zirconia. Acta Mater 61:5223–5235Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mamivand M, Zaeem MA, Kadiri HE (2014) Shape memory effect and pseudoelasticity behavior in tetragonal zirconia polycrystals: a phase field study. Int J Plast 60:71–86Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mamivand M, Zaeem MA, Kadiri HE (2014) Phase field modeling of stress-induced tetragonal-to-monoclinic transformation in zirconia and its effect on transformation toughening. Acta Mater 64:208–219Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Levitas VI (2013) Thermodynamically consistent phase field approach to phase transformations with interface stresses. Acta Mater 61:4305–4319Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yeddu HK, Borgenstam A, Agren J (2013) Stress-assisted martensitic transformations in steels: a 3-D phase-field study. Acta Mater 61:2595–2606Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Malik A, Amberg G, Borgenstam A, Agren J (2013) Effect of external loading on the martensitic transformation–A phase field study. Acta Mater 61:7868–7880Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Heo TW, Chen LQ (2014) Phase-field modeling of displacive phase transformations in elastically anisotropic and inhomogeneous polycrystals. Acta Mater 76:68–81Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Momeni K, Levitas VI (2015) A phase-field approach to solid–solid phase transformations via intermediate interfacial phases under stress tensor. Int J Solids Struct 71:39–56Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yeddu HK, Lookman T (2015) Phase-field modeling of the beta to omega phase transformation in Zr–Nb alloys. Mater Sci Eng A 634:46–54Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tuma K, Stupkiewicz S, Petryk H (2016) Size effects in martensitic microstructures: finite-strain phase field model versus sharp-interface approach. J Mech Phys Solids 95:284–307Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cui S, Wan J, Zuo X, Chen N, Rong Y (2016) Interface stress evolution of martensitic transformation in MnCu alloys: a phase-field study. Mater Design 109:88–97Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Denoual C, Vattré A (2016) A phase field approach with a reaction pathways-based potential to model reconstructive martensitic transformations with a large number of variants. J Mech Phys Solids 90:91–107Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Toloui M, Militzer M (2018) Phase field modeling of the simultaneous formation of bainite and ferrite in TRIP steel. Acta Mater 144:786–800Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Levitas VI, Javanbakht M (2014) Phase transformations in nanograin materials under high pressure and plastic shear: nanoscale mechanisms. Nanoscale 6(1):162–166Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Levitas VI, Javanbakht M (2015) Interaction between phase transformations and dislocations at the nanoscale. Part 1. General phase field approach. J Mech Phys Solids 82:287–319Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Levitas VI, Javanbakht M (2015) Interaction between phase transformations and dislocations at the nanoscale. Part 2: phase field simulation examples. J Mech Phys Solids 82:164–185Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Javanbakht M, Levitas VI (2016) Phase field simulations of plastic strain-induced phase transformations under high pressure and large shear. Phys Rev B 94:214104Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Javanbakht M, Levitas VI (2018) Nanoscale mechanisms for high-pressure mechanochemistry: a phase field study. J Mater Sci 53(19):13343–13363.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-018-2175-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Levitas VI, Preston DL (2002) Three-dimensional Landau theory for multivariant stress induced martensitic phase transformations. II. Multivariant phase transformations and stress space analysis. Phys Rev B 66:134207Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Clapp PC, Besquart CS, Shao Y, Zhao Y, Rifkin JA (1994) Transformation toughening explored via molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo simulations. Modell Simul Mater Sci Eng 2:551–557Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wang Y, Liu ZK, Chen LQ (2004) Thermodynamic properties of Al, Ni, NiAl, and Ni3Al from first-principles calculations. Acta Mater 52:2665–2671Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wang C, Xu J, Hu X, Chen D, Sun H, Yu B (2011) Elastic and thermodynamic characteristics of NiAl and Ni3Al from first-principles calculations. Int J Mod Phys B 25:3623–3631Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations