Institute of Metals Division - The Effect of Surface Removal on the Plastic Behavior of Aluminum Single Crystals

Aluminum single crystals were pulled in an electrolytic cell allowing surface removal during the deformation. The extent of Stages I and 11 of the stress-st-aitz curve was increased and the slope decreased as the rate of metal removed from the surface was increased. An increase of the strain rate caused a decrease in the effectiveness of the metal removal. The data indicate that the work-hardening coefficient in Stage I is determined primarily by the conditions which exist on the surface of the crystal. In Stages 11 and 111, both surface effects and internal barriers are important. ALTHOUGH numerous investigations have been conducted on the plastic flow characteristics of metals in an attempt to explain the mechanism of work-hardening, relatively few studies have taken into account the influence of the surface. In all current theories of work-hardening it is assumed that the impediments to the movement of dislocations are within the crystal. The barriers due to the surface and the existence of solid and liquid films have been neglected even though it has been demonstrated that the surface exerts a large effect. A number of investigators1-l8 have shown that solid films on the surface of single crystals markedly affect their mechanical behavior. In general, the presence of a solid film tends to increase the yield stress and increase the work-hardening rate. Often, on single crystals, Stage I and, at times, Stage II regions are completely suppressed. Various mechanisms have been offered for the effects of oxide and metal films as well as the influence of electrolytes. Of these, concepts concerned with the locking of surface dislocation sources and the blocking of dislocations at the surface resulting in pileups appear to be actively considered at present. Barrett,11 Takamura,6 Gilman,19 Lipsett and King,20 Shapiro and Read,10 and Weiner and Gensamer21 are among those who have interpreted their results in terms of piled-up dislocations at the surface, while Adams.22 and Chalmers and Davis23 have explained their experimental observations in terms of locking of surface dislocation sources. In general, the change in plastic flow properties due to electrolytes has been explained in terms of the unblocking or unlocking of dislocations by the removal of the oxide films. In considering the two proposed mechanisms, it appears that the locking of sources of surface dislocations by a solid film should exert a primary influence only on the critical resolved shear stress for flow and not on the slopes of Stages I and 11. However, the blocking at the surface of dislocations from internal sources may also affect the critical resolved stress and furthermore exert an influence throughout the whole plastic range. In certain cases it does not seem feasible to explain the results of experimental observations in terms of locking of surface dislocation sources. The abnormal aftereffects found by Barrettll,12 by removing the oxide by an acid treatment are excellent evidence of the blocking of dislocations at the surface. Additional evidence in favor of a blocking due to a pileup of dislocations at the surface may be found from the observations that the critical resolved shear strength continues to increase with the thickness of the oxide layer until very heavy oxide layers are formed. If the locking of surface dislocations sources were the dominant factor, the critical resolved shear stress would not be expected to increase after all of the surface sources were locked by the formation of the oxide. This may be expected to happen after a few atomic layers of the oxide are formed. In spite of the above evidence on the strong influence of the surface on the plastic flow characteristic, this has been ignored in current theories of work-hardening. Seeger24,25 suggested that most of the dislocations may slip out of the crystal only when the specimen axis is within certain areas of the orientation triangle. In other areas the resolved shear stress in other glide systems is large enough to generate dislocations which can form Lomer-Cottrell locks, thereby decreasing the average slip distance in some directions and causing a larger hardening rate. Friede126 assumed that at the beginning of Stage 11, a large number of Lomer-Cottrell dislocations are formed by a catastrophic process which used up all the Frank-Read sources on the secondary slip-planes. In this manner a fixed number of Lomer-Cottrell locks is formed which act as barriers against which the dislocations can pile up. In Stage 111, Seeger24 and Diehl, Mader, and Seeger25 proposed that Lomer-Cottrell barriers are circumvented by the cross slip of extended screw dislocations. Cottrell and Stokes,27 Friedel,26 Cottrell,26 and stroh29 suggest that the Lomer-Cottrell dislocations collapse under the stress field of the dislocation pileup. It is the purpose of this paper to report the changes in Stages I, II,and III of the deformation process in