On the description of misorientations and interpretation of recrystallisation textures

Effect of pre-annealing strains on annealing texture developments in commercially pure (CP) titanium

“…A higher misorientation angle was observed in orientations away from ½1 1 2 5 orientation. Hence, these grains had a higher mobility [16,34] and are assumed to have been consumed. As observed from Figure 8, the volume fraction of ½1 1 2 5 orientations increases with increase in annealing time, and hence, it may be suggested that these orientations i.e.…”

Texture formation in metal alloys with cubic crystal structures

“…16 However, such claims remain highly controversial because: (i) there are no specific structural arguments supporting the unique character of these orientation relations; (ii) the orientation relation in itself does not give a complete description of GB structure (because it ignores the inclination of the GB plane) and (iii) it is difficult in growth experiments to separate mobility effects from variations in driving force. An important contribution to the debate was made by Hutchinson et al 83 , who studied the random distribution of misorientations, represented by a set of axis-angle pairs <UVW>ω, whereby the axis is selected that is closest to <110> or <111> (instead of the more common minimum angle representation). They showed that such a misorientation distribution function exhibits a peak close to 30°for the <110> axes and close to 40°for the <111> axes, cf.…”

“…Nevertheless, it was equally shown by numerical simulations that for FCC aluminium, the consideration of the <111>40°increased mobility operator was an 13 a {110}<110> oriented deformed grain in cold rolled Fe3%Si steel exhibiting in-grain SBs, indicated by white arrows; b ODF of the {110}<110> oriented grain together with the {001}<100> cube orientations of the SBs 80 14 Frequency distribution of random misorientations; a represented with misorientation axes nearest to <110> and b with misorientation axes nearest to <111>. 'all' includes all misorientations, '10°' misorientations within a tolerance of 10°from the axis and '5°' within a tolerance of 5°from the axis 83 essential element in obtaining a reasonable agreement between modeled and experimental textures, 84 whereas Verbeken et al 85 showed that even in the representation proposed by Hutchinson et al 83 there is a statistically significant preference for <110>26.5°selective growth of random nuclei introduced in a BCC Fe-Si single crystal.…”

Minimum-Angle versus Low-Index Axis Rotations for Representing Small- and Large-Angle Grain Boundary Misorientations in Cubic Lattices

“…Some more angles need to be defined: ~0Ol, ~0Ol1 and ~111 denote the angle between the appropriate nhkl axis and C001), (011) and (111), respectively; and ~0Ol, ~0n and 1/)'111 the angle between nmi n and C001), (011} and (111), respectively. Hutchinson et al (1996) However, the Ohkl distributions obtained by the above authors exhibit maxima that fall precisely within these angle intervals. This suggests that experimental mobility results should be viewed with circumspection, although they are not invalidated since the experimental distributions are in some cases sharper than those based on random misorientations.…”