Abstract
The common practice of ignoring the elastic strain gradient in measurements of geometrically necessary dislocation (GND) density is critically examined. It is concluded that the practice may result in substantial errors. Our analysis points to the importance of spatial variations of the elastic strain field in relation to its magnitude in inferring estimates of dislocation density from measurements.
References
Carlson, D.E.: On the range of applicability of linearized elasticity. Math. Mech. Solids 16(5), 467–481 (2011)
El-Dasher, B.S., Adams, B.L., Rollett, A.D.: Viewpoint: experimental recovery of geometrically necessary dislocation density in polycrystals. Scr. Mater. 48(2), 141–145 (2003)
Field, D.P., Trivedi, P.B., Wright, S.I., Kumar, M.: Analysis of local orientation gradients in deformed single crystals. Ultra-microscopy 103(1), 33–39 (2005)
Pantleon, W.: Resolving the geometrically necessary dislocation content by conventional electron backscattering diffraction. Scr. Mater. 58(ll), 994–997 (2008)
Shield, R.T.: The rotation associated with large strains. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 25(3), 483–491 (1973)
Steigmann, D.J., Ogden, R.W.: A note on residual stress, lattice orientation and dislocation density in crystalline solids. J. Elast. 109, 1–9 (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Acharya, A., Knops, R.J. An Observation on the Experimental Measurement of Dislocation Density. J Elast 114, 275–279 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10659-013-9437-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10659-013-9437-2