Part IX – September 1969 – Papers - The Role of Dislocation Flexibility in the Strengthening of Metals

MOTT and Nabarro1-5 were first to illustrate the importance of the flexibility of dislocations in accounting for the strengthening that metals undergo due to the presence of internal-strain centers. Such strain-centers might arise from a number of causes such as radiation damage, the presence of semicoherent and coherent precipitates and clusters, as well as individually dispersed interstitial and misfit substitutional solute atoms. Each strain-center induces positive and negative shear stress fields on the slip planes of the surrounding alloy matrix. In order to effect plastic deformation, therefore, the alloy must be subjected to sufficiently high applied shear stresses to push dislocations past all such internal stress fields. If dislocations were inflexible and moved as rigid lines, they would be equally pushed and pulled by internal stress fields. At this extreme the strengthening would be vanishingly small. Dislocations, however, are not rigid; they are flexible and extensible. They wiggle between positive and negative strain-centers, thus increasing their line energy at the expense of their interaction energy with strain-centers. cottrel16 and Friedel7,8 have independently presented lucid reviews of the significance of the Mott-Nabarro dislocation-flexibility concept to the strain-center strengthening of alloys. Their analyses however were only semi-quantitative. There is evidence in the recent literature of renewed interest in a more rigorous analysis of flexibility. Thus, Gleiter9 and Gerald" have shown that the calculated strain-energy interaction between a dislocation and the stress fields of coherent precipitates can be seriously in error if the flexibility of the dislocation is not taken into account. This report will be concerned with a more detailed analysis of the problem based on the following approximations: 1) Although many types of strain-centers exist, the following analysis will be limited to the case of solute-atom strain-centers in fcc substitutional alloys. 2) To facilitate the analysis by avoiding statistical considerations, the strain-Centers are assumed to be in regular arrays on the slip plane. Although the quantitative results are somewhat dependent on the type of array that is assumed, the qualitative trends are similar for various arrays that were studied. 3) An adjustment of the results from those for square arrays to those for the more realistic case of a random distribution of strain-centers is accomplished by adopting the interesting statistical theory first introduced by Kochs,11,12 elaborated on by Dorn, Guyot, and stefansky,13 and analyzed by Foreman and Makin14 in their computerized experiments. 4) For simplicity the dislocation lines are taken to wiggle about their edge orientation and no correction is applied to their line energy for deviations from edge configurations or for the elastic interaction between segments of the now curved dislocation. It will be shown that for extremely low concentrations of atomic strain-centers the strengthening increases with the square root of their concentration. For slightly higher concentrations the strengthening rate becomes less rapid. At a critical concentration a maximum strength is obtained and a decrease in the strengthening takes place as the concentration of solute atoms is further increased. These trends are a direct consequence of dislocation flexibility. They arise from changes in the amplitude of the waviness of the dislocation line at the yield stress with solute atom concentration. Despite the simplifying assumptions that were made, the results agree qualitatively with appropriate experimental data. I) STRESS FIELDS ON SLIP PLANES Internal stresses are introduced in a lattice whenever a host atom of radius ro is replaced by another that has a different atomic radius. According to the classical theory of linear elasticity,15 the stress field about a solute atom at the origin of a spherical coordinate system is given by arr=-4G€(?_0)3 ffflfl ="W =2G€{t) f°rr^ro(l+e) UJ where G is the shear modulus of elasticity and Y, = ro(l + E) is the radius in situ, of the substituted atom. As shown by ~shelb~,'~ this approximation assumes that the bulk modulus of elasticity of the substituted atom is identical with that of the host species. ~abarro'~ suggested that the strain E can be deduced