Institute of Metals Division - Zirconium-Chromium Phase Diagram - Discussion

R. F. Dornagala and D. J. McPherson (Armour Research Foundation, Chicago)—I should like to compliment the authors for a workmanlike job in determining the partial phase diagram of a system comprised of two rnetals which are certainly not easy to work with. We are completing work at Armour Research Foundation on an Atomic Energy Commission-sponsored project for the determination of eight zirconium binary diagrams. Work on the Zr-Cr system has been completed and should be published within the next year. For our work, Westinghouse Grade 3 iodide crystal bar served as the zirconium melting stock. Johnson-Matthey, electrolytic chromium, specially treated for oxygen removal, was employed. The overall constitution of the system determined at Armour Research Foundation is in very good agreement with the present work. We found a eutectic at 18 pct Cr and 1280 °C, somewhat lower than the value reported. This temperature was confirmed by thermal analysis, incipient melting studies, and regular isothermal anneals. The eutectoid was located close to 1 pct Cr and 835°C by metallographic analysis of annealed specimens. Maximum solubility of chromium in /S zirconium was 4.5 pct at the eutectic temperature. Chromium solubility in a zirconium was less than 0.28 pct at all temperatures. We found the compound at 53 pct to melt around 1700°C, with an open maximum, but determined its crystal structure to be hexagonal close-packed (MgZn, type). The lattice parameters were in excellent agreement with those determined by Wallbaum in 1942. The diagrams are in substantial agreement, and .part of the differences are undoubtedly due to the use of different zirconium melting stock. M. K. McQuillan (Birmingham, England)—I read this paper with a great deal of interest, as it covered the same field as some work of my own.' There are a number of points in the present paper on which I would like to comment. First, I should say that I, too, used zirconium prepared by magnesium reduction of the tetrachloride and electrolytically prepared chromium, and melted the alloys in a Kroll-type arc furnace. The purity of my alloys should, therefore, be comparable with the purity of those of the present authors, and any differences in our observations would not be expected to be attributable to this cause. The differences between my observations and theirs concern the presence of the eutectic, the temperature of the eutectoid, and the melting point of the compound. I would be very much interested in any further evidence the authors may have for the occurrence of the eutectic at 1380°C. During the course of my work I noted that a number of my alloys containing 60 to 90 pct Zr melted at about 1400 °C, and for a time assumed that a eutectic occurred at this temperature as described in the paper. On further investigation, however, I found that the structures of the as-melted alloys could not be made to fit in with this interpretation of the system. If a eutectic exists in this region of the system it would be expected that the as-melted alloys would show the usual type of cast structure, i.e., dendrites of the compound plus eutectic. This, however, does not occur, as may be seen from Fig. 9. The compound seen there is not dendritic in form, and the remaining material is by no means certainly eutectic. It may be argued that a compound such as ZrCrl would not form dendrites but would tend to crystallize in geometric shapes. In this case, however, I have evidence to the contrary, as on the chromium side of the compound, where a eutectic occurs at about 1545"C, the compound formed from the liquid takes on a conventional dendritic form, and the eutectic is observed in the interdendritic spaces in the usual way. There is no reason to suppose that the compound would behave differently in an alloy lying on the zirconium side of the compound composition if a eutectic existed there too.