4.6 Article

Coherent phase equilibria of systems with large lattice mismatch

Journal

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
Volume 21, Issue 20, Pages 10808-10822

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c9cp01272a

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Science, Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Canadian Foundation for Innovation through the Automotive Partnership Canada program
  3. Johnson-Matthey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In many metallurgical applications, an accurate knowledge of miscibility gaps and spinodal decompositions is highly desirable. Some binary systems where the main constituents of the same crystal structures have similar lattice parameters (less than 15% difference) reveal a composition, temperature shift of the miscibility gap due to lattice coherency. So far, the well-known Cahn's approach is the only available calculation method to estimate the coherent solid state phase equilibria. Nevertheless, this approach shows some limitations, in particular it fails to predict accurately the evolution of phase equilibria for large deformation, i.e. the large lattice parameter difference (more than 5%). The aim of this study is to propose an alternative approach to overcome the limits of Cahn's method. The elastic contribution to the Gibbs energy, representing the elastic energy stored in the coherent boundary, is formulated based on the linear elasticity theory. The expression of the molar elastic energy corresponding to the coherency along both directions [100] and [111] has been formulated in the small and large deformation regimes. Several case studies have been examined in cubic systems, and the proposed formalism is showing an appropriate predictive capability, making it a serious alternative to the Cahn's method. The present formulation is applied to predict phase equilibria evolution of systems under other stresses rather than only those induced by the lattice mismatch.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available