Qualititative Analysis of Interface Behavior under First Phase Transition

Alex Guskov

.

DOI: 10.4236/jcpt.2012.21005                

Abstract

At present there is no explanation of the nature of interface instability upon first order phase transitions. The well-known theory of concentration overcooling under directed crystallization of solutions and Mullins-Sekerka instability cannot account for the diversified liquid component redistribution during solid state transition. In [1-3], within the framework of the nonequilibrium mass transfer problem, it has been shown that there are regimes of the interface instability, which differ from the known ones [4-6]. Moreover, the instability theory of works [1-3] demonstrates a complete experimental agreement of the dependence of eutectic pattern period on interface velocity. However, it is difficult to explain interface instability within the framework of a general setting of the mass-transfer problem. This paper is de-voted to qualitative analysis of the phenomena that are responsible for interface instability. The phenomena are connected by a single equation. Qualitative analysis revealed a variety of different conditions responsible for instability of flat interface stationary movement upon phase transition. The type of instability depends on system parameters. It is important that interface instability in the asymptotic case of quasi-equilibrium problem setting is qualitatively different from interface instability in the case of nonequilibrium problem setting.

Keywords

Phase Transition; Interface; Stability; Oscillation; Solution

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	A. Guskov and A. Orlov, “Dependence of Period Of Macro-structures on Kinetic Parameters under Directed Crystallization,” Computational Materials Science, Vol. 93, No. 1-2, 2002, pp. 93-98. doi:10.1016/S0927-0256(02)00169-6
[2]	A. Guskov, “De-pendence of the Structure Period on the Interface Velocity upon Eutectic Solidification,” Technical Physics, Vol. 48, No. 5, 2003, pp. 569-575. doi:10.1134/1.1576469
[3]	A. Guskov, “Influence of Unequi-librium Processes on Component Distribution under Directed Crystallization,” Abstracts of 2008 China International Forum on Advanced Materials and Commercialization, Ningbo, 17-19 November 2008, pp. 17-26.
[4]	J. W. Rutter and B. Chalmers, “A Prismatic Sub- structure Formed During Solidification of Metals,” Canadian Journal of Physics, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1953, pp. 15-39. doi:10.1139/p53-003
[5]	W. W. Mullins and R. F. Sekerka, “Stability of a Planar Interface during Solidification of a Dilute Binary Alloy,” Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1964, p. 444. doi:10.1063/1.1713333
[6]	G. Muller, J. Jacques, and P. Ru-dolph, “Crystal Growth— From Fundamentals to Technology,” Elsevier, New York, 2004.
[7]	Y. Saito, “Statistical Physics of Crystal Growth,” World Scientific, New York, 1996.
[8]	H. J. Scheel and T. Fukade, “Crystal Growth Technology,” John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Hoboken, 2003. doi:10.1002/0470871687
[9]	R. N. Hall, “Segregation of Impurities during the Growth of Germanium and Silicon,” Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 57, No. 8, 1953, pp. 836-839.
[10]	K. Worden and G. R. Tomlinson, “Nonlinearity in Structural Dynamics,” Institute of Physics Publishing, Phil-adelphia, 2001.