Advertisement

A Crystallographic Alternative to the Coincidence Relationships in Copper

  • Y. C. Liu

Abstract

The preferred orientation relationships between growing grains and strained (4–8 pct in tension) single crystal matrices of 99.999 pct purity copper were observed to be (001) 19° and (111) ~ 30°, identical to those previously found after secondary re-crystallization. Nearly all of the growing grains contained an annealing twin. By considering the orientation of the parent (or twinned) grains, the preferred relationships may be expressed, approximately, in terms of parallelism between the following pairs of orthogonal directions:

P-relationship:

Growing Grain

Matrix

 

>001<

>111<

 

>010<

>110<

 

>100<

>112<

Q-relationship:

Matrix

Growing Grain

By considering the matrix during the secondary recrystallization in copper as (001)[100] and its four twin orientations, the present alternative suggests that it is the twin matrices, not the (OOl) [100] orientation, which support the growth of both (001) 19° and (111) 22° secondary grains. When the occurrence of annealing twins is rare, such as in aluminum, it is therefore expected that these two relationships should be absent, as observed experimentally. The findings of only two preferred relationships in the present investigation is in agreement with the alternative offered, but not with the coincidence model, which yields many relationships with a high coincidence density.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. L. Kronberg and F. H. Wilson, Trans. TMS-AIME, 185, 501 (1949).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. A. Beck and H. Hu, Trans. TMS-AIME, 182, 627 (1949).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. C. Frank, referred by ref. 5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. T. Aust and, J. W. Rutter, Trans. TMS-AIME, 215, 119 (1959).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. T. Aust and J. W. Rutter, Trans. TMS-AIME, 215, 820 (1959).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. W. Rutter and K. T. Aust, Acta Met., l3, 181 (1965).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. B. Rath and H. Hu, Trans. TMS-AIME, 245, 1577 (1969)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. C. Brandon, B. Ralphy, S. Ranganathan and M. S. Wald, Acta Met., 13, 813 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. C. M. Li, in Recovery and Recrystallization of Metals, Interscience, New York, 1963, p. l60.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. T. Aust, in Surface and Interfaces, Syracuse University Press, 1967, p. 435.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Gordon and R. A. Vandermeer, in Recrystallization, Grain Growth and Textures, ASM, Metals Park, Ohio, 1966, p. 205.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Lücke and G. Ibe, Final Technical Report, Contract N. DA-91-591-EUC-2875, Department of Army, 1964.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. P. Stttwe, Trans. TMS-AIME, 221, 203 (1961).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Y. C. Idu, Trans. TMS-A1ME, 230, 1513 (1964).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Sharp and C. G. Dunn, Trans. TMS-AIME, 194, 4–2 (1952).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. T. Aust, G. Ferran and G. Cizeron, Comptes Rendus, 257, 3595 (1963).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. C. Parkinson, G. Van Drunen and S. Saimoto, Scripta Met., 4, 1009 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Sharp and C. G. Dunn, Trans. TMS-AIME, 124, 1344 (1952).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. T. Aust and J. W. Rutter, Trans. TMS-AEME, 218, 1023 (1960).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. R. Rowland, J. Inst. Met., 83, 1620 (1954).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. A. Verbraak, Acta Met., 6, 580 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. C. Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.Scientific Research Staff, Ford Motor CompanyDearbornUSA

Personalised recommendations