Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:17:51.450Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Laser radiation enhancement of the corrosion resistance of an amorphous ribbon alloy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Robert Schulz
Affiliation:
Physical Chemistry Department, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan 48090
Natalia L. Lee
Affiliation:
Physical Chemistry Department, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan 48090
Bruce M. Clemens
Affiliation:
Physics Department, Physical Chemistry Department, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan 48090
Get access

Abstract

The effects of pulsed laser radiation on the corrosion resistance, surface morphology, and composition of liquid-quenched amorphous Fe32Ni36Cr14P12B6 (Allied Corporation Metglas¯ 2826A) are reported. Scanning electron microscopy, Auger depth profiling, and x-ray diffraction were used to characterize the surface, while the corrosion resistance was determined by anodic polarization in H2SO4. The surface of the as-received melt-spun ribbons exhibited many defects, including cracks, compositional irregularities, and microcrystals of Ni5P4. These microcrystals differ from those found upon bulk crystallization. Melting and rapid solidification by radiation with a Q-switched Nd–YAG laser [30 ns full width at half maximum (FWHM)] modified the surface morphology (leaving composition constant), removing the microcrystals and cracks and reducing the carbon and oxygen contamination. The reduction of these surface defects resulted in improved corrosion resistance of the Metglas¯ 2826A ribbon. For example, spontaneous passivation is observed for the laser-treated samples, as opposed to critical current densities of 10μA/cm2 and 1000μA/cm2 for the as-received amorphous and crystallized Metglas¯ alloy, respectively.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1987

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

REFERENCES

1Klement, W. Jr., Willens, R. H., and Duwez, P., Nature 187, 869 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Masumoto, T. and Hashimoto, K., Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 8, 215 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Karve, P. P., Kulkarni, S. K., and Nigavekar, A. S., in the Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Rapidly Quenched Metals, edited by Steeb, S. and Warlemont, H. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), p. 1477.Google Scholar
4Devine, T. M. and Wells, L., Scr. Metall. 10, 309 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Thomas, M. T. and Baer, D. R., in the Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Rapidly Quenched Metals, Sendai, Japan, 24–28 August 1981, p. 1453.Google Scholar
6Chance, R. L. and Ceselli, R. G., National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Preprint Paper No. 263, 1983, GMR–4139.Google Scholar
7Lin, C. J., Spaepen, F., and Turnbull, D., J. Non-Cryst. Solids 61 and 62, 767 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Wood, R. F. and Giles, G. E., Phys. Rev. B 23, 2923 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9For example, the normal reflectance at a wavelength of 1.06 fi for polished iron is 0.6 compared to 0.1 for an oxidized iron surface.Google Scholar
1OHeimendahl, M. V. and Maussner, G., in the Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Rapidly Quenched Metals, Brighton, England, 1978, Metals Society Book No. 198, p. 424.Google Scholar
11Miedema, A. R., Z. Metallkd. 69, 455 (1978).Google Scholar
12Myers, C. E., Kisacky, G. A., and Klingert, J. K., J. Electrochem. Soc. 32, 236 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Myers, C. E. and Conti, T. J., J. Electrochem. Soc. 32, 454 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Kubaschewski, O. and Alcok, C. B., Metallurgical Thermochemistry (Pergamon, New York, 1979).Google Scholar