| Literature DB >> 26055394 |
T Wang1, F Zhang1, L Yang1, X W Fang2, S H Zhou1, M J Kramer3, C Z Wang1, K M Ho4, R E Napolitano3.
Abstract
Liquid phase diffusion plays a critical role in phase transformations (e.g. glass transformation and devitrification) observed in marginal glass forming systems such as Al-Sm. Controlling transformation pathways in such cases requires a comprehensive description of diffusivity, including the associated composition and temperature dependencies. In the computational study reported here, we examine atomic diffusion in Al-Sm liquids using ab initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) and determine the diffusivities of Al and Sm for selected alloy compositions. Non-Arrhenius diffusion behavior is observed in the undercooled liquids with an enhanced local structural ordering. Through assessment of our AIMD result, we construct a general formulation for Al-Sm liquid, involving a diffusion mobility database that includes composition and temperature dependence. A Volmer-Fulcher-Tammann (VFT) equation is adopted for describing the non-Arrhenius behavior observed in the undercooled liquid. The composition dependence of diffusivity is found quite strong, even for the Al-rich region contrary to the sole previous report on this binary system. The model is used in combination with the available thermodynamic database to predict specific diffusivities and compares well with reported experimental data for 0.6 at.% and 5.6 at.% Sm in Al-Sm alloys.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26055394 PMCID: PMC4460728 DOI: 10.1038/srep10956
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Self-diffusion coefficients in liquid Al and liquid Sm.
The solid symbols are experimental data1415 for Al and the open symbols are classical MD results for Al with different EAM potentials25. The half-solid diamonds and triangles indicate AIMD results from this work and the literature1021, respectively.
Figure 2Tracer diffusivity of Sm in liquid Al (a) by considering an empirical correlation between the activation energy for diffusion of impurities in solid and liquid Al (b).
The half-solid symbols in (a) indicate AIMD data for the dilute alloys from this work of two specific cases: (i) 1 at% solution (one Sm atom with 99 Al atoms) by square symbols and (ii) the pure Al limit computed by extrapolation by diamond symbols.
Assessed mobility parameters for liquid Al-Sm alloys, (J/mole).
| 24206 + 133.731 × T | |
| 16058 + 147.224 × T | |
| 35005 + 146.434 × T | |
| 35005 + 139.879 × T | |
| 99039 − 14.933 × T | |
| 218087 − 93.193 × T |
Figure 3Calculated self-diffusion coefficients of Al (a) and Sm (b) in five liquid Al-Sm alloys.
The solid and dotted lines indicated calculations with and without VFT corrections for the undercooling temperature range, respectively. Symbols show AIMD results from the present work.
VFT Model parameters for liquid Al-Sm of different compositions.
| x(Sm) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.05 | 1067 | 146 | 2640 | 6.889 ×10−8 | 384 | 1346 | 1.148 ×10−8 |
| 0.10 | 1227 | 260 | 2554 | 5.542 ×10−8 | 470 | 1720 | 1.377 ×10−8 |
| 0.15 | 1443 | 375 | 2535 | 5.059 ×10−8 | 556 | 2124 | 1.928 ×10−8 |
| 0.20 | 1655 | 489 | 2520 | 4.801 ×10−8 | 641 | 2471 | 2.675 ×10−8 |
| 0.24 | 1624 | 580 | 2228 | 3.663 ×10−8 | 710 | 2303 | 2.284 ×10−8 |
Figure 4Calculated chemical diffusion coefficients for Al-0.6 at.% Sm and Al-5.6 at.% Sm alloys in comparison with the experimental estimation1718.