Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Recrystallisation phenomena in an ultrafine-grained Al-Mg-Si alloy revealed by correlative in situ EBSD and TEM heating

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An ultrafine-grained AA6061 alloy begins recrystallising at about 198 °C, and its grain-boundary sink strength—the property that absorbs irradiation defects—collapses across that window.

desk verdict Solid experimental comparison of in situ TEM and EBSD heating on UFG AA6061, but the 198°C onset and sink-strength collapse are oversold. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24085 v1 pith:J4OVQNWH submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.space-ph

Moritz Theissing , Sandra Gonzaga , Patrick Willenshofer , Thomas M. Kremmer , Stefan Pogatscher , Stefan Mitsche , Frank F. Sene , Matheus A. Tunes This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.space-ph
keywords ultrafine-grainedaluminiumAA6061high-pressuretorsioninsituEBSDheatingTEMrecrystallisationgrain-boundarysinkstrengthKAMmisorientation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that in situ EBSD heating can determine, with bulk representation, the onset of recrystallisation in a severely plastically deformed AA6061 alloy, placing the first microstructural instability at about 198 °C. It also claims that precipitation in the ultrafine-grained condition does not delay recrystallisation or restore hardness once the fine grain structure is consumed. Combining these observations with a KAM-scaled version of the Brailsford–Bullough–Hayns sink-strength model, the authors conclude that the total grain-boundary sink strength drops by roughly a factor of four as recovery and recrystallisation proceed. A sympathetic reader would care because 198 °C sits at the upper bound of low-Earth-orbit solar heating, so this particular UFG alloy would forfeit its intended irradiation resistance inside its service window.

What carries the argument

The central object is the temperature-dependent grain-boundary sink strength k²_gb from the Brailsford–Bullough–Hayns rate-theory model, which expresses how effectively grain boundaries absorb radiation-induced point defects. The paper's extension is the relation k²_sc(T) = k²_sc,0 · KAM(T)/KAM0, using the kernel average misorientation (KAM) from in situ EBSD as a live proxy for stored dislocation content. This couples two degradation channels—grain coarsening (increasing grain radius) and dislocation annihilation (decreasing internal sink strength)—so the sink strength decays faster than grain-size evolution alone predicts. In situ EBSD supplies both the average grain size and the KAM as fu

What would settle it

Heat a fresh UFG AA6061 sample at 1 °C/min and measure dislocation density directly (X-ray line-profile analysis or electrical resistivity) alongside KAM from in situ EBSD; if the stored dislocation density does not follow the KAM(T)/KAM0 curve, or if the independently calibrated k²_sc(T) does not produce a roughly four-fold drop in k²_gb, the central sink-strength claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a UFG AA6061 alloy made by high-pressure torsion, when heated, evolves through three sequential regimes—recovery and nucleation from about 198 °C, recrystallisation between about 198 and 265 °C, and grain growth above about 298 °C—and that this sequence is only correctly seen when sampling roughly 10³ grains from bulk material with in situ EBSD. In situ TEM heating on electron-transparent foils shifts and blurs the onset because of thin-film effects. The authors extend the classical Brailsford–Bullough–Hayns sink-strength theory by making the internal sink strength temperature-dependent through the measured mean KAM, producing a total grain-boundary sink strength th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the EBSD misorientation measure KAM is a direct stand-in for the dislocation density that sets the internal sink strength, with the initial value taken as 10¹⁴ m⁻² without a separate calibration; if KAM only indicates more-or-less deformation rather than being proportional to stored dislocation content, the claimed factor-of-four collapse is an artifact of that scaling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 198 °C, inside the low-Earth-orbit solar-irradiation range, this UFG AA6061 alloy begins to lose the grain-boundary network that provides its radiation tolerance.
  • Precipitation hardening cannot be relied on: in the UFG condition, GP-zone formation is suppressed, precipitation shifts to lower temperatures, and neither recrystallisation is retarded nor hardness recovered.
  • In situ EBSD heating can separate recovery, recrystallisation, and grain growth as distinct regimes, a resolution that in situ TEM heating on thin foils cannot provide because of thin-film effects and small sampling volumes.
  • Because the sink strength falls most steeply from roughly 198 °C to 298 °C, mechanical strength and irradiation resistance degrade simultaneously during a thermal excursion.
  • The quantitative sink-strength trajectory gives a concrete design target: preserving recrystallisation temperatures above about 200 °C would keep a larger fraction of the initial sink strength.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if KAM alone is a valid proxy, sink strength would already fall during pure recovery before any recrystallised grain appears, so radiation tolerance may begin degrading below the optically visible onset.
  • Beyond the paper: the KAM-scaled Brailsford–Bullough–Hayns framework transfers to other severely deformed alloys; independent calibration of k²_sc,0 with X-ray line broadening or resistivity would turn Eq. 6 from a proxy into a quantitative model.
  • Beyond the paper: the engineering implication for space qualification is that this alloy needs either a variant whose recrystallisation exceeds about 200 °C or active thermal management; the paper identifies the target but does not test a remedy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the thermal stability of an ultrafine-grained AA6061 alloy produced by high-pressure torsion, using correlative in situ TEM and in situ EBSD heating complemented by DSC, STEM-EDX and microhardness. It reports that in situ EBSD, sampling ~10^3 grains, resolves recovery, recrystallisation and grain-growth regimes and places the onset of instability at ~198°C. It further reports that grain refinement suppresses GP-zone formation and shifts precipitation to lower temperatures, with precipitation neither retarding recrystallisation nor restoring strength. Finally, the authors extend the Brailsford–Bullough–Hayns sink-strength model by making the internal sink strength temperature-dependent via measured KAM (Eq. 6) and conclude that the grain-boundary sink strength collapses by a factor of about four during annealing, most steeply in the 198–298°C window. The paper also proposes in situ EBSD heating as a bulk-representative in operando method for such studies.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the results are significant for two communities. For space materials, the conclusion that the UFG AA6061 loses its radiation-tolerant grain-boundary network within the ~200°C LEO thermal envelope is directly actionable and would redirect alloy design toward stabilised UFG microstructures. For characterisation methodology, the direct comparison of in situ TEM and EBSD heating with a large sampled grain population and the public deposition of raw data are valuable strengths: the videos and datasets allow independent re-analysis, and the 1°C/min EBSD experiment provides a time-resolved view of recovery and recrystallisation that is rarely available. The DSC and microhardness data consistently support the microstructural sequence. However, the quantitative sink-strength collapse and the precise 198°C onset are not yet established at the level claimed, because the former rests on an uncalibrated KAM proxy and the latter is inferred rather than directly observed. These issues are load-bearing for the paper’s main conclusions, though the qualitative trend—that grain coarsening and dislocation annihilation reduce sink strength—is likely robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (6) and Fig. 9] The claimed 'collapse' of grain-boundary sink strength is constructed by Eq. (6), which sets k²sc(T) = k²sc,0 · KAM(T)/KAM0. No independent calibration of k²sc,0 is provided, and KAM from EBSD primarily reflects geometrically necessary dislocations with a step-size and angular-resolution dependence; it is not a demonstrated quantitative proxy for the total stored dislocation density that sets the internal sink strength. Moreover, Fig. 9A labels k²sc = 10^15 m^-2 as 'HPT deformed', while the text and Fig. 9B start from k²sc,0 ≈ 1.0×10^14 m^-2—a factor-of-ten inconsistency. Because the reported 'factor of about four' decline and the recovery-stage contribution depend directly on this scaling, they are not established as measured results. A sensitivity analysis over the plausible range of k²sc,0, or an independent dislocation-density measurement, is required before the quantitative collapse
  2. [§3.3, §4.1, §4.2] The paper places the onset of instability at ~198°C, but this value is inferred from the start of the KAM and LAGB-length decline, not from direct observation of new grains. The first clearly visible recrystallised nucleus in the 1°C/min EBSD experiment appears between 233°C and 238°C (Fig. 6). The authors themselves state in §4.2 that 'KAM alone cannot differentiate between recovery, recrystallization nucleation, and the early stages of recrystallisation.' No uncertainty is given for the 198°C value, and the 10°C/min experiment brackets the onset only as 228–246°C. Since the space-applications conclusion hinges on 198°C coinciding with the ~200°C LEO upper bound, the authors must either define an explicit, reproducible criterion for 'onset' (e.g., a threshold in normalised KAM with an error estimate) and justify that it corresponds to the onset of instability, or they must reframe the c
  3. [§3.3, §4.1] The claim that in situ EBSD on a polished surface is 'bulk-representative' is supported only by qualitative statements: 'Nucleation was observed at the surface as well as grain growth from the bulk towards the surface' and by post-experiment surface-quality inspection. No quantitative comparison with bulk cross-sections, serial sectioning, or another bulk-sensitive method is provided to validate that surface kinetics do not shift the onset temperature. Given that one of the paper’s central methodological claims is the absence of the thin-film effect, this assumption should be tested explicitly, for example by comparing the recrystallised grain size distribution from the EBSD surface with that from a depth-resolved cross-section after the same heat treatment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] The sentence 'the evolution of the average grain size with time is plotted in Figure 2' should refer to Figure 7, which is the figure showing grain size versus time for both heating experiments.
  2. [§4.3] The phrase 'using the average grain sizes measured in situ EBSD during heating (Fig. 8)' appears to be a citation error; the grain sizes are shown in Fig. 7, while Fig. 8 shows KAM and grain-boundary lengths.
  3. [§2.3] Typo: 'in order to to bring' should read 'in order to bring'.
  4. [§3.4 and Fig. 5] Typo: 'Complimentary' should be 'Complementary'; in Fig. 5, 'MIcrohardness' should be 'Microhardness'.
  5. [§4.3, Eqs. (4)–(6)] The notation is inconsistent: Eq. (4) uses k_sc in the numerator while the text discusses k²_sc; define clearly that k_sc = sqrt(k²_sc) to avoid dimensional confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Fig. 9B sink-strength collapse is Eq. 6's KAM scaling restated; experimental recrystallisation results are independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.3, Eq. (6) and Fig. 9B; Conclusion (v)]
    "We, therefore, extend their model by allowing the internal sink strength to evolve with temperature, using the mean KAM as a proxy for the stored dislocation content, i.e.: k2sc(T)=k2sc,0 KAM(T)/KAM0 (6) ... Figure 9B shows the resulting evolution of k2gb ... the total grain-boundary sink strength drops by roughly a factor of four ... most steeply across the 198–298°C recrystallisation window."

    Equation 6 defines the temperature-dependent internal sink strength as a fixed constant times the measured KAM curve. Substituted into Eq. 3, this makes the shape of the Fig. 9B sink-strength collapse a rescaled image of the KAM input, with the additional measured grain-size factor. The paper's advertised conclusion that 'the grain-boundary sink strength collapses as recovery and recrystallisation proceed' is therefore not an independent outcome of the Brailsford–Bullough–Hayns theory; it is the measured KAM decline translated into sink-strength units. In particular, the 198–298°C steepest-loss window and the recovery-stage attribution are inherited from the input KAM curve, not inferred from independent sink-strength data. No independent calibration for the KAM-to-dislocation-density prop

full rationale

The experimental backbone of the paper is largely self-contained and independent: in situ EBSD maps sampling O(10^3) grains, grain-size evolution, LAGB/HAGB length analysis, DSC, STEM-EDX, and microhardness are direct measurements, and the ~198°C recrystallisation-onset claim follows from them without relying on the sink-strength model. The circularity concern is confined to the modelling section. Equation 6 sets k_sc^2(T) = k_sc,0^2 * KAM(T)/KAM0, so the internal-sink-strength trajectory is, by construction, the measured KAM decline. Combining this with Eq. 3 means that the key features of Fig. 9B—the factor-of-four drop, the steepest loss in 198–298°C, and the increasing dominance of HAGBs—are largely the input KAM curve plus the independently measured grain size. This is a partial, model-level circularity: the output is not independent of its proxy input, so the claim that the grain-boundary sink strength 'collapses' is more a restatement of the assumed KAM scaling than a new physical prediction. It is not full circularity because the grain-coarsening channel (R(T)) is measured and the paper's principal experimental conclusions about recrystallisation, precipitation, and hardness do not depend on Eq. 6. A further non-circular robustness issue is also present: Fig. 9A labels k_sc^2 = 10^15 m^-2 as 'HPT deformed', while the text and Fig. 9B start from k_sc,0^2 ≈ 1.0×10^14 m^-2, and no independent calibration of the KAM-to-dislocation-density mapping is supplied. These caveats weaken the quantitative sink-strength 'collapse' claim but do not invalidate the experimental findings.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The experimental claims rest on standard EBSD/TEM/DSC practice and are supported by deposited data. The model-based part of the paper adds one assumed free parameter (k²_sc,0) and an unvalidated KAM-scaling relation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • k²_sc,0 (as-deformed internal sink strength) = ≈1×10^14 m^-2
    Sets the absolute magnitude of the internal sink strength in Eq. 6; no independent measurement is provided. The value appears in the results text and is consistent with the illustrative range in Fig. 9A.
  • HAGB threshold = 5° misorientation
    Chosen so the reconstructed grain-boundary map reproduces visible boundaries in the CI/IQ maps; below the classical 15° definition of high-angle boundaries. Affects the LAGB/HAGB length split and hence the sink-strength partition in Fig. 9B.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Brailsford-Bullough-Hayns sink-strength formula (Eq. 3), describing grain-boundary sink strength for an isolated spherical grain in rate theory
    Adopted from refs. 78-81 as an established model; the paper does not derive or validate it for this alloy, and it assumes isolated grains and diffusion-limited behavior.
  • ad hoc to paper KAM is a quantitative proxy for stored dislocation density and hence internal sink strength (Eq. 6)
    Introduced without calibration. The sink-strength collapse shown in Fig. 9B depends directly on this proportionality.
  • domain assumption EBSD-measured surface microstructure is representative of bulk, with no significant surface-effect acceleration
    The authors argue nucleation at the surface and growth from bulk plus unchanged surface quality, but they do not provide a quantitative comparison of surface versus bulk kinetics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recrystallisation phenomena in an ultrafine-grained Al-Mg-Si alloy revealed by correlative in situ EBSD and TEM heating." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J4OVQNWH

@misc{pith2026260724085,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recrystallisation phenomena in an ultrafine-grained Al-Mg-Si alloy revealed by correlative in situ EBSD and TEM heating},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J4OVQNWH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24085}
}
abstract

Ultrafine-grained (UFG) aluminium alloys are promising lightweight structural materials for space applications, where a high grain-boundary density can act as sinks for irradiation-induced defects. Their deployment, however, is contingent on thermal stability: aluminium components in low-Earth orbit can reach $\sim$200 $^\circ$C under solar irradiation, close to where severely deformed aluminium alloys recrystallise. Accurate, bulk-representative determination of recrystallisation onset is therefore essential, yet conventional in situ transmission electron microscopy (TEM) heating is compromised by thin-film effects, ambiguous grain-boundary contrast, and small sampling volumes. Here, a UFG AA6061 (Al-Mg-Si) alloy produced by high-pressure torsion was studied by a direct comparison of in situ TEM heating and in situ electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) heating, complemented by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), analytical scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM-EDX) and microhardness. In situ EBSD sampled $\sim 10^{3}$ grains from bulk material and resolved the microstructural evolution into sequential recovery, recrystallisation and grain-growth regimes, placing the onset of instability at $\sim$198 $^\circ$C. Calorimetry, microhardness and nanoscale elemental mapping showed that grain refinement suppresses GP-zones formation and shifts precipitation to lower temperatures, with precipitation neither retarding recrystallisation nor restoring strength once the UFG structure is consumed. Revisiting the Brailsford-Bullough-Hayns sink-strength theory with a KAM-informed, temperature-dependent internal sink strength, we show that the grain-boundary sink strength collapses as recovery and recrystallisation proceed. We establish in situ EBSD heating as an in operando method for bulk-representative determination of microstructural instabilities in advanced metallic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24085 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Characterisation of the UFG AA6061 alloy before and after HPT | A BFTEM micrograph of the CG commercial-grade AA6061 alloy as-received. B BFTEM micrograph of the UFG AA6061 alloy after deformation with grains perpendicular to HPT direction. C BFTEM micrograph of the UFG AA6061 alloy after deformation with grains parallel to HPT direction. D EBSD IPF map of the UFG AA6061 alloy after deformation perpendicular to HPT … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In situ TEM with MEMS heating experiment | A to L show the evolution of grains during heating with 10 °C·min−1 measured with BFTEM parallel to HPT direction. The white circles in D,E and F indicate an area where recrystallisation starts. Note: the scale bar in A is applied to all micrographs in the figure; the micrographs exposure levels were increased by 25% for better visualisation. 10 °C·min−1 was used, but after… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In situ EBSD with heating experiment | A to L show the evolution of grains during heating with 10 °C·min−1 (A to H) and holding at 285 °C (I to L) after recrystallisation starts measured with EBSD perpendicular to HPT direction. The black circles in D,E and F indicate an area where recrystallisation starts. The isothermal holding time were 0 min for I, 2 min for J, 2 h for K and 19 h for L. Note: the scale bar and I… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effects of heat-treatment in the microstructure of the studied alloys | In A the DSC curves for both the CG (red) and UFG (blue) AA6061 alloys are presented. The HAADF and STEM-EDX maps for the UFG AA6061 alloy microstructures after heat-treatments at B 25 °C, C 225 °C…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hardness response versus heat-treatment | Microhardness versus the heat-treatment temperatures for both CG and UFG AA6061-T6 alloys, where the vertical dashed lines show standard Vickers hardness values for the commercial CG AA6061 alloy at solution annealed (O), T4 an…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Estimation of the onset of recrystallization | A to C show the first nucleation of recrystallized grains collected during an in situ EBSD experiment with a heating rate of 1 °C/min. The white ellipse and circle highlights regions where new grains emerge, or existing (s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Tracking evolution of grain size during in situ EBSD heating | A shows the evolution average grain size during heating with 10 °C/min and holding with 286 °C over time. B shows the evolution average grain size during heating with 1 °C/min over time. Note: Due to the lo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evaluation of the annealing mechanism after heating with 1 °C/min | A shows evolution of the normalized average KAM over temperature. B shows the grain boundary length of low angle grain boundaries (LAGB) and high angle grain bound￾aries (HAGB) over temperature. C show…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Grain-boundary sink strength of UFG AA6061 across the annealing sequence. A Total k 2 gb (Eq. 3) versus average grain size for k 2 sc = 1013, 1014, 1015 m−2 (lightly, moderately and HPT-deformed); solid: full expression, dashed: large-grain limit (Eq. 4), dotted: nanos…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P . B. Prangnell, J. R. Bowen, P . J. Apps, Ultra-fine grain structures in aluminium alloys by se- vere deformation processing, Materials Science and Engineering: A 375 (2004) 178–185.doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2003.10.170

    work page doi:10.1016/j.msea.2003.10.170 2004

  2. [2]

    G. J. Raab, R. Z. Valiev, T . C. Lowe, Y . T . Zhu, Continuous processing of ultrafine grained Al by ECAP– Conform, Materials Science and Engineering: A 382 (1-2) (2004) 30–34.doi:10.1016/j.msea. 2004.04.021

    doi:10.1016/j.msea 2004

  3. [3]

    R. Z. Valiev, T . G. Langdon, Principles of equal-channel angular pressing as a processing tool for grain refinement, Progress in Materials Science 51 (7) (2006) 881–981.doi:10.1016/j. pmatsci.2006.02.003. 23

    doi:10.1016/j 2006

  4. [4]

    R. Z. Valiev, Y . Estrin, Z. Horita, T . G. Langdon, M. J. Zechetbauer, Y . T . Zhu, Producing bulk ultrafine-grained materials by severe plastic deformation, JOM 58 (2006) 33–39.doi:10.1007/ s11837-006-0213-7

    2006

  5. [5]

    T . G. Langdon, The processing of ultrafine-grained materials through the application of severe plastic deformation, Journal of Materials Science 42 (10) (2007) 3388–3397.doi:10.1007/ s10853-006-1475-8

    2007

  6. [6]

    P . V . Liddicoat, X.-Z. Liao, Y . Zhao, Y . Zhu, M. Y . Murashkin, E. J. Lavernia, R. Z. Valiev, S. P . Ringer, Nanostructural hierarchy increases the strength of aluminium alloys, Nature Communications 1 (1) (2010) 63.doi:10.1038/ncomms1062

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms1062 2010

  7. [7]

    Estrin, M

    Y . Estrin, M. Murashkin, R. Valiev, Ultrafine-grained aluminium alloys: processes, structural features and properties, in: Fundamentals of aluminium metallurgy, Elsevier, 2011, pp. 468–503.doi:10. 1533/9780857090256.2.468

    2011

  8. [8]

    T . G. Langdon, Twenty-five years of ultrafine-grained materials: Achieving exceptional properties through grain refinement, Acta Materialia 61 (19) (2013) 7035–7059.doi:10.1016/j.actamat. 2013.08.018

    doi:10.1016/j.actamat 2013

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Huang, T

    Y . Huang, T . G. Langdon, Advances in ultrafine-grained materials, Materials Today 16 (3) (2013) 85– 93.doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2013.03.004

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    Xiang, G

    C. Xiang, G. Huang, S.-S. Liu, T .-Z. Han, B. Jiang, A.-T . Tang, Y . T . Zhu, F .-S. Pan, Grain refine- ment and mechanical properties of pure aluminum processed by accumulative extrusion bond- ing, Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China 29 (3) (2019) 437–447.doi:1...

    2019

  3. [11]

    X. G. Qiao, N. Gao, Z. Moktadir, M. Kraft, M. J. Starink, Fabrication of MEMS components using ultrafine-grained aluminium alloys, Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 20 (4) (2010) 045029.doi:10.1088/0960-1317/20/4/045029

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    Harsha, S

    S. Harsha, S. Dasharath, Effect of cryogenic heat treatment & ageing on ultra fine grained alu- minium–lithium alloy-A review, Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 338–348.doi:10.1016/ j.matpr.2020.10.1009

    2021

  5. [13]

    N. Q. Chinh, M. Y . Murashkin, E. V . Bobruk, J. L. Lábár, J. Gubicza, Z. Kovács, A. Q. Ahmed, V . Maier- Kiener, R. Z. Valiev, Ultralow-temperature superplasticity and its novel mechanism in ultrafine- grained Al alloys, Materials Research Letters 9 (11) (2021) 475–482.doi:10....

    2021

  6. [14]

    T . He, S. Chen, T . Lu, P . Zhao, W. Chen, S. Scudino, High-strength and ductile ultrafine-grained Al–Y–Ni–Co alloy for high-temperature applications, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 848 (2020) 156655.doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2020.156655. 24

    2020

  7. [15]

    Esquivel, H

    J. Esquivel, H. Murdoch, K. Darling, R. Gupta, Excellent corrosion resistance and hardness in Al alloys by extended solid solubility and nanocrystalline structure, Materials Research Letters 6 (1) (2018) 79–83.doi:10.1080/21663831.2017.1396262

    2018

  8. [16]

    K. Ma, H. Wen, T . Hu, T . D. Topping, D. Isheim, D. N. Seidman, E. J. Lavernia, J. M. Schoenung, Mechanical behavior and strengthening mechanisms in ultrafine grain precipitation-strengthened aluminum alloy, Acta Materialia 62 (2014) 141–155.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2013.09.042

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    M. A. Tunes, L. Stemper, G. Greaves, P . J. Uggowitzer, S. Pogatscher, Prototypic Lightweight Alloy Design for Stellar-Radiation Environments, Advanced Science 7 (22) (2020) 2002397.doi:10. 1002/advs.202002397

    2020

  10. [18]

    P . D. Willenshofer, M. A. Tunes, H. T . Vo, L. Stemper, M. Alfreider, O. Renk, G. Greaves, D. Kiener, P . J. Uggowitzer, S. Pogatscher, Radiation-resistant aluminum alloy for space missions in the extreme environment of the solar system, Advanced Materials 38 (20) (2026) e134...

    2026 doi

  11. [19]

    P . D. Willenshofer, M. A. Tunes, C. Kainz, O. Renk, T . M. Kremmer, S. Gneiger, P . J. Uggowitzer, S. Pogatscher, Precipitation behaviour in AlMgZnCuAg crossover alloy with coarse and ultrafine grains, Materials Research Letters 11 (12) (2023) 1063–1072.doi:10.1080/21663831.20...

    2023

  12. [21]

    M. A. Tunes, The Legacy and Future of Aluminum Alloys: Space Exploration and Extraterrestrial Set- tlement, ACS Materials Au 6 (1) (2026) 1–27, special issue: 2025 Rising Stars in Materials Science. doi:10.1021/acsmaterialsau.5c00139

    2026 doi

  13. [22]

    D. N. Baker, Satellite anomalies due to space storms, in: Space storms and space weather hazards, Springer, 2001, pp. 285–311.doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0983-6_11

    2001 doi

  14. [23]

    Holmes-Siedle, L

    A. Holmes-Siedle, L. Adams, Handbook of radiation effects, Oxford University Press, 2002.doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198507338.001.0001

    2002

  15. [24]

    Schwenn, Space weather: The solar perspective, Living Reviews in Solar Physics 3 (1) (2006) 1–72.doi:10.12942/lrsp-2006-2

    R. Schwenn, Space weather: The solar perspective, Living Reviews in Solar Physics 3 (1) (2006) 1–72.doi:10.12942/lrsp-2006-2

    2006 doi

  16. [25]

    Blasi, The origin of galactic cosmic rays, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 21 (1) (2013) 70.doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0070-7

    P . Blasi, The origin of galactic cosmic rays, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 21 (1) (2013) 70.doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0070-7

    2013 doi

  17. [26]

    N. A. Schwadron, F . Rahmanifard, J. Wilson, A. P . Jordan, H. E. Spence, C. J. Joyce, J. B. Blake, A. W. Case, W. de Wet, W. M. Farrell, J. C. Kasper, M. D. Looper, N. Lugaz, L. Mays, J. E. Mazur, J. Niehof, 25 N. Petro, C. W. Smith, L. W. Townsend, R. Winslow, C. Zeitlin, Up...

    2018 doi

  18. [27]

    Sznajder, Solar wind H + fluxes at 1 AU for solar cycles 23 and 24, Advances in Space Research 71 (11) (2023) 4923–4957.doi:10.1016/j.asr.2023.01.054

    M. Sznajder, Solar wind H + fluxes at 1 AU for solar cycles 23 and 24, Advances in Space Research 71 (11) (2023) 4923–4957.doi:10.1016/j.asr.2023.01.054

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    Ugwumadu, D

    C. Ugwumadu, D. A. Drabold, R. M. Tutchton, Effects of Galactic Irradiation on Thermal and Electronic Transport in Tungsten, physica status solidi (b) (2025) 2500109doi:10.1002/pssb. 202500109

    2025 doi

  20. [29]

    Lohmann, A

    W. Lohmann, A. Ribbens, W. F . Sommer, B. N. Singh, Microstructure and mechanical properties of medium energy (600-800 MeV) proton irradiated commercial aluminium alloys, Radiation Effects 101 (1-4) (1987) 283–299.doi:10.1080/00337578708224754

    1987 doi

  21. [30]

    G. Vogl, B. Weiss, Der einfluss von neutronenbestrahlung auf die ausscheidungskinetik iv einer übersättigten al-cu-legierung, Acta Metallurgica 13 (5) (1965) 578–582.doi:10.1016/ 0001-6160(65)90119-7

    1965

  22. [31]

    L. E. Katz, H. Herman, A. C. Damask, Precipitation in neutron-irradiated Al-base Cu, Acta Metallur- gica 16 (7) (1968) 939–945.doi:10.1016/0001-6160(68)90060-6

    1968 doi

  23. [32]

    K. S. Liu, O. Kawano, Y . Murakami, H. Yoshida, Structural changes in age-hardenable aluminium alloys induced by low temperature neutron irradiation, Radiation Effects 15 (1-2) (1972) 37–49.doi: 10.1080/00337577208232579

    1972 doi

  24. [33]

    Farrell, Microstructure and tensile properties of heavily irradiated 5052-0 aluminum alloy, Journal of Nuclear Materials 97 (1-2) (1981) 33–43.doi:10.1016/0022-3115(81)90415-3

    K. Farrell, Microstructure and tensile properties of heavily irradiated 5052-0 aluminum alloy, Journal of Nuclear Materials 97 (1-2) (1981) 33–43.doi:10.1016/0022-3115(81)90415-3

    1981 doi

  25. [34]

    Piatti, P

    G. Piatti, P . Fiorini, P . Schiller, High purity aluminium alloys for experimental fusion reactors, Nuclear Engineering and Design. Fusion 1 (2) (1984) 137–158.doi:10.1016/0167-899X(84)90036-3

    1984 doi

  26. [35]

    Böning, P

    K. Böning, P . Von Der Hardt, Physics and safety of advanced research reactors, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associ- ated Equipment 260 (1) (1987) 239–246.doi:10.1016/0168-9002(87)90408-6

    1987 doi

  27. [36]

    Z. Ismail, Effect of low dose neutron irradiation on the mechanical properties of an Al-Mg- Si alloy, Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids 112 (4) (1990) 105–110.doi:10.1080/ 10420159008213036

    1990

  28. [37]

    Ghauri, N

    I. Ghauri, N. Afzal, Effects of neutron irradiation on the stress relaxation rate in Al–Cu–Mg alloy, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 40 (19) (2007) 6044–6047.doi:10.1088/0022-3727/40/ 19/041

    2007 doi

  29. [38]

    Kolluri, Neutron irradiation effects in 5xxx and 6xxx series aluminum alloys: A literature review, in: W

    M. Kolluri, Neutron irradiation effects in 5xxx and 6xxx series aluminum alloys: A literature review, in: W. A. Monteiro (Ed.), Radiation Effects in Materials, IntechOpen, London, 2016, Ch. 15, p. 20. doi:10.5772/63294. 26

    2016 doi

  30. [39]

    El-Atwani, S

    O. El-Atwani, S. Gonderman, M. Efe, G. De Temmerman, T . Morgan, K. Bystrov, D. Klenosky, T . Qiu, J. Allain, Ultrafine tungsten as a plasma-facing component in fusion devices: effect of high flux, high fluence low energy helium irradiation, Nuclear Fusion 54 (8) (2014) 083013.do...

    2014

  31. [40]

    El-Atwani, J

    O. El-Atwani, J. Hinks, G. Greaves, S. Gonderman, T . Qiu, M. Efe, J. P . Allain, In-situ TEM observation of the response of ultrafine- and nanocrystalline-grained tungsten to extreme irradiation environ- ments, Scientific Reports 4 (1) (2014) 4716.doi:10.1038/srep04716

    2014 doi

  32. [41]

    El-Atwani, J

    O. El-Atwani, J. Nathaniel II, A. Leff, B. Muntifering, J. Baldwin, K. Hattar, M. Taheri, The role of grain size in He bubble formation: Implications for swelling resistance, Journal of Nuclear Materials 484 (2017) 236–244.doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2016.12.003

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    El-Atwani, J

    O. El-Atwani, J. S. Weaver, E. Esquivel, M. E. R. T . Efe, M. R. Chancey, Y . Q. Wang, S. A. Maloy, N. Mara, Nanohardness measurements of heavy ion irradiated coarse- and nanocrystalline-grained tungsten at room and high temperature, Journal of Nuclear Materials 509 (2018) 276...

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    Zhang, K

    X. Zhang, K. Hattar, Y . Chen, L. Shao, J. Li, C. Sun, K. Yu, N. Li, M. L. Taheri, H. Wang, et al., Radiation damage in nanostructured materials, Progress in Materials Science 96 (2018) 217–321.doi:10. 1016/j.pmatsci.2018.03.002

    2018

  35. [44]

    El Atwani, N

    O. El Atwani, N. Li, M. Li, A. Devaraj, J. K. S. Baldwin, M. M. Schneider, D. Sobieraj, J. S. Wró- bel, D. Nguyen-Manh, S. A. Maloy, et al., Outstanding radiation resistance of tungsten-based high- entropy alloys, Science Advances 5 (3) (2019) eaav2002.doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav2002

    2019 doi

  36. [45]

    C. M. Barr, O. El-Atwani, D. Kaoumi, K. Hattar, Interplay between grain boundaries and radiation damage, JOM 71 (2019) 1233–1244.doi:10.1007/s11837-019-03386-y

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    El-Atwani, W

    O. El-Atwani, W. S. Cunningham, J. R. Trelewicz, M. Li, B. D. Wirth, S. A. Maloy, Revealing the syn- ergistic effects of sequential and simultaneous dual beam irradiations in tungsten via in-situ TEM, Journal of Nuclear Materials 538 (2020) 152150.doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.152150

    2020

  38. [47]

    El Atwani, K

    O. El Atwani, K. Unal, W. S. Cunningham, S. Fensin, J. Hinks, G. Greaves, S. Maloy, In-situ helium implantation and TEM investigation of radiation tolerance to helium bubble damage in equiaxed nanocrystalline tungsten and ultrafine tungsten-TiC alloy, Materials 13 (3) (2020) 79...

    2020

  39. [48]

    El Atwani, W

    O. El Atwani, W. S. Cunningham, D. Perez, E. Martinez, J. R. Trelewicz, M. Li, S. A. Maloy, Temperature threshold for preferential bubble formation on grain boundaries in tungsten under in-situ helium irradiation, Scripta Materialia 180 (2020) 6–10.doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2020.04.032

    2020 doi

  40. [49]

    El-Atwani, A

    O. El-Atwani, A. Alvarado, K. Unal, S. Fensin, J. A. Hinks, G. Greaves, J. K. S. Baldwin, S. A. Maloy, E. Martinez, Helium implantation damage resistance in nanocrystalline W-Ta-V-Cr high entropy al- loys, Materials Today Energy 19 (2021) 100599.doi:10.1016/j.mtener.2020.100599. 27

    2021

  41. [50]

    El Atwani, H

    O. El Atwani, H. T . Vo, M. A. Tunes, C. Lee, A. Alvarado, N. Krienke, J. D. Poplawsky, A. A. Kohnert, J. Gigax, W. Y . Chen, M. Li, Y . Q. Wang, J. S. Wróbel, D. Nguyen-Manh, J. K. S. Baldwin, O. U. Tukac, E. Aydogan, S. Fensin, M. J. Martinez, A quinary WTaCrVHf nanocrystall...

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    V . K. C. Iyengar, Modelling of the thermal environment and subsystem for a 6U cubesat in GTO orbit, Ph.D. thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Space Technology (2020).doi:10.1007/ s42401-020-00050-1. URLhttps://ltu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1656420

    2020

  43. [52]

    Juhasz, An analysis and procedure for determining space environmental sink temperatures with selected computational results, in: Collection of Technical Papers

    A. Juhasz, An analysis and procedure for determining space environmental sink temperatures with selected computational results, in: Collection of Technical Papers. 35th Intersociety Energy Conver- sion Engineering Conference and Exhibit (IECEC) (Cat. No.00CH37022), Vol. 2, Ame...

  44. [53]

    D. B. Williams, C. B. Carter, The Transmission Electron Microscope: A Textbook for Materials Sci- ence, Springer, 2009.doi:10.1007/978-0-387-76501-3

    2009 doi

  45. [54]

    F . J. Humphreys, M. Ferry, I. Brough, C. P . Johnson, Combinedin situSEM annealing and EBSD of deformed materials, Texture, Stress, and Microstructure 26 (1) (1996) 102961.doi:10.1155/TSM. 26-27.281

    1996 doi

  46. [55]

    Helbert, W

    A. Helbert, W. Wang, F . Brisset, T . Baudin, R. Penelle,In situEBSD investigation of recrystallization in a partially annealed and cold-rolled aluminum alloy of commercial purity, Advanced Engineering Materials 14 (1-2) (2012) 39–44.doi:10.1002/adem.201100165

    2012 doi

  47. [56]

    K. F . Adam, Z. Long, D. P . Field, Analysis of particle-stimulated nucleation (PSN)-dominated recrys- tallization for hot-rolled 7050 aluminum alloy, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A 48 (4) (2017) 2062–2076.doi:10.1007/s11661-017-3967-3

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    Chakkedath, D

    A. Chakkedath, D. Hernández-Escobar, C. J. Boehlert, In-situ observations of recrystallization and microstructural evolution in cerium-containing rolled magnesium alloys, International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 1 (4) (2018) 256–264.doi:10.1016/j.ijlmm.20...

    2018 doi

  49. [58]

    Q. He, T . Huang, L. Shuai, Y . Zhang, G. Wu, X. Huang, D. J. Jensen,In-situinvestigation of the evolution of annealing twins in high purity aluminium, Scripta Materialia 153 (2018) 68–72.doi: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2018.04.034

    2018 doi

  50. [59]

    Takajo, C

    S. Takajo, C. C. Merriman, S. C. Vogel, D. P . Field, In-situ EBSD study on the cube texture evolution in 3 wt% Si steel complemented by ex-situ EBSD experiment — From nucleation to grain growth, Acta Materialia 166 (2019) 100–112.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2018.11.054

    2019 doi

  51. [60]

    K. F . Adam, D. P . Field, Analyzing recrystallization behavior of heterogeneous structures single- phase Al alloys, Materialia 19 (2021) 101190.doi:10.1016/j.mtla.2021.101190. 28

    2021

  52. [61]

    P . D. Willenshofer, D. S. R. Coradini, O. Renk, P . J. Uggowitzer, M. A. Tunes, S. Pogatscher, Compar- ative analysis of experimental techniques for microstructural characterization of novel nanostruc- tured aluminium alloys, Materials Characterization 215 (2024) 114154.doi:1...

    2024

  53. [62]

    W. C. Lenthe, S. Singh, M. De Graef, A spherical harmonic transform approach to the indexing of electron back-scattered diffraction patterns, Ultramicroscopy 207 (2019) 112841.doi:10.1016/ j.ultramic.2019.112841

    2019

  54. [63]

    Bachmann, R

    F . Bachmann, R. Hielscher, H. Schaeben, Texture analysis with MTEX–free and open source software toolbox, Solid state phenomena 160 (2010) 63–68.doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/ssp. 160.63

    2010 doi

  55. [64]

    Singh, S

    M. Singh, S. Lara, S. Tlali, Effects of size and shape on the specific heat, melting entropy and en- thalpy of nanomaterials, Journal of Taibah University for Science 11 (6) (2017) 922–929.doi: 10.1016/j.jtusci.2016.09.011

    2017 doi

  56. [65]

    van Teijlingen, S

    A. van Teijlingen, S. A. Davis, S. R. Hall, Size-dependent melting point depression of nickel nanopar- ticles, Nanoscale Advances 2 (6) (2020) 2439–2446.doi:10.1039/D0NA00153H

    2020 doi

  57. [66]

    D. S. R. Coradini, M. A. Tunes, C. Quick, P . D. Willenshofer, T . M. Kremmer, S. Luidold, P . J. Uggowitzer, S. Pogatscher, Unravelling nanometallurgy with in situ transmission electron microscopy: A case- study with copper nanowires, Nano Today 59 (2024) 102485.doi:10.1016/j...

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    El-Atwani, H

    O. El-Atwani, H. Kim, C. Harvey, M. Efe, S. A. Maloy, Limitations of thermal stability analysis via in- situ TEM/heating experiments, Nanomaterials 11 (10) (2021) 2541.doi:10.3390/nano11102541

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

    Pogatscher, H

    S. Pogatscher, H. Antrekowitsch, H. Leitner, T . Ebner, P . Uggowitzer, Mechanisms controlling the artificial aging of al–mg–si alloys, Acta Materialia 59 (9) (2011) 3352–3363.doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.actamat.2011.02.010

    2011 doi

  60. [69]

    Dutta, S

    I. Dutta, S. Allen, A calorimetric study of precipitation in commercial aluminium alloy 6061, Journal of materials science letters 10 (6) (1991) 323–326.doi:10.1007/bf00719697

    1991 doi

  61. [70]

    Edwards, K

    G. Edwards, K. Stiller, G. Dunlop, M. Couper, The precipitation sequence in Al–Mg–Si alloys, Acta materialia 46 (11) (1998) 3893–3904.doi:10.1016/s1359-6454(98)00059-7

    1998 doi

  62. [71]

    R. S. Yassar, D. P . Field, H. Weiland, Transmission electron microscopy and differential scanning calorimetry studies on the precipitation sequence in an al–mg–si alloy: Aa6022, Journal of Materi- als Research 20 (10) (2005) 2705–2711.doi:10.1557/JMR.2005.0330

    2005

  63. [72]

    Dumitraschkewitz, S

    P . Dumitraschkewitz, S. S. Gerstl, L. T . Stephenson, P . J. Uggowitzer, S. Pogatscher, Clustering in age-hardenable aluminum alloys, Advanced Engineering Materials 20 (10) (2018) 1800255.doi: 10.1002/adem.201800255. 29

    2018 doi

  64. [73]

    G. Sha, K. Tugcu, X. Liao, P . Trimby, M. Murashkin, R. Valiev, S. Ringer, Strength, grain refinement and solute nanostructures of an al–mg–si alloy (aa6060) processed by high-pressure torsion, Acta Materialia 63 (2014) 169–179.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2013.10.022

    2014 doi

  65. [74]

    Andersen, H

    S. Andersen, H. Zandbergen, J. Jansen, C. TrÆholt, U. Tundal, O. Reiso, The crystal structure of theβ ′′ phase in al–mg–si alloys, Acta Materialia 46 (9) (1998) 3283–3298.doi:10.1016/ s1359-6454(97)00493-x

    1998

  66. [75]

    Aluminum 6061-T6; 6061-T651 – ASM Material Data Sheet

    MatWeb, LLC, “Aluminum 6061-T6; 6061-T651 – ASM Material Data Sheet”, Online material- datasheet, available at:https://asm.matweb.com/search/specificmaterial.asp? bassnum=ma6061t6(accessed 24 November 2025) (accessed 2025).doi:10.4271/ams4027f

    2025 doi

  67. [76]

    S. I. Wright, M. M. Nowell, EBSD image quality mapping, Microscopy and microanalysis 12 (1) (2006) 72–84.doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927606060090

    2006 doi

  68. [77]

    Godfrey, O

    A. Godfrey, O. V . Mishin, T . Yu, Characterization and influence of deformation microstructure hetero- geneity on recrystallization, in: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 89, IOP Publishing, 2015, p. 012003.doi:10.1088/1757-899X/89/1/012003

    2015 doi

  69. [78]

    A. D. Brailsford, R. Bullough, The rate theory of swelling due to void growth in irradiated metals, Journal of Nuclear Materials 44 (2) (1972) 121–135.doi:10.1016/0022-3115(72)90091-8

    1972 doi

  70. [79]

    A. D. Brailsford, Diffusion to a random array of identical spherical sinks, Journal of Nuclear Materials 60 (3) (1976) 257–278.doi:10.1016/0022-3115(76)90140-9

    1976 doi

  71. [80]

    A. D. Brailsford, R. Bullough, M. R. Hayns, Point defect sink strengths and void-swelling, Journal of Nuclear Materials 60 (3) (1976) 246–256.doi:10.1016/0022-3115(76)90139-2

    1976 doi

  72. [81]

    Bullough, M

    R. Bullough, M. R. Hayns, M. H. Wood, Sink strengths for thin film surfaces and grain boundaries, Journal of Nuclear Materials 90 (1–3) (1980) 44–59.doi:10.1016/0022-3115(80)90244-5

    1980 doi

  73. [82]

    Aradi, M

    E. Aradi, M. A. Tunes, J. Lewis-Fell, G. Greaves, H. Antrekowitsch, S. Pogatscher, S. E. Donnelly, J. A. Hinks, Radiation damage suppression in AISI-316 steel nanoparticles: Implications for the design of future nuclear materials, ACS Applied Nano Materials 3 (10) (2020) 9652–...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.