Institute of Metals Division - Recrystallization Texture and Coarsening Texture in High Purity Aluminum

It has been known for many years that in cold drawn polycrystalline aluminum the recrystallization texture is practically identical with the deformation texture.l,2,3 V. Goeler and Sachs4 stated that in cold rolled polycrystalline aluminum, too, the deformation texture is retained upon recrystallization. This behavior was interpreted by Dehlinger9 as an indication that each recrystallized grain inherits the orientation of the matrix in which it grew. However, Burgers and Basart showed6 that in deformed aluminum single crystals the orientation of the recrystallized grains strongly deviates from that of the matrix. Barrett demonstrated8 that even in deformed polycrystalline aggregates the local orientation within each deformed grain changes on recrystallization. No explanation has as yet been offered of how the aggregate texture can be retained, while the local texture is everywhere changing. According to Burgers and Louwerse6 the orientation change on recrystallization in compressed and rolled aluminum single crystals corresponds to a rotation around [112] axes lying in the active slip planes and perpendicular to active slip directions. This orientation change was rationalized by them on the assumption that the orientation of the recrystallized grains is determined by the orientation of the available nuclei, and that these nuclei are small fragments of the deformed crystal, rotated in the deformation process. Barrett pointed out,? however, that these assumptions were by no means proven, and that the total volume of material necessary for the nuclei is so small, that it must be available in any orien- tation whatever. It is, therefore, unlikely that an "oriented nucleation" theory could satisfactorily explain the orientation changes in recrystallization of a deformed crystal. Furthermore, in contradiction to Burgers and LOU-werse's conclusions, Barrett's results for the orientation change could be best expressed in terms of rotations around. [Ill] axes. Thus agreement is lacking not only in the interpretations but apparently even in the experimental results contributed by the various investigators. The orientation relationships on coarsening* in a highly oriented polycrystalline matrix were first investigated by Burgers and Basart.5 They produced a fine grained highly oriented matrix by the recrystallization of a compressed or rolled single crystal of aluminum, and studied the orientation relationships in three successive generations of crystals: the "deformation texture" in the single crystal, the recrystallization texture, and the coarsening texture. Burgers24 showed that the preferred orientation of each successive generation was almost always widely different from that of the preceding one, but that the coarse grains often approximately reverted to the orientation of their grandparent, the deformed single crystal. This observation, and the idea that the orientation of the coarse grains is determined by that of the available "nuclei," led to the concept that the coarse grains are nucleated by the remnants of the deformation texture.12,15 On the other hand, Bowles and Boas16 found, in a carefully conducted experiment, that in recrystallized fine grained copper of cube texture coarse grains grow in orientations which can be derived from the orientation of the recrystallized matrix by rotation around a [lll].] direction: the coarsening texture here does not appear to be related in any simple manner to the original rolling texture from which the cube texture had been obtained by recrystallization. It may be assumed that in a recrystallized material, even with a strong texture, there always are present some grains of practically any orientation. These may serve as "nuclei" for the coarse grains, provided that the conditions are favorable for their growth. The existence of a coarsening texture may be considered as an indication that grains with certain relative orientations with respect to the preferred orientation of their neighbors can grow much faster than others. This "oriented growth" theory was briefly suggested by van Arkel, as early as 1936,13 and it was mentioned by Burgers." Recently, C. G. Dunn produced direct