4.7 Article

Icosahedral quasicrystal-enhanced nucleation of the fcc phase in liquid gold alloys

期刊

ACTA MATERIALIA
卷 70, 期 -, 页码 240-248

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2014.02.037

关键词

Nucleation; Icosahedral quasicrystals; Multiple twinning; Heteroepitaxy; Grain refinement

资金

  1. Rolex SA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the grain refinement of yellow gold alloys with Jr has been used in industry and known for nearly half a century, the basic mechanism is still unknown. The present contribution shows that the mechanism is the same as that evidenced recently in Al-Zn alloys, when small amounts of Cr (1000 ppm) are added to the melt (Kurtuldu et al., 2013). The reduced face-centered cubic (fcc) crystal size, the abnormal fraction of twin, or near-twin, grain boundaries and the 5-fold symmetry crystallographic orientation of multiple nearestneighbor grains reproduce the symmetry of icosahedral quasicrystals (iQCs) with the following heteroepitaxial relationships: {111}(fcc)< 110 >(fcc) perpendicular to 3-fold/2-fold symmetry axes of iQCs. While iQCs and the approximant stable Al45Cr7 phase, which contains several 5-fold symmetry building blocks in its unit cell, are known to exist in Al Cr alloys, no such phases have been reported for yellow gold +Ir. Nevertheless, when minute amounts of Jr ( less than or similar to 200 ppm) are added to the gold alloy melt, it is shown that the grain refinement from 248 to 30 mu m is accompanied by a spectacular increase in the fraction of twinned grain boundaries, i.e. from less than 1% without Jr to 11% with 200 ppm Ir. Furthermore, up to 9 grains have been shown to reproduce the six 5-fold symmetry axes of the icosahedron, while many other grain configurations exhibit this heteroepitaxial relationship with the icosahedron or interlocked icosahedron. This confirms that fcc crystals can form in a supercooled liquid by heteroepitaxial growth from an iQC template. (C) 2014 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by 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

4.7
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