Institute of Metals Division - Crystallography of Equilibrium Phase Interfaces in Al-CuAl2 65 Eutectic Alloys

A comprehensive analysis of the crystallographic and metallographic structure of several Al-CuAl, lamellar eutectic grains solidified under equilibrium conditions has been performed. A consistent pattern was discovered which was interpreted in terms of a detailed atomistic model of an interface describable as: Interface II {111} AL 11 {211} <101>Al <120> ? Several arguments are presented to substantiate the theory. It is compared in detail with another interface model characteristic of the Wid-manstatten precipitate of CuAl2 in A1 at low Cu levels. In addition, a concept is proposed to help explain the structure of the compound CuAl2. It has been shown that the eutectic alloy between A1 and CuA1, can be forced to solidify as substantially parallel lamellae throughout a relatively large volume&apos; by appropriately controlling the solidification parameters of growth rate, thermal gradients, and impurity level and by causing solidification to proceed in a unidirectional fashion from one end of an ingot to the other. A typical ingot solidified in this manner shows three distinct zones along the length of the ingot, Fig. 1. At the head end is a region consisting of many different grains, some of which are elongated slightly in the direction of solidification. After a few centimeters of growth, this polygrained region gradually merges into the second zone which consists of a very few elongated coarse grains. The third zone at the tail end is a region of eutectic colonies caused by segregation of impurities. Microscopic examination of transverse and longitudinal sections of the ingots reveals that during the initial stages of growth (zone I) the lamellar structure is frequently highly distorted and twisted but that it straightens out in zone 11. This characteristic pattern suggests that nucleation of a eutectic grain begins randomly at the head end of the ingot, and that some particular orientation relationship between the phases is more favorable from an energy consideration than others for one reason or another, so that some grains grow and others which are less favorably oriented do not. The favorably oriented or "low energy" grains continue to grow until excess solute rejected at the advancing liquid-solid interface destroys the parallel lamellar structure by forming a cellular rather than a substantially planar interface. When this occurs, the parallel lamellae fan out and eutectic colonies are formed because the lamellae grow perpendicular to the local interface. Questions naturally arise as to the crystallographic nature of the "low energy" grains. What do the grains which persist into zone II have in common? Can this explain the stability of such grains during growth? To answer the first question it is necessary to determine the crystallographic orientation of the lamellae of each phase relative to one another. This has been done for Al-CuAl2 eutectic alloys by two different techniques on specimens prepared in different ways.2&apos;3 The results were different from each other and from a third orientation relationship between A1 and CuA1, reported for overaged A1-Cu alloys.4 The three orientation relationships are summarized below to illustrate their similarities and their differences. (001) ? 11 (001) A1; [l00] ? 11 [l00] Al Eutectic, Ref. 2 (001) 8 1) (001) A1; [1001 ?11 [1101 A1 Eutectic, Ref. 3 (001) ? 11 (001) A1; [l00] ? 11 [310] Al; Widmanstfitten, Ref. 4 It is not surprising that different orientation relationships were found by Ellwood and Bagley,&apos; and Takahashi3 since the solidification conditions were quite different. Nor is it surprising that Mehl, Barrett, and Rhines 4 found still another value since they were studying another type of alloy. Nevertheless, it would be expected that some logical and systematic pattern could be found if all the alloys were at equilibrium since the same two phases are