Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Deformation and adiabatic heating of single crystalline and nanocrystalline Ni micropillars at high strain rates

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Single-crystal and nanocrystalline nickel micropillars, though moving in opposite directions at high strain rates, converge on the same overall rate sensitivity $m = 0.011$, with grain-boundary hotspots predicted up to about 200 K.

desk verdict A valuable experimental dataset with a plausible but statistically unproven strain-rate-sensitivity transition; the heating estimates are an honest upper-bound scenario. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14136 v2 pith:X4ANWEC6 submitted 2024-11-21 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Nidhin George Mathews , Matti Lindroos , Johann Michler , Gaurav Mohanty This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords nickelmicropillarcompressionhighstrainratesensitivityadiabaticheatingcrystalplasticityfiniteelementmodelingnanocrystallinegrainboundarysliding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to determine whether micro-scale nickel deforms differently when compressed at strain rates from $10^{-3}$ to $10^{3}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, and whether adiabatic heating becomes important at the top of that range. Using in situ micropillar compression of single-crystal and nanocrystalline nickel, it reports that the strain rate sensitivity exponent changes above $1\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ for both materials, yet the overall sensitivity is the same value, $m = 0.011$. Single-crystal nickel becomes more rate sensitive at high rates, from $m \approx 0.001$ to $0.03$, while nanocrystalline nickel becomes less rate sensitive, from $0.018$ to $0.008$, with yield stress saturating near $2.9$ GPa. A crystal-plasticity finite-element model coupled to adiabatic heating predicts local temperature rises up to about $200$ K at grain boundaries in nanocrystalline nickel at $10^{3}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, versus about $20$ K in single-crystal nickel, and transmission Kikuchi diffraction finds no grain growth after the high-rate test.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by constant-strain-rate micropillar compression spanning seven decades of strain rate, combined with a size-dependent micromorphic crystal-plasticity finite-element model. The model uses dislocation-density-based slip rules on twelve $\{111\}\langle 110\rangle$ slip systems with a Hall-Petch term, a generalized micromorphic stress that regularizes slip localization, and an adiabatic heating equation $\dot{T} = \beta\left(\sum_s \tau^s \dot{\gamma}^s + S_\chi \gamma_{\mathrm{cum}}\right)/(\rho c)$ with Taylor-Quinney coefficient $\beta = 0.9$; for the nanocrystalline case it is run on a 200-grain representative volume with 30 nm grains. This machinery connects the measured stress-strain behavior to spatially resolved temperature and dislocation-density fields, and it is what produces the 20 K versus 200 K asymmetry between single-crystal and nanocrystalline nickel.

What would settle it

A spatially resolved measurement of temperature inside a compressed nickel micropillar at $10^{3}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ would settle the claim: for example, nanoscale thermometry on a pillar cross-section or a calibrated material property that shifts strongly with temperature. If the local temperature rise at grain boundaries stayed below roughly 50 K under conditions where the model predicts 200 K, the adiabatic-heating conclusion would be wrong; conversely, finding temperature-sensitive deformation signatures only at grain boundaries would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a crossover in deformation kinetics that leaves the two microstructures with numerically identical overall strain rate sensitivity. In single-crystal nickel the exponent rises at high strain rates because dislocations have less time to escape the pillar and form denser forests and substructures; in nanocrystalline nickel the exponent falls because deformation localizes near the pillar center and the yield stress saturates, with grain-boundary sliding giving way to inhomogeneous plasticity. The same model calibrated on compression data at $10^{-2}$ and $10^{2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ then predicts that adiabatic heating is modest in single crystals ($\sim 20$ K) but can spike to $\sim 200$ K at grain-boundary hotspots in nanocrystalline nickel at $10^{3}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$. The paper concludes that strain localization, not bulk adiabatic heating, explains the nanocrystalline rate sensitivity drop, and that the brief few-microsecond test at $10^{3}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ does not drive grain growth.

Load-bearing premise

The 200 K hotspot number rests on assuming the pillar is thermally isolated, that 90 percent of plastic work becomes heat instantly, and that the model, calibrated on the same experiments, captures the real deformation; if any of those fail, the predicted temperature rise changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the common overall $m = 0.011$ cannot be read as a single thermally activated mechanism, because two microstructures reach it by opposite rate-dependent routes.
  • High-rate micropillar tests on metals with moderate-to-high melting points need not assume bulk adiabatic softening, so yield-strength comparisons across strain rates remain meaningful.
  • Strain localization, rather than uniform heating, is the main reason yield strength saturates near $2.9$ GPa in nanocrystalline nickel above $1\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.
  • Grain growth from adiabatic heating is not expected in microsecond-scale tests of nanocrystalline nickel at $10^{3}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, because the thermal excursion is too brief even where local temperatures are high.
  • Crystal-plasticity modeling with spatially resolved heat generation can rank microstructural sites by hotspot risk, something thermal cameras cannot do at pillar scale.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the same modeling machinery could be turned into a testable prediction: changing pillar diameter, substrate thermal conductivity, or pulse duration should change the onset of yield saturation if heat flow matters, and systematic variation would separate adiabatic from localization effects.
  • Beyond the paper, if the 200 K hotspots are real, thermally activated processes such as cross-slip and grain-boundary diffusion could become important in lower-melting-point or higher-strength metals at modest high rates, even though nickel shows no grain growth.
  • Beyond the paper, the coincidence of equal overall $m$ values suggests that reporting a single strain-rate sensitivity for small-scale high-rate tests can mask the operative mechanism; future studies should report the exponent separately in each rate regime.
  • Beyond the paper, direct nanoscale thermometry is the natural next experiment; until it exists, the 200 K value should be treated as an upper bound, not a measured temperature.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports in situ micropillar compression experiments on single-crystalline (sx) and nanocrystalline (nc) Ni across strain rates from 10^-3 to 10^3 s^-1, extracting strain rate sensitivity (m) from 1% offset yield strengths. It concludes that m changes at high strain rates for both materials, that the overall m is the same (0.011) for both, and that the underlying mechanisms differ: forest hardening/dislocation substructure in sx Ni versus strain localization and grain-boundary sliding in nc Ni. The paper also presents crystal-plasticity finite-element (CP-FE) simulations with adiabatic heating, predicting temperature rises of about 20 K in sx Ni and up to 200 K at grain boundaries in nc Ni at 10^3 s^-1, and transmission Kikuchi diffraction (TKD) showing no grain growth after high-rate compression.

Significance. If the central claims are established, the paper would make a valuable contribution to small-scale high-strain-rate mechanics: it extends constant-strain-rate micropillar compression to 10^3 s^-1, provides a systematic comparison of sx and nc Ni over seven decades of strain rate, and offers a spatially resolved CP-FE estimate of adiabatic heating in metal micropillars, which is currently missing from the literature. The experimental dataset, including in situ imaging and TKD analysis, is substantial and useful. The main limitation is that the strain-rate-sensitivity exponent change, which underpins the mechanistic narrative, is not supported by uncertainty quantification or statistical testing, and the heating prediction is a model-based upper bound rather than an independent measurement.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Fig. 1c] The reported change in the strain-rate sensitivity exponent is not supported by uncertainty quantification. The m values are obtained from linear fits of yield strength versus strain rate in log-log space, but the manuscript gives no error bars, no per-rate replicate counts, no fit statistics (R^2 or standard errors), and no justification for the breakpoint at 1 s^-1. For sx Ni, the high-strain-rate branch appears to be defined by only two or three strain rates (1 and 10^2 s^-1, possibly with 10 s^-1), so the reported m_HSR = 0.03 versus m_QSR = 0.001 could be driven by a single point. The authors should report the number of pillars tested at each strain rate, the scatter in yield strength, and a formal slope-comparison test (e.g., ANCOVA or bootstrap) before claiming an exponent change.
  2. [§2.2, §3.1] The 6% load-cell normalization applied to all smart-tip data is not propagated into the reported m values. Because the conclusion that sx and nc Ni have the same overall m = 0.011 depends on this normalization, and because the fit ranges differ (sx: 10^-3 to 10^2 s^-1; nc: 10^-3 to 10^3 s^-1), the authors should show how the m values and their differences change when the normalization is varied within its uncertainty and when the strain-rate ranges are altered. Without this, the equality of the overall m values may be coincidental.
  3. [§3.1, Fig. 1c] For nc Ni, the conclusion of a decreased m at high strain rates rests on yield-strength saturation near 2.9 GPa. The manuscript does not rule out instrumental or geometric origins of this saturation, such as load-frame compliance, piezoelectric-tip ringing at high rates, or inertial effects in the 10^3 s^-1 tests. The authors should provide evidence that constant strain-rate control is maintained at all rates, for example by showing representative raw load-displacement traces or displacement-rate histories, and should discuss whether the saturation could be an artifact of the measurement system rather than an intrinsic strain-localization effect.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. 11] The 200 K grain-boundary temperature rise is not an independent measurement but a postdiction: the heat-source term in Eq. (11) uses the plastic work rate from the same constitutive model that was calibrated to reproduce the 10^-2 and 10^2 s^-1 stress-strain data, and the calculation assumes β = 0.9, fully adiabatic conditions above 10^2 s^-1, no heat conduction to the indenter or substrate, no thermal strains, no grain-boundary sliding, and a 200-grain representative volume rather than the full pillar. The text in §3.2 does acknowledge that this is an upper bound, but the abstract and conclusions present the 200 K value as a quantitative finding. The authors should rephrase this as a model-based upper bound and clarify that the TKD no-grain-growth result is consistent with, but does not validate, the predicted magnitude.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The name 'Taylor-Quiney' is misspelled in several places (e.g., §3.2 and the reference list); it should be 'Taylor-Quinney'.
  2. [SI S1] The supplementary text contains typos such as 'electrom microscope' and 'strucutre'; please proofread the supplementary file.
  3. [SI S3] The strain rate jump section states that m was 'estimated using Eq. 10', but the relevant equation in the main text is Eq. (1) (or Eq. (2) for activation volume); please correct the cross-reference.
  4. [Introduction and §3.1] The symbol for the strain rate sensitivity exponent is introduced as 's' in the Introduction but is called 'm' elsewhere; please use one symbol consistently throughout.
  5. [Fig. 1c] The figure caption does not distinguish the four fitted lines (sx QSR, sx HSR, nc QSR, nc HSR) clearly, and the fit lines appear dashed without symbols; adding markers, a legend, and error bars would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rate-sensitivity claims are direct experimental fits, and the CP-FE temperature rise is an openly calibrated model output, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claims—the change in strain-rate sensitivity exponent at high strain rates and the equal overall m values—rest directly on measured 1%-offset yield strengths (Fig. 1c) and the slopes of ln σ vs. ln ε̇ defined by Eq. 1. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction in this chain. The CP-FE temperature estimates are not inputs to the model in the sense of being fitted to temperature data: Eq. 11 converts the model's plastic work into a temperature rate using an assumed Taylor-Quinney coefficient (β = 0.9) and adiabatic conditions, and the model's stress-strain response is explicitly calibrated to 10^-2 s^-1 and 10^2 s^-1 experiments and then compared against 10^3 s^-1 data (Fig. 3b). The 200 K grain-boundary hotspot value is therefore a derived, acknowledged upper-bound estimate, not a fitted quantity that is later relabeled as a prediction. Citations to prior work by overlapping authors (Refs. [20] and [33]) supply corroborating m values, grain sizes, or mechanistic explanations, but they are not used to force the present conclusions. The paper also discloses the adiabatic assumption, the constant β, the omission of heat conduction to indenter and base, omitted thermal strains, and the absence of grain-boundary sliding in the model, which affect the confidence and quantitative accuracy of the heating claim but do not make the reasoning circular. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing conclusion depends solely on a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The experimental claims rely on standard micropillar compression methodology and are largely self-contained. The CP-FE heating estimates depend on a calibrated constitutive model (free parameters K, N, K_HP, length-scale parameters, initial dislocation density), an assumed Taylor-Quinney coefficient, an adiabatic assumption, and a simplified RVE without grain boundary sliding or heat conduction. These assumptions bias the 200 K hotspot value upward.

free parameters (5)
  • Taylor-Quinney coefficient beta = 0.9 (0.6 in sensitivity case)
    Assumed constant, taken from macroscale high strain rate literature; directly scales the plastic work converted to heat and therefore controls the predicted temperature rise.
  • Viscous parameter K and strain rate exponent N = K = 18.0 MPa.s^(1/N), N = 12.0
    Identified from micropillar compression stress-strain data at 10^-2 and 10^2 s^-1 (Section 2.3); they set the flow rule rate sensitivity in the model.
  • Hall-Petch coefficient K_HP = 3.7944 MPa/sqrt(mm) polycrystal, 0.0 micropillar
    Input controlling grain size strengthening in the polycrystalline RVE; taken from prior work, not fit in this paper.
  • Micromorphic length-scale parameters H_chi and A = H_chi = 2000 MPa.mm^2, A = 0.008 N
    Regularization parameters for the reduced micromorphic model, taken from the cited framework; they affect strain localization and hence hotspot magnitude.
  • Initial dislocation density (polycrystal) = 4.8e15 m^-2
    Assigned for the nc Ni RVE based on the prior characterization of the same batch [20]; initializes the hardening response.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Finite strain multiplicative decomposition and FCC {111}<110> slip system plasticity with Norton-type flow rule
    Standard crystal plasticity assumptions in Section 2.3 (Eqs. 3-5); the model's mechanical response is built on these.
  • domain assumption Fully adiabatic conditions for strain rates above 10^2 s^-1
    Stated in Section 2.3; no heat conduction to the indenter or base is modeled, making the temperature estimates upper bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper Taylor-Quinney coefficient beta is constant at 0.9
    Assumed constant in Eq. 11; macroscale values for Cu are used for Ni, and microstructural dependence is neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper A 200-grain representative volume with 30 nm grains and specified boundary conditions represents the nc Ni micropillar
    Section 2.3 states a full pillar populated with 30 nm grains is computationally too expensive; the RVE result is assumed representative of pillar interior behavior.
  • domain assumption Grain boundary sliding is omitted from the model
    The authors note the model does not account for the extensive grain boundary sliding observed experimentally, which would reduce temperatures at grain boundary hotspots (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption Thermal strains are omitted
    Stated in Section 2.3: 'Thermal strains will build up in the material due to uneven heating, however, their effect is omitted in the current study for simplicity.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deformation and adiabatic heating of single crystalline and nanocrystalline Ni micropillars at high strain rates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X4ANWEC6

@misc{pith2026241114136,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deformation and adiabatic heating of single crystalline and nanocrystalline Ni micropillars at high strain rates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X4ANWEC6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14136}
}
read the original abstract

The deformation behavior of single crystal and nanocrystalline nickel were studied using in situ micropillar compression experiments from quasi-static to high strain rates up to 10^3 s-1. Deformation occurred by dislocation slip activity in single crystal nickel whereas extensive grain boundary sliding was observed in nanocrystalline nickel, with a shift towards more inhomogeneous, localized deformation above 1 s-1. The strain rate sensitivity exponent was found to change at higher strain rates for both single crystal and nanocrystalline nickel, while the overall strain rate sensitivity was observed to be of the same value for both. With increasing high strain rate micropillar compression tests being reported, the issue of adiabatic heating in micropillars becomes important. We report crystal plasticity based finite element modeling to estimate the adiabatic heating, spatially resolved within the pillar, at the highest tested strain rates. The simulations predicted a significant temperature rise of up to 200 K in nanocrystalline Ni at the grain boundaries, and 20 K in single crystalline Ni due to strain localization. Transmission Kikuchi Diffraction analysis of nanocrystalline nickel pillar post compression at 10^3 s-1 did not show any grain growth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14136 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. a) Overview of deformed nc Ni micropillar with the IPF maps in the undeformed and deformed regions (Note: Locations of TKD scans are marked in the squares). b) Grain size distribution in the undeformed and deformed region of nc Ni from TKD analysis. 4 Conclusions This study reports the deformation response of sx and nc Ni over seven orders of strain rates (10-3 s -1 to 103 s -1 ) using micropillar compression experi… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hopkinson, X

    B. Hopkinson, X. A method of measuring the pressure produced in the detonation of high, explosives or by the impact of bullets, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 213 (1913) 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1914.0010

    work page arXiv 1913

  2. [2]

    Kolsky, An Investigation of the Mechanical Properties of Materials at very High Rates of Loading, Proc

    H. Kolsky, An Investigation of the Mechanical Properties of Materials at very High Rates of Loading, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 62 (1949) 676. https://doi.org/10.1088/0370 - 1301/62/11/302

    doi:10.1088/0370 1949

  3. [3]

    Wheeler, J

    J.M. Wheeler, J. Dean, T.W. Clyne, Nano-impact indentation for high strain rate testing: The influence of rebound impacts, Extreme Mechanics Letters 26 (2019) 35 –39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2018.11.005. 16

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eml.2018.11.005 2019

  4. [4]

    Rueda-Ruiz, B.D

    M. Rueda-Ruiz, B.D. Beake, J.M. Molina-Aldareguia, New instrumentation and analysis methodology for nano -impact testing, Materials & Design 192 (2020) 108715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108715

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Zhang, B.L

    Y. Zhang, B.L. Hackett, J. Dong, K.Y. Xie, G.M. Pharr, Evolution of dislocation substructures in metals via high-strain-rate nanoindentation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120 (2023) e2310500120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2310500120

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2310500120 2023

  6. [6]

    Guillonneau, M

    G. Guillonneau, M. Mieszala, J. Wehrs, J. Schwiedrzik, S. Grop, D. Frey, L. Philippe, J.- M. Breguet, J. Michler, J.M. Wheeler, Nanomechanical testing at high strain rates: New instrumentation for nanoindentation and microcompression, Materials & Design 148 (2018) 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.03.050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2018.03.050 2018

  7. [7]

    Ramachandramoorthy, J

    R. Ramachandramoorthy, J. Schwiedrzik, L. Petho, C. Guerra -Nuñez, D. Frey, J. -M. Breguet, J. Michler, Dynamic Plasticity and Failure of Microscale Glass: Rate-Dependent Ductile–Brittle–Ductile Transition, Nano Lett. 19 (2019) 2350 –2359. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b05024

    doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b05024 2019

  8. [8]

    Cherukuri, A

    R. Cherukuri, A. Lambai, L. Sukki, J. Väliaho, P. Kallio, E. Sarlin, R. Ramachandramoorthy, M. Kanerva, G. Mohanty, In -situ SEM micropillar compression and nanoindentation testing of SU-8 polymer up to 1000 s−1 strain rate, Materials Letters 358 (2024) 135824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2023.135824

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Merle, W.H

    B. Merle, W.H. Higgins, G.M. Pharr, Critical issues in conducting constant strain rate nanoindentation tests at higher strain rates, Journal of Materials Research 34 (2019) 3495– 3503

    2019

  2. [10]

    Taylor, H

    G.I. Taylor, H. Quinney, The latent energy remaining in a metal after cold working, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 143 (1997) 307 –326. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1934.0004

    1997

  3. [11]

    Rittel, A.A

    D. Rittel, A.A. Kidane, M. Alkhader, A. Venkert, P. Landau, G. Ravichandran, On the dynamically stored energy of cold work in pure single crystal and polycrystalline copper, Acta Materialia 60 (2012) 3719–3728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2012.03.029

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Rittel, L.H

    D. Rittel, L.H. Zhang, S. Osovski, The dependence of the Taylor–Quinney coefficient on the dynamic loading mode, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 107 (2017) 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2017.06.016

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Vazquez-Fernandez, G.C

    N.I. Vazquez-Fernandez, G.C. Soares, J.L. Smith, J.D. Seidt, M. Isakov, A. Gilat, V.T. Kuokkala, M. Hokka, Adiabatic Heating of Austenitic Stainless Steels at Different Strain Rates, J. Dynamic Behavior Mater. 5 (2019) 221 –229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40870- 019-00204-z

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Soares, M

    G.C. Soares, M. Hokka, The Taylor –Quinney coefficients and strain hardening of commercially pure titanium, iron, copper, and tin in high rate compression, International Journal of Impact Engineering 156 (2021) 103940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.103940

    2021

  7. [15]

    Eisenlohr, I

    A. Eisenlohr, I. Gutierrez -Urrutia, D. Raabe, Adiabatic temperature increase associated with deformation twinning and dislocation plasticity, Acta Materialia 60 (2012) 3994 –

    2012

  8. [16]

    Goviazin, A

    G.G. Goviazin, A. Shirizly, D. Rittel, A Comparative Study of the Performance of IR Detectors vs. High -Speed Cameras Under Dynamic Loading Conditions, Exp Mech 63 (2023) 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-022-00907-w

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    https://www.infratec.eu/thermography/service-support/glossary/high-speed-mode/ (accessed March 5, 2025)

    High-speed Mode of Infrared Cameras | InfraTec, (n.d.). https://www.infratec.eu/thermography/service-support/glossary/high-speed-mode/ (accessed March 5, 2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    https://sphereoptics.de/en/product/high-speed-infrared-cameras-mwir-and-lwir/ (accessed March 5, 2025)

    High-Speed IR Cameras (1.5 – 12 µm) | SphereOptics EN, (n.d.). https://sphereoptics.de/en/product/high-speed-infrared-cameras-mwir-and-lwir/ (accessed March 5, 2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Nieto-Fuentes, S

    J.C. Nieto-Fuentes, S. Osovski, D. Rittel, High -speed infrared thermal measurements of impacted metallic solids, MethodsX 7 (2020) 100914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100914

    2020

  12. [20]

    Wehrs, G

    J. Wehrs, G. Mohanty, G. Guillonneau, A.A. Taylor, X. Maeder, D. Frey, L. Philippe, S. Mischler, J.M. Wheeler, J. Michler, Comparison of In Situ Micromechanical Strain-Rate Sensitivity Measurement Techniques, JOM 67 (2015) 1684 –1693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-015-1447-z

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Monnet, C

    G. Monnet, C. Mai, Prediction of irradiation hardening in austenitic stainless steels: Analytical and crystal plasticity studies, Journal of Nuclear Materials 518 (2019) 316 –

    2019

  14. [22]

    C. Ling, S. Forest, J. Besson, B. Tanguy, F. Latourte, A reduced micromorphic single crystal plasticity model at finite deformations. Application to strain localization and void growth in ductile metals, International Journal of Solids and Structures 134 (2018) 43 –

    2018

  15. [23]

    Lindroos, J.-M

    M. Lindroos, J.-M. Scherer, S. Forest, A. Laukkanen, T. Andersson, J. Vaara, A. Mäntylä, T. Frondelius, Micromorphic crystal plasticity approach to damage regularization and size effects in martensitic steels, International Journal of Plasticity 151 ( 2022) 103187. https://doi...

    2022

  16. [24]

    Andersson, Matti

    Tom. Andersson, Matti. Lindroos, Rami. Pohja, Abhishek. Biswas, Supriya. Nandy, Janne. Pakarinen, Juhani. Rantala, Crystal plasticity model for creep and relaxation deformation of OFP copper, Materials at High Temperatures 41 (2024) 51 –60. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603409.202...

    2024

  17. [25]

    S. Lee, H. Cho, C.A. Bronkhorst, R. Pokharel, D.W. Brown, B. Clausen, S.C. Vogel, V. Anghel, G.T. Gray, J.R. Mayeur, Deformation, dislocation evolution and the non-Schmid effect in body -centered-cubic single- and polycrystal tantalum, International Jo urnal of Plasticity 163 ...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Phalke, S

    V. Phalke, S. Forest, H.-J. Chang, T. Rose, A. Roos, Dark energy in crystals: prediction of stored energy in polycrystalline aggregates, J Mater Sci 59 (2024) 5201 –5232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-024-09442-6

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Dimiduk, M.D

    D.M. Dimiduk, M.D. Uchic, T.A. Parthasarathy, Size -affected single -slip behavior of pure nickel microcrystals, Acta Materialia 53 (2005) 4065 –4077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2005.05.023

    2005 doi

  20. [28]

    Uchic, P.A

    M.D. Uchic, P.A. Shade, D.M. Dimiduk, Plasticity of Micrometer -Scale Single Crystals in Compression, Annual Review of Materials Research 39 (2009) 361 –386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-082908-145422. 18

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    X.X. Zhao, J. Wu, Y.L. Chiu, I.P. Jones, R. Gu, A.H.W. Ngan, Critical dimension for the dislocation structure in deformed copper micropillars, Scripta Materialia 163 (2019) 137–

    2019

  22. [30]

    Kiener, P.J

    D. Kiener, P.J. Guruprasad, S.M. Keralavarma, G. Dehm, A.A. Benzerga, Work hardening in micropillar compression: In situ experiments and modeling, Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 3825–3840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2011.03.003

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    Kondori, A

    B. Kondori, A. Needleman, A. Amine Benzerga, Discrete dislocation simulations of compression of tapered micropillars, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 101 (2017) 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2017.01.015

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Trelewicz, C.A

    J.R. Trelewicz, C.A. Schuh, The Hall –Petch breakdown in nanocrystalline metals: A crossover to glass -like deformation, Acta Materialia 55 (2007) 5948 –5958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2007.07.020

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    Mohanty, J.M

    G. Mohanty, J.M. Wheeler, R. Raghavan, J. Wehrs, M. Hasegawa, S. Mischler, L. Philippe, J. Michler, Elevated temperature, strain rate jump microcompression of nanocrystalline nickel, Philosophical Magazine 95 (2015) 1878 –1895. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786435.2014.951709

    2015

  26. [34]

    Schwaiger, B

    R. Schwaiger, B. Moser, M. Dao, N. Chollacoop, S. Suresh, Some critical experiments on the strain-rate sensitivity of nanocrystalline nickel, Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 5159 –

    2003

  27. [35]

    Y. Xiao, B. Gan, A.S. Sologubenko, R. Spolenak, J.M. Wheeler, Size - and strain rate - dependence of nickel and Ni –Co micropillars with varying stacking fault energy, Materials Science and Engineering: A 800 (2021) 140266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2020.140266

    2021

  28. [36]

    Wei, Strain rate effects in the ultrafine grain and nanocrystalline regimes —influence on some constitutive responses, J Mater Sci 42 (2007) 1709 –1727

    Q. Wei, Strain rate effects in the ultrafine grain and nanocrystalline regimes —influence on some constitutive responses, J Mater Sci 42 (2007) 1709 –1727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0700-9

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    Humphrey, A.F

    R.T. Humphrey, A.F. Jankowski, Strain-rate sensitivity of strength in macro-to-micro-to- nano crystalline nickel, Surface and Coatings Technology 206 (2011) 1845 –1849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2011.08.010

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    Rajaraman, K.N

    S. Rajaraman, K.N. Jonnalagadda, P. Ghosh, Indentation and Dynamic Compression Experiments on Microcrystalline and Nanocrystalline Nickel, in: V. Chalivendra, B. Song, D. Casem (Eds.), Dynamic Behavior of Materials, Volume 1, Springer, New York, NY, 2013: pp. 157–163. https://...

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    Dalla Torre, P

    F. Dalla Torre, P. Spätig, R. Schäublin, M. Victoria, Deformation behaviour and microstructure of nanocrystalline electrodeposited and high pressure torsioned nickel, Acta Materialia 53 (2005) 2337–2349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2005.01.041

    2005 doi

  32. [40]

    Meyers, A

    M.A. Meyers, A. Mishra, D.J. Benson, Mechanical properties of nanocrystalline materials, Progress in Materials Science 51 (2006) 427 –556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2005.08.003

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    Schwiedrzik, R

    J. Schwiedrzik, R. Ramachandramoorthy, T.E.J. Edwards, P. Schürch, D. Casari, M.J. Duarte, G. Mohanty, G. Dehm, X. Maeder, L. Philippe, J. -M. Breguet, J. Michler, Dynamic cryo-mechanical properties of additively manufactured nanocrystalline nickel 3D microarchitectures, Mater...

    2022

  34. [42]

    Wang, A.V

    Y.M. Wang, A.V. Hamza, E. Ma, Temperature -dependent strain rate sensitivity and activation volume of nanocrystalline Ni, Acta Materialia 54 (2006) 2715 –2726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2006.02.013

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    Jiang, Q

    Z. Jiang, Q. Wang, Y. Zhang, T. Suo, J. Wang, J. Liang, The deformation mechanism of nanocrystalline nickel under high strain rate, Materials Letters 305 (2021) 130790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2021.130790

    2021

  36. [44]

    Zehnder, S

    C. Zehnder, S. Bruns, J. -N. Peltzer, K. Durst, S. Korte -Kerzel, D. Möncke, Influence of Cooling Rate on Cracking and Plastic Deformation during Impact and Indentation of Borosilicate Glasses, Front. Mater. 4 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2017.00005

    2017

  37. [45]

    Bacca, R.M

    M. Bacca, R.M. McMeeking, Latent heat saturation in microstructural evolution by severe plastic deformation, International Journal of Plasticity 83 (2016) 74 –89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2016.04.004

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    Nieto -Fuentes, S

    J.C. Nieto -Fuentes, S. Osovski, A. Venkert, D. Rittel, Reassessment of the Dynamic Thermomechanical Conversion in Metals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 255502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.255502

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    Benzerga, Y

    A.A. Benzerga, Y. Bréchet, A. Needleman, E. Van der Giessen, The stored energy of cold work: Predictions from discrete dislocation plasticity, Acta Materialia 53 (2005) 4765 –

    2005

  40. [48]

    Kositski, D

    R. Kositski, D. Mordehai, Employing molecular dynamics to shed light on the microstructural origins of the Taylor -Quinney coefficient, Acta Materialia 205 (2021) 116511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2020.116511

    2021

  41. [49]

    Y.M. Wang, S. Cheng, Q.M. Wei, E. Ma, T.G. Nieh, A. Hamza, Effects of annealing and impurities on tensile properties of electrodeposited nanocrystalline Ni, Scripta Materialia 51 (2004) 1023–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2004.08.015

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    Wang, E.M

    Y.M. Wang, E.M. Bringa, J.M. McNaney, M. Victoria, A. Caro, A.M. Hodge, R. Smith, B. Torralva, B.A. Remington, C.A. Schuh, H. Jamarkani, M.A. Meyers, Deforming nanocrystalline nickel at ultrahigh strain rates, Applied Physics Letters 88 (2006) 061917. https://doi.org/10.1063/1...

    2006 doi

  43. [69]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.10.013

    2017 doi

  44. [141]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2019.01.020

    2019 doi

  45. [325]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2019.03.001

    2019 doi

  46. [4004]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2012.03.008. 17

    2012 doi

  47. [4779]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2005.07.011

    2005 doi

  48. [5172]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6454(03)00365-3

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.