Atomic structure of a {110} Zr/ZrN interface

Investigation of the atomic structure of a micrometer-level faceted Zr/ZrN interface by high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM), diffraction contrast imaging, and near-coincidence-site (NCS) atomic modeling shows that it is a type-3 incoherent interface (i.e. it has a high-index orientation relationship with a low-index interface plane in only one phase). The HRTEM images show that the interface is rougher than similar type-3 incoherent {111}_ZrN interfaces previously analyzed, indicating that there may be both atomically faceted and rough type-3 incoherent interfaces. Nanofacets form at the interface even though the NCS matching is not good, suggesting that micrometer-level faceting (including nanofaceting) might be the dominant factor in determining the interface plane of an atomically rough, type-3 incoherent interface, and not NCS matching. Electron energy-loss spectrometry and energy-filtered TEM images show that the composition changes abruptly at the {110}_ZrN interface, in accord with the structural transformation. This article is based on a presentation made in the “Hume-Rothery Symposium on Structure and Diffusional Growth Mechanisms of Irrational Interphase Boundaries,” which occurred during the TMS Winter meeting, March, 15–17, 2004, in Charlotte, NC, under the auspices of the TMS Alloy Phases Committee and the co-sponsorship of the TMS-ASM Phase Transformations Committee.     

Atomic structure of a {110} Zr/ZrN interface

Investigation of the atomic structure of a micrometer-level faceted (011) Zr/ZrN interface by high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM), diffraction contrast imaging, and near-coincidence-site (NCS) atomic modeling shows that it is a type-3 incoherent interface (i.e., it has a high-index orientation relationship with a low-index interface plane in only one phase). The HRTEM images show that the interface is rougher than similar type-3 incoherent {111}_ZrN interfaces previously analyzed, indicating that there may be both atomically faceted and rough type-3 incoherent interfaces. Nanofacets form at the interface even though the NCS matching is not good, suggesting that micrometer-level faceting (including nanofaceting) might be the dominant factor in determining the interface plane of an atomically rough, type-3 incoherent interface, and not NCS matching. Electron energy-loss spectrometry and energy-filtered TEM images show that the composition changes abruptly at the {110}_ZrN interface, in accord with the structural transformation. This article is based on a presentation made in the “Hume-Rothery Symposium on Structure and Diffusional Growth Mechanisms of Irrational Interphase Boundaries,” which occurred during the TMS Winter meeting, March 15–17, 2004, in Charlotte, NC, under the auspices of the TMS Alloy Phases Committee and the co-sponsorship of the TMS-ASM Phase Transformations Committee.     

Atomic structure of a {110} Zr/ZrN interface

Investigation of the atomic structure of a micrometer-level faceted Zr/ZrN interface by high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM), diffraction contrast imaging, and near-coincidence-site (NCS) atomic modeling shows that it is a type-3 incoherent interface (i.e. it has a high-index orientation relationship with a low-index interface plane in only one phase). The HRTEM images show that the interface is rougher than similar type-3 incoherent {111}_ZrN interfaces previously analyzed, indicating that there may be both atomically faceted and rough type-3 incoherent interfaces. Nanofacets form at the interface even though the NCS matching is not good, suggesting that micrometer-level faceting (including nanofaceting) might be the dominant factor in determining the interface plane of an atomically rough, type-3 incoherent interface, and not NCS matching. Electron energy-loss spectrometry and energy-filtered TEM images show that the composition changes abruptly at the {110}_ZrN interface, in accord with the structural transformation. This article is based on a presentation made in the “Hume-Rothery Symposium on Structure and Diffusional Growth Mechanisms of Irrational Interphase Boundaries,” which occurred during the TMS Winter meeting, March, 15–17, 2004, in Charlotte, NC, under the auspices of the TMS Alloy Phases Committee and the co-sponsorship of the TMS-ASM Phase Transformations Committee.     

Energy of the Pb{111}‖Al{111} interface

The energy of the Pb{111}‖Al{111} interface has been determined by a solid-state wetting technique. Pb crystallites, 18 μm or less in size, were equilibrated on a monocrystalline Al{111} substrate at 590 K under ultrahigh vacuum conditions. Auger electron spectroscopy of the equilibrated sample showed that about 1.8 monolayers of Pb are adsorbed on the surface of the Al substrate, but that no Al is adsorbed on the Pb surface. The contact angle of Pb crystallites with the orientation relationship Pb{111}∥Al{111} was measured to be 27.3±0.8 deg. After correction of the Al surface energy for Pb adsorption, by means of the Gibbs adsorption isotherm, the Young equation was used to obtain an interfacial energy of 217±35 mJ m⁻².