Institute of Metals Division - Discussion: Internal Grain Boundary Sliding During Creep

R. L. Bell. C. Graeme-Barber, and T. G. Langdon (Imperial College. London)— The internal-marker technique developed by Ishida, Mullendore, and Grant has enabled them to make some interesting observations on the role of grain boundary sliding in creep. Certain of their conclusions are supported by our own similar experiments on Magnox AL80 (Mg-0.8 pct Al) specimens containing several markers, full details of which will be published shortly. In particular, we would agree that: 1) Using the internal-marker method, there is little difference between Egb, the contribution made by grain boundary sliding to the total strain, measured at the surface and in the interior of a specimen. 2) The measurement of the change in grain shape during creep leads to an underestimation of the grain strain, and hence an overestimate of Egb.. However, the discrepancies between the values obtained by this method and those obtained using markers are not as great as Tables IV and V of Ishida, Mullendore, and Grant would suggest; see below. The authors' Eq. [I] which is used to compute Egb from the transverse displacement ITt of longitudinal marker lines is not given in the reference quoted,'' where in fact only relations for Egb in terms of the longitudinal displacements of markers were developed. As first pointed out by Gifkins and Gittins,12 a problem arises in the use of longitudinal markers. and we will show that Eq. [1] underestimates Egb in the interior by a factor of 2. In Fig. 12, two grains X and Y have become displaced by the vector AC which lies in the plane of the grain boundary ABCD separating them. A longitudinal marker has been split by this displacement into the two parts LA and CAW. If these were surface grains the transverse displacement, Ut. could be obtained by viewing normal to the "top" surface. If interior, a section through CD parallel to the top surface would show the same result, provided the longitudinal internal markers delineated planes normal to the top surface. (This is an essential feature of the markers not pointed out in the paper.) The important point is that the quantity Ut tan B (=BE=DF) only gives the elongation due to the one component AB of the sliding. The elongation V/tan 8 (=GD) due to the component AD must be added to produce the total elongation resulting from the boundary displacement AC. If the grain boundaries in a poly crystalline specimen are randomly oriented with respect to the stress axis it follows that In the interior of a specimen the two sums depend for any difference simply on the definitions "top'' and "side". On the surface it is possible that the two sums could differ somewhat. In either event it is clear that the authors' Eq. [I] underestimates Egb, and in the interior, and perhaps at the surface also, the appropriate formula is given by The suggested modification probably makes little difference to the comparison between surface and interior values of Egb where both were obtained from marker measurements. For the estimation of the correction becomes extremely important where the boundary contribution is large. In our own work on magnox, for example, we have obtained values of as large as 70 to 80 pct, under conditions of high temperature and low strain rate. The use of planar markers transverse to the stress axis would simplify the comparison between surface and interior behavior, because measurement of the longitudinal offsets Us of these markers could be summed to give the total elongation di-