Logo image
Back
Bulk-scale stress–strain hysteresis in layered crystalline solids: A study of graphite and Ti3SiC2
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Bulk-scale stress–strain hysteresis in layered crystalline solids: A study of graphite and Ti3SiC2

A.G. Westra, E.R. Pittman, M. De Graef, X. Zhao, M.W. Barsoum, L.E. Lamberson and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)
Carbon (New York), v 246, 120829
01 Jan 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2025.120829
url
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2025.120829View
Published, Version of Record (VoR) Open

Abstract

Dictionary indexing Graphite MAX phase Ripplocation boundary Stress–strain response
Polycrystalline graphite and the MAX phase Ti3SiC2 are layered crystalline solids with similar deformation mechanisms, including basal slip, ripplocation boundaries (RBs), kink boundaries (KBs), and cracking. The interplay of these mechanisms, notably in energy dissipation, has been much discussed in the past twenty-five years. This study builds upon previous work, investigating deformation with a renewed emphasis on the bulk-scale and given recent findings concerning RBs. Our investigation compares the evolution of energy dissipation, nonlinear recoverable and irrecoverable strain, and damage upon increasing stress for graphite and Ti3SiC2. Benitez et al.’s (2016) methodology of compressive cyclic loading and post-mortem electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) to assess the prevalence of kinking based on low-angle grain boundaries (LAGBs) was used. Strains were measured with digital image correlation and EBSD was conducted on Ti3SiC2 leveraging dictionary indexing, which was necessary herein to identify LAGBs accurately. The stress–strain stages of Ti3SiC2 agree with literature on Ti2AlC. Damage and energy dissipation were more accelerated in graphite. No significant difference was observed in the fraction of LAGBs between pristine and unloaded Ti3SiC2. Trends observed and EBSD evidence that KBs were not dominant suggest that RBs are the primary dissipator of energy in both materials. [Display omitted] •Ti3SiC2 has similar stress—strain stages to Ti2AlC, graphite does not.•Damage and energy dissipation are more accelerated in graphite than in Ti3SiC2.•Energy dissipated ( Wd) scales empirically with peak stress ( σpeak) by Wd=aσpeakb.•Kink boundaries are not the dominant energy dissipators in Ti3SiC2.•This work makes a case that ripplocations are likely the dominant energy dissipators.

Metrics

3 Record Views
1 citations in Web of Science

Details

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Chemistry, Physical
Materials Science, Multidisciplinary
Logo image