Institute of Metals Division - Deformation of Ferrite Single Crystals

THE elementary mechanism of deformation in the body-centered cubic metals has been a subject of dispute for many years. If the problem were merely that of designating the crystallographic plane or planes of slip, the solution would have appeared long ago. However, there must be greater differences in the deformation behaviors of the body-centered and face-centered types than the differences in their lattices would suggest. The lines of slip formed on the polished surface of a strained face-centered cubic metal conform to glide over a single plane of the crystal. Slip in body-centered cubic iron, however, is frequently observed as curved and forked lines which could not possibly define a single plane of atoms. This alone is sufficient reason to expect different modes of deformation to operate in the two lattice types. The literature in this field now has generally accepted the proposition that {110), {112), or (1231 planes will act as slip planes in iron. It is essential that the experimental evidence supposedly supporting this proposition be critically examined. Taylor and Elam1 in 1926, using relatively small single crystals, determined the operative slip systems by measurements of the distortion of a grid engraved on the specimens prior to deformation. Their results indicated that shearing had taken place in the close-packed direction on a plane adjacent to or coinciding with the plane of maximum shear which contained the slip direction. This led the authors to propose a theory of noncrystallographic or banal slip. The authors considered an alternate rationalization of banal glide. Slip on two (1101 planes or possibly two {112} planes containing the same <1ll> direction could produce the wavy slip lines. By employing plane segments of varying widths, the integrated plane could take any position in the <111> zone. They rejected this explanation, however, feeling that the preponderance of evidence was against it. Taylor&apos; continued the investigation of the plasticity of the body-centered cubic lattice on ß brass. He reasoned that the resistance to shearing of a given plane in the zone of the slip direction was a function of the angle between the glide plane and the closest (110),: P F=—cose sine cos(X —?) [1] where F is the resistance to shear; P, the axial load at yielding; A, the cross sectional area; e, the angle between slip direction and load axis; x, the angle between plane of maximum shear containing the slip direction and the (101) pole; and ?, the angle between observed glide plane and the (101) pole. Differentiating Eq. 1 and rearranging, dF — = tan(x-?) d? [2] F which expresses the variation of the shear resistance with the angle $. Integrating this equation between the limits 0 and ? yields In F/F0 = ?0?tan(x— ?) d? [3] Here, F, is the resistance to shear of the (110) plane and F is the resistance to shear of a plane $ degrees from the (110). Thus, the variation of shear resistance with $ can be calculated from an experimentally measured x vs $ relationship. Fahrenhorst and Schmid8 sed several methods, none of them involving direct observation, to determine the glide system in ferrite. They determined the variation of critical resolved shear stress with