Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/130036
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
logo share SHARE logo core CORE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Invitar a revisión por pares abierta
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorRamírez-Rico, J.es_ES
dc.contributor.authorLee, S.-Y.es_ES
dc.contributor.authorLing, J. J.es_ES
dc.contributor.authorNoyan, I. C.es_ES
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-14T10:17:05Z-
dc.date.available2016-03-14T10:17:05Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Materials Science, Feb: 1-13 (2016)es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/130036-
dc.description.abstractsing area detectors for stress determination by diffraction methods in a single exposure greatly simplifies the measurement process and permits the design of portable systems without complex sample cradles or moving parts. An additional advantage is the ability to see the entire or a large fraction of the Debye ring and thus determine texture and grain size effects before analysis. The two methods most commonly used to obtain stress from a single Debye ring are the so-called cosαcos⁡α and full-ring fitting methods, which employ least-squares procedures to determine the stress from the distortion of a Debye ring by probing a set of scattering vector simultaneously. The widely applied sin2ψsin2⁡ψ method, in contrast, requires sample rotations to probe a different subset of scattering vector orientations. In this paper, we first present a description of the different methods under the same formalism and using a unified set of coordinates that are suited to area detectors normal to the incident beam, highlighting the similarities and differences between them. We further characterize these methods by means of in situ measurements in carbon steel tube samples, using a portable detector in reflection geometry. We show that, in the absence of plastic flow, the different methods yield basically the same results and are equivalent. An analysis of possible sources of errors and their impact in the final stress values is also presented.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherSpringer Naturees_ES
dc.relation.isversionofPostprintes_ES
dc.rightsopenAccessen_EN
dc.titleStress measurement using area detectors: a theoretical and experimental comparison of different methods in ferritic steel using a portable X-ray apparatuses_ES
dc.typeartículoes_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10853-016-9837-3-
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer reviewedes_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttp://dc.doi.org/10.1007/s10853-016-9837-3es_ES
dc.embargo.terms2017-02-28es_ES
dc.relation.csices_ES
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501es_ES
item.openairetypeartículo-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en-
Aparece en las colecciones: (ICMS) Artículos
Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato
Ramirez_Rico_et_al-Stress_Measurement.pdf1,75 MBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Show simple item record

CORE Recommender

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

33
checked on 11-abr-2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

26
checked on 26-feb-2024

Page view(s)

202
checked on 22-abr-2024

Download(s)

609
checked on 22-abr-2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.