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

T. H. Alden and R. L. Fleischer (General Electric Research Laboratory)— The authors' results indicate clearly and, we believe, significantly that during tensile deformation the surface layers of an aluminum crystal are hardened more severely than the interior of the crystal. A probable explanation of this effect, as the authors indicate, is that dislocations in the primary slip system may be obstructed at the surface or, it should be added, near the surface. The intent of this discussion is to show that the oxide film on aluminum is not likely to be responsible for this effect, but that the results can be understood if it is assumed the secondary slip is more active in the surface layers than in the interior. Prior study has shown that the principal mechanical effect of an oxide film on a single crystal is to raise the yield stress while leaving the rate of strain hardening during the initial deformation relatively unaffected.33 Since the yield stress is unchanged during polishing in the present case, we conclude that continual removal of the oxide film exerts a small effect on the plastic hardening.* It appears that the hardening interactions are occurring not only at the immediate surface, but to an appreciable depth below it, although with decreasing severity. For example, Kramer and Demer found that with removal of 0.004 in. from a specimen, the easy glide region was extended somewhat; but the yield stress did not decrease. The initial yield stress was recovered only after 0.041 in. was removed. Since a very brief polish would permit dislocations trapped behind a surface film to run out,34 extra dislocations must, instead, be trapped to a considerable depth below the surface. The same conclusion is drawn from the observation of decreasing hardening slope with increasing surface removal rates. If the hardening interactions were only at the immediate surface, a full softening effect would be observed at some small removal rate. The view is taken here that strain hardening is principally caused by small amounts of secondary slip.35 The secondary dislocations will interact in various ways with the primaries, interfering with their motion and causing them to accumulate in the crystal. Prior studies of easy glide have shown Diehl's model of hardening to be qualitatively consistent with the effects of impurities,36 of temperature,36 and of crystal size.37 On this basis the enhanced hardening of the surface layers in aluminum arises from increased secondary slip at and to some depth below the surface. Selective removal of this hardened layer is expected to decrease the measurable "bulk" hardening, the effect increasing with the removal rate and decreasing with the applied strain rate. We suggest that the stress on secondary systems is raised by the bending moments arising from interactions with the grips during the deformation. This stress from the grips has been shown to be a maximum37 near the surface, and hence, increased secondary slip should result. Prior investigations of grip effect:; indicate that as the grip stresses are raised by changing the crystal shape, the easy glide slope increases while the extent of easy glide decreases.38-40 It has been shown also that bending moments superimposed during tensile testing may either decrease easy glide, when supporting the moments caused by gripping, or increase it, when cancelling the gripping moments.38 This interpretation of the authors' results, emphasizing the special importance of secondary slip near the surface, is also consistent with the earlier results of Rosi.41 Copper crystals alloyed with silver in the surface layer show greatly increased easy glide compared with pure copper. In addition, the easy glide slope is reduced. The effect of bulk alloying in extending easy glide has been well established and has been interpreted as indicating the relative difficulty of secondary slip in alloy crystals. Since non-basal glide is difficult in zinc crystals, the effects of surface removal during deformation may be less important. Experiments to test this idea are in progress. I. R. Kramer and L. J. Demer (authors' reply)—The authors wish to thank Dr. Alden and Dr. Fleischer for their discussion. Our interpretation of the data in the paper is that dislocation motion is obstructed by "debris" which starts to form at the surface and extends towards the interior of the crystal with further plastic deformation. The fact that we did not find a reversion from Stage II to Stage I by surface removal shows that in Stage II the "debris" fills the entire cross-section of the specimen. Drs. Alden and Fleischer take the view that bending stresses due to the grips are responsible for the