Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T11:18:22.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Transmission electron microscopy study of the microstructural evolution during high-temperature and low-stress (011) [11] shear creep deformation of the superalloy single crystal LEK 94

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2017

Leonardo Agudo Jácome*
Affiliation:
Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung, Abteilung für Werkstofftechnik, Berlin 12205, Germany
Gülcan Göbenli
Affiliation:
Institut für Werkstoffe, Lehrstuhl Werkstoffwissenschaft, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum 44801, Germany
Gunther Eggeler
Affiliation:
Institut für Werkstoffe, Lehrstuhl Werkstoffwissenschaft, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum 44801, Germany
*
a) Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: leonardo.agudo@bam.de

Abstract

The present work describes the shear creep behavior of the superalloy LEK 94 at temperatures between 980 and 1050 °C and shear stresses between 50 and 140 MPa for loading on the macroscopic crystallographic shear system (MCSS) (011) $\left[ {01\bar 1} \right]$ . The strain rate versus strain curves show short primary and extended secondary creep regimes. We find an apparent activation energy for creep of Q app = 466 kJ/mol and a Norton-law stress exponent of n = 6. With scanning transmission electron microscopy, we characterize three material states that differ in temperature, applied stress, and accumulated strain/time. Rafting develops perpendicular to the maximum principal stress direction, γ channels fill with dislocations, superdislocations cut γ′ particles, and dislocation networks form at γ/γ′ interfaces. Our findings are in agreement with previous results for high-temperature and low-stress [001] and [110] tensile creep testing, and for shear creep testing of the superalloys CMSX-4 and CMSX-6 on the MCSSs (111) $\left[ {01\bar 1} \right]$ and (001)[100]. The parameters that characterize the evolving γ/γ′ microstructure and the evolving dislocation substructures depend on creep temperature, stress, strain, and time.

Figure 0

FIG. 1. Shear creep specimen and shear geometry. (a) Schematic 3D view. (b) 2D section through shear specimen perpendicular to the shear plane (011) after a shear creep displacement of Δ in $\left[ {0\bar11/01\bar 1} \right]$ direction. For details see text.

Figure 1

FIG. 2. (011)$\left[ {011/01\bar 1} \right]$ shear creep curves from experiments that were taken through to different strains, plotted as log-linear plots of creep rate $\dot \gamma$ versus shear strain γ. (a) τ = 80 MPa = const., T = 980, 1020, and 1050 °C. (b) T = 1050 °C = const., τ = 50, 80, and 140 MPa.

Figure 2

TABLE I. Creep experiments and material states considered in the present work. No., creep experiment/material state; T, temperature; τ, shear stress; γ, shear strain; t, time; PLM, Larson–Miller parameter; ${\dot \gamma _{3\% }}$, creep rate after 3% strain; FIG., figure number of image showing specific material state in present work.

Figure 3

FIG. 3. Temperature and stress dependence of shear creep rates recorded for 3% strain. (a) Arrhenius plot of shear creep rate $\dot \gamma$ versus the inverse absolute temperature 1/T (T in K). (b) Double logarithmic plot of shear creep rate $\dot \gamma$ versus shear stress τ (Norton plot).

Figure 4

FIG. 4. TEM micrographs taken from TEM foils parallel to (010) under multiple-beam contrast conditions. (a) PLM = 27.3, material state 3 (1050 °C, 140 MPa, and 36%/4 h). (b) PLM = 27.8, material state 1 (980 °C, 80 MPa, and 6%/147 h). (c) PLM = 28.2, material state 2 (1050 °C, 80 MPa, and 14%/22 h).

Figure 5

FIG. 5. Comparison and scatter of the microstructural parameters that describe the γ/γ′ microstructure for the different material states after shear creep deformation. (a) Histograms showing the distribution of γ channel widths w. (b) Histograms showing the evolution of the distribution of γ′ phase thicknesses s. (c) Increase of w with PLM. (d) Increase of s with PLM. Error bars in (c) and (d) show the standard deviation given at FWHM in (a) and (b), respectively.

Figure 6

TABLE II. Material states (No.), mean values for γ channel width w and γ′ particle size s (together with corresponding standard deviations), and number of individual measurements for w and s (nw and ns, respectively). For details see text.

Figure 7

FIG. 6. TEM micrographs with color coded information on Burgers vectors. Material states 1 to 3 from Table I: (a, b) PLM = 27.3; material state 3. (c, d) PLM = 27.8; material state 1. (e, f) PLM = 28.2; material state 2. (a, c, e) TEM foils parallel to (010) (for reference see Fig. 1) for investigation of γ′ cutting events. (b, d, f) TEM foils parallel to (001) (for reference see Fig. 1) for investigation of interface dislocation networks.

Figure 8

TABLE III. Material states, number of cutting events nγ′ per projected foil area, dislocation density ργ′, and corresponding dislocation spacing dSD in the γ′ phase.

Figure 9

TABLE IV. Material states, mesh size dMESH, and planar density of dislocations in network ρNW.

Figure 10

FIG. 7. Microstructural parameters as functions of conventional and modified Larson–Miller parameters. (a) dSD versus PLM. (b) dMESH versus PLM. (c) dSD versus PCREEP. (d) dMESH versus PCREEP. (e) s versus PCREEP. (f) w versus PCREEP. For details see text.

Figure 11

TABLE V. External Schmid factors for 12 {111}〈110〉 microscopic crystallographic slip systems in a fcc crystal lattice.

Figure 12

TABLE VI. Number of cutting events involving a〈200〉 and a〈220〉 superdislocations observed in materials states Nos. 1, 2, and 3.