When do interfaces become important for failure?

Previous experimental research has shown that microstructural features such as interfaces, inclusions, vacancies and heterogeneities can all act as void nucleation sites. However, it is not well understood how important these interfaces are to the damage evolution as a function of the surrounding parent materials. In this work, we present results on three different materials: 1) Cu, 2) Cu-10 wt%Ag, and 3) Cu-15 wt%Nb examined to probe the influence of bi-metal interfaces on void nucleation and evolution. These materials were chosen due to the differences in the stacking fault energy between the two phases. The initial results suggest that when there are significant differences between the bulk properties (for example: stacking fault energy and melting temperature etc) the type of interface between the two parent materials does not influence the damage process. Rather, it is the “weaker” material that dictates the dynamic spall strength of the material

When do interfaces become important for failure?

Previous experimental research has shown that microstructural features such as interfaces, inclusions, vacancies and heterogeneities can all act as void nucleation sites. However, it is not well understood how important these interfaces are to the damage evolution as a function of the surrounding parent materials. In this work, we present results on three different materials: 1) Cu, 2) Cu-10 wt%Ag, and 3) Cu-15 wt%Nb examined to probe the influence of bi-metal interfaces on void nucleation and evolution. These materials were chosen due to the differences in the stacking fault energy between the two phases. The initial results suggest that when there are significant differences between the bulk properties (for example: stacking fault energy and melting temperature etc) the type of interface between the two parent materials does not influence the damage process. Rather, it is the “weaker” material that dictates the dynamic spall strength of the material