Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-fqc5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T14:25:09.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Migration Dynamics of a Σ=3 {112} Boundary in Aluminum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

D.L. Medlin
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California 94551, USA
W.M. Stobbs
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, Cambridge University, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK
J.D. Weinberg
Affiliation:
University of Arizona, Department of Materials Science and Engineering Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
J.E. Angelo
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, Cambridge University, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK
M.S. Daw
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California 94551, USA
M.J. Mills
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California 94551, USA
Get access

Abstract

We present a study of the structure and migration mechanisms of the Σ=3 {112} boundary in aluminum. Measurements of the static boundary, using both High Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy (HRTEM) and the α-fringe technique, are consistent with the lowest energy boundary structure that is predicted by the Embedded Atom Method (EAM). HRTEM observations of the migrating boundary are also presented. The boundary is mobile and upon translation produces coherent {111} twin boundary steps. The atomistic processes that are involved in this migration are considered in terms of the required twinning shears and the results of molecular dynamics simulations using the EAM. The initial nucleation of steps in the boundary appears to be electron beam induced.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Wolf, U., et al. , Philosophical Magazine A 66 991 (1992).Google Scholar
2. Ernst, F., et al. , Physical Review Letters 69 (4) 620623 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Wolf, U., et al. , Colloq De Physique Cl 51 (1) C1359 (1990).Google Scholar
4. Medlin, D.L., et al. , in Atomic-Scale Imaging of Surfaces and Interfaces Vol. 295, eds. Biegelsen, D.K. (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, P.A., 1993) 9196.Google Scholar
5. Daw, M.S. and Baskes, M.I., Physical Review Letters 50 1285 (1983).Google Scholar
6. Daw, M. and Baskes, M.I., Physical Review B 29 6443 (1984).Google Scholar
7. Voter, A.F. and Chen, S.P., in Characterization of Defects in Materials, (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA, 1987) 175180.Google Scholar
8. Pond, R.C. and Vitek, V., Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 357 453470 (1977).Google Scholar
9. Penisson, J.M., et al. , Philosophical Magazine Letters 64 (5) 277283 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Reimer, L., in Transmission Electron Microscopy: Physics of Image Formation and Microanalysis, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1984) 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Rohrlich, R. and Carlson, B.C., Physical Review 93 (1) 3844 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Wolfenden, A., Radiation Effects 14 225 (1972).Google Scholar
13. Seitz, F. and Koehler, J.S., in Solid State Physics, Vol. 2, eds. Seitz, F. & Turnbull, D. (Academic Press, 1956) 305.Google Scholar
14. Urban, K., in High Voltage Electron Microscopy: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, eds. Swann, P.R. (Academic Press, London, 1974) 356.Google Scholar
15. Cherns, D., et al. , in Fundamental Aspects of Radiation Damage in Metals, CONF-751006-P1, eds. Robinson, M.T. (NTIS, Springfield, VA, 1975) 178.Google Scholar
16. Medlin, D.L. and Howitt, D.G., Philosophical Magazine Letters 64 (3) 133141 (1991).Google Scholar
17. Stark, J.P., in Solid State Diffusion (Wiley, New York, 1976) 92.Google Scholar