Institute of Metals Division - Lamellar Growth: an Electric Analog

The diffusion field ahead of a lamellar interfnce is analyzed using an electrical analog. A self-consistent solution is obtained for the shape of the interfnce and the diffusion field by an iterative process. The solutions presented here are for a 50-50 eutectoid or eutectic, The shape of the interface is found to he independent of growth velocity and lamellar spacing, and to depend on the relative values of interfacial free energies at the phase houndaries . The mode of growth of lamellar eutectics and eutectoids has been a subject of much interest for many years.1-4 Mehl and Hagel 1 have shown photomicrographs taken by Tardif when he attempted to determine experimentally the shape of an advancing pearlite interface; the results are completely ambiguous. Brandt' and schei13 have made approximate calculations of the composition ahead of a lamellar growth front. The shape of the advancing front and the composition distribution ahead of the front are difficult to calculate because one depends on the other. It is the purpose of the present paper to describe a method by which this calculation has been done. Lamellar-eutectic growth usually occurs under conditions where the growth is fairly rapid, and the interface temperature is close to the eutectic temperature. The growth rate is usually determined by heat flow. Eutectoid growth, on the other hand, can best be studied by quenching to some temperature, and allowing growth to proceed isother-mally. In both cases the growth is believed to be controlled by diffusion* rather than by the atomic kinetics of the transformation. This being the case, a single treatment of the diffusion equation will apply to both cases, provided the region of the interface in a eutectic may be considered to be isothermal. If a part of the interface could appreciably change its thermodynamic driving force by advancing ahead of or lagging behind the mean interface, then the two cases would not be similar. Eutectics normally grow in temperature gradients of the or-der of a few degrees per centimeter. The normal eutectic spacing is the order of a few microns. Part of the interface would have to extend many lamellar spacings ahead of the mean interface before it experienced sensibly different conditions. The interface temperature is usually a few tenths of a degree below the eutectic temperature so that temperature differences of the order of one-thousandths of a degree (a displacement of one lamellar spacing) would be unimportant. Protrusions large compared to the mean spacing do occur when one phase only grows into a eutectic liquid. This is usually a dendritic type of growth, and easily distinguishable from the lamellar mode of growth. A single treatment of lamellar growth will apply equally well to both eutectic and eutectoid decomposition. At the interface, which as shown above is essentially isothermal, the difference between the equilibrium eutectic temperature Teu and the actual interface temperature Ti, can be divided into two parts: 1) the composition varies across the interface, so that the local equilibrium temperature is not Teu; and 2) the interface is curved, so that the local equilibrium temperature is depressed according to the Gibbs-Thompson relationship. This undercooling can be written as Teu-Ti =?T = mAC(x) + a/r(x) [1] where ?C(X) is the departure of the composition at a point x on the interface from the eutectic composition, see Fig. 1, r(x) is the local radius of curvature at a point x on the interface, m is the slope of the liquidus line on the phase diagram, and a is a constant given by where s is the interfacial free energy, TE is the equilibrium temperature, and L is the latent heat of fusion. The calculations in this paper will be made only for the case where the phase diagram is symmetric, that is, the eutectic occurs at 50 pct, the liquidi have the same magnitude slope m at the eutectic temperature, and C,, the amount of B rejected when unit volume of a freezes, see Fig. 2(a), is the same for both phases. As shown in Fig. 2(b), the composition ahead of the a phase will be rich in B, the composition ahead of the ß phase will be rich in A. The composition at the phase boundary is the eutectic composition. The difference between the local liquidus temperature and the actual tempera-