Discussions - Institute of Metals Division page 615

G. D. Kneip, Jr., and J. 0. Betterton, Jr. (Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., Oak Ridge, Tenn.)—The authors have contributed to the theory of zone melting by considering the effects of the solidification of the final zone on the distribution curves for the finite length bar. However, they do not consider in sufficient detail the restrictions imposed by the particular metals involved. Eq. 4 has the analytical solution which is equivalent to Pfann's' equation for normal solidification of the final zone. For distribution coefficients less than one, it is apparent from this form of the equation that, as the solidification approaches completion, the concentration attains extremely large values which are inconsistent with the density of physical materials. The necessary restrictions then are that the solute concentration cannot exceed the density of the alloy, or more frequently, the solubility limit in the solid phase. Secondly, the distribution coefficient cannot be constant from 0 to 100 pet solute unless the liquidus and solidus coincide over this whole region. It would thus be more correct to impose limits on the solubility such as would be indicated by a typical eutectic diagram. Furthermore, in this case the assumption that the distribution coefficient remains constant is more likely to be realized. Eq. 4 should then be replaced by the following C,,(x) =k/L-x [ ?11 3 C11 (x)Ddx - ?11 4 Cn(x)dx= k[Cn (L-l)/k] [ L-x/l]x-1 L-l = x = L-l [kCenterlie/Cn (L-l)]1/k-1 The typical shape for the distribution curve in the final zone is indicated schematically in Fig. 12 for the simple eutectic case. The solidification proceeds according to Pfann's' expression until the concentration reaches the maximum solubility in the solid phasc. At this point, the concentration changes abruptly to the eutectic composition and remains at this value for the duration of the solidification. The width of the flat region, and the back reflection of this effect into the concentration curve on subsequent passes, depends upon the ratio of the eutectic concentration to the original concentration, upon the distribution coefficient, and upon the number of passes. Similar effects on the concentration curves in the first zone length would be expected in many systems for which the distribution coefficient is greater than one, and where the maximum solubility is not too much larger than the original concentration. The discussers agree with the authors that the assumption that the liquid is uniform in concentration should be considered with caution. Kneip and Better-ton' have shown, however, that in floating zone refining of zirconium, using induction heating, the distribution of iron agrees with theory which assumes a uniform liquid composition. Hence, in this case, the experimentally realized distribution coefficient agrees with the present phase diagram within the experimental uncertainty. L. Burris, Jr., C. H. Stockman, and I. G. Dillon (authors' reply)—The authors are happy to have received the comments of G. D. Kneip, Jr., and J. 0. Betterton, Jr., which provide additional insight into the zone refining process. It is true that the equations developed are inapplicable if the solute solubility in the solid phase is exceeded. However, this restriction on the use of the equations was clearly stated in the paper. A closer approach to