Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-n5rmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T09:54:09.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microstructure and fracture toughness of powder-processed Al3Nb

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

J. H. Schneibel ,
P. F. Becher  and
J. A. Horton
J. H. Schneibel
Affiliation:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P. O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
P. F. Becher
Affiliation:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P. O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
J. A. Horton
Affiliation:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P. O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
Get access

Abstract

Intermetallic alloys with the nominal compositions Al–24.5Nb, Al–25Nb, and Al–25.5Nb (at.%) were fabricated by hot-pressing of pre-alloyed powders in graphite dies in vacuum. The hot-pressed disks contained substantial porosity even at processing temperatures of 0.95 Tm, where Tm is the absolute melting point. In addition to some copper and silicon contamination, significant concentrations of oxygen and carbon were measured in Al–25.5Nb. Alpha alumina precipitates as well as niobium-enriched precipitates were identified. The fracture toughness of pre-cracked bend specimens with the nominal composition Al–25.5Nb was found to be 2.5 ± 0.5 MPa m1/2. Possibilities for improving this value are discussed.

Information

Type
Rapid Communications
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 3 , Issue 6 , December 1988 , pp. 1272 - 1276
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1Aitken, E. A., in Intermetallic Compounds, edited by West-brook, J. H. (Wiley, New York, 1967), pp. 491–516.Google Scholar
2Maas, J., Bastin, G., Loo, F. van, and Metselaar, R., Z. Metall. 74, 294 (1983).Google Scholar
3Raisson, G. and Vignes, A., Rev. Phys. Appl. 5, 535 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Paine, R. M., Stonehouse, A. J., and Beaver, W. W., Wright Air Development Center Technical Report 59-29, Part II, p. 15 ff. (1959).Google Scholar
5Shechtman, D. and Jacobson, L. A., Metall. Trans. A 6, 1325 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Cook, R. F. and Lawn, B. R., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 66, C–200 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Sauthoff, G. and Reip, C. P. (private communication, 1987).Google Scholar
8Early, J. G., Lenel, F. V., and Ansell, G. S., Trans. AIME 230, 1641 (1964).Google Scholar
9Columbium and Tantalum, edited by Sisco, F. T. (Wiley, New York, 1963), p. 225.Google Scholar
10Huang, S. C., Hall, E. L., and Gigliotti, M. F. X., J. Mater. Res. 3, 1 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Villars, P. and Calvert, L. D., Pearson's Handbook of Crystallographic Data for Intermetallic Phases (American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1985), Vol. 2, p. 1043.Google Scholar