Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kinetics of Flow and Strain Hardening
Kinetics of Flow and Strain Hardening
Abstract-The kinetics of glide at constant structure and the kinetics of structure evolution are corre-
lated on the basis of various experimental observations in pure f.c.c. mono- and polycrystals. Two
regimes of behavior are identified. In the initial regime, the Cottrell-Stokes law is satisfied, hardening is
athermal. and a single structure parameter is adequate. With increasmg importance of dynamic recovery,
be it at large strains or at high temperatures, all of these simple assumptions break down. However, the
proportionality between the flow stress and the square-root of the dtslocation density holds, to a good
approximation, over the entire regime; mild deviations are primarily ascribed to differences between the
various experimental techniques used. A phenomenological model is proposed, which incorporates the
rate of dynamic recovery into the flow kinetics. It has been successful in matching many experimental
data quantitatively.
stress depends on strain rate 6 and temperature T, but ‘plastic resistance’); however, a measurement of both
that the rate of evolution of p does not. Such a rate- the current flow stress and the current strain-harden-
independence of strain hardening is usually implied in ing rate might be sufficient. It is seen that the above-
phenomenological plasticity. More general cases, and mentioned possibility of a dependence of the ROW
more specific ones, will be discussed below. stress on the current rate of evolution could then be a
A measurement of the flow stress ‘at given struc- consequence of its dependence on two structure par-
ture’ [equation (la)] requires that a suitable back- ameters. We will find such a correlation borne out in
extrapolation method has been found which elimin- the experiments.
ates all efTectsof ongoing structure change [I, 23. This
is not necessarily possible, even in principle: the flow FLOW STRESS AND DISLOCATION
stress may also depend on the current rate of change DENSITY
of the dislocation structure [3-s], so that the separ-
ation of constant-structure kinetics from evolution is As a point of departure, we will discuss the specific
not as clear-cut as was implied in the relations (la) relation between flow stress and dislocation density
and (lb) [2]. It is the purpose of this paper to present that is in common usage. The flow stress ‘at zero
and review a number of experimental observations temperature’ is set equal to
that are most easily explained by such an assumption,
i = @bJp (3)
and are incompatible with relations (1). The same ex-
periments show, on the other hand, that the simple where b is the magnitude of the Burgers vector, P an
relations (1) are in fact well obeyed over a certain appropriate [7] shear modulus and i a constant of
range of external conditions: generally speaking, low order unity which depends, in part, on the strength of
temperatures and low strains. the dislocation/dislocation interaction. Thermal acti-
First, let us generalize the formal relations (1) in vation may lower this effective obstacle strength [7]
two respects: allowing that not only the flow stress, so that the flow stress at a finite temperature and
but also the rate of evolution of the substructure with strain rate becomes
strain may depend on strain rate and temperature;
c = ~(2,T)+b,/jp 1 ctpb& (4)
and that it requires two parameters (here called p1
and p2) to represent the macroscopic effects of the where s(G,7’) is a function that goes to 1 as T+ 0; it
substructure adequately: will be discussed later, on the basis of thermal acti-
vation kinetics. For now, it matters only that the flow
~=a(P,,Pz;&T) @a) stress is a product of a rate sensitivet term and a
Then, rwo evolution laws are required: structure sensitive term.
The flow stress as given by equation (3) and (4)
dp,
-=
de
~l(Pl.Pz;&n relates only to the impediment to dislocation motion
that is provided by other dislocations. In most
dp2 materials, there are other contributions to the plastic
- = E2hrPl;C n resistance. In some cases (e.g., lattice resistance [7],
de
solution hardening [7J, some grain size effects [IO]),
This set of relations will be sufficiently general for these are additive to the contributions discussed
all applications to be discussed here. An extension to above:
further parameters may be necessary when stress
0 = a@, T)*@& + a&, T). (5)
reversals are incorporated [6].
Comparison of relations (2) and (1) reveals a signifi- The rate dependence of co may be more important
cant difference relevant to phenomenological descrip- than that of a (or s), or it may be negligible; the less
tions of plasticity, in which the metallurgical structure rate sensitive term is often called an ‘internal stress’.
is of no concern, but instead the notion of a mechan- Some other contributions to the flow stress obey
ical stare of the material is introduced. When relation more complicated, nonlinear superposition rules [l 1-J.
(la) holds, a measurement of the flow stress at any For the purposes of this paper, we assume that the
standard strain rate and temperature identifies the superposition problem has been solved so that, from
current state of the material [7-g]: it is a macroscopic now on, u identifies only the dislocation/dislocation in-
equivalent to p. The state of a material obeying equa- teraction component of the flow stress, which changes
tion (2a). on the other hand, cannot be completely with strain (equation 4). The experimental results we
specified by one measurement [9]. such as of the flow will discuss relate only to pure f.c.c. materials, in
stress at standard conditions (the ‘reference stress’, the which all other contributions can be shown to be neg-
ligible (except at very small stresses). Furthermore, we
t All rate and temperature dependencies of interest here presuppose that self-consistent use of orientation
are due to thermal activation and are thus coupled. When factors is made in any application; we use u and e in
the influence of thermal activation is important, we say the
the general sense of ‘equivalent’ stresses and strains,
behavior is ‘rate sensitive’; when not, ‘athermal’. The tem-
perature dependence of p is assumed known and incorpor- and use r and y only when experimental data are
ated in the analysis. specifically reported in terms of resolved quantities.
MECKLNG AND KOCKS: KINETICS OF FLOW AND STRAlN-HARDENING 1867
TEM results
-
A (III> ”
PX Stoker, Holt
l PX Essmonn, et 01
-
Fig. 1. Dislocation density vs flow stress for Cu at room temperature [12-211, normalized by
h = 0.256 nm, p = 42.1 GPa (decadic logarithms). Polycrystal (PX) tensile stresses were divided by 3.06
to convert to shear stress T. Vofume dislocation densities measured by TEM were divided by 2 to
convert to intersection density p. For single slip (541). etch-pit data refer to forest density, TEM data to
dislocations with nonprimary Burgers vectors. From the low stresse& 0.12 MPa was subtracted [20]. The
lines show the relation u = ati&, with a = 1 and 0.5.
The relation between flow stress and dislocation The data in Fig. 1 span three orders of magnitude
density has been investigated over the widest range of in stress, almost seven in dislocation density (from
the variables, and under the widest range of experi- about lo* to 10” ~m-~). Two observations must be
mental conditions, in pure copper. A large variety of made at first sight: each individual set of data obeys
these data [12-213 has been replotted in Fig. 1 in a the square-root relation quite well; and all data
way that would make departures from the square- together are compatible with it if a total variation in e
root relation [equations (4)] most clearly visible. All of a factor 2 is allowed, i.e. a variation in dislocation
of these data refer to room-temperature deformation,t density of e factor 2 either way from the mean. It
all are expressed in terms of tes~lved shear stress would seem that such a variation between data from
and no~i~ by the same shear modulus different investigators could easily be due to experi-
Ir Z
- JG4 *(c* I - dLz and all are reported as inzer- mental scatter or differences in evaluation techniques.
section (rather than volume) densities [12]. For the Beyond this first-order evaluation, Fig I may sug-
single-slip data, p is thefbresr density in the case of gest a correlation between lower values of a and
etch-pit studies [lS$, 201; in the one reported single- higher dislocation densities, or a systematic departure
slip investigation by transmission electron microscopy from the square-root relation [21-241. We find it sig-
(TEM) [14], p is the density of dislocations with non- nificant, however, that at least two other correlations
primary Burgers vectors, as measured after neutron can be made: TEM data (solid symbols) give consist-
irradiation. In the cases of polyslip deformation, p ently higher dislocation densities than etch-pit data
refers to the ‘total’ dislocation density [l;? 13,16-193. (open symbols); and polyslip deformation (in mono- or
The lowest stresses were corrected by a constant addi- polycrystals) gives consistently higher densities than
tive ~ntribution r. of O.l2MPa, presumably due to single slip [21]. For both of these correlations, plaus-
impurities and chosen such as to produce a fit with ible explanations are at hand. We find the difference
equation (5) [20]. in measurement technique the most convincing argu-
ment, as well as the one with the best experimental
correlation: all etch-pit data fit quation (5) with
t The single most extensive investigation[ZZ] was
undertaken at T = 4.2 K. Even if the mechanisms were a = 1, all TEM data with a 1: 0.5. Note, on the other
identical to those at R.T., a conversion of the data would hand, that if the data were fit by one straight line of
require a knowledge of the temperature dependence of the slope greater than one, the deviations are systematic,
impurity contribution. Furthermore, the published data namely of a sigmoidal nature. This is also evident in
contained an unknown, specimendependent yield stress
parameter.
the plot used by Basinski [22,24].
1:For this reason, Livingston’s [12) single-slip data are In conclusion, the proportionality between the flow
reported in the reevaluation by Jackson and Basinski [lS]. stress (due to d~~~ationfdis~ation tiermtions) and
1868 MECKING AND KOCKS: KINETICS OF FLOW AND STRAIN-HARDENING
0
0 2 4 6 8 IO
u//l x IO’
(7)
dynamic recovery, the vurious simple ussumptions that where the as yet arbitrary functionfmust go to 1 as 0,
were found to hold true during the initial ‘CottrelL goes to zero, and must decrease as 0, increases. We
Strokes behavior’ break down simultaneously; equa- shall use two easy heuristic representation of such a
tions (2a) to (2~) are needed as a general foundation. function [inserting equation (15) for the general glide
kinetics term .sA]:
A PHENOMENOLOGICAL MODEL
s = (i)“m-exp( -F- $) (17a)
Glide kinetics is generally described by an Arrhe-
nius equation [2,7]: and
+_)lh.(l-F*~) (17W
(14)
where AG(s,,) is meant to express the stress dependence where f3, has been introduced merely for normaliz-
of the activation free enthalpy. Inversion of equation ation, and F is an adjustable parameter (not necess-
(14) gives a special form, when equation (14) holds, for arily constant, but assumed so in the following); since
the stress factor s introduced in equation (4); namely it always comes out small compared to 1, the two
* 1/n expressions (17a) and (17b) are in fact equivalent, and
a
SE -=s,,(i,T)= ; . (13 will be used interchangeably, depending only on con-
b 0 venience.
In the last part of the equation, we have expressed sA Equation (17a) was originally derived on the basis
as a power-law in the strain rate, which is often used of a physical mechanism, which has not as yet been
for convenience in phenomenological expressions. It is published in detail, but was summarized in Ref. [ll].
truly equivalent to an inversion of equation (14) only It is based on the contribution made to glide kinetics
when by the ‘dislocation rearrangement strain rate’ during
dynamic recovery, and also provides a structural
interpretation for a second state parameter [ll, 421.
In the present paper, we shall merely use equations
(17) as empirical relations and prove that they de-
is independent of stress, as it often is to a sufficient scribe the data presented here quite well.
approximation. The temperature dependence of m at Equation (17a) leads to the following expression for
constant strain rate [which is more complicated than the rate sensitivity:
the explicit temperature dependence evident in equa-
tion (15’)] causes the temperature dependence of s and alns 1 F ae,
- =---_
thus of the flow stress in the power-law description aIn* T m 0, a In ( T
(15) c7l.
Equation (15) is a specific example of Cottrell- and using equation (13) for the instantaneous rate
Stokes behavior [equation (4)]: the flow stress a is a sensitivity of the hardening rate:
product [26] of 6, which depends only on strain, and
s, which depends only on strain rate and temperature.
This behavior would be violated if, for example, &
were not constant but depended on i. A mild depen- The equation was plotted as a solid line through
dence of this kind is actually likely [7]; however, it the data points in Figs. 2 and 3, using e,le, as evalu-
would go in the wrong direction to explain the ob- ated from Figs. 5 and 6, respectivelyt. We found that
served deviations from Cottrell-Stokes behavior at a value of m/n *F = 1 fit all the room-temperature
large flow stresses-and could not explain the corre- curves in Fig. 2; for higher temperatures, the value is
lation with dynamic recovery and the appearance of given in parenthesis on the respective curves in Fig. 3.
transients. (The temperature dependence is consistent with that
In order to describe and to test the postulated con- of m/n, and thus with F 2 constant.) The fit is
nection between deviations from Cottrell-Stokes kin- remarkable. Note in particular that the very different
etics and dynamic recovery, let us instead replace stress strain curves for the different single crystal
equation (15) by orientations and the polycrystal of silver give very
similar flow stress kinetics.
Temperature changes should similarly give, instead
of equation (7), a flow stress change according to
t For the strain-hardening rate, we have used the
‘steady-state’value at the base strain rate, 0; nevertheless.for
its rate sensitivity. we have used the instantaneous depen-
.$ (20)
dency given by equation (13). Moreover, we have assumed
this equation, which had been derived for AI single crystals
at half the melting temperature. to hold, in its functional where the linearized equation (17b) has been used,
form, for silver mono- and polycrystals at all temperatures. and S is the initial CottrelCStokes ratio at the two
MECKING AND KOCKS: KINETICS OF FLOW AND STRAIN-HARDENING 1873
temperatures (sA,/sA).The copper data in Fig. 4 were proportional to the dislocation segment length [36]. If
fit using equation (20) with A@, = -Q,(T), and the inner cut-off radius is called rO, this gives
evaluating &/f1,, for each temperature from Fig. 7
(i = a&,:p In(l/rOv,‘p). (22)
(employing a computer smoothing technique). A
single value F = l/30 produced the good fit in Fig. 4. The elfective value of r = a0 In(l/r,,/p) then de-
Equations (17) thus describes these data very well. creases with increasing dislocation density. On the
Note that the correction factor for the _Howstress is other hand, it is assumed that the rate sensitivity is
always near 1 (F < 0.1, 0,/6’, < 1); nevertheless, the not proportional to the line tension, but
influence on !he rate and temperature seusitiuity is
fi = B-/lb J{) (23)
profound.
A further ramification of the new flow stress law with B independent of p. Then, the relationship
expressed by equation (16). as inserted into equation between flow stress and rate sensitivity can be
(4). is that an Arrhenius equation no longer describes expressed by
flow kinetics when the rate of dynamic recovery is
d = Cp*ln(D/Cp) (24)
substantial. The specific form given in equation (17) is
such that the observed flow stress should be lower where C z so/B and D = a&/r,,. Equation (24) de-
than that predicted by an Arrhenius equation [equa- scribes a curve, not a straight line, in a Haasen plot
tions (14) and (IS)] when the strain rate is low or the and is used to explain deviation from Cottrell-Stokes
temperature high. This is exactly what is observed in behavior.
the high-temperature flow-stress drop [2,5-J, and dur- The above description was based on a model [24]
ing long-term stress relaxation [43,44]. In all these in which the flow stress is composed of two parts: an
cases, the curvature in a plot of u vs T or In.5 has the athermal component described by equation (22), and
wrong sign to be consistent with thermally activated a thermally activated component which was assumed
glide over a physically reasonable obstacle in which to be so small compared to the athermal one that it
the activation area increases as the stress de- was not even included in equation (22) as an additive
creases [44]. Figure 8 of the present paper displayed term [45], even though it is solely responsible for
another case of such an unexpected curvature, but equation (23). The crucial assumption is that the two
here for the flow stress after a strain-rate change. The components have different p-dependencies. In our
temperature was there not quite in the flow-stress- opinion, this represents a superposition rule which is
drop regime, but the strain was large enough to pro- hard to justify theoretically and certainly refers to a
duce substantial dynamic recovery. The critical cri- very special obstacle distribution. In particular, it
terion for the departures from classical behavior is a appears to be in conflict with basic features of Cot-
low strain-hardening rate. trell-Stokes behavior.
The Cottrell-Stokes law is generally interpreted as
experimental evidence for the athermal and thermal
BASINSKIS MODEL stress components (if indeed they have a separate
existence) to be controlled by the same obstacles,
In the preceding we have presented a point of view namely forest dislocations [46]. The line tension con-
that emphasizes the correlation between the observed trols the area enclosed by dislocation segments at the
breakdown in Cottrell-Stokes behavior with the critical bow-out, and thus the statistics of the effective
breakdown in athermal strain hardening. The effect is obstacle spacing along the gliding dislocations.
mainly ascribed to an increase in the rate sensitivity Whether and in which form it appears in the macro-
of a in the u - ,/p relationship in equation (4) as the scopic flow stress relation depends on the obstacle
dynamic recovery component 0, of strain hardening strength and on the detailed averaging procedure, and
increases. If one expresses the rate sensitivity as
cannot be stated in a general way [7,47]. In any case,
however, it should enter both stress components in
precisely the same way when they are controlled by
the same obstacles.
then @a/a In i) is claimed to be a function of 0,. There If nevertheless the distinction between the p-depen-
is also a small decrease in the absolute magnitude of a dence of the two stress components were accepted on
which, however, is negligible in the proposed formal- a phenomenological basis, it could indeed explain the
ism. sign of the observed deviations from Cottrell-Stokes
Just the opposite point of view has been taken by behavior; to explain the observed magnitude, however,
Basinski [22,24] in a previous attempt to explain the the inner cut-off radius would have to have a value of
deviations from Cottrell-Stokes behavior at large rO z 15 b for the data reported by Basinski [24] (and
strains. It is based on the assumption that the absolute also for our evaluations at room-temperature, as
value of a in equation (4) decreases with increasing reported below), which is not easy to rationalize.
strain. This follows from the postulate that the flow Furthermore, the strong a@) dependence implied by
stress is proportional to the dislocation line tension, this value tends to overexplain the possible mild
and that the outer cut-off radius in the line tension is departure from the Q a fi proportionality shown in
1874 MECKING AND KOCKS: KINETICS OF FLOW AND STRAIN-HARDENING
Fig. 10. Data from Fig. 3, but with curves derived according to Basinski’s model [23]. The cut-off radius
ror which determines the curvature, was matched to the room-temperature data, the other adjustable
parameter was matched to the low-stress regime for 7’ = 672,783 and 986 K, and is given in parenthesis.
These observations were quantitatively well de- 19. E. Giittlcr, Phil. Mug. 28, 1057 (1973).
scribed on the basis of a phenomenological model, in 20. H. Mecking and G. Bulian, Acru ntcrull. 24, 249 (1976).
which the classical equation for glide kmetics is modi- 21. P. Ambrosi, W. Homeier and Ch. Schwink, Scriptu
metull. 14, 325 (1980).
ficd by a factor that decreases from I as the rate of 22. Z. S. Basinski and S. J. Basinski, Phil. Muu. 9. 51
dynamic recovery increases. Thus, all the observed ( 1964): SW also in Dis/ocurbns irl So/ic/,s, (edited by
dcparturcs from classical behavior are linked in thei F. R. N. Nabarro) vol. 4. p. 261. North Holland,
Importance to the smallness of the strain-hardening Amsterdam (19791.
23. G. Schocck and R. Frydman, Phy.\icu SI~WS solidi 53,
rate whether this be at large strains or at high tem- 661 (1972).
peratures. 24. Z. S. Basinski. Srriptu meta// 8, 1301 (I 974).
25. P. Haasen. Phil. Mug. 3. 384 (1958).
A~~~rto~l~/c~/~/cn?c,r1rs-PProressor
K. Liicke contributed to the 26. R. A. Mulford and U. F. Kocks, Acru merull. 27, 1125
formulation of the concepts developed here and provided (1979).
unfaihng encouragement. We gratefully acknowledge the 27. H. Mecking. Huhiliturion rhrsis, RWTH Aachen (1973).
support of the U.S. Department of Energy, of the Deutsche 28. A. H. Cottrell and R.-J. Stokes, Proc. R. Sot. A 233, 17
Forschungsgemeinschaft (H.M.), and of the Alexander-von- (1955).
Humboldt-Stiftung (U.F.K.). 29. F. P. Bullen and M. M. Hutchison, Phil. Mog. 7, 557
( 1962).
30. F. R. N. Nabarro, Z. S. Basinski and D. B. Holt, Adr.
Phys. 13, 193 (I 964).
31. H. Mecking and K. Liicke, Z. Metal/k. 60, 185 (1969).
REFERENCES
32. H. Mecking. in Work Hardenina in Tension und Fati-
1. H. Meckmg and K. Liicke, Mater. Sci. Engng I, 349 gue (editedby A. W. Thompsonip. 67. A.I.M.E. (1977).
(1967). 33. K. Liicke and H. Mecking, in The Inhsmogeneity of
2. U. F. Kocks and H. Mecking, in Dislocation Modelling PIustic Deformation (edited by R. E. Reed-Hill) p. 223.
of Physical Processes (edited by C. S. Hartley et a/.) Am. Sot. Metals. (1973).
Pergamon, in press. 34. U. F. Kocks. J. Engng. Mater. Tech. (ASME) 98, 76
3. H. Mecking and K. Liicke, Acta metal/. 17, 279 (1969). (1976).
4. U. F. Kocks, in Fundamental Aspects of Dislocation 35. M. Biermann, Doctoral Thesis RWTH Aachen, W.
Theory, (edited by J. A. Simmons, R. deWit, R. Bul- Germany.
lough) (NBS Spec. Pub. 317). p. 1077 (1971). 36. D. Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf, in Work Hardening, (edited by
5. T. H. Alden, Phi/. Mag. 25, 785 (1972). J. P. Hirth and J. Weertman) p. 97. Gordon and
6. A. P. L. Turner, Metal/. Trans. A 10, 225 (1979). Breach (1968).
7. U. F. Kocks. A. S. Argon and M. F. Ashbv. _. Prop.
I 37. H. Mecking, in Dislocation Modelling of Physical Pro-
Mater. Sci. 19, (1975). - cesses, (edited by C. S. Hartley et al.) Pergamon,
8. U. F. Kocks. in Constitutiue Eauations in Plosticirv. Oxford (in press).
(edited by A.S. Argon) p. 81. MI? Press (1975). ” 38. H. Fischer, Doctoral Thesis RWTH Aachen, W. Ger-
9. U. F. Kocks, Chalmers Anniwrsary Volume, Prog. many.
Muter. Sci., p. 185 (1981). 39. H. Here, Proc. /Oth Biannial Gong. Ind. Deep Drawing
IO. H. Mecking, in Strength of Metals and A//oys, (edited Research Group, p. 179, Warwick, U.K. (1978).
by P. Haasen, V. Gerold and G. Kostorz) p. 1573. 40. H. Mecking, U. F. Kocks and H. Fischer, Proc. 4th Inc.
Pergamon (1979). Con/ on the Strength of Metals and Alloys Nancy,
11. U. F. Kocks, in Strength of Metals and Alloys, (edited France, p. 334 (1976).
bv P. Haasen. V. Gerald and G. Kostorz) I ,I). 1661. 41. R. J. Stokes and A. H. Cottrell, Acta metal/. 2, 341
Pergamon, Oxford (1979). (1954).
12. J. D. Livingston, Acta meta//. 10, 229 (1962). 42. U. F. Kocks and H. Mecking, in Strength ofMetals and
13. J. E. Bailey, Phi/. Mag. 8, 223 (1963). Alloys, (edited by P. Haasen, V. Gerold, and G. Kos-
14. U. Essmann. Phvsica status solidi 17. 725 (1966). torz) Pergamon. p. 345 (1979).
15. P. J. Jackson anh Z. S. Basinski, Can J. Whys. 45, 707 43. E. W. Hart and H. D. Solomon, Acta metal/. 21, 295
(1967). (1973).
16. U. Essmann. M. Rapp and M. Wilkens, Acta metal/. 44. C. C. Law and D. N. Beshers. Scrimu metal/. 6. 635
16, 1275 (1968). (1972).
17. G. van Drunen and S. Saimoto, Acta metal/. 19, 213 45. Z. S. Basinski, personal communication.
(1971). 46. Z. S. Basinski. Phil. Maa. 4. 393 11959).
18. M. R. Staker and D. L. Holt, Acta meta//. 20, 569 47. A. J. E. Foreman and I% J.‘Makin, PAi/. Mag. 14, 911
(1972). (1966).