Acta metall, mater. Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 1-16, 1993 0956-7151/93 $5.00+ 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved Copyright © 1992PergamonPress Ltd

OVERVIEW NO. 102

THEORY ASSISTED DESIGN OF HIGH STRENGTH LOW

ALLOY A L U M I N U M

E. HORNBOGEN? and E. A. STARKE JR

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
VA 22903, U.S.A.

(Received 25 November 1991; in revised form 15 May 1992)

Abstract--The design of an aluminum alloy having good strength while maintaining a high resistance to
fracture is discussed. Theory suggests that the desired microstructure consists of a small volume fraction
of an ultra-fine dispersion of hard particles. In addition to conventional heat treatments, dispersion
hardened aluminum alloys have been recently produced by rapid solidification or mechanically alloying
and powder metallurgy consolidation. Alloys which can serve as models for mechanistic studies of
nucleation of non-coherent phases as well as the basis for a new class of engineering aluminum alloys are
identified.

Rfsumf---L'61aboration d'un alliage d'aluminium ayant une bonne rfsistance mfcanique tout en gardant
une rfsistance 61evfe h la rupture est discutfe. La thforie suggfre que la microstructure dfsirfe est formfe
d'une petit fraction volumique d'une dispersion ultra-fine de particules dures. En plus des traitements
thermiques classiques, des alliages durcis par dispersion ont 6t6 rfcemment produits par solidification
rapide ou par alliage mfcanique et consolidation de poudres mftallurgiques. Des alliages qui peuvent servir
de modfles pour des 6tudes mfcaniques de germination de phases on cohfrentes sont identififs; on donne
aussi la base pur une nouvelle classe d'alliages d'aluminium pour ringfnierie.

Zusammenfassung--Die Herstellung von Aluminiumlegierungen mit guter Festigkeit und gleichzeitig

hohem Bruchwiderstand wird diskutiert. Die Theorie sagt, dab die hierzu erwiinschte Mikrostruktur aus
einem kleinen Volumanteil einer ultrafeinen Dispersion harter Teilchen besteht. Dispersionsgeh/irtete
Aluminiumlegierungenwerden in neuerer Zeit aul3er mit herkfmmlichen Wiirmebehandlungen auch mit
raschem Erstarren oder mechanischem Legieren und pulvermetallurgischem Verfestigen hergestellt.
Legierungen, die als Modell fiir mechanistische Untersuchungen der Keimbildung nicht-koh/irenter
Phasen und als Basis fiir eine neue Klasse von Ingenieur-Aluminiumlegierungendienen kfnnen, werden
ausgewiesen.

INTRODUCTION desired microstructure are central to developing

A l u m i n u m alloys remain the material of choice for
aerospace structures although there is continuous
competition from polymer matrix composites. The
competition arises when the properties of a l u m i n u m
cannot meet the needs of the designer. The recent
emphasis on reducing weight and increasing the speed
of aircraft has encouraged development of new
a l u m i n u m alloys which have competitive properties
and a cost advantage over polymer composites.
Other opportunities exist for a l u m i n u m to replace
steel in a variety of automotive applications. The
required strength, toughness, stiffness, density, etc.,
are determined by the alloy additions and micro-
structure. The ability to predict and control the
tOn leave from Institut fiir Werkstoffe, Ruhr-Universit/it
Boehum, Bochum, Germany.
new materials that achieve the desired level of
performance.
Most often structural alloy development is based
on empiricism, but the opportunity now exists to
apply scientific principles to alloy design. Since the
strongest alloy that meets the m i n i m u m requirements
for other properties such as ductility, fracture
toughness, formability, etc., is usually selected, the
ability to design a microstructure that results in high
strength is of major importance. Normally there exist
conflicting requirements for optimum yield strength
and for optimum fracture toughness [1], Fig. 1. A
high yield strength implies a high resistance to dislo-
cation motion. For a high resistance to crack growth,
on the other hand, plasticity is desirable. It rounds off
a preexisting crack and hardens its tip. The situation
becomes even more complex for cyclic loading.
Irreversible plastic deformation is mostly responsible
for the crack progress da, but reversible plastic
2 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102

deformation (nR) retards crack growth (Fig. 2) [2-5]. A B

Many aspects of fracture in metals are extremely
sensitive to the microscopic distribution of plastic !+t~
II
strain. The localization of strain at grain boundaries
-- a0--.~
or inside the grains is partly responsible for the
sensitivity to stress corrosion cracking [6]. For the > (I IV t
qualification of a high strength Al-alloy, all these
loading and environmental conditions have to be
,--O"
considered; however, a high yield strength is always
the primary requirement [7].

STRENGTH
- - ~ ,,,,,,,,,;
The term "strength" used to designate a special 6 Iy -" L~%/SS r
group of Al-alloys comprehends a spectrum of more ~ ._t___J
~ " ~ ' ~ ,'(" "~''"
E,'
defined materials properties. Still in general terms, r ' ' ; aK2
"strength" has to be defined as: "resistance of a oy E
material against plastic deformation and against
formation and growth of cracks." For the first part III + IV I I I + IV
s"
of the requirement, data from tensile tests are appro- i i
I /"
priate: yield stress ay, work hardening rate da/dE up ,Aa,~ ~---
to the point of plastic instability (necking), and
consequent uniform elongation.
The most effective way to acquire a high yield stress x
"x
in Al-aUoys is precipitation hardening [8-10]. Its Aa~ b(n- nR) ,,,
upper limits are described by the modified Orowan
equation Fig. 2. Models for crack growth: (A) homogeneous, and (B)
localized plasticity at crack tip.
Gb Gb x/~ (1)
Ao'p ~ ~ ~ d
using G, = 26 GPa and b= = 0.284 nm. Very small
for Sp ~> d. Aap is the contribution of the particles to hard particles have to be evenly dispersed as they act
the yield strength of the alloy, Sp is the spacing of the as obstacles to the long range (x ~> Sp) motion of
particle centers, and d is the particle diameter. An individual dislocations. Two subtleties have to be
upper limit to the yield stress for aluminum is considered in this context:
estimated by 1. The fl particles may not nucleate directly from
the solid solution ~t, but via one or several intermedi-
>Go
trth ~" 10n = 900 MPa (2) ate stages (fl', fl"). Such a transition must always be
associated with an increasing thermodynamic stab-
ility of the phase. It can, and often does, lead to a loss
of coherency (coherent c ~ partially coherent
p ~ noncoherent n):
Jic, (Kk:) (Olc"Jic ) -= "Strength"
c¢o ~ c¢ + fin (3a)

/ ~to--*~' + / ~ ~ ~ +fl~
~o~Ot" + f l " ~ a ' + f'p ~ct + fl,
There is a critical size dean, at which the less stable
phase fl' transforms to fl (Fig. 3). This reaction is
designated in-situ transition. It should be distin-
(3b)
(3c)

guished from a reaction which implies that the

metastable phase dissolved and the more stable one
ideal brittleness ~ y opt forms elsewhere---usually at a dislocation or grain
23,-- boundary (Table 1) [11-13].
0 360 860 o a6o 600 900 2. A second critical particle size is derived from the
Oy (MPa) well-known fact that the smaller particles can be cut
by dislocations. Above a critical diameter dc they
Fig. 1. Relations between yield strength and fracture
toughness. "Strength" implies a combination of yield stress have to be bypassed. Independent of the details of this
(try/Jm -3) and crack extension energy (J~ = K~/E, Jm-2), process, the dislocation lines must be bent to semi-
schematic. circles with radius r = ( S p - d)/2 and equation (1)
 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102

. . . . . . fmax . . . . . . . volume fraction is low. They can be estimated for

specific cases of matrix<t/particle-fl relations (C is
always a geometrical factor determined by shape of
particle) [4, 14]:
Time (A) ordered, coherent, stress-free particle
G,b 2
d~ = - - (4a)
I B )'APB
(B) disordered, cohercnt, different shear stress of
'.Time and/~
.
i

G,b
de = - - C (4b)
Iz.-~l
(C) non-coherent, different crystal structure

Time
Fig. 3. Course of isothermal precipitation, schematic. (A)
One phase fl nucleates homogeneously in the solid solution
(AI-Si). (B) Nucleation of fl is preceded by a less stable
phase fl' (A1-Cu, A1-Li) which has a lower interfacial
energy. (C) Growth of particles, definition of the critical
diameter de ~, for the transformation of coherent fl' (cluster,
GP-Zone, particle) to the less coherent/Y.
becomes valid (Fig. 4). This critical particle size is a
second important microstructural parameter of high
strength Al-alloys (Table 2). Small values have to be
aspired for a high yield strength, especially if the
d~ = 4riG, b C (4c)
G~
(D) holes or liquids are always sheared
d~ = oo (4d)
All of these cases are found in high strength
Al-alloys. The equations are derived by models which
imply the interaction of one dislocation with a
particle. Equation (4a) is modified if the energy
A7 ~< )'APSis regained by a second dislocation moving
in the same slip plane: )'o~= 7AeB- A)'. The critical
particle diameter can rise considerably for pair-like
motion. The critical particle size d~ can decrease if

Table 1. Systematics of defect-aided nucleation designation of primary nucleation

mechanisms. Note: Arrows indicate increasing activation energy, AGN
Grain boundaries/
Defects Perfect lattice Vacancies Dislocations phase boundaries
coherency P V D B
cohcrent cP cV cD cB
c min ~ --, --*
coherent, dP dV dD dB
distorted d *-- min ~ --+
partially coherent pP pV pD pB
p ~ *-- min
non-coherent nP nV nD nB
n ,-- *-- 1,-- min

Particle Diameter dp (,h,)

lnnn I 10 I00 I000 I0000
--'1 ,gd~d ~-' "-~ ~;~en'~o, p,~,~ s;.ain. . . . . -.L.'..
on^l SlZE of ~H Y P O _l HYPER - FINE (~th ~ ~uuM~,a
ovvj- Atoms 1 ~ q , COARSE -
~u ~Elementary I \ / ~ " ( D u a l - Phase)-
.~
----
e00L
F
ceils i
\j
.\ /
," q __~
~- i I ~/ dislocation composite
.0. 4 0 n L ~ / j ~ . ,,~ - theory
-/ ' t / k"

. . . . . .

10 "I 100 d c 101 102 103

Particle D i a m e t e r dp (nm)
Fig. 4. Definition for the critical particle size d~ for the transition from shearing to bypassing A1 with 1%
particles [equation (4), Table 2], definition of fine and coarse microstructures.
4 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102

Table 2. Examples for critical particle diameters de in AI Table 4. Examples of hard and soft obstacles in the motion of
[equation (4)] dislocations in AI
Examples Coherency dc/nm Hard obstacles (H) Soft obstacles (S)
si, Ge n, p 2 diamondstructure particles d > d~ particles d < dc
O '-AI2Cu, n, p 3-10 intermetallic pores solute atoms, vacancies
T lAI2CuLi compounds sessile dislocations short range order, clusters antiphase
antiphase domain boundaries (APB)
Zn n, p 20 noncoherent,solid
solutions
AI3Li c > 50 coherentordered, effective spacing Seer: 1/x//Se~ = 1 / x / ~ , + 1/x/~2 and
depending on
coherency stress, Y,~,s the following addition of the individual contributions
Ao-i:
O-y= O-i + (Ao-~, + Ao-~2)J/2 (5c)
more than two dislocations pile up at widely spaced
particles. There is a qualitative change in micro- This equation is valid for thermomechanically treated
deformation associated with the transition shear- microstructures. The contributions of dislocations
ing --* bypassing. Therefore, d~ can be used for a (density PD Table 3)
refined classification of dispersoid microstructures
(Fig. 4) [14, 15]: Ao-1 = AO-H,= AO-D = o~Gbp~)2 (5d)

coarse: Ao-p ~,~ 0, Sp > 10b0b, and of hard particles [equation (l), Fig. 4] raise the
fine: Ao-p >> 0, Sp ,~ 1000b, yield stress according to equation (5c). The contri-
hyperfine: de < d, bution of the solid solution which forms the matrix
hypofine: de > d. Ao-s and O-i must be added directly

Structural alloys are never strengthened by one
hardening mechanism alone (Table 3). There are six
mechanisms which are relevant to Al-alloys. They will
be described systematically. F o u r are listed according
to the geometric dimension (i = 0, 1, 2, 3) of the
obstacles which impede gliding (and/or climbing) of
dislocations [7].
try= O'a-q- E Ao-i = O-i -1- AO'0+ AO-!+ AO"2 -1- AO"3
There is, however, not a simple additivity of the
contributions Ao-i from the individual mechanisms to
the yield stress try. O-l, the yield stress of pure (99.99)
A1, amounts to 16 MPa at ambient temperature and
60 M P a at - 2 0 0 ° C [16].
A quantitative approach to the understanding of a
high yield strength try o f Al-alloys requires a differ-
entiation between " h a r d " and "soft" obstacles
(Table 4). This classifcation depends on whether
glide dislocations are bent to semicircles or not. A
combination of " s o f t " and " h a r d " obstacles leads to
additivity:
% = O-I + Ao-s + Ao-.
This is represented by a solid solution which contains
hyperfine dispersoid of particles. A mixture of two
" h a r d " species H 1, H 2, introduces a new smaller
O-y ~---0"2. "]- AO-S -.~ (Ao-21 -.[- AO-22)1/2
= O-i + Ao-s + ( AO-2 + Ao-2p)1/2 (5e)
to obtain an analytical expression for the yield
strength. U p to now the model is based on interaction
with individual glide dislocations which moved large
distances x > Sp.
Interaction with several dislocations (pile-up, cell
structure) is required to derive the grain size (Sa = $2)
(5a) dependence of the yield stress:
ky
AO-2= AO-B= ~ (5f)
One important flaw in this relationship is that it
predicts that the yield stress approaches infnity as the
grain size approaches zero. Consequently, it leads to
an inaccurate estimation of yield stress for very small
grain sizes (SB < 1 #m).
The pile-up model is only feasible if an Al-alloy
contains shearable particles (Fig. 5), because the
extremely high stacking fault energy of AI disfavors
localized slip. The data in Table 5, from a recrystal-
lized 7475 alloy illustrates this point [5]. The precipi-
(5b)
tates in the underaged condition are sheared by
dislocations and there is a large grain size effect. The
precipitates in the overaged condition are looped and
bypassed by dislocations and there is a small grain

Table 3. Elementary hardening mechanisms in AI [equation (5)]

Geometric
dimensions Obstacle Density Designation
Ao" o = AO'SS 0 solute atom m 3 C solid solution hardening
AO"1= Ao"D 1 dislocation m- 2 PD work hardening,
substructure hardening
Ao2= A% 2 grain boundary m- ~ Sff fine grain hardening
A~3= A% 3 particle,pore m° fp precipitation hardening
-- crystal anisotropy -- -- texture hardening
Ao M -- micro, anisotropy -- -- fiber reinforcement
 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102

I Grain Boundary (pfz) I

I Slip Bands I
800. ~ )) 0.8

13..~ 600 ~ 0.6 03""

400 - -~- 0.4 ,~,

(/}
(~ Ii
200 ,, -~,~ £,.._ =,, 0.2
oO z ~ 2
, , , ?? )o.o
0 ---?~) 1 10 1 00 48h @ 180°C
a Aging Time @ 160°C (hrs.)
Fig. 5. Consequencesofd c on strain localization, (A) schematic, (B) tensile test data of alloy 7075 [Ref. 62].

size effect. Even though a reduction in grain size may A comprehensive equation can be established for
increase the strength, ultra-fine grain sizes may be the different contribution to high yield strength of
undesirable when considering formability and Al-alloys for the first four elementary hardening
fracture toughness. During forming operations, grain mechanisms listed in Table 3:
boundaries can become efficient sinks for dislocations
ky(AoB)
and can lead to a loss in strain hardening capacity ay = a± + Aas + (Aa~ + Aa~) v2 4 Sa (5g)
and uniform elongation [17]. During fracture an
ultra-fine grain size may decrease crack tortuality and a± = pure AI
thus reduce the fracture toughness.
Aa~ = solid solution, coherent particles
AaD = dislocation, subboundaries
Table 5. The effect of grain size on yieldstrength
18#m grain size Yield strength (MPa) Aap = hard particles
underaged 505
overaged 455 ky(AaB) grain boundaries.
SB
80#m grain size
underaged 451 At the yield stress, plastic deformation starts by
overaged 445 the motion of dislocations. This may lead to a
6 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102

homogeneous or a highly localized (atomically sharp
slip plane) distribution of strain. We have to distinguish
trans- and intercrystalline localization (Figs 2, 5, 6).
The worst performance of a material is expected if
both mechanisms cooperate in promoting fracture.
Transcrystalline localization is favored by a high level
of the critical resolved shear stress due to shearable
obstacles Zy [particles with d < de, equation (4)]. Shear-
ing leads to a reduction of their cross-section d and
therefore to a local reduction of the resistance to the mo-
tion of n additional dislocations--unless they pile-up
at an obstacle like a grain boundary or a surface oxide
of higher modulus than the matrix: z (n) = Ty- Az (n),
i.e., slip weakens the initial slip planes and slip will
continue on these preferred planes until the back stress
due to dislocation pile-ups restores the original strength
on the particular planes. The number of dislocations,
N, that pass on a typical plane from the time defor-
mation begins until local slip ends can be used as an
indicator of slip localization [18]. Two cases must be
considered (a) when softening occurs initially and (b)
when hardening occurs initially. For the first case
N - cl/2,¢1/2c Cp (6a)
--Jp "p "~B CBb
Depleted Zone
where Cp and Cs are constants that depend respect-
ively on the type of strengthening of the particle and
on the elastic properties of the bulk material.
For the second case
2 2 ¢~2{ Cp "~2
Both of these equations give the dependence of N on
volume fraction and size of the shearable particles as
well as on the grain size. The stress concentration at
the grain boundary associated with the pile-ups of N
dislocations is
* = N~e (7)
where z= is the resolved shear stress. If z * exceeds the
crack nucleation stress at the grain boundary, inter-
granular fracture starts.
Intercrystalline localization Li is caused by the soft
zones at both sides of the grain boundaries (or by
grain boundary sliding at elevated temperatures). For
precipitation hardened Al-alloys, the difference is
large between the yield stress in the interior
(600 MPa) and the "high purity A1 zone" (20 MPa).
Fracture takes place by localized yielding and

1; 9

d~z

p - Hardened Grain ~'

t" "• t"

d~z

100 i i
Or)

.., g
0
,¢ K co d = const.
u_
' I I
O~ 4 8
DecreasingGrainSize--~
~B (mm-°.5)
Fig. 6. Crack propagation along the PFZ, acting as "cell-waUs". (A) Model for strain localization in the
PFZ. (B) Shear localized pore formation and tensile rupture in the PFZ, which contains in addition
particles at the grain boundary. (C) Grain size dependence of fracture toughness of A1ZnMg (7075) in
peak aged condition which fails by pseudo-intercrystalline rupture [Ref. 19].
 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102

~PP O FRACTURE TOUGHNESS

!li Ductile fracture involving void nucleation, growth

and coalescence is commonly observed in alloys

.,,,S;o0
containing nonshearable second phase particles. High
strength aluminum alloys normally contain three
classes of particles: coarse constituents, dispersoids,
and strengthening precipitates. The coarse constitu-
ent particles result from the presence of Fe and Si
i o ooq ,] impurities or excessive amounts of major alloying
i HOoN °^.m '!, elements. The final size of the constituents depends
upon the fabrication procedure and may range in size
from 5 to 30 #m. Dispersoids range in size from 0.2
to 0.5 #m, in the largest dimension, and normally

f
' i;.o o ~
Oo O%oO'kL

-.
precipitate during the ingot pre-heat and homogen-
ization treatment. These particles form from elements

""-.~.-'"d pfz added to control grain size and/or suppress recrystal-

Fig. 7. Schematic microstructure of high strength Al-alloy.
Defect nucleated stable particles lead to arbitrary distri-
bution of more than one phase. In-situ transformation takes
place only at sites out of reach of the diffusion field of defect
nucleated particles.
fracture in a zone with the
0.5 < dpFz < 100 nm (Figs 6-8).
Li _ O'y - - O'yPF Z S B - - d p F z
O'y SB
A high tendency for pseudo-intercrystalline fracture
is defined by L~--* 1 [19, 20]. This implies that a P F Z
must exist, i.e. dpFz > 0.5 nm. The term pseudo-inter-
crystalline is used to distinguish it from intercrys-
talline fracture due to cleavage in grain boundary
planes or intercrystaUine corrosion.
The adverse effects of strain localization suggest
that the optimum microstructure for high static
strength for aluminum alloys would consist of a fine
uniform distribution of non-shearable small particles.
15
A
lization. Strengthening precipitates are in the
nanometer-size range and form in grain interiors.
They largely control the strength and slip behavior
and, as mentioned in the previous section, may also
influence fracture processes.
In the absence of constituent phases and non-
shearable dispersoids, the fracture behavior of
aluminum alloys, e.g. AI-Li, may be strongly
influenced by slip behavior. When strain is localized
diameter in narrow slip bands fracture may occur by slip band
decohesion when a critical strain is reached in the slip
(8)
band. Jata and Starke [21] have developed a quanti-
tative relationship between the fracture toughness
and the slip band width and slip band spacing. The
slip band width decreases and the slip band spacing
increases with increasing strain localization which is
associated with shearable precipitates as described in
the previous section. The quantitative relationship
between the plane strain fracture toughness and
strain localization in the matrix is given by
/ D ~ -]1/2
K,c= 8 sin ~ Err, W~sa)e~B j (9a)
where ~ is the average angle between the microscopic
crack path and the direction of the slip band extend-
ing from the crack tip, Wis the width of the slip band,
D the plastic zone size, SsB the slip band spacing, and
ecB the critical strain for fracture. Figure 9 compares

N
E the predicted fracture toughness to experimental
~L

d E 80 t • t i --
"O
~o_ 10 m
70 ~ Predicted
B.. • e Experimental
O.
O ¢.. 60 e ~
o tO ~ ~0
..c
$ 5 o -6 ~=
E =~ 8 _o I---

o~ ua ~ 30
(El 0 o~ -3
t~. 20200 I
300 I
400 I
500 600
0 ! ! Yield Stress (MPa)
Fig. 8. Diameters of the PFZ in AI-1.2%Si [Ref. 45] and Fig. 9. A comparison of experimental fracture toughness
our own experiments. values with those predicted by equation [Ref. 21].
 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102

values obtained from AI-Li-X alloys. Roven [22] has Yield Strength (MPa)
8004201 4401 460i 480t 5001 520140
recently simplified this equation to:
F2S2B WO"y E ll~~
K,¢ = LM tan ct S~BJ (9b)
e~. 100
.c Long. E
where M is a crystallographic orientation factor,
which is ~ 3 for the experimental AI-Li-X alloys of
• 400 E

Fig. 9. Walsh et al. [23] have shown that the fracture E

~'~ 60
toughness of an aluminum alloy which shows UJ LLI
0- "" 40 13.
extensive strain localization can be increased by the 200 ..'.-...z, ~
addition of a small amount of non-shearable disper-
soids which homogenize deformation. ,n'-...".,._},.r.
•• Cr"•'*. 20

A quantitative relationship similar to equations 0 I

(9a) and (9b) has been developed for the fracture
toughness in A1-Zn-Mg alloys which fail by pseudo-
intercrystalline fracture [19, 20, 24] [Figs 6(B), (C)].
For this case crack propagation takes place along the
soft "cell walls," Fig. 6(A), with low yield stress, apFZ,
and elongation to fracture, efpvz:
= ( Eay£f dpFz~ 1/2
K,¢, \ CSB
Analogous to the condition of strain localization in
the matrix, a small fracture toughness is a consequence
of a narrow and soft PFZ and a large grain size,
Fig. 6(C). Aluminum alloys, however, generally dis-
play ductile fracture associated with void nucleation
at second phase particles under monotonic loading in
both notched and unnotched conditions. In overaged
structures strain localization in the PFZ may enhance
void nucleation at grain boundary particles.
The microstrnctural aspects of ductile fracture by
void nucleation have been recently reviewed by Van
Stone et al. [25]. They conclude that the most critical
stage in controlling fracture toughness is in
controlling the initiation of voids. Most models of
void initiation involving particles rely on the premise
that the particles offer interfaces that decohere or
fracture internally due to deformation-induced
internal stresses arising from the differences in defor-
mation resistance between matrix and particle [26].
One of the first models was due to Gurland and
Plateau [27] who related the critical stress for particle
cracking, a, to their size, d, and surface energy, 7, by
= ( 6yE'] ~/2
tr \q2d ]
MPa
400 450 500 550
i i i J
0 . 0 % ~ .
1.5 0.1%~._ ~ 100
>" O.
~/~
lC F~+
--.<
i
o.s ~o ¢o 8'0
Long Transverse Yield Strength (ksi)
Fig. 10. Effects of total Fe plus Si on toughness of Alloy
7050 sheet, [Ref. 29].
65
[
70 75
0
Yield Strength (ksi)
Fig. 1I. Effect of ancillary element additions on the energy
to propagate a crack in high purity 7075-type plate,
[Ref. 29]•
where q is the stress concentration factor at the
(10) particle. This approach has been used successfully to
,}
predict cracking of the constituents in commercial
aluminum alloys [28]. Improving the fracture tough-
ness of high strength aluminum alloys by reducing the
Fe and Si contents, and therefore the volume fraction
of constituent particles is well known [29], Fig. 10.
Argon et aL [30] have demonstrated that satisfying
equation (11) is a necessary condition for void
initiation, but must also be accompanied by a stress
on the particle/matrix interface in excess of the
interfacial strength. Thus the bonding strength be-
tween the matrix and the particle is a very important
factor in determining void nucleation. In alloys
containing strongly bonded particles the yield stress
is normally only a small fraction of the cohesive
strength between the particle and matrix and thus
plastic deformation is necessary to concentrate stress
on the interface or inside the particles. Although the
criteria for void nucleation due to the buildup of
deformation-induced interface stress are independent
of the scale of the particles in both continuum
analyses and analyses involving punched dislocations
dispersing the plastic strain misfit over secondary
plastic zones [31], it has been shown that void
nucleation can be retarded by a reduction in the
(11) void-nucleating particle size [32]. It has also been
shown that changing the size of the dispersoids in
aluminum alloys from large Mn-dispersoids to
600
smaller Cr-dispersoids, and subsequently to very
4000
small Zr-dispersoids, improves the fracture toughness
I1=
of high strength aluminum alloys, Fig. 11 [29]. Argon
3000
-
[26] has pointed out that very small particles cannot
75- to
o_
nucleate a cavity because the elastic strain energy
~ 5o- 2000 ~
o
stored around them is insufficient for producing the
surface energy of the cavity, or, alternatively, their
- 1000 elastic-strain induced displacement misfit across the
25-
9o interface is less than the critical decohesion displace-
ment of the interface.
In summary, the fracture toughness of particle-
strengthened aluminum alloys may be optimized if
 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102
the particles are small, non-shearable, and strongly
bonded to the matrix.
OBTAINING THE OPTIMUM MICROSTRUCTURE
The discussion in the previous two sections points
out the dual role of hard particles: first as barriers to
dislocation motion which produces the desired high
strength and second as providers of sites for void
initiation which adversely affects ductility and
fracture toughness. Theory suggests, however, that by
careful control of particle size, volume fraction,
coherency and particle/matrix interracial strength,
alloys may be made that are both resistant to defor-
mation and tough. This has been acheived to a certain
degree in high strength low alloy steels, HSLA, by
"microalloying" [33, 34]. An addition of less than 1%
of the elements Ti, V, Nb, leads to considerable
strengthening. This is due to the formation of
carbides or carbo-nitrides with strong bonding with
C and N. They have an f.c.c, arrangement of the
metallic atoms in a NaCl-structure, TiC, VC, NbC,
and form at a very small size ( < 5 nm). In accordance
with equation (1) they efficiently strengthen the ~-Fe
matrix as an ultra-fine dispersoid as well as by
stabilizing the subgrain structure [34]. The essence of
microallying is the formation of particles, which are
evenly spaced and small but not shearable by
dislocations.
Different from microalloying, but not unrelated, is
the effect of trace elements. They have an effect, if
added at even smaller amounts ( < 0.1%) [35]: (a) they
may induce or remove intercrystalline brittleness by
interacting with grain boundaries and reduce or
increase interfacial energies in the solid state; (b) they
may change the morphology of phases growing from
a liquid, e.g., the effect of Na and Sr in modifying the
Si-crystals in A1-Si alloys [36, 37]; (c) they may form
primary phases during solidification or homogen-
ization and ingot preheat which refine the cast grain
structure and control recovery and recrystallization
lOOO,
1 ........
/
800[ SlZEor ', \.v.
tl F Atoms, _:
~'ElementarYl
400
<3
. . . .
00-1
Fig. 12. Calculated values [equation (1)] for increase in yield stress of Al-alloys by dispersoid particles.
9
processes, e.g., Zr, Cr, Mn [38]; and (d) they are
known to improve strength in the percipitation
hardening alloys by favoring precipitation near grain
boundaries, and retarding the formation of coherent
in favor of less coherent, more stable phases [39-41].
Microalloying effects comparable to those of
HSLA steels have not yet been found in aluminum
alloys. If particles form as an ultra-fine dispersoid,
they are usually coherent, with relatively weak
metallic bonding, and are therefore easily sheared by
dislocations (GP-zones, 6'-A13 Li). Hard non-
coherent particles (hard intermetallic compounds, Si-,
Ge-crystals) always form by nucleation mechanisms,
which lead to lower particle densities than homo-
geneously nucleated, coherent particles. Figure 12
shows which volume fractions, f, and particle
diameters, d, are required for considerable strength-
ening of A1. For volume fractions f < 0.01, sizes of
d < 3 nm are required. These estimates were derived
from equation (1). If precipitation hardening alone
were used as a strengthening mechanism of an alloy,
1% precipitates with d >dc and a size o f d < 1 nm are
needed to reach the theoretical limit. This implies that
very hard particles containing only a few elementary
cells must nucleate to obtain effective microalloying.
Conventional high strength Al-alloys contain ~ 5%
particles after precipitation hardening. Powder
metallurgy aluminum alloys or those produced from
rapid solidification or mechanical alloying may
contain ~ 20% or more particles by volume. Rapid
solidification may also provide a way for successful
microalloying if the solubility of suitable elements is
too low to form a sufficient number of nuclei. A
sufficiently high concentration, for example of
transition elements (Fe, Ni, Co, V), can produce a
supersaturation which leads to the desired density
and distribution of particles.
The best way to obtain a high yield stress by
microalloying is by nucleation, with a rate as close
as possible to homogeneous nucleation, of very
small particles of a hard phase (Figs 4 and 12). This
Particle Diameter dp (A)
10
, ........
100
, .....
lOO
_._.o . . . . . . . .
10000
~th ~ 9 0 0 M P a ~
\ Jsporso s
\1 YO \ 1 oV/~ " FINE' COARSE - ' ~
\ - V o I
I . . . . . . . . . , ,
100 101 102 103
Particle Diameter dp (nm)
10 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102
requirement is counteracted by the high interfacial
energy y~p implied by non-coherency and conse-
quently a high activation energy for homogeneous
nucleation and a large critical size of a nucleus dn
(Fig. 13). Excluding rapid solidification processes,
nature offers two means to overcome the large barrier
for the formation of non-coherent fl precipitates:
(1) Reducing the activation barrier via a precipi-
tation sequence that involves several less stable
phases having a lower interfacial energy (Fig. 13);
(2) Heterogeneous nucleation at 0-, 1-, 2-dimen-
sional defects (Tables 1 and 3). Case 1 is designated
as in-situ transition fl' ~ fl of the precipitate particles
[Fig. 3, equation (3)] [11-13]. The mechanism is
characterized by the fact that growth of the less stable
fl' particles creates, usually at the fl' interface, the
defect structure which aids in the nucleation of the
less coherent fl phase (Figs 13 and 14, Table l) [13].
Growing coherent particles often show a W A G N E R -
size distribution [42] (Fig. 14). This growth is limited
as soon as the largest particles arrive at the critical
size d¢~, at which the fl'-~ fl transformation starts.
All smaller fl' particles in its neighborhood will
shrink and be eaten-up by fl particles. As a conge-
quence, particles of fl will form which increase in
coarseness with increasing dc~,.
In defect-aided nucleation, sites are no longer
determined by statistical'fluctuations, but by nature,
density, and distribution of effective defects including
interfaces, Table 1 [43]. Vacancy-aided nucleation
comes closest to homogeneous nucleation, i.e. it may
produce very fine particles if small vacancy clusters
and not dislocation rings determine the sites [44].
In nucleation at dislocations and grain boundaries
the nucleation sites are arbitrarily distributed by the
sites of the non-equilibrium defects. The formation of
PZF's is usually due to a combined action of grain
boundaries and vacancies, if these are needed for the
AG 13H
Fig. 13. Energy of nuclei AG vs diameter d for: flH homo-
geneous nucleation of the stable phase; tip heterogeneous
nucleation of fl at defect (dislocation, grain boundary); fl~
homogeneous nucleation of the less stable coherent phase;
d¢~. size to which fl' must grow to nucleate (in-situ).
13''13
I
A
dc_~ n
B
13',
I :
D
dc-,n Particle Diameter dp (nm)
Fig. 14. Size distribution of fl' particles and dc~n for typical
alloy systems. (A) Extended growth of fl' before fl is
nucleated (AI-Li, A142u). (B) Reduction of dean by trace
elements or vacancies (AICuMg). (C) Coherent state (,8') is
of insufficient size to nucleate 8. (D) Stabilization of the
coherent state fl', that ample in-situ transformation takes
place (AI-ZnMg + Ag, A1-Si + Ge).
nucleation of a particle in the otherwise perfect
crystal. Solute depletion in the environment of grain
boundaries by grain boundary precipitation of a
non-coherent phase (Table 1) is the second cause for
the formation of a PFZ (Figs 7 and 8). Therapies
against PFZ's therefore have been based on
dislocation-aided nucleation in the PFZ. Either
impediment of vacancy diffusion to the grain bound-
ary or stabilization of fl' clusters from which the
nuclei form, provide explanations for the mechanisms
by which trace elements Cd, Sn, Ag, act to reduce the
PFZ [34, 45-47].
Plastic deformation of the alloy in addition to the
heat treatment can provide an additional increase in
yield strength, equation (5g) [48]. The dislocation
density will increase [equation (5d)], but also the
vacancy concentration is changed. This in turn affects
the precipitation mechanisms since the precipitates
impede recovery and recrystallization of the as-
deformed structure [49]. Unless these combined
reactions are known it cannot be predicted whether
a thermomechanical treatment will increase the yield
strength as-compared to a thermal treatment. After a
careful analysis of the microstructure, equation (5f)
can be used here to calculate the yield stress.
The term microalloying is used here for alloy
contents up to 1%. Trace elements are added inten-
tionally or present as impurities in concentrations
< 0.1%. It has to be explained how a small number
 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102
of atoms can have strong effects on mechanical
properties. The alloy compositions given here should
not be taken too literally. There are cases where trace
element additions surpass 0.1% (for example Ag in
A1CuMg and AIZnMg). The alloy additions of the
conventional precipitation hardening alloys a m o u n t
to 5%. (There could be however additional benefits
from microalloying by side effects, such as a reduced
specific weight or sensitivity to corrosion.)
If 0.1% trace element is added to a solid solution
containing 1.0% solute, the 1:1 interactions can be
expected at the following sites:
1. Thermal vacancies;
2. Non-coincidence grain boundary sites for grain
diameters of SB> 10nm, dislocations and sub-
boundaries;
3. Interfacial sites of equiaxed precipitates of the
solute with d > 6 nm.
For semi-coherent particles (0') the n u m b e r of sites
would decrease because much fewer sites per particles
are available. The trace element itself could form a
precipitate with a moderate hardening effect
(Fig. 12,0.1%), but it should mainly act by the
creation of interfaces which help subsequent precipi-
tation of the solute. One trace element has up to 10
solute elements available to form a cluster in the
range of 103 Al-atoms, Sc -~ 10b ~ 3 - 4 nm.
Most of these considerations have been discussed
in a recent review of trace element additions to
precipitation hardening Al-alloys [35]. Using their
own experiments and a complete review of the
literature, Mukhopadhyay e t al. summarized all the
experimental data and the models which have been
proposed to explain trace element effects. A n empir-
ical rule to predict which alloys are sensitive to trace
element treatment was given much earlier by H. K.
Hardy [39]:
"If the yield stress of an alloy is raised only slightly
by a heat treatment alone, but raised considerably
by cold work followed by aging, trace elements will
also be effective."
This rule implies that dislocations (Table 1) and
trace elements have a comparable effect to overcome
a high nucleation barrier, which exist in certain alloy
systems, and therefore does not include the stabilizing
effect that trace elements may have on either the
Table 6. Effect of trace additions (~<0.1at.%) of solute elementson precipitate nucleationin Al-basedalloys
Alloy system
Precipitate
influenced Cd In
AI-Cu (O') Large Large
A1-Cu-Li (T~) Large Large
(in the absence
of ~')
AI-Cu-Mg (f~) -- --
AI-Zn-Mg (~/') -- --
AI-Li (~') . . . .
AI-Zr (fl') . . . .
II
coherent or incoherent precipitates. Alloys and trace
element additions investigated and reviewed in the
MSS-paper [35] are reproduced as Table 6. Further
references and data may be obtained from that paper.
The principles of strengthening, fracture and
precipitation which have been discussed here suggest
that an ultra fine dispersoid of small covalently
bonded particles in an f.c.c. Al-matrix should
represent the ideal microstructure if ultra high
strength and resistance to fracture are desired. The
base for such a microstructure is provided only by
two binary alloy systems: AI-Si and A1--Ge. Precipi-
tation hardening in these systems is known to be
weak [36]. Commercial wrought Al-Si-alloys always
contain a third alloying element like Mg. In this way
the diamond cubic (d.c.) structure of Si is replaced by
that of an intermetallic compound (such as LAVES-
phase). Attempts to produce the desired ultra fine
dispersoid of the d.c.-structure evidently have not
been too successful, despite a large n u m b e r of papers
in which the mechanisms of its formation have been
analyzed for both A1-Si [44-46,51-53] and A I -
Ge-alloys [54-56].
Only some aspects of the A1-Si system and
principal considerations on the production of fine
dispersoids by precipitation will be discussed here.
AI(Si)- and Al(Ge)-solid solution belong to the group
of Al-alloys which show only moderate precipitation
hardening, in spite of the fact that a phase forms with
a very small critical particle size d~ (Table 2) [56].
Evidently, the density of Si-nuclei is too small, and
the diamond structure particles are too widely spaced
[Fig. 12, equation (1)]. For a spacing S o = 10 nm, the
density of nuclei must be 10 ~8cm 3. It is interesting
to note that 106cm -3 is obtained if A I - I % S i is
quenched to 200°C and aged at this temperature. If,
however, it is quenched to 20°C and reheated to
200°C the density of the Si-particles is 10~4cm -3
(aging time: 1 h) [51J--still not sufficient for creating
high strength.
Three ways are established to influence nucleation
without introducing non-equilibrium defects (TMT,
radiation):
(A) variation of solution temperature and cooling
rate,
(B) preaging at lower than the final aging tempera-
ture,
(C) trace element addition.
Trace elementeffects
Sn Ag Si Zr Ga
Large -- -- Small --
-- Not -- Small Medium
known
-- Large -- -- --
-- Large -- Negative --
. Large
Large -- --
 12 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102
• -. ~'=-/cc

T : constant
/ Trace _ . ~ i , , ' J i
r Elements . . . . t ~

I
E
,-= I~ I(G,~'
> addition]

i~bcc
O
t--
U.I
0)

I.L
/ 1
I
AI Si AI AI3 Li AILi
Fig. 17. Structural relations between matrix and nucleus,
M o l . Si Mol. Li schematic (examples for f l ' ~ fl transformations of particle).
(A) Coherent stress-free, ordered particle (A1 + 6'-AI3Li);
Fig. 15. Free energy G, composition C diagrams showing (B) Local martensitic (gFe+Cu); (C) Partially coherent
the stable (~t, fl, ,5) and metastable ~ ' , 6 ') phases, schematic. (A1 + O 'AI2Cu, A1 + 7A1Ag); (D) Non-coherent
(A) A1-Si: f.c.c. Si-rich clusters have a very high energy, (A1 + O, A1 + Si).
consequently a small tendency to grow. Ge addition in-
creases their stability [Fig. 14(A)]. (B) AI-Li: a relatively
stable f.c.c, phase &', can grow to large sizes until it While it is quite clear that A and partially B depend
transforms at d¢~ n into 6. Reduction of the ~6-surface on vacancies interacting with solute atoms or forming
energy [Fig. 14(B)] or destabilization of 6' by trace elements
would reduce d6' ~& and produce a fine non-coherent dislocation rings, a consistent explanation of the
dispersoid [equation (12)]. effect of trace elements is difficult. The facts are that
trace elements retard formation of coherent precipi-
tates fl" (GP Zones), favor the formation of the less
coherent phase fl', and may remove the particle free
zone [35, 39, 40]. This indicates that our interpret-
A ~ "~ ation of the effect requires an understanding of
nucleation and in-situ transformation of precipitate
phases (Figs 3, 13, 14 and 15).
Trace elements may have an effect on both the first
coherent state fl' and formation of the final structure
fl (a two-stage reaction will be discussed only, because
it shows all of the essential features). The first coher-
ent state may be represented by clusters (AI-Si), G P
Zones (A1-Cu), or metastable coherent particles
(Al-Li). Only the latter can grow unlimitedly until
they transform. Growth of clusters and G P Zones is
..... 6-.6-6..~T!!llJ
retarded and stops usually due to build-up of distor-
tions of unfavorable coordination: f.c.c, coordination
C
140 I I I is unfavorable for the electronic structure of Si atoms.
Most of the trace elements known to be effective have
12.Z~130 ,s~___~.j,, ' ' ~ - ~ ~ - a larger atomic radius than A1. Therefore, they can
110 ,,, ,, ~..~ ~. interact with smaller atoms and vacancies to form
more stable clusters (Figs 16 and 17, Tables 6 and 7).
Ag has an effect in A 1 - Z n - M g alloys but the
e-- same atomic radius as Al, indicating stabilization of
"¢~ 70 oC
bulk metastable phases. All elements with a certain
"1- - - AI - 4Cu
50
...... AI - 4Cu - 0.05In
30 I I I
Table 7. Atomic size ratio of
0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100
solutes in AI
Aging Time (Days) Smaller Larger
Cu Ti
Fig. 16. Effects of trace elements. (A) Stabilization of the Zn Sn
coherent state due to size effects: + -rule, i.e. add atoms with Si Cd
smaller and larger atomic size as A1. (B) Interaction with Ni Ge
surface structure to lower the energy ?=p to decrease d¢~,, Co Li
destabilization of the fl' has a corresponding effect. (C) The Fe Mg
Mn Ga
effect of trace element In on precipitation hardening of an
A1-4Cu alloy is due to the reduction of de.,. Cr
 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102
solubility in A1 are candidates for trace elements. This
includes most transition elements which are however
all smaller than A1 (Table 7), and excludes B, C, N
and O.
An interpretation of trace element effects must be
based on a model for the in-situ transition from a
coherent fl' to a non-coherent (or semi-coherent)
particle fl (Fig. 17). It requires that the fl' particle
accumulates during its growth the energy to aid the
nucleation of the more stable form (in a similar
manner as a preexisting defect would, Table 1) [13].
There exist favorable combinations of crystal
structure and defect structure which require
minimum activation energy [43]. The case that fl' is
coherent and fl semi- or non-coherent exists exclu-
sively in A1 alloys (examples for stable coherent
phases, only in other alloys: Ni-AI, Ni-Si, Fe-A1,
ct-Fe-Si, y-Fe-Si, 7-Fe-Cu, Pb-Na). A1 alloys, how-
ever, offer a wide variety of differences in stability
between fl' and fl (Fig. 15). F.c.c,-Si-rich clusters
evidently possess a very high energy per unit volume
and stay very small ( < 1 nm), but the f.c.c, ordered
'-particles can grow significantly ( > 100 nm)
without transformation into the equilibrium AI-Li
phase.
Consequently the specific energy gained by trans-
formation of an f.c.c.-cluster of Si is large, but it is
small if the 6'-A13 Li transforms into 6-AILi (Fig. 15).
If the metastable clusters grow, they can provide the
energy for the formation of defects in their surface
which aid the nucleation of the non-coherent stable
precipitates (Fig. 13). This has been studied in detail
for the O" --, O ' transition (dislocations) and O ' --, O
(non-coincidence boundary segments) in A1--Cu
alloys [13, 57]. The critical size d¢.n for the in-situ
transition can be derived from an energy criterion
[58]:
dc~. 7~-7~p' A..__7~--7~'A (12a)
ga,--gp Agp,a
Ago,a is the specific free energy gained from the fl' ~ fl
transformation, Y~' is the contribution of the inter-
facial energy of fl' to the formation of ft. If for
example during growth of fl', an interfacial
dislocation is formed from the coherency stress the
value of 7~B, will increase accordingly, It follows from
equation (12a) that large values of 7~' and of Ag~,~
favor a small value for d¢~,, which is aspired. A large
value for d ~ , can be expected if the stabilities of fl'
and fl do not differ much [AI-Li, Fig. 15(B)].
A new requirement for high strength by micro-
alloying can be postulated, because the non-coherent
state provides a more efficient obstacle to dislocations
than the coherent particle [equation (4)]:
dc ~ d¢.n ~min. (12b)
Equation (12a) is suitable for a discussion of the effect
of trace elements on the c ~ n-transition (Figs 15 and
16). The trace element can interact with the ~fl-inter-
13
face and reduce its energy by 7t (Figs 16 and 17)
and/or increase Aga,p:
- - ) ' ~ ' - - 7t
de.n/> 7~,a .4 (12c)
Ag#,# __-gt
This effect will reduce d¢~° and therefore limit the
growth of the coherent state fl'. In some alloys
(A1-Si, Al~3e) the size of the clusters stays below
de_ n especially if no vacancies are present. In this case
the trace element (of opposite atomic size ratio) can
stabilize the coherent state and facilitate a growth of
the cluster to the critical size (Fig. 14) [59]. This effect
must overcompensate for the fact that Ag~,p becomes
smaller by gt and dc~n larger. In the metallic state of
solid solutions with A1, Si and Ge show a size misfit
of 2-3 %. Pairs of the two atoms must compensate for
this distortion and facilitate enhanced growth of
clusters. It has been show that the nucleation of the
diamond cubic structure is changed from the known,
quench-sensitive formation of thin plates in the two
binary systems. Evidently, spherical clusters grow
and transform into rather equiaxed particles at a
much higher number density than in the binary
alloys. Therefore, ternary A I - S i - G e can serve as
model alloys for the study of the mechanism of
nucleation of non-coherent phases. Our recent studies
[59] have shown that compared with the binary
alloys, the AI-(Si, Ge) alloys show an extended solid
solubility, a higher density of nuclei, more equiaxed
shaped particles, and less quench sensitivity. Ag-
additions must act in a similar way by stabilization of
the incoherent state. Superimposed on these effects
are the interactions of trace elements with vacancies.
If they inhibit condensation of vacancies as
dislocations, they can interact with the newly formed
interfaces by a contribution to 7,. These vacancies can
also stabilize the bulk of a cluster consisting of larger
atoms before it transforms into fl or aid the
transformation if it is associated with a large increase
in specific volume (A1-Si).
In summary, there should be two different effects
of trace elements, both of which lead to a larger
density of nuclei. They aid the fl' ~ fl transformation
by lowering the surface energy, Y,a, and consequently
aiding the loss of coherency, i.e. the critical size dc~,
is reduced. The alternative is that the coherent state
needs to be destablized so that the zones can trans-
form to the equilibrium fl phase (AI-Si). In case of
very small differences in stability between fl' and fl
(Al-Li), alloy additions should induce a destabiliza-
tion of the 6' phase which in turn increases Ag~,~since
this measure will aid the effects obtained from
lowering the interface surface energies, equation
(12c). This should then produce a fine dispersoid of
-A1Li in A1 and therefore a higher yield strength in
this type of alloy.
For stabilization of the coherent phases the
" _ rule" seems to be useful which recommends the
addition of atoms with positive and negative devi-
ation from the atomic size of A1 [59, 60].
14
104
,," •
• s~" s S
10 4 ~# SS ,s s
:7 / //
I I
# i
/ I
10 . . . . . . ; t ' I - '----'--
6 7 8 9 10
AK (MNm-~s)
Fig. 18. Effects of transcrystalline localization of strain
(Figs 3, 5 and 6) on fatigue crack propagation in Al-alloys.
In the alloys designated X trace element additions (0.3% Cr)
are absent. They form particles of metallic compounds
which stabilize the subgrain structure• They have a similar
effect as overaging in removing localization of strain and
consequently increase fatigue crack growth.
CONCLUSIONS
It was discussed how an ultra-fine dispersion of
hard particles can be obtained by heat treatment
alone: either by stabilization of the coherent state fl'
so that it grows to the (small) size of dc~n, or by
destabilizing the coherent state and creation of
favorable conditions for the transition of the coherent
into a less coherent state (Figs 16 and 17). Theory and
experiments agree that such a microstructure will lead
to high strength and high fracture toughness for static
loading conditions• There exist secondary require-
ments that grain boundaries are neither embrittled by
segregation or grain boundary precipitates nor
accompanied by PFZ's.
The situation becomes more complex if cyclic
loading is added [3]. The models derived from contin-
uum theory [Fig. 2(A)] predict a fatigue crack growth
rate da/dN, that decreases with increasing yield stress
Cry. This model implies that no strain localization
occurs, such as persistent bands, and slip steps (Figs 2
and 5). It has been shown in many materials including
high strength Al-alloys (Fig. 18), that fatigue strength
does not increase with yield strength. On the other
hand, it is observed that crack growth is retarded if
localized transcrystalline slip is induced at the crack
tip by particles with d <dc [5, 61-65]. This effect is
more pronounced in inert environments; aggressive
environments will aid crack growth and negate the
beneficial effects of localized slip [5]. Beneficial effects
in inert environments are primarily due to crack
propagation along slip planes in which a fraction
nR/n of dislocations move reversibly• Crack branch-
ing and closure effects can contribute further to crack
retardation in case of a crack path which is confirmed
to various slip planes.
Therefore, the requirements for an optimum
microstructure of a high strength Al-alloy have to be
supplemented for fatigue loading. It should provide
for a certain amount of strain localization at the
HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102
crack tip. Because of the high stacking fault energy
• ,o' i/ J
"s I ,S (SFE) of the Al-matrix solid solution (oc), short range
st
order or shearable particles are required. Solid
# solution additions, e.g. Mg, may also lower the SFE
of AI and therefore enhance planar slip. An aging
s# # tim
treatment which produces particles in the environ-
ment of de (Fig. 4, peak aged) could provide the
desired microstructure.
x - 7075 24h 100"C
.... X * 7075 20h 160°C
The microstructure which has to be present to
..... 7475 24h lO0°C obtain high strength Al-alloys for defined mechanical
20 30 40 50 60 loading conditions seems to be fully understood.
How to obtain this microstructure by alloy develop-
ment and heat treatment is a field which still provides
many opportunities and recent work on AI-(Si, Ge)
indicates that success is within the realm of possibility
[59].
Acknowledgements--E. Hornbogen would like to acknowl-
edge financial support by ALCOA during his stay at the
University of Virginia, and E. A. Starke Jr, would like to
acknowledge the support of the Office of Naval Research
under N00014-91-J-1285, Dr George Yoder, Program
Manager.
REFERENCES
1. A. K. Vasudevan, R. D. Doherty and S. Suresh, in
Aluminum Alloys--Contemporary Research and
Applications (edited by A. K. Vasudevan and R. D.
Doherty), Treatise on Materials Science and Technology,
Academic Science and Technology, Vol. 31, p. 446.
Academic Press, Boston (1989).
2. E. Hombogen, Proc. ICSMA6, Melbourne, 3, 1059
(1982).
3. E. A. Starke Jr and G. Liitjering, in Fatigue and
Microstructure (edited by M. Meshii), p. 205. Am. Soc.
Metals, Metals Park, Ohio (1979).
4. E. Hornbogen and K. H. Zum-Gahr, Metallographer 8,
181 (1975).
5. R. D. Carter, E. W. Lee, E. A. Starke Jr and C. J.
Beevers, Metall. Trans. 15A, 555 (1984).
6. B. Sarkar, M. Marek and E. A. Starke Jr, Metall. Trans.
12A, 1939 (1981).
7. E. Hornbogen, Proc. ICSMAS, Aachen, 2, 1337 (1979).
8. A. Kelly and R. B. Nicholson, Prog. Mater. ScL 10,
(1963).
9. E. Hombogen, Proc. ICSMA3, Cambridge, England, 2,
108 (1973).
10. Precipitation Processes in Solids (edited by K. C. Russell
and H. I. Aaronson). A.I.M.E. Conf. Proc., Warren-
dale, Pa (1978).
11. K. C. Russell, Scripta metall. 3, 33 (1969).
12. P. E. Marth, H. I. Aaronson, G. W. Lorimer, T. L.
Bartell and K. C. Russell, Metall. Trans. 7A, 1519
(1976).
13. E. Hombogen, Metall. Trans. 9A, 134 (1978).
14. E. Hornbogen, J. Mater. Sci. 21, 3737 (1986).
15. E. Hornbogen, Pract. Metallogr. 23, 258 (1986).
16. L. F. Mondolfo, Aluminum Alloys, p. 69. Butterworths,
London (1979).
17. D. J. Lloyd, Metals Sci, 14, 193 (1980).
18. J. M. Duva, M. A. Daubler, E. A. Starke Jr and G.
Lfitjering, Acta metall. 36, 585 (1988).
19. M. Griif and E. Hornbogen, Acta metall. 25, 883, 877
(1977).
20. G. Liitjering and E. Hornbogen, Proc. 5th Int. Conf.
Light Metals, Vienna, p. 40 (1976).
21. K.V. Jam and E. A. Starke Jr, Metall. Trans. 17A, 1011
(1986).
 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102 15

22. H. J. Roven, Scripta metall, mater. 26, 1383 (1992). Jr, Scripta metall, mater., in press; and E. Hornbogen,
23. J. A. Walsh, K. V. Jata and E. A. Starke Jr, Acta metall. A. K. Mukhopadhyay and E. A. Starke Jr, Z. Metallk,
37, 2861 (1989). in press.
24. E. Hornbogen, Proc. 1CSMA4, Nancy, 2, 555 (1976). 60. N. Ryum, in Aluminum Alloys, Their Physical and
25. R. H. Van Stone, T. B. Cox, J. R. Low Jr and J. A. Mechanical Properties (edited by E. A. Starke Jr and
Psioda, Int. Metals Rev. 30, 157 (1985). T. H. Sanders), p. 1511. E.M.A.S., West Midlands,
26. Ali S. Argon, in Fracture Mechanics, Perspectives England (1986).
and Directions, STP 1020 (edited by R. P. Wei and 61. E. A. Starke Jr and J. C. Williams, in Fracture
R. P. Gangloff), p. 127. A.S.T.M. Philadelphia, Pa Mechanics: Perspectives and Directions (edited by R. P.
(1989). Wei and R. P. Gangloff), p. 184, A.S.T.M. STP 1020,
27. J. Gurland and J. Plateau, Trans. Am. Soc. Metals 56, Philadelphia, Pa (1989).
442 (1963). 62. G. L/itjering and A. Gysler, Aluminum Alloys, Their
28. R. H. Van Stone, R. H. Merchant and J. R. Low Jr, in Physical and Mechanical Properties (edited by E. A.
Fatigue and Fracture Toughness--Cryogenic Behavior Starke Jr and T. H. Sanders Jr), p. 1547. E.M.A.S.,
(edited by C. F. Hickey Jr. and R. G. Broadwell), p. 93. West Midlands, England (1986).
A.S.T.M. STP 556, Philadelphia, Pa (1973). 63. E. Hornbogen and M. Gr~if, Scripta metall. 12, 147
29. J. T. Staley, A S T M STP 605, p. 75. Philadelphia, Pa (1978).
(1975). 64. W. A. Cassada, G. J. Shiflet and E. A. Starke Jr, Acta
30. A. S. Argon, J. Im and R. Sofoglu, MetalL Trans. 6A, metall. 34, 637 (1986).
825 (1975). 65. C. P. Blankenship Jr and E. A. Starke Jr, Fatigue Fract.
31. A. S. Argon and J. Im, Metall. Trans. 6A, 839 (1975). Engng Mater. Struct. 14, 103 (1991).
32. T. B. Cox and J. R. Low Jr, Metall. Trans. 5A, 1457
(1974).
33. E. Hornbogen, Stahl Eisen 44, 621 (1973). APPENDIX A
34. Formable HSLA and Dual Phase Steels (edited by A. T.
Davenport), AIME Conf. Proc., AIME, Warrendale, Nomenclature
Pa (1979). A Geometrical factor.
35. A. K. Mukhopadhyay, G. J. Shiflet and E. A. Starke Jr, a Length of a crack (m).
Proc. Morris E. Fine Symposium (edited by P. K. Liaw, ct Matrix phase, Al-solid solution.
J. R. Weertman, H. L. Marcus and J. S. Santer), p. 283. ct0 ~t, before aging.
T.M.S.-A.I.M.E., Warrendale, Pa (1990). ct' metastable equilibrium.
36. L. F. Mondolfo, Aluminum Alloys, p. 672. Butter- b = b, Atomic spacing of ct, Burgers vector (m).
worths, London (1979). fl Precipitate, stable equilibrium.
37. I. J. Polmear, Light Alloys--Metallurgy of the Light fl' Coherent precipitate metastable equilibrium.
Metals, p. 153. Edward Arnold, London (1989). C empirical constant (m-~).
38. E. A. Starke Jr, in Aluminum Alloys--Contemporary Cp Empirical constant that depends on the type
Research and Applications (edited by A. K. Vasudevan of strengthening of the particle.
and R. D. Doherty), Treatise on Materials Science and CB Empirical constant that depends on the elastic
Technology, Academic Science and Technology, Vol. 3 l, properties of the bulk material.
p. 35. Academic Press, Boston (1989). D Plastic zone size (m).
39. H. K. Hardy, J. Inst. Metals 84, 429 0955-56). d Any particle diameter (m).
40. I. J. Polmear, J. Inst. Metals 89, 51, 193 (1960-61). dc d at transition cutting ~ bypassing (m).
41. R. B. Nicholson, J. Inst. Metals 90, 185 (1961-62). dc~ . d at transition coherent--,less coherent (m).
42. C. Wagner, Zeitschr. Elektrochem. 65, 581 (1961). dr~ d at nucleation (m).
43. E. Hornbogen, in Nucleation (edited by A. C. dp Particle diameter (m).
Zettlemoyer), Chap. 6, p. 303. Dekker, New York dpvz Width of particle free zone (m).
(1969). E Youngs modulus (Pa).
44. K. H. Westmacott, R. S. Barnes, D. Hull and R . E . ESCB Critical strain for fracture in slip band (m/m).
Smallman, Phil. Mag. 6, 929 (1961). E~pFZ Strain to fracture (m/m).
45. H. S. Rosenbaum and D. Turnbull, Acta metall. 7, 664 f =fp Volume fraction of particles.
(1959). G = G~ Shear modulus of matrix ct (GPa).
46. A. Saulnier, Mbm. scient. Revue mbtall. 58, 615 G# Shear modulus of precipitate particle fl (GPa).
(1961). g~. Free enthalpy of metastable phase fl' (Jm-3).
47. E. A. Starke Jr, J. Metals. 22, 54 (1970). g~ Free enthalpy of stable phase fl (Jm-3).
48. J. C. Williams and E. A. Starke Jr, in Deformation, gt Contribution of trace element to phase stab-
Processing and Structure (edited by George Krauss), ility (Jm - 3).
p. 279. ASM, Metals Park, Ohio (1984). Surface energy (Jm-2).
49. E. Hornbogen, Metall. Trans. 10A, 947 (1979). y~ Interfacial energy between ct, fl (Jm-2).
50. E. Hornbogen, J. Mater. Sci. 21, 372 (1986). y~, Interfacial energy between ~t, fl' (Jm-2).
51. H. S. Rosenbaum and D. Turnbull, Acta metall. 6, 658 7p'a Interracial energy between/V, fl (Jm-2).
(1958). 7t Reduction of 7 due to trace elements (Jm-2).
52. H. S. Rosenbaum, D. Turnbull and E. I. Alessandrini, ~'APB Energy of an antiphase domain boundary
Acta metall. 7, 678 (1959). (Jm - 2).
53. E. Ozawa and H. Kimura, Acta metall. 18, 995 Ar Energy gained by pair-like dislocation motion
(1970). (Jm 2).
54. H. B6hm, J. Metallk. 51, 409 (1960). ky Petch-factor, equation (5) (MPa ml/2).
55. U. K6ster, Mater. Sci. Engng 5, 174 (1969). K, AK Stress intensities (MPa mta).
56. M. Beller, J. Metallk. 63, 663 (1972); ibid. 64, 189 Kic Plane strain fracture (MPa mr/2).
(1973); ibid. 65, 387 (1974). L~ Tendency for intercrystalline localization of
57. E. Hornbogen, Aluminium 43, 41,115, 163 (1967). strain.
58. K. C. Russell, in Nucleation III (edited by A . C . M Crystallographic orientation factor.
Zettlemoyer). Dekker, New York (1980). N Tendency for transcrystalline localization of
59. E. Hornbogen, A. K. Mukhopadhyay and E. A. Starke strain.

AM 41/I--B
16 HORNBOGEN and STARKE: OVERVIEW NO. 102

n, R R Number of dislocations in slip plane Acr v = Acr l Increase of % by dislocations (MPa).

(R/reversible). Acre = Acr2 Increase of cry by grain boundaries (MPa).
PD Dislocation density (m-2). Acrp = Acr 3 Increase of cry by particles (MPa).
PB ~ S ~ - i Grain boundary density (m-l). cri Stress to move dislocations in pure A1 (MPa).
q Stress concentration factor at particles, trth Theoretical upper limit of yield stress (MPa).
S Any spacing of obstacles (m). try Yield stress (MPa).
So Spacing of dislocations (m). ~* Stress concentration at grain boundary due to
SB Spacing of grain boundaries (m). dislocation pileup (MPa).
Sp Spacing of particles (m). ~e Resolved shear stress (MPa).
S~r Effective spacing, mixtures of obstacles (m). ,y Critical resolved shear stress (MPa).
Ss~ Slip band spacing (m). ~z# Critical resolved shear stress of ~t, fl-phase
cr Any tensile stress (MPa). (MPa).
Acrss = Atro Increase of try by solid solution (MPa).