Institute of Metals Division - Discussion of "Specimen Temperature During Electropolishing of Aluminum Crystals" (TN)

In his technical note entitled "Specimen Temperature During Electropolishing of Aluminum Crystals" Dr. Nakada 1 reported that the temperature of his aluminum specimen increased 65°C when it was polished electrolytically; he therefore concluded that the temperature of the specimens used in our work (Nakada's Refs. 4 and 5) similarly increased by this amount. From this he further concluded that the change in plastic-flow characteristics associated with the removal of the surface by electropolishing during deformation were due solely to a temperature effect. We believe that these conclusions are not justified. It is, of course, realized that the amount of the temperature increase is associated with the total heat transfer of the entire system, including the efficiency of the stirring action, heat flow through the grip on the specimen, and so forth. Of great importance is the type of electrolyte used for polishing. For example, in Dr. Nakada's experiment a methanol-perchloric acid solution was used. This solution has a relatively low conductivity and for the current densities of 0.3 amp per sq cm the electrical input appears to be 30 to 40 w. In our research a methanol-nitric acid solution was employed and for the size of specimen employed by Dr. Nakada the power never exceeded 7 w. There are major differences in his test apparatus which also appear to affect the temperature rise. In our case a steel specimen holder was used in order to provide a good heat sink and conduction path. The cathode was a coiled aluminum tube through which a coolant was passed to provide additional cooling capacity near the specimen. The stirrer was placed in a position to obtain maximum cooling efficiency. On the other hand Dr. Nakada used a teflon grip to support the specimen at one end only and a flat copper cathode, thus providing a much less efficient heat sink as compared with the metal grips used in our studies. The relationship between current density and the temperature increase for two sizes of aluminum crystals tested in our tensile apparatus is shown in Fig. 1. The temperature measurements were determined from a thermocouple spot-welded to the surface of the specimen. The thermocouple was protected from the acid by means of a thin film of stop-off lacquer which covered just the outer surface of the thermocouple junction. Whereas Dr. Nakada reported a time delay of 8 min to obtain thermal equilibrium, our temperature change occurred in less than 15 sec. This emphasizes the importance of the heat transfer in the entire system. However, readings were taken over a period in excess of 5 min to assure thermal equilibrium. The data given in Fig. 1 were also confirmed by determining the thermal expansion of the specimen in a sensitive creep apparatus. As may be seen, for the smaller specimen the increase in temperature is 8°C for a current density of 1.5 amp per sq in. The majority of our data on the effects of surface removal on the plastic behavior of aluminum were obtained at current-density values at or below this value. Above 1.5 amp per sq in. the temperature rise is uncertain; for under certain conditions, especially in the vicinity of 2 amp per sq in., the anode can become polarized and the current flow is erratic. This condition is easily recognized because wide fluctuations in the creep and stress-strain data make it virtually impossible to obtain reliable results, a condition which was always avoided in our work. The temperature increase for the larger specimen is less than that of the smaller specimens below a current density of 1.5 amp per sq in. At a current density of 2 amp per sq in. the temperature increased 13°C. The above temperature data are in accord with observations made during creep experiments. Using a transducer capable of detecting strain in the order of 10 -6, temperature changes in excess of 8°C were not detected when the current density was increased to as high a value as 1.5 amp per sq in. Finally we wish to point out that our experimental data cannot be explained solely in terms of a heat effect. For example in Fig. 1 of Ref. 2, the change in slope of Stage II as a function of the rate of re-