Part XII – December 1969 – Papers - On the Restrictivity of the Thermodynamic Conditions for Spinodal Decomposition in a MuIticomponent System

There are m -I conditions for the stability of a solution of m components with respect to infinitesinzal flucturations. However, in most cases, only one of these conditions has to be considered to determine the domain of instability and the existence of this more restrictive condition greatly simplifies the calculations. It may be used advantageously for the prediction of miscibility gaps and the method is illustrated in details for the case of the Ag-Pb-Zn system. THE thermodynamic conditions for the formation of a miscibility gap may be viewed as a necessary consequence of the conditions for spinodal decomposition. A previous article1 has examined in detail the form of these conditions for multicomponent systems. There is only one condition for the stability of a binary system (with respect to infinitesimal fluctuations), but there are two conditions for a ternary system, and m — 1 conditions for an m-component system. The probability of violating a stability condition, and thus forming a miscibility gap, obviously increases with the number of components, a result which is rather intuitive since the atoms of the solution have now many more ways of redistributing themselves and introducing complexities in the form of the free energy hy-persurface. It is of interest to take advantage of this possibility of precipitating new phases and to examine which stability condition is the likeliest to be violated, that is, which stability condition is thermodynamically the most restrictive. The finding of such a condition would greatly simplify the application of the stability criteria since only one condition could then be considered, instead of m - 1. In Ref. 1, coherency strain energy terms were neglected, thus restricting the applications of the treatment to solutions where they are negligible, such as liquid alloys. In the following study the same assumption will be made. To generalize the treatment to systems where the strain energy terms are sizable, the reader is referred to Cahn's classical article on spinodal decomposition.2 Let us designate by Gij the second derivative of the Gibbs free energy with respect to the number of moles ni and n j. There are several equivalent sets of m — 1 stability conditions.' The one considered here expresses that the successive diagonal determinants of order 1, 2, ... m — 1, associated with the symmetric Gij matrix (for 2 5 i, j 5 m) are positive.' For a binary solution 1-2, the condition for stability is: O(u=G22^0 [1] For a ternary system 1-2-3, the condition [I.] is re- tained (the value of G22 will differ, of course, according to the concentration of 3) and another condition is introduced: £>(21 = G22G33 - Gl3 ^ 0 [2] In a composition diagram, these two conditions define two domains of instability. Starting at a point where the solution is stable (for instance at a point where the solution is very dilute) we gradually change the composition until the condition [I] or [2] is violated. As already noted in the literature, e.g., in the work of Prigogine and Defay,3 it is the boundary of the domain (2) which is first crossed. For if we assume that the boundary of the domain (1) is reached first, at this point G22 = 0 and the second condition is necessarily violated (D(2) = -& 5 0), in contradiction with our original assumption. An exhaustive study of the ternary regular solution case may be found in the work of Meijering.4 Moreover if the boundaries of the two domains have a common point, they also have a common tangent. For if the two lines were to cross each other as is illustrated in Fig. 1(a) any point M in the line QP would be such that £> = 0 and 0"' > 0 which, as shown above, are incompatible results. Thus, the two lines must be tangent at their common point Q as illustrated in the example of Fig. l(b). The reasoning of Fig. l(a) implies that the point Q is not a "singular" point for either boundary line. This singularity may be of two types. First, the lines meet without crossing each other and without being tangent. Second, the tangent at Q for D"' or 0"' is not single-valued. Other types of singularity are unlikely because of the usual analytical forms of D"' and 0"'. The exception to the common tangent requirement due to the first type of singularity was pointed out by John Morral;5 it occurs when the common point, Q' or (3" in Fig. l(b), is located at a boundary of the composition diagram, e.g., at the line X3 = 0. It may also be noted that at the common nonsingular point Q of D(1) and D(2), Fig. 1(b), G23 is necessarily equal to zero, whereas at a point such as Q' or Q", this conclusion is no longer valid because the product G22G33 is now indefinite (of the form 0. a). The exception to the common tangent requirement due to the second type of singularity occurs when two branches of the same boundary line intersect, for example when D(1)or D(2) decomposes into a product of functions, at a point which belongs to the boundary of the other condition. It is possible to show by a simple analytical calculation that, in this case, if Q is a singular point of D(1), then it is necessarily a singular point of D(2), and that the reciprocal is true except if G33 = 0 at Q. For the present article, however, more elaboration on these singularities appears to be unwarranted. To generalize the previous results to an m -component system, we use the mathematical theorem stating that if the diagonal determinant D(r) = 0, then