You are on page 1of 4

Materials Science and Engineering, 80 (1986) L l l - L 1 4 Lll


On the grain boundary conditions for grain controlled by grain boundary diffusion [2],
boundary sliding in superplastic deformation the annihilation of a specific number of dislo-
cations in grain boundaries should somehow
R. A. VARIN affect grain boundary sliding, especially in ul-
trafine-grained materials exhibiting a super-
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 (Canada) plasticity effect. It is well known that, in su-
perplastic deformation, 50%-70% of the total
K. J. KURZYDLOWSKI deformation is produced by grain boundary
Institute of Materials Science and Engineering, sliding [3]. Therefore, the above-mentioned
Warsaw Technical University, 02-524 Warsaw, relationship between the formation and
Narbutta 85 (Poland) spreading of EGBDs is being pursued in the
present letter in more detail to explore the
specific grain boundary conditions necessary
Metallurgical Sciences Laboratories, University of to achieve substantial grain boundary sliding
Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2 (Canada) in superplastic materials. However, before
(Received September 4, 1985; in revised form these conditions are discussed, a brief discus-
December 30, 1985) sion regarding the physical mechanisms of
grain boundary sliding is necessary.

Grain boundary sliding (GBS) is analysed ARY SLIDING
in terms o f the rate o f formation and the rate
o f spreading o f extrinsic grain boundary dis- It is now widely accepted that grain bound-
locations (EGBDs). It is calculated employing ary sliding is a direct result of the movement
a mathematical model derived in such a way in the boundary plane of structural grain
that in superplastic alloys, where GBS is a pri- boundary dislocations (SGBDs) with the Bur-
mary deformation mode, the rate o f EGBD gers vectors characterized in the DSC lattice
spreading is at least equal to or higher than (see for instance ref. 4). Any large-angle (ran-
the rate o f EGBD formation, right from the dom) grain boundary can be formally described
onset o f superplastic deformation. This condi- as deviating from a specific coincident site
tion seems to be a necessary condition to lattice misorientation (designated by Z) and
achieve a substantial a m o u n t o f GBS. as such it can contain a network of SGBDs
(see the recent review by Gleiter [5] ). It is
argued that lattice dislocations can lower their
1. INTRODUCTION elastic energy by dissociation in the boundary
to form SGBDs which contribute to grain
In the previous letter [ 1 ], evidence was pre- boundary sliding.
sented that the mechanical behaviour of poly- One of the formal models of grain bound-
crystalline austenitic stainless steel at elevated ary sliding based on the movement of SGBDs
temperatures (short-term properties) was developed by Ashby [6] predicts that the slid-
strongly affected by the relative rate of the ing r a t e / ] is directly proportional to the Bur-
formation and spreading of extrinsic grain gers vector bb of SGBDs:
boundary dislocations (EGBDs) during plastic
deformation. = PbbV (1)
Since the spreading of EGBDs during plas- where p is the linear density of SGBDs and v
tic deformation at elevated temperatures is their velocity. As the Burgers vector bb gener-

0025-5416[86/$3.50 Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands


ally decreases with increasing Z value (see ref. 3. CONDITIONS FOR DISLOCATION FORMA-
7), it could be expected in accord with eqn. TION AND SPREADING DURING GRAIN BOUND-
(1) that low Z boundaries (large bb) should ARY SLIDING
slide more easily than random grain boundaries
with large ~ misorientations and very small It was shown in a previous letter [1] that a
bb vectors. However, at this point a strong dis- significant decay (down to about 10% of the
crepancy with the experimental observations original plateau stress) in the yield stress of
arises. There is ample experimental evidence t y p e 316 austenitic steel occurred when the
provided recently by Kokawa et al. [8, 9] and condition
Watanabe [10] that the amount of sliding at
grain boundaries close to coincidence misori- EGBDsI~ead ~ pEGBDformed (2)
entations is much smaller than that at random
(general) boundaries. was fulfilled. The physical meaning of this
condition is that grain boundaries become
Following Kokawa et al. [8] it could be
perfect sinks for lattice dislocations.
argued that a random boundary might absorb
Now, it is interesting to know what are the
more lattice dislocations per unit strain than a
conditions for dislocation formation and
special boundary at the same deformation
spreading when substantial grain boundary
temperature because the spreading is generally
sliding occurs during superplastic deforma-
easier in random boundaries. This, in turn,
might compensate (larger p in eqn. (1)) for a
Using the relationship detailed in ref. 1 and
smaller bb value in random boundaries. How-
given b y
ever, at some transition temperature the effi-
ciency for absorption of both types of bound-
ary should become the same. Such a behav- td=ATd exP(R~db ) --
iour is not observed experimentally. Accord-
ing to recent results of Watanabe et al. [11] -- the spreading time of EGBDs (3)
obtained on zinc bicrystals, the average sliding where
rate for special boundaries is always substan-
tially lower than that for random boundaries 11ks
h = (4)
up to the melting temperature. IG~Do b
It seems therefore that the description o f
grain b o u n d a r y sliding at random boundaries
~ EGBDfonned ----
by the movement of SGBDs cannot satisfac-
torily explain the largest amount of sliding
observed experimentally. It is suggested here eg the rate of formation of EGBDs (5)
that grain boundary sliding is a direct conse-
quence of the spreading of the cores of a ~EGBns~ea d = pEGBD d~
large number of EGBDs as they are formed, v dt
for example, from lattice dislocations imping-
ing on grain boundaries at elevated tempera- - - the rate of spreading of EGBDs (6)
tures. The atomistic model of this mechanism pEGBDv = Pm
may be similar either to that presented by
Johannesson and Th51en [12] or to that given = e g _ the density of EGBDs per unit
more recently by Lojkowski [13] and Loj- bd volume (7)
kowski and Grabski [14]. However, both of
these models yield essentially similar equa- the values o f ~5EGsD~o~m~aand ~EGBDs~eaa (for
tions to describe the kinetics of the spreading e = 0.002) were both calculated for several
process. superplastic alloys on the assumption that the
In view of the above discussion, it is con- core of the EGBD is spread o u t up to Sm =
cluded that random grain boundaries, rather 5 10 -8 m. The results of these calculations
than special boundaries, play a major role in are listed in Table 1. There is a lack of diffu,
superplastic deformation as they can provide sion data for superplastic alloys and therefore
a substantial amount of grain boundary the diffusion parameters for pure elements
sliding. were taken for calculations. However, employ-

Parameters of superplastic deformation and the data on the rate of formation of extrinsic grain boundary disloca-
tions and the rate of their spreading for several superplastic alloys

Material Mean Temperature Strain rate M a x i m u m pEGBDo pEGBDspread Reference

(wt.%) grain size ofsuperplastic ( 10-4 s-1) deformation (m-1 S-~ tlled (e = 0.002)
(pro) deformation (%) (m-1 s-1 )

Pb-62Sn 3 298 5 500 5.5 X 105 4.1 X 102 (Pb) [15]

3.1 X 106 (Sn)
Pb-62Sn 6.9 413 1.33 4850 1.5 X105 2.1x105(Pb) [16]
8.8 x 107 (Sn)
Zn-22A1 2.5 473 66 2900 7.3106 2.9107(Zn) [17]
1.3 X 10 s (A1)
Mg-33A1 2.2 673 330 2100 3.7 X107 7.2x 107(Mg) [18]
1.5 X 109 (A1)
Mg-33A1 2.2 673 3330 830 3.7X10 s 7.2X107(Mg) [18]
1.5 X 109 (A1)
Mg-l.5Mn- 10 673 84 310 9.3X106 1.6 X107(Mg) [19]
Al-33Cu 1.5 743 0.02 1200 2.2X103 3.5x 109(A1) [20]

The following parameters were taken for the calculations: 6 = 5 10-10 m;Sm = 5 X 10-s m (500/~); for lead,
zk/-/b = 65.7 kJ tool -1 [21], D 0 b = 0.81 10 -4 m 2 s-1, G = 0.56 1010 N m-2 [22] and ~ = 30.3 X 10-30 m 3 ; for
tin, ZM-/b= 39.96 kJ tool -1 [21], D0b = 6.44 X 10- 6 m 2 s-1 [21], G = 1.84 1010 N m-2 [22] and ~ = 27.05 X
10-30 m3; for zinc, zSJ-/b= 60.7 kJ tool -1 [21], D0b ~ 0.3 x 10-4 m 2 s-1 (an average of the values in ref. 21), G =
4.2 X 1010 N m -2 [22] and ~ = 15.2 x 10 -30 m 3 ; for aluminum, ~ / b = 35 kJ tool -1 [23], D0 b ~ 0.003 X 10 -4 m 2
s-1 [23], G = 2.6 X 101 N m-2 [22] and ~'~ = 16.61 X 10-3o m3; for magnesium, 5Db = 15 X 10-21 m 3 s-1 [19],
G = l . 7 3 X 1 0 l N m - 2 [ 2 2 ] a n d s = 23 X 10- 3 m 3.

ing the d a t a f o r alloys (if available) w o u l d n o t faces per unit v o l u m e and as such a large area
significantly c h a n g e t h e c o n c l u s i o n s d r a w n as f o r E G B D s to spread and to result in grain
t h e values o f pEGBDformed and pEGBDspread f o r b o u n d a r y sliding. Also, it is seen f r o m eqns.
d i f f u s i o n in alloys s h o u l d lie s o m e w h e r e in be- (6) and (7) t h a t the rate ~bEGBDs~ead o f spread-
t w e e n t h e values for p u r e elements. ing increases with decreasing grain size and
t h e c o n d i t i o n expressed b y eqn. (2) is fulfilled
m o r e easily.
Finally, it s h o u l d be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t the
T h e striking f e a t u r e o f the results p r e s e n t e d p r e s e n t e d h y p o t h e s i s o f grain b o u n d a r y slid-
in Table 1 is t h a t f r o m t h e very beginning o f ing as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f E G B D s is in g o o d
superplastic d e f o r m a t i o n (e = 0 . 0 0 2 ) t h e rate qualitative a g r e e m e n t with such e x p e r i m e n t a l
~sEGSDs~ead o f spreading o f E G B D s is at least o b s e r v a t i o n s as t h e absence o f a n y grain shape
equal to or higher t h a n t h e rate pEGBDformed o f c h a n g e and associated grain r o t a t i o n during
their f o r m a t i o n . Physically, this m e a n s t h a t superplastic d e f o r m a t i o n . Beere [24, 25] anal-
grain b o u n d a r i e s act as p e r f e c t sinks f o r dislo- ysed the d e f o r m a t i o n o f an aggregate o f cube
cations right f r o m t h e o n s e t o f superplastic grains as having d i f f e r e n t resistances t o sliding
d e f o r m a t i o n . These results t h e r e f o r e seem t o at t h e boundaries. It was s h o w n that, if one
indicate clearly t h a t the pEGBDsPread set o f interfaces had a greater resistance to
pEGBDforraed c o n d i t i o n w h i c h is fulfilled right sliding, t h e n a given strain c o u l d be achieved
f r o m t h e beginning o f d e f o r m a t i o n is in fact a o n l y b y allowing the grains t o rotate. Within
necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r achieving a substantial t h e f r a m e w o r k o f o u r m o d e l , grain b o u n d a r i e s
a m o u n t o f grain b o u n d a r y sliding. O b v i o u s l y , with a greater resistance to sliding are special
t h e a m o u n t o f sliding o b t a i n e d will d e p e n d b o u n d a r i e s at w h i c h the E G B D spreading pro-
m a c r o s c o p i c a l l y on t h e grain size. Ultrafine- cess is k n o w n t o be m o r e difficult t h a n t h a t at
grained materials have a high d e n s i t y o f sur- r a n d o m grain b o u n d a r i e s [26, 27].

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 12 T. Johannesson and D. ThSlen, Philos. Mag., 21

(1970) 1223.
This work has been supported by Natural 13 W. Lojkowski, Ph.D. Thesis, Warsaw Technical
University, 1980.
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
14 W. Lojkowski and M. W. Grabski, in N. Hansen,
Canada grants which are gratefully acknow- A. Horsewell, T. Leffers and H. Lilholt (eds.),
ledged. Deformation of Polycrystais: Mechanisms and
Microstructures, Proc. 2nd Ris~ Int. Syrup. on
Metallurgy and Materials Science, September 14-
18, 1981, Ris~b National Laboratory, Ris~b, 1981,
15 A. E. Geckinli and C. R. Barret, J. Mater. Sci., 11
1 R. A. Varin, K. J. Kurzydlowski and K. Tangri, (1976) 510.
Mater. Sci. Eng., 80 (1986) LS-L9. 16 M.M.I. Ahmed and T. G. Langdon, Metall. Trans.
2 R. A. Varin and E. Romanowska-Haftek, Proc. A, 8 (1977) 1832.
4th JIM Int. Symp. on Grain Boundary Structure 17 H. Ishikawa, F. A. Mohamed and T. G. Langdon,
and Related Phenomena, November 25-29, 1985, Philos. Mag., 32 (1975) 1269.
Minakami-Spa, Japan Institute of Metals, Tokyo, 18 D. Lee, Acta Metall., 17 (1960) 1057.
in the press. 19 R. Z. Valley, D. A. Kaybyshev and V. I. Sergeyev,
3 J. Weertman and J. R. Weertman, in R. W. Cahn Phys. Met. Metallogr. (Engl. Transl.), 49 (1980)
and P. Haasen (eds.), Physical Me tallurgy, North- 144.
Holland, Amsterdam, 1983, Chapter 20, p. 1335. 20 G. Rai and N. J. Grant, Metall. Trans. A, 6 (1975)
4 P. R. Howell and G. L. Dunlop, in B. Wilshire and 385.
D. R. Owen (eds.),Proc. Int. Conf. on the Creep 21 E. A. Brandes (ed.), Metals Reference Book,
and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Struc- Butterworths, London, 1983, pp. 13-94, Table
tures, Swansea, March 24-27, 1981, Pineridge, 13.5.
Swansea, 1981, p. 127. 22 H. E. Boyer and T. L. Gall (eds.), Metals Hand-
5 H. Gleiter, Mater. Sci. Eng., 52 (1982) 91. book, American Society for Metals, Metals Park,
6 M. F. Ashby, Surf. Sci., 31 (1972) 498. OH, 1985, p. 216, Table 1.
7 Y. Ishida and M. McLean, Philos. Mag., 27 (1973) 23 M. Jurisch, Ph.D. Thesis, Freiberg University,
1125. 1969; H. Gleiter, Prog. Mater. Sci., 16 (1972) 88.
8 H. Kokawa, T. Watanabe and S. Karashima, 24 W. Beere, J. Mater. Sei., 12 (1977) 2093.
Philos. Mag. A, 44 (1981)1239. 25 W. Beere, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Set. A,
9 H. Kokawa, T. Watanabe and S. Karashima, Scr. 228 (1978) 177.
Metall., 1 7 (1983) 1155. 26 R. A. Varin, Phys. Status SolidiA, 51 (1979)
10 T. Watanabe, Metall. Trans. A, 14 (1983) 531. K189.
11 T. Watanabe, S.-I. Kimura and S. Karashima, 27 R. A. Varin, Phys. Status Solidi A, 73 (1982)
Philos. Mag. A, 49 (1984) 845. K51.