Grain Boundary Segregation and Grain Boundary Wetting

[1] E. Glickman and M. Nathan: J.Appl. Phys. Vol. 85 (1999), p.3185

Google Scholar

[2] E.A. Brener and D.E. Temkin: Phys. Stat. Sol. (a) Vol. 120 (1990), p. k7

Google Scholar

[3] A. Brokman, A.H. King and A. Vilenkin: Acta Mater. Vol. 49 (2001), p.1

Google Scholar

[4] A. Vilenkin: Interface Sci. Vol. 93/4 (2001), p.323

Google Scholar

[5] D. Y. Yoon: Int. Mater. Rev. Vol. 40 (1995), p.149

Google Scholar

[6] E.A. Brener and D.E. Temkin: Acta Materialia, Vol. 50 (2002), p.1707

Google Scholar

[7] E.E. Glickman: private communication. Discussion E. Glickman: I appreciate your approach, but would like to understand the limits of its applicability. Could you explain, how the groove can grow by your mechanism below the eutectic temperature, say in the classical Al-Ga system? A. Vilenkin: Is it really below the melting temperature? E. Glickman: I think so, because Ga demonstrates high ability to overcooling, and grain boundary wetting and liquid film migration experiments are often performed at room temperature, that is below the eutectic melting point of 27°C. W. Gust: Your model is quite interesting and new. If this model is right, it can be checked experimentally: 1. The grain boundary in front of the "finger" should be curved. 2. The area in front of the "finger" should be enriched with the solute element. 3. The "finger" should be inclined to the surface of the bicrystal. 4. The velocity of grooving should be much slower in pre-saturated solid solution A. Vilenkin: Thank you. I agree with that it should be checked. But I cannot believe that the "finger" should be inclined to the external surface. E. Glickman: Why does coherency stress exist in soft materials at elevated temperatures? A. Vilenkin: I do not understand why people use notion of coherency stress energy to explain DIGM phenomenon. It was shown that in our case it is negligible with respect to c- - c+ term

Google Scholar