Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:18:52.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural Maps and Parameters Important to Alloy Phase Stability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

R. E. Watson  and
L. H. Bennett
R. E. Watson
Affiliation:
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York11973, USA,
L. H. Bennett
Affiliation:
National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234, USA
Get access

Abstract

Alloy properties are often summarized on two-dimensional maps. For instance, Darken and Gurry related the terminal solubilities of alloy systems to two coordinates (the differences in electronegativities and in atomic radii of the alloy constituents). Maps are considered here which correlate the structures in which the compounds form as well as providing some indication of whether a compound forms at some given composition in the first place. This class of map involves one coordinate which is the difference in an atomic parameter (here it will be taken to be the electronegativity) while the other is an average (in this case the d band hole count). This contrasts with Darken Gurry maps and Giessen's maps related to glass-forming ability (elsewhere in this volume) where both coordinates are differences. The situation for 50/50 transition metal alloys is reviewed and results are presented for systems off 50/50 composition.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 19: Symposium E – Alloy Phase Diagrams , 1982 , 99
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1983

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

[1] E.g., St. John, J. and Bloch, A. N., Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 1095 (1974).Google Scholar
[2] Watson, R. E. and Bennett, L. H., J. Phys. Chem. Solids 39, 1235 (1978).Google Scholar
[3] Watson, R. E. and Bennett, L. H., Phys. Rev. B 18, 6439 (1978).Google Scholar
[4] Watson, R. E. and Bennett, L. H., Scripta Met. 12, 1165 (1978).Google Scholar
[5] Zunger, A., Phys. Rev. B 22, 5839 (1980).Google Scholar
[6] Machlin, E. S. and Loh, E., Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 1642 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Watson, R. E. and Bennett, L. H., Acta. Met. 30, 1941 (1982).Google Scholar
[8] Börnstein, Landolt New Series Vol. 6, Structure Data of Elements and Intermediate Phases, Hellwege & Hellwege, Eds. (Springer-Verlag, Holland, 1971).Google Scholar
[9] Johannes, R. L., Haydock, R. and Heine, V., Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 372 (1976).Google Scholar
[10] There is a difference between the MoSi2 and Cu 2Mg cases. The MoSi2 structures involve a single group of pairs forming at both AB2 and A2B compositions (e.g. Pd 2Ti and PdTi2 both form in this structure) which, of necessity,, involve differing Δϕ and ¯Nh. The occurrence of two MoSi2 regions might be considered an artifact of the mapping scheme.Google Scholar
[11] The Nn employed in the maps were calculated assuming exact 3:1 (and 2:1) composition ratios whereas the σ phase, and to a less extent the WO3, occur for ranges of composition which are not exactly centered on 2:1 or 3:1 ratios. A map evaluated using the actual centers of composition yields a better separation between these two phases than is seen here.Google Scholar
[12] E.g., deFontaine, D., this symposium.Google Scholar