Materials Science and Engineering, 80 (1986) L l l - L 1 4
Letter
On the grain boundary conditions for grain
boundary sliding in superplastic deformation
R. A. VARIN
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 (Canada)
K. J. KURZYDLOWSKI
Institute of Materials Science and Engineering,
Warsaw Technical University, 02-524 Warsaw,
Narbutta 85 (Poland)
K. TANGRI
Metallurgical Sciences Laboratories, University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2 (Canada)
(Received September 4, 1985; in revised form
December 30, 1985)
ABSTRACT
Grain boundary sliding (GBS) is analysed
in terms o f the rate o f formation and the rate
o f spreading o f extrinsic grain boundary dis-
locations (EGBDs). It is calculated employing
a mathematical model derived in such a way
that in superplastic alloys, where GBS is a pri-
mary deformation mode, the rate o f EGBD
spreading is at least equal to or higher than
the rate o f EGBD formation, right from the
onset o f superplastic deformation. This condi-
tion seems to be a necessary condition to
achieve a substantial a m o u n t o f GBS.
1. INTRODUCTION
In the previous letter [ 1 ], evidence was pre-
sented that the mechanical behaviour of poly-
crystalline austenitic stainless steel at elevated
temperatures (short-term properties) was
strongly affected by the relative rate of the
formation and spreading of extrinsic grain
boundary dislocations (EGBDs) during plastic
deformation.
Since the spreading of EGBDs during plas-
tic deformation at elevated temperatures is
0025-5416[86/$3.50
Lll
controlled by grain boundary diffusion [2],
the annihilation of a specific number of dislo-
cations in grain boundaries should somehow
affect grain boundary sliding, especially in ul-
trafine-grained materials exhibiting a super-
plasticity effect. It is well known that, in su-
perplastic deformation, 50%-70% of the total
deformation is produced by grain boundary
sliding [3]. Therefore, the above-mentioned
relationship between the formation and
spreading of EGBDs is being pursued in the
present letter in more detail to explore the
specific grain boundary conditions necessary
to achieve substantial grain boundary sliding
in superplastic materials. However, before
these conditions are discussed, a brief discus-
sion regarding the physical mechanisms of
grain boundary sliding is necessary.
2. STRUCTURE-DEPENDENT GRAIN BOUND-
ARY SLIDING
It is now widely accepted that grain bound-
ary sliding is a direct result of the movement
in the boundary plane of structural grain
boundary dislocations (SGBDs) with the Bur-
gers vectors characterized in the DSC lattice
(see for instance ref. 4). Any large-angle (ran-
dom) grain boundary can be formally described
as deviating from a specific coincident site
lattice misorientation (designated by Z) and
as such it can contain a network of SGBDs
(see the recent review by Gleiter [5] ). It is
argued that lattice dislocations can lower their
elastic energy by dissociation in the boundary
to form SGBDs which contribute to grain
boundary sliding.
One of the formal models of grain bound-
ary sliding based on the movement of SGBDs
developed by Ashby [6] predicts that the slid-
ing r a t e / ] is directly proportional to the Bur-
gers vector bb of SGBDs:
= PbbV (1)
where p is the linear density of SGBDs and v
their velocity. As the Burgers vector bb gener-
Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands
L12
ally decreases with increasing Z value (see ref.
7), it could be expected in accord with eqn.
(1) that low Z boundaries (large bb) should
slide more easily than random grain boundaries
with large ~ misorientations and very small
bb vectors. However, at this point a strong dis-
crepancy with the experimental observations
arises. There is ample experimental evidence
provided recently by Kokawa et al. [8, 9] and
Watanabe [10] that the amount of sliding at
grain boundaries close to coincidence misori-
entations is much smaller than that at random
(general) boundaries.
Following Kokawa et al. [8] it could be
argued that a random boundary might absorb
more lattice dislocations per unit strain than a
special boundary at the same deformation
temperature because the spreading is generally
easier in random boundaries. This, in turn,
might compensate (larger p in eqn. (1)) for a
smaller bb value in random boundaries. How-
ever, at some transition temperature the effi-
ciency for absorption of both types of bound-
ary should become the same. Such a behav-
iour is not observed experimentally. Accord-
ing to recent results of Watanabe et al. [11]
obtained on zinc bicrystals, the average sliding
rate for special boundaries is always substan-
tially lower than that for random boundaries
up to the melting temperature.
It seems therefore that the description o f
grain b o u n d a r y sliding at random boundaries
by the movement of SGBDs cannot satisfac-
torily explain the largest amount of sliding
observed experimentally. It is suggested here
that grain boundary sliding is a direct conse-
quence of the spreading of the cores of a
large number of EGBDs as they are formed,
for example, from lattice dislocations imping-
ing on grain boundaries at elevated tempera-
tures. The atomistic model of this mechanism
may be similar either to that presented by
Johannesson and Th51en [12] or to that given
more recently by Lojkowski [13] and Loj-
kowski and Grabski [14]. However, both of
these models yield essentially similar equa-
tions to describe the kinetics of the spreading
process.
In view of the above discussion, it is con-
cluded that random grain boundaries, rather
than special boundaries, play a major role in
superplastic deformation as they can provide
a substantial amount of grain boundary
sliding.
3. CONDITIONS FOR DISLOCATION FORMA-
TION AND SPREADING DURING GRAIN BOUND-
ARY SLIDING
It was shown in a previous letter [1] that a
significant decay (down to about 10% of the
original plateau stress) in the yield stress of
t y p e 316 austenitic steel occurred when the
condition
EGBDsI~ead ~ pEGBDformed (2)
was fulfilled. The physical meaning of this
condition is that grain boundaries become
perfect sinks for lattice dislocations.
Now, it is interesting to know what are the
conditions for dislocation formation and
spreading when substantial grain boundary
sliding occurs during superplastic deforma-
tion.
Using the relationship detailed in ref. 1 and
given b y
td=ATd exP(R~db ) --
-- the spreading time of EGBDs (3)
where
11ks
h = (4)
IG~Do b
~ EGBDfonned ----
eg the rate of formation of EGBDs (5)
3b
~EGBns~ea d = pEGBD d~
v dt
- - the rate of spreading of EGBDs (6)
pEGBDv = Pm
= e g _ the density of EGBDs per unit
bd volume (7)
the values o f ~5EGsD~o~m~aand ~EGBDs~eaa (for
e = 0.002) were both calculated for several
superplastic alloys on the assumption that the
core of the EGBD is spread o u t up to Sm =
5 10 -8 m. The results of these calculations
are listed in Table 1. There is a lack of diffu,
sion data for superplastic alloys and therefore
the diffusion parameters for pure elements
were taken for calculations. However, employ-
 L13

TABLE 1
Parameters of superplastic deformation and the data on the rate of formation of extrinsic grain boundary disloca-
tions and the rate of their spreading for several superplastic alloys

Material Mean Temperature Strain rate M a x i m u m pEGBDo pEGBDspread Reference

(wt.%) grain size ofsuperplastic ( 10-4 s-1) deformation (m-1 S-~ tlled (e = 0.002)
(pro) deformation (%) (m-1 s-1 )
(K)

Pb-62Sn 3 298 5 500 5.5 X 105 4.1 X 102 (Pb) [15]

3.1 X 106 (Sn)
Pb-62Sn 6.9 413 1.33 4850 1.5 X105 2.1x105(Pb) [16]
8.8 x 107 (Sn)
Zn-22A1 2.5 473 66 2900 7.3106 2.9107(Zn) [17]
1.3 X 10 s (A1)
Mg-33A1 2.2 673 330 2100 3.7 X107 7.2x 107(Mg) [18]
1.5 X 109 (A1)
Mg-33A1 2.2 673 3330 830 3.7X10 s 7.2X107(Mg) [18]
1.5 X 109 (A1)
Mg-l.5Mn- 10 673 84 310 9.3X106 1.6 X107(Mg) [19]
0.3Ce
Al-33Cu 1.5 743 0.02 1200 2.2X103 3.5x 109(A1) [20]

The following parameters were taken for the calculations: 6 = 5 10-10 m;Sm = 5 X 10-s m (500/~); for lead,
zk/-/b = 65.7 kJ tool -1 [21], D 0 b = 0.81 10 -4 m 2 s-1, G = 0.56 1010 N m-2 [22] and ~ = 30.3 X 10-30 m 3 ; for
tin, ZM-/b= 39.96 kJ tool -1 [21], D0b = 6.44 X 10- 6 m 2 s-1 [21], G = 1.84 1010 N m-2 [22] and ~ = 27.05 X
10-30 m3; for zinc, zSJ-/b= 60.7 kJ tool -1 [21], D0b ~ 0.3 x 10-4 m 2 s-1 (an average of the values in ref. 21), G =
4.2 X 1010 N m -2 [22] and ~ = 15.2 x 10 -30 m 3 ; for aluminum, ~ / b = 35 kJ tool -1 [23], D0 b ~ 0.003 X 10 -4 m 2
s-1 [23], G = 2.6 X 101 N m-2 [22] and ~'~ = 16.61 X 10-3o m3; for magnesium, 5Db = 15 X 10-21 m 3 s-1 [19],
G = l . 7 3 X 1 0 l N m - 2 [ 2 2 ] a n d s = 23 X 10- 3 m 3.

ing the d a t a f o r alloys (if available) w o u l d n o t
significantly c h a n g e t h e c o n c l u s i o n s d r a w n as
t h e values o f pEGBDformed and pEGBDspread f o r
d i f f u s i o n in alloys s h o u l d lie s o m e w h e r e in be-
t w e e n t h e values for p u r e elements.
4. DISCUSSION
T h e striking f e a t u r e o f the results p r e s e n t e d
in Table 1 is t h a t f r o m t h e very beginning o f
superplastic d e f o r m a t i o n (e = 0 . 0 0 2 ) t h e rate
~sEGSDs~ead o f spreading o f E G B D s is at least
equal to or higher t h a n t h e rate pEGBDformed o f
their f o r m a t i o n . Physically, this m e a n s t h a t
grain b o u n d a r i e s act as p e r f e c t sinks f o r dislo-
cations right f r o m t h e o n s e t o f superplastic
d e f o r m a t i o n . These results t h e r e f o r e seem t o
indicate clearly t h a t the pEGBDsPread
pEGBDforraed c o n d i t i o n w h i c h is fulfilled right
f r o m t h e beginning o f d e f o r m a t i o n is in fact a
necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r achieving a substantial
a m o u n t o f grain b o u n d a r y sliding. O b v i o u s l y ,
t h e a m o u n t o f sliding o b t a i n e d will d e p e n d
m a c r o s c o p i c a l l y on t h e grain size. Ultrafine-
grained materials have a high d e n s i t y o f sur-
faces per unit v o l u m e and as such a large area
f o r E G B D s to spread and to result in grain
b o u n d a r y sliding. Also, it is seen f r o m eqns.
(6) and (7) t h a t the rate ~bEGBDs~ead o f spread-
ing increases with decreasing grain size and
t h e c o n d i t i o n expressed b y eqn. (2) is fulfilled
m o r e easily.
Finally, it s h o u l d be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t the
p r e s e n t e d h y p o t h e s i s o f grain b o u n d a r y slid-
ing as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f E G B D s is in g o o d
qualitative a g r e e m e n t with such e x p e r i m e n t a l
o b s e r v a t i o n s as t h e absence o f a n y grain shape
c h a n g e and associated grain r o t a t i o n during
superplastic d e f o r m a t i o n . Beere [24, 25] anal-
ysed the d e f o r m a t i o n o f an aggregate o f cube
grains as having d i f f e r e n t resistances t o sliding
at t h e boundaries. It was s h o w n that, if one
set o f interfaces had a greater resistance to
sliding, t h e n a given strain c o u l d be achieved
o n l y b y allowing the grains t o rotate. Within
t h e f r a m e w o r k o f o u r m o d e l , grain b o u n d a r i e s
with a greater resistance to sliding are special
b o u n d a r i e s at w h i c h the E G B D spreading pro-
cess is k n o w n t o be m o r e difficult t h a n t h a t at
r a n d o m grain b o u n d a r i e s [26, 27].
L14
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work has been supported by Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada grants which are gratefully acknow-
ledged.
REFERENCES
1 R. A. Varin, K. J. Kurzydlowski and K. Tangri,
Mater. Sci. Eng., 80 (1986) LS-L9.
2 R. A. Varin and E. Romanowska-Haftek, Proc.
4th JIM Int. Symp. on Grain Boundary Structure
and Related Phenomena, November 25-29, 1985,
Minakami-Spa, Japan Institute of Metals, Tokyo,
in the press.
3 J. Weertman and J. R. Weertman, in R. W. Cahn
and P. Haasen (eds.), Physical Me tallurgy, North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1983, Chapter 20, p. 1335.
4 P. R. Howell and G. L. Dunlop, in B. Wilshire and
D. R. Owen (eds.),Proc. Int. Conf. on the Creep
and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Struc-
tures, Swansea, March 24-27, 1981, Pineridge,
Swansea, 1981, p. 127.
5 H. Gleiter, Mater. Sci. Eng., 52 (1982) 91.
6 M. F. Ashby, Surf. Sci., 31 (1972) 498.
7 Y. Ishida and M. McLean, Philos. Mag., 27 (1973)
1125.
8 H. Kokawa, T. Watanabe and S. Karashima,
Philos. Mag. A, 44 (1981)1239.
9 H. Kokawa, T. Watanabe and S. Karashima, Scr.
Metall., 1 7 (1983) 1155.
10 T. Watanabe, Metall. Trans. A, 14 (1983) 531.
11 T. Watanabe, S.-I. Kimura and S. Karashima,
Philos. Mag. A, 49 (1984) 845.
12 T. Johannesson and D. ThSlen, Philos. Mag., 21
(1970) 1223.
13 W. Lojkowski, Ph.D. Thesis, Warsaw Technical
University, 1980.
14 W. Lojkowski and M. W. Grabski, in N. Hansen,
A. Horsewell, T. Leffers and H. Lilholt (eds.),
Deformation of Polycrystais: Mechanisms and
Microstructures, Proc. 2nd Ris~ Int. Syrup. on
Metallurgy and Materials Science, September 14-
18, 1981, Ris~b National Laboratory, Ris~b, 1981,
p. 329.
15 A. E. Geckinli and C. R. Barret, J. Mater. Sci., 11
(1976) 510.
16 M.M.I. Ahmed and T. G. Langdon, Metall. Trans.
A, 8 (1977) 1832.
17 H. Ishikawa, F. A. Mohamed and T. G. Langdon,
Philos. Mag., 32 (1975) 1269.
18 D. Lee, Acta Metall., 17 (1960) 1057.
19 R. Z. Valley, D. A. Kaybyshev and V. I. Sergeyev,
Phys. Met. Metallogr. (Engl. Transl.), 49 (1980)
144.
20 G. Rai and N. J. Grant, Metall. Trans. A, 6 (1975)
385.
21 E. A. Brandes (ed.), Metals Reference Book,
Butterworths, London, 1983, pp. 13-94, Table
13.5.
22 H. E. Boyer and T. L. Gall (eds.), Metals Hand-
book, American Society for Metals, Metals Park,
OH, 1985, p. 216, Table 1.
23 M. Jurisch, Ph.D. Thesis, Freiberg University,
1969; H. Gleiter, Prog. Mater. Sci., 16 (1972) 88.
24 W. Beere, J. Mater. Sei., 12 (1977) 2093.
25 W. Beere, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Set. A,
228 (1978) 177.
26 R. A. Varin, Phys. Status SolidiA, 51 (1979)
K189.
27 R. A. Varin, Phys. Status Solidi A, 73 (1982)
K51.