PART XI – November 1967 - Papers - The Contribution of Grain Boundary Sliding to the Overall Strain of a Polycrystal

An analysis is made of the formulas and ,methods used to estimate the contribution of grain boundary sliding to the overall strain of a polycrystal. The errors involved in the approximations and/or ,mistakes in earlier work are assessed quantitatively so as to make possible the critical use of previously published data. SINCE it has been found that, under conditions of very slow creep, the strain due to grain boundary sliding (?gb) may contribute as much as 80 pct of the total creep strain,1,2 it is obviously important to have reliable methods for estimating this grain boundary strain. In two recent papers Stevens3,4 has drawn attention to the pitfalls encountered in assessing ?gb. He criticizes 1) the assumptions made in the derivation of some of the formulas for ?gb, and 2) the indiscriminate averaging procedures used for obtaining the quantities substituted in these formulas. These and further criticisms of earlier work are mostly valid. Unfortunately the only formulas and procedures recommended are either impossible or very difficult to apply in practice. Furthermore no attempt is made to assess the errors involved by the earlier approximations or mistakes, and so it is not possible to make critical use of any of these early dab. The present article attempts to improve on these shortcomings by reference to empirical verification of easily applied formulas whose theoretical derivations involve some otherwise unjustifiable assumptions, and by a quantitative assessment of the errors in previous work. DEFINITIONS First it is necessary to define the terms and symbols to be used. The choice of symbols preferred here is a logical combination and extension of the v introduced by McLean5 and the u by Brunner and rant.' In Fig. 1 the two grains X and Y are displaced by the sliding vector AC. u is the component of sliding resolved along the stress axis, v is that measured perpendicular both to the stress axis and to the specimen surface, and w is that measured perpendicular to the stress axis but in the plane of the surface. Two angles define the orientation of the grain boundary: 8, between the stress axis and the surface trace of the boundary, and +, the internal angle on a longitudinal section cut perpendicular to the surface. In computing the strain resulting from the boundary displacement at all the in- dividual boundaries in a polycrystal the components u, v, or w are sometimes averaged along a longitudinal line (i.e., parallel to the stress axis), sometimes along a transverse line, and sometimes at randomly chosen boundaries. Averages obtained in these three ways are given subscripts 1, t, and r, respectively. Stevens rightly calls attention to the possibility of non-equiaxed grain shapes either at the start or at the end of deformation. In this article all values of numbers of grains per unit length will refer to measurements made before deformation. The subscripts 1 and t will be used for the number of grains per unit length obtained along longitudinal and transverse lines, r for that obtained by averaging along a number of randomly directed lines. FORMULAS FOR ?gb ?gt, as a Function of u. An obvious truth is that cgb can, in principle, be obtained by summation of all the v components at the boundaries intersected by a longitudinal line of known length I, viz.: where nl is the number of grains per unit length, parallel to the stress axis, in the unstrained specimen. There are assumptions in the analytic derivation of Eq. [I] due to Brunner and rant' but ~achinger' arrived at Eq. [la] by a rigorous method. Unfortunately the experimental procedure required by Eq. [ la] proves very difficult as boundary migration tends to obscure the points at which the longitudinal line meets the grain boundary and the errors on such measurements tend to be large, see Fig. 2. For example, on a specimen of Magnox AL 80 at a creep strain of 9.7 pct, 300 measurements of u obtained from the points of intersection of a longitudinal line with the grain boundaries gave ul = 8.95 ± 3.58 pm, or an error of ±40 pct, at the 95 pct confidence limit. These large errors due to migration may be avoided by measuring u from the separation of the segments