Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T20:08:28.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Oxygen in Spinel Interphase Formation During Ni/A12O3 Diffusion Bonding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

K. P. Trumble  and
M. RÜhle
K. P. Trumble
Affiliation:
Materials Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106
M. RÜhle
Affiliation:
Materials Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106
Get access

Abstract

Controlled oxygen diffusion bonding experiments have shown that the formation of nickel aluminate spinel by solid state reaction between metallic Ni and α-A12O3 requires a certain oxygen activity, which is less than that of the Ni-NiO equilibrium. Under high vacuum bonding conditions the source of the oxygen required for spinel interphase formation was found to be oxygen initially dissolved in solution in the Ni. Equilibrium thermodynamic calculations confirmed the threshold oxygen activity dependence of spinel formation at the Ni/A12O3 interface, indicating ∼200 at. ppm oxygen is required in Ni before spinel can form at typical bonding temperatures. The predicted spinel layer thickness based on the calculated reaction equilibrium agrees extremely well with the measured thickness, further supporting the analysis.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 138: Symposium Q – Characterization of the Structure and Chemistry of Defects in Materials , 1988 , 551
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Calow, C. A. and Porter, I. T., J. Mater. Sci., 6, 156–163 (1971).Google Scholar
2. Vardiman, R. G., Mater. Res. Bull., 7, 699–710 (1972).Google Scholar
3. Elssner, G. and Petzow, G., Z. Metallkde., 64, 280–286 (1973).Google Scholar
4. Sutton, W. H. and , Feingold, The Role of Grain Boundaries and Surfaces in Ceramics, edited by Kriegel, W. W. and Palmour, H. P. III (Mater. Sci. Res., 3, Plenum Press, New York, 1966), pp. 577–611.Google Scholar
5. Calow, C. A., Bayer, P. B., and Porter, I. T., J. Mater. Sci. 6, 150–155 (1971).Google Scholar
6. Bailey, F. P. and Borbidge, W. E., Mater. Sci. Res., 14, 525–533 (1981).Google Scholar
7. Gee, M. G., Brit. Ceram. Proc., 34, 261–271 (1984).Google Scholar
8. Stapley, A. J. and Beevers, C. J., J. Mater. Sci., 8, 1287–1295 (1973).Google Scholar
9. Westfall, L. J., NASA Tech. Memo. TM-X3333 (1976).Google Scholar
10. Park, J. W. and Altstetter, C. J., Metall. Trans., 18A, 43–50 (1987).Google Scholar
11. Wasynczuk, J. A. and Rühle, M., Ceramic Microstructures '86 - Role of Interfaces, edited by Pask, J. A. and Evans, A. G. ( Mater. Sci. Res., 21, Plenum Press, New York, 1987 ), pp. 341–348.Google Scholar
12. Elrefaie, F. A. and Smeltzer, W. W., Oxid. of Metals, 15, 495–500 (1981).Google Scholar
13. Lenev, L M. and Novokhatskii, I. A., Russ. J. Inorg. Chem., 10, 1307–1309 (1965).Google Scholar
14. Jost, W., Diffusion in Solids, Liquids, and Gases (Academic Press, New York, 1960).Google Scholar