Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 853–859 | Cite as

The influence of annealing twinning on microstructure evolution

  • V. Randle
Grain Boundary and Interface Engineering


This paper reports an experimental investigation on the effect of multiple twinning on the interface population in two low stacking-fault alloys. This is an important topic for grain boundary engineering because annealing twinning is the indirect cause of improved intergranular corrosion resistance in this class of materials. Proportions of Σ 3n (n = 1–5) boundaries were analysed in both a brass specimen and a superalloy specimen where the boundaries had been processed so as to be very mobile and less mobile respectively. When Σ 3 twin boundaries (as distinct from Σ 3 grain boundaries) are discounted, the Σ 3n distribution for both specimens had a peak at Σ 9, because Σ 3 + Σ 9 → Σ 3 occurs more frequently than Σ 3+Σ 9 → Σ 27. The distributions and reactions between various Σ 3n values are described and discussed in detail. A novel trace analysis procedure is used to extract information from Σ 3 boundaries to decide whether or not they are annealing twins, and so provide a convenient means to assess proportions of twin and non-twin Σ 3s. The data show unambiguously that a significant proportion of Σ 3s are not on 111, and these boundaries have on average higher angular deviations from the exact Σ 3 reference misorientation than do other Σ 3s. A population of Σ 3s which were vicinal to annealing twins were also recorded. These data support the contention that profuse annealing twinning produces concurrently many not-twin Σ 3s, which are pivotal in grain boundary engineering.


Polymer Microstructure Experimental Investigation Corrosion Resistance Analysis Procedure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    T. Watanabe, Res. Mech. 11 (1984) 47.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Shimada, H. Kokawa, Z. J. Wang, Y. S. Sato and I. Karibe, Acta Mat. 50 (2002) 2331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. Randle, Acta Mat. 47 (1999) 4187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. C. Crawford and G. S. Was, Met. Trans. 23A (1992) 1195.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Gottstein, Acta Met. 32 (1984) 1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. J. Wilbrandt and P. Haasen, Z. Metallk. 71 (1980) 273.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. Randle, Inter. Sci. 10 (2002) 271.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. G. Brandon, Acta Met. 14 (1966) 1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Palumbo and K. T. Aust, Acta Met. Mat. 38 (1990) 2343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Randle, Acta Mat. 46 (1997) 1459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. Randle, P. Davies, H.Davies, in “Proc. ICOTOM12,” edited by J. A. Szpunar (NRC Research Press, Canada, 1999) p. 1196.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. Randle and H. Davies, Ultramicroscopy 90 (2002) 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. Randle, Scripta Mat. 44 (2001) 2681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. I. Wright and R. J. Larsen, J. Microsc. 205 (2002) 245.CrossRefPubMedMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. Maclaren and M. Aindow, Philos. Mag. 76A (1997) 871.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. Randle and B. Ralph, Acta Met. 34 (1986) 891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Materials Research CentreUniversity of Wales SwanseaSwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations