On the hierarchy of interfacial dislocation structure

Abstract

Many different types of dislocations have been defined in dislocation models for grain boundaries and interphase boundaries. It is emphasized that there is no unique dislocation model for a boundary, and that the formal dislocation content depends upon the choice of the lattice correspondence relating the adjoining lattices. However, it is concluded that no problems of real physical significance arise from this lack of uniqueness. “Best≓, or most useful, descriptions often exist, and these are discussed. A hierarchy consisting of four different types of interfacial dislocations may be distinguished, which is useful in describing the dislocation content of interfaces. These entities are termed: (1) primary interfacial dislocations; (2) secondary interfacial dislocations; (3) coherency interfacial dislocations; and (4) translational interfacial dislocations. While there may be a lack of agreement on terminology in the literature, it is believed that these dislocation types are distinguishable and play unique roles in useful dislocation models for interfaces. Detailed descriptions of these dislocation types are given, and actual examples in real interfaces are presented. It is concluded that dislocation descriptions of interface structures become of purely formal significance in the limit of fully incoherent interfaces since the cores are then delocalized. The utility of various dislocation descriptions therefore depends on the degree to which various types of local coherency exist.