Materials Science and Engineering A 387–389 (2004) 576–584

A model for creep based on microstructural length scale evolution

Glenn S. Daehn∗ , Holger Brehm1 , Huyong Lee, Byeong-Soo Lim2
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA

Received 9 September 2003; received in revised form 23 December 2003

Abstract

This paper seeks to quantitatively link recovery and plastic deformation to develop a model for creep. A simple approach with one length
scale coarsening equation is postulated in this paper to provide a descriptive and unified framework to understand recovery. We propose
that recovery is a general dislocation-level coarsening process whereby the length scale, λ, is refined by dislocation generation by plastic
deformation and is increased concurrently by coarsening processes. Coarsening relations generally take the form:

d(λmc ) = KR(T) dt

where R(T) is the rate equation for the fundamental rate controlling step in coarsening, K a free constant, dt a time increment and mc is the
coarsening exponent. Arguments are presented that mc should be in the range of 3–4 for dislocation or subgrain coarsening. The coarsening
equation postulated is consistent with the compared data sets in the following ways: (i) temporal evolution of one length scale λ; (ii) temperature
dependence of recovery rate; (iii) adequacy of single parameter in the proper description of strength change. The coarsening equation is coupled
with standard arguments for modeling plastic deformation. Combining these we can easily justify the form of the empirically derived Dorn
creep equation:

n
γ̇ τ
=B
D(T) µ
where the mobility of the recovering feature, R(T) should typically scale with self diffusivity, D(T), and the value of the steady-state creep
exponent, n is 2 + mc − 2c where c is a constant related to dislocation generation that should be in the range of 0–0.5. Hence, this approach
predicts creep as being controlled by self diffusion and that the steady-state stress exponent should be on the order of 4–6. All the parameters
in the creep model can be estimated from non-creep data. Comparison with the reported steady-state creep data of pure metals shows good
agreement suggesting recovery modeled as coarsening is a fundamental element in steady-state creep.
© 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Creep modeling; Microstructural evolution; Recovery

1. Goals and motivation compared at the same homologous temperature. In 1962,

There is a remarkable commonality in the way materi-
als plastically deform. At low temperature almost all sim-
ple cubic metals have remarkable ductility and strong strain
hardening. Also, if stress is normalized by elastic modulus,
many materials show very similar stress–strain curves when
Oleg Sherby published a paper [1] showing that if one plots
the steady-state creep strain rate divided by diffusivity ver-
sus creep stress normalized by elastic modulus, there is a
remarkable collapse of a large amount of experimental data.
Twenty-one different metals or phases are represented on
the diagram. Specifically:

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-614-292-6779; • Scaling by diffusivity removes the temperature depen-
fax: +1-614-292-1537. dence, and data from multiple temperatures collapse to a
E-mail address: daehn@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu (G.S. Daehn). single curve.
1 Presently at Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, IWM Freiburg, Freiburg, Ger-

many.
• All the curves are relatively straight between stresses of
2 Visiting Professor from Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Republic 10−5 E and about 5 × 10−3 E, where E represents elastic
of Korea. modulus.

0921-5093/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2003.12.082
 G.S. Daehn et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 387–389 (2004) 576–584
• All the curves roughly follow the form:
ε̇  σ n
≈K (1)
D E
where the K values are relatively constant and n is typi-
cally in the range of 4–6.
This degree of data collapse is remarkable especially be-
cause the materials represented have a wide range of crystal
structures (f.c.c., b.c.c., h.c.p.), stacking fault energies, slip
systems, etc.
The vast majority of the models in the literature that seek
to understand the creep behavior of metals (in particular the
stress exponent) are based on specific mechanistic models
and detailed assumptions about how dislocations are gener-
ated, moved and are annihilated. Because a nearly common
pattern is seen in many materials with many different mi-
crostructural and dislocation-level details, it seems clear that
there is something going on that is more general.
The purpose of this model is to understand the creep be-
havior of metals in a very general without reliance on spe-
cific mechanisms. In this spirit, assumptions will be kept as
simple and general as possible (at great risk of over simpli-
fying the situation). The model is intended to apply to sim-
ple, single phase, nominally pure metals at temperatures of
about 0.3Tm and above (where Tm is the absolute melting
temperature). With these assumptions, dislocations will tend
to spend much time at relatively robust pinning points. And
once they are released they will move quickly to the next
set of pinning points. Barriers of small activation energy
(such as Peierls barriers) will not significantly contribute to
strength.
2. Fundamental processes and structural description
Here, we want to use the simplest defensible description
of the material microstructure. Obviously it is heterogeneous
at several length scales. The relative roles of grain bound-
aries, subgrain boundaries and forest dislocations in material
strengthening have been debated extensively. As the present
focus is on behavior at relatively high homologous temper-
atures, and it is known that above about 0.4Tm , fine-grained
materials are generally weaker than coarse grained materi-
als. Therefore, grain size strengthening will not be consid-
ered further here. The issue with subgrains is more compli-
cated. Subgrains are known to refine with increasing levels
of stress and strain and fine subgrain sizes also correlate
with higher material strength. However, it is quite difficult to
separate the possible separate roles of subgrains and forest
dislocations, and this topic has been discussed extensively
[2]. In this treatment we assume that strength comes from
dislocation density rather than from subgrain size. However,
we identify two unique length scales. The first, λ, repre-
sents the average inter-dislocation spacing. The second, λs ,
is the average subgrain size. Typically λs is about 3–30 times
greater than λ and we will assume that both will scale the
577
same way with strain and time with a fixed factor between
them. Under these assumptions the model that follows can
be equivalently applied to dislocation strengthening or sub-
grain strengthening without comment as to which model for
strength is ‘correct’.
In either event we assume that a single parameter can be
used to describe structure. That parameter could be either
length scale, λ, λs , or the dislocation density (here expressed
as line length per volume), ρ. From a simple dimensional
argument the average slip distance can be related to the
inter-dislocation spacing as
g
λ= √ (2)
ρ
The factor g will depend upon the spatial distribution of the
dislocations. A lower bound on g is set by an array of dis-
locations that are all parallel, lying in the same direction.
In this case g is unity. For a more typical nearly isotropic
example, the dislocations may lie along the √ x, y and z direc-
tions in square array. Here, the g value is 3. When we use
this relationship to describe yield, it will be the dislocations
with the longest inter-obstacle spacing that will tend to be
released, also dislocations will tend to cluster. For these two
√
reasons, reasonable g values are in the range of about 3
to 20. A standard value of g = 4 will be chosen presently.
With this single parameter description of structure, we
shall model creep from the three elements that are undeni-
ably present: (1) release of dislocations from obstacles; (2)
refinement of the dislocation network and subgrains due to
dislocation motion; (3) recovery (coarsening) of the dislo-
cation structure. In describing these processes we will be
much more guided by data than any pre-supposed theories.
3. Dislocation release
We assume dislocations are held by discrete pins and when
they are released from a pinning point they glide easily over
a distance on the order of λ. Implicitly assumed through-
out this treatment is that the material strength is derived
wholly from such pins and interactions from strengthening
mechanisms such as Peierls stresses for solute drag do not
contribute to strength. Thus, this model is not expected to
apply at low homologous temperatures where very low en-
ergy barrier interactions contribute significantly to strength.
Two types of models for dislocation release are considered
in the present treatment. The Arrhenius treatment is more
versatile and correct, however, it does not easily produce
a clean analytical form. The athermal treatment gives very
similar results and also gives a form that is easily analyti-
cally tractable.
3.1. Arrhenius treatment of dislocation release
A pinned dislocation puts a force, f, on an obstacle: f =
τbλ, where τ is the externally applied shear stress and b is
578 G.S. Daehn et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 387–389 (2004) 576–584
the magnitude of Burgers’ vector. At each obstacle, at each
local vibration, there is a probability the dislocation will
break free from the obstacle and glide. That probability, Prel
is given as


−G∗
Prel = exp (3)
kT
where the energy barrier G∗ is given in the form commonly
used by Kocks et al. [3]:


p q
∗ ∗ f
G = F 1 − (4)
k̂
The terms F∗ , k̂, p and q are all essentially parameters that
describe a given barrier in a single material. F∗ is in en-
ergy terms the unstressed size of the barrier that must be sur-
mounted for dislocation release. This can be easily normal-
ized to varied materials by expressing it as F ∗ = s1 µb3 .
This has been used previously as a normalizing scheme
where s1 values on the order of 0.02, 0.25 and 10 correspond
to barriers such as solute interactions, dislocation junctions
and precipitate interactions, respectively, for example. The
dislocation obstacle can be overcome without any thermal
activation if the force on the obstacle exceeds the athermal
breaking force, k̂. Again k̂ is normalized to the intrinsic
materials properties. Here, we take k̂ = s2 µb2 . With this
normalizing scheme materials can be described in a rather
generic way with the free parameters being s1 , s2 , p and
q. Variations in these parameters can be directly correlated
with variations in the micromechanics of flow.
3.2. Athermal treatment of dislocation release
Eq. (4) represents a well-founded but analytically inconve-
nient way of describing a material’s flow stress as a function
of temperature and obstacle properties. For computational
convenience we will find it useful to introduce an athermal
description for flow. Basically we assume that when the force
on an obstacle exceeds some athermal breaking force it will
be overcome. We can derive the material flow stress as
sµb
τf = (5)
λ ing exponent. Using this form and assuming a material has
Here, s represents a single-parameter description of
the junction strength. In fact this parameter should be
temperature-dependent, but it is very weakly temperature-
dependent, relative to diffusivity, for example. If dislocation
density, ρ, is used as the structural metric instead of λ, the
equation can be re-written as


s √ √
τf = µb ρ = αµb ρ (6)
g
The latter equation is Taylor’s equation for plastic flow resis-
tance. There is a considerable amount of data confirming the
validity of this equation for f.c.c. metals at low homologous
temperatures. The value of α is found to be approximately
0.3 [4]. Also, the equation quite reasonably fits b.c.c. and
other simple pure metals. In using this form, there should
be a slow decrease in s with increasing temperature.
4. Dislocation accumulation
Asbhy [5] produced a compelling schematic plot of dislo-
cation density as a function of plastic shear strain. His plot
was intended to schematically indicate alloy behavior, and
was based on the copper single crystal data of Basinski and
Basinski [4]. Since this time this plot has been schematically
reproduced other places and interpreted as more general than
originally intended. This plot also provides the motivation
for examining if there is a general pattern for dislocation
accumulation due to plastic flow.
It is appealing to assume that free dislocations become
immobilized after moving some distance related to the slip
distance, λ, after which new dislocations must be formed to
enable further deformation. In such a case we can write:
dρ k
= = Mρ0.5 (7)
dγ λ
where k or M represent material constants which must be fit
to either a model of dislocation generation or experimental
data.
During plastic deformation there is also dynamic recov-
ery that will reduce dislocation density, essentially while it
is generated. From a practical point of view we can re-cast
Eq. (7) as being the total change in dislocation density (in-
cluding dynamic recovery) due to a plastic strain increment.
When viewed this way, that there is considerable experi-
mental data (which was reviewed nicely by Gilman [6]) that
shows for many polycrystalline systems dislocation density
accumulates linearly with strain and there is a similar pattern
for many metals over a range of temperatures. A compila-
tion of such data is shown in Fig. 1. A generic differential
form that will fit both this observation as well as Eq. (7) is
dρ
= Mρc (8)
dγ
where M is the multiplication coefficient and c is the breed-
an initial dislocation density ρ0 at a strain of zero, the dislo-
cation density as a function of strain (in the absence of any
losses due to static recovery, that are discussed later) can be
written as
ρ = [Mγ(1 − c) + ρ0
(1−c) 1/(1−c)
] (9)
As can be seen in Fig. 1, the data from many simple metal-
lic systems at relatively low homologous temperatures clus-
ters nicely, and several systems can be fit using M = 2 ×
1015 m−2 and c = 0. It is impressive that the data col-
lapses this neatly, especially since the systems studied in-
clude many very different metals examined at temperatures
ranging from room temperature to creep conditions. The ex-
ponent of c = 0 will lead to parabolic hardening. We assume
 G.S. Daehn et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 387–389 (2004) 576–584 579

Fig. 1. Compilation of data for dislocation density as a function of imposed plastic strain for a number of annealed metallic systems. The line marked
‘assumed density’ shows the equation used in the present model. The original data for this figure comes from Refs. [7–12].

that this is the native behavior of the material. Of course
Stage II hardening (which is not robustly seen in polycrys-
tals, except at very low homologous temperatures) demands
linear hardening and would require an exponent, c of 0.5.
Ashby [5] has discussed how geometrically necessary dislo-
cations will accumulate linearly with imposed strain (as the
bulk of the present data indicate).
In the present model, dislocation accumulation is assumed
to take place in a manner that is described by Eq. (8) where
the values of M and c seem to cluster around 2 × 1015 m−2
and 0, respectively, for many simple metals. We do not wish
to present any theories for this; instead we will rely on the
trends seen in the experimental data.
5. Recovery (substructural coarsening)
Clearly at elevated temperature, dislocation density will
decrease with increasing time and temperature. Also sub-
grains will coarsen. Plastic deformation may well have a de-
cisive role in hastening these recovery processes. Raymond
and Dorn performed an especially careful study of the effects
of stress on the recovery kinetics of aluminum in creep [13]
and found that stress does not seem to change the character
of the recovery, but it can change its rate. They found re-
covery rate increases monotonically with stress and in their
study could be as much as four times as fast as stress-free
recovery. Presently we assume that only static recovery is
responsible for the softening of the material with increasing
time at temperature, but note that applied stress may play a
role in speeding the process. The materials community re-
ally does not have a singular basic approach to recovery. In-
stead distinct dislocation-based models that are appropriate
to the given situation are usually used [14]. Here, we will
assume that dislocations exist in a network structure and this
network will coarsen with time in a self-similar way. There
may also be a subgrain structure and this is assumed to have
a size that scales proportionately with the dislocation link
length, λ. With these assumptions one can treat recovery as
a generalized coarsening process and leverage the advances
made over the past few decades in this area [15].
Again λ represents the characteristic microstructural di-
mension. For simplicity and brevity we will essentially ex-
tend the derivation of grain coarsening developed by Burke
and Turnbull [16]. Let us start by summarizing their deriva-
tion. They assumed that for a self-similar array of grains the
580 G.S. Daehn et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 387–389 (2004) 576–584
pressure difference from one side of a boundary to another
scales with σ/λ, where σ represents surface tension and λ
is the grain size dimension (because this is dimensionally
the equation for gas pressure in a sphere with surface ten-
sion, σ) and with regard to kinetic mechanism Burke and
Turnbull assumed differential pressure drives boundary mo-
tion in at rate proportional to the boundary mobility, M. Or
specifically:
σ 
dλ
= A MP = A M (10)
dt λ will rise from 2 to 3. This is the reason Ostwald ripening
Upon integration one obtains the classical equation for
parabolic grain growth:
λ2 − λ20 = AMt
This equation will apply equally well to subgrain coarsening
by boundary mobility, where the rate of boundary migration
is proportional to the differential pressure on it.
In the present treatment we are at least as interested in the
coarsening of dislocation arrays as in grains or subgrains.
For the case of coarsening a planar array of dislocations
(such as those that may make up a low angle boundary), it
is the force/length on the dislocation line that is the driv-
ing force for motion. Again the driving force will scale with
T/λ, where T is the dislocation line tension and λ is the mi-
crostrucural length scale (i.e. proportional to the mean radius
of curvature for a self-similar system). One can follow the
same approach as above to again develop parabolic network
coarsening.
Now let us consider the dimensionality of a 3D network of
lines, such as the array of dislocations and nodes described
by Öström and Lagenborg [17,18]. Here, the driving force
is reduction in line length per volume, instead of length per
area as above. As will be shown later in a formal dimensional
analysis approach [19], the driving force now scales with
T/λ2 . Now if dislocations move by a viscous mechanism
equation (11) will have coarsening exponent, of 3 instead of
2.
To this point we have described the coarsening of three
different structure types: (sub)grains, planar dislocation ar-
rays and volumetric dislocation arrays. The former two have
a coarsening exponent of 2 while the latter one has a coars-
ening exponent of 3. Now let us change the kinetic path and
assume defect mobility controls the rate of coarsening. Now
assume long-range transport will control the mobility of the
defect (vacancy). Defect velocity will scale with vacancy
flux that is described by Fick’s first law, where the vacancy
Table 1
Appropriate terms for coarsening exponent, mc , and rate controlling rate, R(T), for the generalized coarsening equation d(λmc ) = KR(T) dt
Rate step/geometry Grains/subgrains
Viscous motion mc = 2, R(T) = Mb (T)
LR lattice diffusion mc = 3, R(T) = Dl (T)
LR pipe diffusion mc = 5a , R(T) = Dp (T)
a Assumed that the dislocation spacing will scale with (sub)grain size, both proportional to λ.
b Pipe diffusion increases mc by 1 vs. bulk diffusion because area fraction of dislocations scales with 1/λ.
concentration is given by Xv . Summarizing for transport by
bulk diffusion:
dXv
M ∝ Jvac ∝ D (12)
dλ
Here, we recognize that the mobility, M, term will have both
temperature and length scale dependence. If we substitute
this into the relations above, the coarsening exponents will
all rise by 1. Hence, for coarsening of surface area per vol-
ume with bulk diffusion control, the coarsening exponent
has the well-known coarsening exponent of 3 [20,21]. From
this point on we will use the symbol M to designate viscous
mobility of a boundary or line defect (motion by short-range
(11)
diffusion across the boundary) and R(T) will be generally
used for the rate controlling step in the coarsening process,
including both diffusion and viscous mobility.
We may take this one step further and consider pipe dif-
fusion. Here Deff = ρDp . Since ρ scales with λ−2 , a pro-
cessing coarsening by pipe-diffusion transport will have an
exponent 2 higher than that through bulk diffusion.
Based on all of this we can establish a general coarsening
equation:
d(λmc ) = KR(T) dt (13)
The coarsening exponents take on values between 2 and 6
depending upon system morphology and mechanism. The
rate controlling step R(T) can be either viscous mobility or
diffusion limited. The term K must be determined from ex-
periment or a theory based upon specific mechanistic as-
sumptions. The possible coarsening/recovery mechanisms
are summarized in Table 1.
5.1. Experimental assessment of the coarsening model
There have been a number of experimental studies on the
recovery of simple metals since the 1950s. Many studies
have shown at homologous temperatures above 0.4 or so, the
activation energies for coarsening are experimentally indis-
tinguishable with those for diffusion (for a review see [22],
also [13,23]). However, there have been relatively few stud-
ies where substructural length scales or dislocation densities
have been measured directly to test the coarsening exponent
or temporal form of Eq. (13). If Eq. (13) is plotted on log–log
axes, it should take on a form like that as shown in Fig. 2. At
very short times the initial length scale is present in the ma-
terial. Also by physical constraints, this cannot be less than
2D dislocation array 3D dislocation network
mc = 2, R(T) = Mg (T) mc = 3, R(T) = Mg (T)
mc = 3, R(T) = Dl (T) mc = 4, R(T) = Dl (T)
mc = 4b , R(T) = Dp (T) mc = 6, R(T) = Dp (T)
 G.S. Daehn et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 387–389 (2004) 576–584 581

Fig. 2. Schematic behavior of Eq. (13) including the lower bound based
on the fact that λ must be significantly larger than b and the upper
bound based on the observation that even at very long annealing times
dislocation density seldom drops below 1010 m−2 .
a few Burgers’ vectors. At very long times it is noted that
materials will coarsen to a ‘frustration length’. Dislocation
densities seldom become less than about 1010 m−2 , even af-
ter extensive annealing. Also studies of grain growth show
that at very long time grain growth will stop with a grain di-
ameter that is typically related to sample size. These consid-
erations place the upper and lower bounds shown in Fig. 2.
Between these bounds Eq. (13) is expected to be apparent.
Two especially appropriate studies have been carried out
that allow examination of the temporal and (in one case)
thermal dependences of Eq. (13). First Oden et al. [24] used
TEM to investigate the diffusional coarsening of a disloca-
tion network developed by creep after the stress is removed.
This study was carried out in a 20% Cr–35% Ni stainless
steel at 700 ◦ C after creep at 127 MPa. Fig. 3 shows their
data replotted in the form of Fig. 2 using g = 4 to ob-
tain λ from dislocation density. Here, the diffusion data of
Fig. 3. Oden’s data in the form of characteristic inter-dislocation spacing
as a function of the product of diffusivity and time. The line shown
indicates m = 3 and a K value of 9.1 × 10−7 m.
Cermak for a similar alloy is used to normalize with time
[25] and sets R(T). The specific diffusion coefficient used
is 6.4 × 10−18 m2 /s. Fitting to the data yields a K value of
9.1 × 10−7 m.
The recent work of Huang and Humphreys [26] allows ex-
amination of both the temporal and temperature dependence,
but concentrates on subgrain growth instead of network
coarsening. For a crystal deformed 70% at room tempera-
ture and recovered at varied temperatures they find coarsen-
ing exponents between 4 and 2.8 for temperatures between
250 and 400 ◦ C. Their original data is plotted in Fig. 4 in
log–log form with points added at very short times to indi-
cate the original subgrain size of the material of 0.9 ␮m. The
data are also plotted with the product of time and diffusion

Fig. 4. Data of Huang and Humphreys [26] plotted on log–log axes both with time and the product of time and diffusivity. Notice that when normalized
the data collapse nicely and are fit reasonably well with Eq. (13) with a value of m = 3 and K = 4 × 10−5 m, as is plotted on the graph.
582 G.S. Daehn et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 387–389 (2004) 576–584

in Fig. 4 (right). The characteristic line here has an m-value
near 3 and K ∼ 4 × 10−5 m, using the self diffusivity of
aluminum as R(T). If subgrains and interior dislocation net-
works coarsen in a geometrically similar way, the coarsen-
ing constant for subgrains should be about 10 times greater
than that for networks, and this is approximately seen here
from these two very different data sets.
to be 0.1, and substituting in the parameters listed already
and assuming a temperature of 1000 K the subgrain growth
constant can be estimated as KN–H ∼ 3 × 109 . This is in the
range of 200–2000 times slower than the process observed
here from data and it takes on the same form with respect
to temperature dependence, grain size and time.

5.2. A mechanistic comment 6. Integrating the processes

Here, we argue substructures coarsen by long-range va-
cancy transport. The argument for subgrain growth con-
trolled by long-range diffusion is that in the motion of low
angle grain boundaries (which are describable as arrays
of dislocations), depending on their structure and curva-
ture, some boundaries must emit vacancies to move in the
driven direction, while others must absorb them. This will
set up a vacancy flux that is in spirit similar to that for
Nabarro–Herring diffusional creep. However, the rate of
grain boundary motion at a given vacancy flux can be much
greater than that in diffusional creep because now instead of
atom flux having to provide all the matter to move the bound-
ary, many fewer atoms can move the boundary by feeding
the excess edge dislocations on the boundary, allowing it to
move forward.
It is instructive to compare our subgrain coarsening model
to that for Nabarro–Herring creep, which states:


DL σΩ
ε̇ = 10 2 (14)
d kT
This can be developed into a form similar to that studied
here by again making some reasonable order-of-magnitude
estimates. The grain size, d, is taken as the subgrain size
λs . The atomic volume Ω, is taken as b3 , and the driving
stress, σ, is taken as a fraction of the pressure of an iso-
lated subgrain, of 3f(γ/λ). We can solve directly for the ex-
pected grain growth rate expected if grains were to grow by
Nabarro–Herring creep:


λ̇ DL γb3
ε̇ = = 30f 3 (15)
λ λ kT
Putting this into the context of Eq. (13), we can estimate the
K value that would be expected if subgrains were to grow by
Nabarro–Herring creep and this would place a lower bound
on K. If we assume the surface tension, γ, to be 0.5 J/m2 , but
the fraction, f, of this pressure driving coarsening, is taken
If we use a rate-independent formulation for dislocation
release, our model can be summarized as the set of equations
shown in Table 2. A more detailed version of this derivation
is available elsewhere [27].
To develop this model in a general way, generic values
for constants are used. We note that slip Burgers’ vectors for
a wide range of pure structural metals again fall in a fairly
tight range. The values are almost universally between 0.25
and 0.43 nm. We will use the reference value of 0.3 nm here.
Elastic moduli and diffusivity do vary widely, but these are
used as normalizing parameters in the final results. With
these assumptions, we can make direct predictions of the
plastic behavior of simple metals. The most obvious way to
do this is to tack the change in λ with strain and time due
to refinement and coarsening to develop a stress strain law.
The full solution to this is somewhat complex and not very
illuminating, however, there are two limits of this that are
quite useful. So long as the initial dislocation density is low,
the material will initially strain harden (due to dislocation
accumulation) with a strain hardening exponent, N (defined
in σ = cεN ) of
1
N= (16)
2(1 − c)
Thus, if c = 0.5, linear hardening will be obtained, but a
value of N = 0.5, indicating parabolic hardening will result
if c = 0, as we propose it is here. This is reasonable, because
parabolic hardening is often seen in the low-temperature
strain hardening of annealed metals. We will show in later
papers that the lower strain hardening exponents associated
with higher temperature deformation can be explained based
on the natural stochastic strength heterogeneity within and
between grains.
As deformation continues, the structure refines and this
increases the rate of coarsening. A steady-state condition
will be reached where the rate of dislocation accumulation
and reduction balance. The steady-state characteristic spac-

Table 2
Phenomenological equations and constants in a first-order general plasticity model
Phenomenon Equation {Range} and/or assumed value Basis

Structure parameter (λ or ρ) Eq. (2) g = {1–20}, g = 4 1: theoretical min.; 20: large gaps in random structure
Athermal yield Eq. (5) s = {0.1–1.0}, s = 0.5 Strength compilations [1,18]
Dislocation accumulation Eq. (8) M ∼ 2 × 1015 , c = 0 Fig. 1
Recovery (structural coarsening) Eq. (13) k = 10−6 m, mc = 3 Figs. 3 and 4
Other constants b = 0.3 nm Small range
 G.S. Daehn et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 387–389 (2004) 576–584
ing can be determined by equating the coarsening rate and
the refinement rate, both in terms of λ, and solving for the
equilibrium value [27]. The steady-state characteristic spac-
ing is

1/(2+mc −2c)
2KD(T)g2−2c
λss = (17)
M γ̇
With the athermal yield equation strain-rate can be written
as a function of stress as

n
τ used in Table 2 were used as inputs. In another paper [28]
γ̇ = BD(T)
µ we have shown that so long as the activation energy for
 
2+mc −2c
2Kg2−2c (bs)−(2+mc −2c) τ diffusion remains less than G∗ for dislocation release the
= D(T) (18)
M µ
One of the more significant findings from this investiga-
tion is that the material steady-state creep stress exponent
is equal to n = (2 + mc − 2c) where we believe mc to
be in the range of 3–4 for typical creep processes and c in
the range of 0–0.5, with zero showing the better fit to ex-
perimental data. This immediately explains the commonly
observed steady-state creep stress exponent between 4 and
6. Exponent values considerably higher than 5 can also be
easily rationalized in this framework. If a microstructure is
developed in such a way that it resists coarsening, or pro-
vides higher coarsening exponents (as may be the case in
Fig. 5. Sherby’s 1962 compilation with the results of this model with the
parameters from Table 2 superposed. The line has a slope of 5.
583
many creep-resistant materials) stress exponents over 5 are
expected.
This model can provide quantitative predictions of
steady-state strain rates. Table 2 shows typical values for
the necessary model parameters. We believe that all of these
should be approximately correct for a wide range of metals
as is supported by the data compilations shown here and
elsewhere. Fig. 5 shows a comparison of Sherby’s [1] “all
the data in the world” compilation and on top of this the
prediction from this model is superposed. The constants
scaling that is shown here is preserved very nicely. Hence,
thermally activated dislocation release does not dramati-
cally complicate the picture. The line from our prediction
falls near the center of the block of data. Deviations above
or below can be explained by the relative facility of coars-
ening processes changing with factors such as stacking fault
energy and nascent dislocation and boundary structures.
Also applied stress may increase the coarsening rate, which
may also elevate the predicted curve.
7. Concluding remarks
A simple approach with one length scale coarsening equa-
tion is postulated in this paper to provide a descriptive and
unified framework to understand recovery. Also a creep
model is presented based on a single length scale coarsening
and refinement processes which are assumed to be indepen-
dent. The coarsening equation and creep model are com-
pared with the reported experimental data and we find a very
good agreement, confirming a quantitative link between this
simple approach of coarsening and the phenomenological
creep behavior of pure metal.
The coarsening equation postulated is consistent with the
compared data sets in the following ways: (i) strain-based
evolution of one length scale λ; (ii) temperature dependence
of recovery rate and creep rate; (iii) quantitative consistency
of the recovery kinetics with creep rates of pure metal via
our model, but this is based on limited data.
This model carries with it two suggestions: (1) in design-
ing creep resistant materials it may be more effective to de-
sign for recovery resistance than for inhibition of dislocation
motion, however, the same strategies will typically work in
both cases; (2) a better understanding of the mechanisms
and phenomenology of recovery is called for.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Science Foun-
dation under award no. DMR-0080766 as part of the Center
for Accelerated Maturation of Materials (CAMM). A von
Humboldt Foundation grant largely funded the work of Hol-
584 G.S. Daehn et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 387–389 (2004) 576–584

ger Brehm and SAFE, ERC of Korea funded the work of [14] E. Nes, Acta Metall. Mater. 43 (1995) 2189.
Byeong Soo Lim. [15] L. Ratke, P.W. Voorhees, Growth and Coarsening, Springer-Verlag,
2002.
[16] J.E. Burke, D. Turnbull, Progress in Metal Physics, vol. 3, Pergamon
Press, 1952, p. 220.
References [17] P. Öström, R. Lagenborg, J. Eng. Mater. Technol., Trans ASME Ser.
H 98 (1976) 114.
[1] O.D. Sherby, Acta Mater. 10 (1962) 135–147. [18] P. Öström, R. Lagenborg, Res. Mech. 1 (1980) 59.
[2] M.E. Kassner, M.-T. Pérez-Prado, Prog. Mater. Sci. 45 (2000) 1–102. [19] P.M. Anderson, G.S. Daehn, in preparation.
[3] U.F. Kocks, A.S. Argon, M.F. Ashby, Prog. Mater. Sci. 19 (1975) 1. [20] I.M. Lifshitz, V.V. Slyozov, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 19 (1961) 35–50.
[4] S.J. Basinski, Z.S. Basinski, in: Recrystallization, Grain Growth and [21] C. Wagner, Z. Elektrochem. 65 (1961) 581–591.
Texture, ASM, 1965, pp. 1–44. [22] J.C.M. Li, Recrystallization, Grain Growth and Textures, ASM, 1965,
[5] M.F. Asbhy, in: A. Kelly, R.B. Nicholson (Eds.), Strengthening Chapter 2.
Mechanisms in Crystals, Applied Science Publishers, London, 1971, [23] R. Durard, J. Washburn, E.R. Parker, J. Met. 6 (1953) 1226–1229.
Chapter 3, pp. 137–192. [24] A. Oden, E. Lind, R. Lagenborg, Proceedings: Creep in Steel and
[6] J.J. Gilman, Micromechanics of Flow in Solid, McGraw-Hill, 1969, High Temperature Alloys, Sheffield, 20–22 September, 1972, The
p. 190. Metals Society, London, 1974, pp. 60–66.
[7] J.E. Bailey, P.B. Hirsch, Philos. Mag. 5 (1960) 485–497. [25] J. Cermak, Z. Metallkd. 81 (1990) 193–195.
[8] A. Lawley, H.L. Gaigher, Philos. Mag. 10 (1964) 15–33. [26] Y. Huang, F.J. Humphreys, Acta Mater. 48 (1999) 2017–2030.
[9] M.J. Hordon, B.L. Avverbach, Acta Met. 9 (1961) 247–249. [27] G.S. Daehn, H. Brehm, B.-S. Lim, in: D.R. Lesuer, T.S. Srivatsan,
[10] H.D. Livingston, Acta Met. 10 (1962) 229–239. E.M. Taleff (Eds.), Modeling the Performance of Engineering Struc-
[11] J.W. Edington, R.E. Smallman, Acta Met. 12 (1964) 1313–13238. tural Materials III, Proceedings of the TMS Fall Meeting, 2002,
[12] A. Orlova, H. Cadek, Philos. Mag. 28 (1973) 891. pp. 371–382.
[13] L. Raymond, J.E. Dorn, Trans. AIME 230 (1964) 560–567. [28] H. Brehm, G.S. Daehn, Mater. Trans. A 33 (2002) 363–371.