PART VI - Communications - Discussion of “Calculation of the Deformation Caused by Grain Boundary Sliding During the Creep of Polycrystalline Solids”

In two recent papers stevens13,14 has compared the methods used by various investigators to calculate the contribution of grain boundary sliding to the total creep strain. In previous work Gittins15 has shown that the strain due to grain boundary sliding Egb may be estimated from the lateral, d, and vertical, v, displacements of a longitudinal marker line as it crosses a grain boundary. He obtained the formula, where nL is the number of grains per unit length measured on the specimens before creep, and \p and ?2 are, respectively, the angle between the grain boundary and the stress axis in the plane of the surface and normal to the surface (see Ref. 13, Fig. 1). The subscript L indicates that observations are made in a longitudinal direction parallel to the stress axis. It was generally found more convenient to measure the grain size of a specimen before creep; this was necessary to characterize the specimen. Stevens13,14 however prefers to define Egb in terms of NL, the number of grains per unit length after creep. Since nL - NL(l + €1) where cr is the total strain, Eq. 1 11 becomes The quantities d and ?, can be determined directly from the marker lines, while v and ?2 are found by sectioning normal to the surface. In the interior when symmetry considerations suggest that v = d and ?1 - ?2 the strain due to grain boundary sliding may be estimated from a suitable internal longitudinal marker line by the equation To determine cgb at the surface using either Eqs. |1| or [2] requires a large number of observations, particularly if many estimates of cgb are required, and also it is impossible to determine the variation of cgh with creep strain on the same specimen because the specimen must be sectioned to determine ?2. Gittins15 found that for a number of materials the sliding vectors d and v were related to each other so that provided one was measured the other could be estimated. Also during creep, grain boundaries tend to migrate to meet the surface at angles close to 90 deg,16 so that the term nL(v/tan?2)L was comparatively small when 4,- 90 deg. By determining the frequency distributions of ?2 on control specimens this term can be estimated without sectioning the creep specimen. In this way an empirical equation based on Eqs. |1| and |2| enables cgb to be determined with reasonable accuracy with fewer observations of the angles and sliding components. For B brass, the relationship between the sliding vectors indicated that ceb = 0.85nLVL . In Table I of Stevens paper this equation is stated to be incorrectly derived. However it should be pointed out that this is an empirical equation derived from Eq. |1|, based on a knowledge of the relationship between d and v and on the frequency distributions of ?1 and ?2 for a particular material under given experimental conditions. It was used only when these relationships were known, to reduce the number of observations required to estimate cb. Therefore the comment "derivation incorrect does not apply. Gittins did in fact make use of Eqs. |1| and 131. Author's Reply I must apologize to Dr. Gittins for the inadvertent misrepresentation of his work. Other slight errors in Table I have been pointed out to me. Langdon (No. 12 Table I), Gifkins (No. 7, Table I), and possibly other workers did not measure the number of boundaries per unit length after creep (A') but the corresponding quantity bejove creep (n). As Dr. Gittins points out, a completely analogous set of equations to those given in the paper can be derived by the same method: using the number of boundaries per unit length before instead of after creep. The basic equations corresponding to Eqs. [2] and 171 of the paper, from which all the others can be derived, are