Dynamic response and damage evolution of Zr-based bulk metallic glass under shock loading

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2021.03.052

Abstract

Abstract:

Dynamic response and damage evolution of Zr₇₀Cu₁₃Ni_9.8Al_3.6Nb_3.4Y_0.2 bulk metallic glass (Zr-based BMG) under impact pressure ranging from 4.03 GPa to 27.22 GPa were studied. The Hugoniot Elastic Limit (HEL) and the spalling Strength (σ_sp) were measured as 7.09 GPa and 2.28 GPa, and the curve of impact velocity (D) and particle velocity (u) were also obtained. Under the strain rate of ~10⁵s^-1, local crystallization phenomenon was observed. As increasing the impact pressure, the failure mode of Zr-based BMG changed from spallation to fragmentation caused by the combination of spalling cracks and longitudinal cracks. Cone-cup structures were also observed in the internal spalling zone via nano-CT characterization. When increasing the impact pressure, the thickness of Zr-based BMG increased after impact and the remelting and cladding layers were also observed on the fracture surfaces. The fragments of the specimen were welded after impact due to the high temperature remelting, which causes plastic deformation of Zr-based BMG under shock loading.

Key words: Zr-based bulk metallic glass, Shock loading, Dynamic response, Damage evolution

Yan Li, Xingwang Cheng, Zhaolong Ma, Xuhai Li, Meng Wang. Dynamic response and damage evolution of Zr-based bulk metallic glass under shock loading[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2021, 93: 119-127.

Figures/Tables 12

Table 1. Material parameters of Zr70Cu13Ni9.8Al3.6Nb3.4Y0.2 investigated.

material	ρ₀ g/cm³	C_L km/s	ν	Diameter mm	Thickness mm
BMG	6.74	4.82	0.35	20	3.0
Cu	8.96	4.70	0.36	56	1.5

Fig. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of experiment layout; (b)the experimental test adopts Ø1.25 optical fiber probe and DPS system for testing.

Fig. 2. Free surface velocities of the specimens under planar impact at shock pressure ranging from 4.03 to 27.22 GPa, (b)D-u data.

Table 2. Summary of wave profile measurements of Zr70Cu13Ni9.8Al3.6Nb3.4Y0.2.

Numbering	Flyer speed km/s	Flyer particle velocity km/s	Particle velocity of free surface 1 u1 km/s	Particle velocity of free surface 2 u2 km/s	Elastic region			Plastic region				Spall strength GPa
Numbering	Flyer speed km/s	Flyer particle velocity km/s	Particle velocity of free surface 1 u1 km/s	Particle velocity of free surface 2 u2 km/s	D_HEL km/s	u_HEL km/s	σHELGPa	D_s km/s	u_s km/s	P GPa	V	Spall strength GPa
1#	0.29	0.23	0.2928	-	4.0859	0.1464	4.0317	-	-	4.0317	0.1430	2.2757
2#	0.37	0.30	0.3968	-	4.6559	0.1984	6.2260	-	-	6.2260	0.1420	2.3631
3#	0.47	0.38	0.3893	0.5031	5.0608	0.1946	6.6394	4.1252	0.2516	8.2847	0.1393	1.8688
4#	0.65	0.53	0.4374	0.6765	4.8147	0.2187	7.0970	4.6391	0.3383	11.0129	0.1376	2.4992
5#	1.00	0.84	0.4367	1.0865	4.8218	0.2184	7.0961	4.6140	0.5433	17.6793	0.1322	2.3826
6#	1.48	1.25	-	1.6443	-	-	-	4.9140	0.8222	27.2299	0.1235	2.3104

Fig. 3. Spall strengths of Zr-based BMGs under different impact loadings.

Fig. 4. Macroscopic morphologies of the collected samples after planar impact experiment at pressures of (a)4.03 GPa; (b)6.22 GPa; (c)8.28 GPa; (d)11.01 GPa; (e)17.67 GPa; (f)27.23 GPa.

Fig. 5. (a) XRD pattern of Zr70Cu13Ni9.8Al3.6Nb3.4Y0.2 BMG under planar impact experiment (b) TEM image and SEAD spectrum (inset) of as-cast BMG.

Fig. 6. TEM images of different regions on the collected sample after shock loading with 6.22 GPa.

Fig. 7. TEM images of different regions on the collected sample after shock loading with 17.67 GPa.

Fig. 8. Fracture morphology of recovered samples under different impact pressures: (a)4.03 GPa; (b)6.22 GPa; (c)8.28 GPa; (d)11.01 GPa; (e)17.67 GPa; (f)27.23 GPa.

Fig. 9. Nano-CT scanning slices and 3D reconstructed images of collected samples after impact at the pressure of 4.03 GPa.

Fig. 10. Nano-CT scanning slices and 3D reconstructed images of collected samples after impact at the pressure of 11.01 GPa.

References 32

[1]	L.C. Zhang, Z. Jia, F. Lyu, S.X. Liang, J. Lu, Prog. Mater. Sci., 105(2019), Article 100576.
[2]	C. Schuh, T. Hufnagel, U. Ramamurty, Acta Mater., 55(2007), pp. 4067-4109.
[3]	B.A. Sun, W.H. Wang, Prog. Mater. Sci., 74(2015), pp. 211-307.
[4]	A.L. Greer, Y.Q. Cheng, E. Ma, Mater. Sci. Eng. R Rep., 74(2013), pp. 71-132.
[5]	M.M. Trexler, N.N. Thadhani, Prog. Mater. Sci., 55(2010), pp. 759-839.
[6]	J. Zhang, Y. Liu, H. Yang, Y. Ren, L. Cui, D. Jiang, Z. Wu, Z. Ma, F. Guo, S. Bakhtiari, F. Motazedian, J. Li, Mater. Today, 37(2020), pp. 18-26.
[7]	J.C. Qiao, Q. Wang, J.M. Pelletier, H. Kato, R. Casalini, D. Crespo, E. Pineda, Y. Yao, Y. Yang, Prog. Mater. Sci., 104(2019), pp. 250-329.
[8]	J.H. Chen, M.Q. Jiang, Y. Chen, L.H. Dai, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 576 (4)(2013), pp. 134-139.
[9]	J. Zhang, J.M. Park, D.H. Kim, H.S. Kim, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 449-451(2007), pp. 290-294.
[10]	W. Taylor J, H. Rice M, J. Appl. Phys., V 34 (2)(1963), pp. 364-371.
[11]	S. Zhuang, J. Lu, G. Ravichandran, Appl. Phys. Lett., 80(2002), pp. 4522-4524.
[12]	T. Mashimo, H. Togo, Y. Zhang, Y. Uemura, T. Kinoshita, M. Kodama, Y. Kawamura, Appl. Phys. Lett., 89(2006), Article 241904.
[13]	M. Martin, T. Sekine, T. Kobayashi, L. Kecskes, N.N. Thadhani, Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 38(2007), pp. 2689-2696.
[14]	F. Xi, Y. Yu, C. Dai, Y. Zhang, L. Cai, J. Appl. Phys., 108(2010), Article 083537.
[15]	B. Luo, G. Wang, F. Tan, J. Zhao, C. Liu, C. Sun, AIP Adv, 5(2015), Article 067161.
[16]	S.J. Turneaure, J.M. Winey, Y.M. Gupta, J. Appl. Phys., 100(2006), Article 063522.
[17]	Y.Y. Yu, F. Xi, C.D. Dai, L.C. Cai, Y. Tan, X.M. Li, Q. Wu, H. Tan, Chin. Phys. B, 24(2015), pp. 465-469.
[18]	L. Lu, C. Li, W.H. Wang, M.H. Zhu, X.L. Gong, S.N. Luo, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 651(2016), pp. 848-853.
[19]	C.T. Wei, E. Vitali, F. Jiang, S.W. Du, D.J. Benson, K.S. Vecchio, N.N. Thadhani, M.A. Meyers, Acta Mater, 60(2012), pp. 1418-1432.
[20]	C. Yang, R.P. Liu, B.Q. Zhang, Q. Wang, Z.J. Zhan, L.L. Sun, J. Zhang, Z.Z. Gong, W.K. Wang, J. Mater. Sci., 40(2005), pp. 3917-3920.
[21]	F. Yuan, V. Prakash, J.J. Lewandowski, J. Mater. Res., 22(2006), pp. 402-411.
[22]	B.A. Sun, S. Pauly, J. Tan, M. Stoica, W.H. Wang, U. Kühn, J. Eckert, Acta Mater, 60(2012), pp. 4160-4171.
[23]	S.X. Song, H. Bei, J. Wadsworth, T.G. Nieh, Intermetallics, 16(2008), pp. 813-818.
[24]	T. Antoun, Spall Fracture, Springer, New York (2003).
[25]	Bedri Arman, Sheng-Nian Luo, C. Timothy, Phys. Rev. B, 81(2010), Article 144201.
[26]	J. Pan, Y.P. Ivanov, W.H. Zhou, Y. Li, A.L. Greer, Nature, 578(2020), pp. 559-562.
[27]	M.Q. Jiang, G. Wilde, C.B. Qu, F. Jiang, H.M. Xiao, J.H. Chen, S.Y. Fu, L.H. Dai, Philos. Mag. Lett., 94(2014), pp. 669-677.
[28]	X.C. Tang, W.R. Jian, J.Y. Huang, F. Zhao, C. Li, X.H. Xiao, X.H. Yao, S.N. Luo, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 711(2018), pp. 284-292.
[29]	L.F. Liu, L.H. Dai, Y.L. Bai, B.C. Wei, J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 351(2005), pp. 3259-3270.
[30]	J.P. Escobedo, Y.M. Gupta, J. Appl. Phys., 107(2011), Article 123502.
[31]	B.P. Wang, L. Wang, S. Wang, Q.B. Fan, Y.F. Xue, H.F. Zhang, H.M. Fu, Intermetallics, 63(2015), pp. 12-18.
[32]	K.M. Flores, R.H. Dauskardt, Acta Mater, 49 (13)(2001), pp. 2527-2537.