1

Objective Microstructure-Properties: II
Coherency
Homo- vs Elastic Effects, Interfaces
Hetero-
phase
Grain
Bounds. 27-302
Strained Lecture 7
Interfaces
Orient.
Fall, 2002
Relation. Prof. A. D. Rollett
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 2

Materials Tetrahedron
Processing
Objective Performance
Coherency
Homo- vs
Hetero-
phase
Grain
Bounds.
Strained
Interfaces
Orient. Microstructure Properties
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 3

Objective
• The objective of this lecture is to show how
Objective important (a) elastic effects are in controlling
Coherency
precipitation, and (b) the variety of interface
structures that occur, and their importance in
Homo- vs
Hetero- precipitation.
phase • More specifically, this lecture examines the role of
Grain the interface (coherent vs. incoherent) in precipitate
Bounds.
morphology and growth.
Strained
Interfaces • The main concepts are (a) the misfit strain between
Orient. two lattices at an interface that determines a
Relation. dislocation density, and (b) the (bulk) misfit
Elasticity parameter that determines the elastic energy
Al-Cu ppt associated with a precipitate.
 4

References
• Phase transformations in metals and alloys, D.A.
Objective Porter, & K.E. Easterling, Chapman & Hall.
Coherency
Chapter 3 is most relevant to this lecture.
Homo- vs • Interfaces in Materials (1997), James M. Howe,
Hetero- Wiley Interscience.
phase
• Materials Principles & Practice, Butterworth
Grain
Bounds.
Heinemann, Edited by C. Newey & G. Weaver.
Strained
Interfaces
Orient.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 5

Notation
• D dislocation spacing in interface
Objective
• b Burgers vector of interface dislocations
Coherency • dB interplanar spacing of {hkl} in phase B
Homo- vs • dA interplanar spacing of {hkl} in phase A
Hetero- • aB lattice parameter in phase B
phase
• aA lattice parameter in phase A
Grain
Bounds. • misfit parameter
Strained •  constrained misfit parameter
Interfaces
• V volume [of precipitate]
Orient.
Relation.
• GP-zone, “, ’ metastable precipitates in Al-Cu
system
Elasticity
•  stable precipitate in Al-Cu system
Al-Cu ppt
 6

Elasticity and Interface Structure

• Why consider elasticity and interface structure together?
Both aspects exert a strong influence over not just the
Objective
shape of the new phase that appears during a phase
Coherency transformation but also which phase appears in the first
Homo- vs place.
Hetero- • The fact that a new phase has a different composition
phase
means that its lattice has a different set of repeat distances
Grain (lattice parameters), even if the crystal structure is the
Bounds.
same as the parent phase.
Strained
• These differences mean (a) different elastic moduli
Interfaces
between parent and product phase and (b) a mismatch in
Orient.
atomic positions at a parent-product interface.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 7

Basic results
• For small precipitates (< ~5nm), precipitates are
Objective usually spherical with coherent interfaces in order to
Coherency
minimize surface energy.
Homo- vs • For intermediate sizes, precipitates are often plates
Hetero- or needles in order to minimize surface energy in
phase situations where one plane or direction is atomically
Grain similar between parent and product phases.
Bounds.
• Large precipitates (> 1µm) are often spherical with
Strained
Interfaces incoherent interfaces in order to minimize
Orient. volumetric free energy.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 8

Coherence at interfaces
• Coherent/semi-coherent/incoherent interfaces: these
terms are based on the degree of atomic matching
Objective
across the interface.
Coherency
• Coherent interface means an interface in which the
Homo- vs
Hetero- atoms match up on a 1-to-1 basis (even if some elastic
phase strain is present).
Grain • Incoherent interface means an interface in which the
Bounds. atomic structure is disordered.
Strained • Semi-coherent interface means an interface in which
Interfaces
the atoms match up, but only on a local basis, with
Orient.
defects (dislocations) in between.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 9

Homophase vs. Heterophase

• There is a useful comparison that can be made between grain
boundaries (homophase) and interphase boundaries
Objective (heterophase).
Coherency Structure              G.B.                         Interface
Homo- vs atoms no boundary coherent
Hetero- match (or, 3 coherent twin in fcc) interface
phase dislocations low angle g.b. semi-
Grain coherent
Bounds. disordered high angle g.b. incoherent
Strained • Remember: for a grain boundary to exist, there must be a difference in the
Interfaces lattice position (rotationally) between the two grains. An interface can exist
even when the lattices are the same structure and in the same (rotational)
Orient.
position because of the chemical difference.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 10

LAGB to HAGB Transition

• LAGB: steep rise
Objective with angle. Disordered Structure
Coherency HAGB: plateau
Homo- vs
Hetero-
phase
Grain
Bounds.
Dislocation
Strained Structure
Interfaces
Orient.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 11

Read-Shockley model
• Start with a symmetric tilt boundary composed of a
Objective wall of infinitely straight, parallel edge dislocations
Coherency
(e.g. based on a 100, 111 or 110 rotation axis with
the planes symmetrically disposed).
Homo- vs
Hetero- • Dislocation density (L-1) given by:
phase
Grain 1/D = 2sin(/2)/b  /b for small angles.
Bounds.
Strained b

Interfaces
Orient.
Relation. D
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 12

Read-Shockley, contd.
• For an infinite array of edge dislocations the
Objective long-range stress field depends on the spacing.
Coherency Therefore given the dislocation density and the
Homo- vs core energy of the dislocations, the energy of the
Hetero- wall (boundary) is estimated (r0 sets the core
phase
energy of the dislocation):
Grain
Bounds.
Strained gb = E0 ln, where
Interfaces
Orient. µb/4π(1-); A0 = 1 + ln(b/2πr0)
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 13

LAGB experimental results

• Experimental results on copper.
Objective
Coherency
Homo- vs
Hetero-
phase
Grain
Bounds.
Strained
Interfaces
Orient.
Relation.
Elasticity
[Gjostein & Rhines, Acta metall. 7, 319 (1959)]
Al-Cu ppt
 14

Low Angle Grain Scripta Materiala (2001) 44: 2735-2740

Boundary Energy
[001]
High Yang et al.
Objective [117]
Coherency [105] 0.33
0.30
Homo- vs [113]
0.26
Hetero- [205]
phase 0.23
[215]
Grain
Bounds. [335]
[203]
Strained
Interfaces Low
[8411]
Orient.
Relation.
[111]
Elasticity [323]
[101] [727]
Al-Cu ppt
∧ Measurements of low angle grain
 vs. Δg
boundary energy in 99.98%Al
 15

High angle g.b. structure

• High angle boundaries
Objective have a disordered
Coherency
structure.
Homo- vs • Bubble rafts provide a
Hetero- useful example.
phase
• Disordered structure
Grain
Bounds.
results in a high energy.
Strained
Interfaces
Orient.
Relation.
Elasticity Low angle boundary
Al-Cu ppt with dislocation structure
 16

Energy of High Angle Boundaries

• No universal theory exists to describe the energy of HAGBs.
• Abundant experimental evidence for special boundaries at (a small
Objective number) of certain orientations.
Coherency • Good fit for special boundaries based on good fit of a certain fraction of
the atoms at the interface.
Homo- vs
• Mathematically, special orientations are easier to characterize in terms
Hetero-
of coincidence of lattice points between the two lattices (by imagining
phase
that they interpenetrate) leading to the Coincident Site Lattice (CSL).
Grain • Each special point (in misorientation space) expected to have a cusp in
Bounds. energy, similar to zero-boundary case but with non-zero energy at the
Strained bottom of the cusp.
Interfaces • Special boundaries defined by a “sigma number” which is the reciprocal
of the fraction of lattice points (not atoms!) that coincide. For cubic
Orient.
materials, this number is always odd, so we have 1, 3, 5, 7….
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 17

Exptl. vs. Calculated G.B. energies for 99.89% Al

Objective <100>
Coherency Tilts
Homo- vs
Hetero-
phase
Grain
Twin
Bounds.
Strained <110>
Interfaces
Orient. Tilts
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
Hasson & Goux
 18

Dislocation models of HAGBs

• Boundaries near CSL points expected to exhibit
dislocation networks, which is observed.
Objective
Coherency
Homo- vs
Hetero-
phase
Grain
Bounds.
Strained
Interfaces
Orient.
Relation.
Elasticity
<100> twist boundaries
in gold. 5 twist Boundary in gold,
Al-Cu ppt
showing dislocation structure
 19
Heterophase boundaries:
coherent interfaces
• Coherent interfaces have perfect atomic matching at the boundary.
• See figures 3.32, 3.33 in P&E.
Objective • The indices of the planes comprising the boundary do not have to be
Coherency the same in each phase.
Homo- vs • In general, a coherent interface is based on an orientation relationship.
Hetero- This relationship is specified crystallographically in terms of a pair of
phase planes and directions as in {hkl}A//{hkl}B with <uvw>A//<uvw>B.
• For example, the hcp  phase precipitate in fcc copper has an almost
Grain perfect match through the orientation relationship, {111} fcc//(0001)hcp
Bounds.
and <110>fcc//<11-20>hcp. The interfacial energy is estimated to be as
Strained low as 1 mJ.m-2.
Interfaces • Even in the case of perfect atomic matching, there is always a
Orient. chemical contribution to the interface energy.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 20

Strained interfaces
• Unlike the case of grain boundaries, there is an important elastic
aspect of coherent interfaces.
Objective • Small differences in lattice parameter are accommodated by
Coherency elastic strain.
Homo- vs • Given lattice parameters specified as interplanar spacings, dA and
Hetero- dB, the misfit parameter,  is given by the following simple
phase formula:
Grain
Bounds. dB - dA)/ dA
Strained
• See figs. 3.34, 3.35.
Interfaces
• We shall see later, that the misfit that can be accommodated by
Orient.
elastic strain is limited.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 21

Semi-coherent interfaces
• The logical next step in typing interfaces is to note
Objective that too-large misfit strains can be accommodated
Coherency
(i.e. lower energy interfaces constructed) by
replacing uniform elastic strains with dislocations
Homo- vs
Hetero- (which localizes the strain into the dislocation
phase cores), fig. 3.35.
Grain • The dislocation spacing in 1D is given by:
Bounds.
D = dB /  .
Strained
Interfaces For small enough misfits, this can be written as:
Orient.
D = d/ 
Relation. • The Burgers vector, b, of the interface dislocations
Elasticity is given by
Al-Cu ppt b = (dA+dB)/2
 22

Semi-coherent interfaces, contd.

• Just as for low angle grain boundaries, the interface energy is
proportional to the dislocation density at small misfits and then
Objective following a logarithmic dependence at larger misfits.
Coherency • In two dimensions, a network involving more than one Burgers
Homo- vs vector may be required to accommodate the misfit, see figure
Hetero- 3.36 in Porter & Easterling.
phase • The limit to dislocation-based structures is at
Grain  ~ 0.25, corresponding to one dislocation every four plane
Bounds. spacings (where the cores start to overlap).
Strained • Interface energies are in the 200-500 mJ.m-2 range; these can
Interfaces be estimated in the usual manner where we divide the energy
Orient. per unit length of the dislocations, Gb2/2, by the dislocation
Relation. spacing, d/ . The result is, Gb2/2d. So for a shear modulus
Elasticity of, say 50 GPa, a spacing of 4b and a misfit of 0.25, the
interface energy is 50*0.3/4/8 ~ 470 mJ.m-3.
Al-Cu ppt
 23

Complex semi-coherent interfaces

• It can often happen that an orientation relationship
Objective exists despite the lack of an exact match.
Coherency • Such is the case for the relationship between bcc
Homo- vs and fcc iron (ferrite and austenite).
Hetero-
phase
Grain Note limited
Bounds. atomic match for
Strained the NS
Interfaces relationship
Orient.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 24

Orientation relationships in iron

• There are two well-known orientation relationships for fcc-bcc
iron.
Objective
• The Nishiyama-Wasserman (NW) relationship is specified as
Coherency {110}bcc/{111}fcc, <001>bcc//<101>fcc.
Homo- vs • The NS relationship only gives good atomic fit in 8% of the
Hetero-
boundary area.
phase
• The Kurdjumov-Sachs (KS) relationship is specified as
Grain
Bounds.
{110}bcc/{111}fcc, <111>bcc//<101>fcc.
• These two differ by only a 5.6° rotation in the interface plane.
Strained
Interfaces • Better atomic matching is possible for irrational planes used.
Orient.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 25

Orientations from KS OR
• Based on a particular
orientation relationship
Objective (OR), the orientations of
Coherency new grains of the product
Homo- vs phase can be predicted,
Hetero- as derived from a product
phase phase.
Grain • Illustrated for the
Bounds. Kurdjumov-Sachs (KS)
Strained relationship for iron, with
Interfaces the {001}<100> starting
orientation for the fcc {001} pole figure, showing {001} poles
Orient.
Relation. (austenite) phase. in the eight variant positions of the ferrite
• The different new phase for the KS OR, starting from a
Elasticity single austenite crystal in (001)[100]
orientations are called
Al-Cu ppt position.
variants.
 26

Incoherent Interfaces
• Not surprisingly, incoherent interfaces have a disordered
structure similar to high angle grain boundaries.
Objective
• Their energies range up to 1 J.m-2.
Coherency
• Little is known about the detailed structure of such interfaces.
Homo- vs
• Large differences in crystal structure and lattice parameter
Hetero-
phase between parent and product phases tend to mean that the
interface must be incoherent.
Grain
Bounds. • Possibilities for partially coherent interfaces exist even under
the latter circumstance, but better tools are need for
Strained
Interfaces
prediction of interface structure and energy (current research
topic, e.g. W. Reynolds).
Orient.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 27

Interfaces in precipitates
• In order to present examples of real systems, it is important to
keep in mind that the interface around a precipitate is not, in
Objective general, the same over the entire surface.
Coherency • Analogy with grain boundaries: the boundary of an island
Homo- vs grain (fully enclosed within another grain) varies from pure
Hetero- twist at opposite poles, to pure tilt around its equator.
phase • Thus, some precipitates possess a mixture of interface types
Grain around their perimeter.
Bounds. Misorientation axis
Strained
Interfaces Tilt
Orient. boundary
Relation. on the
Elasticity equator Twist
Al-Cu ppt boundaries
on the poles
 28

Fully coherent precipitates

• One example of the Cu-Si system has been given.
Objective • Precipitation of Co from Cu is another example.
Coherency • Guinier-Preston zones in the early stages of
Homo- vs precipitation in Al alloys are another example.
Hetero-
phase
• See fig. 3.39 in P&E for Ag-rich zones in Al-4Ag.
Grain • In all cases, the crystal structure is the same in
Bounds. parent and product; also the lattice parameters are
Strained similar.
Interfaces
Orient.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 29

Partially coherent precipitates

• When only part of the surface of a precipitate can be
Objective
coherent, it is said to be partially coherent.
Coherency • Typically, one plane is coherent or semi-coherent.
Homo- vs • As fig. 3.40 shows, the shape of the precipitate can
Hetero- be determined by the Wulff shape through the
phase inverse ratio of the interfacial energies. Large
Grain coherent facets are terminated by incoherent edges.
Bounds.
• Caution! An anisotropic shape can also be
Strained
Interfaces determined by either growth anisotropy or elastic
Orient. anisotropy.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 30

Widmanstätten morphology
• Widmanstätten’s name is associated with platy precipitates
that possess a definite crystallographic relationship with
Objective
their parent phase.
Coherency
• Examples:
Homo- vs - ferrite in austenite (iron-rich meteors!)
Hetero- - ’ precipitates in Al-Ag (see fig. 3.42)
phase
- hcp Ti in bcc Ti (two-phase Ti alloys, slow cooled)
Grain - ’ precipitates in Al-Cu
Bounds.
• The latter example is based on the orientation relationship
Strained
Interfaces
(001)’//{001}Al, [100]’//<100>Al. See fig. 3.41 for a diagram
of the tetragonal structure of ’ whose a-b plane, i.e. (001),
Orient.
aligns with the (100) plane of the parent Al.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 31

Incoherent precipitates
• Al alloys provide many examples of incoherent
Objective precipitates that lack orientation relationships.
Coherency • CuAl2 (in Al - fig. 3.44
Homo- vs Al6Mn in Al
Hetero- Al3Fe in Al
phase
• Note that heterogeneous nucleation at grain
Grain
Bounds. boundaries can give rise to precipitates that are
Strained incoherent on one side, and semi-coherent on the
Interfaces other side. This leads to significant differences in
Orient. growth rate, fig. 3.45.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 32

Elastic Effects
• The effects of elastic interactions between the
Objective matrix and the precipitate can be as important as
Coherency
for the interfacial energy.
Homo- vs • The two effects can compete: this is one reason for
Hetero- changes during growth, such as the loss of
phase coherency.
Grain
Bounds.
• Elastic effects can influence precipitate shape.
Strained
Interfaces
Orient.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 33

Misfit
• Imagine that a certain volume of the parent phase
Objective (matrix) is removed and replaced by a different
Coherency
volume of product phase (precipitate). The
difference in volume leads to a dilatational strain
Homo- vs
Hetero- which is positive or negative, depending on the sign
phase of the volume change.
Grain • In the case of identical crystal structures and a
Bounds.
coherent interface, the parent and product have
Strained
Interfaces
equal and opposite forces at the interface, see fig.
Orient.
3.47c.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 34

Misfit definitions
• Given lattice parameters specified as aA and aB, the misfit
parameter,  is given by the following simple formula:
Objective
Coherency
aB - aA)/ aA
Homo- vs
Hetero- •Note the similarity to the definition of misfit for coherent
phase
and semi-coherent interfaces.
Grain
Bounds. • In the case of dilatational/hydrostatic strains, one can
define a constrained misfit or in situ misfit based on the
Strained
Interfaces strained precipitate lattice parameter, a’B :
Orient.
a’B - aA)/ aA
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 35

Elastic strain energy

• The constrained misfit and the unconstrained misfit
Objective are related to each other. For the simplest case of
Coherency
identical moduli in parent and product,
Homo- vs
Hetero- 
phase • For typical variations in moduli, the range of values
Grain observed is .
Bounds.
• The elastic energy associated with the dilatational
Strained
Interfaces strains is of order V, where V is the volume. For
Orient. the simplest case of isotropic matrix and precipitate,
Relation. the elastic energy is independent of shape:
Elasticity ∆Gs = 4GV
Al-Cu ppt - G is the shear modulus.
 36

Strain energy: anisotropy

• The effect of modulus differences is interesting and
asymmetric:
Objective
Precipitate stiffer than matrix: minimum elastic energy
Coherency occurs for a sphere.
Homo- vs Precipitate more compliant than matrix: minimum elastic
Hetero- energy occurs for a disc (oblate ellipsoid).
phase
• Note that differences in elastic modulus can be
Grain
Bounds.
synergistic or antagonistic to effects of interface structure.
Strained
• Anisotropic matrix: most cubic metals are more compliant
Interfaces along <100>, hence elastic energy considerations favor
Orient.
discs perpendicular to <100>.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 37

Elasticity vs coherency
• The competition between elastic energy and
Objective interfacial energy is illustrated by reference to
Coherency
specific examples in Al alloys.
Homo- vs • Observation: a sequence of precipitation reactions
Hetero- is observed in Al-Cu alloys (containing up to, say
phase 5%Cu, i.e. the maximum solid solubility of Cu in Al,
Grain at the eutectic temperature).
Bounds.
• The sequence can be explained as the appearance
Strained
Interfaces of successively more stable precipitates, each of
Orient. which has a larger nucleation barrier.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 38

Al-Cu precipitation sequence

• The sequence is:
Objective 0  1 + GP-zones  2 + “ 3 + ’ 4 + 
Coherency • The phase are:
Homo- vs n - fcc aluminum; nth subscript denotes each
Hetero- equilibrium
phase
GP zones - mono-atomic layers of Cu on (001)Al
Grain
Bounds.
“ - thin discs, fully coherent with matrix
’ - disc-shaped, semi-coherent on (001)’ bct.
Strained
Interfaces  - incoherent interface, ~spherical, complex body-
Orient. centered tetragonal (bct).
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 39

Al-Cu driving forces

• Each precipitate has a different free energy curve w.r.t
Objective
composition. Exception is the GP zone, which may be
regarded as continuous with the alloy (leading to the
Coherency
possibility of spinodal decomposition, discussed later).
Homo- vs
Hetero- • P&E fig. 5.27 illustrates the sequence of successively
phase greater free energy decreases and also successively
Grain greater ∆G*.
Bounds. • P&E fig. 5.28 illustrates the point that the nucleation
Strained barriers are much smaller for each individual
Interfaces
nucleation step when the next precipitate nucleates
Orient. heterogeneously on the previous structure.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 40

Al-Cu ppt
structures
Objective
Coherency
Homo- vs
Hetero-
phase
Grain
Bounds.
Strained
Interfaces
Orient.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt GP zone structure
 41

Nucleation sites, reversion

• The nucleation sites vary depending on circumstances.
Objective
• “ most likely nucleates on GP zones by adding
additional layers of Cu atoms.
Coherency
• Similarly, ’ nucleates on “ by in-situ transformation.
Homo- vs
Hetero- • However, ’ can also nucleate on dislocations, see P&E
phase fig. 5.31a.
Grain • The full sequence is only observable for annealing
Bounds. temperatures below the GP solvus. Any of the
Strained intermediate precipitates can be dissolved, reverted, by
Interfaces
increasing the temperature above the relevant solvus, fig.
Orient. 5.32.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 42

Coherency loss
• The growth of the penultimate precipitate, ’,
Objective illustrates an important point about the loss of
Coherency
coherency that commonly occurs during growth.
Homo- vs • A precipitate may start out fully coherent but
Hetero- nucleate interfacial dislocations once it reaches a
phase critical size.
Grain
Bounds.
• Illustration: large ’ ppts commonly have
Strained
dislocations, see P&E fig. 5.30c.
Interfaces • Why? Again, a competition exists between
Orient. volumetric elastic energy, and interfacial energy.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 43

Coherency loss, analysis

• The assumptions of the simple analysis (P&E section 3.4.4) are:
elastic strain energy is significant for the fully coherent case, not
Objective for the non-coherent case. Also, the energy of non-coherent
Coherency interface is significantly larger than that of the coherent interface.
Thus:
Homo- vs
∆Gcoherent = ∆Gelastic + ∆Ginterface
Hetero-
phase = 4µ2 * 4πr3/3 + 4πr2coherent
∆Gnon-coherent = ∆Gelastic + ∆Ginterface
Grain
= 0 + 4πr2non-coherent
Bounds.
Strained • At some size, the former becomes larger than the latter.
Interfaces Provided dislocations (or other defects) can be nucleated, the
Orient. character of the interface will change, and coherency will be lost.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 44

Coherency loss, estimates

• It is possible to estimate the size, and type of precipitate for
coherency loss.
Objective • Given a difference in interfacial energy between coherent and non-
coherent (which P&E write as st = non-coherent - coherent), one can
Coherency
estimate a critical radius, rcrit.:
Homo- vs rcrit = 3∆/4G2.
Hetero- • Fig. 3.53 illustrates the requirement for dislocation loops to be
phase arranged on the perimeter of the precipitate (similar to a low angle
Grain
grain boundary).
Bounds. • Based on a constrained misfit, , the minimum stress required to
nucleate a dislocation (fig. 3.54a) is of order 3G and the minimum
Strained value of misfit to exceed the theoretical shear strength of a matrix is
Interfaces  = 0.05. This implies that precipitates that have a small enough
misfit will never lose coherency as they grow because they are
Orient.
unable to nucleate the required interfacial dislocations.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 45

Impact on Properties
• The most obvious impact of precipitation in metals
Objective is on mechanical strength.
Coherency • Precipitation was measured by hardness, long
Homo- vs before the structure of the precipitates was known.
Hetero- • Example: age-hardening curves in Al-Cu alloys,
phase
P&E fig. 5.37.
Grain
Bounds.
Strained
Interfaces
Orient.
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt
 46

Summary
• This lecture may be summarized by stating that both
Objective
differences in elastic properties and interface structure
exert a strong influence on precipitate morphology.
Coherency
• Through their effect on free energy changes as a
Homo- vs
Hetero- function of size, they also affect which precipitates
phase actually nucleate under any given conditions.
Grain • The precipitate with the smallest nucleation barrier
Bounds. (generally) appears first. Small nucleation barriers are
Strained associated with coherent interfaces (small interfacial
Interfaces
energy) and similar lattices (small elastic energies
Orient. from misfit).
Relation.
Elasticity
Al-Cu ppt