4.5 Article

Experimental investigation and thermodynamic modeling of the Cu-Ag-Si ternary system

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THERMODYNAMICS
卷 150, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jct.2020.106172

关键词

Thermodynamic modeling; CALPHAD; Cu-Ag-Si system; Phase equilibria; Experiment

资金

  1. Anhui Province University Natural Science Research Projects of China [KJ2019A0113]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2015M581972]
  3. Anhui Province Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China [2017B210]
  4. National Undergraduate Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program [201910361063]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The phase equilibria of the Cu-Ag-Si system were investigated by a combination of key experiments and thermodynamic modeling. Eighteen ternary alloys were prepared to determine the isothermal sections at 500, 600, and 700 degrees C of the Cu-Ag-Si system by means of X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDX). The solubilities of Ag in the Cu19Si6, Cu15Si4, Cu56Si11, and hcp(CuSi) phases were measured. No ternary compound was found in this isothermal sections. Based on the experimental equilibria data from the present work, thermodynamic assessment of the Cu-Ag-Si system was carried out by the CALPHAD (CALculation of PHAse Diagrams) approach. The solution phases (Cu), (Ag), (Si), and hcp(CuSi) were described using substitutional solution model and the binary phases Cu19Si6, Cu15Si4, and Cu56Si11 with the solubility of Ag were modeled by the sublattice models. A set of self-consistent thermodynamic parameters of the Cu-Ag-Si system was obtained. The isothermal sections at 500, 600, 650, and 700 degrees C, vertical sections at 10 and 20 at.% Ag, and liquidus projection were calculated. The reaction scheme of the Cu-Ag-Si system was constructed. The calculated results are in agreement with the experimental data from the present work and literature. (c) 2020 Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据