STRENGTHENING OF LAMELLAR VS. EQUIAXED Ag-Cu EUTECTIC* HB. CLINE and D. LEEt ‘The strongth ofthe Ag-Cu eutectic was measured by tension testing for taro different types of structure cover a range of sizes, tomporaturea and strain rates, One was a lamellar structure which was produced by high speed directional soldifeation and the other an equiaxed structure renting from deformation ‘anil reerystalization, “At elevated tomperatures, the material with the lamellar structure yes melt Stronger than that with tho equiaxed structure, ‘The equiaxed structure was superplastic. As the sie of the plates and the grains decreased, tho strongth increased at low temperatures, but devreased at ‘lovatedtemperatures..'The difference in strength of the two materials wus attributed to the diferent morphologios and ing oan, Structure, from an ine Bonmedarsoe asin the action of dislocations with the iterface datocations that tak nellar structure, and an interaction of dislocations with the boun ine to tho discontinuity in elastic modulus at tho interface. “At high temperatures grain boundary. shear tiny ‘weaken material containing incoherent boundaries, CONSOLIDATION DES EUTECTIQUES Ag-Cu LAMELLATRE ET EQUIAXE “Lo résistance de Veutoctique Ag-Cu a été mesunée par des essai de traction pour doux types de struc. et pour diffrentestallos d ions, differontoa temperatures et differentas vitesse dor Imation." La promioro structure stuée est uno structure de (ype lamellare produite par tne sulilieation directionnelle & vitesse dlevér, ot la deuxiame est uso structure équiaxe produite par déformation et Fecristallistion. “Aux température: dlovéos, lo matérian & structure lamellar seanble tre beaucoup plus résitant que Méquinxe, celulei presentant del supendlasticite, Quand a taille dos plaques et dee Jrains augmente, la Fésstanco augmente aux basses temperatures, thnis diminus aux: tersperatares lovées, ‘La diféronce do résistance des deux matdriaux est uttribude aux diférences de morphologio ot 0? io 1 STRAIN RATE MIN") ross dependence of strain rate over the range of temperatures Yor the equiaxed material with = 0-70 ACTA METALLURGIGA, VOL. 1/1m EUTECTIC, “x os 08s Oe OT ‘EXTRUDED 8 RECRYSTALLIZED © OVRECTIONALLY SOLIDIFIED “0 20 2 FLOW STRESS, 10°F 300 300, 600 TeWPeRATURE Fe) 7. The tempers Fro, mature dependence of flow. stom (03% ottet) for both materias with equiaxed an lase Ine structures, ‘The quiwned inte tnd the lamelan material? 0.79 ye is paella to tho platelet i th fnllar mato he region of concentrated shear shows a coarsened quiaxed structure in the shear band. Coarsening was ko observed in the bulk of the sample, but to a much aller degree. Voids were formed internally at the atersection of shear bands as also shown in Fig. 10. In contrast, the equiaxed structure elongates with gradual neok as shown in Fig. 5. The equiaxed tructure is much weaker than the lamellar structure nd therefore the formation of equiaxed shear bands 1 the lamellar structure may eause fracture. IV, DISCUSSION ‘The large difference between the strength of re- rystallized and dircctionally solidified materials may © attributed to two important differences in their tructures. One is the difference between an ineoher- tit and semi-coherent boundary, and the other is the ference between equiaxed and lamellar morpholo- ies. ‘The nature of the boundary may be important 1 the way dislocations interact with tho boundary, ‘hile the morphology will influence the stresses solved on the boundaries and mode of deformation, ; | exTRUDED 8 DIRECTIONALLY RECRYSTALLIZED SOLIDIFIED |. &. Schematic diagrams showing the relationship betivoon the average slp distance, d, the grain sao and | Tamellne spacing Both of these structural features are shown in Fig. 11 n a schematic manner. A hypothotical intermediate structure (B) is also included which has the high angle boundary of the equiaxed structure (A) and the morphology of the lamellar structure (C). Using this illustration a comparison of the strengthening ‘mechanisms in structures (A) and (C) ean be made. Several deformation mechanisms are important in determining the strength in these structures. ‘They fare: (a) the stress, 7~, required for a dislocation to cross an incoherent boundary or nucleate another islocation on the other side of the boundary;®) (b) the stress, +(AG), necessary to overcome the image force at a semi-coherent boundary because of a differ- cence in shear modulus across the boundary: (e) a7 (wicaons=2) nf 4 Bad 4 ee 3 | 5 ©» opecnomur | 24 secant (wcrons"8) 2. Flow stroas (0.5% offiet) dopendonce of size (dis) for” both materials of equinxed and. lamellara CLINE axo L STREN Fie. 10. (g) The appearance of fracture for the lamellar material (= 0.1\p) pulled at 675°C at tho initial strain rate of 0.02 min“! and (b) the microstructure of one of the areas in, (a) whore tho localized deformation was Shoorved._ (¢) Overall section of tho same tensile spect ‘mon showing the void in the areas of localized deforma: tion THENING OF LAMELLAR VS. EQUIAXED EUTECTIC 221 the stress, (Mb), necessary for dislocation to eross an array of interface dislocations that take up the mis- match in the lattice parameter across a semi-coherent boundary; and finally, (d) the softening effect of grain boundary shear (GBS) that ocours at elevated temperatures) In the equiaxed structure there is an incompata bility of slip across the high angle grain boundary, while in the lamellar structure slip may eross the semi-coherent interface without any change ti direc For a dislocation to cross an incoherent bound- ary, the stress must locally reach a value high enough to nucleate a dislocation on the other side of the boundary. The critical shear stress, r,, for nucleation of a dislocation is of the order of @/30 or in the case of copper equal to about 200,000 psi. ‘The strength of the equiaxed material is much less than the critical stress needed for dislocations to cross the grain boundary because dislocations may et in groups to concentrate the stress on the dislocation near the boundary. ‘The theoretical strength could be reached, in principle, by making the size of structure very small so that dislocations cannot pile up.) ‘The strength of equiaxed structure is greater than that of lamellae structure at low temperature for comparable structural size, and this can be attributed to the absence of 7, in the lamella structure, as indi- cated in Fig. 11. Some of the difference in strength, about 20% at low temperature (Fig. 7) however could be attributed to the difference in orientation, or the Schmidt factor. ‘The lamellar structure may have coplanar slip across the semi-coherent interface. Howover, disloca- tions may experience an image forco as was previously discussed! that acts as a barrier to the motion across Bee ve ves = Tisg) YES ves ves ries) — _— ves Gaste,T) YES — = Fig. 11. Schematic diagrams showing the details of Structure, (A) is equiaxed with incoherent boundaries {t) lamellae structure with incoherent bormndaries and (C) [Rkallae structure with seiiceoherent boundaries. The ‘Pomible contribution of four deformation processes are also identified322 the interface resulting from a difference in the shear modulus between the phases, AG. In fact, the image force interaction can occur at any type of boundary where there is a modulus difference, but contribution to the total strengthening effect may differ. If it is, assumed that the maximum value of the image force occurs at a cut-off distance of the order of the Burgers vector, then the maximum stress on the lead disloca- tion is approximately given by'®”) AG (4G) = 5 2) Using the value of Gy = 2.65 x 104 dynfem? and Goq = 4.15 X 104 dynjom? the value of 7(AG) becomes 87,000 psi. In addition to the image barrier there may be an interaction between the slip dislocation and the inter- face disloeations present only in a semi-coherent interface to accommodate the difference in the lattice Parameter across the interface as shown schematic. ally in Fig. 12. It is assumed that the Burgers vector of the interfacial dislocation is a «/2(110) type and the interface plane is taken as a (100) plane with the tensile axis along to [110] direction. ‘The resulting maximum stress of the lead dislocation interacting with the network of interface dislocations may then be estimated in much the same manner that interactions of dislocations with forest. dislocations, such as a Frank network, are estimated. The distance botween interface dislocations, D, is related to the difference in the Burgers vector, Ab, as given by D = VYAb™ and the stress necessary for a dislocation to cross the interface dislocation network, (Ab), is approximately equal to Gb[27D® or is nb 7M) = (3) Using the values of the Burgers vector calculated from ‘the measured lattice parameters which gives b, 2.564 A and bay = 2.883 A and from equation (3) the value of the stress 7(AB) is approximately equal to 100,000 psi. Tn the Ag-Cu eutectic the estimated values of the bartier stress to dislocation motion across the interface caused by a difference in elastic modulus and by a difference in the lattice parameter are not significantly different. However this is not true in other eutectis and either of these two strengthening mechanisms may be dominant. Furthermore, in directionally solidified eutectic alloys that do not have the slip systems in cach phase oriented for com. patible deformation as in the case B in Fig. 11, the barrier at the interface would be higher as in the ACTA METALLURGICA, VOL. 18, 1970 equiaxed structure and greater strengths may be obtained, Both the equiaxed and lamellar structures were shown to follow the Petch equation at room tempera- ture over the range of grain sizes and lamellae spac- ings, as shown in Fig. 9. ‘The Petch slope was greater for the equiaxed structure than for the lamellar structure, 1.3 kg/mm?? vs. 0.8 kg/mm, respectively. ‘This result means that the resistance of the boundary to the passage of distoeations or the creation of now dislocations is lower in the semi-coherent houndat INTERFACIAL Distocarions \ rere’ _ (000) Pune LE TENSILE ORECTION o> oo Fic. 12. A schematic diagram showing the interfacial dislocation networks in the Ag Ca eutectic and the de Toeations in (111) plane than in the coherent boundary. ‘The Petch slopes for pure Cuand Agare 0.36kg/mm®and0.22kg/mm¥2,) At clevated temperatures incoherent boundaries of the equiaxed structure may slide and weaken the material. It was shown for example in the Mg-Al eutectic, that as much as three quarters of the total deformation was due to grain boundary shear. De- formation by grain boundary shear!” or other diffusion controlled processes'® are expected to result in a high strain rate sensitivity® that retards the formation of pronounced plastic instability) and gives large tensile elongations or superlasticity. If the grain boundaries can shear, the dislocations are attracted to the boundaries by an image force as in the case of a free surface and the image foree no longer strengthens the material. As the grain size de- creases, the equiaxed material becomes weaker at clevated temperatures as expected from the increaseCLINE ax LEB: STRENGTHENING OF in grain boundary arca or smaller diffusion distances. ‘The lamellar structure is considerably stronger than, ‘the equiaxed material at elevated temperatures. Although the aligned composite structure does not have a resolved shear stress on the boundaries when tested parallel to the growth direction, samples of this material were also previously found to be strong when tested at 45 degrees to the growth direction. ‘There- fore the strength at elevated temperatures may not be due only to the morphology, rather the highly ordered semi-coherent boundaries cannot slide easily. If the semi-coherent boundaries do not slide, then the image force strengthening may occur at elevated ‘temperatures, Recent work by Thompson and Lem- key have shown that several nickel base eutectics retain their strength at elevated temperatures and are stronger than commercial high temperature materials. {tis therefore important to understand the mechanism limiting eutectio strength. In silver-copper tested near the melting point, regions of equiaxed structure ‘were observed after deformation. During deforma- tion, dislocations interacting with the semi-coherent interface are expected to disorder the regions of good atomic fit by reacting with the interface dislocations and by leaving residual strain ficlds'® in the boundary because & dislocation of Burgers vector Ab is left in the interface after slip. Assuming that the semi- coherent boundaries become disordered with deforma- tion at high temperatures explains why the strength falls rapidly after yielding. As the material continues to deform locally, the morphology goes from lamellar ‘to equiaxed possibly by reerystallizing and coarsening. ‘The equiaxed structure is considerably weaker than the lamellar structure because of grain boundary sliding. The sharp reduction in the flow stress at elevated temperatures may be caused by strain enhanced coarsening and may ultimately limit the strength of directionally solidified materials at ele- vated temperatures. SUMMARY AND CONGLUSIONS 1. At elevated temperatures the lamellar material was much stronger than the equiaxed material because ‘the semi-coherent interfaces provide strengthening and the incoherent boundaries shear at very low stresses 2. At elevated temperatures the lamellar material LAMELDAR VS. EQUIAXED EUTECTIC 323 fractured by localized deformation caused by strain- enhanced reerystallization, whereas the equiaxed material was superplastic. 3. Ablow temperature both the equiaxed and lamel- lar materials are significantly stronger at fine structur- al sizes consistent with the Petch relation, 4. The strengthening by dislocation interaction with interface dislocation networks was estimated to ‘be comparable to the image force strengthening, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘The authors are indebted to P. Hill and L. Cook for mechanical testing, to the members of Metals Process- ing Operation for alloy preparation, and to the mem- bers oftheMotallography Unit. Theyarealsogratefulto L. Johnson for contributions that he has made con- cerning the dislocation interactions and J. D. Living- ston for helpful diseussions. REFERENCES B. J. Suaw, Acta Met. 15, 1169 (1967) HE, Cunt and D. F. Sree, Trans. Am, Inat, Min. Engra 245, 841 (1960), For example, Y. T. Cou, Can. J. Phys, 45, 559 (1967). G.'0. Knavse, J. appl. Phys, 37, 3684 (1968), G:C. Wearuniny, Metal. Bei. J? 2, 25 (1968), F. Linux, private communication J. Wautkk, Hl. Cuise and EP, Koc, Trans. Am, Inst. AFin. Bngre 245, 2073 (1969), W. A. Backores, IR. Torxen and D. H. Aveny, Trans, Am. Soe. Metals 52, 980 (1964). 9, DH Avuny and W.A. BACKOPES, Trine, Am.Soe. Metals 58, 581 (1963). 1 2 3. H 8 & i 8 10, HIE, Chasm and ‘T, H, ALDRS, Trans, Am. Inst. Min, Engrs 288, 710 (1983). AL, DL. Hour and W. A. Backorex, Trans. Am. Soe. Metais 59, 755.(1960). 12, D. Lee, deta Met, 17, 1057 (1969) 13, FLW, Crossatas, A! 8. Yor and A. E. Vinoz, Trane. ‘Am. Inst, Min, Engra 245, 897 (1960) 14, HE, Cuan, Trans, Am. Inst. Min. Engrs 289, 1906 (1a). 18, J. E, Haizsanp, Metal Prog. 85, 99 (1968) 16. H. D. Muonaw, Phil, Mag. 161, 130 (1982) 17, THE, Aupes, deta Met. 15, 469 (1987). 18, ALK. Heap, Phil. Mag. 44, 92 (1958) 19, For example, RN. Staves, Met. fev. 11, 129 (1960); ‘and RC. Girxivs, Mechaniams of intergranular fracture At lovated temperatures Conference on Practure, Swwamp- scot, Mass. (1969). 20, J.G. Kvaxe and T. Mura, J. appl. Phys. 89, 109 (1968), 81, RL. Funiwomnn, Blectron Microscopy and’ Strength of rystale,p- 073. Tniorscionce (1969). ‘Metal Interfaces. American Society for Poscns Ph og. (6, 5. Es We Hann, Acts fet 15,351 (1987) Ri Eaonesox and FD. Lawn Metal 63,140 (1069)- Trane. Am. Soe.