0
Research Papers

Screw Dislocations in a Three-Phase Composite Cylinder Model With Interface Stress

[+] Author and Article Information
Q. H. Fang

College of Mechanics and Aerospace, Hunan University, Changsha, 410082, P.R.C.

Y. W. Liu1

College of Mechanics and Aerospace, Hunan University, Changsha, 410082, P.R.C.liuyouw8294@sina.com

P. H. Wen

Department of Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London, London, EI 4NS, U.K.

1

Corresponding author.

J. Appl. Mech 75(4), 041019 (May 16, 2008) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2913041 History: Received July 13, 2007; Revised December 25, 2007; Published May 16, 2008

A three-phase composite cylinder model is utilized to study the interaction between screw dislocations and nanoscale inclusions. The stress boundary condition at the interface between nanoscale inclusion and the matrix is modified by incorporating surface/interface stress. The explicit solution to this problem is derived by means of the complex variable method. The explicit expressions of image forces exerted on screw dislocations are obtained. The mobility and the equilibrium positions of the dislocation near one of the inclusions are discussed. The results show that, compared to the classical solution (without interface stress), more equilibrium positions of the screw dislocation may be available when the dislocation is close to the nanoscale inclusion due to consider interface stress. Also, the mobility of the dislocation in the matrix will become more complex than the classical case.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic diagram of screw dislocations in the three-phase composite cylinder model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Normalized force fx0 versus δ for β=0.9, λ=2, and R1=15nm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Normalized force fx0 versus δ for β=1.1, λ=2, and R1=15nm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Normalized force fx0 versus R1 for λ=2 and δ=1.05

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Normalized force fx0 versus γ for λ=2, δ=1.06, α=1.2, and β=1.1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Normalized force fx0 versus λ for R1=15nm, and δ=1.05

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Normalized force fx0 versus β for R1=15nm, λ=2, and γ=0.1nm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Normalized force fx0 as a function of δ for θ=20deg (R1=15nm, α=1.2, β=1.1, ε=1.8, λ=2, and γ=−0.1nm)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Normalized force fx0 as a function of θ for δ=1.2 (R1=15nm, α=1.2, β=1.1, ε=1.8, λ=2, and γ=−0.1nm)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In