Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:52:21.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on the role of Mg and Si in the directed oxidation of Al–Mg–Si alloys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Alan S. Nagelberg
Alan S. Nagelberg
Affiliation:
Lanxide Corporation, Newark, Delaware 19714-6077
Get access

Abstract

The initiation and growth of α–Al2O3/metal composites by the directed oxidation of molten Al–Mg, Al–Si, and Al–Mg–Si alloys at 1373 and 1523 K were investigated. Spontaneous initiation and growth occurred only on the ternary Al–Mg–Si alloy. Growth also occurred on the Al-Mg binary alloy, but in this case initiation required the mechanical disruption of the protective oxide formed during initial heating to the growth temperature. In addition, mechanical disruption of the protective oxide scale on the Al–Mg–Si alloy enhanced growth initiation. Growth on the Al–Si alloy could not be induced under any conditions. From these observations it is concluded that, in the directed oxidation of Al–Mg–Si alloys, Mg is essential to the accelerated oxidation reaction, while Si appears to play a role in promoting the breakdown of the protective oxide layers. The most uniform initiation and growth results were obtained by providing a thin layer of SiO2 particles at the initial growth surface of the alloy.

Type
Communications
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , February 1992 , pp. 265 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

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

1.Newkirk, M. S., Urquhart, A. W., Zwicker, H. R., and Breval, E., J. Mater. Res. 1, 81 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Newkirk, M. S., Lesher, H. D., White, D. R., Kennedy, C. R., Urquhart, A. W., and Claar, T. D., Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc. 8, 878 (1987).Google Scholar
3.Landini, D. J., Lesher, H. D., and Gesing, A. J., in Ceramic Materials and Components for Engines, edited by Tennery, V. J. (American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, 1989), p. 1536.Google Scholar
4.Dwivedi, R. K., Ramberg, J. R., Gesing, A. J., and Webster, G. D., in Ceramic Materials and Components for Engines, edited by Tennery, V. J. (American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, 1989), p. 1384.Google Scholar
5.Barron-Antolin, P., Schiroky, G. H., and Andersson, C. A., Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc. 9, 759 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Andersson, C. A., Barron-Antolin, P., Fareed, A. S., and Schiroky, G. H., in ASM Proc. Int. Conf. Whisker-and Fiber-Toughened Ceram. (ASM INTERNATIONAL, Metals Park, OH, 1988), pp. 209–215.Google Scholar
7.Fareed, A. S., Sonuparlak, B., Lee, C. T., Fortini, A. J., and Schiroky, G. H., Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc. 11, 782 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Aghajanian, M. K., Macmillan, N. H., Kennedy, C. R., Luszcz, S. J., and Roy, R., J. Mater. Sci. 24, 658 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Breval, E. and Nagelberg, A. S., in Multicomponent Ultrafine Microstructures, edited by McCandlish, L. E., Polk, D. E., Siegel, R. W., and Kear, B. H. (Mater. Res. Soc. Sym. Proc. 132, Pitts-burgh, PA, 1989), p. 93Google Scholar
10.Breval, E., Aghajanian, M. K., and Luszcz, S., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 73, 2610 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Antolin, S., Nagelberg, A. S., and Creber, D. K., submitted to J. Am Ceram. Soc.Google Scholar