Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T20:18:55.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grain Boundary Structure as a Function of Aluminum Level in Ni3Al

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

J.A. Horton ,
C.T. Liu  and
S.J. Pennycook
J.A. Horton
Affiliation:
Metals and Ceramics Division
C.T. Liu
Affiliation:
Metals and Ceramics Division
S.J. Pennycook
Affiliation:
Solid State Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831–6376
Get access

Abstract

Understanding the boron effect in Ni3Al currently centers on determining thestructure of the region near grain boundaries, especially the presence of a disordered γ phase. In this study, a series of alloys was examined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) as a function of aluminum level, boron level, and cooling rate for thepresence of any grain boundary phases. The base alloy series all contained 0.5 at. % Hf. At 21.5 at. % Al,γ formed in the matrix as expected. However, in slowly cooled specimens with 22 and 22.5% Al, a second phase with thicknesses from 25 to 50 nm formed on some of the grain boundaries. At higher aluminum levels no evidence of any second phase was observed. The minimum width of grain boundary images formed by normal diffraction contrast imaging was generally 0.5 to 1 nm for grain boundaries that presumably had no second phase and were parallel to the electron beam. Therefore, a second phase with a thickness of 1 nm or less would not be discernable by TEM. High resolution Z-contrast imaging by scanning TEM of a very low angle boundary in directionally solidified (DS) material also showed no evidence of disordering, but did show a surprising amount of non-planarity of the boundary.

Whereas slower cooling rates might be expected to aid the formation of any grain boundary phase and thereby increase the ductility, the ductility was slightly lower for the more slowly cooled alloys than for the furnace cooled alloys. From 21.5 to 24% Al, the tensile elongations remain fairly constant with values ranging from 45 to 52%. Above 24%, the ductility drops off rapidly but is still much higher for the boron-doped material than for the undoped material. At 25.2% Al, the ductility is still 4% as compared to essentially zero for undoped material. Therefore the ductility improvements in boron-doped Ni3Al do not require the presence of any grain boundary disordered phases discernable by TEM.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 213: Symposium Q – High-Temperature Ordered Intermetallic Alloys IV , 1990 , 417
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

REFERENCES

1. Baker, I. and Schulson, E.M., Scr. Metall. 23, 1883 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Liu, C.T., White, C.L., and Horton, J.A., Acta Metall. 33, 213 (1985).Google Scholar
3. Horton, J.A. and Liu, C.T., Scr. Metall. 24,1251 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Schulson, E.M., Dartmouth College (private communication, 1989).Google Scholar
5. Williams, R.K., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, unpublished resultsGoogle Scholar
6. Liu, C.T. and Oliver, B.F., J. Mater. Res. 4, 294 (1989).Google Scholar
7. Pennycook, S.J. and Jesson, D.E., Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 938 (1990).Google Scholar
8. Ochiai, S., Oya, Y. and Suzuki, T., Acta Metall. 32, 289 (1984).Google Scholar
9. Miller, M.K. and Horton, J.A., Proc. of MRS, 81, 117 (1987).Google Scholar
10. Baker, I., Schulson, E.M., Michael, J.R., and Pennycook, S.J., Philos. Mag. in press.Google Scholar
11. Hanada, S., Watanabe, S., and Izumi, O., J. Mater. Sci, 21, 203 (1986).Google Scholar
12. Binary Alloy Phase Diagrams, ed. by Massalski, T.B. (Am. Soc. for Metals, Metals Park, Ohio, 1986).Google Scholar
13. Bradley, A.J. and Taylor, A., Proc. Roy. Soc., A159, 56 (1937).Google Scholar
14. Brenner, S.S. and Ming-Jian, H., Scr. Metall. 24, 671 (1990).Google Scholar
15. Horton, J.A. and Miller, M.K., Acta Metall. 35, 133 (1987).Google Scholar
16. MacKenzie, R.A.D. and Sass, S.L., Scr. Metall. 22, 1807 (1988).Google Scholar
17. Mills, M.J., Scr. Metall. 23, 2061 (1990).Google Scholar