Institute of Metals Division - Axially Symmetric Flow of Aluminum Single Crystals

A series of aluminum single crystals was subjected to axially symmetric flow by drawing through dies. The orientation dependence of the drawing stress, which indicates the resistance to this type of flow, compares reasonably with predictions of Taylor and of Bishop and Hill. Measured lattice rotations likewise are generally consistent with theory. The most successful analyses of the plastic behavior of polycrystalline metal and its relationship to single crystal behavior are those of Taylor1-3 and of Bishop and Hill.4-6 The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical test of some of the basic assumptions involved in these theories. Both treatments apply to fcc metals and assume the shape change of each grain in a polycrystal to be the same as that of the polycrystal as a whole. Thus for a randomly oriented polycrystal extended under uni-axial tension each grain is assumed to undergo axially symmetric flow. dey = dez = -1/2dex, deyZ = dezx = dexy = 0 [l] where x, y, and z are a set of orthogonal axes, x being the tensile axis. Although [011.] oriented grains in bcc and fcc metals may depart markedly from this ideal behavior,7,8 the assumption is probably quite reasonable for most grains. Under a uniaxial tensile stress, ox, the work dW per unit volume expended in producing an increment of axial strain dex is, dW=oxdex [21 Since this work is expended in slip, dw =STi dyi 131 where Ti and yi are the shear stress and shear strain on the active slip systems. In both analyses Ti is taken to be the same on all slip systems, and dependent only on the total prior shear strain on all systems, so dw = Tdy [41 where t is the shear stress required for slip and y is the sum of the shear strain yi on all slip systems. Combining 121 and [4] and defining M = oX/T The ratio M is a generalized Schmid factor. It relates the tensile stress required for axially symmetric flow, ox, to the basic shear stress, 7, and it also expresses the ratio of crystallographic strain, y, to the tensile strain, Ex It depends only on the orientation of the crystal. Taylor evaluated M for various orientations by finding the least value of dy/dEx which could satisfy the shape change. Bishop and Hill, on the other hand, found M by considering the relative work (1/T)dW/dEx expended by stress states which could activate enough slip systems to produce the shape changes. The results of both methods appear to be equivalent, although certain omissions were made in Taylor's original work. The orientation dependence of M, calculated by the second method,9 is shown in Fig. 1. Taylor used the average 2= 3.06 for all possible orientations to predict the tensile stress-strain curve (oxvs Ex) for a random polycrystal from the shear stress-strain curve (t vs y) of a single crystal. Changes in M from lattice rotation were neglected so points on the ox vs ex curve were simply taken at ox = 3.06t and e = y/3.06 from corresponding points on the t vs y curve. Recent extension of the analyses of Taylor and of Bishop and Hill to crystallographically textured metals has been used to relate plastic anisotropy to textures, and to predict the potential texture hardening that could result from texture control.9 Unfortunately there have been relatively few experimental tests of the underlying theory. Taylor found that the tensile stress-strain curve of polycrystalline aluminum did agree reasonably well with that predicted from a single-crystal T-y curve. Had the single crystal undergone easy glide, how-