Part XII – December 1969 – Papers - Texture Representation by Inverse Pole Figures

Evaluation of results obtained by the Harris method for inverse pole figures is discussed. Two existing analyses and a new approach are compared. In the most frequently used analysis, different reflections are accorded equal weight. A second method involves area-weighting of reflections, mainly to take account of nonuniformity of Pole distribution. In the new method, reflections are weighted according to their multiplicity factors. Intensity ratios obtained from a sample of steel sheet by the three methods are compared. INVERSE pole figures offer a convenient method of depicting the proportions of material with various orientations referred to a unique specimen axis. The technique was first applied to fiber textures, but it is now frequently used as a description of texture in sheet metal, the unique axis in this case usually being the sheet normal. The Harris method' for the determination of inverse pole figures has the great merit of simplicity. It suffers certain intrinsic limitations, but provided that these are borne in mind, the results allow useful conclusions to be drawn regarding the effects of texture components on certain mechanical properties. Much thought has been given to alternative methods of texture description, aimed at eliminating the ambiguity in the simpler methods.2"6 Refinements in the method of description are obtained at the price of increasing complexity, and it seems clear that a simple method, such as that of Harris, will continue to find application. The original derivation by Harris1 has been corrected by Morris7 and later by Mueller, Chernock, and Beck.2 Since the latter reference is more accessible, it is referred to more frequently than the work of Morris. Most users of the inverse pole figure method present their results on the basis of the treatment by Mueller et al., and it is the purpose of the present communication to comment on this treatment and to suggest a simple modification to the method of presentation which enhances the meaningfulness of the results. It will be convenient first to summarize the Mueller analysis as follows: The intensity Ihkl of a hkl reflection from a textured specimen is: Ihkl=CI0AL\Fhkl\2NhklPhkl [1] where C is a constant for a given sample I, is the intensity of the incident beam A is an absorption factor. With usual diffrac-tometer geometry and a flat specimen, A is inversely proportional to the density of the specimen. L is the Lorenz polarization factor Fhkl is the structure factor for the hkl reflection Nhkl is the multiplicity factor phkl is the fraction of crystals in the polycrystal-line aggregate with any particular (nkl) plane parallel to the surface. The corresponding equation for a specimen with randomly oriented grains is lR,hkl=CRl°ARL\fnkl\2Nnklk [2] the subscripts R indicating the factors that are different for the random sample, which will, in general, have a density different from that of the textured one. The intensity ratio is hkl , c A Phkl [3] IR,hkl CR AR PR The constants are eliminated by summing over all the measured reflections ^iRMi °R AR PR ljPkkl and from Eqs. [3] and [4] T IR,hkl The only unknown in Eq. [5] is Yj phkl and before this can be evaluated, it is necessary to adopt some form of normalizing procedure. Mueller et al. assume that when a large number, n, of reflections is used, the average value of p as defined by Eq. [6] below will be unity ? = £j**l3l [6] and the final result of their analysis follows: hkl Pkkl = i I&Jf~ [7] ±y* Ihkl ^ in,hki The normalizing procedure used by Mueller et al. involves an unrealistic assumption since it gives equal weight to each of the hkl reflections. Other normalizing procedures can now be examined with a view to selecting a more appropriate one. For an infinite number of reflections, the function p can be averaged over a continuous range of orientations covering the complete solid angle 4p by the integral relation: p =1 jp(a)dQ = l [8] This is the only exact procedure, but in practice a