Search Results for interfacing

Fig. 8.14 Interface between M 7 C 3 and ferrite seen in Fig. 8.13 . The interface is semicoherent, pinning any movement. Source: Ref 8.10 as published in Ref 8.1 More

Fig. 5.13 Morphology of interface in a solidification structure. (a) Interface between covalent compound and liquid phase, magnification 150 ×. (b) Interface between metal crystal and liquid phase, magnification 800 ×. More

Fig. 5.14 (a) Kossel’s smooth interface. (b) Jackson’s rough interface. Data points ● in (b) indicate the minimum points. More

Figure 11.29: Interface pressure p , interface shear strength τ i , and coefficient of friction μ obtained by the oblique pin technique in upsetting of aluminum billets ( d 0 /h 0 = 4) to 10% reduction. (a) Dry platens; (b) lubricated with a compounded mineral oil; (c) lubricated More

Fig. 16.7 Fretting wear on a steel shaft where the interface with the hub was intended to be a press fit More

Fig. 2.6 Modeling results showing the interface temperatures under impact of copper onto copper at a velocity of 600 m/s (2000 ft/s). The results clearly show that the “south pole” area around the point of initial contact does not reach conditions for adiabatic shear instabilities. Source More

Fig. 5.19 (a) Optical micrograph of as-sprayed coating-substrate interface along with (b) corresponding transmission electron micrographs identifying phase evolution and deformation in vicinity of the coating-substrate interface, and (c) interface evolution after heat treatment. In both cases More

Fig. 7 Schematic representation of friction, interface temperature, and wear rate changes during the determination of contact pressure and velocity ( PV ) limit by (a) constant velocity and incremental load increases or (b) wear rate vs. load at constant velocity. Source: Ref 7 More

Fig. 7 Schematic of debonding at a matrix-particle interface with unidirectional stress. (a) Plane stress loading of an inclusion (no interfacial bond) causes debonding at the particle caps. (b) Debonding and fracture of high-aspect-ratio particles (elongated inclusion) due to shear transfer More

Fig. 3.22 Interface toughening More

Fig. 3.31 Autohesion at thermoplastic interfaces More

Fig. 9.19 Die-workpiece interface variables at macro scale for tube hydroforming More

Fig. 9.21 Effect of increased interface pressure on friction. Source: Ref 9.28 More

Fig. 8.27 Prediction of delamination onset in –25/90 interfaces of [25/—25/90 n ] S laminates. Note that the G C value was separately determined by O’Brien (for the same material and stacking arrangement). Source: Analysis, Ref 8.28 ; test data points, Ref 8.34 More

Fig. 16.7 Different types of interfaces. (a) and (b) Fully coherent. (c) and (d) Semicoherent showing lattice strain and the presence of dislocations. (e) and (f) Incoherent. Source: Ref 16.1 as published in Ref 16.2 More

Fig. A.57 Dihedral angle, θ, between two interfaces of differing phases. Source: Ref A.6 as published in Ref A.1 More

Fig. 14 Fretting wear on a steel shaft at the interface with the hub intended to be a press fit. The same fretting also appeared on the bore of the hub. This is typical of damage in a joint that is nominally stationary but in reality has slight movement between the hub and the shaft. Source More

Fig. 2.2 The metal/solution interface. Based on Ref 3 More

Fig. 3.12 Reactive ion concentration profile in solution at the metal interface at initial, intermediate, and long times following initiation of current. The example corresponds to the deposit of reactive ions at the interface where ion concentration is depleted. δ is the diffusion boundary More