Premium
Models and observations of fcc/bcc interfaces
Author(s) -
Ecob R. C.
Publication year - 1985
Publication title -
journal of microscopy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.569
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1365-2818
pISSN - 0022-2720
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1985.tb02588.x
Subject(s) - nucleation , dislocation , grain boundary , orientation (vector space) , materials science , condensed matter physics , relaxation (psychology) , crystallography , phase (matter) , martensite , interface (matter) , statistical physics , chemical physics , physics , thermodynamics , chemistry , mathematics , microstructure , geometry , psychology , social psychology , quantum mechanics , capillary number , capillary action , composite material
SUMMARY Whereas models of the structure and periodicity of CSL or near CSL high angle grain boundaries are relatively well developed and have been to some extent verified by experiment, the nature of more general (e.g. fcc/bcc) interfaces is very imperfectly understood. One of the major differences between homo‐ and heterophase boundaries is the occurrence, in the latter case, of reproducible orientation relationships due to the crystallographic requirements of phase transformation (e.g. a glissile interface for martensitic growth, low energy interfaces for classical nucleation). A review is given of the relationships commonly observed to obtain between fcc and bcc crystals (as well as ordered phases based upon these structures). Within a given relationship, it is possible to use models of the available interfaces to predict their dislocation content; the success of the various approaches is considered. It is shown that the dislocation arrays identified on fcc/bcc boundaries are consistent with the occurrence of a primary structural relaxation, but that the latter does not appear to be complete. Possible reasons for this are discussed, together with the extent to which secondary structural models may be applicable. Attempts to rationalize the observed orientation relationships and morphologies are discussed, and it is pointed out that these all rely on searches for situations of minimum primary misfit, but that the way in which the latter is quantified determines the results of the analyses. Nevertheless, the implication is that the primary misfit does appear to determine the actual behaviour, though no structural or mechanistic conclusions can safely be drawn from this observation.