Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:29:07.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Processing Method on the Grain Boundary Character Distribution and Network Connectivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Adam J. Schwartz ,
Mukul Kumar  and
Wayne E. King
Adam J. Schwartz
Affiliation:
University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Chemistry and Materials Science Directorate, Livermore, CA 94550, USA, [email protected]
Mukul Kumar
Affiliation:
University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Chemistry and Materials Science Directorate, Livermore, CA 94550, USA
Wayne E. King
Affiliation:
University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Chemistry and Materials Science Directorate, Livermore, CA 94550, USA
Get access

Abstract

There exists a growing body of literature that correlates the fraction of “special” boundaries in a microstructure, as described by the Coincident Site Lattice Model, to properties such as corrosion resistance, intergranular stress corrosion cracking, creep, etc. Several studies suggest that the grain boundary character distribution (GBCD), which is defined in terms of the relative fractions of “special” and “random” grain boundaries, can be manipulated through thermomechanical processing. This investigation evaluates the influence of specific thermomechanical processing methods on the resulting GBCD in FCC materials such as oxygenfree electronic (ofe) copper and Inconel 600. We also demonstrate that the primary effect of thermomechanical processing is to reduce or break the connectivity of the random grain boundary network. Samples of ofe Cu were subjected to a minimum of three different deformation paths to evaluate the influence of deformation path on the resulting GBCD. These include: rolling to 82% reduction in thickness, compression to 82% strain, repeated compression to 20% strain followed by annealing. In addition, the influence of annealing temperature was probed by applying, for each of the processes, three different annealing temperatures of 400, 560, and 800°C. The observations obtained from automated electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) characterization of the microstructure are discussed in terms of deformation path, annealing temperature, and processing method. Results are compared to previous reports on strainannealed ofe Cu and sequential processed Inconel 600. These results demonstrate that among the processes considered, sequential processing is the most effective method to disrupt the random grain boundary network and improve the GBCD.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 586: Symposium M – Interfacial Engineering for Optimized Properties II , 1999 , 3
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Watanabe, T., Res. Mechanica 11, p. 47 (1984).Google Scholar
2. Palumbo, G., Thermomechanical Processing of Metallic Materials, US Patent 5,702,543 (1997) and Metal Alloys Having Improved Resistance to Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking, US Patent 5, 817,193 (1998).Google Scholar
3. Lehockey, E.M., Palumbo, G., and Lin, P., Scripta Materialia 39, No. 3, p. 353 (1998).Google Scholar
4. Palumbo, G. and Aust, K.T., Materials Science and Engineering A 113, p. 139 (1989).Google Scholar
5. Palumbo, G. and Aust, K.T., Acta Metall.Mater. 38, No. 11, p. 2343 (1990).Google Scholar
6. Palumbo, G., King, P.J., Aust, K.T., Erb, U., and Lichtenberger, P.C., Scripta Met. 28, No. 8, p. 1775 (1991).Google Scholar
7. Aust, K.T., Erb, U., and Palumbo, G., Materials Science and Engr. A 176, p. 329 (1994).Google Scholar
8. Lin, P., Palumbo, G., Erb, U., and Aust, K.T., Scripta Mat. 33 No. 9, p. 1387 (1995).Google Scholar
9. Cheung, C., Erb, U., and Palumbo, G., Materials Science and Engr. A185, p. 39 (1994).Google Scholar
10. Palumbo, G., Lehockey, E.M., Lin, P., Erb, U., and Aust, K.T. in Interfacial Engineering for Optimized Properties, edited by Briant, C.L., Carter, C.B., and Hall, E.L. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 458, Pittsburgh, PA 1997), p. 273–282.Google Scholar
11. Lehockey, E.M., Palumbo, G., Lin, P., and Brennenstuhl, A., Microscopy and Microanalysis, Bailey, G.W., Corbett, J.M., Dimlich, R.V., Michael, J.R., and Zaluzec, N.J., Eds. p. 346 (1996).Google Scholar
12. Palumbo, G., Lehockey, E.M., Lin, P., Erb, U., and Aust, K.T., Microscopy and Microanalysis, Bailey, G.W., Corbett, J.M., Dimlich, R.V., Michael, J.R., and Zaluzec, N.J., Eds. p. 362 (1996).Google Scholar
13. Lehockey, E.M. and Palumbo, G., Materials Science and Engr. A237, No. 2, p. 168 (1997).Google Scholar
14. Thomson, C.B. and Randle, V., Acta Mat. 45, No. 12, p. 4909 (1997).Google Scholar
15. Was, G.S., Thaveeprungsriporn, V., and Crawford, D.C., Journal of Metals, 50, No. 2, p. 44 (1998).Google Scholar
16. Lehockey, E.M., Palumbo, G., Brennenstuhl, A., and Lin, P. in Interfacial Engineering for Optimized Properties, edited by Briant, C.L., Carter, C.B., and Hall, E.L. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 458, Pittsburgh, PA 1997), p. 243–248.Google Scholar
17. Lehockey, E.M., Palumbo, G., Lin, P., and Brennenstuhl, A., Metallurgical and Materials Transactions 29A, p. 387 (1998).Google Scholar
18. Lehockey, E.M., Brennenstuhl, A., Palumbo, G., and Lin, P., British Corrosion Journal 33, No. 1, p. 29 (1998).Google Scholar
19. Don, J., Majumdar, S., Acta Metallurgica 34, p. 961 (1986).Google Scholar
20. Field, D.P., Adams, B.L., Acta Metallurgica et Materialia 40, p. 1145 (1992).10.1016/0956-7151(92)90413-9Google Scholar
21. Thaveeprungsriporn, V. and Was, G.S., Metallurgical and Materials Transactions 28A, p. 2101 (1997).Google Scholar
22. Lehockey, E.M., Palumbo, G., Lin, P., and Brennenstuhl, A.M., Scripta Mat. 36, p. 1211 (1997).Google Scholar
23. Lehockey, E.M., Palumbo, G., and Lin, P., Metallurgical and Materials Transactions 29A, p. 3069 (1998).Google Scholar
24. Adams, B.L., Wright, S.I., and Kunze, K., Metallurgical Transactions 24A, p. 819 (1993).Google Scholar
25. Mason, T.A. and Adams, B.L., Journal Of Metals 46, No. 10, p. 43 (1994).Google Scholar
26. Wright, S.I., J. Computer-Assisted Microscopy 5, No. 3, p. 207 (1993).Google Scholar
27. Watanabe, T., Philosophical Magazine A 47, p. 141 (1983).Google Scholar
28. Watanabe, T., Microscopy and Microanalysis, Ed. By Bailey, G.W., Corbett, J.M., Dimlich, R.V.N., Michael, J.R., and Zaluzec, N.J., p. 354 (1996).Google Scholar
29. Bedrossian, P.J., Schwartz, A.J., Kumar, M., and King, W.E., this proceedings.Google Scholar
30. Kumar, M., Schwartz, A.J., and King, W.E., in Advances in Twinning, edited by Ankem, S. and Pande, C.S., (TMS, Warrendale, PA 1999), p. 13.Google Scholar
31. Kumar, M., Schwartz, A.J., and King, W.E., Presented at the MRS Fall Meeting, Boston, MA (1999)Google Scholar
32. Schwartz, A.J. and King, W.E., Journal of Metals 50, No. 2, p. 50 (1998).Google Scholar
33. King, W.E. and Schwartz, A.J., Scripta Mat. 8, No. 3, p. 449 (1998).Google Scholar
34. Kumar, M., Schwartz, A.J., and King, W.E., Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Textures of Materials, Szpunar, J., Ed. (Canadian National Research Council Press), p. 180 (1999).Google Scholar
35. Kumar, M., King, W.E., and Schwartz, A.J., submitted to Acta Materialia (1999).Google Scholar
36. Kronberg, M.L. and Wilson, F.H., Transactions of the AIME 185, p. 501 (1949)Google Scholar
37. Grimmer, H., Bollmann, W., and Warrington, D.H., Acta Cryst. A 30, p. 197 (1974).Google Scholar
38. Brandon, D.G., Acta Metallurgica 14, p. 1479 (1966).Google Scholar