Some Factors Affecting The Rate Of Grain Growth In Metals

RECENT investigations have elucidated many of the phenomena of the grain growth process, but have also revealed some conflicting and unexplained results. Beck and his co-workers1,2,3 have shown that grain growth continues with continued heating at one temperature until the average grain size approaches the thickness of the specimen, Plotting the logarithm of the average grain diameter, D, against the logarithm of the annealing time, t, they find the straight line relationship given by the equation: [D=Ktn [11] with possible small deviations at short annealing times. K and n are constants at constant temperature. On the other hand, Walker4 finds that, in alpha brass, the rate of growth falls off more rapidly than indicated by Eq I after long annealing, so that an equilibrium grain size is approached. Burke5 showed, using Walker's data, that time and temperature for grain growth are apparently related through an activation energy, H, according to the relationship: [t, Hr i '_ III t„ = R \T, - ~) [2]] where t1 and t2 are the annealing times necessary for the average grain size to increase from Do to D at temperatures T1 and T2 and R is the gas laws constant. In the case quoted, H had the value 60,000 cal per mol. The apparent validity of this relationship, at least up to 700°C, and the approximate value of H were later confirmed by Beck.' The results obtained by Beck, Kremer, Demer and Holzworth2 for aluminum and aluminum-magnesium alloys could not be satisfied by such a relationship, since the slope of the isothermal curves increased with increasing temperature. These data indicate and Beck, Holzworth and Hu6 later demonstrated experimentally that the only apparent factor controlling the rate of grain growth at constant temperature is the grain size. While many of the phenomena have been elucidated, a reasonably quantitative explanation of the process is lacking. There exists uncertainty even as to the primary driving force for grain growth, although there is a considerable body of indirect evidence that the interfacial energy of the grain boundary is responsible.7,8,10 Making implicit use of this assumption, several authors14,15 have pointed out that grain boundaries should migrate toward their center of curvature. Harker and Parker' have advanced this concept furthest, and show that one can expect grain boundary migration to occur only when the grain faces are curved, or when they meet at non-equilibrium angles. When the face is curved toward a grain A, for example, the atoms in the surface of grain B, on the other side of the boundary, are on the average more surrounded by the atoms of their lattice than the atoms on the surface of grain A. Because of thermal motion, the atoms at the interface will sometimes be attached to grain A and