Institute of Metals Division - Prediction of Solid Solubility in Metallic Alloys

The original graphical method proposed by Darken and Gurry for predicting which elements are soluble in a given element was slightly modified and was used to predict terminal solubilities in 1455 known binary combinations. it was found that the modified Darken and Gurry method had a reliability of 61.7 pct in predicting extensive solid solubility (greater than 5 at. pct) and of 84.8pct in predicting limited solid solubility (less than 5 at. pct), an over-all reliability percentage of 76.6. Using the same experimental data, it was found that using only the simple Hume-Rothery size-effect criterion was 50.1 pct reliable in predicting extensive solid solubility, only slightly better than a purely random choice. and 90.3 pct reliable for predicting limited solid solubility, an over-all reliability percentage of 67.6. THE first rational rules for determining a priori whether two metals are not freely soluble in the solid state were announced by Hume-Rothery and coworkers.1,2 These well-known rules have been accorded a special place in metallurgical literature. Since the "electronegative" and "relative valence effect" rules of Hume-Rothery were only qualitative in nature it was difficult to use them in a quantitative analysis. The next major step was made by Darken and gurry3 and apparently went unexplored for a number of years. They prepared graphs illustrating the influence of both electronegativity and size difference on the solubility of elements in silver, magnesium, and aluminum, and they drew elliptical figures, whose maximum width was ±15 pct of the solvent radius and the maximum height was ±0.4 electronegativity units. The purpose of the present paper is to assess and compare the effectiveness of using the simple size-factor and the Darken-Gurry criteria to predict which elements will be soluble and insoluble in a given solute. In 1957, waber4 prepared Darken-Gurry plots for determining the solutes that were likely to be soluble in 6 and plutonium and introduced an inner ellipse as an aid to determining which elements should be soluble to a considerable extent. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the major axis of the outer ellipse corresponded to ±0.4 electronegativity units (OD) while the minor axis corresponded to ±15 pct of the radius of the solvent phase (OB). This simultaneous "action" of the two Hume-Rothery criteria was used to indicate which elements would have little or no solubility in the host lattice, namely those elements whose points lay outside this ellipse. An inner ellipse, "centered" over the same point of the solvent was drawn with ±0.2 electronegativity units (OC) and ±8 pct (OA) as the major and minor axes. Solutes with points lying within the inner ellipse were expected to be capable of forming extensive solid solutions with the host element. Use of this method of applying the earlier Hume-Rothery criteria was moderately successful for plutonium. For 6-phase plutonium, only one element out of the eight predicted to be extensively soluble was known to be almost insoluble, and of the sixteen elements predicted to have more restricted solubility, five were known to be essentially insoluble. The success of discerning solubility in the E phase by this method was comparable. One prediction made on the basis of this analysis was that the heavier rare earth metals, such as holmium, erbium, and thulium, should be soluble in the 6 phase, whereas the lighter rare earth elements, such as lanthanum or