Materials Science and Engineering A249 (1998) 167 – 175

Intermetallic compound layer growth between solid iron and

molten aluminium
K. Bouché a, F. Barbier a,*, A. Coulet b
a
CEA-CEREM/SCECF, BP 6, 92265, Fontenay-Aux-Roses Cedex, France
b
CNRS-CTM, 26 rue du 141ème RIA, 13003, Marseille, France

Received 6 October 1997; received in revised form 2 February 1998

Abstract

The interaction between solid iron and liquid aluminium is studied by immersion tests. At first, the intermetallic layers formed
at the solid–liquid interface and their growth mechanisms are characterized. The Fe2Al5 and FeAl3 phases are identified in the
temperature range from 700 to 900°C, and their growth is found to be mainly controlled by a diffusion regime. Then, a theoretical
approach of the phase growth based on the solutions of the diffusion equations is presented. Theory and experiment agree rather
well. © 1998 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Solid – liquid interaction; Intermetallic compounds; Iron; Liquid aluminium

1. Introduction process, chemical reactions, low diffusivity in the miss-

The formation and growth of intermetallic com-
pound layers during dissimilar metal contact at high
temperatures is a common phenomenon. Such be-
haviour in the solid state is often observed in diffusion
bonding and in fiber-matrix reactions in composites
[1,2]. This occurs also when a liquid metal is used as
terminal component, for example in the case of hot-dip
coating, liquid metal corrosion, composites prepared by
liquid infiltration, soldering and brazing [3 –6]. It is
established that the growth of the intermediate phases
can be governed by chemical reactions at the interfaces
(linear kinetics) and by interdiffusion of the reacting
species through the different phases (parabolic kinetics).
Description of the growth kinetics in multiphase binary
couples can be found in many papers [7 – 11]. In near
equilibrium conditions, the interfacial phases formed at
a given temperature during contact are closely related
to the phase diagram of the system. However, accord-
ing to experimental observations, some equilibrium
phases seem to be missing, this indicates that various
effects have to be considered in growth mechanisms
such as nucleation conditions at the beginning of the
* Corresponding author. Tel: +33 1 46548669; fax: +33 1
42537231; e-mail: barbier@cyborg.cea.fr
ing phases.... It is clear that the types of intermetallic
layers formed and their thicknesses play an important
part in obtaining materials with optimum perfor-
mances. Thus, it is essential to understand the phase
formation at the interfaces, the interface morphology
and the growth mechanisms to provide guidelines for
the prediction and control of interface reactions.
The purpose of this work is to examine the interac-
tion between solid iron and liquid aluminium. The
Fe–Al system has been selected because of its techno-
logical applications. Previous studies were mainly con-
cerned with steels and effort was often directed towards
adherence. Eggeler et al. [12,13] studied the reactions
between low alloyed steels and pure as well as iron-sat-
urated aluminium melts. They detected two intermetal-
lic layers (the Fe2Al5 phase adhering to the steel
substrate by an irregular interface and the FeAl3 phase
adhering to the solidified aluminium) with a growth
showing negative deviations from the parabolic rela-
tionship after long reaction times. Their results showed
kinetic discrepancies with those reported by Eremenko
et al. [14]. More recently, Dybkov [15] studied the
interaction of stainless steel with liquid aluminium by
using the rotating disc method. The time dependence of
the total thickness of both layers was described in terms
of paralinear kinetics. With regard to earlier works

0921-5093/98/$19.00 © 1998 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.

PII S0921-5093(98)00573-5
168 K. Bouché et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A249 (1998) 167–175

dealing with the reaction between pure iron and pure
liquid aluminium, Gebhardt and Obrowski [16] de-
tected the Fe2Al5 phase layer but they were unable to
formulate unambiguously the growth kinetics whereas
Heumann and Dittrich [17] identified the Fe2Al5 phase
as the major constituent of the layer and found a
parabolic time dependence. In another investigation,
Denner and Jones [18] reported that the thickness of
the layer also obeyed a parabolic time relationship but
the activation energy deduced from their work was
higher than that obtained in previous studies. Reasons
for this discrepancy were given in terms of simultaneous
growth and spalling of the intermetallic layer for long
dipping times. A tongue-like interface was also ob-
served between the iron and the Fe2Al5 phase as in the
case of studies with low alloyed steels [12,13] but the
FeAl3 phase was not detected. Therefore, the literature
shows that the determination of the types of intermetal-
lic layers and the knowledge of the growth kinetics are
still incomplete and contradictory in the Fe – Al system.
In the work presented hereafter, experiments were
carried out with pure iron in contact with static and
unsaturated molten aluminium, so that dissolution of
iron could take place simultaneously with the interlayer
growth. The intermetallic layers formed at the solid–
liquid interface at various temperatures and for differ-
ent dipping times were identified. Their microstructures,
their growths and probable growth mechanisms were
determined. Attention was drawn to the interface phase
morphology. The experimental data were then used and
discussed taking into account the theoretical aspects of
the reactive diffusion.
700, 800 and 900°C), the sample was lowered for pre-
heating above the surface of the melt during 20 min and
then dipped into the static molten Al for a fixed time
(t=30 s–45 min). The solid–liquid interaction was
interrupted by switching off the heating system and
cooling the crucible together with the melt and the
sample under flowing gas (helium gas pre-cooled with
liquid nitrogen).
2.2. Characterization
The Fe–Al couples were sectioned normal to the
long axis of the solid sample (i.e. normal to the solid–
liquid interface) and then mechanically polished (mirror
finished). The bimetallic samples were examined by
both optical and scanning electron microscopy. Com-
position of the phases and concentration profiles were
obtained by electron microprobe. Identification of the
phases was also verified by X-ray diffraction. Here, the
samples were sectioned parallel to the solid–liquid in-
terface. Then, the aluminium part was polished step by
step to remove successively the various phases until the
iron was reached. At different stages of the metal
removal, X-ray diffraction patterns were made.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Phase layer characterization
For all experiments carried out in the temperature
range from 700 to 900°C, two phase layers were ob-
served whatever the time of contact between solid Fe

2. Experimental procedure

2.1. Immersion tests

The interaction between iron and liquid aluminium

was studied by immersion tests performed in isothermal
conditions. Armco iron (99.78%) was used for this
work, the surfaces of specimens (35×5 × 3 mm3) were
electrolytically polished. Aluminium (99.997%) was
cleaned of its oxide film in 5% NaOH solution for 1
min before melting. The tests were carried out in the
device presented in Fig. 1. A small quantity of alu-
minium (10 g) was melted in a 15 mm internal diameter
alumina crucible under vacuum (10 − 5 mbar). A tung-
sten wire surrounded by tantalum thermal shields was
used for the heating of the crucible in order to achieve
a good temperature homogeneity. The temperature was
measured (9 1°C) using a thermocouple put in contact
with the crucible. The iron sample was attached to a
specimen holder fixed at the top of the vacuum cham-
ber, its longer axis parallel to the crucible axis. When
the aluminium reached the required temperature (T= Fig. 1. Schematic view of the device used for immersion tests.
 K. Bouché et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A249 (1998) 167–175 169

Fig. 2. Intermetallic compounds observed between solid iron and liquid aluminium at T =800°C: (a) and (b), optical micrographs, respectively for
t= 30 s and t =30 min; (c) scanning electron micrograph showing Fe2Al5 and FeAl3 formed after an immersion time equal to 15 min.

and molten Al. Fig. 2 shows a typical interfacial mi-
crostructure formed at 800°C. The electron microprobe
analysis indicated that the phases were clearly identified
to Fe2Al5 (layer adjacent to iron) and FeAl3 (layer
adjacent to aluminium). This was confirmed by the
X-ray diffraction patterns which were consistently in-
dexed assuming an orthorhombic structure for Fe2Al5
(a = 0.7675 nm, b = 0.6403 nm, c= 0.4203 nm) and a
monoclinic structure for FeAl3 (a = 1.5489 nm, b=
0.8083 nm, c =1.2476 nm) [19]. The identified phases
coincide with the Al-rich phases of the Fe – Al binary
phase diagram (Fig. 3). Moreover, the analyses showed
that the values of the concentrations at the various
phase boundaries corresponded to the equilibrium com-
positions dictated by the Fe – Al binary phase diagram.
The Fe2Al5 layer is larger than the FeAl3 one. It can
also be observed that the interface between Fe and
Fe2Al5 appears highly irregular with peaks orientated
towards the iron. This tongue-like morphology varies
with time. Concerning the Fe2Al5/FeAl3 interface, irreg-
ularities observed for short contact times (30 s) decrease
with a longer interaction. The boundary between FeAl3
and the liquid phase is also made of irregularities
orientated towards the aluminium. They were found to
increase with time, forming thin platelets for longer
times (t\ 30 min at 800°C).
Thin needles and platelets of FeAl3 were found to be
uniformly dispersed in the solidified aluminium matrix.
These elements are formed by eutectic reaction during
the solidification of the melt containing some amount
of dissolved iron. The platelets attached to the outer
part of the FeAl3 layer and orientated towards the
170 K. Bouché et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A249 (1998) 167–175
Fig. 3. Fe – Al phase diagram (from [20]).
aluminium, mainly observed for long immersion times,
were also formed during the cooling. The Fe enrich-
ment was larger in the melt adjacent to the solid–liquid
interface and thereby, the excess solute could precipi-
tate in FeAl3 crystals during solidification. In fact, only
a part of the FeAl3 layer is due to interdiffusion and
thus the thick FeAl3 crystals due to solidification will be
ignored for the study of the FeAl3 layer growth.
3.2. Phase layer growth
Growth properties were studied by measuring the
thickness of each layer. However, owing to the interface
morphology of the Fe2Al5 phase, various measurements
were made. Fig. 4 shows schematically the phase layers
with the definition of the features used in this investiga-
tion. The thickness loss of solid (Xloss) which represents
the solid–liquid interface displacement was also mea-
sured. It is defined by the difference between the initial
Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the phases with their characteris-
tics. Xmax (Fe2Al5) and Xmax (FeAl3): maximum thickness of Fe2Al5
and FeAl3; Xmin (Fe2Al5) and Xmin (FeAl3): minimum thickness of
Fe2Al5 and FeAl3; Xmean (Fe2Al5) and Xmean (FeAl3): mean thickness
of Fe2Al5 and FeAl3.
solid thickness and final solid thickness (including the
intermetallic layers). A positive value for Xloss means
that the solid–liquid interface moves towards the solid
substrate, indicating that dissolution mainly takes
place. On the contrary, when Xloss is negative, the
interface moves towards the liquid, which corresponds
to a solid expansion and a predominance of phase
growth over dissolution.
The temperature dependence of the Fe2Al5 layer
thickness is plotted in Fig. 5 for two immersion times.
As shown, the amplitude of the layer grows with tem-
perature but this variation as a function of temperature
is lowered for longer reaction times. Fig. 6 presents the
thickness loss of solid iron as a function of tempera-
ture. Depending on immersion times, different be-
haviours are observed. For short times, negative values
are obtained at all temperatures. On the contrary, in
the case of longer times, the loss of thickness shows a
negative value at 700°C (solid expansion) and attains
positive values at higher temperatures (solid dissolu-
tion). This observation indicates that more than one
mechanism are involved during the solid–liquid
interaction.
Table 1
Kinetic constants associated to phase growth and interface displace-
ment
Phase growth K pi Interface displacement K pi/j
(m s−1/2) (m s−1/2)
Fe2Al5 FeAl3 Fe/Fe2Al5 Fe2Al5/FeAl3 FeAl3/Al
2.3 · 10−6 0.1 · 10−6 5.3 · 10−6 3.0 · 10−6 2.9 · 10−6
 K. Bouché et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A249 (1998) 167–175
Fig. 5. Temperature dependence of the Fe2Al5 layer thickness: (a)
t= 30 s; (b) t =15 min.
The average thickness of each layer formed at T=
800°C is plotted as a function of the square root of time
in Fig. 7. The curve shows that the time and the
thickness are related according to a parabolic law,
suggesting that the layer growth is governed by diffu-
sion. However, the initial conditions (x = 0 at t= 0) are
not satisfied, which indicates the existence of an initial
short transient period of faster kinetics before the
parabolic growth. This assumption is also confirmed by
the study of thickness loss at the same temperature
(Fig. 8). This figure shows that dissolution governed by
a parabolic law takes place after expansion of the solid
for 0B tB30 s. These results are in agreement with
those presented in Fig. 5. In fact, this indicates that the
Fe2Al5 and FeAl3 phase formation proceeds via an
interface reaction control at the beginning of the pro-
cess, their growth taking place without significant disso-
lution in the liquid. At the end of this period when their
171
thicknesses are large enough, the phases grow via a
diffusion regime and their dissolution can be observed.
However, the transient period being very short, the
present experimental thickness measurements can only
exhibit the parabolic stage of the process.
The parabolic kinetic constants, associated to the
growth of the phase i(K pi ) and to the displacement of
the interface i/j between phases i and j (K pi/j), can be
calculated. In order to take account of the non-
parabolic transient period, K pi is defined by the relation:
X pi = Xi − X 0i = K pi t − t0
where: X pi is the thickness of the part of the layer grown
during the parabolic stage, Xi is the average layer
thickness measured experimentally, X 0i is the layer
thickness at the end of the transient period, t0 is the
time at the end of the transient period, t is the total
time.
Obviously, the position of the three interfaces (Fe/
Fe2Al5, Fe2Al5/FeAl3, FeAl3/Al) can be obtained from
the thickness loss of the solid and from the average
thickness of each phase:
jFeAl3/Al = − Xloss
jFe2Al3/FeAl3 = − XFeAl3
jFe/Fe2Al5 = − Xloss − XFeAl3 − XFe2Al5
in which ji/j describes the position of the i/j interface.
Finally, K pi/j is defined by:
j pi/j = ji/j − j 0i/j = K pi/j t − t0
where j 0i/j is the position of the i/j interface at the end
of the transient period.
Therefore, K pj and K pi/j can be deduced. They were
determined assuming that the time t0, end of the tran-
Fig. 6. Thickness loss of the solid versus temperature for two immer-
sion times.
172 K. Bouché et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A249 (1998) 167–175

Fig. 8. Variation of the thickness loss with t 1/2 at T =800°C.

For example, sinusoidal curvatures have been observed

at solid–liquid interfaces in the Mo–Ni system [21]. In
that case, they were explained by stress effects due to
the atomic size mismatch between nickel and molybde-
num. Such effects could also produce the instability
observed in the Fe–Al system (atomic radius equal to
0.126 nm for Fe and 0.143 nm for Al). Another effect
could be anisotropic diffusion (high vacancy concentra-
tion in the c-axis of the Fe2Al5 phase) as reported by
Heumann et al. [17].
From a microstructural viewpoint, Fig. 9 shows that
the Fe2Al5 phase has a polycrystalline structure in the
part close to FeAl3, while only a long grain seems to be
present in the upper part adjacent to the iron. More-

Fig. 7. Variation of the layer average thickness with t 1/2 at T =

800°C: (a) Fe2Al5; (b) FeAl3.

sient period, coincides with the shortest experimental

time. The values of the kinetic constants (Table 1) show
that the rate of displacement of the solid – liquid inter-
face (FeAl3/Al) has the same order of magnitude than
the growth rate of Fe2Al5. Moreover, the parabolic
constant associated to Fe2Al5 is higher than that related
to FeAl3.

3.3. Interface phase morphology

As shown in Fig. 2, the interface between iron and

Fe2Al5 is not planar, it is irregularly formed with peaks
and valleys. The interface morphology having a major
effect on the mechanical properties of the couple, it is
interesting to examine the shape of the Fe2Al5 phase. Fig. 9. Microstructure of the interface zone (T =800°C, t =15 min)
The origin of the wavy Fe/Fe2Al5 boundary already after etching: Fe is etched with 5% Nital and Fe2Al5 is etched with
observed by several authors [12,13,17,18] is not clear. 10% NaOH.
 K. Bouché et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A249 (1998) 167–175 173

layer formation, spreads continuously during the

growth of the layer. Finally, the change in interface
morphology can be described through this study but
unfortunately the origin of the tongue-like shape can-
not be explained.

3.4. Theoretical approach of the phase growth

The analysis given in the previous sections shows that

Fig. 10. Average width of Fe2Al5 tongue elements at 800°C for
various immersion times: z represents the distance from the Fe2Al5/
FeAl3 interface to iron.
over, no relationship is observed between the grains of
the iron substrate and the Fe2Al5 phase. In fact, this
phase seems to cut the iron grains either transgranu-
larly or intergranularly.
The morphology of the Fe2Al5 phase is found to
change with time as shown in Fig. 10. Each curve
presents the average shape of the tongue elements ob-
tained by a plot of the average width of the tongues at
the growth of both intermediate phases is mainly con-
trolled by interdiffusion after a short transient period.
A theoretical treatment based on the resolution of
Fick’s laws can be applied [22,23]. In the present case,
the interface displacement kinetics can be obtained by
solving the time dependent diffusion equations in each
phase, assuming a unidirectional diffusion flow, planar
interfaces, local equilibrium conditions, concentration
independent interdiffusion coefficients and constant
partial molar volumes. The resolution procedure is
described in details in a previous work [24] for the
growth of (n) intermediate phases and is associated to a
parametric study in [25]. Therefore, only the main
points of this treatment are presented hereafter before
being applied to the Fe–Al system.
The concentration of species throughout the multi-
phase binary system is expressed by the concentration
of one of the two diffusing species as a function of the
time t and of the distance x from the initial interface
location. The concentration in each of the (n+2)
phases, solution of Fick’s second law for semi-infinite

 
terminal phases, can be written [26]:
increasing distances z from the Fe2Al5/FeAl3 interface
(z = 0) to the Fe substrate. It can be observed that the x
Ci (x,t)=ai + bi erf (1)
tongue profile is narrow for short times while it broad- 2 Dit
ens out for longer times. This observation may suggest
that the Fe/Fe2Al5 interface tends to flatten during
immersion and thus could become planar. This possibil-
ity was examined by measuring the amount of Fe2Al5
parallel to the solid – liquid interface as a function of z
for Xmin B zB Xmax. In order to eliminate the effect of
volume expansion during the phase growth, a non-di-
mensional variable defined by L = z/Xmean was used
instead of the z value, as seen in Fig. 11. The curves (%
Fe2Al5 versus L) presented in this figure for different
immersion times are not identical, indicating a change
in morphology. Moreover, Table 2 shows that the ratio
Xmax/Xmean tends to two for the longest dissolution
times. Now, taking into account that for a flat tendency
interface, the amount of Fe2Al5 must tend to a stepped
profile (one for LB 1, 0 for L \1) and that the ratio
Xmax/Xmean must tend to one, it becomes obvious that
the interface cannot tend to a planar shape. The exper-
imental data collected at 800°C show that the amount
of Fe2Al5 deviates from a stepped profile for longer
dissolution times. Thus, the pertubation of the Fe/ Fig. 11. Amount of Fe2Al5 (%) parallel to the solid – liquid interface
Fe2Al5 interface, appearing from the beginning of the versus L=z/Xmean for various immersion times at 800°C.
174 K. Bouché et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A249 (1998) 167–175

Table 2
Experimental values of ratios (Xmax/Xmean)Fe2 Al5 for various times at T=800°C

Time 30 s 50 s 5 min 10 min 15 min 30 min 45 min

Xmean (mm) 137 151 172 182 200 240 260

Xmax (mm) 188 205 265 285 335 408 490
(Xmax/Xmean) 1.37 1.36 1.54 1.56 1.67 1.70 1.88

where erf is the error function, Di is the interdiffusion
coefficient in the ith phase, ai and bi are constants
determined by initial and boundary conditions.
The local equilibrium conditions mean that the con-
centration at each of the (n + 1) interfaces remains
unchanged during the growth process, thus the inter-
face position ji − 1/i obeys the parabolic rate law and is
given by:
ji − 1/i =2gi − 1/i Dn + 1t
where gi − 1/i is the kinetic coefficient of the i− 1/i
interface and where we have introduced the interdiffu-
sion coefficient Dn + 1 in the terminal phase which has
the highest diffusivity. Diffusivity in each phase appears
through the dimensionless ratio is related to the experi-
mental parabolic constant K pi − 1/i by:
K pi − 1/i =2gi − 1/i Dn + 1.
Taking account of the initial and boundary condi-
tions at each interface, the ai and bi constants associ-
ated with the ith phase can be expressed and the
concentration within each phase is determined. At each
interface i−1/i, the flux balance is given by:
dji − 1/i
DCi − 1/i = Ji − 1 −Ji
dt
where DCi − 1/i is the miscibility gap at the interface and
where Ji − 1 and Ji are the interdiffusion fluxes (Fick’s
first law) in the (i−1)th and ith phases. Calculating the
partial derivatives of the set of (n + 2) Eq. (1) and
substituting them in the (n +1) Eq. (3), leads to a non
linear system of (n +1) coupled equations with (n+ 1)
unknown kinetic coefficients, where the concentrations
at each interface are given by the phase diagram for a
fixed temperature and where the interdiffusion coeffi-
cients are assumed to be known. The numerical solu-
tion of this system can be obtained by means of an
iterative method [24,25]. The kinetic coefficients being
determined, the position of each interface, the rate of
its displacement and the thickness of each phase can be
deduced.
In the present case, two intermediate phases [(1) for
Fe2Al5 and (2) for FeAl3] formed at 800°C between the
two terminal phases [(0) for pure solid iron and (3) for
pure liquid aluminium ]. As aforementioned, the un-
known kinetic coefficients g0/1, g1/2 and g2/3 can be
obtained by solving the system of three equations,
assuming that the concentrations at the interfaces and
the relative values of the interdiffusion coefficients D3/
D0, D2/D1 and D3/D2 are known. Moreover, the inter-
diffusion coefficient in an initial phase (DAl) must be
specified in order to correlate the experimental mea-
surements with the calculation results.
The concentration values at the interfaces are equal
to the equilibrium values taken from the Fe–Al dia-
gram at T=800°C. The main difficulty is to find reli-
(2) able values for interdiffusion coefficients in each phase.
Some data can be collected in the literature [27–30] in
the temperature range from 700 to 1000°C. The values
reported at T=800°C are: DAl/DFe $ 10 − 6, 10 − 2 B
DFeAl3/DFe2Al5 B 10 − 1, 103 B DAl/DFeAl3 B 5 · 106 and
10 − 9 m2 s − 1 B DAl B 5 · 10 − 7 m2 s − 1.
For this range of values, numerical solutions of the
system of three equations have been obtained. It was
found that gFe2Al5 is always larger than gFeAl3(gFe2Al5/
gFeAl3 $ 10). This indicates a faster growth for Fe2Al5
and is in agreement with the experimental kinetic con-
stants reported in Table 1. Moreover, the calculation
shows that the rate of displacement of the solid–liquid
interface (FeAl3/Al) is very similar to the growth rate of
Fe2Al5. This is also consistent with the experimental
values (Table 1). Pursuing further the examination of
(3)
theoretical results, it is also possible to find a whole set
of Di so that gi or gi/j (Table 3) are very close to
experimental behaviours characterized by K pi or K pi/j
(Table 1). This appropriate set of Di and relative ratios
is:
DAl
DAl = 1.35 · 10 − 8 m2 s − 1, = 10 − 6,
DFe
DFeAl3 DAl
= 5 · 10 − 2, = 1.25 · 103.
DFe2Al5 DFeAl3
Although this set is in the range of appropriate
experimental values, it leads to the following interdiffu-
Table 3
Calculated kinetic constants associated to phase growth and interface
displacement
Phase growth 2gi DAl Interface displacement 2gi/j DAl
(m s−1/2) (m s−1/2)
Fe2Al5 FeAl3 Fe/Fe2Al5 Fe2Al5/FeAl3 FeAl3/Al
2.30 · 10−6 0.12 · 10−6 5.33 · 10−6 3.02 · 10−6 2.90 · 10−6
 K. Bouché et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A249 (1998) 167–175
sion coefficients in the intermediate phases: DFeAl3 =
9.2 · 10 − 10 m2 s − 1 and DFe2Al5 =1.84 · 10 − 8 m2 s − 1.
These coefficients are at least two orders of magnitude
higher than the values reported in literature. This dif-
ference can be due to the experimental conditions, one
of the most critical i-point being the knowledge of the
compacity of the intermediate layers. It seems that the
concept of the homogeneous solid layer is a simplified
model and that grain-boundaries or inhomogeneities
observed in the growing layers could increase their
diffusivity.
Only the Al-rich phases of the Fe – Al phase dia-
gram were detected from the experimental observa-
tions. In fact, the kinetic coefficients associated to the
growth of the Fe-rich phases (FeAl and FeAl2) and
calculated via the numerical approach are very low
compared to those obtained for the Fe2Al5 and FeAl3
phases. Therefore, these phases with higher diffusivity
grow much faster than FeAl and FeAl2 which cannot
be observed.
4. Conclusions
The intermetallic layers formed between solid iron
and liquid aluminium have been characterized. Two
phases, Fe2Al5 and FeAl3, have been identified in the
temperature range from 700 to 900°C. It is shown that
their growth is controlled by interdiffusion after a
non-parabolic initial transient period. The interface be-
tween iron and Fe2Al5 has been found to be highly
irregular. This perturbation is amplified for increasing
reaction times.
A theoretical approach of the phase growth based on
the solutions of diffusion equations has been presented
and a rather good description of the experimental data
has been obtained through this numerical method. In
particular, the absence of FeAl and FeAl2 phases can
be attributed to their very low growth rates. The calcu-
lated values for the growth rate of the two intermediate
phases, Fe2Al5 and FeAl3, are consistent with the exper-
imental observations.
175
References
[1] A.J. Hickel, R.W. Heckel, Met. Trans. A 6A (1975) 431.
[2] R.B. Bhagat, Composites 9 (5) (1988) 393.
[3] A.J. Stavros, in: J.R. Davis (Ed.), Metals Handbook, Corrosion,
vol. 13, 9th edn., ASM, International, Materials Park, OH, 1987,
p. 432.
[4] C. Bagnell, W.F. Brehm, in: J.R. Davis (Ed.), Metals Handbook,
Corrosion, vol. 13, 9th edn. ASM, International, Materials Park,
OH, 1987 p. 91
[5] G.L. Bailey, H.C. Watkins, J. Inst. Metals 80 (1951) 57.
[6] T. Ishida, J. Mater. Sci. 21 (1986) 1171.
[7] G.V. Kidson, J. Nucl. Mater. 3 (1) (1961) 21.
[8] C. Wagner, Acta Met. 17 (1969) 99.
[9] F.M. D’Heurle, Mater. Sci. Forum 1 (1994) 155.
[10] V.I. Dybkov, J. Mater. Sci. 21 (1986) 3078.
[11] F.J.J. Van Loo, Prog. Solid State Chem. 20 (1990) 47.
[12] G. Eggeler, W. Auer, H. Kaesche, Z. Metallkunde 77 (4) (1986)
239.
[13] G. Eggeler, H. Vogel, J. Friedrich, H. Kaesche, Pract. Met. 22
(1985) 163.
[14] V.N. Yeremenko, Ya.V. Natanzon, V.I. Dybkov, J. Mater. Sci.
16 (1981) 1748.
[15] V.I. Dybkov, J. Mater. Sci. 25 (1990) 3615.
[16] E. Gebhardt, W. Obrowski, Z. Metallkunde 4 (1953) 154.
[17] T. Heumann, S. Dittrich, Z. Metallkunde 50 (10) (1959) 617.
[18] S.G. Denner, R.D. Jones, Metals Technol. 3 (1977) 167.
[19] W.B. Pearson, in: P. Villars, L.D. Calvert (Eds.), Handbook of
crystallographic data for intermetallic phases, ASM, Metals
Park, OH, 1985.
[20] U.R. Kattner, in: T.B. Massalski (Ed.), Binary alloy phase
diagrams, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1990, p. 147.
[21] C.A. Handwerker, J.W. Cahn, J.R. Manning, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
126 (1990) 173.
[22] W. Jost, Diffusion in Solids, Liquids, Gases, Academic Press,
New York, 1952.
[23] J. Philibert, Diffusion et transport dans les solides, Editions de
Physique, les Ulis, France, 1985.
[24] K. Bouché, Etude thermocinétique de la dissolution de métaux
solides (fer et nickel) dans l’aluminium liquide, Thesis, Univer-
sity of Provence, Marseille, France, 1995.
[25] A. Coulet, K. Bouché, F. Marinelli, F. Barbier, J. Appl. Phys.,
82 (1997) 6001.
[26] H.S. Carslaw, J.C. Jaeger, Conduction of Heat in Solids, 2nd
edn., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1959, p. 50.
[27] L.N. Larikov, V.V. Geichenko, V.M. Fal’chenko, Diffusion
processes in ordered alloys, Naukova Dumka Pub, Kiev, 1975,
National Bur. Stand. New Delhi, 1981.
[28] H. Bakker, Landolt-Börnstein, New Series, III/26, Springer Ver-
lag, Berlin, 1990, p. 221.
[29] R. Drewett, Corrosion Sci. 9 (1969) 823.
[30] R.K. Bamsla, L.L. Seigle, Met. Trans. A 20A (1989) 2561.