Part IX – September 1968 - Papers - On the Carbon-Carbon Interaction Energy in Iron

The wzodel of Blandin and Diplunt;, generalized to include a phase factor, is applied to the carbon-carbon interaction in iron. Darken&apos;s "energetic" model is generalized to include not only first neighbor interactions but further neighbor interactions as well. On the bases of these generalized models relations are derived for the activity of carbon in both austenite and ferrite in terms of the carbon-carbon Pair interaction energies. A single function then yields the pair interaction energies consistent with the experimental activities of carbon in both ferrite and austenite. Thus, a simple explanation is given for the observation that the nearest-neighbor interaction between carbon is repulsive in austenite and attractive in ferrite. Certain consequences of this approach are explored. OnE object of the present paper is to attempt to take into account the consequences of electrostatic contributions to the carbon-carbon pair interaction energy for carbon as a solute in iron. Friedel&apos; has shown that oscillations in electrostatic potential are to be expected about a solute atom in a metallic solution. Blandin and 6lant6&apos; have shown that such oscillations yield an interaction energy between pairs of solute atoms that obeys the relation: W{ = A cos(2ftFri + 4>)/(kFri)3 [l] where kF = Fermi wave vector, ri = distance between solute atoms comprising the pair7 <p = phase factor dependent only on electronic nature of solute and solvent, A = coefficient dependent only on electronic nature of solute and solvent. Machlin3 found that Eq. [I] accurately described the pair interaction energy derived from short-range order measurements based on field ion microscope observations of dilute alloys of platinum. He also found that the value of the phase factor $ derived from residual resistivity measurements agreed well with that obtained from the analysis of the short-range order data. Harrison and paskin4 were able to predict the long-range ordering energy of 0 brass using Relation [I] and residual resistivity values to predict the value of the phase factor $. Machlin5 has repeated their analysis and applied it to the prediction of the long-range ordering energy in AgZn and AgCd with excellent agreement between prediction and experiment. Both A and $ are independent of the crystal structure. The Fermi wave vector depends uniquely upon the conduction electron concentration per unit volume in the spherical approximation of the Fermi surface. Thus, Eq. [I] is expected to apply to both fer- rite and austenite with only one set of values of A and $. Mossbauer studies6 yield the result that iron has one 4s electron. We shall make an assumption found to hold previously for platinum3&apos;7 and nikel, which is that only the s electrons are involved in shielding the perturbing potential of carbon. With this assumption, kF = 1.35 A-l. Although A and $ may be obtained from certain mdels&apos;&apos;&apos; we shall take A and $ to be empirical constants in the spirit of Kohn and osko.&apos; Thus, Eq. [I] involves two adjustible parameters. Consequently, two independent relations in A and $I are required in order to evaluate them for carbon as a solute in iron. We may use a recent analysis of Aaronson, Domain, and poundg who showed that Darken&apos;s energetic model,1° as well as others, can be used to describe the activity-temperature data for carbon in iron in both the aus-tenitic and ferritic phases. Darken&apos;s model takes into account only first neighbor pair interactions. For our needs, all neighbor pairs need to be taken into account. It is convenient to generalize Darken&apos;s model. The result for the partition function for austenite is: over the temperature range 800" to 1200°C and where the uncertainty corresponds to one standard deviation. Eq. [4] effectively yields only one relation. Another relation is required to obtain unique values for A and $. One property of Eq. [4] is that it is independent of crystal structure. Hence, data for a iron can be used to obtain another relation. To arrive at this relation we must generalize Eqs. [2] and [3] so that they may be applied to the bcc a iron. The result is that: