Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T23:25:51.658Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the kinetics of the δ′ (Al3Li) phase precipitation in a rapidly solidified Al–Mn–Li–Zr alloy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

J. Baram  and
A. N. Sembira
J. Baram
Affiliation:
Materials Engineering Department, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
A. N. Sembira
Affiliation:
Chemical Engineering Department, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Get access

Abstract

The precipitation kinetics of the δ′ (Al3Li) phase in two rapidly solidified samples and one conventionally cast sample of an Al–2.3Li–6.5Mn–0.65Zr (in wt. %) alloy are compared. Following high cooling rates, manganese is retained in solid solution in the aluminum matrix (αAl) up to 6.0 wt.%, far beyond the thermodynamic equilibrium value (0.36 wt.% at 500 °C). Extended solid solution of manganese in aluminum induces strain gradients, similar to those produced by dislocations. The effect of such gradients, the size of which is proportional to the solute atomic fraction, is to enhance lithium precipitation by lowering the activation energy, as observed, and also by affecting the rate parameter. Kinetic thermal analysis has been performed in a series of nonisothermal experiments in the heat flux differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) mode. The precipitation of the δ′ (Al3Li) phase is evidenced by an exothermic peak whose characteristics were analyzed. The rate of transformation (precipitation) is assumed to obey the Johnson–Mehl–Avrami equation. The activation energy for the precipitation process as well as the kinetic rate parameter have been evaluated for the rapidly solidified and the conventionally cast specimens. The activation energy for precipitation is lowered, from 107.0 kJ mol−1 for the conventionally cast material, down to 81.8 kJ mol−1 and 77.0 kJ mol−1 for samples that exhibit manganese solid solubility extensions of 2.10 and 6.00 wt.%, respectively. The rate parameter for the precipitation reaction, which has the generally admitted value of 1.50, for a transformation involving diffusion controlled growth, is affected by the strain gradients, too. Its value is reduced from 1.40 for the slowly cast sample to 1.32 and 1.20, respectively, for the two rapidly solidified samples, as a result of competing mechanisms, namely: growth controlled by diffusion and strain-assisted precipitation.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 46 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1991

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.)

References

1Williams, D. B. and Edington, J. W., Metal Science 9, 529 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Noble, B. and Thompson, G. E., Metal Science J. 5, 114 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Burke, J., The Kinetics of Phase Transformations in Metals (Perga-mon Press, 1965), p. 192.Google Scholar
4Ruhr, M., Ucok, I., Lavernia, E., and Baram, J., in Light-Weight Alloys for Aerospace Applications, Proceedings of a Symposium sponsored by the TMS Nonferrous Metals Committee, held during the 1989 TMS Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV February 28-March 2, 1989, pp. 79–97.Google Scholar
5Malek, J. and Klikorka, J., J. of Thermal Analysis 32, 1883 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Kissinger, H. F., J. Res. Ntn. Bur. Std. 57, 217 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Kissinger, H. F., Analyt. Chem. 29, 1702 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Henderson, D. W., J. Non-Cryst. Solids 30, 301 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Meisel, L. V. and Cote, P. J., Acta Metall. 7, 1053 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Lavernia, E. J., Gutierrez, E., Szekely, J., and Grant, N. J., Int. J. of Rapid Solid. 4, 125 (1988).Google Scholar
11Nozato, R. and Nakai, G., Trans. JIM 18, 679 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Papazian, J. M., Sigli, C., and Sanchez, J. M., Scripta Metall. 20, 201 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Ohashi, T., Dai, L., and Fukatsu, N., Metall. Trans. A17A, 799 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Shechtman, D., Shaeffer, R. J., and Biancaniello, F. S., Metall. Trans. A 15A, 1987 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Sembira, A. and Baram, J., work in progress.Google Scholar
16Avrami, M., J. Chem. Phys. 7, 1103 (1939) and 8, 212 (1940).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Johnson, W. A. and Mehl, R. F., Trans. AIME 135, 416 (1939).Google Scholar
18Evans, J. T., Scripta Metall. 21, 1435 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Christian, J. W., in The Theory of Transformations in Metals and Alloys, 2nd ed. (Pergamon Press, 1975), Part 1, pp. 198–206.Google Scholar
20Burke, J., in The Kinetics of Phase Transformations in Metals (Perga-mon Press, 1965), pp. 172–176.Google Scholar
21Baram, J. and Zevin, L., Scripta Metallurgica and Materialia 4 (1990, accepted for publication).Google Scholar
22Cullity, B. D., in Elements of X-Ray Diffraction (Addison-Wesley, 3rd printing, 1967).Google Scholar
23Herbstein, F. H., Borie, B. S., and Averbach, B. L., Acta Crystal-logr. 9, 466 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Guinier, A., in X-ray Diffraction in Crystals, Imperfect Crystals and Amorphous Bodies (Freeman, W. H.Publ., San Francisco, CA, 1963).Google Scholar