Engineering strain mapping facilities Michael Fitzpatrick & Stefano Coratella

Outline

▪ What makes a “good” residual stress instrument?

▪ What is available out there

▪ What’s missing

▪ What’s new

▪ What’s next

AcknowledgementsDr Stefano Coratella, UDRI Ranggi Ramadhan, Coventry Professor Philip Withers, Manchester Dr. Winfried Kockelmann, ISIS Dr Anton S. Tremsin, UC Berkeley Dr Vladimir Luzin, ANSTO Dr Saurabh Kabra, ISIS Dr Burak Toparli

What makes a good instrument for engineering residual stress analysis?▪ Large sample capacity for both weight and volume (linear dimensions)

▪ Translation facility for large distance with accuracy below 0.1 mm

▪ Access to load frames and sample environment facilities

▪ Small gauge volume capability

▪ Cover the range of measurements from near-surface to in-depth

▪ Easy access

▪ Short time from application to beam ▪ High hit rate

▪ Easy physical access

▪ Low-cost (no-cost) access

▪ Good instrument scientist support; reliable operation ▪ Good user programme; strong user community

There are more facilities out there than you might think…

▪ Asia/Pacific ▪ Australian Synchrotron, Melbourne, Australia ▪ Beijing Synchrotron Radiation Facility (BSRF), Beijing, China ▪ Raja Ramanna Center INDUS-1 & INDUS-2), Indore, India ▪ National Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (NSRL), Hefei, China ▪ National Synchrotron Radiation Research Center (NSRRC), Hsinchu, Taiwan ▪ Pohang Accelerator Laboratory, Pohang, Korea ▪ SESAME, Jordan ▪ Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility (SSRF), Shanghai, China ▪ Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS), Singapore ▪ Spring-8 Compact SASE Source (SCSS), Japan ▪ Super Photon Ring – 8 GeV (Spring8), Hyogo, Japan

▪ North America ▪ Advanced Light Source (ALS), Berkeley, California, USA ▪ Advanced Photon Source (APS), Argonne, Illinois, USA ▪ Canadian Light Source (CLS), Saskatoon, Canada ▪ Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source (CHESS), Ithaca, New York, USA ▪ National Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS), Brookhaven, New York, USA ▪ Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (SSRL), Menlo Park, California, USA

▪ SYNCHROTRON FACILITIES

▪ Europe ▪ ALBA Synchrotron Light Facility, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain ▪ ANKA Synchrotron Strahlungsquelle, Karlesruhe, Germany ▪ BESSY GmbH, Albert-Einstein-Str.15 ▪ Diamond Light Source, United Kingdom ▪ Dortmund Electron Test Accelerator (DELTA), Dortmund, Germany ▪ Elettra Synchrotron Light Source, Trieste, Italy ▪ European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF), Grenoble, France ▪ Petra III, Hamburg, Germany ▪ Siberian Synchrotron Radiation Centre (SSRC) – VEPP 3/VEPP 4,

Novosibirsk, Russia ▪ SOLEIL, France ▪ Swiss Light Source (SLS) at the Paul Scherrer Institut

▪ South America ▪ Laboratorio Nacional de Luz Síncrotron (LNLS) Sao Paolo, Brazil

There are more facilities out there than you might think…

▪ North America

▪ Canadian Neutron Beam Centre (CNBC), Chalk River, Canada

▪ High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR), Oak Ridge, Tennessee

▪ Manuel Lujan Jr. Neutron Scattering Center at LANSCE, Los Alamos

▪ National Institute of Standards and Technology Reactor (NIST), Maryland

▪ Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), Oak Ridge

▪ NECSA, South Africa

▪ NEUTRON FACILITIES

▪ Asia/Pacific ▪ Chinese Spallation Neutron Source (CSNS), Beijing, China ▪ DHRUVA Research Reactor, Trombay, India ▪ High-flux Advanced Neutron Application Reactor (HANARO), Taejon, South

Korea ▪ ISSP Neutron Science Laboratory, Kashiwa, Japan ▪ JAERI-KEK Joint Facility, J-PARC, Japan ▪ OPAL, Lucas Heights, Australia

▪ Europe ▪ FRM-II, Munich, Germany ▪ Frank Laboratory of Neutron Physics (FLNP), Dubna, Russia ▪ Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL), Grenoble, France ▪ Interfacultair Reactor Institute (IRI), Delft, The Netherlands ▪ ISIS - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, United Kingdom ▪ KFKI, Budapest, Hungary ▪ LLB, Saclay, France ▪ Swiss spallation neutron source (SINQ) at the Paul Scherrer Institute ▪ Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia

Having a local source makes a big difference

AUS 74%

SA 5%

JAP 4%

GER 4%

UK 3%

CIN 3%

USA 3%

CZE 1%

SPN 1%

EQU 1%

NZ 1%

AUS

SA

JAP

GER

UK

CIN

USA

CZE

SPN

EQU

NZ

UserbaseofKOWARI,OPAL,Australia

STRESS 79%

TEX 13%

INSTR 3%

INSITU 5%

Many sources are coming to the end of their lives

4

Drivers:- reduction of neutrons in Europe

ESFRI Report reviewing neutron capacity & capability in Europe.

Published Sept. 2016

2

Neutron scattering facilities in EuropePresent status and future perspectives

ESFRI Physical Sciences and Engineering Strategy Working Group Neutron Landscape Group

ESFRI scrIPTa Vol. 1

68 69Neutron scattering facilities in Europe - Present status and future perspectives II. Future Scenarios to 2030

as a central plank of the original science cases are often neither fruitful nor achievable. Science cases must therefore come with a government health warning and they should not be treated as the be-all-and-end-all of the justification for a given facility proposal. They are but one input. With a precision, speed or sensitivity exceeding the original specifications by orders of magnitude or in environments (in vivo, in operando, real time, extreme temperatures, pressure or fields) that were not originally conceivable, the scientific output of an instrument suite that has developed over decades delivers more and more science. Equally the user community itself builds up and is consolidated and the staff becomes more and more experienced. Sustained development over decades at any source pays dividends and it must not be assumed that new sources today will need less time to build up capacity and therefore scientific impact. There is little doubt however that whatever instrument availability is provided, there will be a large oversubscription. Demand will exceed supply significantly.

During the last 40-50 years the number of publications from a given type of instrument has increased, slowly but surely, whilst at the same time the performance of the instruments has often increased by one or more orders of magnitude. Increased performance in terms of intensity or resolution tends to attract more difficult and penetrating scientific questions and does not simply encourage more of the same. There is a distinct increase in quality, which is the main purpose of a facility like ESS. We have also assumed that users will carry out their research at a facility best suited to, and most cost effective for, the given experiment (flux, instrumentation, ancillary equipment etc. etc.) and that the instrumentation is state of the art. Using an instrument day as a measure therefore reflects the current state of instrumentation and also the current complexity of the topic that we plan to investigate in one day. In short using instrument-days as a yardstick is a measure of the user community that can be sustained at any given point in time. There are many other indicators that can be used but our approach has been that,

while the use of instrument-days is by no means perfect, it avoids the subjective interpretations that the development of an algorithm would entail and is therefore quantitative and verifiable.

(i)TheBaselineScenarioThe Baseline Scenario, illustrated in Figure 7, describes the situation as communicated by the facility Directors as of mid-2014.

In this scenario ILL will operate for the duration of the current Convention, which runs until 2023, at full specification.

Orphee

BER II

REZ

BRR

ILL

SINQ

ISIS

MLZ

ESS

ISIS

MLZ

ESS

Vienna

Kjeller

HOR

Demokritus

Sacavem

15000

10000

5000

0

35000

40000

30000

20000

25000

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

2032

2034

Inst

rum

ent-

day

s

Figure 7. Baseline Scenario

The predicted delivery of instrument beam-days in the Baseline Scenario: ILL operates at full output until 2023, ESS with 22 instruments beyond 2028.

Orphee

BER REZ BRR

ILL

SINQ

ISIS

MLZ

ESS

Baseline Scenario Predicted delivery of neutron instrument

beam-days.

What are the leading facilities?

ISIS ENGIN-XSINQ POLDIANSTO KowariDiamond I12 (JEEP)APS 1-IDORNL, HFIR NRSF2ORNL, SNS VULCANJ-PARC RADEN

ILL SALSAISIS IMATESRF ID31

What’s missing?

▪ Filling the gap in the first millimetre from the surface

What’s missing?

▪ Filling the gap in the first millimetre from the surface

What’s new? IMAT at ISIS

NeutronRadiography,EnergySelectiveImaging

NeutronTomography

TextureandPhaseAnalysis

NeutronDiffractionstrainscanning

NeutronTransmissionstrainmeasurementand2Dstrainmapping

d

λ=2dsinθ

λ

Id2θ=90

λ0 λ

BraggpeakBragg’sLaw

λ=0.6–7Å

NeutronDiffraction

Principles

Principles

d

λ=2dsin90°

λ=0.6–7Å

λ

It2θ=180

λ0 λ

Bragg’sLaw

λ>2dsin90°

Braggedge

NeutronTransmission

Through-thicknessaverage2Dstrainmap

Straindirection:inthedirectionofincomingbeam

MicrochannelPlate(MCP)detector

Pixelsize=55x55µm2

Measuredstraindirec;on

Example:AluminiumBraggEdges

1 2 3 4 5 60.64

0.66

0.68

0.70

0.72

0.74

0.76

0.78

0.80

0.82

0.84

{222}

{311} {220}

{200}

Tran

smis

sion

Wavelength (Angstrom)

{111}

Edges are hard to fit

▪ Non-linear fitting function

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0

0.68

0.70

0.72

0.74

0.76

0.78

0.80

0.82

Tran

smis

sion

Wavelength (Angstrom)

{111}Model santisteban_1st (User)Equation exp(-(a0+(b0*x)))Reduced Chi-Sqr 2.20469E-6Adj. R-Square 0.08569

Value Standard Error

Transmissiona0 0.14445 0.02998b0 0.01457 0.00611

4.66513λ=

Edges are hard to fit

▪ Textured 7150

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.90.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Tra

nsm

issi

on

Wavelength (Angstrom)

Use cross correlation

▪ Determine the “lag”

between the two signals

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.90.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

Tran

smis

sion

Wavelength (Angstrom)

Lag

Example: AlSiCp MMCNeutronDiffractionResults

Source:[1]M.E.Fitzpatrick,M.T.Hutchings,andP.J.Withers,“Separationofmacroscopic,elasticmismatchandthermalexpansionmisfitstressesinmetalmatrixcompositequenchedplatesfromneutrondiffractionmeasurements,”ActaMater.,vol.45,no.12,pp.4867–4876,1997.

Aluminium

SiC

Result: Aluminium

[2]Z.S.Basinski,W.Hume-rothery,andA.L.Sutton,“Thelatticeexpansionofiron,”Proc.R.Soc.Lond.A.Math.Phys.Sci.,vol.229,no.1179,pp.459–467,1955.[3]J.-W.Hwang,“Scholars’MineThermalexpansionofnickelandiron,andtheinfluenceofnitrogenonthelatticeparameterofironattheCurietemperature,”1972.[4]S.StecuraandW.J.Campbell,“Thermalexpansionandphaseinversionofrare-earthoxides,”Washington,1961.

Iron CeriumDioxide

Example: Thermal Expansion

0 200 400 600 800 1000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Neutron Transmission - Edge Fitting Neutron Transmission - Cross Correlation Basinski [2] Hwang [3]

Δd/

d 0 X 1

0-4

Temperature (oC)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Neutron Transmission - Edge Fitting Neutron Transmission - Cross Correlation Stecura-Campbell [4]

Δd/

d 0 X 1

0-4Temperature (oC)

Aluminiummatrixcomponent Siliconcarbidereinforcementcomponent

Neutron Transmission 2D Strain Map

Example: Strain Mapping on Laser-shock Peened Sample

Laserpeenedsurface

Example: Strain Mapping on Laser-shock Peened Sample

Laserpeenedsurface

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600-1750

-1500

-1250

-1000

-750

-500

-250

0

250

500

750

Stra

in (µε)

Depth, z, (µm)

IHD, Hole 1 IHD, Hole 2 IHD, Hole, 3 Transmission, Line P Transmission, Line Q Transmission, Line R Transmission, Unpeened

ComparisonwithIncrementalHoleDrillingMeasurement

IHD,Hole1IHD,Hole2IHD,Hole3

Example: Strain Mapping on Cold Expanded Hole

Example: Strain Mapping on Cold Expanded Hole

What’s next?

Interna1onalStressEngineeringCentre(I-SEC)@Harwell(UK)

Third Generation Strain Instrument: e-MAP

▪ 15x current flux on ENGIN-X

Strain scanning• Big objects• Interfaces• Additive manufacturing

In-situ processes• Time dependent processes• Long term experiments• Big sample environment (ALM

machine)

Other measurements• Texture• High throughput sample changing• Imaging?

Questions?