Institute of Metals Division - Discussion; Interpretation of Flow Mechanisms During Rolling in Fcc Metals

I. L. Dillamore (University of Birmingham)—The different textures developed in various fcc metals have long awaited satisfactory explanation and it has now become clear that these differences are related to parallel differences in the deformation characteristics of the metals. Liu is correct, therefore, in seeking to account for the observed textures in terms of the flow mechanisms but I believe, for the reasons outlined below, that the particular interpretation of flow mechanisms proposed by Liu is open to substantial objections. By considering the forty-eight possible designations of the twelve octahedral slip systems found in fcc metals as distinct and separate deformation modes, Liu has fallen into the error of assuming that only positive glide dislocations associated with each system are present. In fact both positive and negative dislocations will be present and the only difference between for instance the systems B4 and B4' (in Liu's notation) is that under a stress of given sign the direction of motion of a dislocation is reversed on changing from B4 to B4'. For both orientations positive and negative dislocations will be present. In considering possible dislocation interactions it is, therefore, inadmissible to differentiate between R4 and R4' as Liu does. Liu considers those dislocation interactions which give the biggest reduction in energy to be the most favorable and neglects, on the grounds that they will form strong barriers to slip, interactions between dislocations with perpendicular Burgers vectors. Setting aside interactions between positive and negative dislocations of the same slip system, which must occur regardless of the combination of slip systems chosen, the biggest reduction in energy occurs for the Lomer-Cottrell interaction and it is Lomer-Cottrell barriers which are thought to provide the stronger dislocation obstacles. On the other hand the intersection of dislocations with perpendicular Burgers vectors is thought to be a low-energy process which contributes only a fairly small temperature-dependent part of the total work hardening. On this basis it seems doubtful whether the reduction in energy through possible dislocation interactions provides a reasonable criterion for choosing the operative slip systems. From the point of view of texture development it is unsatisfactory to ignore the slip rotations leading to an end position and to neglect to consider the stability of the chosen end point. It is also unsatisfactory to treat the two stress axes as interchangeable since, if the stress system is idealized as biaxial, one stress is compressive and the other is tensile. For the same reason the rotations of the two stress axes are not made compatible simply by assuming that the same slip directions are responsible for the rotations of the two stress axes. It is, in short, essential to treat the two stress axes as acting together on the same slip systems. Turning to the question of the difference between the copper-type and the brass-type texture, there now remains little doubt that the difference is attributable to differences in stacking-fault energy (y), as noted by Liu, but it is doubtful whether the temperature dependence of the texture in copper and in silver is due to increasing stacking-fault energy with increasing temperature. The results of Swann and Nutting42 cited by Liu were obtained in Cu-A1 alloys and the apparent increase in stacking-fault energy on raising the temperature may be influenced by short-range ordering. In pure metals such effects are absent and the only data available on the variation of y with temperature are those of Buhler et a1.43 for silver. They report a minimum at 200°C which does not fit the hypothesis put forward by Liu. It is much more likely that thermal activation of cross slip is important in determining which texture develops, as proposed by Dillamore and tors. These workers have proposed an explanation for the differences in observed texture among the fcc metals and the pole figures predicted consist of an orientation spread which is in better agreement with observation than the limited number of discrete orientations suggested by Liu. The theory of Dillamore and Roberts is also able to account for the differences between aluminum and copper which Liu still leaves unexplained. Y. C. Liu (author's veply)—The writer appreciates the interest of Dr. Dillamore, but must discuss some of his comments in order to avoid cross purposes. The phrase, "forty-eight slip systems," which appeared twice in the text—in the caption of Fig. 1 and the first paragraph in the Discussion—might unfortunately have led Dr. Dillamore to disagree