Institute of Metals Division - Discussion: Correlation of Diffusion Data in FCC Metals as a Function of Atomic Volume

J. Askill and T. S. Lundy (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)—Moore has proposed a simple correlation between the activation energy for solute diffusion in fee metals and the atomic volume of the diffusing species using both tracer and chemical-diffusion data. The first point we wish to make is that it is wrong to attempt such correlations without separating the two types of data. Activation energies obtained using tracer techniques cannot, in general, be directly compared with those obtained from chemical-diffusion experiments. A knowledge of the variations of chemical potentials with composition is necessary and chemical-diffusion data must be corrected for such variations, even for dilute alloys, before a comparison is possible. Secondly, for nickel, iron, aluminum, and lead, Moore neglected a number of recently published works, e.g., Al26 and Mn54 in aluminum,46 cr51 in nickel,47 and Fe55 in iron.48 These and others should have been used. If one considers only the tracer diffusion data, there is left no simple correlation of the type proposed by Moore. For example, in the case of solute diffusion in aluminum the only reliable tracer data listed by Moore are for zinc and aluminum. The nickel, cobalt, and iron data of Agarwala49 are representative of near-surface diffusion-not bulk diffusion. In conclusion we suggest that for tracer diffusion data in these fee metals there is no justification for proposing any simple correlation of activation energy with atomic volume using the limited data that are presently available. R. H. Moore (author's reply)—The writer has proposed a simple correlation which is useful in estimating the internal consistency of diffusion data. The accuracy of the correlation is, of course, a function of the number of data available. Lundy and Askill take issue with the writer's decision to include data for the systems: nickel, iron, aluminum, and lead, taking the view that the data are insufficient to establish the correlation. The writer agrees that the data are insufficient and has cau- tioned the reader that the correlation is tentative in these instances. Inclusion of these systems is justified by the interesting trends the correlation reveals. For example, the distinction between interstitial and substitutional diffusion may be clearly established, Figs. 4 and 6, and the behavior of transition elements and nontransition elements is indicated to parallel the behavior illustrated by the silver and copper systems. Lundy and Askill have singled out the aluminum system for special criticism. The writer chose to discuss the data for diffusion of iron, nickel, and cobalt in aluminum in the terms used by the original authors9 and has included the comments of Balluffi.l0 The writer did not intend the reader to conclude that data for these elements should correlate with data for the nontransition elements as Lundy and Askill have evidently assumed. Iron, nickel, and cobalt form intermetallic compounds with aluminum, so the activity coefficients of these elements may be expected to deviate markedly from unity. This may account for the low frequency factors observed by Hirano.9 The nontransition elements, on the other hand, yield relatively simple phase diagrams with no evidence for intermetallic compound formation as in the case of iron, nickel, and cobalt. In dilute solution, Henry's law should be closely obeyed, the activity coefficients should not deviate markedly from unity, and the effect on the activation energy should not be large. The accuracy of the correlation applied to these systems will improve as the data is extended. It does not seem unreasonable to conclude that its extension should be encouraged.