Atomic structure of a {111} incoherent interface in Zr–N alloy

Li, P; Howe, James M.; Reynolds, W. T.

doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2003.09.009

Cited by 26 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Li et al [112] have recently examined the interphase boundary structure of (NaCl-type) ZrN precipitated from ␣ (hcp) Zr-N during nitriding of ␣ Zr specimens. They found pronounced {111} ZrN facets with monatomic ledges (Figure 22).…”

Section: F Incoherent Edge-to-edge Interfaces: Zrn:␣ Zr-nmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this role appears to be at least as much a proposed replacement for the plane-to-plane model as it is for explaining irrational interphase boundaries. In Item 45 of the General Discussion paper [111] that concludes these proceedings, Kelly applied the Kelly-Zhang model [1,2] of edge-to-edge matching to the ZrN:␣ Zr-N interface that Li et al [112] have characterized as incoherent. However, Howe [111] questioned the validity of this deduction.…”

Section: Bonding Effects Upon Edge-to-edge Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[129,130,138,139] Laths have a well-defined growth direction [100]: Fe3C // [112] ␥ . [138,139] However the broad faces of laths possess a non-unique habit plane.…”

Section: E Another Type Of Limited Mobility Interface: Proeutectoid mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Influence of crystallography and bonding on the structure and migration of irrational interphase boundaries

Aaronson

2006

Metall Mater Trans A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interphase boundary structure developed during precipitation from solid solution and during massive transformations is considered in diverse alloy systems in the presence of differences in stacking sequence across interphase boundaries. Linear misfit compensating defects, including misfit dislocations, structural disconnections, and misfit disconnections, are present over a wide range of crystallographies when both phases have metallic bonding. Misfit dislocations have also been observed when both phases have covalent bonding (e.g., US:␤ US 2 by Sole and van der Walt). These defects are also found when one phase is ionic and the other is metallic (Nb:Al 2 O 3 by Rühle et al.), albeit when the latter is formed by vapor deposition. However, when bonding is metallic in one phase but significantly covalent in the other, the structure of the interphase boundary appears to depend upon the strength of the covalent bonding relative to that in the metallically bonded phase. When this difference is large, growth can take place as if it were occurring at a free surface, resulting in orientation relationships that are irrational and conjugate habit planes that are ill matched (e.g., ZrN:␣ Zr-N by Li et al. and Xe(solid):Al-Xe by Kishida and Yamaguchi). At lower levels of bonding directionality and strength, crystallography is again irrational, but now edge-to-edge-based low-energy structures can replace linear misfit compensating defects (␥ m :TiAl:␣ Ti-Al by Reynolds et al.). In the perhaps still smaller difference case of Widmanstätten cementite precipitated from austenite, one orientation relationship yields plates with linear misfit compensating defects at their broad faces whereas another (presumably nucleated at different types of site) produces laths with poorly defined shapes and interfacial structures. Hence, Hume-Rothery-type bonding considerations can markedly affect interphase boundary structure and thus the mechanisms, kinetics, and morphology of growth.

show abstract

Section: F Incoherent Edge-to-edge Interfaces: Zrn:␣ Zr-nmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Bonding Effects Upon Edge-to-edge Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of crystallography and bonding on the structure and migration of irrational interphase boundaries

Aaronson

2006

Metall Mater Trans A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An example is the faceted interfaces observed from a ZrN/Zr system. 35 Such interfaces are parallel to a low-index plane in ZrN and free of ledges, but interfacial matching is poor and ORs are not reproducible. These kinds of ledge-free interfaces are in the white zone within the L f circle in Figure 3.…”

Section: Links Between Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then, the interface may be singular only with respect to one crystal, with a preferred OR 34 or without a preferred OR. 35 Although singularity in ledge defects can explain observed rational HPs or facets, it cannot explain frequently observed irrational ones, which must contain ledges at the atomic scale. However, following the same principle, weak singularity caused by eliminating kinks in ledges may have a role in the development of irrational faceted interfaces.…”

Section: Singularity Based On Defect Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faceted interfaces: a key feature to quantitative understanding of transformation morphology

Zhang

Dai

2016

npj Comput Mater

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Faceted interfaces are a typical key feature of the morphology of many microstructures generated from solid-state phase transformations. Interpretation, prediction and simulation of this faceted morphology remain a challenge, especially for systems where irrational orientation relationships (ORs) between two phases and irrational interface orientations (IOs) are preferred. In terms of structural singularities, this work suggests an integrated framework, which possibly encompasses all candidates of faceted interfaces. The structural singularities are identified from a matching pattern, a dislocation structure and/or a ledge structure. The resultant singular interfaces have discrete IOs, described with low-index g's (rational orientations) and/or Δg's (either rational or irrational orientations). Various existing models are grouped according to their determined results regarding the OR and IO, and the links between the models are clarified in the integrated framework. Elimination of defect types as far as possible in a dominant singular interface often exerts a central restriction on the OR. An irrational IO is usually due to the elimination of dislocations in one direction, i.e., an O-line interface. Analytical methods using both three-dimensional and two-dimensional models for quantitative determinations of O-line interfaces are reviewed, and a detailed example showing the calculation for an irrational interface is given. The association between structural singularities and local energy minima is verified by atomistic calculations of interfacial energies in fcc/bcc alloys where it is found that the calculated equilibrium cross-sections are in a good agreement with observations from selected alloys.

show abstract

Influence of crystallography and bonding on the structure and migration of irrational interphase boundaries

Aaronson

2006

Metall and Mat Trans A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Atomic structure of a {111} incoherent interface in Zr–N alloy

Cited by 26 publications

References 33 publications

Influence of crystallography and bonding on the structure and migration of irrational interphase boundaries

Influence of crystallography and bonding on the structure and migration of irrational interphase boundaries

Faceted interfaces: a key feature to quantitative understanding of transformation morphology

Influence of crystallography and bonding on the structure and migration of irrational interphase boundaries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About