Exit console
Creep — deformation mechanism map

Ashby/Frost deformation map · σ/G vs T/T_melt

Identify which deformation mechanism dominates at the design state — plastic yield, dislocation creep (Norton power-law), diffusional creep (Coble at high σ, Nabarro-Herring at low σ), or elastic. Drives whether you need creep-rupture analysis or a yield-based check.

Inputs

°C
GPa
°C
MPa
creep-resistant

Results

Deformation mechanism map · Ashby/Frost
IDEAL YIELDELASTIC (cold)DISLOCATION CREEPDIFFUSIONAL CREEP(0.46, -3.0)0.00.20.40.60.81.010⁻¹10⁻²10⁻³10⁻⁴10⁻⁵10⁻⁶10⁻⁷homologous temperature T/T_melt (K/K)normalised stress σ/G (log)Ashby & Frost 1982 · simplified Norton-style boundaries · ideal-yield ≈ G/300
T_op/T_m = 0.46 · σ/G = 1.00e-3 · operating in: DISLOCATION CREEP
Homologous T (T/T_m)0.464
σ/G ratio1.00e-3
Active mechanismDISLOCATION CREEP (Norton power-law)
Interpretation: T/T_m < 0.4 ⇒ no creep concern; check yield only. T/T_m > 0.4 with σ/G > 10⁻⁵ ⇒ dislocation creep dominates; do Norton power-law / Larson-Miller life budgeting. T/T_m > 0.4 with σ/G < 10⁻⁵ ⇒ diffusional creep (Coble grain-boundary at low T, Nabarro-Herring lattice at high T). For full Robinson cumulative damage analysis run /console/creep.
Download all inputs + calculations + outputs as a single PDF.