Scripta METALLURGICA Vol. 19, pp. 927-930, 1985 P e r g a m o n Press Ltd.

P r i n t e d in the U.S.A. All rights r e s e r v e d

NUCLEATION AND GROWTH KINETICS OF DIFFERENT RECRYSTALLIZATION TEXTURE COMPONENTS

Roger D. Doherty
Department of Materials Engineering
Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104
(Received March 14, 1985)
(Revised June 4, 1985)
The kinetics of nucleation and growth reactions, derived by Johnson and Mehl (i) and by Avrami(2),
have been applied to many reactions, see Christian(3). However, the use of the mathematical
analysis does not seem to have been applied to determination of the relative amounts of different
components of the final structure. An obvious application of such an analysis is the estimation
of the relative amounts of different texture components in a recrystallized microstructure. There
are two rival hypotheses for the development of recrystallized textures from textured deformed
metals - "Oriented Nucleation" (4) and "Oriented Growth" (5).
For the Oriented Nucleation Hypothesis it is argued that the the development of a strong recrystal-
lization texture arises from the preferential nucleation of new grains whose orientation are close
to that of the ideal recrystallization texture component - for example, the so called "cube" tex-
ture often found after recrystallization of rolled f.c.c, metals. The cube texture is one with
{I00} parallel to the rolling plane and <i00> parallel to the rolling direction. If the nuclea-
tion rate of special grains is Iv(i) and of grains with random orientation is Iv(j) then the
oriented nucleation hypothesis requires that:
Iv(i) = a Iv (j) with ~ >> er eq. 1
e is the oriented nucleation texture parameter, while er is its value if component i were to have
the same nucleation rate as all other orientations. The grains that give rise to the special com-
ponent such as {001}<i00> are those close to the ideal orientation but the magnitude of the allowed
deviations from ideality may be quite large, 5 ° or i0 ° away from either the ideal orientation of
the rolling plane and direction. The magnitude of these allowed deviations is of course arbitary
and may be chosen in different ways for different purposes. A particular choice of the allowed
maximum misorientation will be required before the values of ~ and ~r can be determined in a given
experimental situation. *
The Oriented Growth Hypothesis argues that the development of the recrystallization texture com-
ponent arises from an enhanced rate of growth of the special component, G(i), compared to the rate
of growth of grains of all other orientation, G(j); that is:
G(i) = ~ G(j) with 8 >> 1 eq. 2
8 is the oriented growth texture parameter.
In some recent experiments Fricke and McShane (7) introduced a very interesting new approach to the
study of textures. They measured, by use of Crystallite Orientation Distribution Function (CODF)
techniques (8,9), the decay of deformation texture components and the development of the recrystal-
lization components as a function of the total volume fraction recrystallized. Other workers, for
exai~ple Hansen et al. (i0,ii), have also studied the kinetics of texture change as a means of
investigatinq recrystallization. The material Fricke and McShane(7) investigated was an aluminium
alloy 3004 (I wt % Mn, 0.4 wt % Fe, 0.15 wt % Si and 0.15 wt % Cu), hot rolled to a total strain
of 5 and recrystallized in a salt bath at 343 ° C. As expected, the cube component was found to be
the strongest recrystallization texture component, though there were other components. However,
the striking result reported was the linear relationship between the cube texture component and
the total fraction recrystallized with the latter determined by optical metallography. Other weak-
er recrystallization components such as the Goss texture {011}<100> also showed a linear increase

•MacKenzie(6) has calculated, for a cubic crystal structure, the probability of a grain being
within a certain misorientation (AS) from an arbitary orientation. For A8 of 5 °, ~r = 0.0009
and for 15 ° er = 0.023.

927
0 0 3 6 - 9 7 4 8 / 8 5 $3.00 + .00
C o p y r i g h t (c) 1985 P e r g a m o n Press Ltd.
928 NUCLEATION AND GROWTH KINETICS AND TEXTURE Vol. 19, No. 8

with fraction recrystallized. The deformation texture components were found to decrease linearly
with fraction recrystallized. Recent work by Juul Jensen et al. (ii) also found a linear increase
in cube texture with fraction recrystallized in a 90% cold rolled commercial purity aluminium.
An intuitive conclusion easily drawn from the results of Fricke and McShane (7), and one that was
initially drawn by the author of this note, is that their observations are in conflict with the
predictions of oriented growth. The basis for this idea was the expectation that as the volume of
a growing spherical grain increases with the cube of its radius:
V = 4 7 r3/3 = 4 7 (G t) 3/3 eq. 3
oriented growth should lead to the volume of specially oriented grains increasing in a higher than
linear mariner with the volume fraction recrystallized. However, quantitative analysis of the kin-
etics given below shows that this intuitive expectation is in error. Provided that the time de-
pendence of nucleation and growth is the same for special and random grains then a linear relation-
ship between a special orientation and the total volume fraction recrystallized is predicted for
both oriented nucleation and oriented growth. The analysis ~presented shows how the intensity of
particular texture components can be predicted on the basis of both oriented nucleation and orient-
ed growth parameters.
Analysis
In order to calculate the kinetics of nucleation and growth reactions the mathematical approach is
to calculate an extended volume of new grains - that is the volume they would occupy if there were
no loss of the unreerystallized matrix. The idea is applied here to the two components of the re-
crystallized structure, grains with a special orientation, i, and those with all other orienta-
tions, j. Three conditions are treated here: (A) All nuclei form at time t = O, (B) Nuclei form
at a constant rate - with constant growth rates in A and B, and (C) All nuclei form at t = O, but
with a falling growth rate.
Condition A. Here Iv(i) and Iv(j) are the density of the nuclei, #/m 3 . The extended volume of
the specially oriented nuclei, Ve(i), and the randomly oriented nuclei, Ve(j), are given by:
Ve(i) = 4 7Iv(i) G(i) 3 t3/3 and Ve(j) = 47Iv(j) G~j)'3 £3/3 eqs. 4a and 4b
These are volume fractions, m3/m 3 , since the nucleation density is #/m 3 . The true volume fractions
of both conponents, V(i) and V(j) are obtained from the assumption that the small increments of
dV(i) and dV(j) that actually take place are related to the increments in the
extended volumes by the fraction untransformed [l-V(t)], where V(t) is the total volume fraction
recrystallized. The validity of the correction requires that the nucleation sites of both com-
penents are randomly distributed. We then obtain:
dV(i) = dVe(i) [i - V(t)] and dV(j) = dVe(j) [l-V(t)] eq. 5
The total volume fractions, both true, V(t), and extended, re(t), are the sums of the two compon-
ents.
V(t) = V(i) + V!j) and Ve(t) = Ve(i) + Ve(j) eq. 6
and so: dV(t) = dYe (t) [i - V(t)] eq. 7
Integration of equation 7, and use of equations 4a and 4b, gives the result:
- In[l - V(t)] = Ve(t) = 4 Iv(j)G(j)3t3(l + ~83)/3 eq. 8
and so: V(t) = 1 -exp {-4/37Iv(j)G(j)3(l + ~83) = 1 - exp {At 3 } eq. 9
The parameter A is given by: A = -(4/3) ~Iv(j) G(j)3 (I + ~83) eq. 10
The volume fraction of the special component is obtained from equations 5 and 9 as:
dV(i) = dVe(i) exp { At 3 } eq. ii
The differential of re(i) is obtained from equation 4a:
dVe(i) = 47Iv(i)G(i)3t 2 dt = 47 ~83 Iv(j)G(j)3t 2 dt = B t ~ dt eq. 12
Where the parameter B is given by: B = 47 e83 Iv(j) G(j) 3 eq. 13
So equation ii becomes: d V(i) = B t2(exp { At3})dt eq. lla
Vol. 19, No. 8 NUCLEATION AND GROWTH KINETICS AND TEXTURE 929

Integration of equation lla from t = O, when V(i) = O, to time t gives:

V(i) = (exp { At 3} - i) B/3A eq. 14
Substitution of the values of A and B into equation 14 gives:
V(i) = [ e83/(l+eS~)] [ 1 - exp{[-(4/3)zl(j) G(j) 3 (l+e83)t3}] eq. 14
and so: V(i) = [ e83/(l+e83)] V(t) eq. 14a
Condition B. Here the nuclei of both components are assumed to form at constant rates in the un-
transformed volume. In this condition Iv(i) and Iv(j) have the units of #/m3.s. By the usual
analysis of this problem (1-3) the extended volumes of special and oriented nuclei are here given
by:
Ve(i) = ~Iv(i)G(i)3t4/3 and Ve(j) = ~Iv(j)G(j)3t4/3 eq. 15
Proceeding exactly as before we obtain the following relationships:
V(t) = 1 - exp { -(~/3)Iv(j)G(j)3(l + e83) t 4} eq. 16
V(i) = [~83/( ~83)] [ l - exp {- (~/3) Iv(j)3(l+~83) t4}] eq. 17
and so again: V(i) = [e83/(l+s83) ] V(t) eq. 17a
Condition C. If all the nuclei form at t = O, as in condition A, but they have a falling growth
rate, for example with dr/dt = 0.5 G/t 0"5, r = Gt 0"5, perhaps due to recovery reducing the driv-
ing force for growth of the new grains, then equations 4a and b become:
Ve(i) = 4 ~Iv(i)G(i) 1"5 t 1"5 /3 and Ve (j) = 4 ~Iv (j)G(j)l'5t 1"5 /3 eq. 18
The Avrami time exponent derived in this condition is only 1.5(3); but in recrystallization the
time exponents seen are usually much less than 3, often being between 1 and 2 (i0,ii). Fricke
and McShane(7) report exponents of 1.75 from metallography and 1.65 from the annealing texture.
The final equation then becomes:
V(i) = [e81-5/(i+~81-5)] V(t) eq. 19
These results of all these calculations show that, provided the texture nucleation parameter
and the texture growth parameter 8 remain constant during recrystallization, there will be a
linear relationship between the volume of the special component V(i) and total fraction recrystal-
lized V(t) (equations 14a, 17a and 19). The physical origin of this result is now seen as occur-
ing because both components of the recrystallization texture were given the same time dependence..
So even though the volume fractions of the two components have non linear time dependences, the
ratio of the volume fractions stays constant. A constant ratio is that found experimentally
(7,11). Sadly, therefore, the present analysis shows that this result could come from either
oriented nucleation or oriented growth. In order to distinguish between the rival hypotheses
direct microscopic measurements combined with local diffraction techniques will be required to
measure the nucleation and growth texture parameters, ~ and 8, directly.
Comparison with Experimental Results
Recently, Juul Jansen et al. (Ii) measured ~ and 8 for various components in the recrystallization
of cold rolled commercial aluminium. They showed that the cube component, which they limited to
orientation within 5 ° of the cube plane and 10 ° from the cube direction, a total misorientation
of (52 + i02) 0.5 = Ii o from the ideal {001} <i00> orientation, grew more than other orientations
though with a steadily fallin~ growth rate. At the end of recrystallization the cube grains had
a mean size of 50~m while the average grain size of the other grains was about 17~m. This appears
to indicate that the parameter 8 ~j 3. The directly measured value of e, averaged over all the
samples, was 0.024 which can be compared to MacKenzie's value of or (for ii ° misorientation) of
0.009. Their results therefore demonstrate both oriented nucleation and growth. Use of eg. 14a
or eq. 19 together with the experimental values of e and 8 allows the cube texture component to
be predicted by use of eq. 14a as 39% and by eq. 19 as 11%. Neither of these values fits with
the experimental result in which the cube component was found to occupy about 18% of the new grain
structure. From data on recrystallized fraction as a function of time provided by Juul Jensen(ll)
the Avrami exponent was determined as 1.0 and use of the expression eS/(l+eS), indicated by the
experimental exponent, yields a predicted cube component of only 7%.
5?he quantitative failure of the present model, despite its qualitative success, indicates that it
is in someway inappropriate for the analysis of the experiments described by Juul Jensen et al. (ii)
The origin of this problem may be due to a fundamental difficulty in the Avrami analysis as indi-
 930 NUCLEATION AND GROWTH KINETICS AND T E X T U R E Vol. 19, No. 8

cated by some recent results of Nes and Solberg(12). They found cube oriented grains larger than
randomly oriented grains in a recrystallized aluminum alloy very similar to that studied by Juul
Jansen et al. (Ii). The latest observations (12) suggested that the size advantage of cube orien-
ted grains was due not to a higher growth rate but to a non random distribution of the nucleation
sites. The non-cube nuclei were clustered in colonies and so impinged on each other earlier than
did the cube grains. In consequence the non-cube grains stopped growing at a smaller size. The
variation in grain sizes described by Juul Jensen et al. (ii) also appears compatible with this
description. A non random distribution of nucleation sites destroys the basis of the conventional
kinetic analysis, see eq. 5, and indicates the need for a new analysis of recrystallization kin-
etics. Attempts at providing such a new analysis are in progress (13) and preliminary results
indicate that non random nuclei distribution can give the low apparent Avrami exponents that are
characteristic of recrystallization.
su~r~
Use of the conventional analysis of nucleation and growth reactions for special components showing
both oriented nucleation and growth indicates that, as found experimently, the annealing texture
components will grow linearly with the fraction recrystallized. Comparison with detailed experi-
mental data, which shows direct evidence for both oriented nucleation and growth, does not fit
quantitatively with the model. The discrepancy may be due to a non random distribution of the
various recrystallization components.
Acknowledgements
The work was stimulated by discussions with William G. Fricke, Jr., Henry B. McShane, John Liu
and James T. Staley of ALCOA Technical Center, and their contribution to this work is very
gratefully acknowledged as are the contributions of Anthony Rollett (I~s Alamos National Laboratory
and Drexel University) and the helpful comments from the reviewer.
References
i) W.A. Johnson and R.F. Mehl Trans. AIME. 135, 416 (1939).
2) M. Avrami, J. Chem Phys. 7, 1103 (1939); 8, 212 (1940); 9, 177 (1941).
3. J.W. Christian, Theory of Transformations in Metals and Alloys, p. 10 and p. 525, Pergamon
Press, Oxford (1975).
4) W.G. Burgers, Handbuch der Metallphysik, Ed. G. Masing, Akademische Veriagsges, Leipzig (1941).
5) P.A. Beck, Advances in Physics, (Phil Mag Supplement) 3, 245 (1954).
6) J.K. MacKenzie, Biometrika 45, 229 (1958).
7) W.G. Fricke, Jr. and H.B. McShane. AIME Texture Meeting, Detroit. In press, (1984).
8) Ryong-Joon Roe, J. Appl. Phys. 37, 2069 (1966).
9) H.J. Bunge, Mathematische Methoden der Texturanalise, Akademie-Veriag, Berlin (1969).
i0) N. Hansen, T. Leffers and J.K. Kjerns, Acta Metall., 29, 1523 (1981).
ii) D. Juul Jensen, N. Hansen and F.J. Humphreys, 7th International Texture Conference, p. 251,
The Netherlands Materials Science Centre, (1984). Also in Press, Acta Metall. (1985).
12) E. Nes and J.K. Solberg, Private communication (1985) submitted to Institute of Metals.
13) A. Rollett and R.D. Doherty, Research in Progress.