Institute of Metals Division - Metallographic Identification of Nonmetallic Inclusions in Uranium

ALTHOUGH the metallurgy of uranium has been under intensive study since the early 1940's, no systematic effort has been made to identify the non-metallic inclusions in uranium. Uranium carbide (UC), which is probably the most common inclusion found in graphite-melted metal, has been tentatively identified by previous investigators, but the other nonmetallic inclusions have received little attention. Since metallography is a valuable tool in metallurgical studies, the metallographic identification of the nonmetallic inclusions in uranium is important. Such an investigation has been completed and the identification of slag-type inclusions and of uranium monocarbide, uranium hydride, uranium dioxide, uranium monoxide, and uranium mononitride is described. Metallographic Preporation It is often possible to prepare specimens for metal-lographic examination equally well by several methods. The specimens which were examined in this work were prepared by one of two acceptable methods. For the convenience of the reader, both methods will be discussed in detail and will be referred to simply as Method I or Method II in the subsequent sections. For both Methods I and 11, specimens for microscopic examination usually were mounted either in bakelite or in Paraplex room temperature mounting plastic. Method I—Specimens were ground in a spray of water on a revolving disk covered successively with 120-, 240-, and 600-grit silicon carbide papers. It was necessary to perform the final grinding operation carefully on worn 600-grit paper to keep the scratches as fine as possible. After washing and drying, the specimens were polished for 3 to 4 min on a slow speed wheel (250 rpm) covered with a medium nap cloth. Diamet Hyprez Blue diamond polishing paste, Grade 00, 0 to 2 µ, was used as abrasive with kerosene as lubricant on the wheel. Specimens were washed thoroughly in alcohol and final polished electrolytically in an electrolyte composed of 1 part stock solution (118 g CrO, dissolved in 100 cm3 H2O) with 4 parts of glacial acetic acid. A stainless steel cathode was used. At an open circuit potential of 40 v dc, a polishing time of 2 sec retained inclusions well with the bath at room temperature. If additional etching was required to sharpen the interface between the metal and the inclusions, an electrolyte composed of 1 part stock solution (100 g CrO3 and 100 cm8 H20) and 18 parts glacial acetic acid was used at room temperature. Best results were obtained by etching for from 10 to 15 sec at 20 v dc in the open circuit. Surfaces obtained by this method are suitable for microscopic examination. However, if desired, they may be etched further with other chemicals. Method 11—Rough grinding was done on a wet 180- or 240-grit continuous grinding belt. The specimen was then ground by hand successively on 240-, 400-, and 600-grit silicon carbide papers in a stream of water. Final polishing was accomplished on a 4 in. high speed wheel (3400 rpm) covered with Forstmann's cloth. Linde B levigated alumina, suspended in a 1 volume pet chromic acid solution, was the abrasive. Specimens usually were polished in 5 min or less by this technique. Often the inclusions present in the metal were identified in the mechanically polished condition. When etching was required to outline inclusions more sharply, one of the two following methods was used. In the first method, the specimen is etched lightly while electropolishing in the chromic-acetic acid solution described above (1 part of stock solution to 4 parts of acetic acid). The electrolyte was refrigerated in a dry ice-ethyl alcohol bath and specimens were etched at 60 v dc on the open circuit for 2 or 3 cycles of 3 to 4 sec each. The second technique utilizes electrolytical etching at about 10 v dc (open circuit) in a 10 pet citric acid solution at room temperature. X-Ray Diffraction Technique The major problem in the identification of inclusions in metals by X-ray diffraction techniques is the extraction of a sufficient amount of each type of inclusion to obtain an X-ray diffraction pattern. In the present study, X-ray diffraction patterns were obtained from individual inclusions of the order of 10 µ diam. The polished and etched samples shown in the micrographs were examined at a magnification of X54 or XI00 with a binocular microscope. This allowed sufficient working distance to extract the inclusions with a needle probe for powder X-ray diffraction analysis. Friable inclusions such as MgF2, CaF2, UO2, and UH3 could be freed from the metal by probing the as-polished and etched surface. The fine particles then were picked up on the end of a Vistanex-coated glass rod (0.002 in. diam) which was held in a brass adapter made to fit the powder X-ray diffraction camera. The end of the glass rod was centered in the path of the X-ray beam. In the case of the UC, UO, and UN inclusions which are smaller in size, more metallic in appearance, and less friable than the other inclusions, it was necessary to etch the inclusion in relief before extraction. UN inclusions etched sufficiently in relief in the electrolytic polishing solution described in Methods I and II by increasing the polishing time. UN inclusions were relief etched by extending the