Discussion - Institute of Metals Division (61d8ca0a-b6df-4853-8e47-95cc87e9ac4b)

K. T. Aust and J. W. Rutter (General Electric Research Laboratory)—We find it difficult to reconcile the activation energies determined by Gifkins with his general conclusion that "migration during both creep and grain growth can thus be treated on the basis of the same model" (that of Lucke and Detert). Gifkins finds the activation energy for grain boundary migration during creep to be 24.5 kcal per rnol and that for grain boundary migration during grain growth to be 7.5 kcal per mol. The calculation carried out by Gifkins of the activation energy for grain boundary migration during grain growth, using the Lucke and Detert model, gives a value of 20 to 24.5 kcal per mol, rather than his experimental value of 7.5 kcal per mol. The theory of Lucke and Detert was developed to account for the rates of migration of grain boundaries in the presence of impurities during grain growth. The theory does not take into account the effect on the boundary migration of another, simultaneous process such as creep deformation and would be expected, therefore, to be applicable only to migration during grain growth. The fact that Gifkins measured a different activation energy for boundary migration during grain growth (7.5 kcal per mol) from that during creep (24.5 kcal per mol), although the specimens were of the same composition, shows clearly that such an effect exists under his experimental conditions; the presence of a simultaneous creep deformation markedly affects the boundary migration process in comparison with what would be observed under the same conditions but without the creep deformation. The failure of McLean's equation (Eq. [4] of Gifkins' paper) to give a satisfactory dislocation density difference for boundary migration during creep is not surprising, since the activation energy which must be used in this equation refers only to the elementary atom transfer process of grain boundary migration. This activation energy value is approximately 6 kcal per mol for zone-refined lead, as determined in both the grain boundary migration experiments of Aust and Rutter31, 32 and the grain growth experiments of Bolling and Winegard.33 Using this activation energy value, McLean's equation gives reasonable agreement with observed migration rates for grain boundaries moving free of the influence of impurities.31, 32 The value of 24.5 kcal per mol is probably associated with the presence of impurity atoms, as Gifkins suggests. It should be noted, however, that this value was obtained using lead of only one composition and measurements at only two temperatures. The work of Aust and Rutter3"' on the effects of tin, silver, and gold on grain boundary migration in zone-refined lead in the temperature range from 320" to 200°C, as well as the work of Bolling and Winegard34 on the effect of silver and gold on grain growth in zone-refined lead, shows that the measured activation energy is markedly dependent upon the kind and amount of solute present. Gifkins' work does not permit evaluation of the effect of the 8 ppm of impurities other than oxygen present in his specimens. One incidental point: the symbols used to designate the experimental points of Fig. 6 appear to be in incorrect order in the figure caption. As the caption is printed, it would indicate that larger grain sizes were obtained after annealing at 47°C than at 100°C, which does not agree with the text (point M, p. 1019). Finally, it seems clear from Gifkins' results that any serious attempt to determine whether grain boundary migration and grain boundary sliding during creep occur with the same activation energy, as Gifkins suggests and McLean rejects, must take into account the effects of impurities on these two processes, Although the work of Weinberg35 indicated that adding small amounts of copper, iron and silicon to aluminum did not affect the grain boundary shear behavior, it should be noted that his starting material contained approximately 60 ppm of impurities. Gifkins' results indicate impurity effects at an impurity level of 8 ppm, suggesting strongly that the most significant impurity range to be investigated lies substantially below that value. R. C. Gifkins (author's reply) — As Drs. Aust and Rutter suggest, the results under discussion may have to be reinterpreted in the light of their own work on grain boundary migration, which was not available to me when the paper was written. Because of their work, Aust and Rutter attach more importance than I did to the activation energy for grain boundary migration during annealing (7.5 kcal per mol) obtained from a "direct" plot of log-rate against the reciprocal of absolute temperature. At the time it was obtained, this value seemed rather low, although it was similar to the value obtained by Bolling and Winegard.36 It was then, and still is, difficult to accept this value because of the low value of the index in the power law for grain growth, which seemed to indicate the influence of impurities. It was also concluded that the low value of the activation energy might have arisen from the manner of selecting rates of grain growth which were truly comparable at the two temperatures. There were many other indications in these experiments and those on recrystallization during creep3? that an impurity, probably oxygen, was of importance. The model for grain-boundary migration which Lucke and Detert had proposed was an obvious possibility and its use yielded an activation energy for boundary migration during annealing of 20 to 25 kcal per mol.