Part VIII – August 1968 – Communications - Discussion of "The Relationship Between Lower Yield Stress and Grain Size in Armco Iron”*

Anderson, King, and Spreadborough present detailed evidence to show what ~aldwin~' has already pointed out, that, over a relatively small grain-size range (Ad"1/2 ^ 10 mm-'I2, d is average grain diameter), yield point data can fit a number of relationships. Part of the difficulty in obtaining data which reflect only the effect of change in grain size on yielding arises from the fact that in varying the grain size, even though great care is taken, other structural changes are almost certain to occur. In iron alloys, these changes may consist of variations in subgrain size, grain boundary ledge density, and degree of carbon and nitrogen segregation at grain boundaries, all of which are difficult to detect and which may affect yielding, primarily through their effect on dislocation generation. Because of the inherent inaccuracy associated with yield point measurements there is little point in using relatively complex equations to fit data, as was done by Anderson et mnl., rather than the simpler, widely used Hall-Petch equation. In compiling their table of data, it is surprising that they did not include results from certain low-carbon steels,31 in which, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the grain-size range is very much larger than in their Armco Iron. The very fine grains in these steels were obtained by a thermomechanical process. Examination by electron microscopy showed that the grains were separated by high-angle boundarie and contained only an occasional subboundary. The data from these steels obeyed the Hall-Petch equation, and it was shown quite conclusively that they did not fit a d-l or (1-lJ3 relationship. Obviously, a much wider range in grain size than used by Anderson et al. is desirable if we are to determine the true relation between lower yield stress and grain size.