Quasi-In Situ EBSD Investigation of Variant Evolution and Twin Formation in a Hot Isostatic Pressing-Treated Additively-Manufactured Titanium Alloy Under Tensile Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, has revolutionized the production of titanium alloys, offering significant advantages in fabricating complex geometries with enhanced mechanical properties. This study investigates the variant-specific deformation mechanisms in HIP-treated TA15 (Ti-6.5Al-2Zr-1Mo-1V) titanium alloy, fabricated via selective electron beam melting (SEBM). The alloy exhibits a dual-phase (α+β) microstructure, where six distinct α variants are formed through the β→α phase transformation following the Burgers orientation relationship. Variant selection during AM leads to a non-uniform distribution of these α variants, with α6 (22.3%) dominating due to preferential growth. Analysis of the prismatic slip Schmid factor reveals that α4-α6 variants, with higher Schmid factors (>0.45), primarily undergo prismatic slip, while α1-α3 variants, with lower Schmid factors (<0.3), rely on basal or pyramidal slip and twinning for plastic deformation. In-grain misorientation axis (IGMA) analysis further reveals strain-dependent slip transitions: pyramidal slip is activated in α1-α3 variants at lower strains, while prismatic slip becomes the dominant deformation mechanism in α4-α6 variants at higher strains. Additionally, deformation twins, primarily {10-12}<1-101> extension twins (7.1%), contribute to the plasticity of hard-oriented α variants. These findings significantly enhance the understanding of the orientation-dependent deformation mechanisms in HIPed TA15 alloy and provide a crucial basis for optimizing the performance of additively-manufactured titanium alloys.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".