Effects of Hydro Static Pressure On Mechanical

Effects of hydrostatic pressure on mechanical behaviour and deformation processing of materials
J.J. Lewandowski and P. Lowhaphandu

coefficient of friction true tensile stress (J B yield strength of billet material (Jc critical interfacial cohesive strength of interface (J[ brittle fracture stress in tension (J flow flow stress (Jm mean normal stress (Jm,eff effective mean normal stress (In critical mean stress required to initiate plastic flow or internal necking in intervoid matrix (JT hydrostatic tension (J y uniaxial yield strength in tension if effective stress (J 1, (J 2, (J 3 principal stresses tmax maximum shear stress
f.l
(J
Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd
The processing and subsequent mechanical behaviour of a variety of commercially important materials are affected by the imposed stress state. In this review, the experimentally documented effects of superimposed pressure on deformation under quasistatic conditions are summarised, followed by a presentation of the effects of superimposed pressure on the fracture behaviour of a variety of materials including both ductile and brittle systems. It is shown that the pressure responses of a variety of materials show distinct differences and the potential reasons for these differences are presented. Finally, in the light of all of these observations, the effects of changes in stress state on deformation processing are reviewed. In particular, the evolution of hydrostatic stresses during various forming operations is covered followed by a review of published work and the potential benefits of superimposing pressure during processing of a variety of materials. IMR/328
1998 The Institute of Materials and ASM International. The authors are Professor and Research Assistant, respectively, in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Case School of Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 41106, USA.
Introduction
Over past decades, extensive studies have been conducted by a variety of researchers on the effects of superimposed hydrostatic pressure on the deformation and fracture behaviour of materials tested under quasistatic conditions, including related topics such as hydrostatic extrusion.1-312 The pioneering work conducted by Bridgman2-44 documented the effects of superimposed hydrostatic pressure (at levels up to 3 GPa) on a variety of properties, including the flow and fracture behaviour (e.g. ductility) of a variety of monolithic metals. Subsequent experimental work by a variety of researchers focused on the source(s) of the improved ductility.45-201 Concurrent with these experimental investigations was the development of a number of theoretical models focusing on addressing/predicting the effects of changes in stress state on the deformation and fracture of metals,80,82,96,116,117,136,151,313,314 etallic m composites,315-320metallic glasses,321-324 and geologic materials.267 Bridgman's work2-44 and other more recent work, also investigated the effects of superimposed pressure on the mechanical behaviour of nonmetallic materials, including intermetallics,154-170 ceramics,171-181 composites,182-201 and polymeric202-235 based systems. There is also an extensive body of literature236-28o on the effects of superimposed pressure on geologic materials. In many of the materials systems studied, significant pressure induced changes to the flow stress and ductility have been observed. Such observations may have important implications on their service performance, as the stress state encountered in the service of many structural materials is often not uniaxial. This is clearly true in various applications where pressure is present, whether it is in a pressure vessel; at significant depths in the ocean or the earth; in the vicinity of a shock wave propagating through a solid;325 or due to the triaxial stresses developed
International Materials Reviews 1998 Vol. 43 No.4 145
List of symbols
a Gm
k ka kc kr ky K KIc 11K Km Kp
n P Pex
r
rn rp R Rex
sij
Vf
minimum specimen radius shear modulus of matrix linear compressibility linear compressibility in a direction linear compressibility in c direction linear compressibility in any direction macroscopic shear yield stress material constant fracture toughness stress intensity range bulk modulus of matrix bulk modulus of particle work hardening exponent applied or superimposed hydrostatic pressure extrusion pressure reduction distance from centre of specimen along plane of neck particle radius radius of curvature at neck or notch extrusion ratio elastic compliance volume fraction of microvoids extrusion die angle
r
E[ Gn
direction cosine
fracture strain critical strain for microvoid nucleation
146
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
Effects of hydrostatic
pressure on materials
from differences in the thermal expansion coefficient between the matrix and the reinforcement in a composite. In addition to providing experimental input to various modelling efforts focusing on the fundamentals of flow and fracture, such information is also relevant to the formability of a material. In this case, the broadest definition of formability relates to the ability of the material to sustain/accommodate plastic flow, often to very high levels of strain. This can include such operations as rolling, forging, extrusion, sheet metal forming, etc. While the formability / deformability depends on a combination of factors including the chemical composition, microstructure, temperature, and deformation velocity, critical parameters include the stress state and the superposition of any residual stresses. Since the stress state experimentally obtained where testing is conducted with superimposed hydrostatic pressure is closely related to that achieved (or desired) in many of the forming operations described above, the data obtained (e.g. flow stress, ductility, etc.) from such testing are very relevant to the formability. In addition, many of the models for deformation processing require as input the flow stress at very high values of strain. As testing with superimposed pressure typically increases the strain to fracture of many industrially important materials to levels well beyond that obtained in uniaxial tension, such large strain data can also be used as input for the various modelling efforts aimed at the forming operations described above. This review summarises the published experimental observations of the effects of superimposed hydrostatic pressure on the mechanical behaviour obtained under quasistatic conditions for a variety of inorganic materials, including recently obtained data on intermetallics and metallic composites. Although there is a body of similar literature on organic materials and ceramic based systems, this is beyond the scope of the present review. However, some relevant references have been provided for the behaviour of organic materials202-235 which exhibit highly pressure sensitive behaviour, as well as for ceramic and geologic materialsl71-181,236-280tested with superimposed pressure. This review is divided into separate summaries and begins with the testing techniques typically utilised in studies where quasi static loading conditions are desired. The effects of superimposed pressure on the flow, fracture, and deformation processing of a variety of inorganic materials, including intermetallics and composites follows. The data summaries were prepared from published work on the various systems listed, while references to the original published works are provided in the text as well as in each of the individual data summaries. The primary factors controlling flow and fracture will precede the presentation of the data summaries, while the data summaries conclude with a short discussion of the major observations. Details of the various observations and issues may be found in the references cited.
Top plunger Pressure gauge
Load cell
Specimen
Window Support
Extension
rod
High pressure container
Bottom plunger
25mm
Schematic diagram of oil based high pressure deformation apparatus36,72, 122, 126,269,326-329
Experimental test techniques utilised in high pressure testing

High tural pressure materials mechanical testing1,33,36 of strucunder quasistatic conditions has
1998 Vol. 43 NO.4
been conducted using a variety of high pressure media including solid,171-174,179,249,251,273,277,326,327 liquids,36,122,126,269,326-329 gases.271,273,330 and The last two groups are typically preferred as non-hydrostatic conditions may exist with solid media. Typical liquid media include a variety of oils as well as kerosene, pentane, and naphtha, while gas media include inert gases (e.g. Ar, He) and hydrogen. Pressure levels in excess of 3 GPa have been obtained with such systems. High pressure tests well in excess of 3 GPa have been conducted using diamond anvil cells326,327,331 and other test systems where the volume of material tested in such studies is typically too small to sample enough of the material to be of use to the structural materials community where size effects on material properties have been observed. Significantly higher pressure (e.g. > 10 GPa) may be present in various shock loading experiments conducted under impact or high velocity experiments as reviewed elsewhere325 and not covered in this review. The liquid media systems utilised in quasistatic testing are typically limited to use below 300C because of the potential decomposition/cracking of the oil, while the solidand gas-based systems have been utilised at > 1000C. This review focuses primarily on data obtained on either oil- or gas-based ,systems and those operated at relatively modest (e.g. < 300C) temperatures, though references to tests conducted at high pressure and high temperature are provided (Refs. 171-181, 236-244, 246, 247, 251-253, 255, 258, 260-262, 264,
International
Materials Reviews
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
147
7y
6_10_m_m pressure vessel liner
f-
servohydraulic actuator
argon gas line pressure vessel mantle
a internal load cell b specimen Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd
2 Schematic diagram of gas based high pressure deformation apparatus271,273,330,334
265, 268, 269, 271-273, 276-278). References to the effects of superimposed pressure on creep265,281-286 have also been provided though this aspect is not covered in this review. Pressure generation in the oil based systems often involves compression of the fluid in a pressure vessel via pressing a plunger in to the bore of a pressure vessel as shown in Fig. 1. Pressure is typically monitored via the use of a manganin coil pressure gauge that is exposed to the high pressure environment. Manganin coils are used in this case because of the highly reproducible and 'linear manner with which the resistance of the coil varies with changes in pressure.22,332 Simple pressurisation experiments can be conducted with such systems whereby a material is placed into the pressure vessel and the fluid (i.e. oil) is compressed to produce a measurable level of hydrostatic pressure. In such simple pressurisation studies, the pressure is subsequently reduced/removed in order to measure the resulting behaviour of the material at atmospheric pressure. Typically, both the pressurisation rate and depressurisation rate are monitored and kept at a constant, low value, because of the possibility of significant specimen heating (or cooling) during the pressurisation (depressurisation) cycles. Mechanical testing with superimposed hydrostatic pressure has also been conducted on similar devices to that shown in Fig. 1. In these cases, the specimen is typically inserted into the load train assembly present in the pressure vessel shown in Fig. 1, followed by pressurisation of the fluid, and the subsequent tension (or compression) testing of the specimen at the desired level of superimposed hydrostatic pressure. In such tests, the high pressure fluid has access to all surfaces of the specimen. It is important to monitor continuously (and keep constant) the pressure during the test, in addition to having the capability to monitor accurately the load and displacement required to deform the specimen under pressure as pointed out elsewhere.33o In oil based pressure systems such as that shown in Fig. 1, the confining (i.e. hydrostatic) pressure is kept constant via either using
an intensifier or retracting the bottom hydraulic piston while inserting the top plunger. In such testing, the use of external load cells (i.e. positioned on the load train but outside of the pressure vessel) may produce erroneous data for the load required to deform the specimen because of the variable amount of seal friction which results during the generation of pressure in the chamber. In an attempt to determine the load on the specimen inside the vessel more accurately, pressure compensated load cells consisting of a measuring load cell and a compensating load cell were developed,330,333 as shown schematically in Fig. 1. Displacement and/or strain measurement in such studies has typically relied on monitoring piston displacement, though more recent studies103, 155-157 ,161-163,189,190,192-195,197 have utilised pressure compensated strain gauges affixed to the specimen surfaces. In some studies,195,197,213the pressure vessel was fitted with machined cross-bores and transparent quartz windows, as shown in Fig. 1, which enabled in situ monitoring of deformation and the development of necks under pressure. Gas based systems like that shown schematically in Fig. 2 typically utilise a pressure intensifier to generate pressure that is contained within a multiwalled pressure vessel, where the volume of gas present at high pressure in the vessel is kept as low as possible because of the danger associated with the stored energy. Such systems often utilise many of the same types of diagnostic techniques as that described above, though direct visual monitoring of the specimen during deformation has not been conducted because of the inherently higher danger associated with gas based systems. Pressure fluctuations during mechanical testing in gas based systems are typically much less than those of the oil based systems where the pressure generation technique/device is directly linked to the piston which controls displacement of the specimen. Tables 1 and 2 summarise many of the various investigators that have utilised high pressure testing to evaluate the mechanical behaviour of materials. Table 1 summarises the maximum pressure utilised
International Materials Reviews 1998 Vol. 43
NO.4
148
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
pressure
on materials
.~
(/)
:5
o ...,
C') '~
(/) Q)
"0 CD
:t:::
ca
:J C"O
o
o
8
en
c CD
E
CD
C,)
E _~
Q)
>
CD
'~
> t:
a. en
i5
co
> .0
"'C
(1)
a: .!::
:J ro"O
(/)
'i:
(1)
C')
...,
co
(,)
* o :5 CD
"0
co 'i:
(1)
(/)
E
c
CD
...,
ca
E
CD
~ en
co
E
(,)
CD
'2
C')
ca
... o
~ ~
':;
ca J:
(1)
t:
en
2
O'l
'
"0
en en
CD
e :J
::0 co
CD
c
2 en
C 000
2 2 en en
C C
2 en
o U
C
c: ~
uu
.0
ca
,~
t: ca J:
(,) Q)
a a
M
en
a a a
a a a a
0000
a a
a a a
LOtOLO r--
0001'0
a
to
a a a
0001'
",,"00(J)r--
a a a
LO
E
t:
2
"0 CD
(/) (/)
~ ~ ~
(1)
'eC n
2
"0 CD
Q.
:J "'"0
(1)
a.
en
~ca
(,)
2 '0
.-
2 .~ c ..
:J
,!::
co
CD ..c "0
O'l
'
en en
CD C
en
C l:l
...,
o ~
(/)
CD 0.
'eC 0.. n CD ~ 0..
CD
g c:
CD
0..
'eC n
'eC n
C 0
'eC 'eC n n
C 0
~~
"'C
J: ... o
>
...,
(/) (,)
(1)
... ...
(1)
t:
~ ,Z
:J ,
O'l
en co
C,)
o o
U
:J'~
"0 CD
(/)
t:
'~
ui
en
:IN
OLO
:0 '0 -
en
co
(1)
C')
(/)
~~u
en
CDLO ..cl' c.",,"

I'
...
... o
> ~
ca
t:
>
en
E E ~ ~
C'l
" ~ a;
en
co
"
Q;
C,)
o o
<1l C "0
"0 C
co
..c
co
m CD
E
O'l
o en
C "0
o en
en
"0
a: International Materials Reviews 1998
CD
~
No.4
'> co
o
'> co
o
Vol. 43
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
149
e
>.D "'0
Q.l Q.l
B
:J
"'0
Q.l
,~
o '2 ~
C
0-
U Q.l
~ co
f-
E~
~
~-o
co
3
C
C ,~ Cl>
~C u U
,~ E
'0
Q.
'u B '0
C:.D
(I)
c .s
lJ)
.s
lJ)
C C
c
lJ)
.s
o U
C
.s
lJ)
c
c o
.s .s
lJ) lJ)
c o
uu
C 0
o o
~
o o
LO
I o
o
1.0
00
o
LO
1.0
~
o
I' N
O~OC")
LOC")N
LO
LO
o <0 en
00000 00000 C") .. f"o. .... .... .... N
0000
enen0 0
<0<000 .... N
001.00000 oOl'ooenl.O LOO N coO') <0 to
';:;
o co
C C
C'l
co
lJ)
Q.
'en
(I)
o
"'0
Q.l lJ) lJ)
lJ)
2
"'0
' Q.l lJ) 0. c lJ) C C .9 2 0 ~ ,9 0 lJ) . 'en Q. lJ) 'en c Q.l c

c'
~u e
:J
a.
(I)
:0
c
(I)
C'l C
a.
E
c
'u) 'en lJ) CIl

(I) (I)
c o
a. a.
o
C C
~ u
C
~, ~
Q.l
a. ~ ~
'eC n
'en 'en
C C 00
C'l C'l
~~~~
'ec n
c o
.D
'0
,
Q.C
(I)
'en
'eC n
o u c' o
E E
0
u u
C 0
C")f-
'eC 'eC n n
~~
~~
'ec 'ec n n
c o
ci. u
Ui
LO
co co 2
Ul
Q.
Q.Ui
Uia;
LON
I<t:
CO .... I'en CON
~
U
2<t:
"'0
CIl
::J
~
C
Q.l
E
N l'l
u co Q.
(I)
:0
l'l (I) ~ ~ ~ l'l ~
CIl
.q-
to o
. co
~ ...
Q.l
~~.
Qi~
: e~~~
~
~ ~
1: ~
~Qi
c~"'O~':..:co~
co U u
C C
Q.l
~ 0
:c
,~
zoo
E :J E
,~
~ ~ :g , , '5
~~~~~Ci~
International
B-g~-g~~~ ~ ~
:0 ~ > ~
,~ Q.l
::~ ~
:
f-
3
* 1998 Vol. 43 No.4
Materials Reviews
150
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
pressure on materials pressure on mechanical behaviour of
Table 2
Summary of investigations on effects of hydrostatic inorganic materials - categorised by class of material

Pressu re range
Materials Metals Ferrous alloys Single crystal Fe Pure Fe Pure Fe Pure Fe Armco Fe Fe-(0'004-1'1)C Fe-(O"02-0'49)C Mild steel (O"OSC) Mild steel (O'14C) Fe-3Si Cast irons Spheroidised cast iron 101S steel 1045 steel 1045 steel 1045 steel (spheroidised) 4130 steel 4310 steel 4330 steel 4360 steel 4340 steel Maraging steel HV SO steel HV 130/170/180 steels 01 tool steel Ti-V steel AI alloys Pure Pure Pure AI-1 Si-0'7Mg-0'4Mn AI-Cu-Mg-Si 61S AI-T4 2014AI-T6/AE 2124AI-UA/OA MB85-UA/OA 6061AI-UA/OA 7075AI-T4 7075AI-T651 7075AI Cu alloys Pure Pure ERCH Cu Leaded brass a-brass, a-fJ brass 70-30, 40-60 brass y-brass Cu-0'02Bi Cu-(15-40)Zn Cu-(4'5-9'7)Ge Ni alloy Pure bcc metals
Researcher(s)
Failure mode*
P, MPa
Measured
properties*
Note
Spitzig 135 Vajima and Ishii147,148 Vajima et al.149 Ohmori et al.118 Bullen et al.65 Davidson and Ansell75,76 Vajima et af"149 Itoh et al.95 Ohmori et al.118 Worthington 144 Pugh and Green 123 Wagner et al.140 Johnson et al.97 Davidson et af.74 McCann et al.106 Brownrigg et al.63 Johnson et af.97 Spitzig et al.133 Spitzig et al,133 Plumbridge et al.121 ZOk152 Spitzig et al.134 Spitzig et al.134 Johnson et al.97 Zok and Embury152,153 ZOk152 French and Weinrich89 Pugh and Green 123 Vajima et al.149 Pugh and Green 123 Plumbridge et af.121 HU93 ZOk152 ZOk152 Lewandowski et
al.189,190
MVC/shear
0'1-1100 0'1-S00 0'1-690 0"1-345 1000 0'1-2250 0'1-700 0"1-900 0"1-345 1500 0'1-690 500 172 0'1-2100 0'1-1260 0'1-1100 172 0'1-1100 0'1-1100 0"1-35 0'1-690 0'1-1100 0'1-1100 172 0"1-690 0'1-970 0"1-600 0"1-520 0"1-300 0'1-620 0"1-35 0'1-920 0'1-690 0'1-690 0'1-300 0'1-300 0"1-1100 0'1-600 0'1-7 0'1-600 0'1-690 0-480 0"1-600 0"1-600 0"1-200 0'1-2960 0'1-350 0'1-800 0'1-900 0'1-3060 0"1-2500 0'1-3100 1000 0"1-2900 0'1-S00 0'1-1400 0"1-5000 2000 0"1-500
CRSS 0-10'3 Prepressu rised
Prepressu rised 0-7'S

Ef ay, Ef ay, Ef Ef
EI
Prepressurised
J O'S 0-2'6 0"3 0-1"1 0-0"8 0-1'2 0-1"1 0-1"S 0"1-0'2 0-0'7 0-3"6
ay, Ef af, Ef
Prepressu rised
MVC/shear MVC/shear
ay, UTS, n Ef, voids quantification (Iy, af, q

ay ay
Prestrained Prepressurised
MVC/shear
da/dn versus ~K ay, UTS, Ef

ay ay ay, ay, ay, (If' Ef Ef Ef
MVC/delam MVC/shear
UTS, UTS,
Ef Ef
q
Ef
da/dn 0-3"3 0-1"7 0-2"0 0-0"8 0-1'2 0-2"7 0-1"2

af,
ay, (Iy, ay, Ef
versus ~K
MVC/shear MVC/shear MVC Shear MVC
UTS, Ef UTS, q
Ef
Liu and Lewa ndowski103, 195 Korbel et al.99 Auger and Francois50,51 Franklin et al,84 French and Weinrich88,141 Vajima et al.149 Pugh and Green 123 French and Weinrich85 Weinrich and French85,141 Omura119 Bridgman36 ZOk152 Vajima et al.149 Vajima et al.149 Bridgman36 Ball et al.53 Bullen et al.64 Mellor and Wronski108 Bridgman36 Dobromyslov et af.79 Galli and Gibbs90 Kuvaldin et af.100 Mellor and Wronski108 Nishihara
et al.114
(Iy,
Ef,
voids quantification
Ef
ay, EI
Ef,
EI, n, K1c
MVC/shear
0-2'7 (UTS)
Ef
Interrupted
test
Ef Ef
MVC/shear MVC/shear
0-1"5 (UTS) 0-1"9 (UTS)
Ef, Ef,
void fraction void fraction
Interrupted Interrupted
test test
Prepressurised
Intergranular
MVC/shear Cleavage
Cr Cr Cr
Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo
0-5"8
Ef (Iy, af, f
ay, af,
EI
Prepressurised, prestrained
Cleavage
ay, ay ay,
af,
af,
EI
8f
ay,
UTS,
Prepressurised, prestrained Temperature up to 600aC
Robbins and Wronski131,132
Cleavage
0"1-500
* CRSS critical resolved shear stress; delam delamination; coalescence; UTS ultimate tensile strength.
da/dn
crack propagation
rate; EI elongation;
HV Vickers hardness; J J-integral;
MVC microvoid
International
Materials Reviews
1998
Vol. 43
No.4
Lewandowski Table 2 (cant.)
and Lowhaphandu
151
Pressure range Materials Metals bee metals Nb Ta Ta Ta W W W W W hcp metals Be (PM) Be (PM) Be (ingot) Be (cast/rolled) Cd Co Mg Mg AZ91 (PM) AZ91-T4jT6 Zn Zn Zn-4'1AI Ti-7 AI-2Nb-1Ta (:x) Ti-6AI-4V (ajm Ti-13V-l1 Cr-3AI (:x) Metal matrix composites AI matrix 2014-20SiCp-T6jAE 2124-14SiCw-UAjOA 2014-20SiCp-T6jAE 2124-14SiCw-UAjOA MB85-15SiCp-UAjOA M B85-15SiCp-UAjOA 6061AI-15AI203-UAjOA 6090AI-25AI203-SAjT6 MB78-15SiCp-UAjOA A356-1 Oj20SiCp- T6 AI-AI3Ni Mg matrix AZ91-20SiCp-T4 AZ91-19SiCp{15 AZ91-20SiCp{52 Cu matrix Cu-28W Intermetallics NiAI NiAI Ni3AI AI3Ti Amorphous metals Pd Cu Si Zr Ti Ni Cu Be Ceramics AI203 B203 LiF MgO ZOk152 ZOk152 Mahon et al.198 Vasudevan et al.201 Lewandowski
et al.189,190
Researcher(s)
Failure mode*
P,
MPa
Pj(fy
Measured
properties*
Note
Bridgman36 Bridgman36 Nishihara et al,114 Robbins and Wronski131 Bridgman36 Das and Radcliffe73 Daga71 Davidson et al,74 Mellor and Wronski108 Aladag45 Aldag et al.46 Andrews and Radcliffe49 Aladag45 Aldag et al.46 Bedere et al,55 Nakajima et al,111 Davidson et al,74 Davidson et aJ.74 Pugh and Green 123 Lahaie et al.101 Lewandowski et al.193 Davidson et al.74 Pugh and Green 123 ,Pugh and Green 123 Johnson et al,97 Johnson et al,97 Johnson et al,97
0'1-2850 0'1-2850 0'1-500 1500 0-500 0'1-2840 0'1-1100 0'1-1100 0'1-1600 2800
(ff, (ff,
q
[;f
ay,UTS, rof
(fy af, lof
Temperature up to 600"C Prepressu rised
0-1'5 0-2'0
(ff,
ay, (ff,
af, lof q EI Prepressu rised, prestrained
Cleavage/MVCjshear
q
(fy, af,
Intergranularj transgranular
0'1-980 0'1-2700
af,
[;f
Prepressurised 0-3'8 0-12'2

(fy, af, (ly, af, ay
f~ [;f
Transgranular Intergranularj transgranular
0'1-980 0'1-1500 shear 0'1-600 0'1-2350 0'1-1800 0'1-460 0'1-690 0'1-380 0'1-138 0'1-410 172 172 172
[;f
CleavagejMVCjshear MVCjshear Intergranular/shear Brittlejplastic rupture Cleavage/plastic rupture
4 [;f 0-2'2
(fy, af,
<of
(,f
q
ay,
<of 0'2 0'2 02

ay, af, <1 (fy, (ff, Gf ay, af,
Prepressu rised Prepressu rised Prepressurised
MVC/shear MVC/shear MVCjshear MVCjshear MVC MVC MVC MVC MVC MVC MVC
0'1-980 0'1-690 0'1-980 0'1-690 0'1-300 0'1-300 0'1-300 0'1-400 0'1-500 0'1-850 0'1-690 0'1-350 0'1-440 0'1-490
0-2'4 0-2'0 0-2'4 0-2'0 0-0'8 0-0'8 0-1'1
UTS, Gf UTS, l1 ay, UTS, l1 ay, UTS, [;f

ay, ay, (ly, af, ay, (ff, ay, af,
Gf (,f
Liu 195 Liu et al.194.195.197 Lewandowski et al.193 Singh and Lewandowski199 Embury Zok 152 Lewandowski Lewandowski Lewandowski
et al.184
q q
Damage quantification Damage quantification Damage quantification
q q 0-4'5 0-1'2 0-1'4 0-1'9

ay,
UTS, <1
et al,193 et al,193 et al.193
Gf
llm}-T6 llm}-T6
MVC MVC
ay, ay,
UTS, af, UTS, af,
[;f
[;f
Damage quantification Damage quantification
Zok152 Margevicius and Lewandowski155.161,163 Weaver et al.166,167 Zok et al,152.170 Witczak and Varin 169 Davis and Kavesh323 Lewandowski et al.324 Bridgman36 Bridgman36,37 Hanafee and Radcliffe 176 Weaver and Paterson 180,181 Bridgman36
MVC Transgranularj inte rg ra nul ar Intergranular
0'1-690 0'1-1400 0-14'0
UTS,q
(ly, (ff,
Gf
wj Prepressurised Prepressu rised Prepressurised
0'1-965 2000 0'1-690 0'1-650 2350-2960 2350-2960 0'1-1300 0-0'47 0-0'35
af,
Gf
ay, af,
lof, HV
Shear Shear
af,
E:f
af, F.f
af af,
Gf, density change Dislocation velocity
Brittlejshear
0'1-1000 2350-2960
ay, af, F.f af,

[,f
NaCI
* CRSS critical resolved shear stress; delam delamination; coalescence; UTS ultimate tensile strength.
dajdn
crack propagation
rate; EI elongation;
HV Vickers hardness; J J-integral;
MVC microvoid
International
Materials Reviews
1998
Vol. 43
No.4
152
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
and any pressure variation reported during the test in addition to the load and strain measurement techniques reported by the various investigators on the materials listed. Table 2 provides a similar list of investigations organised by the type of material (e.g. metal, intermetallic, composite) tested, as well as by the crystal structure (e.g. bcc, fcc, hcp) of the metals under investigation. Included in Table 2 are the specific properties measured by each of the investigators and any comments related to the failure modes present. References to the works in Tables 1 and 2 are provided, while the specific data summaries appear in subsequent figures. In most of the studies where testing is conducted with superimposed hydrostatic pressure, the specimens have been coated or jacketed274 with some impervious membrane (e.g. polymer, Cu, shrink fit tubing, etc.) in order to prevent ingress of the pressure medium into any surface cracks, porosity, etc.274 The membrane utilised is typically very thin and does not contribute significantly to the load bearing area of the specimen. Furthermore, pressurisation of specimens shielded with such membranes, in and of itself, has not produced changes to the subsequent flow stress obtained at atmospheric pressure.
-2
-1
o
~
cr
1 2
Yield surface plotted in principal stress space for fully dense isotropic and homogeneous material335,336
Effects of superimposed pressure on stress state in cylindrical specimens

Conditions present before necking in cylindrical specimens
shear stresses developed owing to the differences in compressibility between the matrix and the second phase.128 The maximum shear stress '[max at the matrix/second phase interface has been separately estimated by Das and Radcliffe73 and Ashby et al.337 for a spherical particle and is given by
'[max
Plastic deformation in metallic systems tested at low homologous temperatures primarily occurs via dislocation generation and/or movement via shear stresses, often referred to as conservative motion or glide. Plastic deformation under such conditions occurs when the effective stress (j equals the yield strength in tension (Jy, where the effective stress is given as
0"=0[(J1-(J2
K m
3Gm
Km -Kp 3K + 4G
p
(2)
)2
+ ( 0"2-(J3
)2
+ ( (J3-(J1
)2] 1/2
. . . . . . . .
(1)
and (Jb (J2, and (J3 represent the principal stresses. The application of a purely hydrostatic stress (i.e. (J1 = 0"2 = (J3) produces no shear stress in a homogeneous and isotropic material as shown by the 3-D yield surface plotted in stress space in Fig. 3. A hydrostatic stress is represented as the axis of the cylinder in Fig. 3, and since such stresses never touch the yield surface, there should be no effect of pressurisation/pressure soaking on the subsequent flow behaviour when uniaxial testing is conducted at atmospheric pressure. Pressurisation in this case denotes the simple application of hydrostatic pressure to a material and its subsequent removal. There should similarly be little effect of superimposed pressure on yielding when testing is conducted on a cylindrical specimen in the presence of a confining (i.e. hydrostatic) pressure as the stress state up to the ultimate tensile stress (UTS) (i.e. before necking) in such specimens consists of the uniaxial stress plus any superimposed hydrostatic pressure. However, simple pressurisation can serve as a means for generating dislocations in a material around inclusions and other defects as there are local
International Materials Reviews 1998 Vol. 43 NO.4
where Gm is the shear modulus of the matrix, Km and K the bulk moduli of the matrix and the second phase, respectively, and P the applied hydrostatic pressure. Dislocations are generated when '[max reaches the nucleation stress for dislocation generation which can be theoretically predicted or determined experimen tally.338 Another manner in which shear stresses are generated in polycrystalline materials through the simple application of hydrostatic pressure is through the anisotropy of elastic constants.91,128 Crystals of all systems except the cubic system can change shape when subjected to hydrostatic pressure; cubic crystals have isotropic bulk moduli. The volume compressibility, which is the inverse of the bulk modulus, is the pressure induced change in volume of a crystal normalised to its original volume, and the linear compressibility k, is the amount of pressure induced length change in a straight line normalised to its original length. For the cubic system k is independent of orientation and is related to the elastic compliance 5ij, through k = 511 + S12 (3) For the trigonal, hexagonal, and tetragonal systems, two constants are required, the value in the a direction ka, and the value in the c direction kc. These compressibilities are related to the elastic compliance 5ij by
= 511 + 512 + S13 kc = 2S13 + 533

ka
. (4)
. (5)
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
153
The linear compressibility is given by kr

= ka
in any other direction
kr (6)
+ (ke
ka)r2
where r is the direction cosine with subject to the c axis. If non-cubic metals can change shape because of pressurisation, then a random aggregate of many crystals, when subjected to unit hydrostatic pressure, will develop shear stresses across grain boundaries. It is this shear stress which produces dislocation generation in anisotropic materials. The degree of anisotropy in these non-cubic systems is given in terms of the ratio ke/ka. The anisotropy of a number of hexagonal metals is given in Table 3. Those metals with a high degree of anisotropy, Cd and Zn have been shown91,339 to require only modest levels of pressure ( '" 300 MPa) to induce plastic strain in the grains, while metals with ratios close to one (where a cubic metal equals 1'0), Zr and Mg, required the highest pressures ('" 26 GPa) to produce only trace amounts of plastic deformation. Although TEM analyses have confirmed the presence of pressure induced dislocations around inclusions in less pure Fe and Fe-C alloys containing inclusions,65,139 high purity cubic metals such as Cu, AI, Fe, and Ni have shown no such plastic deformation after pressurisation to levels up to 1 GPa (Refs. 109, 339). Porous materials consisting of either interconnected or isolated pores are also highly pressure sensitive,340 provided the pressure medium is shielded from the specimen to prevent ingress of the pressure medium (i.e. gas, liquid) into the pores. The 3-D yield loci for such materials are distinctly different from that shown in Fig. 3 for homogeneous and isotropic materials. Shown in Fig. 4 are 3-D yield loci for porous materials containing increasing levels of porosity.335,336,341,342 It is clear that the application of a hydrostatic pressure of sufficient magnitude in these cases can touch the yield surface and thereby produce plastic flow. Examples of such effects are provided in works on porous Fe (Refs. 62, 137). Conditions present past necking in cylindrical specimens Once a neck begins to form in a cylindrical tensile specimen tested at atmospheric pressure, triaxial tensile stresses develop in the necked region. Both the magnitude and location of such triaxial stresses vary with location in the neck which develops with additional deformation. Prenecked (e.g. notched speciTable 3 Linear compressibility and anisotropy factors for some non-cubic materials (Refs. 128, 339)
Linear compressibility, Lattice ratio Metal Cadmium Zinc Bismuth Magnesium Zirconium Titanium Beryllium MPa Ratio ke/ka
-1
o
~t
(a)
-1
-0.5
a
~l
(b)
cr
0.5
1
Yield surface plotted in principal stress space for material containing void fraction of a 0'057 and b 0'180 (Ref. 336)
mens) when subsequently tested in tension also experience triaxial tensile stresses in the necked/notched region. In this case, the major difference between the necked region which evolved during deformation and that simulated by prenotching a pristine (i.e. nondeformed) specimen relates to the differences in deformation history (and any damage) present in the necked region as compared to the notched region. Bridgman provided an estimate of the additional hydrostatic tension O"T in the plane of a neck or notch24,36 as
O"T
O"flow
In ( 1 + 2R - 2a~
1'2
. (7)
cia 1'8856 1,8564 2'6095 1'6235 15931 1'5870 1'5684
c axis, ke
a axis, ka 2'17 2'01 6'84 10'16 380 2'70 2'91

X X X X X X X
18'90 13'41 16'45 10'16 3'80 2'70 2'27
x 106 x 106 x 106 x 106 x 106 x 106 x 106
106 106 106 106 106 106 106
8'70 6'70 2'40 100 100 1'00 0'78
where O"flow is the flow stress, a the minimum specimen radius, R the radius of curvature at the neck or notch, and r n the distance from the centre along the plane of the neck. Since the notch/neck geometry will often change with additional deformation, the level of triaxial tensile stress resulting from deformation of such
154
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
Effects of hydrostatic pressure on materials
2000
~
j
II
JI
o
EE EB
[SJ
(a)
~ 1500
..='" ~
eJ)
III
r:J)
"e
~~
~ 1000
II
~
,6,
6 II
4310-Lower Yield 4330-Lower Yield
133 1.13
BY -80 1..ower Yield Maraging-Unaged Maraging-Unaged Maraging-Aged 4340 {tenlpered 4340 {tempered
134
Q)
(Ten.)
134
(Comp.) ] 34 (Ten.)
@ (eQ @ 134 152
152
o o
Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd 2.0
3000C} 5000C} 7000C}

152
200
400
600
Hydrostatic
800
1000
MPa
1200
Superimposed
Pressure,
4340 {tempered
152
01 Tool Steel {Hard}
01 Tool Steel {Mediunl} 01 Tool Steel {Soft}

152
152
..= ~
r:J)
"'0
,6, [S} f .. .. T ()
~ 1.5 ~~
Q)
'ri-V Steel {9500C FRT} Ti-V Steel {700C FRT} 7075AI-T651(TR) 7075AI-T65 I(WR) 7075AI-T65I (RW) :20141\1 ..'1'(21)\
50,51 50,51 50,51
152
15;.~
~ ~
1.0
e
Z
~ 0.5
(b)
0.0
('>
2124/\J.();\
:!()
200
400
600
Hydrostatic
800 Pressure,
1000
MPa
1200
Superimposed
a yield strength v. superimposed
hydrostatic pressure; b normalised yield strength v. superimposed
hydrostatic pressure
Effect of pressure on yield strength of various bee and fcc metallic alloys
specimens will vary past necking in the cylindrical specimen. Thus, while the level of superimposed hydrostatic pressure has been kept relatively constant in many of the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2, the triaxial stresses present in the neck during tests with superimposed pressure will depend on a variety of factors including the neck geometry, level of superimposed pressure, and the flow stress of the material. It is important to note that some studies investigating the effects of superimposed pressure on tension tests have been conducted under conditions such that compressive triaxial stresses were present in the necked region. In these cases, the levels of superimposed pressure were high enough to overcome the triaxial tensile stresses which developed in the evolving neck. Thus, the ability to monitor visually the development of the neck during tests with superimposed pressure as described above, or conducting interrupted tests where the neck can be physically measured outside of the high pressure environment, has some merits.85,86,89,103,197,213
International Materials Reviews 1998 Vol. 43
NO.4
Effects of superimposed pressure on flow behaviour

Effects of superimposed pressure on yield stress Figures 5-8 summarise published data on the effects of pressurisation/pressure soaking as well as tensile testing at different levels of superimposed hydrostatic pressure on the yield strength, typically reported as the 02 % offset yield strength. In the former tests, the yield strength was measured at atmospheric pressure after pressurisation, while the measurements of yield stress in the latter cases occurred during tensile tests conducted with superimposed hydrostatic pressure. The pressure medium utilised in the studies summarised was either an oil medium or Ar gas and was confirmed to be hydrostatic. Figure 5 summarises data obtained on a variety of steels and aluminium alloys, while Fig. 6 shows similar data obtained on a variety of single phase metals possessing a bcc crystal structure. Figure 7 is a plot of the same type of
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
155
--0 -0
-[S}-
Fc {G.S.=11Jlnl} Fe {G.S.=14Jlm} Fe {G.S.=19Jlm} Fe {G.S.=30Jlm}
147 147 147 147 147
-83- --. -
Fe {G.S.=450~.lIn} Iron
65
._.... _ _ _.... Ar111co _ ... ..
6 - - PM Tungsten
72 72
--Arc-Melted Tunsten
64
72
\}- - Chromium
.... - Iodide Chromium
800
600 .: eiJ 500

CJ
~ ~
eo:
700
~_----1..
.---{),
'"' V)
"'0
400 300 200 100
-..
"'- ~
-...........
~ ~
5b, 6b, 7b, and 8b are plots of the ratio of the yield strength obtained at pressure (or after pressure soaking) to that of the control material (i.e. no pressure soaking), in the manner utilised by a number of investigators, henceforth this is called the normalised yield strength. Pressure independent yielding is represented by the horizontal line at 10 for the normalised yield strength in Figs. 5b-8b. It is clear from Fig. 5a that a number of conventional structural metallic alloys exhibit nominally pressure independent yielding behaviour, as predicted by equation (1). Slight positive deviations for monolithic materials (i.e. normalised yield strength> 1 in Fig. 5b) have been explained as in part due to the pressure dependence of the shear modulus, which though modest, is non-zero for various metallic materials.136 Models313.314 have been developed to predict such pressure dependent yielding in metallic materials and metallic glasses321-323 and a few studies have invoked such models to explain such pressure dependence of the yield stress.136 It should be noted that there have been observations of materials which exhibit much greater positive deviations than those of the monolithic metals summarised in Fig. 5a and b. For example, it has been clearly shown that superimposed pressure significantly inhibits dislocation mobility in LiF, thereby elevating the flow stress above that obtained at atmospheric pressure.176
(a)
o o
2.0
200
400
600
Hydrostatic
800
Pressure,
1000
MPa
1200
Superimposed
.c
Oil
c
QJ
1.5
'"' 00
"'0
~ ~
'"' 0 Z
1.0
\ ~ ~Y-
. -y.\_;~~;~ - 400 600

Hydrostatic
-9
0.5
-----.--.
(b)
0.0 0 200 800

Pressure,
1000
MPa
1200
Superimposed
a yield strength v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b normalised yield strength v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure
Effeet of pressure on yield strength of various bee metals; G.S. grain size
information for the intermetallic NiAI which possesses a B2 (i.e. bcc derivative) crystal structure, while Fig. 8 is a plot of data from more recent work on composites based on either aluminium or magnesium alloy matrixes. The data reported for the control materials (i.e. no pressure soaking) occur on the ordinate at 01 MPa (i.e. atmospheric pressure). Figures 5a, 6a, 7a, and 8a summarise the reported values for the yield strength obtained either during tension tests with superimposed pressure or after pressure soaking at the levels of hydrostatic pressure indicated. Figures
It is also clear that some of the monolithic metals shown in Fig. 5a and b as well as a variety of bcc metals (cf. Fig. 6a and b) and certain chemistries of the intermetallic NiAI shown in Fig.7a and b exhibit a significant decrease in the yield strength after pressure soaking or during tests conducted with superimposed pressure. In these cases, the materials typically exhibited a yield point and Liiders extension before pressure soaking or testing with superimposed pressure. Pressurisation (and/or testing with pressure) was shown to remove the yield point and Liiders strain, and thereby reduce the yield strength155,157,159,161,162,166,167 illustrated for cast/ as extruded NiAI in Fig. 7c. As shown in Figs. 6a and band 7a and b, large reductions in yield strength were obtained in Fe (Refs. 65, 147), Cr (Refs. 59, 64, 66, 72), and commercially pure NiAI (Refs. 155, 157, 161-163) that had been cast and extruded. Extensive TEM analyses in these cases revealed that pressure induced dislocation generation occurred at nonmetallic inclusions and other inhomogeneities in these materials,64,65,155,157,158,161an example of which is shown in Fig. 7d (Ref. 157). The generation of these mobile, pressure induced dislocations thereby reduced the yield strength, while subsequent thermal aging studies conducted for sufficient time-temperature combinations at atmospheric pressure enabled relocking of the dislocations by interstitial impurities (e.g. C) and a return of the yield point and Liiders strain64,65,107,147,166 illustrated for NiAI in Fig.7c as (Ref. 159). Similar studies166,167 conducted on high purity NiAI failed to reveal a yield point and any subsequent effect of pressurisation on the yield stress as shown in Fig. 7a and b, consistent with such arguments. Pressurisation of the largest grained Fe in Fig. 6a and b (Ref. 147) to increasingly higher pressures eventually produced excessive generation
156
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
.......................... Nil\l {Cast and extruded}

-[S)- -
161 166 166
CP-NiAI {Prepressurised}
-EB - - - HP - N'Al{P repressunse d} , 1 - --. -- - NiAI-N{Prepressurised}

300
166
............
250
e':l
200
........
EB
100 50
...
-....-
...
(a)
o
2.0
500
1000
1500
Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa
..c
~ 1.5
EB
r;j
~ 1.0
....
QJ l-;
_------------
8
~ Z 0.5
---
lSI
-._---
-----------
........
__ .....
(b)
0.0
500
1000
1500
Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa
1%
50
(c)
annealed:;~a~~a :;~a~~a :;~~~a

p p p T = 200C, 2h T = 400C, 2h
Strain
a yield strength v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b normalised yield strength v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; c stress-strain curves of polycrystalline NiAI tested in tension after annealing at 82JOC for 2 h, pressurised to 1'4 GPa, and tested at atmospheric pressure, and after aging pressurised specimens at either 200C or 400C for 2 h (Ref. 159) (arrows show proportional limit); d dislocations being punched from Zr inclusion in NiAI pressurised to 14 GPa (Refs. 156, 157, 160, 161)
Effect of pressure on yield strength of NiAI
of dislocations and a slight increase in the yield strength because of work hardening. Little effect of pressurisation was 0bserved on higher strength Powder metallurgy produced NiAI (cf, Fig.7a
International Materials Reviews 1998 Vol. 43 No.4
and b)166 or W as well as arc-melted W (cf. Fig.6a and b), 72 in part due to the higher strengths of the materials tested and the limited range of pressures utilised.
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
157
- --6---
2014AI-20SiCp{
13 J..lm}-AE 13 J..lm}-T6 1 J..lrn}-UA 1 ~m}-OA

152 193
152,201 152,201 152,201 152,201
. -J.: - - 2014AI-20SiCp{
-\1- - -
2124AI-14SiCw{ 2124AI-14SiCw{ - AI-AI Ni{ l~m}

3
-T----X 0--
IIOOAJ-IOAI')O_~
1100AI-15Al)0 .. 193 - .' - -0- - - 6061AI-15AJ 0 {13/lrn}-UA

2 3
2 _ 3 3
<> --. -
195 195 185
-- -0- -- 6061AI-15AI
- - -[SJ- - - 6061AI-15At)
0 (13/lm}-OA
0 {13~ln}-UA
193 193
- - -EB- - - 6090AI-25SiCp-SA
- - -.- - - 6090AI-25SiCp-T6 -0AZ91-19SiCp{
15~.lTn}-T6 193
J93
-e600
AZ91-20SiCp{52!-lIn}-T6
(a)
; :~~~;::::1-~
: 200l
~
c:
500
yield stress apparently arises because of pressure induced dislocation generation around the reinforcement which increases significantly the local dislocation density, thereby providing local hardening and a higher yield strength.192,195,196 Transmission electron microscope studies have confirmed that such events can occur provided the pressurisation is conducted at a large enough pressure to generate shear stresses of sufficient magnitude near the reinforcement.192 Testing with superimposed pressure has also been shown to inhibit the accumulation of damage (e.g. void initiation and growth) in such materials. As the accumulation of damage reduces the load bearing area and instantaneous modulus in such composites and thereby reduces the strain hardening rate, pressure induced damage suppression has been proposed as also contributing to the elevated flow stresses obtained during tests conducted with superimposed pressure.192,196,201 This point is further discussed below when summarising the effects of confining pressure on the UTS. In addition, recent work has also shown that the level of residual stress in the matrix and reinforcement can be changed via pressurisation.343,344 Finally, various models315-320 have indicated that the presence of the non-deforming reinforcement particles provides constrained flow and enhances the flow stress of the matrix. The superposition of pressure during tension testing should counteract this effect, as illustrated in a few papers.318-320 Effects of pressure on work hardening exponent n The effects of testing with superimposed pressure on the work hardening exponent n have been infrequently studied. Figure 9a and b illustrates the experimentally measured effect of superimposed pressure on n for a high strength aluminium alloy (7075- T651) tested in different orientations with respect to the rolling direction. Testing was conducted with superimposed pressure on either uniaxial tension specimens or plane strain tension specimens and generally revealed an increase in n with increasing pressure. The authors50,51 indicated that such observations could be related to the amount of second phase particles which could punch out dislocation loops because of their smaller compressibility, in a manner analogous to that described above for the composite materials. Effects of pressure on UTS The experimental data for the UTS obtained via tension testing with a range of superimposed pressures are provided for both monolithic metals as well as composites in Figs. 10-15. As indicated above, the stress state at the UTS (i.e. before necking) in such specimens consists of the uniaxial stress plus any superimposed hydrostatic pressure. Data obtained from some of Bridgman's original works are provided in Figs. 10-13 for a variety of ferrous based systems heat treated to different strength levels and microstructures. Figure 14a summarises similar data for a variety of other ferrous and non-ferrous structural materials. Figure 14b provides the ratio of the UTS
x
-X'X- ...
y
==
100
0---
500
Superimposed Hydrostatic
1000
Pressure, MPa
1500
2.0
(b)
:::::0-
~ - - - ---= =
--
=t
E Z
"'"
0.5-
0.0
500
1000
Pressure, MPa
1500
a yield strength v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b normalised yield strength v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure
Effect of pressure on yield strength of discontinuously reinforced metal matrix composites
The largest changes in the yield strength obtained either after pressurisation or during tests with superimposed pressure have been exhibited by composite materials, as shown in Fig. 8a and b (Refs. 152, 185, 191-196, 198, 200, 201). One source of the enhanced
158
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
-6- _.. A -0 ---
TR{ uniaxial}
-fSJ- Fe-0.34C-O.75Mn-O.017P-O.033S
TR {plane strain}
TW {uniaxial} TW {plane strain}
----e
-0 .- WR{uniaxial}
- --0
... - WR.{planc strain} RW {uniaxial} - -+- - RW {plane strain}

3000
-O.18Si (as-received) Fe-0.45C-O.83Mn-O.O l6P-O.035S -O.19Si (as-received) o normalised @ l650F ---0 annealed, fine-grained - -6annealed, coarse-grained - - -. -- brine-quenched/tenlpered @ 600F - - -+- - - brine-quenched/tempered @ 600F -- -.-- -- brine-quenched/tempered @ 900F
- -0 -
0.15 2500
.' II
....
11 ...............................
~ Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd ~
ce
:;E 1500
rrJ."'
;:J 1000 500

(a)
o o
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 600 10 Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa Effect of pressure on UTS of various tested by Bridgman36 steels
0.00
=
Q)
500 Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa
100
200
300
400
2.00
.0- ... '-'0."
=: o
0.<
c.. ~
~
Q)
1.50
...
.0"
'2
"'C
=:
; 1.00
t:t= =: .;
......... ~:.:: .:: ..;. ::..

.
;:
. A.
: :.;.:.:
.. R . . .
. . . .'
..:.' .... ~ ..:.
'.
~
o
0.50
(b)
e :..
0.00
100 200 300 400 500 600 Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa
b normalised
a n v. hydrostatic pressure; hydrostatic pressure
n v. superimposed
Effect of pressure on strain hardening exponent n of 7075AI- T651 (Refs. 50, 51)
Fe-O.68C-O. 7lMn-O.O l3P-O.025S -O.19Si (as-received) ----0 --- Fe-O.9C-O.47Mn-O.015P-O.036S -O.llSi (as-received) o normalised @ 1650F -- -0-- annealed, fine-grained -6-annealed, coarse-grained -e- brine-quenched/spherodised brine-quenched/tempered @ 600F -+- - brine-quenched/tenlpered @ 900F
--{SJ--
-.-
3000
obtained at high pressure to that obtained at atmospheric pressure and a normalised UTS of 10 indicates no measurable effect of superimposed pressure on the UTS. The data for the monolithic metals shown in Figs. 10-13 as well as those summarised in Fig. 14a and b indicate that superimposed pressure generally has a relatively minor effect on the UTS of most monolithic metals, though some exceptions are shown. Figure 15a and b illustrates that composite materials often exhibit significant pressure dependent values for the UTS. This has been attributed152,185,189-201 to the pressure induced suppression of damage associated with the reinforcement and the matrix (e.g. void initiation/growth/ coalescence), which is covered in more detail in the following sections on fracture behaviour.
2500 ~ 2000
......................... II ....
11
:;E
r.i1 ~ 1500 ;:J .:~o:::::: ::: : :Q:::::: 1000 500

' ...
.........
:: : :: ~
o .... o ... ,::

... 6,
o .. -0
........
6,: '.0
'/":.::.:.o:':::::'=<>
o
11
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa steels
Effect of pressure on UTS of various tested by Bridgman36
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
159
- - -IS}- -Fe-O.55C-O.35Tvln-O.04P-O.04S
-O.20Si-3.45Ni-2.3Cr -O.20Si-2.98Ni-l.18Cr las-received las-received) -- -0 -- Fc-O.3C-O.18I\r1n-O.O 11P-O.02S
---R
-8-
Fc-O. 094C-O. 3 61v1n-O. 02P - (). 02 25 -O.35Si-12.26Cr-().46Ni-O.5~10 las- rccei ved) F c-O. 067 C-O. 05IVI n-O. 02P -0.03 S
-0.51 Si-17.49Cr-0.41 Ni
-- -0
.<> - -
Fe-O.26C-O.23Mn-O.02P-O.025S -O.06Si-3.04Ni-l.4Cr (as-received) Fc-O.3C-O.24I\r1n-O.024P-O.03 IS

-O.20Si-2.96Ni-I.29Cr las-received)
-4..-
(as-received) Fe-O.058C-O. 7Tvln-O.03P-O.O 13S

-0.8551-18.51 Cr-8.95Ni-O.2Cu
(as-received)
-6- - - - 1045 Steel (as-received) - - -. - -. F~-O.6C-(}. 71\tln-O.c)3P-O.03S-1. 9Si

(a'i-receivcd) - - - -R
3000 2500 I
-- -+ --- Fe-O.OSl C-O.S9Mn-O.03P-O.02S

-- -0 -O.47Si-18.31 Cr-lO.27Ni-O.2Cu (as-received) High-carbon Steels 48HRC 51HRC 56HRC 60HRC 63HRC
oil-quenched
I I
Iii
-- -0--8--<)-
-\}5000
d: ~ ')000
~ 1500 1000
f~
._c- .~;
~_"i - -. '. -- - . .. ~,
o
.. "S .. - - ~ l"J:S:
4000
0, --.---- .. ---.-.-(). .,::---6 - - -
.\]
'-'-
s:: ..
--0
ti
500
~ ~ ~
C':
3000 2000 l'-3'
-8.
'6, -6 . --0
rJ5' 0
--0-"-0
o o
12
500 1000 1500 Superimposed Hydrostatic 2000 2500 3000 Pressure, MPa
..
iJ,.
-+ .
A'
1000
'II' ..
..............
-.-
..
Effect of pressure on UTS of various steels tested by Bridgman36
o o
13
500 1000 1500 Superimposed Hydrostatic 2000 2500 3000 Pressure, l\lPa
Effects of superimposed fracture behaviour
pressure on
Effect of pressure on UTS of various steels tested by Bridgman36
General effects of stress state on fracture Changes in stress state have been shown to exert controlling effects on the fracture behaviour of materials and can induce a ductile to brittle (or vice versa) transition in some systems. Detailed descriptions of the various microstructural factors controlling such events is beyond the scope of this review. Readers interested in such details are referred to specific articles and books for the topic of interest.345-350 However, it is important to highlight some of the key features which distinguish the micromechanisms of fracture which operate in materials that fail via ductile (e.g. microvoid coalescence) fracture from those that fail via brittle (e.g. cleavage) fracture. Figure 16 shows schematically the principal types of fracture mechanisms typically observed in metallic based systems. The micro mechanical fracture models which have been developed using experimental input reveal that the pressure sensitivity of such fracture micromechanisms are distinctly different as outlined below. In general, deformation and fracture micromechanisms which are associated with positive volume changes are categorised as dilatant processes and should exhibit highly pressure dependent behaviour. In contrast, pressure independent behaviour would be expected for deformation and fracture processes predominantly controlled by deviatoric stresses, as was shown above for the case of yielding in homogeneous isotropic materials.
Stresses controlling brittle fracture Brittle fracture in this context refers to the fracture appearance and micromechanisms which produce failure at low macroscopic strains at low homologous temperatures. Such brittle fracture may occur either transgranularly via transgranular cleavage fracture (Figs. 16a and 17a) or via brittle intergranular separation (Figs. 16b and 17b). Comparatively greater efforts have been expended on modelling and experimentally evaluating the factors controlling brittle cleavage fracture in comparison with brittle intergranular fracture. However, many of the issues regarding the effects of changes in stress state on cleavage and intergranular fracture are similar with respect to the present context which treats the effects of stress state on the fracture nucleation event as separate from that of the propagation of the crack. A variety of textbooks and articles are available which discuss the factors controlling cleavage fracture in crystalline materials.346,347,349,35o In experiments on metallic materials, it was often shown that the brittle fracture stress obtained in uniaxial tension tests was equivalent to the yield stress in compression.355 In addition to indicating that some amount of plastic flow typically precedes brittle fracture in metallic systems, such results also suggested the existence of a strong effect of stress state on brittle fracture. Brittle fracture in metallic materials is often
160
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
- - -fr---\]--
4340 {tempered 4340 {tempered 4340 {tempered
@ @ @
3000e} 500 e}
0
152 I 52 152
2124AI-14SiCw{ IJlm}-UA 2124AI-14SiCw{ IJlm}-OA
152,201 152,201 152
----T---0-- - -lS} -
6 Al- 20S iCp { 13Jlrn }_AE 2014 7000e}

152 152
----...--
01 Tool Steel {Hard}
-+
20 14AI-20SiCp{ 13~tn1}-T6 152 Cu-28W 152
01 Tool Steel {Medium} 01 Tool Steel {Soft} Ti-V Steel {950 Ti-V Steel 2014AI-T6
152
- - - -() - - - AI- Al Ni -'

800
....
152
----.- - --(>
--+
-0-0-
e {700 e
0 0
FRT} FRT}
152 152
--
152
- 2124AI-UA
152 152
~:::z~;~~-.--~--:--..-----~ .-.~
200 100
(a)
.
-
-----------
-e-[H 2,500
2124AI-OA l\Z91
19:'i
o o
-.---------6.----6-' ------0---.--/':;-------f'J-------[S]-----
2,000
----0 --6
----[S]
100 WO ~O 400 ~O WO Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure,
mo
MPa
WO
2.0
~
~ 1,500 rJ5' ~ 1,000
-
-\1-- - - - - - >:J- - - - - - -'Y- - -- - - -\I-. - - - - - >:J
-_::::::~: ::~:-~::----\:-:: :::~::::_:, ~
1.5
00.
ts------6.
500
~:~-.~~1
(a)
~ ~
.------1.0
---1'\---------
------~
8
l-o
Z 0.5
0 0 200 Superimposed 2.0 400 Hydrostatic 600 800 Pressure, MPa 1,000
(b)
0.0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700 MPa
800
Superimposed 1.5
00.
Hydrostatic
Pressure,
~ ~
a UTS v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b normalised UTS v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure
l-o
1.0'
15
Effect of pressure on UTS of discontinuously reinforced metal matrix composites
Z 0.5
(b)
0.0 0 200 Superimposed 400 Hydrostatic 600 800 Pressure, MPa 1,000
a UTS v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b normalised UTS v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure
14
Effect of pressure on UTS of various metals
categorised as nucleation controlled v. propagation controlled.346,347 In the former case, the nucleation of the crack is considered the most difficult event so that nucleation is typically followed by catastrophic fracture.356-358 Considering that some amount of plastic flow is typically required to nucleate such cracks suggests that a condition for nucleation controlled brittle fracture is . (8)
Brittle fracture which occurs under such conditions should be pressure independent because fracture nucleation is assumed coincident with yielding, which itself is typically pressure independent. Significant pressure induced increases in ductility are not expected in such cases. In contrast, the conditions for propagation controlled brittle fracture in metallic materials requires that the fracture nucleation event(s) occur easily, with the subsequent propagation of the fracture nuclei considered as the most difficult event.346,347 It has been proposed that the propagation of such fracture nuclei typically occur by reaching a constant maximum principal stress359-364 that is temperature independent. A number of metallic systems appear to obey such a fracture criterion over a wide range of test conditions and test temperatures350,353,359-362,365-367and indicate that brittle fracture under such conditions can be described by
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
161
to raise the stress to the brittle fracture stress may eventually trigger another more locally ductile fracture mode such as microvoid coalescence, as suggested in recent fracture mechanism maps.351,368,369As discussed below, the pressure dependence of such ductile fracture micromechanisms is significantly different to those described above for controlling brittle fracture. Loading Direction
(a) (b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
a transgranular cleavage; b intergranular fracture; c microvoid coalescence or dimpled rupture; d ductile rupture; e localised shear
16 General categories of fracture metallic materials351,352
processes in
the following equation a=(Jr+P . (9)
where (J r is the brittle fracture stress in tension and P the superimposed pressure. Brittle fracture under maximum principal stress control should exhibit a fracture stress-superimposed pressure relationship that is linear with a slope of 1. Pressure induced ductility increases are expected with such a brittle fracture criterion because of the requirement of achieving a critical maximum tensile stress and the need to overcome the superimposed pressure. Finally, since it is clear that some amount of plastic flow is required for both crack nucleation and growth in metallic materials, it is possible that a transition from nucleation controlled fracture to propagation controlled fracture (or vice versa) could occur with a significant change in stress state. For example, consider the case of significantly increasing the level of superimposed pressure on a material which exhibits nucleation controlled fracture at low levels of superimposed hydrostatic pressure. This could create a condition where all three principal stresses are compressive, thereby requiring additional plastic flow which would blunt any pre-existing or evolving fracture nuclei while requiring additional increases in the maximum principal stress to trigger brittle fracture. Pressure induced ductility increases in such cases might be relatively minor at low levels of superimposed pressure, with an abrupt transition at some critical level of superimposed pressure. Sufficiently high levels of superimposed pressure and the resulting higher levels of strain and work hardening required
Stresses controlling ductile fracture Ductile fracture in metallic materials occurs via the nucleation, growth, and coalescence of voids and is often referred to as micro void coalescence (MVC).345,370-372 In contrast to brittle fracture, it is typically a fracture mode that requires high levels of strain at atmospheric pressure. Significant necking may occur, while the fracture surface appearance consists of microscopic dimples that either impinge or are linked via shear fracture as shown in Figs. 16c and 17c. The predominant fracture nuclei in such cases include inclusions, carbides, other second phase particles, and grain boundary regions. As expected, void evolution in such cases does not occur under constant volume conditions and a significant pressure effect is expected for materials which fail via MVC. The effects of superimposed pressure on the stresses controlling MVC are discussed below. There are a variety of models for void nucleation in MVC, as recently reviewed.345,37o-374 Void nucleation at particles may occur via particle cracking or via decohesion of the particle/matrix interface. Nucleation can occur at strains/stresses as low as the yield strain/stress or at stresses beyond the UTS. Both particle cracking and interface decohesion have been modelled by assuming that a critical tensile stress is required either in the particle or at the particle/matrix interface. The nucleation condition in such cases could be affected by a superimposed pressure in the manner suggested by Argon et a1.373 and Goods and Brown.374 Pressures of sufficient magnitude could completely suppress void nucleation. Two of the many available models for void nucleation are now reviewed in the light of the potential effect of superposed pressure. The Brown and Stobb's dislocation model375 for void nucleation at particles with radii less than or equal to 1 Jlm invokes a critical strain Gn to nucleate micro voids by the decohesion of the particle/matrix interface, and is given by
Gn
=Krp(Je-(Jrn)2
(10)
where K is a material constant depending on the volume fraction of particles, 1"p the particle radius in Jlm, (Je the critical interfacial cohesive strength of the interface, and (Jrn the mean normal stress given by (JI + (J2 + (J3)/3. Argon et al.'s continuum model373 for void nucleation at particles with radii greater than 1 Jlm predicts that the critical condition for particle/ matrix interface separation is reached when . (11) where (Je is the critical cohesive interfacial strength, the mean normal stress, and a the effective stress given by equation (1). Both models predict a dependence of void nucleation on the mean stress. In the case of plastic
(Jrn
International
Materials Reviews
1998
Vol. 43
NO.4
162
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
~d
Imm
100 Jlm
a SEM view of transgranular cleavage fracture surface;353 b SEM view of intergranular fracture surface;163 c SEM view of microvoid coalescence;103 d SEM view of ductile rupture; 103 e SEM view of shear localisation in tension specimen; 190 f optical view of shear band in torsion specimen (fracture occurred within intense shear band);354 g etched optical view of shear bands and fracture from notch in precipitation hardened AI alloy354
17
Optical views and SEM fractographs Materials Reviews 1998
of various fracture No.4
processes
International
Vol. 43
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
163
deformation with superposition of a hydrostatic fluid pressure p,376 the mean stress (Jm in the above equations is replaced by an effective mean normal stress (Jm,err given by
(Jm,err = (Jm
+P
. (12)
In this formalism, compressive values of P are taken to be algebraically negative. The Brown and Stobb's dislocation model, equation (10) becomes
Gn =
Krp((Jc - (Jm - p)2 model, equation
. (13) (11) . (14)
while Argon et ai.'s continuum becomes
MVC.86,89,197 Deformation proceeds without MVC to such high strains in these cases that failure occurs under nominally constant volume conditions. The second nominally ductile fracture process that is not highly dilatant involves materials exhibiting intense shear localisation, Fig. 16e and 17e. Precipitation hardened aluminium alloys heat treated to contain shearable precipitates often fail in shear at high values of strain in a tension test as shown in Fig. 17e (Refs. 99, 189, 190, 354) or via the propagation of intense shear bands in torsion354 (cf. Fig. 17f) or under notched bend conditions.354,38o,381 Testing with superimposed pressure might not significantly increase either the fracture stress or ductility in such cases.
Equations (13) and (14) thus predict an effect of superposed hydrostatic pressure on microvoid nucleation. At sufficiently high pressures, microvoid nucleation via such a mechanism may be eliminated.376 The Rice and Tracey model for void growth in a plastically deforming solid377 and that due to McCIintock378 similarly shows a large dependence on mean stress. The effect of superimposed hydrostatic pressure would be to retard void growth in such cases as reviewed by Thomason.376 Finally, the effects of confining pressure on MVC have been estimated by considering a simple plane strain model for the critical condition for incipient MVC376 and accounting for the effect of the superimposed hydrostatic pressure (In/2k( 1 -
General observations of
ductility enhancement
Pressure induced ductility increases have been observed in a variety of monolithic and composite materials. However, the magnitude of the ductility improvements are not consistent between materials systems which fracture via different micromechanisms (e.g. MVC, cleavage, intergranular, shear fracture), while the operative fracture micromechanisms are controlled by the microstructure. This is due in part to the differences in the pressure dependence of the various failure mechanisms listed and discussed above. Data summaries are provided initially followed by a discussion of the magnitude of the pressure dependencies observed. The work of Bridgman36 on a variety of steels, shown in Figs. 18-22, reveal a large effect of pressure on the fracture strain, obtained from reduction in area measurements. Clear differences between the pressure response were noted and attributed in part to the differences in strength level of the materials analysed. More recent work on plain carbon steels of varying C contents and microstructures are presented in Fig. 23a and b (Refs. 75, 149), while Fig. 24a and b (Refs. 63, 152) summarise similar work on higher alloy steels with more complicated microstructures. The values reported for normalised fracture strain in Figs. 23b and 24b are the ratio of the fracture strain obtained at high pressure to that obtained at one atmosphere. In some of these cases, careful metallographic investigations of cross-sections of fractured specimens revealed that the pressure induced ductility changes were due to the pressure induced suppression of damage at various microstructural features, including carbides, inclusions, grain boundaries, and other second phase particles. Figure 25, redrawn from the work of French and Weinrich,87 shows the quantification of voids associated with cementite particles in steel and clearly shows that increased levels of pressure inhibit the total number of voids present at equivalent levels of strain. Similar results have been obtained on other spheroidised steels by Brownrigg et ai.63 as well as on an aluminium alloyl03,197 reviewed below. Figure 26a and b contrasts the beneficial effects of superimposed pressure on the fracture strain of Fe (Ref. 149) to that obtained on brittle materials such as cast iron, tungsten, magnesium, Cu-Bi, zinc, and a zinc alloy. The fracture strain of Fe is large at one atmosphere and highly pressure
vi/2)
1/2
+ (Jm/2ky + P/2ky
(15)
where (Jn is the critical value of mean stress required to initiate plastic flow or internal necking in the intervoid matrix, Vf the volume fraction of microvoids, ky the macroscopic shear yield stress, and (Jm the mean normal stress. The superimposed hydrostatic pressure effectively reduces the magnitude of the tensile flow stress and thereby increases the amount of plastic void growth strain required for the coalescence of the voids.376 In the case of materials containing a large volume fraction of non-deforming particles (e.g. discontinuously reinforced composites), it has been demonstrated via finite element analyses that hydrostatic tension evolves in the matrix during deformation.315-32o.379 One of the beneficial effects of superimposed hydrostatic stress would be to counteract the detrimental hydrostatic tensile stresses which evolve during deformation in such systems. Void coalescence can occur via void impingement or via shear localisation between voids.37o,371 Void impingement is likely to exhibit a greater pressure sensitivity than shear localisation between voids because of the lower pressure sensitivity of shear dominated processes, as described below. Regardless, it is generally agreed that the elongation and ductility are dominated by the strain required for void nucleation and growth. Although the above discussion indicates that ductile fracture typically occurs via highly dilatant processes that would be expected to exhibit high pressure sensitivity, there are two other ductile fracture processes which are not highly dilatant. Consider ductile rupture (Figs. 16d and 17d) which occurs under levels of superimposed pressure sufficient to inhibit
164
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
Fe-O.34C-0.75Mn-O.017P-O.033S -O.18Si (as-received) - -0 ..- Fe-OA5C-0.83Mn-0.0 16P-0.035S -0.19Si (as-received)

.LSI - '.
-0 -- normalised
900C
.. -0 .... annealed, fine-grained -6; - - annealed, coarse-grained
-. -- -R -- -... 5.0
-" bIine-quenched and spheroidised ,bIine-quenched/tempered bline-quenched/telnpered

@
@
315C 315C 480C

5.0
-- -+ -- brine-quenched/tempered
Fe-O.55C-O.35,l\tln-0.04.P-0.04S .. .1] Si-3.45.Ni-2.3Cr (as-received) 0 ----0 Fe-O.3C-0.18.Mn-O.O] l.P-0.02S -0.07Si-2.98.Ni-l.18Cr (as-received o Fe-0.26C-0.23Mn-0.02P-0.025S -0.06Si-3.94Ni-1ACr (as-received) .<>. ,Fe ..O.3C-O.24.Mn ..O.024P-O.031 S ..O.08Si ..2.96.Nil.29C\ (as--rcceived) -6-"" 1045 Steel (as-received) .'., .. ,... Fe-O.6C-O.7Mn-O.03P-l.9Si-O.03S annealed -R -. - oil-quenched
-['S}
4.0 4.0
.sr
....
-'
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
o
500 1000 1500 Hydrostatic 2000 2500 MPa 3000 Superimposed Pressure,
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa
20
18 Effect of pressure on fracture strain of various steels tested by Bridgman36
Effect of pressure on fracture strain of various steels tested by Bridgman36
Fe-O.68C-O.711'V1n-O.013P-O.02SS -0. 19Si (as-received) -0 -- Fe-0.9C-OA7Mn-0.015P-O.036S -0.11 Si (as-received) -0 .. nonnalised @ 900C --0 -" annealed, fine-grained -6- - - annealed, coarse-grained . - --. -- -R bIine-quenched/spheroidised brine-quenched/tempered bIine-quenched/telnpered
@ @
-rs-:
- - -rsJ
- -0
-0, ...
1045 steel (as-received) water quenched water quenched, 40.3HRC quenched into salt
(il)
-<>.
425C, 91.7HRB
-Is .'.. qucnced into salt (cp 595C, 85.5HRB - - - -V315C 480C
5.0
water quenched
- -- -. ..,.... II
-- ternpered pearlite, 25.8HRC tcrnpered Inartensitc. 28.3HRC
----+
5.0
4.0
...":;'
.0
.0
4.0
0'-::<
."1'
c: .;
~ 3.0
I.
~P
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q;l
,-:c!'
2.0
-.[~J
.,.tr
If'
1.0
0.0
0.0
500 1000 1500 Superimposed Hydrostatic
2000 2500 Pressure, MPa
3000
500
1000
1500 Hydrostatic
2000 Pressure,
2500 MPa
3000
Superimposed
19 Effect of pressure on fracture strain of various steels tested by Bridgman36 International Materials Reviews 1998 Vol. 43 No.4
21
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
165
Fe-O.094C-O.36f\-1N-O.023P-O.022S
-O.35Si-12.26Cr-0.46Ni-O.5tvl0
)(
Fe-O.a04C(Ann.)
75
75 75 75 75 75 75
(as-received) -... - Fe-0.067C-O.OSIvIN-O.02P-0.03S -0.51 5i-17 .49Cr-OAI Ni ((i<.;-received) -J:,.- - - Fe-O.058C-O.70IvlN-O.03P-O.O 13S -O.85Si- 18.51 Cr-8.95Ni-O.2Cu ((i~-received) . . Fe-a.051 C-O.59MN-0.03P-0.02S -0.4751-18.3] Cr-l O.27Ni-O.2Cu (as-received) ..- -0 . High-carbon Steels
----0 --8-----0 - -\}48HRC . 51HRC 56HRC 60HRC - 63HRC
Fe-OAC(Ann.)
_ --Fe -0.83 C (}\nn.) 6 .. ---0-- Fe-I.] C(Ann.)
-"--k--II
Fe-OAC(Sph.) Fe-O.S3C(Sph.) Fc-l.IC(Sph.)

149 149 149
---0 --- Fc-O.02C

-[S}
Fe-O.27C
Fe-0.49C
-B
5.0
4.0
.c ;
~ 3.0
I
.. ..
II'
6.0
L.a t
l.0 0.0
e..
A .. ' .' ..0'
......
,A'" ..0'
.....
.. 0"
'''' ..0
... O:::6:~ :4:0 .

.' 0
~:::.
.'
o
22
500
Superimposed
1000
1500
2000
Pressure,
2500
MPa
3000
Superimposed 6.0 Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa
Hydrostatic
.;
:..
5.0
sensitive because failure is via MVC. In contrast, cast iron 123 tungsten 71,72.74 magnesium 74 zinc 112.123 a zinc'alloy/23 and 'Cu-Bi (Ref. 152) re~ain brittle until sufficient levels of pressure are applied to effect a change in fracture behaviour from one which apparently occurs via nucleation control and brittle fracture to a ductile fracture mechanism and/or one that exhibits propagation control. This concept is as reviewed elsewhere71.72.74.123 while the experimental evidence is revealed by the abrupt change in fracture strain v. pressure Fig. 26a and b. The amorphous metal alloys Pd Cu Si (Ref. 323) and Zr Ti Ni Cu Be (Ref. 324) fail via intense shear and low ductility at 01 MPa (1 atm) and this does not appear to be significantly affected at moderate pressure levels.323.324 In addition to the early work conducted on ferrous base systems, a variety of works have focused on nonferrous systems such as alloys based on aluminium and copper, shown in Fig. 27 a and b and Fig. 28a and b, respectively. While many of the aluminium alloys shown in Fig.27a and b illustrate a large pressure induced increase in ductility, the magnitude of these increases are clearly alloy and heat treatment (i.e. microstructure) dependent, with pressure independent behaviour (i.e. lack of ductility increase with increasing pressure) exhibited in a number of studies. In cases where MVC is the operative fracture mode,
U5
Col
:..
-e ~ ~
Z
1
3.0 2.0
E
:.. o
1
!
I!
(b) ~ 1
I
500
Superimposed
1000
1500
2000
l\!IPa
2500
Hydrostatic
Pressure,
a fracture strain v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b normalised fracture strain v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure
23
Effect of pressure on fracture strain of Fe-C alloys
it has been clearly shown in various metallographic investigations of failed aluminium alloy specimens that superimposed pressure suppresses damage/ voiding associated with inclusion particles. Figure 29 provides the quantification of the effects of superimposed pressure on the total void fraction near the fracture surface in 6061AI (Ref. 103) and a-brass,86 while Fig. 30a and b illustrates the change in void shape in 6061AI (Ref. 103) that arises due to superimposed pressure, with a transition from high aspect ratio voids to smaller, nearly spherical voids on going
166
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
200
ivlild Steel
118
0.1 MPa 300 MPa 600 MPa
l045 {O.75f.lrn}
63
CIl
~
6 3
'0
o
150
Fractured Specimens
1045 { 1. 4 8J.lln} 6~ CJ 1045 {0.75/JIn} Prestrained 4340 {300C} 4340 {5000C} 4340 {7000C}
152 152 152 152 15:?,
;.., ~
100
/&~t\
1.5
.c
= z
50
o
0.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
o
o
01 'fool Steel {Hard}
01 Tool Steel {Mediunl} 01 'fool Steel {Soft}

152
25

<>
6.0 5.0 c: .; 4.0
Ti- V Steel {950C FRT} Ti- V Steel {700C FRT}
152 152
Number of voids in centre of necked tension specimen tested at various levels of superimposed hydrostatic pressure to the indicated levels of strain e for spheroidised O'5/oe steel (after Ref. 87)

~ ~
00
;.l
;..
~ ;..
3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 200 400
~ ~ ;.. ~
:l
el
~ ~ i
<>
~
(a)
600
Hydrostatic
800
Pressure,
1000
MPa
1200
Superimposed
6.0
d .;
5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0(b)
;..
~ ;.. :l ~ ~ ;.. ~
;.l
00

<>
S ;..
Z
0
0.0 0 200 400 600

Hydrostatic
800
Pressure,
1000 MPa
1200
Superimposed
24
Effect of pressure various steels
on
fracture
strain
of
from atmospheric pressure to relatively modest levels of pressure.103 Pressures of sufficient magnitude have been shown to completely suppress damage associated with inclusions in 6061AI (Ref. 103) as well as AI-1Si-0'7Mg-0'4Mn alloys.123 Consistent with the discussion above, the fracture strain of these alloys was highly pressure sensitive at low levels of superimInternational Materials Reviews 1998 Vol. 43 NO.4
posed pressure where MVC was still predominant as shown in Fig. 27 a and b. However, a transition to pressure independent fracture strains which occurred at higher levels of superimposed pressure (shown in Fig.27a and b) was coincident with the appearance of ductile rupture in those studies,103,123,189,190also consistent with the discussion above. The modest or lack of ductility increase shown for a number of the aluminium alloys and heat treatments shown in Fig.27a and b have been attributed to the lack of pressure dependence of the failure mechanism(s) in such materials. For example, the alloys and heat treatments which exhibit nearly pressure independent ductilities in Fig.27a and b include 7075 AI- T4, MB-85-UA, and 2124 AI_UA.99,189-191,194-196,201These alloys and heat treatments fail via an intense localised shear process, shown in Figs. 16e and 17e-g, due to the microstructural features present in the materials tested. Superimposed hydrostatic pressure at levels well in excess of the UTS of the material99 do not measurably affect the fracture microprocesses or the global response, consistent with the discussion above. The effects of alloying additions as well as changes in grain size on the level of pressure induced ductility increase for a variety of Cu-based materials are summarised in Fig. 28a and b. Most of the alloys shown fail via MVC and the pressure induced ductility response is nominally linear with an increase in pressure. A change in fracture mechanism from pressure sensitive MVC fracture to pressure insensitive ductile rupture was observed149 in Cu-30Zn, Cu-40Zn, Cu-6'7Ge, and Cu-97Ge materials at intermediate levels of superimposed pressure, consistent with the change in slope of the fracture strain v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure summary provided in Fig. 28a. However, the most dramatic effects of pressure were obtained on brittle Cu-0'02Bi materials which failed via low ductility intergranular fracture at low or atmospheric pressure, with a transition to high ductility ductile fracture at modest levels of pressure and a complete suppression of intergranular fracture,152 as shown in Fig. 26a and b.
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
167
. . . . .. Pure Fe . . . .. Pure Fe ...... .... "".... ... Y
I Ig 149 149 123 123
Al
149
Impure Fe
-<>----[}
_ ..
Al-l Si-O.7Mg-OAMn 20 14Al- r6

r
123
Cast Iron {Typell Cast Iron {Typell}

74 72
52.201
... -D ... PM Tunsten ... -D .. ' Plvt Tungsten
2124AI-lTA ] 5~,201 2] 24AI-OA

152,201
... [9 ... Arc-melted Tungsten .. 8 . .. Arc-melted Tungsten
72 7 I
----II
-S}
-0~ ~J---
Cll-O.02Bi
5:2 74
MB85_UA.189.19o.195
Magnesium Zinc
J
:2.1
-m
-0
J2~
.t\.1B85-0l\ 6061AJ-lJA 6061 AI-OA
189.190,195 189.19(1,195 189, I YO, J 95
--02-- Zinc ~ZI1-AI

--'~-D"
1[:2
:~()skc\"(;)
Zn-AIIRuhhl.:rske\'CII~.\ - Amorphous
G
3:23
Pd-Cu-Si (Compression)
Pd-Cu-Si
!s
323
- 7075AI-T4
99 50,51 50,51 50,51
-v - Amolvl1OuS
--0 .-
Amorphous Zr-Ti-Ni-Cu-c
--k
\l(a)
- 7075AI-T65 1(TR) - 7075AI-T651(WR) - 7075AI-T651(RW)

S4
6.0 5.0 'C;
- - - -+- - - - A356AI-T6]
(a)
~ ~ ~ r..
B t:.J
2000 160
(b)
4.0 3.0 2.0
c: r..
..
....
~
t.
140
.5 eo:
~I
i
~ ~ r.. B ~ eo: r.. ~

E r..
r..
120 100 80 60 40
~.~ ~:;~~f~~~~,~,~L~,o
200 Superimposed 6.0 400 600 Hydrostatic
,,-I
Ttl
,1
1200
(b)
800 Pressure,
1000 MPa
.8 Cd
!J
x xX
i.~ {
.5 ~:
= .e:;
ill r..
5.0 4.0
00
o
a
500 Superimposed
1000 Hydrostatic
1500 Pressure,
2000 MPa
fracture strain v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b normalised fracture strain v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure
o Z
E r..
2.0
26
Effect of pressure on fracture strain of some bcc metals, amorphous metals, and other brittle metals
0.0
200 Superimposed
400
600 Hydrostatic
800 Pressure,
1000 MPa
1200
Figures 31 and 32 summarise very recent work obtained on various aluminium alloy composites as well as magnesium alloy composites.152,184,189-191,194-197,200,201,343,382 Although the fracture strain/ductility of such materials are typically very low at atmospheric pressure because of the high volume fraction of hard, non-deforming reinforcement, the fractography of such materials has revealed that fracture occurs via a MVC type phenom-
27
Effect of pressure on fracture aluminium and aluminum alloys
strain
of
enon.189-201,383-390Void nucleation in such materials is associated with the brittle reinforcement particles, while ductile fracture in the matrix (i.e. aluminium alloy, magnesium alloy) is typical. The pressure
168
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
CLI {G.S.::::2011m]
-0--
2.0
1j8
Cu {G.S.::::70~lm} IV) ERCll Cll 12:1
~
'c;' 1.5 '0
149 149 149 87 49
6061AI-UA 6061 AI-OA

(X-
103 103
----T----
Cu-15Zn {G.S.=811m}
> ~
0
brass
86
--- ..---- Cu-30Zn {G.S.=2011m}

- - - -\1- - - ----1':,,----
I:
Cu-40Zn {G.S.=2511m}
Cu-29.9Zn {G.S.=7011m}
J
~~ ee ~ ~
1.0
l-t
0.5 0.0
-- Cu-6.7Gc {G.S.::::3111Tn} - --.
ee Q)
- - Cu-9.7Ge {G.S.=30~lm I J 49 Cu-4.5Ge {G.S.=23~lm}

l4e)
..

200
o
300
----{S}-
Cu-39.6Zn-2.9Pb
85
100
400 Pressure, 500 MPa 600
Superimposed 6.0
(a)
Hydrostatic
29
Area fraction of voids in 6061AI-UA/OA (Ref. 103) and a-brass86 as function of superimposed hydrostatic pressure
0.0
a
6.0
200
400
600 Hydrostatic
800 Pressure,
1000
MPa
1200
Superimposed
(b)
I: .;
5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
l-t
Q)
.s ~
ee
l-t
..
S .. 0
200
400
600
Hydrostatic
800
1000 MPa
1200
Superimposed a
Pressure,
28
Effect of pressure on fracture strain of copper and copper alloys
slight increase in the ductility obtained in composites which failed via intense shear between the reinforcement and globally (e.g. 2124-SiCw, MB-7815SiCp_UA),152,192,194,201 shown in Fig. 31a. as Interestingly, the AI-AI3 Ni composites152,201shown in Fig. 31a initially exhibited pressure induced ductility increases until the fracture mode changed from dimpled fracture (i.e. MVC) to intense localised shear. The intervention of the intense localised shear fracture mode, which was promoted by the pressure induced suppression of damage in the composite, resulted in an eventual pressure independence of the ductility on further increases in pressure, as shown in Fig.31a and b. Effects of changes in reinforcement volume fraction and size on the pressure response have been recorded for both aluminium alloy and magnesium alloy matrixes, though detailed investigations of the cause(s) of such observations are currently lacking . The effects of changes in microstructural features/heat treatment on the evolution of different types of damage (e.g. reinforcement cracking, interface failure, matrix voiding) at atmospheric pressure have been studied in a few cases for such composites,197,199 though relatively little complementary work has been done for materials tested with superimposed pressure.199
Effects of pressure on fracture stress
induced ductility response is often extraordinary in these materials, with ductility levels approaching (and exceeding in some cases, e.g. Refs. 189, 190, 200) that of the matrix materials, depending on the heat treatment utilised. At sufficiently high levels of superimposed pressure for both particulate and long fibre systems, the suppression of void growth occurs to such an extent that matrix flow into reinforcement nucleated cavities occurs.184,187 ,189-191,196,197 ,201,391 Clear differences in the pressure response are obtained for different alloys and heat treatments, while there are also effects of reinforcement type (e.g. whisker v. particulate), reinforcement size, and reinforcement volume fraction on the levels of pressure induced ductility obtained. As observed with some of the monolithic aluminium alloys, there was only a
The general effects of superimposed pressure on the true fracture stress for a variety of steels from Bridgman's work36 are shown in Figs. 33-37. While it has typically been observed that the fracture stress increases in a linear manner with an increase in superimposed pressure, the slope of such increases were not consistent between the various materials tested in Bridgman's early works. In particular, a few of the materials investigated in Figs. 33-37 exhibited non-linear changes in the pressure induced fracture stress change, with initial increases in the fracture stress followed by a plateau or decrease in the fracture stress at higher levels of superimposed pressure. In these cases, a macroscopic change in fracture mechanism was observed (e.g. ductile fracture transition to ductile rupture or localised shear).
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
169
Tensile Axis
P=O.l MPa
P=150 MPa
-fr-UA -A-OA
P=300 MPa
3.0
=1-
8 2.5
~ N
-..
4.0
3.5 0
;>
en
3.0 ~0
00 2.0(\_
~ Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd
;> 1.5
<
~ OJ) ~ 1.0 ~ ~ ;> 0.5 0.0 0
'j::::::::::
:: :Cj
.:: 2.5 ~~ ~ 2.0 ~ ~ ~ c.e 1.5 en

1.0 ~ ~ ~ 0.5 ~
(b)
.-
<
---0
-- VA
-.
150
QI.)
OA
0.0 50 100 200 250 Pressure, 300 MPa 350 Superimposed Hydrostatic
<
>
30
a Appearance of voids adjacent to fracture surface of 6061AI tensile specimens fractured at pressures shown,103 and b average void size and average void aspect ratio in 6061AI-UA/OA as function of superimposed hydrostatic pressure 103 fracture and changed the remaining fracture from transgranular cleavage to quasicleavage. The observations of arrested microcracks in Ni3 AI and cast and extruded NiAI specimens tested with high pressure is strongly supportive of such a fracture criterion, as reviewed by others.155-157,161,163,170 In contrast to this behaviour, some of the metals summarised in Figs. 38a and band 39a and b exhibit that somewhat lower increases in fracture stress accompany an increase in pressure. Figures 38a and b and 40a and b also illustrate that recrystallised Mo, amorphous metals,323,324 and single crystal NiAI as well as higher strength variants of polycrystalline NiAI, exhibit pressure independent values for the fracture stress when testing is conducted with superimposed pressure or after simple pressurisation.132,163 The broken lines in Figs. 38b, 39b, and 40b represent a slope of 1 in the change in fracture stress v. pressure. The pressurisation treatments on cast and extruded NiAl produced significant reductions in the yield stress as shown above in Fig. 7a-c via the generation of mobile dislocations. However, neither the fracture mode nor the ductility and/or fracture stress were significantly affected by simple pressurisation to levels of pressure well in excess of the yield stress of the materiaI.155,157,161,163 The lack of pressure dependence of the fracture stress of single crystal NiAI, which is similar to that reported for MgO (Refs. 180, 181) and a variety of other brittle systems, suggests that fracture may be nucleation controlled in such cases, at least up to the pressures utilised. Fracture in the
More recent works conducted on brittle and semibrittle materials including intermetallics,152,154-166, 168-170 composites/52,185-187,193,195,189-201 amorphand ous metals323,324 have revealed quite different effects of superimposed pressure on the fracture stress. The pressure induced change in the fracture stress of a variety of brittle and semibrittle metals including some intermetallics and amorphous metals323,324 are summarised in Figs. 38a and b, 39a and b, and 40a and b. The data summarised in Figs. 38a and b and 39a and b reveal that significant increases in the fracture stress often accompany an increase in pressure, while Fig.40a reveals similar behaviour for polycrystalline Ni3AI (Ref. 170) and NiAI that was cast and extruded.155-163 In some of these cases, the magnitude of the pressure induced increase in the fracture stress was roughly equivalent to the level of pressure applied in accord with equation (9). As presented above, this is consistent with a propagation controlled brittle fracture criterion which requires achieving a maximum principal stress. Extensive metallographic and fractographic investigations revealed that such increases in fracture stress were due to the pressure induced suppression of damage (i.e. intergranular fracture, cleavage fracture). In the case of cast and extruded NiAl, it was demonstrated that the ductility, fracture stress, and percentage of intergranular and cleavage fracture present on the fracture surface was affected by level of superimposed hydrostatic pressure.163 Increased levels of pressure produced increases in the level of intergranular
170
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
EE
., -6,-
MB85-15SiCp{ 13Ilm}-UA
13Ilm}-OA 13Jlm}-AE
194 194 152
-A- . - MB85-15SiCp{
-0 -- 2014AI-20SiCp{
AZ91-19SiCp{
15Ilm}-T6
193
AZ91-20SiCp{521.Un}-T6193
(a)
0.20
-e--_. -.
--f.:s:--
2014Al-20SiCp{13Ilm}-T6152 IJlm}-UA 1Ilm}-OA

. .~ 152,201 152,201 1 Q'i 197
= .;
l-I
0.15
EB
EB
----0 ..' 2124AI-14SiCw{ 2124AI-14SiCw{

_ .-,
(jj
6061 Al-15Al,., 0" { 13j.1111} -UA 6061Al-15Al"O {13Jlm}-OA

193 19~~
_.,
~ ~
.s u
l-I
C1i l-I
0.10
~-
0.05
-v-A
195.197
.0 100 200 Superimposed
--
300 Hydrostatic 400 Pressure, 500 MPa

(b)
,(,
0.00 600
6090Al-25SiCp-T6
f..09() o I\j -2-S"C ) lp-
---If---
S'\ .. I\
10.0
194 194 ! 84 184
--_._{SJ- _-- !\1B78-15SiCp{ ............. {I]

..... 0 . )(
3.0
13~lrn }-UA
.. lY'l-B-7 <. _. I';;S'1co,- P {-Il,. p,n1 } '-. 1"\ 1. 8 ~". .' ()" ..
--.A356-10SiCp{ -- A356-20SiCp{ AI-AI Ni
3 152
= .;
l-I
8.0
EB
.. ' EB
(jj
12.6p,m}-T6
12.6!.tm }-T6
~ ~
Z
.s u
l-I
C1i l-I
6.0
4.0
8
l-I
.-_.-.2.0
400 Pressure, 500 MPa 600
/ /
.-'.0 100 200 300 Hydrostatic Superimposed
2.5
0.0
/ /. /
= .;
l-I
2.0 1.5 1.0
00
~ ~
.3 u
C1i l-I
l-I
32
Effect of pressure on fracture strain of discontinuously reinforced magnesium matrix composites 193
(a)
1000 Superimposed 60.0 Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa
';
l-I
50.0 40,0 30.0 20.0 10.0
00
~ ~
.3 u
C1i l-I
l-I
e
Z
l-I 0
200 Superimposed 400 600
.0
-:(5
.
(b)
800 Pressure, MPa
1000
Hydrostatic
amorphous metals323,324 appears to occur via intense localised shear, which is not highly pressure sensitive, at least at the pressure utilised. Testing at higher pressures would be useful to explore in order to determine if pressures of sufficient magnitude could induce significant ductility or fracture stress increases in single crystal NiAI and amorphous metals. The composites data summarised in Fig. 41a generally reveal a linear increase in the fracture stress with an increase in pressure. However, the magnitude of the increase in fracture stress does not always scale linearly with the increase in pressure, as shown in both Fig. 41a and b and by the broken line of slope equal to one in Fig. 41b. As with Bridgman's data in Figs. 33-37, there was often a change in macroscopic fracture mode from dimpled fracture (i.e. MVC) to intense shear at sufficiently high levels of pressure.
Effects of pressure on fracture toughness
a fracture strain v, superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b normalised fracture strain v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure
31
Effect of pressure on fracture strain of discontinuously reinforced aluminium matrix composites
While it is clear that an extensive variety of materials have been tested in uniaxial tension with superimposed pressure, very little work has been conducted in order to determine the effects of such conditions
International
Materials Reviews
1998
Vol. 43
No.4
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
171
_._--fSJ--- Fe-O.34C-O.75:tvln-O.017P-O.033S -O.18Si (as-received) -0 - Fe-0.45C-O.83Mn-O.016P-O.035S -O.19Si (as-received) -0

----0
Fe-O.S5C-O. 35Nl n-O.04P-O.04S

-0. 20Si-3 .45Ni- 2.3Cr
-\
r"r
nonnalised
900C --0
-- annealed, fine-grained annealed, coarse-grained brine-q uenched/spheroidised brine-quenched/telnpercd brine-quenched/tempered brine-quenched/tenlpered

Iii Ii. iii
i
---6-
---. -+--11.--i '
--.
.<>315C 315C 480C

---6--
@ @ @
I
6000 5000
---. _.-.
(a,I)-received) Fe-O.3C-O.18.Mn-O.O I ] P-O.02S -O.07Si-2.98N i- 1. ] SCr (a,l)-received) Fe-O.26C-0.23Mn-0.02P -0. 025S -O.06Si-3.04Ni-I.4Cr (as-received) Fe-O.3C -O.241vln-O.024P-O.()31 S -O.08Si-2.96Ni-J.29Cr (as-received) 1045 Steel (as-received)
Fe-O.6C-O.7rv1n-0.03P-O.03S-I.9Si
(as-received) oil-quenched
, Iii
I I
.............
::
..
2000 2500
'l
j
I i
Ii
i
0l
I
~
500
1000
1500
3000
Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa 33 Effect of pressure on fracture strain of various steels tested by Bridgman36 35
o o
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa Effect of pressure on fracture strain of various steels tested by Bridgman36
.Fe-O.68C-O.71 Nln-O.O 13P-O.02SS -O.19Si (as-received) Fe-0.9 -0.4 7Mn-O.O 15P-0.036S -0.11 Si (as-received) --0 normal ised @ 900C ---0 annealed, fine-grained '--6annealed, coarse-grained -- bline-quenched/spheroidised -. brine-quenched/tempered @ 315C - --+brine-quenched/tempered @ 480C
-0
-. ---.-
6000
~ ~
C':
5000
r 4000
r.r.
C.l
u:i 3000
C.l
:..
...
o
...
.~
~ ::WOO
C':
:3
:..
:..
1000
o
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa 34 Effect of pressure on fracture strain of various steels tested by Bridgman36
on the fracture toughness. Such information could be of practical importance to a variety of applications where such materials might be used in pressurised environments, while the information generated could also be useful in the evaluation or generation of models for fracture toughness. Part of the reason for the lack of such published data relates to the difficulty in conducting such experiments at high pressure in addition to the limitations placed on specimen sizes. Figures 42a and band 43 illustrate the experimentally obtained data for fracture toughness at different levels of hydrostatic pressure for different orientations of 7075AI- T651 (Refs. 50, 51) as well as for spheroidised graphite cast iron,83 respectively. In the former case, significant increases in the toughness were obtained with an increase in pressure, as shown in Fig. 42a, while the ratio of the toughness obtained at high pressure to the value obtained at atmospheric pressure is presented in Fig.42b as the normalised fracture toughness. The toughness increases in this case were attributed50,51 as due to the suppression of MVC fracture. Void nucleation at particles ahead of the crack tip within the 7075AI alloy was suppressed and was consistent with the increase in crack opening displacement (COD) shown in Fig. 44 that accompanied the pressure induced increase in toughness. The toughness data in this case were compared to various models (e.g. Refs. 392, 393) of fracture toughness for materials failing via MVC and the data
172
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
,rsJ" ,C) ,
{]
1045 St.eel (as-received) water-quenched from 860C

water-quenched from 860C,
,II'
Fe-O.094C-O.361\tlN-O'(}23P-O.022S
-O.35Si-12.26Cr-0.46Ni-O.SIvlo
(as-received)
-8Fe-O.067C-O.05MN-O.02P-O.03S -0.51 Si-17 .49Cr-0.41Ni
, ,<>.
40.3HRC quenched into salt 0) 425C, 91.7HRB

into salt 0) 595C.
-D.- .. - quenched 85.5HRB
\-vater-quenched frorn 860C, 21 HRC teJnpered pearlite, 25.8HRC _.", ,R .,- tcrnpercd lnartcnsite, 28.3HRC -.'
6000 ~ 5000 ~ 4000 [] .. "cr
fJ
,Cl
'v' ,
~ ~ Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd
(as-received) FeO.058C-O.7o.l\1N-O.03P-O.OJ3S -O.85Si-18.51 Cr-8.95Ni-O.2Cu (as-received) - ., . - Fe-O.051 C-O.59M.N-O.03P-0.02S -0.4 7Si-18.31 Cr-l O.27Ni-0.2Cu (as-recei ved) --0 High-carbon Steels 48HRC -0--- 51HRC -- -8---- 56HRC ----0 60HRC ----\1-63HRC - -A6000 ~ 5000
.. ~ .. .e ~ .. ~
~
V) V)
(;j 3000
.-/
2000 1000 ,..
~~4000
00
o o
36
500 1000 1500 Superimposed Hydrostatic 2000 2500 3000 Pressure, MPa
.. ~ .. E '~i ..
~
V) V)
3000 2000
""""'.'~:,.. '. , .,#.;~:~;;;: ;Dtt!:

11''- .. ''_ ., . '
,,0
~ 1000
o o
500 1000 1500 Hydrostatic 2000 2500 MPa 3000 Superimposed Pressure,
were found to agree well with such models. In contrast, the work on spheroidised cast iron summarised in Fig. 43, as well as similar work on single crystal NiAl (Ref. 158) failed to reveal any effect of superimposed pressure on the toughness, again suggesting that fracture in such brittle materials may be nucleation controlled, at least up to the pressures tested. Additional tests on such materials over a wider range of pressures might be useful to determine if a transition pressure exists where significant toughness increases may be observed.
37
Effects of hydrostatic pressure on deformation processing

General aspects of stress state effects on processing The general deform ability of a material is related to a number of factors including the strain rate, stress state, temperature, and the flow characteristics of the material which are affected by the crystal structure and the microstructure. As illustrated in the preceding review sections, changes in the stress state via the superimposition of hydrostatic pressure can clearly exert a dominant effect on the ability of a material to flow plastically, regardless of the other variables. In many forming operations, controlling the mean normal stress Urn is critical for success.394,395 Compressive forces which produce low values for O"rn increase the ductility as illustrated above for a variety of structural materials, while tensile forces which
generate high values for O"rn significantly reduce the ductility and often promote a ductile to brittle transition. Thus, metal forming processes which impart low values for O"rn are more likely to promote deformation of the material without significant damage evolution.394,395 There are a variety of industrially important forming processes which utilise the beneficial aspects of a negative mean stress on the formability such as extrusion, wire drawing, rolling, or forging. In such cases, the negative mean stress can be treated as a hydrostatic pressure that is imparted by the details of the process. 394,395. More direct utilisation of hydrostatic pressure includes the densification of porous powder metallurgy products where both cold isostatic pressing (CIP) and hot isostatic pressing (HIP) are utilised. In addition, many superplastic forming operations conducted at intermediate to high homologous temperatures utilise a backpressure of the order of the flow stress of the material in order to inhibit/eliminate void formation.68,105,150 Pressure induced void inhibition in this case increases the ability to form superplastically in addition to positively impacting the properties of the superplastically formed material. While it is clear that triaxial stresses are present in many industrially relevant forming operations, the mean stress may not be sufficiently low to avoid
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
173
Cast Fe
Cast
123
AZ91 AZ91
CastIvl0
71 71
101 193 -L,)
rvlo
1:;2
Rccrystalliscd PM Tungsten
f ] 80 K
..:~
I ~1
In c Be O'ot PlvI Be
45
Arc-Melted Tungsten
1200
o
[S]
6.
Cast and rolled Be {54~m} 55 Cast and rolled Be {68~n1} Cast and rolled Be {150~m} ....ectro 1 yUc Z 11 EI
]71
:-: 1000 L ~-_{ (J c.. - Q ~:I t::. :;; 800 ~'. 0 f- 0 ~

,L..., ;r;
()
~
0
6..
i:
:..
l;"I
Col
600 }
B 400
:-:
200
t
a
F

,
I
. .
fj
f!
.'
,
..
. .
EB
55
o
l
1200
_.
(j
r
r
r ~
Ii
~ ~
:;E
1000 800
o '8;J
EE
~
~
200
400
600
Hydrostatic
800
Pressure,
iii i
I
1000
MPa
i
1200
~
~
600 r
Superimposed
~ '~
~
400 ~ ~
200
1200 Q:; ~ 1000
c:J :..
rr.
I i
iii
iii
Iii
r
~ ~
.
o
t..
Go
EE
I
(a)
800
(;i 600 c:J
.s ~
C':
:..
~ ~
~ 1200 ~1000
200
400
600
800
1000 1200 1400 1600

Pressure, lVlPa
Superimposed
Hydrostatic
400 200 0
.c:J
eJ)
S -200
0 -400
f
t(b)
[I}
(;i 800
Qj
~ :..
[I}
:..
-400 -200
200
400
600
800
1000 1200
MPa
Superimposed
Hydrostatic
Pressure,
~ :.. ~
Q)
~ 600
o
0.,
.S 400 ~ 200 ("
a fracture stress v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b normalised fracture stress v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure
38
Effect of pressure on fracture metals
stress of bcc
..a
U 0 w~~
()~,'~
'
16
~ . ~
i '
6.
~
,
I
.
,
, I
i i
Ii'
(b) ,
j
1200
200
Superimposed
400
600
800
Pressure,
1000
MPa
Hydrostatic
damage in the form of cracks. Although a general discussion of each forming process is beyond the scope of this review, a few general key points are provided below, while it is clear that (Jm can be lowered further by superimposing a hydrostatic pressure. Recent articles and books highlighting such techniques are provided.186,288,289,304,391,394-413 Some of the key findings and illustrations are summarised in order to highlight the importance and effects of hydrostatic pressure, whether it arises due to the die geometry or is superimposed via a fluid, on the formability. Various textbooks394,395 and artic1es414,415 have reviewed the factors controlling the evolution of hydrostatic stresses during various forming operations. In strip drawing, the hydrostatic pressure (P = - (J 2) varies in the deformation zone and is affected by both the reduction r as well as the extrusion die angle rx as illustrated in Figs. 45 and 46. Both figures illustrate that the mean stress (represented by (J 2) may become tensile (shown as negative
a fracture stress v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b normalised fracture stress v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure
39
Effect of pressure on fracture metals
stress of hcp
values in Figs. 45 and 46) near the centreline of the strip. Furthermore, both the distribution and magnitude of hydrostatic stresses are controlled by ex and r, with the level of hydrostatic tension at the centreline varying with ex and r in the manner illustrated in Fig. 46. Consistent with the previous discussions on the effects of hydrostatic pressure on damage, it is clear that processing under conditions which promote the evolution of tensile hydrostatic stresses will promote internal damage formation in the product in the form of microscopic porosity near the centreline. In extreme cases, this can take the form of internal cracks. Significant decreases in density (due to porosity formation) after slab drawing have been
174
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
-0--- NiAl {Single Crystal}

-0-NiAl {PM}
163
163
EB
--tr-- NiAI {Cast/Extruded} --0- NiAl {CastlExtruded, Pre-pressurized} -0- --CP-NiAI

-ISI- - -EB- - 166 166 166 156
163
2014AI-20SiCp{ 13Jlm}- T6 ~ '1'!),) 8' ~ -i5 .1 ~,pl.)~unJ-UA 5 '1 - S".'('.. ",.") l' tV , IvlB85-] 5SiCp{ 13/lm }-OA AZ91- 19S iCp {15 Jlrn }_T6 AZ91-20SiCp{52IJ-In}-T6193
152
19 5
195
1 93
HP-NiAI NiAI-N
3
---e---- Ni AI
-iJ., -
152,170
1000
Amorphous Pd-Cu-Si :;23 (Compression)

Pd ..Cu-Si
.123 321
- -T' - - Amorphous
Amorphous Zr-Ti-Ni-Cu-Bl'
~ ~ ~
r,J rJ:J.
Q)
800 600
EB
2500
(a)
lo.-
00
Q)
,
0
EB 1'>
~
1'>
~ 2000
~
r,J
~ ~
l-<
.E ~
lo.-
400 200
EB
..
EB 6
..
..
..
..
(a)
~ 1500
,iJ.
lo.-
-v
0 -400 600 400 200
" "'6
00 .E ~
~ 1000
-200
Superimposed
0
Hydrostatic
200
400
MPa
600
~
lo.-
Pressure,
500
=::.=:::=:::~
o o
1500
~ (b)
lSI
~ ~ ~
1500
riJ rJ:J.
Cl)
500
1000
Pressure, MPa
l-<
00
Q)
~
~...000 1
lo.-
~ ~
l-<
.E ~
0
EB
lo.-
EB
at ..
6EB6'"
00
,,".
,.
.5 ~ -200
~ = -= u
(b)
-400 -400
-200
Superimposed
200
400
Pressure, MPa
600
Hydrostatic
Q) I:,()
-= U
= ~
EB
-500 " -500
fracture stress v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b normalised fracture stress v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure
o
Superimposed
500
Hydrostatic
1000
Pressure, MPa
1500
41
Effect of pressure on fracture stress of discontinuously reinforced metal matrix composites
a fracture stress v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b normalised fracture stress v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure 40 Effect of pressure on fracture stress of NiAI, Ni3AI, and amorphous metals
recorded,414,415particularly in material taken from near the centreline, generally consistent with the levels of tensile hydrostatic pressure present as predicted in Figs. 45 and 46. Furthermore, it was found that greater losses in density occurred with smaller reductions (i.e. small r) and higher die angles (i.e. larger a), consistent with Fig. 45. Such damage will clearly reduce the mechanical and physical properties of the product. Consistent with the previous discussion, it has been found that the loss in density in a 6061-T6 aluminium alloy could be minimised or prevented by drawing with a superimposed hydrostatic pressure, as shown in Fig. 47 (Ref. 415). In some cases, increases in the strip density were recorded, apparently due to elimination of porosity which was either present or evolved in previous processing steps.
It is clear that maintaining a compressive mean stress will increase the formability, regardless of the forming operation under consideration. Materials with limited ductility and formability can be extruded, as demonstrated below for a variety of composites184,186,401 and the intermetallic NiAI (Refs. 154, 162, 164), if both the billet and die exit regions are under high hydrostatic pressure. In the absence of such a beneficial stress state, Figs. 45 and 46 illustrate that large tensile hydrostatic stresses can evolve in forming operations which are conducted under nominally compressive conditions. Thus, it should be noted that the example of strip drawing provided above is also relevant to other forming operations such as extrusion and rolling where similar effects have been observed along the centreline of the former and along the edges of rolled strips in the latter. During forging and upsetting, barrelling due to frictional effects causes tensile hoop stresses to evolve at the free surface and can promote fracture in these locations.339,34o,394,395
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
Effects of hydrostatic 100
175
7075AI- T651
-6-- -A- -
51
-8
'I'R {3PB}
rI'R {CT}
~ ~ ~ ~
rJ:J
80 60 40 20
- - -0- - - TW {3PB}
- -e- ---- {J--.-
.c
C) C
TW {CT} \VR [3PB}
ell :: 0
C)
l-o
-11- - WR {eT}
-- -0- -- R\V {3PB} - - -~R\V leT}
~ ~
l-o
E e.J
... ...
o
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
o
Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa 43 Effect of pressure on fracture toughness spherodised graphite cast iron83 of
7075AI-T6515o
----{r---
TR {3PB
-0-
TW{3PB}
------Q----- \VR {3 PB }
----------~-)_-----\V {3 P B } -- R
100
N
-E -0..
80
[_'
-+
5 "E'n
o Eo::
~ fi
minimising the amount of damage imparted to the billet material. Such processing is used in the production of wire, while the concepts covered below are generally applicable to the various forming operations outlined above and specifically those dealing with extrusion. Hydrostatic extrusion fundamentals Hydrostatic extrusion is a method of extruding a billet through a die using fluid pressure instead of a ram, which is used in conventional extrusion. Figure 48 compares conventional extrusion with hydrostatic extrusion, the main difference being the amount of billet/container contact.398 The billet/container interface in conventional extrusion has been replaced by a billet/fluid interface in hydrostatic extrusion. Three main advantages result: 1. The extrusion pressure is independent of the length of the billet because the friction at the billet/ container interface is eliminated. 2. The combined friction of billet/container and billet/die contact reduces to billet/die friction only. 3. The pressurised fluid gives lateral support to the billet and is hydrostatic in nature outside the deformation zone, preventing billet buckling. Skewed billets have been successfully extruded under hydrostatic pressure.397
0.050
60 40
.]\
(a)
=CS:', .
I ' ~,
, ' I , , ,
I ,
'
,J
o
"JJ
100 200 Superimposed
300
400
500
600
700
Hydrostatic
'I
Pressure,
I"
lVIPa
4.0
,.,_1.~
~,i"""II"'II'i'il"
~I ~,,~';,~ ~ ;:: i;::~;;~f:~~1~~~'~

(bll
0,0
:.r.
'Il
J
800
f, , , , , ' " , " ' , " , , , , , , , , ,

o
100 200 300 400 Superimposed Hydrostatic
I,
"
, I "
, ' I , , ,
500
600
700 lVIPa
800
Pressure,
~
0.040 8 0.030 8
0 0
TR {3PB} 1W {3PB} WR {3PB} RW (3PB)
a fracture toughness v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure; b fracture toughness v. superimposed hydrostatic pressure
rOO L~
42
Effect of pressure on fracture 7075AI- T651 (Refs. 50, 51)
toughness
of
d
~
<>
0
S
0
0.020 0.010
0
6'
L'P cfD2
&0.
The remainder of this review focuses on a specific procedure which utilises such an approach to enable deformation processing of materials at low homologous temperatures, hydrostatic extrusion.289-292,294-296,302-308,310,416,417 beneficial stress The state imparted by such processing conditions enables deformation processing to be conducted at temperatures below those where various recovery processes occur (e.g. recovery, recrystallisation) while
80 <>
0.000 0
10
20 30 40 50 Fracture Toughness, MPa m 112
60
70
44
Correlation between crack opening displacement (COD) and fracture toughness of 7075AI- T651 tested at various pressures50 Materials Reviews 1998 Vol. 43 No.4
International
176
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
2.710
;'
,-_--~
'"
I I
2.705
C'l
/.':..--..:..::--~ ~---... ::""

'~
",
Numbers
represent P/2k
".
',@ 6061- T6 aluminium , 27% redUC'lon per pass, 25 semi - angle Pressure Level " '\. ~.
u
C)
'00
i2.700
c
Q.)
o
". 2.695
o Atmospheric" A 5000 psi
"
45
Variation in hydrostatic pressure in deformation zone for strip drawing based on field shown: note that negative values are tensile414 2.690
o a *
0
10000 pSI 20000 PSI V 100000 pSI

Density value adjusted to fii different siartmg moterlol density, Encircled points are extrapolations welghmgs in water. from
There are also disadvantages inherent in hydrostatic extrusion. The use of repeated high pressure makes containment vessel design crucial for safe operation. The presence of fluid and high pressure seals complicate loading, and fluid compression reduces the efficiency of the process. A typical ram-displacement curve for hydrostatic extrusion v. conventional extrusion is shown in Fig. 49. The initial part of the curve for hydrostatic extrusion is determined by the fluid compressibility as it is pressurised. A maximum pressure is obtained at billet breakthrough, at which point the billet is hydrodynamically lubricated and friction is lowered (static to kinematic). The pressure drops to an essentially constant value, called the run-out or extrusion pressure. Finally, the fluid is depressurised to remove the extruded product. Higher pressures are typically required in conventional extrusion due to increased friction between the billet and die, as shown398 in Figs. 48 and 49.
0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02

Strip Thickness, in.
47
Loss of density by growth of microporosity during strip drawing and effect of superimposed hydrostatic pressure on diminishing density loss:415 in=25.4 mm; 1000 psi=6.9 MPa 1
-(l)
~ ~ C'l ~
OAt
0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 20 25 25 30
"-"
;..,
(l)
;:i
rJ'J rJ'J
;..,
(l)
.S
Q) ;.., $:l
..j.oj
U -0.8
15 20 25 30 35 40 Reduction per Pass, %
46 Variation in pressure at centreline for various combinations of r and a during strip drawing: note that negative values indicate hydrostatic tension414 Materials Reviews 1998 Vol. 43 NO.4
Occasionally, 'stick-slip' behaviour is observed due to periodic lubrication breakdown and recovery, in which case the run-out pressure fluctuates above and below the steady state value. Stick-slip causes variation in product diameter and represents instability in the process. Strong billet materials, large extrusion ratios, and slow extrusion rates facilitate this type of undesirable behaviour. The work done per unit volume in hydrostatic extrusion is equal to the extrusion pressure Pex (Ref. 398). The four parameters which control the magnitude of Pex are die angle, reduction of area (extrusion ratio), coefficient of friction, and yield strength of the billet material. There are three types of work incorporated into extrusion pressure: work of homogeneous deformation, or the minimum work needed to change the shape of the billet into final product; redundant work, because of reversed shearing at the deformation zone; and work against friction at the billet/die interface.398 As die angle is increased, the billet/die interface decreases reducing the friction force, but the amount of redundant work increases. Therefore, die angle is a parameter which must be optimised for an efficient process, as shown in Fig. 50a. For a given die angle, increased extrusion ratios yield higher billet/die interfacial areas, as schematically shown in Fig. 50b. Consequently, higher extrusion ratios require larger extrusion pressures to overcome increased work hardening in the billet region because of larger strains. Higher coefficients of
International
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
177
no billet container friction decreased die friction decreased redundant
work
Conventional Extrusion
Hydrostatic Extrusion
186,187,398
48 Comparison of apparatus for conventional extrusion and hydrostatic extrusion
friction and billet yield strengths will increase extrusion pressure as well. Mechanical analyses of hydrostatic extrusion have been performed by Pugh304 and Avitzur.289,396 In both analyses, assumptions are made that the material does not experience deformation parallel to the extrusion axis, but undergoes shearing and reverse shearing (fully homogeneous) on entry and exit of the die. Pugh's efforts resulted in equation (16), which assumes a work hardening billet material, and a condensed version (equation (19)), which considers a non-work hardening material. The result of Pugh's
analysis is as follows Pex where

cl =
3
(J flow
dc
+.
flR
In
R
_e~ )
e(R SIn a ex
12
(J flow
1
dc (16) (17) (18)
0'462 [(a/sin2 a) - cot a]
and
~x - = 0924 ( -.- a - cot a ) (JB sIn2 a
.. - - ... - Conventional
Breakthrough Pressure / .
.. ---., .. . _.. _
-----
Hydrostatic
+ In Rex
1+
SIn a(Rex -
IIR ~ ex In
ex
1)
(19)
~ ~~
~o .~
e
..-~ ..~ ~_ .... ..
-~1
-/ .. Extrusion / Pressure
Ie
I
/ .9
~
'~ /
/
/
~ Vj
u::
i
I
/ 'C / ~
Vj
where Pex is the extrusion pressure in MPa, Rex the extrusion ratio, a the extrusion die angle in radians, fl the coefficient of friction, (Jflow the flow stress, and (J B the yield strength of the billet material in MPa. Avitzur's analysis produced equation (20) with the assumption that the billet material is not work hardening. The analysis yielded the following results
P -=~h 2 (JB V 3
ex
~
Ram Displacement
i
~
( -'-2--cota a
SIn a
) +f(a)
In Rex
49 Typical ram-displacement static extrusion398
curve for
hydro-
+ fl
International
In Rex) cot a(ln Rex) ( 1 + -2Materials Reviews 1998 Vol. 43
(20)
NO.4
178
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
pressure on materials Summary of hydrostatic for various materials pressure extrusion data without back
(a) Total Extrusion Pressure
Table 4
Optimum
Die Angle
Hardness, Material Iron and steel Armco iron304,305 Armco Iron304,305 Mild stee1304,305 Steel (Q'15C)290-292,295,308 AISI 1020 stee/398 AISI 1020 steel307 Zn 58304,305 Zn 8304,305 0-2 stee1304,305 0-2 stee1304,305 AISI 4340 steel397 AISI 4340 steel397 High speed stee1304,305 Rex 448304,305 High tensile304,305 Die angle, deg Billet* HV Productt
I I
Homogeneous Deformation Redundant Work Die Angle ~ Friction Force
45 90 45 45 20 90 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 20
76 76 113 110 135 148 243 243 195 195 260 340 374 198
195-277 285 250-320 240-280 313 370 285-301 301-393 390-420 370 390-470 191-249 490
Cast iron306 316 stainless steel
Interfacial Area for: Extrusion Ratio 1 Extrusion Ratio 2

(b)
High temperature and refractory metals and alloys Beryll ium290-292,295,308 45 Beryllium398 45 Beryllium (hot extrusion)307 Chromium323 Molybdenum: Rolled304,305 S inte red304,305 Arc cast305 Niobium304,305 Niobium397 Niobium-2% Zr306 Tantalum304,305 Titanium Titanium Titanium TjAM304,305 TjAS304,305 0_11317 90 45 45 45 45 45 20 45 45 45 45 20 45 45 45 45 30 45 90 174 191 216 242 112 281 78-120 254 215-263 252-298 263-308 176-181
Extrusion Ratio 3 a Influence of die angle on extrusion pressure and b higher extrusion ratios result in larger billet/die contact area 186,398
50
127-183 262-342 299-324
where Pex is the extrusion pressure in MPa, Rex the extrusion ratio, ex the extrusion die angle in radians, J1 the coefficient of friction, and (JB the yield strength of the billet material in MPa. The quantity f(ex) is given by the following equation
1 f(ex)
310
305
Ti-6AI-4V317 Tungsten304,305 Vanadium304,305 Zirconium304,305 Zi rco nium304,305 Zi rca loy304,305 Zircaloy304,305
440 270
169 170 292 265
450-480 190
= sin2 ex
cont.
* Before hydrostatic extrusion; t after hydrostatic extrusion; :j: mechanical properties (tension, compression) measured in references listed.
These equations can be used to predict extrusion pressure for a variety of conditions. Prediction of extrusion pressure is both convenient for apparatus/billet design and necessary for safety during operation. Comparison of these models to some recent experiments on composites are provided below.
Materials successfully processed via hydrostatic extrusion
A variety of materials have been successfully processed via hydrostatic extrusion, as summarised in Table 4289-292,294-296,302-308,310,416,417 where the die
angle as well as the billet hardness before and after hydrostatic extrusion are recorded. Much of the early work utilising such techniques is summarised in various review papers398,402,403 which illustrates significant improvements to the strength-ductility combinations possible in materials processed via such techniques. Early work focused on conventional structural materials such as steels and various aluminium alloys, while highly alloyed and higher strength materials such as maraging steels and Ni-base superalloys were similarly processed at temperatures as low as room temperature. The beneficial stress state imparted by hydrostatic extrusion enabled large deformation reductions at temperatures well below those possible with conventional extrusion where billets often exhibited extensive fracturing. The benefits of such low temperature deformation processing via hydrostatic extrusion included the retention of the cold/warm worked structure, as processing was often carried out well below the recrystallisation temperature of the material. It has often been demonstrated that the prop-
Lewandowski Table 4 (cant.)
and Lowhaphandu
179
Hardness, HV Material Magnesium alloys Magnesium304,305 Mg-1 AI304,305 Mg-1 AI304,305 M/ZTy304,305 ZW3 (cast)304,305 AZ91 (cast)304,305 Mg_Li416.417 AZ91_SiCp416,417 Aluminum alloys 99'5% AI304,305 99'5% AI304,305 99'5% AI39B HE 30 AI (HD44)304,305 HE 30 AI (HD44)304,305 AI-11 Si304,305 Duralumin 11304,305 Die angle, deg Billet* Productt
45 45 90 45 45 45 20 20
28 36 36 57 66 93
76-92 66-85 102-116
45 90 20 45 90 45 45 45
24 24 22 51 51 62 71 71
43-50 43-50 60
80-93 111
80 Alloy A (2-2'8 Mg)290-292,295,30B 45 Alloy Ak629O-292,295.30B 45 45 1100AI-0398 AI (annealed)307 90 Copper alloys ERCH304,305 ERCH304,305 M2 (99'7)290-292,295,30B M2 (99'7)290-292,295,30B Copper (annealed)307 Copper398 60/40 brass304,305 60/40 brass (L62)290-292,295,30B Miscellaneous Bismuth304,305 Yttrium (annealed)39B Zinc39B
A/FLS304,305 AD.1 (99'5 AI)290-292,295,30B AD.1 (99'5 A1)290-292,295,30B
45
45 90 45 80 90 20 45 80
43 43
120
127
181-184
45 90 20
strength and stiffness in addition to improved high temperature performance has promoted and renewed research and development on a variety of composites as well as intermetallics. These materials typically possess lower ductility and fracture toughness than conventional monolithic structural materials, both of which affect the deformation processing characteristics. Composite systems may combine metals with other metals or ceramics that have large differences in flow stress, necking strain, work hardening characteristics, ductility, and formability. In such cases it is important to minimise (or heal) any damage which might evolve in or near the reinforcement during processing. Although intermetallics can be either single phase or multi phase materials, the nature of atomic bonding in such systems may be significantly different to that compared with monolithic metals, resulting in materials with higher stiffness and strength but reduced ductility, formability, and toughness. In such materials, it may be particularly important to investigate and understand the effects of changes in stress state on the ductility or formability. In particular, hydrostatic extrusion experiments can provide important information regarding the processing conditions required for successful deformation processing while additionally enabling evaluation of the properties of the extrudate. Hydrostatic extrusion can be conducted via extrusion into air or extrusion into a receiving pressure. The latter process has been shown to help to prevent billet fracture on exit from the die for a range of conventional and advanced structural materials including metals,293,299,398,399metal matrix composites,186,187,288,391,404-406 and intermetallics.154,164,165,311
In composite systems combining metals with different flow strength, ductility, and necking strains, NiAI hydrostatic extrusion has been shown to facilitate extruded at 25C154.164:t: 225 20 725 extruded at 300 cC154,164:t: co-deformation without fracture or instability in sys20 370-400 225 CU_W391 tems such as composite conductors,288,400 and Cu-W X2080AI-SiCp 186,187:t: 20 (Ref. 391), while powdered metals287 have also been Bulk metallic glass consolidated using such techniques. A limited number (extruded at 300C)417 20 of investigations have been conducted on discontin* Before hydrostatic extrusion; t after hydrostatic extrusion; :t:mechanical uously reinforced compositesl86,401 where there is properties (tension, compression) measured in references listed. potential interest in cold extrusion404-406 of such systems. A potential problem in such systems during deformation processing relates to damage of the erties of hydrostatically extruded materials exhibited reinforcement materials as well as fracture of the billet a better combination of properties (e.g. strength, ducbecause of the limited ductility of the material, partility) than materials given an equivalent reduction via conventional extrusion.186,288,293,299,391,398, 399,401,404-406 ticularly at room temperature. The potential advanThe work outlined above on conventional structages of low temperature processing include the ability tural materials revealed the potential benefits of to significantly strengthen the composite and inhibit hydrostatic extrusion. Many of the original materials the formation of any reaction products at the particle/ studied already possessed sufficient ductility to enable matrix interfaces since deformation processing is conprocessing with more conventional deformation producted at temperatures lower than that where significessing techniques, while the additional property cant diffusion, recovery, or recrystallisation can occur. Preliminary work on such systems,186,401 revealed improvements provided via hydrostatic extrusion could be achieved by other means. However, the that the strength increment obtained after hydrostatic knowledge gained from such studies on hydrostatic extrusion of the composites was greater than that extrusion of conventional materials was utilised in obtained in the monolithic matrix processed to the the optimisation of conventional extrusion die designs same reduction. In addition, hydrostatic extrusion and lubricants that could impart such beneficial stress into a backpressure inhibited billet cracking in a number of cases,187 consistent with similar obserstates in conventional forming processes. The increased emphasis placed on the need for vations in monolithic metals outlined above.398 187 also revealed an effect of reinforcehigher performance materials with higher specific Separate studies
180 110
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
800
tJI
Or;)
100 90 80 70 60
D.
9,4 Jlrn 37, 17, 12l-lm Monolithic X2080
700
ar
""" r.I'J r.I'J
>i~ o
~
o
~ ~
eo:
600 500 400
ar
""" r.I'J r.I'J
:=
QJ
QJ
"""
QJ """
~
""" """ ..c
-=
"S eo:
QJ
50
(a)
300 U 200 5.50
-=
e eo:
40 0.50
1.50 2.50 3.50 Ram Travel, em =0.00 4.50
14.0
~ ~
Clj
-= e
OJ l-< 0
12.0 10.0
1
.~ =
~
Clj
' 1 ' I
8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0

(b)
--_ .. _.
1 , 1
""0
__ ._-----_._--.--_._
..
_ __ _-------.. ..
'
/
..:::
~ ~
l-<
---4Jlrn --..37 Jlrn
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Strain 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
51
a Effects of reinforcement size on chamber pressure V. ram travel for hydrostatic extrusion of aluminium composites: addition of reinforcement and decreasing reinforcement size increased extrusion pressure and b damage assessment as function of extrusion strain for hydrostatically extruded materials 186,187
ment size on both the hydrostatic pressure required for extrusion (Fig. 51a) as well as the amount of damage to the reinforcement at various positions in
Table 5
the extrudate as shown in Fig. 51b. Table 5 compares the experimentally obtained extrusion pressuresl86,401 with those predicted by the models of Pugh304 and Avitzur289,396reviewed above, assuming different values for the coefficient of friction ,1. It appears that the initial high level of work hardening in such compositesI86,187,192 provides a considerable divergence from the values for extrusion pressure predicted by the models based on non-work hardening materials, while the monolithic X2080AI which exhibits lower work hardening extrudes at pressures more closely estimated by the models for a non-work hardening material. Clearly, more work is needed over a wider range of conditions (e.g. matrix alloys, reinforcement sizes, shapes, volume fraction) in order to support the generality of such observations. Damage to the reinforcement was shown to affect the modulus, strength, and ductility of the extrudate in those studies,401while the superimposition of hydrostatic pressure facilitated deformation. Comparatively fewer studies have been conducted to determine the effects of superimposed pressure on the formability of intermetallics or materials based on intermetallic compounds. Recent works conducted on both NiAI and TiAI (Refs. 104, 154, 164, 301) have revealed significant effects of superimposed pressure on both the formability and the mechanical properties of the hydrostatically extruded billet. Polycrystalline NiAI typically exhibits low ductility (e.g. fracture strain < 50/0) and fracture toughness (e.g. < 5 MPa m1/2) at room temperature, with a ductile to brittle transition temperature (DBTT) of 300C (Refs. 418, 419). The observation of significant pressure induced ductility increases outlined aboveI55-157,161,163,401 combined with a beneficial change in fracture mechanism from intergranular + cleavage to intergranular + quasicleavage suggested that hydrostatic extrusion could be utilised to deformation process such material at temperatures near the DBTT. Although hydrostatic extrusion (with backpressure) of NiAI at 25C exhibited excessive billet cracking, similar extrusion conditions conducted on NiAI at 300C were successful.154 The ability to hydrostatically extrude NiAI at such low temperatures enabled the retention of a beneficial dislocation substructure and a change in texture from the starting
ro..;
Comparison of hydrostatic extrusion pressures obtained186,187 for monolithic composites containing different size SiCp to model predictions289,29o,329,396
Predicted extrusion Pugh - equation work hardening Extrusion MPa 476 pressure, J1~O'2 654 J1=O'3 771 J1=0'2 557 J1=0'3 663 J1=0'2 559 pressure, MPa Pugh - equation non-work (19):j:
2080AI* and 2080
(16)t
Avitzur - equation non-work hardening
(20):j:
hardening
Material Monolithic X2080AI X2080AI-15SiCp (SiCp size): 4~m 9~m 12 ~m 17 ~m 37 ~m
J1=0'3 656
648-662 648-676 572 552-559 552-579
698 695 661 653 615 wt-%.
824 820 780 771 725
608 607 579 579 558
724 723 689 689 665
611 610 581 581 561
717 715 682 682 658
* AI-3'64Cu-1'75Mg-0'35Zr-0'027Fe-0'03Mn-0'025Si u = (UO'1%y + UTS)/2. International Materials Reviews 1998
:j:u=uy.
Vol. 43
NO.4
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
181
35
l"l
E
;:;,
-5
Q..
30 25 20 15
10 Hydrostatically extruded at 300C R curve behaviour
2.0 Inhomogeneous Composites Matl's, ,/ /<}~,??~i~
::;
r,J
r.Il C)
:
eJ)
~
"'0
::
1.5
fIJ =' r~ .a e.J ~ ~

0
l-o
::
"'" 00
>
.c
1.0
..////;'///%2$661'-. /
~. IsotropiC I . Hortlo~eneous
5 0 0 100
Cast and extruded
c=J
D
P/M 400 500
~ :: ~
"'"
0.5
00
"'0
200 300 Strength, MPa
>
0.0
52
Fracture toughness-strength combination hydrostatically extruded NiAI (Ref. 154)
of
500 1000 Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure,
1500 MPa
1. Isotropic/Homogeneous Materials
Hydrostatic pressure has no effect on yield strength as predicted by various yield criterion, e.g. the von Mises yield criterion CJy = ~[(CJI -CJ2)2 +(CJ2
-CJJ
Both the strength (hardness) and toughness were increased in the extrudate.154 The strength \vas increased from 200 to 400 MPa while the toughness increased from 5 to "-'12 MPa m1/2 In addition, R curve behaviour was exhibited by the hydrostatically extruded NiAI, with a peak toughness of "-'28 MPa m 1/2, as summarised in Fig. 52. Such changes in strength and toughness were accompanied by a complete change in the fracture mechanism of NiAI (Ref. 154). Preliminary experiments on TiAI (Refs. 165, 301), hot worked with superimposed pressure at higher temperatures have also shown that pressure inhibits cracking in the deformation processed material, though the resulting properties were not measured in those works.
material.154,161,162
)2
+(CJ) -CJ\)2r'2
Ex. Steels, Al alloys, Pure cubic metals
2. Inhomogeneous Materials
(i) removal of yield point: for materials that exhibit a removal of yield point due to pressure induced generation of mobile dislocations, the yield strength generally decreases with increasing pressure. Ex. Fe, Cr, W, NiAI (ii) composites/other inhomogeneous systems: the increase in yield strength with pressure is due to the generation of dislocations at the reinforcement/matrix interfaces and to the suppression of damage associated with the reinforcement in composites. Relaxation of residual stress and decreased constraint may reduce the flow stress. Ex. 6061 Al-AI203, AZ91-SiCp, Cd, Zn
Summary
This review has provided an overview of the observations on the effects of superimposed pressure on the yield strength, fracture strain, and fracture stress, respectively, of a variety of materials while specific information on a large number of materials is provided in figures throughout this review. Figures 53-55 are provided as a summary of the general observations for each of the respective properties. Broad classes of behaviour are represented in Figs. 53-55 and include the key features controlling the specific property summarised as well as some specific examples of materials which exhibit such behaviour. Although no similar summary is presented for the factors controlling the deformability /formability, the data summarised in Figs. 53-55 do provide important information on the effectiveness of changes in stress state on both the flow and fracture behaviour. Such information has been used to deformation process both conventional and advanced structural materials. While the superimposition of pressure has been shown to improve the processability of a wide range of materials, property enhancements beyond those currently obtained with conventional processing are also being recorded for materials processed via these means. This would appear to present a number of unique opportunities for improving the processing/performance characteristics of a number of conventional and advanced structural materials,
53
Summary plot on effects of pressure on yield strength of inorganic materials
while additionally providing important input on the processing conditions (i.e. stress state) required to deform such materials successfully. Such information should be of general interest regardless of the type of forming operation (e.g. extrusion, forging, drawing, rolling, metal forming) under consideration, while also providing fundamental input on the effects of changes in stress state in the flow and fracture behaviour of materials. Finally, it is also clear that the effectiveness of changes in stress state on the ductility, toughness, and formability are critically dependent on the operative fracture micromechanisms, which are controlled by a variety of microstructural features.
Acknowledgements
One of the authors (JJL) would like to acknowledge the assistance and support of numerous students and colleagues who have contributed to this effort. The original high pressure testing facility at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) was conducted under the direction of S. V. Radcliffe and H. Ll. D. Pugh, the latter partially supported on an extended visit to
182
Lewandowski
5.0
and Lowhaphandu
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
J-o J-o
VJ~ VJ
1200 1000 800 600 400 200
.; =
J-o
4.0
00
3.0
=' E-t
J-o
~ ~ ~
C.J J-o
.a
2.0
J-o
~ ~
C.J
.a
J-o
.5
1.0
~ ~ = ~ .c
U
0.0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa 1. Failure via Microvoid Coalescence
Superimposed Hydrostatic Pressure, MPa 1. Brittle Materials

(i) propagation-controlled fracture: the fracture stress of many brittle materials can be described by the maximum principal stress criterion; a material will fracture when the maximum principal stress reaches the brittle fracture stress. This is evidenced by a one-to-one increase in fracture stress with the superimposed hydrostatic pressure. Ex. Cast and extruded NiAI, Ni3AI, W (ii) nucleation controlled fracture: in such cases the nucleation event triggers catastrophic fracture. Fracture nucleation events in such cases are not necessarily highly dilatant processes. Thus, increases in pressure often have little effect on the ductility and fracture stress until very high levels of pressures are attained. Ex. Ceramics, MgO, NiAI, W. Cast Iron, Mg, Zn
(MVC - Figs. 16c and 17c)

Hydrostatic pressure has been found to inhibit MVC, which consists of void nucleation, void growth, and void coalescence. Pressure has been shown to inhibit void nucleation, while it is known that void growth is controlled by am' The increase of fracture strain with pressure varies with material strength and microstructural changes. Ex. Steels, Al alloys, Cu alloys, Metal matrix composites
2. Failure via Shear or Ductile Rupture (Figs. 16d, 16e, and 17d-g)
The ductility of materials that fail via shear or ductile rupture are generally insensitive to superimposed hydrostatic pressure. At very high pressure levels many materials that typically fail via MVC may exhibit a fracture mode transition and subsequently fail via intense shear or ductile rupture. In such cases, the MVC process is entirely suppressed and the material exhibits no further increases in ductility with further increases in pressure. Ex. 7075AI-T4, 6061AI, a-brass, amorphous metals
2. Quasi-Brittle Materials
Quasi-brittle materials such as metal matrix composites also exhibit a linear increase in fracture stress with increasing hydrostatic pressure. However, the increase in fracture stress is often less than a one-to-one response. The behaviour is not described by a simple maximum stress criterion. Ex. Discontinuously reinforced metal matrix composites
54
Summary plot on effects of pressure fracture strain of inorganic materials
on 55
Summary plot on effects of pressure fracture stress of inorganic materials
on
CWR U by an endowment from Republic Steel Inc. More recent students and research associates associated with the high pressure testing facility at CWR U who have directly or indirectly contributed to the generation and analysis of such data; the modification and upgrading of equipment; and have contributed to the authors' understanding of such phenomena include: D. S. Liu, C. Liu, M. Manoharan, R. W. Margevicius, J. D. Rigney, B. Berger, P. Harwood, T. M. Osman, E. 1. Hilinski, Y. Esmaeilpour, A. L. Grow, A. Vaidya, P. M. Singh, J. Zhang, P. Lowhaphandu, S. Patankar, and S. Solv'yev. Excellent technical support in the generation of such data was provided by D. Howe and C. Tuma, while the design and construction of a gas based high pressure rig at CWR U was provided by M. Costantino and P. Harwood of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Colleagues who have provided useful technical discussions on pressure effects and testing include: A. Argon, A. W. Thompson, F. P. Bullen, R. Ballarini, A. R. Austen, E. Baer, A. H. Heuer, V. Prakash, J. D. Embury, R. O. Ritchie, J. F. Knott, M. Costantino, M. S. Paterson, J. R. Rice, S. Suresh, S. Porowski, and O. Richmond. Financial support for equipment used
at CWRU has been provided by DARPA-ONRN00013-86-K-0777, NSF-PYI-DMR-89-58326, NSF-DMI-95 12296, the Case School of Engineering, and Alcoa. Support for experimentation was provided by DARPA-ONR-N00013-86-K-0777, NSF-PYI-DMR-89-58326, Alcoa, Alcan, AFOSRF49420-96-1-0228, ONR-NOOOl4-91-J-1370, and ONR-N00014-99-1-0327. The donation of a high pressure rig by O. Richmond (Alcoa) is gratefully acknowledged. Supply of intermetal1ic materials by I. E. Locci, R. D. Noebe, and R. Darolia as appreciated as was the supply of various composite materials by W. H. Hunt, Jr and D. J. Lloyd. Thanks are also extended to S. Fishman for suggesting that such a review be considered for International Materials Reviews (IMR) and to G. Yoder and the IMR committee for their patience in receiving the manuscript.
References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
T. von KARMAN: P. W. BRIDGMAN: P. W. BRIDGMAN: P. W. BRIDGMAN: P. W. BRIDGMAN:
Z. Ver. dt. lng., 1911,55,1749. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 1911, 47, 347. Philos. Mag., 1912, 24, 63. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 1914,49, 627. Phys. Rev., 1916, 7, 215.
Lewandowski
6. 7. 8. 9.
and Lowhaphandu
60. v.
I. BETEKHTIN, A. I. PETROV,
N. K. OR~IA;-':OV,
183
Am. J. Sci., 1918, 45, 243. Proc. Nat!' Acad. Sci. USA, 1922, 8, 361. P. BRIDG~IAN: Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 1923, 58, 165. P. BRIDG~IAi':: AJech. Eng., 1925,3, 161. to. P. w. BRIDG~[AN: Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 1925, 60, 423. 11. P. w. BRIDG~[AN: Am J. Sci., 1925, 10, 483. 12. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: in Proc. 2nd Int. Congo on Applied Mechanics, Zurich, 1926, 53; 1927, Zurich, Orell Fiissli. 13. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: Phys. Rev., 1927, 29, 188. 14. P. W. BRIDG~IA;,\: Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 1929,64, 39. 15. P. w. BRIDG~[A;,\: Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 1931, 66, 255. 16. P. w. BRIDG~IA;,\: Proc. Am. Acad. Art Sci., 1933,68,27. 17. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: Phys. Rev., 1935, 48, 825. 18. P. w. BRIDG~[AN: J. Appl. Phys., 1937, 8, 328. 19. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: Trans. AIJ'vIE, 1938, 19, 922. 20. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: }'Jet. Technol., 1938, 5, 32. 21. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: AJech. Eng., 1939,61, (2), 107. 22. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: Pmc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 1940, 74, 1. 23. P. w. BRIDG~IA;,\: Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 1940, 74, 11. 24. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: Trans. ASJ'vI, 1944, 32, 553. 25. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: Am. Sci., 1943, 31, 1. 26. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: in 'Colloid chemistry', (ed. J. Alexander), 327; 1944, New York, Van Nostrand. 27. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: JVIet. Teclmol., 1944, 11, 32. 28. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: Rev. lVIod. Ph)'s., 1945, 17, 3. 29. P. W. BRIDG~IAN: J. Appl. Plzys., 1946, 17, 692. 30. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: J. Appl. Phys., 1946, 17, 201. 31. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: J. Appl. Plzys., 1946, 17,225. 32. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: J. Appl. Phys., 1947, 18,246. 33. P. w. BRIDG~1AN: in 'Fracturing of metals', 240; 1948, Cleveland, OH, ASM. 34. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: Research, 1949, 2, 550. 35. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: Endeavour, 1951, 10,63. 36. P. W. BRIDG~IAN: 'Studies in large plastic flow and fracture with special emphasis on the effects of hydrostatic pressure'; 1952, New York, McGraw-Hill. 37. P. w. BRIDG~IAi':: J. Appl. Plzys., 1953, 24, 560. 38. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: lVIeclz. Eng., 1953, 75, 111. 39. P. W. BRIDG~IAN and I. SI~ION: J. Appl. Phys., 1953,24,405. 40. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: in 'Studies in mathematics and mechanics presented to Richard von Mises', 227; 1954, New York, Academic Press. 41. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: Pmc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 1955, 84, 1. 42. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 1957,86, 131. 43. P. w. BRIDG~1AN: 'The physics of high pressure'; 1958, London, Bell and Sons. 44. P. w. BRIDG~IAN: in 'Solids under pressure', (ed. W. Paul et al.), 1; 1963, New York, McGraw-Hill. 45. E. ALADAG: 'Effects of hydrostatic pressure on the mechanical behavior of beryllium', PhD thesis, Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science, Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, OH, 1968. 46. E. ALADAG, II. L1. D. PUGH, and s. V. RADCLIFFE: Acta lVletall., 1969, 17, 1467. 47. c. w. A;-':DREWS: 'Effects of pressure on terminal characteristics of hexagonal metals', PhD thesis, Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science, Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, OH, 1965. 48. c. w. A;-':DREWS and s. V. RADCLIFFE: Acta Metal/., 1966, 14,937. 49. c. W. A;-':DREWS and s. V. RADCLIFFE: Acta lVfetall., 1967, 15, 623. 50. 1. P. AUGER and D. FRANCOIS: Rev. Phys. Appl., 1974, 9, 637. 51. J. P. AUGER and D. FRANCOIS: Int. J. Fract., 1977, 13, 431. 52. A. R. AUSTEN and B. AVITZUR: J. Eng. Ind. (Trans. ASME), 1973, 1. (ASME paper no. 73-WA/Prod. 3.) 53. A. BALL, E P. BULLEN, and H. L. WAIN: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1968/69, 3, 283. 54. D. BEDERE, C. JA~IARD, A. JARLAUD, and D. FRANCOIS: Phys. StaWs Solidi, 1970, lA, 135. 55. D. BEDERE, C. JA~IARD, A. JARLAUD, and D. FRANCOIS: Acta lvletall., 1971,19,973. 56. Y. E. BEJGEL'ZI~IER, B. ~1. EFROS, and N. V. SHISHKOVA: /ZV. Akad. Nauk SSSR, iVIet., 1995, (l), 121. 57. B. I. BERESNEV, L. F. VERESHCHAGIN, Y. N. RYABININ, and L. D. LIVSHITS: 'Some problems of large plastic deformation of metals at high pressure'; 1963, New York, Macmillan. 58. B. I. BERESNEV and K. P. RODIONOV: in Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on 'High pressure', Aviemore, Scotland, 1970, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 153. 59. F. ~1. C. BESAG and F. P. BULLEN: Phi/os. lVIag., 1965, 12, 41.
P. P. BRIDG~IAN: BRIDG~IAN:
w. w. w. w.
V. SKLENICHKA,
V. I. MONIN,
A. G. KADO~ITSEV,
Met. Metallogr. 61.

V. I. BETEKHTIN,
(USSR),
and V. V. 1989, 67, 103.
KONOVALENKO:
Ph)'s.
A. I. PETROV,
A. G. KADO~ITSEV,
N. K. OR~IANOV,
and V. SKLENICHKA: Phys. lVIet. AJetallogr. (USSR), 1990, 69, 165. 62. S. B. BINER and W. A. SPITZIG: in 'Modeling of the deformation of crystalline solids', (ed. T. C. Lowe et al.), 545; 1991, Warrendale, PA, TMS. 63. A. BROWNRIGG, W. A. SPITZIG, O. RICH~IO:-':D, D. TEIRLINCK, and J. D. DIBURY: Acta lVIetall., 1983, 31, 1141. 64. E P. BULLEN, E HENDERSO:-':, II. L. WAIN, and ~1. S. PATERSON: Philos. Mag., 1964, 9, 803. 65. E P. BULLEN, F. HENDERSON, ~L ~1. HUTCHINSON, and H. L. WAIN: Phi/os. Mag., 1964, 9, 285. 66. F. P. BULLEN and H. L. WAIN: in Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Fracture - 'Yield and fracture', Sendai, Japan, 1965, 1933. 67. A. C. CHILTON and S. V. RADCLIFFE: SCI'. Aifetall., 1969, 3,395. 68. A. H. CHOKSHI and A. ~IUKHERJEE: iVIater. Sci. Eng., 1993, AI71,47. 69. w. R. CLOUGH and ;vI. E. SHANK: Trans ASA;[, 1957, 49, 241. 70. B. CROSSLAND: Proc. /nst. lVlecll. Eng., 1954, 168, 935. 71. R. L. DAGA: 'Mechanical behavior of b.c.c. metals under hydrostatic pressure', PhD thesis, Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science, Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, OH, 1970. 72. G. DAS: 'Substructure and mechanical behavior of tungsten as function of pressure', PhD thesis, Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science, Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, OH, 1967. 73. G. DAS and S. V. RADCLIFFE: Phi/os. lvfag., 1969, 20, 589. 74. T. E. DAVIDSON, J. G. UY, and A. P. LEE: Acta lVfetall., 1966, 14, 937. 75. T. E. DAVIDSON and G. S. ANSELL: Trans. ASlVI, 1968,61, 242. 76. T. E. DAVIDSON and G. S. ANSELL: Trans. A/lVfE, 1969,245,2383. 77. F. H. DAVIS, E. G. ELLISON, and W. 1. PLU~mRIDGE: Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 1989, 12, 511. 78. F. H. DAVIS and E. G. ELLISON: Fatigue Fract. Eng . .JVIater. Struct., 1989, 12, 527. 79. A. V. DOBRO~IYSLOV, G. DOLIKH, and G. G. RALUTS: Phys. }'Jet. Metallogr. (USSR), 1990, 69, 156. 80. R. J. DOWER: Acta Metall., 1967, 15, 497. 81. A. A. EMEL'YANOV, I. Y. PYSK~nNTSEV, ~1. I. GOL'DSHTEJN, S. V. SMIRI\OV, and D. V. BASHLYKOV: Fiz. iVIet. lVfetalloved., 1993, 76, 158. 82. D. FRANCOIS and T. R. WILSHAW: J. Appl. Plzys., 1968,39,4170. 83. D. FRANCOIS: in 'Advances in research on the strength and fracture of materials', (ed. D M. R. Taplin), 805; 1977, New York, Pergamon Press. 84. J. E. FRANKLIN, J. ~IUKHOPADHYAY, and A. K. ~1UKHERJEE: SCI'. Metall., 1988, 22, 865. 85. I. E. FRENCH, P. F. WEINRICH, and C. W. WEAVER: Acta lVletall., 1973, 21, 1045. 86. I. E. FRENCH and P. F. WEINRICH: Acta lVletall., 1973, 21, 1533. 87. I. E. FRENCH and P. F. WEINRICH: SCI'. Metall., 1974, 8, 87. 88. I. E. FREI\CH and P. F. WEINRICH: lVIetall. TrailS. A, 1975, 6A, 785. 89. I. E. FRENCH and P. F. WEINRICH: Ivletall. Trans. A, 1975, 6A, 1165. 90. J. R. GALLI and P. GIBBS: Acta lVIetal/., 1964, 12, 775. 91. S. H. GELLES: Trans. A/ME, 1966,236,981. 92. J. E. HANAFEE: 'The effect of hydrostatic pressure on dislocation mobility', PhD thesis, Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science, Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, OH,1966. 93. L. W. HU: J. Mecll. Phys. Solids, 1956, 4, 96. 94. N. INOUE, V. DA~nAI\O, 1. HANAFEE, and H. CONRAD: Trans. A/ME, 1968, 242, 2081. 95. M. ITOH, F. YOSHIDA, and ~1. OH~IORI: J. JPll blst. lVIet., 1988, 52, 1149. 96. w. A. JESSER and D. KUHL~IANN-WILSDORF: lVIater. Sci. Eng., 1972, 9, 111. 97. A. A. JOHNSON, T. LEWAENSTEIN, and E. A. I~IBE~mo: Ocean Eng., 1969, 1, 201. 98. A. S. KAO, H. A. KUHN, O. RICH~IOND, and W. A. SPITZIG: Ivletall. Trans. A, 1989, 20A, 1735. 99. A. KORBEL, V. S. RAGHUNATHAN, D. TEIRLII\CK, W. A. SPITZIG, O. RICHMOND, and J. D. E~IBURY: Acta Metall., 1984,32,511. 100. D. A. KUVALDIN, V. P. ALEKHIN, S. I. BULYCHEV, S. N. KAVERINA, and S. I. ALTYNOV: Russ. Metall., 1987, (40), 118.
M. V. RAZUVAYEVA,
International
Materials Reviews
1998
Vol. 43
NO.4
184 101. 102. 103. 104.

D.
Lewandowski
LAHAIE, J. D.
and Lowhaphandu
EMBURY, A. JARLAUD,
Effects of hydrostatic and

G. T. GRAY:
R. P. M. PROCTOR, and R. A. GOTTIS: in 'Hydrogen effects in materials' - Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on 'Effect of hydrogen on behavior of materials, 1994', (ed. N. R. Moody and A. W. Thompson), 657; 1994, Warrendale, PA, TMS. P. J. WORTHINGTON and E. SMITH: Acta Metall., 1966, 14, 35. P. J. WORTHINGTON: Philos. Mag., 1969, 19, 663. A. S. WRONSKI and A. C. CHILTON: J. Less-Common Met., 1969, 17,447. A. S. WRONSKI, A. C. CHILTON, and E. M. CAPRON: Acta Metall., 1969, 17, 751. M. YAJIMA and M. ISHII: Acta Metall., 1967, 15, 651. M. YAJIMA and M. ISHII: J. Jpn Soc. Tech. Plast., 1968,9, 405. M. YAJIMA, M. ISHII, and M. KOBAYASHI: Int. J. Fract. Mech., 1970, 6, 139. H. S. YANG, A. K. MUKHERJEE, and w. T. ROBERTS: Mater. Sci. T echnol., 1992, 8, 611. S. YOSHIDA and A. OGUCHI: Trans. Jpn /nst. Met., 1970, 11, 424. F. ZOK: 'The influence of hydrostatic pressure on fracture', PhD thesis, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., Canada, 1988. F. ZOK and 1. D. EMBURY: Metall. Trans. A, 1990, 21A, 2565. J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, B. BERGER, J. D. RIGNEY, and s. N. PATANKAR: Philos. Mag. A, 1998, 78, 643. R. W. MARGEVICIUS and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Scr. Metall., 1991, 25,2017. R. W. MARGEVICIUS: 'Effect of pressure on flow and fracture of NiAl', PhD thesis, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH,1992. R. W. MARGEVICIUS, J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, and I. LOCCI: Scr. Metall., 1992, 26, 1733. R. W. MARGEVICIUS, J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, I. E. LOCCI, and G. M. MICHAL: in Proc. Conf. 'High temperature ordered intermetallic alloys V', (eds. J. D. Whittenberer et al.), Boston, MA, 30 Nov.-3 Dec. 1992, Materials Research Society, 555-560. R. W. MARGEVICIUS, J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, I. E. LOCCI, and R. D. NOEBE: Scr. Metall. Alater., 1993, 29, 1309. R. W. MARGEVICIUS, J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, and I. LOCCI: in 'ISSI-I', (ed. R. Darolia et al.), 577; 1993, Warrendale, PA, TMS-AIME. R. W. MARGEVICIUS and 1. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Acta Metall. Mater., 1993, 41, 485. R. W. MARGEVICIUS and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Scr. Metall. Mater., 1993, 29, 1651. R. W. MARGEVICIUS and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1994, 25A, 1457. J. D. RIGNEY, S. PATANKAR, and 1. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Compos. Sci. Technol., 1994, 52, 163. J. WOODWARD, D. WATKI~S, H. R. PIEHLER, V. SEETHARAMAN, C. M. LOMBARD,
Scr.
142.
Metall., 1992, 27, 138.
105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112.
113.
114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126.
127. 128. 129. 130.
and P. G. PARTRIDGE: Philos. Mag., 1966, 13, 9. s. LIU and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Metall. Trans. A, 1993, 24A,601. w. LORREK and o. PAWELSKI: 'The influence of hydrostatic pressure on the plastic deformation of metallic materials'; 1974, Dusseldorf, Germany, Max-Planck-Institut fUr Eisenforschung. R. K. MAHIDHARA: J. Mater. Sci. Lett., 1996, 15, 1463. D. R. McCANN, J. C. UY, and P. F. HETTWER: J. Mater. Sci, 1970, 5,295. H. G. MELLOR and A. S. WRONSKI: Ocean Eng., 1969, 1, 235. H. G. MELLOR and A. S. WRONSKI: Met. Sci. J., 1970,4, 108. M. H. MILES and P. J. GIBBS: J. Appl. Phys., 1964, 35, 1941. F. MILSTEIN, F. E. FAND, X.-Y. GONG, and D. J. RASKY: Solid State Commun., 1996,99,807. T. NAKAJIMA, I. FUJISHIRO, and s. MUTO: Zairyo (Jpn Soc. Mater. Sci.), 1987, 36, 847. M. NISHIHARA, K. TANAKA, and H. HAMADA: in Proc. 8th Japan Congo on 'Testing materials', 73; 1965, Kyoto, Japan Society of Materials Science. M. NISHIHARA, K. TANAKA, S. YAMAMOTO, and T. YAMAGUCHI: in Proc. 10th Japan Congo on 'Testing materials', 50; 1967, Kyoto, Japan Society of Materials Science. M. NISHIHARA, S. MIURA, and T. HIRANO: High Temp.-High Press., 1972, 4, 281. D. I. R. NORRIS: in Proc. 3rd European Conf., Prague, 1964, Czech. Academy of Science, 319. A. OGUCHI, S. YOSHIDA, and M. NOBUKI: Trans. Jpn /nst. Met., 1972, 13, 69. A. OGUCHI, S. YOSHIDA, and M. NOBUKI: Trans. Jpn /nst. Met., 1972, 13, 63. M. OHMORI, M. INNO, and N. MATSUOKA: Trans. /S/J, 1978, 18, 468. M. OMURA: Zairyo (Jpn Soc. Mater. Sci.), 1988, 37, 114. T. PELCZYNSKI: Arch. Hutnic., 1962, 7, 3. w. 1. PLUMBRIDGE, P. J. ROSS, and J. s. C. PARRY: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1984/85, 68, 219. H. Ll. D. PUGH: in 'Irreversible effects of high pressure and temperature on materials', 68; 1964, Philadelphia, PA, ASTM. H. Ll. D. PUGH and D. GREEN: Proc. /nst. Mech. Eng., 1964-65, 179, 415. H. Ll. D. PUGH: 'Mechanical behaviour of materials under pressure'; 1970, New York, Elsevier. s. V. RADCLIFFE and L. E. TANNER: Acta Metall., 1962, 10, 1161. s. V. RADCLIFFE: in 'Irreversible effects of high pressure and temperature on materials', 141; 1964, Philadelphia, PA, ASTM. S. V. RADCLIFFE and H. WARLIMONT: Phys. Status Solidi, 1964,
J. S. LALLY D.
143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152.
153. 154. 155. 156.
157. 158.
159. 160.
161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172.
7~ K67.
S. V. RADCLIFFE: in 'Mechanical behavior of materials under pressure', (ed. H. Ll. D. Pugh), 638; 1970, New York, Elsevier. s. I. RATNER: J. Tech. Phys. (USSR), 1949, 19, 408. T. E. RENZ and R. G. STRONG: in Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on 'Microstructure and mechanical properties of aging materials', Chicago, IL, Nov. 1992; 1993, TMS, 425. c. H. ROBBINS and A. S. WRONSKI: High Temp.-High Press., 1974, 6, 217. C. H. ROBBINS and A. S. WRONSKI: Acta Metall., 1978,26, 1061. w. A. SPITZIG, R. J. SOBER, and o. RICHMOND: Acta Metall., 1975, 23, 885. W. A. SPITZIG, R. J. SOBER, and O. RICHMOND: Metall. Trans. A, 1976, 7A, 1703. W. A. SPITZIG: Acta Metall., 1979, 27, 523. w. A. SPITZIG and o. RICHMOND: Acta Metall., 1984,32, 457. w. A. SPITZIG: Acta Metall. Mater., 1990, 38, 1445. P. F. TIMMINS and A. S. WRONSKI: High Temp.-High Press., 1975, 7,79. P. W. TRESTER: 'Effects of pressure-induced dislocations on yield phenomena in iron-carbon alloys', MS thesis, Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science, Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, OH, 1967. D. WAGNER, J. J. CHARRIER, and D. FRANCOIS: in Proc. Int. Conf. on 'Analytical and experimental fracture mechanics', Rome, Italy, Jun. 1980, 199; 1981, The Netherlands, Sijthoff and N oordhoff. P. F. WEINRICH and I. E. FRENCH: Acta Metall., 1976, 24, 317.
and s. and and
L. SEMIATIN:
Metall. Trans. A, 1992, 23A, 2669.

J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, B. F. OLIVER,
M. L. WEAVER,
R. D. NOEBE,
M. J. KAUFMAN:
Mater. Sci. Eng, 1995, AI92/193, 179.

J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, B. F. OLIVER,
M. L. WEAVER,
R. D. NOEBE,
M. J. KAUFMAN:
/ntermetallics,
1996, 4, 533.
R. A. VARIN:
M. G. WINNICKA,
Z. WITCZAK,
and
Metall. Mater.
Trans. A, 1994, 25A, 1703.

Z. WITCZAK
131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139.
and
D.
R. A. VARIN:
Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1997,

VASADEVAN, O. RICHMOND,
28A,179.
F. ZOK, J. HACK: J. EMBURY, A. K.
and
Scr. Metall., 1989, 23, 1893.

S. V. RADCLIFFE,
T. A. AUTEN,
and
B. B. GORDON:
J. Am. Ceram.
Soc., 1976, 59, 40.

1. P. RIVIERE, and J. CASTAING: in 'Deformation of ceramic materials II', (ed. R. C. Bradt et al.), 213; 1984, New York, Plenum Press. J. CASTAING, 1. CADOZ, and s. H. KIRBY: J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1981, 64, 504. J. CASTAING, J. CADOZ, and s. H. KIRBY: J. Phys. (France), 1981, 42, (C3), 43. I.-W. CHEN and P. E. R. MOREL: J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1986,69, 181. J. E. HANAFEE and S. V. RADCLIFFE: J. Appl. Phys., 1967,38,4284. K. IKEDA and H. IGAKI: J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1984, 67, 538. K. IKEDA, H. IGAKI, and Y. TANIGAWA: Nippon Kikai Gakkai Ronbunshu, A Hen, Trans. Jpn Soc. Mech. Eng., Part A, 1991, 57,2390. K. P. D. LAGERLOF, A. H. HEUER, J. CASTAING, J. P. RIVIERE, and T. E. MITCHELL: J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1994, 77, 385. 1. CADOZ,
173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178.
140.
179.
141.
International
Materials Reviews
1998
Vol. 43
NO.4
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256.
S. NAZARENKO,
185
180. c. W. WEAVER and ~1. S. PATERSON: J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1969, 52,293. 181. c. W. WEAVER and M. S. PATERSON: J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1970, 53,463. 182. Y. BRECHET, J. D. DtBURY, S. TAO, and L. LUO: Acta Metall. i\later., 1991,39, 1781. 183. Y. BRECHET, J. NEWELL, S. TAO, and J. D. E~1BURY: Scr. NJetall. lYlater., 1993, 28, 47. 184. J. D. BtBURY, J. NEWELL, and s. TAO: in Proc. 12th Ris0 Int. Symp. on 'Materials science', 2-6 September 1991,317; 1991, Roskilde, Denmark, Ris0 National Laboratory. 185. Y. ES~[AE[LPOUR: 'Effects of pressure on flow and fracture in a particulate reinforced metal matrix composite', MS thesis, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 1995. 186. A. L. GROW and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: SAE Trans., 1993, Paper no. 950260. 187. A. L. GROW: 'Influence of hydrostatic extrusion and particle size on tensile behavior of discontinuously reinforced aluminum', MS thesis, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH,1994. 188. J. LANKFORD: Compos. Sci. Technol., 1994, 51, 537. 189. J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, D. S. LIU, and ~1. MANOHARAN: Scr. Metall., 1989, 23, 253. 190. J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, D. S. LIU, and M. MANOHARAN: Metall. Trans. A, 1989, 20A, 2409. 191. J. J. LEWANDOWSKI and D. s. LIU: in 'Lightweight alloys for aerospace applications', (ed. E. W. Lee et at.), 359; 1989, Warrendale, PA, TMS-AIME. 192. J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, D. S. LIU, and c. LIU: Scr. Metall., 1991, 25, 21. 193. J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, D. S. LIU, P. LOWHAPHANDU, and P. HARWOOD: Unpublished research, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 1996. 194. D. s. LIU, ~l. ~[ANOHARAN, and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: J. Mater. Sci. Lett., 1989, 8, 1447. 195. D. s. LIU: 'The effects of superimposed pressure on the deformation and fracture of metal-matrix composites', PhD thesis, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 1990. 196. D. s. LIU, B. I. RICKETT, and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: in 'Fundamental relationships between microstructures and mechanical properties of metal matrix composites', (ed. M. N. Gungor et at.), 145; 1990, Warrendale, PA, TMS-AIME. 197. D. s. LIU and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Metall. Trans. A, 1993, 24A,609. 198. G. J. MAHON, J. M. HOWE, and A. K. VASUDEVAN: Acta Metall. Mater., 1990, 38, 1503. 199. P. M. SINGH and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Metall. Trans. A, 1993, 24A,2531. 200. A. VAIDYA and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: in 'Intrinsic and extrinsic fracture mechanisms in inorganic composites', (ed. J. J. Lewandowski et at.), 147; 1995, Warrendale, PA, TMS. 201. A. K. VASUDEVAN, O. RICHMOND, F. ZOK, and J. D. EMBURY: i\1ater. Sci. Eng., 1989, AI07, 63. 202. A. W. CHRISTIANSEN, E. BAER, and s. V. RADCLIFFE: Philos. Mag., 1971, 24, 451. 203. c. P. R. HOPPEL, T. A. BOGETTI, and J. GILLESPIE: J. Thermoplastic Compos. Mater., 1995, 8,375. 204. Y. JEE and s. R. SWANSON: in 'Mechanics of thick composites', 127; 1993, New York, Applied Mechanics Division, ASME. 205. M. KITAGAWA, J. QUI, K. NISHIDA, and T. YONEYAMA: J. Mater. Sci., 1992, 27, 1449. 206. ~l. KITAGAWA, T. YOSHIOKA, and A. TAKAGI: J. Mater. Sci., 1995, 30, 1083. 207. J. K. LEE and K. D. PAE: J. Macromol. Sci.-Phys., 1997, B36, (4),475. 208. D. LI, A. F. YEE, I.-W. CHEN, S.-C. CHANG, and K. TAKAHASHI: J. Mater. Sci., 1994, 29, 2205. 209. K. MATSUSHIGE, E. BAER, and s. V. RADCLIFFE: J. Macromol. Sci.-Phys., 1975, Bll, 565. 210. K. ~1ATSUSHIGE, S. V. RADCLIFFE, and E. BAER: J. Mater. Sci., 1975, 10, 833. 211. K. MATSUSHIGE, S. V. RADCLIFFE, and E. BAER: J. Appl. Polymer Sci., 1976, 20, 1853. 212. K. ~IATSUSHIGE, S. V. RADCLIFFE, and E. BAER: J. Polymer Sci., 1976, 14, 703.
257.
258.
259.
260. 261.
S. BENSASON, A. HILTNER, and E. BAER: Polymer, 1994, 35, 3883. K. D. PAE and K. VIJAYAN: Polymer, 1988, 29, 405. K. D. PAE and K. Y. RHEE: Compos. Sci. Technol., 1995,53,281. K. D. PAE: Composites, Part B: Eng., 1996, 27, 599. T. V. PARRY and D. TABOR: J. Mater. Sci., 1973, 8, 1510. T. V. PARRY and D. TABOR: J. Nlater. Sci., 1974, 9, 289. T. V. PARRY and A. S. WRONSKI: J. j\1ater. Sci., 1985, 20, 2141. T. V. PARRY and A. S. WRONSKI: J. Mater. Sci., 1986, 21, 4451. S. RABINOWITZ, I. M. WARD, and J. s. C. PARRY: J. Mater. Sci., 1970, 5, 29. K. Y. RHEE and K. D. PAE: J. Compos. Mater., 1995, 29, 1295. D. SARDAR, S. V. RADCLIFFE, and E. BAER: Polymer Eng. Sci., 1968, 8, 290. E. S. SHIN and K. D. PAE: J. Compos. Mater., 1992, 26, 828. E. S. SHIN and K. D. PAE: J. Compos. Nlater., 1992, 26, 462. R. H. SIGLEY, A. S. WRONSKI, and T. V. PARRY: Compos. Sci. Tee/mol., 1991, 41, 395. R. H. SIGLEY, A. S. WRONSKI, and T. V. PARRY: Compos. Sci. Tee/mol., 1992, 43, 171. w. A. SPITZIG and o. RICH~10ND: Polymer Eng. Sci., 1979, 19, 1129. M. TRZNADEL and M. DRYSZEWSKI: Polymer, 1988, 29, 418. S.-w. TSUI and A. F. JOHNSON: J. Mater. Sci. Lett., 1996, 15, 48. K. VIJAYAN, C.-L. TANG, and K. D. PAE: Polymer, 1988, 29, 396. G. v. VINOGRADOV, Y. Y. BIT-GEVOGIZOV, Y. L. FRENKIN, and Y. Y. PODOL'SKII: Polymer Sci., 1991, 33, 983. c. W. WEAVER and M. S. PETERSON: J. Polym. Sci., 1969, 7, (A-2),587. A. S. WRONSKI and T. V. PARRY: J. Mater. Sci., 1982, 17, 3656. J. YUAN, A. HILTNER, and E. BAER: Polymer Eng. Sci., 1984, 24,844. E. ALADAG, L. A. DAVIS, and B. B. GORDON: Philos. Mag., 1970, 21,469. o. L. ANDERSON: Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. (London), 1982, A306,21. M. F. ASHBY and R. A. VERRALL: Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. (London), 1977, A288, 59. T. A. AUTEN, L. A. DAVIS, and R. B. GORDON: Philos. Mag., 1973, 28, 335. w. A. BASSETT: Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 1979, 7, 357. P. M. BELL: Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 1979, 17, 788. J. D. BLACIC: Geophys. Res. Lett., 1981,8,721. L. A. DAVIS and R. B. GORDON: J. Appl. Phys., 1968, 39, 3885. w. B. DURHAM, H. C. HEARD, and s. H. KIRBY: J. Geophys., Suppl. 88, 1983, 377. J. M. EDMOND and M. S. PATERSON: Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 1972, 9, 161. G. FONTAINE and P. HASSEN: Phys. Status Solidi, 1969, 31, K67. R. B. GORDON: J. Geophys. Sci., 1971, 76, 1248. H. W. GREEN and R. s. BORCH: Acta Metal!., 1987, 35, 1301. D. T. GRIGGS: J. Geol., 1936,44, 541. D. T. GRIGGS, F. J. TURNER, and H. c. HEARD: Geol. Soc. Am. Mem., 1960, 79, 39. D. T. GRIGGS: J. R. Astr. Soc., 1967, 14, 19. D. GRIGGS: J. Geophys. Res., 1974, 79, 1653. Y. GUEGUEN and A. NICHOLAS: Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 1980, 8, 119. J. HANDIN: Trans. ASME, 1953, 75,315. w. L. HAWORTH and R. B. GORDON: Phys. Status Solidi A, 1970, 3,503. H. C. HEARD and A. DUBA: 'Capabilities for measuring physicochemical properties at high pressure', Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, CA, 1978. H. C. HEARD: in 'Deformation of rocks at preferred orientation in deformed metals and rocks', (ed. H. R. Wenk), 485; 1985, Orlando, FL, Academic Press. B. E. HOBBS, A. C. McLAREN, and M. S. PATERSON: in 'Flow and fracture of rocks', (ed. H. C. Heard et al.), 29; 1972, Washington DC, American Geophysics Union. J. S. HUEBNER: in 'Research techniques for high pressure and high temperature', (ed. G. C. Ulmer), 123; 1971, New York, Springer- Verlag. s. KARATO: Phys. Earth Planet. /nt., 1981,25, 38. K. R. S. S. KEKULAWALA, M. S. PATERSON, and J. N. BOLAND: Tectonophysics, 1978, 46, T1.
International
Materials Reviews
1998
Vol. 43
NO.4
186 262.
K.
Lewandowski
and Lowhaphandu
R. s. s. KEKULAWALA, M. S. PATERSON, and J. N. BOLAND: in 'Mechanical behavior of crystal rocks', Geophysical Monograph 24; 1981, Washington, DC, American Geophysics Union. 263. D. L. KOHLSTEDT and P. N. CHOPRA: in 'Methods of experimental physics', (ed. C. G. Sammis et al.), 57; 1987, Orlando, FL, Academic Press. 264. M. MADON and 1. P. POIRIER: Science, 1980, 207, 66. 265. K. R. McCLAY: J. Geol. Soc. London, 1977, 134, 57. 266. K. MOGI: Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst., 1966,44,215. 267. s. A. F. MURRELL: in Proc. 5th Symp. on 'Rock mechanics', (ed. C. Fairhurst), 563; 1983, Pergamon Press. 268. M. S. PATERSON: Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 1963, A271, 57. 269. M. S. PATERSON: J. Inst. Eng. Aust., 1964, 36, 23. 270. M. S. PATERSON: J. Geophys., 1967, 14, 13. 271. M. S. PATERSON: Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 1970, 7, 517. 272. M. S. PATERSON: Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 1973, 11, 355. 273. M. S. PATERSON: 'Experimental rock deformation - the brittle field'; 1978, Berlin, Springer-Verlag. 274. M. S. PATERSON: High Temp.-High Press., 1982, 14, 315. 275. M. S. PATERSON: Geophys. Monogr., 1990,56, 187. 276. 1. P. POIRIER, C. SOTIN, and 1. PEYRONNEAU: Nature, 1981, 292,225. 277. J. P. POIRIER: 'Creep of crystals'; 1985, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 278. J. TULLIS, G. L. SHELTON, and R. A. YUND: Bull. Mineral, 1979, 102, 110. 279. T. E. TULLIS and J. TULLIS: Geophys. Monogr., 1986, 36, 297. 280. D. H. ZEUCH and H. W. GREEN: Tectonophysics, 1984, 110, 233. 281. K. L. De VRIES and P. GIBBS: J. Appl. Phys., 1963, 34, 3119. 282. K. L. De VRIES, G. S. BAKER, and P. GIBBS: J. Appl. Phys., 1963, 34,2254. 283. K. L. De VRIES, G. S. BAKER, and P. GIBBS: J. Appl. Phys., 1963, 34,2258. 284. S. KARATO, M. TORIUMI, and T. FUJII: in 'High pressure research in geophysics', (ed. S. Akimoto et al.), 171; 1982, Tokyo, Center of Academic Publications. 285. R. W. KEYES: in 'Solid under pressure', (ed. W. Paul et al.); 1963, New York, McGraw-Hill. 286. P. G. McCORMICK and A. L. RUOFF: J. Appl. Phys., 1969,40,4812. 287. A. R. AUSTEN and w. L. HUTCHINSON: in 'Rapidly solidified materials: properties and processing', Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Rapidly Solidified Materials, San Diego, CA, 1989, ASM International. 288. A. R. AUSTEN and w. L. HUTCHINSON: Adv. Cryogenic Eng. A, 1990, 36, 741. 289. B. AVITZUR: J. Eng. Ind. (Trans ASME Series B), 1965, 87, 487. 290. B. I. BERESNEV, L. F. VERESHCHAGIN, and Y. N. RYABININ: Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Mekh i Mashin, 1959, 7, 128. 291. B. I. BERESNEV, L. F. VERESHCHAGIN, and Y. N. RYABININ: Inzhjiz. Zh., 1960, 3, 43. 292. B. I. BERESNEV, D. K. BULYCHEV, and K. P. RODIONOV: Fiz. Met. Metalloved., 1961, 11, 115. 293. A. BOBROWSKY, E. A. STACK, and A. AUSTEN: ASTM Technical paper no. SP65-33, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. 294. A. BOBROWSKY and E. A. STACK: in Symp. on 'Metallurgy at high pressures and high temperatures', Dallas, TX, (ed. K. A. Gschneider, Jr et al.); 1964, Gordon and Breach Science. 295. D. K. BULYCHEV and B. I. BERESNEV: Fiz. Met. Metalloved., 1962, 13, 942. 296. L. H. BUTLER: J. Inst. Met., 1964-65, 93, 123. 297. J. M. GOODES: Wire Ind., 1975,42,530. 298. R. MOLYNEUX: Wire Ind., 1977, 44, 234. 299. c. J. NOLAN and T. E. DAVIDSON: Trans. ASM, 1969,62,271. 300. J. A. PARDOE: Wire J., 1978, 11, (7), 82. 301. O. PAWELSKI, K. E. HAGEDORN, and R. HOP: Steel Res., 1994, 65,326. 302. H. Ll. D. PUGH: in Proc. Int. Production Engineering Conf., Pittsburgh, PA, 1963, ASME, 394. 303. H. Ll. D. PUGH: New Scientist, Apr. 1963, (333), 4. 304. H. Ll. D. PUGH: J. Mech. Eng. Soc., 1964,6,362. 305. H. Ll. D. PUGH and A. H. LOW: J. Inst. Met., 1964-65, 93, 201. 306. H. Ll. D. PUGH: Bullied Memorial Lectures, Nos. 3 and 4, University of Nottingham, UK, 1965. 307. R. N. RANDALL, D. M. DAVIES, and 1. M. SIERGIEJ: Mod. Met., 1962, 17, 68. 308. Y. N. RYABININ, B. I. BERESNEV, and B. P. DEMYASHKEVIDH: Fiz. Met. Metalloved., 1961, 11, 630. 309. H. K. SLATER: Wire J., 1979, 12, (2), 76.
J. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1957,77. c. UY, c. J. NOLAN, and T. E. DAVIDSON: Trans. ASM, 1967, 60, 693. 312. w. G. VOORHES: Light Met. Age, 1978, 18. 313. J. JUNG: Philos. Mag., 1981, 43A, 1057. 314. v. T. SHMATOV: Fiz. Met. Metalloved., 1973, 35, 277. 315. T. CHRISTMAN, A. NEEDLEMAN, S. NUTT, and s. SURESH: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1989, AI07, 49. 316. T. CHRISTMAN, A. NEEDLEMAN, and s. SURESH: Acta Metall., 1989, 37, 3029. 317. T. CHRISTMAN, J. LLORCA, S. SURESH, and A. NEEDLEMAN: in 'Inelastic deformation of composite materials', (ed. G. J. Dvorak), 309; 1990, New York, Springer-Verlag. 318. G. M. GE:"J'IN: 'The effects of superimposed hydrostatic pressure on deformation of an idealized metal matrix composite', MS thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 1992. 319. H. LUO, R. BALLARINI, and J. 1. LEWANDOWSKI: in 'Mechanics of composites at elevated and cryogenic temperatures', (ed. S. N. Singhal et al.), 195; 1991, New York, ASME. 320. H. LUO, R. BALLARINI, and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: J. Compos. Mater., 1992, 26, 1945. 321. P. B. BOWDEN and 1. A. JUKES: J. Mater. Sci., 1972, 7, 52. 322. J. c. M. LI and 1. B. c. wu: J. Mater. Sci., 1976, 11, 445. 323. L. A. DAVIES and s. KAVESH: J. Mater. Sci., 1975, 10, 453. 324. J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, P. LOWHAPHANDU, and s. MONTGOMERY: Scr. Metall. Mater., 1998, in press. 325. G. T. GRAY: in 'High pressure shock compression of solids', (ed. J. R. Asay et al.), 187; 1993, New York, Springer-Verlag. 326. D. H. NEWHALL and L. H. ABBOT: Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1967/68, 182, 288. 327. M. I. EREMETS: 'High pressure experimental method'; 1996, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 328. s. H. GELLES: Rev. Sci. Instr., 1968, 39, 12. 329. F. BIRCH, E. C. ROBERTSON, and J. CLARK: Ind. Eng. Chern., 1957, 49, 1965. 330. D. CARPENTER and M. CONTRE: Rev. Sci. Instr., 1970, 41, 189. 331. 1. W. JACKSON and M. WAXMAN: in 'High-pressure measurement', (ed. A. H. Giardini et al.), 39; 1963, London, Butterworth. 332. D. H. NEWHALL: Instr. Control Syst., 1962, 35, 103. 333. J. E. HANAFEE and s. V. RADCLIFFE: Rev. Sci. Inst., 1967,38, 328. 334. M. COSTANTINO, P. LOWHAPHANDU, P. HARWOOD, P. M. SINGH, and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Unpublished research, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 1994. 335. s. M. DORAIVELU, H. L. GEGEL, J. S. GUNASEKERA, J. C. MALAS, and J. T. MORGAN: Int. J. Mech. Sci., 1984,26, 527. 336. E. J. HILINSKI, J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, and P. T. WANG: in 'Aluminum and magnesium for automotive applications', (ed. J. D. Bryant), 189; 1996, Warrendale, PA, TMS-AIME. 337. M. F. ASHBY, S. H. GELLES, and L. E. TANNER: Phi/os. Mag., 1969, 19, 757. 338. A. H. COTTRELL: 'Theory of crystal dislocations'; 1964, New York, Gordon and Breach. 339. T. E. DAVIDSON, J. C. UY, and A. P. LEE: Trans. AIME, 1965, 233,820. 340. J. w. SWEGLE: J. Appl. Phys., 1980, 51, 2574. 341. E. J. HILINSKI, J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, T. J. RODJOM, and P. T. WANG: in '1994 World P/M congress', (ed. C. Lall et al.), 259; 1994, Princeton, NJ, MPIF. 342. E. J. HILINSKI, 1. J. LEWANDOWSKI, T. J. RODJOM, and P. T. WANG: in '1994 World P/M congress', (ed. C. Lall et al.), 269; 1994, Princeton, NJ, MPIF. 343. c. LIU and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Unpublished research, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 1991. 344. c. LIU, G. MICHAL, and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: in 'Residual stresses in composites: measurement, modeling and effects on thermomechanical behavior', (ed. E. V. Barrera et al.); 1993, Denver, CO, TMS. 345. P. F. THOMASON: 'Ductile fracture of metals'; 1990, New York, Pergamon Press. 346. J. F. KNOTT: 'Fundamentals of fracture mechanics'; 1973, London, Butterworths. 347. A. W. THOMPSON and J. F. KNOTT: Metall. Trans. A, 1993, 24A,523. 348. R. O. RITCHIE and A. W. THOMPSON: Metall. Trans. A, 1985, 16A,233. 349. F. A. McCLINTOCK and A. S. ARGON: 'Mechanical behaviour of materials'; 1966, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.
E. G. THOMSEN: J.
310. 311.
International
Materials Reviews
1998
Vol. 43
NO.4
Lewandowski
350. 351. 352. 353. 354. and
and Lowhaphandu
389. 390. 391.
G.
ROZAK, J.
187
R. O. RITCHIE,
J. F. KNOTT,
J. R. RICE:
J. Mech. Phys. Solids, and

D. TEIRLINCK:
1973, 21, 395.

M. F. ASHBY, J. D. EMBURY, S. H. COOKSLEY,
SCI'. Metall., 1985, 19, 385.

and K. K. CHAWLA: 'Mechanical behavior of 1998, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall. A. SAMANT and 1. 1. LEWANDOWSKI: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1997, 28A, 2297. J.1. LEWANDOWSKI and J. F. KNOTT: in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on 'Strength of metals and alloys - ICSMA 7', Montreal, Aug. 1985, 1193; 1985, New York, Pergamon Press. J. R. LOW: in 'Relation of properties to microstructure', 163; 1953, Novelty, OH, ASM. A. N. STROH: Adv. Phys., 1957, 6,418. A. N. STROH: Phi/os. Mag., 1958, 3, 597. 1. FREIDEL: 'Dislocations'; 1964, New York, Pergamon Press. 1. F. KNOTT and A. H. COTTRELL: J. Iron Steel Inst., 1963, 201,249. J. F. K~OTT: J. Iron Steel Inst., 1966, 204, 104. 1. F. K"OTT: J. Iron Steel !lISt., 1966, 204, 1014. J. F. K~OTT: J. Iron Steel Inst., 1967, 205, 288. OROWAN: Trans. Inst. Eng. Shipbuilders Scotland, 1945,89, 1165. N. N. DAVIDENKOV: 'Dinamicheskaya ispytania metallov'; 1936, Moscow, USSR. 1. 1. LEWANDOWSKI and A. W. THOMPSON: Metall. Trans., 1986, 17A, 1769. J. J. LEWANDOWSKI and A. W. THOMPSON: Acta Metall., 1987, 35, 1453. A. SAMANT and 1. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1997, 28A, 389. D. TEIRLINCK, F. ZOK, J. D. EMBURY, and M. F. ASHBY: Acta Metall., 1988, 36, 1213. D. TEIRLINCK, M. F. ASHBY, and J. D. EMBURY: in 'Advances in fracture research - ICF 6'. New Delhi, India, Dec. 1984, 105; New York, Pergamon Press. w. M. GARRISON, Jr and N. R. MOODY: J. Phys. Chem. Solids, 1987, 48, 1035. A. W. THOMPSON: Metall. Trans. A, 1987, 18A, 1877. L. M. BROWN and J. D. EMBURY: in Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on 'Strength of metals and alloys', 1975, 161; 1975, London, The Metals Society and the Iron and Steel Institute. A. S. ARGON, J. 1M, and R. SAFOGLU: Metall. Trans. A, 1975, 6A,825. s. H. GOOD and L. M. BROWN: Acta Metall., 1979,27, 1. L. M. BROWN and w. M. STOBBS: Phi/os. Mag., 1976,34, 351. P. F. THOMASON: 'Ductile fracture of metals', 94; 1990, New York, Pergamon Press. 1. R. RICE and D. M. TRACEY: J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 1969, 17, F. A. McCLINTOCK: Trans ASME, (Series E), 1968, 35, 363. D. C. DRUCKER: J. Mater., 1966, 1, 872. c. Q. CHEN and 1. F. KNOTT: Met. Sci., 1981, 15, 357. J. E. KING, C. P. YOU, and J. F. KNOTT: Acta Metall., 1981, 29, 1553. M. MANOHARAN, J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, and w. H. HUNT, Jr: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1993, A172, 63. P. M. SINGH and J. 1. LEWANDOWSKI: SCI'. Metall. Mater., 1993, 29, 199. P. M. SINGH and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: in 'Intrinsic and extrinsic fracture mechanisms in inorganic composites', (ed. J. J. Lewandowski et al.), 57; 1995, Warrendale, PA, TMS. J. J. LEWANDOWSKI, C. LIU, and w. H. HUNT, Jr: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1989, 107A, 241. J. 1. LEWANDOWSKI, C. LIU, and w. H. HUNT, Jr: in 'Powder metallurgy composites', (ed. P. Kumar et al.), 117; 1987, Warrendale, PA, TMS-AIME. 1. J. LEWANDOWSKI: SAMPE Q., 1989, 20, (2), 33. J. J. LEWANDOWSKI and c. LIU: in Proc. Int. Conf. on 'Advanced structural materials', Montreal, (ed. D. Wilkinson), 23; 1988, Pergamon Press.
M. A. MEYERS
materials';
392.
355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360. 361. 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369.
393. 394. 395.
396. 397. 398.
399. 400.
J. LEWANDOWSKI, J. F. WALLACE, and J. Compos. Mater., 1992, 14, 2076. G. A. ROZAK, 1. J. LEWANDOWSKI, and J. F. WALLACE: SAE Trans., Paper no. 930180, 1993. 1. D. EMBURY, F. ZOK, D. J. LAHAIE, and w. POOLE: in 'Intrinsic and extrinsic fracture mechanism in inorganic composites system', (ed. J. J. Lewandowski et al.), 1; 1995, Pittsburgh, PA, TMS. J. R. RICE and ~1. A. JOHNSON: in 'Inelastic behavior of solids', (ed. M. F. Kanninen et al.), 641; 1970, New York, McGrawHill. G. T. HAHN and A. R. ROSENFIELD: kfetall. Trans. A, 1975, 6A,653. w. BACKHOFEN: 'Deformation processing'; 1972, Reading, MA, Addison- Wesley. w. F. HOSFORD and R. ~1. CADDELL: 'Metal forming: mechanics and metallurgy', 2nd edn; 1993, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, PTR Prentice Hall. B. AVITZUR: J. Eng. Ind. (Trans. ASNIE, Series B), 1966, 88, 410. B. AVITZUR: 'Metal forming: process and analysis'; 1968, New York, McGraw-Hill. H. L1. D. PUGH: in 'The mechanical behaviour of materials under pressure', (ed. H. Ll. D. Pugh), 391; 1970, New York, Elsevier. H. LI. D. PUGH: Iron and Steel, 1972, 45, 39. A. ALTMISOGLU: M. S. OH, Q. F. LIU, W. Z. MISIOLEK, A. RODRIGUES, B. AVITZUR,
and M. 401. s. N.
J. J.
R. NOTIS: PATANKAR,
J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1989,72,2142.

A.
LEWANDOWSKI:
ced materials PA, TMS. 402.

B. I. BERESNEV, K. MARTYNOV,
L. GROW, R. W. ~fARGEVICIUS, and in 'Processing and fabrication of advanIII', (ed. V. Ravi et al.), 733; 1994, Pittsburgh,
D.
K.
BULYCHEV,
~f. YO.
G. N.
GAYDUKOV, RYABININ:
YEo
D.
P. RODIOi\OV,
and
Fiz. !vIet.
yE. D.
Metallov., 1964, 18, (5), 778.

403.
D. K. BULYCHEV, K. B. I. BERESNEV, M. YO. G. N. GAYDUKOV, RYABININ: MARTYNOV, P. RODIONOV,
370. 371. 372.
and and
J.
Fiz. Nfet.
Metallov., 1964, 18, (3), 437.

404. 405. 406. 407.
H.-W. WAGENER, J. HATTS, WOLF:
J. Mater. Process.
Technol., 1992, 32, 451.

and J. WOLF: J. Mater: Process. Tee/mol., 1st Conf. on 'Materials processing', 1993, 37, 253. H.-W. WAGENER and J. WOLF: Key Eng. Mater., 1995, 104-107, 99. F. J. FUCHS: in 'Engineering solids under pressure', (ed. H. Ll. D. Pugh), 145; 1970, London, Institution of Mechanical Engineers. J. CRAWLEY, J. A. PENNELL, and A. SAUNDERS: Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1967-68, 182, 180. J. M. ALEXANDER and B. LENGYEL: 'Hydrostatic extrusion'; 1971, London, Mills and Boon. c. S. COOK, R. 1. FIORENTINO, and A. ~f. SABROFF: in 'Technical paper 64-MD-13', 7; 1964, Dearborn, MI, Society of Manufacturing Engineers. H. LUNDSTROM: ASTME Technical paper, MF 69-167, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1969, 12. w. R. D. WILSON and J. A. WALOWIT: J. Lub. Technol. (TrailS. ASME F), 1971, 93, 69. S. THIRUVARUDCHELVAN and J. M. ALEXANDER: Int. J. !vlach. Tool Design Res., 1971, 11, 251. L. F. COFFIN and H. C. ROGERS: Trans. ASM, 1967, 60, 672. H. C. ROGERS: 'Ductility'; 1968, Cleveland, OH, ASM. S. N. PATANKAR and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Unpublished research, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 1998. S. SOLY'VEV and J. J. LEWANDOWSKI: Unpublished research, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 1998. D. B. MIRACLE: Acta Metall. Mater., 1993, 41, 649. R. D. NOEBE, R. R. BOWMAN, and M. v. NATHAL: Int. Mater. Rev., 1993, 38, 193.
H.-W. WAGENER
373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 384.
Asia-Pacific
408. 409. 410.
411. 412. 413. 414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419.
385. 386.
387. 388.
International
Materials Reviews
1998
Vol. 43
No.4

Effects of Hydro Static Pressure On Mechanical

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Effects of Hydro Static Pressure On Mechanical

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Effects of hydrostatic pressure on mechanical behaviour and deformation processing of materials

J.J. Lewandowski and P. Lowhaphandu

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

Top plunger Pressure gauge

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

High pressure container

Experimental test techniques utilised in high pressure testing

6_10_m_m pressure vessel liner

argon gas line pressure vessel mantle

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

'eC 0.. n CD ~ 0..

CDLO ..cl' c.",,"

a: International Materials Reviews 1998

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

00000 00000 C") .. f"o. .... .... .... N

001.00000 oOl'ooenl.O LOO N coO') <0 to

' Q.l lJ) 0. c lJ) C C .9 2 0 ~ ,9 0 lJ) . 'en Q. lJ) 'en c Q.l c

'u) 'en lJ) CIl

pressure on materials pressure on mechanical behaviour of

Summary of investigations on effects of hydrostatic inorganic materials - categorised by class of material

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

CRSS 0-10'3 Prepressu rised

Prepressu rised 0-7'S

ay, UTS, n Ef, voids quantification (Iy, af, q

da/dn versus ~K ay, UTS, Ef

da/dn 0-3"3 0-1"7 0-2"0 0-0"8 0-1'2 0-2"7 0-1"2

MVC/shear MVC/shear MVC Shear MVC

0-1"5 (UTS) 0-1"9 (UTS)

void fraction void fraction

Prepressurised, prestrained Temperature up to 600aC

Robbins and Wronski131,132

HV Vickers hardness; J J-integral;

Lewandowski Table 2 (cant.)

Temperature up to 600"C Prepressu rised

af, lof q EI Prepressu rised, prestrained

Prepressurised 0-3'8 0-12'2

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

Transgranular Intergranularj transgranular

CleavagejMVCjshear MVCjshear Intergranular/shear Brittlejplastic rupture Cleavage/plastic rupture

<of 0'2 0'2 02

Prepressu rised Prepressu rised Prepressurised

0-2'4 0-2'0 0-2'4 0-2'0 0-0'8 0-0'8 0-1'1

UTS, Gf UTS, l1 ay, UTS, l1 ay, UTS, [;f

Damage quantification Damage quantification Damage quantification

q q 0-4'5 0-1'2 0-1'4 0-1'9

et al,193 et al,193 et al.193

UTS, af, UTS, af,

Damage quantification Damage quantification

MVC Transgranularj inte rg ra nul ar Intergranular

0'1-690 0'1-1400 0-14'0

wj Prepressurised Prepressu rised Prepressurised

0'1-965 2000 0'1-690 0'1-650 2350-2960 2350-2960 0'1-1300 0-0'47 0-0'35

Gf, density change Dislocation velocity

ay, af, F.f af,

HV Vickers hardness; J J-integral;

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

Effects of superimposed pressure on stress state in cylindrical specimens

= 511 + 512 + S13 kc = 2S13 + 533

The linear compressibility is given by kr

in any other direction

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

cia 1'8856 1,8564 2'6095 1'6235 15931 1'5870 1'5684

annealed:;~a~~a :;~aa :;~a