Extractive Metallurgy Division - Interface and Marker Movements in Diffusion in Solid Solutions of Metals - Discussion

A. D. Le Claire and R. S. Barnes (Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, Didcot, Berks., England)-—This much awaited paper admirably confirms that the Kirkendall effect is a true diffusion phenomenon and likely to be found in all diffusing systems. The most likely explanation put forward so far to account for the shift of interface is that the two components of the system, diffusing in opposite directions, do so with unequal rates so that there is a net loss of material from that half of the diffusion zone rich in the more rapidly diffusing component. This loss is accompanied, and at least partly compensated for, by a closing up or decrease in volume of this latter half of the diffusion zone and an expansion of the other half so as to tend to keep constant the overall volume per atom. This is manifest as a movement of the original interface. If this is a true picture of what is taking place then there are at least two important matters requiring further study."1—The quantitative relating of the observed shift with the independently measured separate diffusion coefficients of the two diffusing species."2—A detailed study of the mechanism and characteristics of the closing up process."We would like first to make a few remarks pertinent to these topics. In connection with the first of these, it is a pity that more and detailed measurements were not made on the Au-Ag system, the only one for which the separate diffusion coefficients of the two species have been measured.'" One of us (A. D. Le C.) has calculated from Johnson's results the shift to have been expected in samples D.2 and D.3. Darken4 showed that the velocity v with which the markers move is related to the separate diffusion coefficients Dau, Dag, by the eauation:"dN"v = (Dag — Dau "dx"dN"where .is the concentration gradient at the mark-ax"ers. Under certain conditions,4, 20 it can also be shown that:"Xm"v = "2t"where x, is the total marker shift after time, t:"dN". . xm = 2t (Dag — Dau) [9]"dX"Johnson measured Dag and DAu in a chemically homogeneous alloy and so his reported figures represent the true or ideal diffusion coefficients"; the same quantities in eq 9 represent the actual diffusion coefficients as would be measured in the presence of a chemical concentration gradient, so we need to multiply Johnson's reported values of Dag and Dau by the"1 before insert-dlogN "ing them in eq 9. 7 is the activity coefficient of Ag at the concentration prevailing near the markers which we shall assume to be - 50 pct. The values of the thermodynamic factor for N = 0.5 and the temperatures at which D.2 and D.3 were annealed were obtained from thermodynamic data quoted by Darken.' aN/ax was computed from the coefficient of inter-diffusion of Au and Ag given by Johnson on the assumption that in the samples D.2 and D.3, the concentration distance curve could be represented by the standard equation:""No is the original difference in concentration between the two halves of the couple, and + is the error or probability function."aN/ax at x = 0 is then given by:"adN/dx "2/nDt"and we assume that this represents the concentration gradient at the markers, although it is probable that the figure is slightly high."When all the appropriate quantities are inserted in eq 9, we find that the expected shifts are: for D.2, 0.0134 cm and for D.3, 0.0119 cm."The agreement between these results and those