Institute of Metals Division - Discussion of An Empirical Relation Defining the Stress Dependence of Minimum Creep Rate in Metals

James C. M. Li (United States Steel Covp.)—The author has discovered a single analytical relation between the minimum, or the steady-state, creep rate and the applied stress confirming a statement made earlier by orn" that such relation should exist and should reduce to the power law at low-stress levels and to the exponential law at high-stress levels. However, as pointed out by the author, all the available theories of creep are not adequate to explain such a single relation. Inspired by such a statement, I have made a suggestion concerning a possible explanation13 of the new relation. This is based on the concept that the rate-controlling step is the cooperative motion of a short dislocation segment. The nature of and the reason for the cooperation have been discussed13 as well as the reason why the motion of the dislocation could be controlled by the mobility of the short segments. A natural short segment has been proposed13 to be the node formed at the intersection of two dislocations. The reason why the node may contain only a few atoms has not been discussed and the application of the proposed model to all the metals and alloys reported in this paper has not been attempted. It seems appropriate to include these in this discussion. The model was partly inspired by the substructure recently observed in the electron microscope on creep specimens. One such example is shown in Fig. 48 in Darken's Campbell Memorial Lecture. The substructure is a collection of dislocation intersections and irregular networks. No pileups have ever been observed in such specimens. A closer look at the network indicates that one set of dislocations is more straight than the other set sug- gesting that the other set may be mobile in the plane of the net. Since, for the network to survive the creep deformation, some dislocation reaction has to take place at the intersection of the two sets of dislocations, the mobile dislocation, even if it can slip in the plane of the net, will have difficulty in moving at these intersections. To illustrate, an idealized network is shown in Fig. 9. The thin lines represent the set of dislocations which are mobile and can slip in the plane of the net except at the nodes which are formed at the intersection of the two sets of dislocations. The other set of dislocations, represented by the thick lines, may have a Burgers vector which is not parallel to the plane of the net, and therefore may be immobile. Because of this nonparallel Burgers vector, the Burgers vector of the node, which is avectorial sum of the Burgers vectors of the two sets of dislocations, will also be nonparallel to the plane of the net. Therefore, the node cannot slip in the plane of the net and the set of mobile dislocations will have to drag the node along as indicated in Fig. 9. Now the problem is how many atoms could be involved in the nodes. Exact calculation of the length of the node is a difficult task especially since the length should be a steady-state length and not an equilibrium length. An estimate of the equilibrium length can be made by balancing the line tension of all the dislocations. The results would be a small fraction of the length 1 between nodes as shown in Fig. 10. In some instances such a calculation shows that the node will not be formed. But, since the calculation is only approximate, it does not rule out the possibility of the formation of a short node. In other instances the equilibrium length of the node is an appreciable fraction of I. Such a node would