Institute of Metals Division - Discussion of Self-Diffusion in Solid Chromium

S. J. Rothman and L. T. Lloyd (Argonne National Laboratory)— Hagel's paperz0 discusses the question of the mechanism for self-diffusion in bcc transition metals. Recent work21"23 has led us to agree with him in reabandoning the ring mechanism in favor of a defect mechanism, most likely vacancies. On the other hand, we think that Hagel's attempt to group together all self-diffusion in bcc transition metals is wrong. We prefer the scheme of Peart, Graham, and omlin," who separate them into two groups. One group contains the anomalously behaved metals P titanium,', y uranium, and perhaps zirconim.' The other group contains a iron," this alloy was held at 1800°C for 2 hr before quenching, its structure was all a. B. C. Giessen, I. Rump, and N. J. Grant (Authors' reply)—We very much appreciate the discussion by Deardorff and Kato regarding the a to /3 transformation temperature of hafnium. In the W-Hf program, as well as in a current study of the system Cr-Hf, standard precautions were exercised against contamination, including vacua of less than 10"5 mm Hg and a weight control check of all specimens to insure an impurity rise of less than 100 ppm. Following receipt of the above discussion, a revision was made in the annealing process. Arc-cast specimens were etched with a 10 pct HF-90 pct HNO solution until 1 mm of surface, including a possible oxide film, was removed. Annealing was done in a hafnium container which provided a long diffusion path for gaseous contaminants. Finally, the heat treating time was shortened. Structural changes were noted to occur quite slowly. A 99.5 at. pct Hf alloy showed 70 pct /3 after 30 min at 1700°C and was 100 pct /3 after 10 min at 1715°C. After 24 hr at 1740C, the alloy was found to be 10 pct/3. This change is due to contamination; it was estimated that it corresponds to an increase of 60°C in the transformation temperature over a 24 hr period. The corresponding change in 30 rnin would be slight. Using the same hafnium as in the above publication, and three new alloys at 98, 99, and 99.5 at. pct Hf, the transformation temperature was indicated to be 1715" 15°C. Since this hafnium contained 4.4 at. pct Zr, a correction of 40 5C, based on an assumed approximately linear transformation temperature curve, must be made for pure hafnium. This yields a value of 1755 20°C in good agreement with Deardorff and Kato's value. Because the slope of the boundary is small, this permits a good extrapolation, and we regard the W-Hf alloys as well suited to check the Hf transformation temperature. niobirn,'' and molybdenum,22 whose activation energies correlate with the melting temperature and whose Do values follow Zener's predictions.28 We have no quarrel with Hagel's placing chromium into the second group; we disagree with his interpreting our data to make uranium fit into that group. Hagel considers that the measurements of self-diffusion in uranium below about 950°C represent combined volume and grain boundary diffusion. This contention is based on the curvature of the penetration plot for our 891°C run,4 which also has a nearly straight line plot of log c vs x. Hagel has extrapolated these characteristics to our 803.5C run and fitted his Arrhenius plot for self-diffusion in y uranium to our four highest temperature points only. We think this is wrong for the following reasons.