Textbook Advanced Methods and Technologies in Metallurgy in Russia 1St Edition Stavros Syngellakis Ebook All Chapter PDF

Advanced Methods and Technologies
in Metallurgy in Russia 1st Edition

Stavros Syngellakis
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-methods-and-technologies-in-metallurgy-in
-russia-1st-edition-stavros-syngellakis/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Advanced Methods in Structural Biology 1st Edition

Toshiya Senda
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-methods-in-structural-
biology-1st-edition-toshiya-senda/
Advanced Analytical Methods in Tribology Martin

Dienwiebel
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-analytical-methods-in-
tribology-martin-dienwiebel/
Advanced Mathematical Methods in Biosciences and

Applications Faina Berezovskaya
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-mathematical-methods-
in-biosciences-and-applications-faina-berezovskaya/
Membrane-Based Separations in Metallurgy: Principles

and Applications 1st Edition Lan Ying Jiang
https://textbookfull.com/product/membrane-based-separations-in-
metallurgy-principles-and-applications-1st-edition-lan-ying-
jiang/
Microscopy Methods in Nanomaterials Characterization. A
volume in Micro and Nano Technologies Sabu Thomas
https://textbookfull.com/product/microscopy-methods-in-
nanomaterials-characterization-a-volume-in-micro-and-nano-
technologies-sabu-thomas/
Advanced Control Engineering Methods in Electrical

Engineering Systems Mohammed Chadli
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-control-engineering-
methods-in-electrical-engineering-systems-mohammed-chadli/
GIS and Environmental Monitoring Applications in the

Marine Atmospheric and Geomagnetic Fields 1st Edition
Stavros Kolios
https://textbookfull.com/product/gis-and-environmental-
monitoring-applications-in-the-marine-atmospheric-and-
geomagnetic-fields-1st-edition-stavros-kolios/
Sport Branding Insights 1st Edition Stavros
https://textbookfull.com/product/sport-branding-insights-1st-
edition-stavros/
Advanced Technologies Systems and Applications 1st

Edition Mirsad Hadžikadi■
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-technologies-systems-
and-applications-1st-edition-mirsad-hadzikadic/
Innovation and Discovery in Russian Science and Engineering
Stavros Syngellakis
Jerome J. Connor Editors
J.W. Newkirk · A.G. Illarionov
A.S. Zhilin Associate Editors
Advanced Methods
and Technologies in
Metallurgy in Russia
Innovation and Discovery in Russian Science
and Engineering
Series editors
Carlos Brebbia
Wessex Institute of Technology, Southampton, United Kingdom
Jerome Connor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15790

Stavros Syngellakis • Jerome J. Connor
Editors
J.W. Newkirk • A.G. Illarionov • A.S. Zhilin

Associate Editors
Advanced Methods and

Technologies in Metallurgy
in Russia
Editors
Stavros Syngellakis Jerome J. Connor
Department of Materials and Structures Department of Civil and Environmental
Wessex Institute of Technology Engineering
Southampton, United Kingdom Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Associate Editors
J.W. Newkirk A.G. Illarionov
Materials Science and Engineering Institute of New Materials and Technologies
Department Ural Federal University
Missouri University of Science Yekaterinburg, Russia
and Technology
Rolla, MO, USA
A.S. Zhilin
Institute of New Materials
and Technologies
Ural Federal University
Yekaterinburg, Russia
ISSN 2520-8047 ISSN 2520-8055 (electronic)

Innovation and Discovery in Russian Science and Engineering
ISBN 978-3-319-66353-1 ISBN 978-3-319-66354-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66354-8
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017959189
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
The present book is devoted to the topical issues of industrial science with partic-
ular focus on advanced methods and technologies in metallurgy.
Rapidly developing industry demands fundamentally innovative materials
possessing enhanced mechanical, magnetic, and other specific properties.
Manufacturing a new product in metallurgy is inherently connected with a large
number of problems related to obtaining initial bars and their heat, mechanical, and
other types of treatment. Technological processes of production are determined by
the properties of the initial material.
A number of solutions to the problem of material characterization of compli-
cated alloys have been suggested. Constant improvements of the requirements for
materials result in the development of complex alloys with different elements. Such
industries as aviation force scientists to improve the characteristics of titanium and
invar alloys, high-strength steels, and nanocrystalline alloys. Alloying effects in
each element cannot be precisely predicted; therefore, it is essential to conduct
experiments analyzing the properties of new materials in order to introduce these
alloys into the technological process.
New approaches to heat and surface treatment of materials have been intro-
duced. In order to obtain the materials properties required, it is necessary to conduct
thorough research into the processes of phase transformations. The data about
quality and quantity composition of phases in materials guarantee their adequate
usage at various temperatures.
New data have been gathered in the field of ferrous metals metallurgy; more
specifically, the design calculation of ferroalloys based on raw materials has been
determined. Interest in the topic is mostly triggered by the problem of industrial
recycling. Solving the problem will allow improving the technological process
while minimizing electricity consumption, as well as reducing the toxic waste
disposal into the atmosphere.
Energy savings in pyrometallurgy enable proper control of blast furnace
smelting. The principles of selection of new technologies and risk assessment are
v
vi Preface
vitally important for the ironmaking process. Modeling thermophysical processes,

therefore, allow advancing the methods of production.
Finally, successful interaction between different fields of metallurgy eventually
results in better durability of the materials produced.
The editors would like to express their gratitude to all the authors for their
contribution and to the editorial board and other scientists who reviewed the papers
and thus ensured the quality of this book.
The book has been published with financial support of the key Centre of
Excellence “Industrial Mining Institute for Scientific Research and Applications,”
which is part of the program aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of Ural
Federal University, named after the first president of Russia, B.N. Yeltsin, from
2013 to 2020.
The editors also gratefully acknowledge the support of the vice-rector in science
of Ural Federal University, V.V. Kruzhaev, and director of the Institute of Materials
Science and Metallurgy of Ural Federal University, V.A. Maltsev.
Rolla, MO, USA J.W. Newkirk

Yekaterinburg, Russia A.G. Illarionov
Yekaterinburg, Russia A.S. Zhilin
Contents
Part I Material Characterization of Complicated Alloys

1 Effect of Microalloying on the Structure and Phase Composition
of Near-β-Titanium Alloy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
S. Illarionova, A. Popov, and A. Illarionov
2 Microstructural Aspects of High-Strength Maraging Steel
Fracture Toughness Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
S. Gladkovskiy, V. Veselova, and E. Ishina
3 The Precipitation of Silicide Particles in Heat-Resistant
Titanium Alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Artemiy Popov, M.A. Zhilyakova, O. Elkina, and K.I. Lugovaya
4 Structure Formation and Thermal Expansion Analysis
of 0.6% Carbon-Containing Invar Alloy Crystallized
at Different Cooling Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A. Zhilin, S. Grachev, M. Ryzhkov, N. Popov, and V. Tokarev
5 Effect of the Structural State of High-Nitrogen Cr-Mn-Mo
Steel on Mechanical and Magnetic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
V. Berezovskaya, Yu. Raskovalova, and M. Uimin
6 The Structural and Magnetic Properties of the Amorphous
and Nanocrystalline Alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
V. Tsepelev, Yu. Starodubtsev, V. Konashkov, and V. Belozerov
Part II Heat and Surface Treatment

7 Gradient Complex Protective Coatings for Single-Crystal
Nickel Alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
V.P. Kuznetsov, V.P. Lesnikov, N.A. Popov, I.P. Konakova,
and M.A. Popova
vii
viii Contents
8 Cooling Capacity of Jet Spraying Devices for Large Steel

Parts Heat Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
M. Maisuradze, Yu. Yudin, and M. Ryzhkov
9 Heat Treatment Technology Adjustment Using Experimental
and Simulation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
M. Ryzhkov, M. Maisuradze, and A. Kaletin
10 The Relationship of Pitting Potential to Chemical Composition
of Steels Alloyed with Nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
E. Merkushkin, V. Berezovskaya, and M. Spiedel
11 The Formation of Eutectic Phases at the Crystallization
of High-Manganese Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
A. Berezovskiy and V. Berezovskaya
Part III Ferrous Metal Metallurgy

12 Complex Metallurgical Estimation of Manganese
Raw Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
A.V. Zhdanov, V.I. Zhuchkov, V.Y. Dashevskiy, and L.I. Leontyev
13 Production of Manganese Ferroalloys from Russian
Manganese Ores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
V.Y. Dashevskiy, V.I. Zhuchkov, A.V. Zhdanov, and L.I. Leontyev
14 Waste Generation and Recycling in the Ferroalloy Industry . . . . . 113
A.V. Zhdanov, V.I. Zhuchkov, V.Y. Dashevskiy, and L.I. Leontyev
15 Influence of Impurities on Formation of Iron-Carbon Melt . . . . . . 121
A. Gudov, S. Burmasov, A. Murzin, and D. Poptsov
16 Advantages and Risks of Blast Furnace Operation
at Increased Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
S. Filatov, S. Zagaynov, L. Gileva, I. Kurunov, and V. Titov
Part IV Energy Savings in Pyrometallurgy

17 Mathematical Model and Software for the Control
of Commissioning Complex Energy-Intensive Units
in Metallurgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
K. Shchipanov, N. Spirin, O. Onorin, V. Lavrov, and S. Kumar
18 Information Modeling System for Blast Furnace
Smelting Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
N. Spirin, L. Gileva, V. Lavrov, A. Istomin, and A. Sadri
19 Computer System for Production Control of a Blast Furnace . . . . . 161
V. Lavrov, N. Spirin, I. Gurin, L. Lazic, and V. Yarchuk
Contents ix
20 Improvement of the Energy Efficiency of Hot Blast Stove

Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
М. Aksyushin, М. Kalugin, G. Malikov, and Y. Yaroshenko
21 Carbon Dioxide Emissions on an Example of Metallurgical
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
V. Lisienko, Ju. Chesnokov, A. Lapteva, and S. Kudelin
22 Principles of Selection of New Technology and Risk
Assessment: A Case Study for the Selection of Ironmaking
Process Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Y. Gordon, Y. Yaroshenko, and N. Spirin
23 Development of Techniques for the Characterization
of Thermophysical Properties of Iron Materials
with Internal Heat Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
B. Yur’ev, V. Goltsev, V. Yarchuk, and S. Kudelin
Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Part I
Material Characterization
of Complicated Alloys
Chapter 1
Effect of Microalloying on the Structure
and Phase Composition of Near-β-Titanium
Alloy
S. Illarionova, A. Popov, and A. Illarionov
1 Introduction
Microalloying of near-β- and two-phase titanium alloys by an element such as

yttrium is used mainly to rule the grain structure [1–5]. It allows us to obtain a
number of important operational and functional characteristics, low elastic modulus
of biocompatible alloys [1, 3]; superplastic characteristics sustain [5]. The intro-
duction of yttrium into titanium alloys is most effective in the range of 0.05–0.1 wt.
% [1, 2, 5]. Adding of germanium provides the reduction of the martensitic starting
temperature in shape memory alloys, increasing of the β-solid solution stability for
β-α- and β-ω-transformations in biocompatible alloys of the system Ti-Nb-Ge, and
effect on the passing of deformation-induced martensitic transformation during
cold deformation in the biocompatible pseudo elastic β-titanium alloys [6–
8]. Until now, the influence of these additives on the decay of the metastable
β-phase in the heat was paid little attention, although Lütjering and Williams [9]
found that this process defines the property complex of the alloy in heat-treated
state (quench þ age). In the present work, a studied alloy was an alloy system close
to thermal-hardening alloy VТ35 [10]. The influence of a microalloying by yttrium
and germanium on formation of structure and phase content of the heat-treated
alloy type VT35 was studied.
S. Illarionova (*) • A. Popov • A. Illarionov

Institute of Materials Science and Metallurgy, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia
e-mail: s.m.illarionova@urfu.ru; a.a.popov@urfu.ru
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 3

S. Syngellakis, J.J. Connor (eds.), Advanced Methods and Technologies in Metallurgy
in Russia, Innovation and Discovery in Russian Science and Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66354-8_1
4 S. Illarionova et al.
2 Material and Research Methods
The studied materials were hot-rolled sheets after vacuum annealing at 700 C for
30 min of near-β-titanium alloy similar to VT35 of system Ti-Al-V-Cr-Sn-Zr,
(Aleq ¼ 4.3%, Moeq ¼ 16.8%) microalloyed with 0.1 wt.% yttrium (alloy 1) and
0.1 wt.% yttrium þ 0.1 wt.% germanium (alloy 2). Research of the structure was
carried out with optical and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) instruments
on the devices Neophot 2 and JEM-200C, respectively. The X-ray analysis was
realized on the diffractometer DRON-3 M in filter Cu Кα radiation. Thermal
analysis (DTA) was made on the DuPont thermoanalyzer with completed console
DSC-910. Microhardness was measured by means of the Neophot 2 device used
load 100 g.
The regular polyhedral β-grains with average sizes 90 5 (alloy 1) and
100 5 μm (alloy 2) were observed in the initial state structures (Fig. 1.1a). The
electron microscopic analysis showed the presence of dispersed second-phase
particles ranging in size from 50 to 100 nm (smaller particles were characteristic
of the alloy 2, larger for alloy 1) in the β-matrix for both alloys. The particles are
located predominantly near β-grain boundaries (Fig. 1.1b). The electron pattern
calculation for particle-rich regions allowed to identify particles as yttrium oxide
Y2O3 (Fig. 1.1c). There were diffuse bands associated with the matrix reflexes
β-solid solution on the electron patterns. The observed shape of the bands is
associated by Tyapkin [11] with the formation of preliminary precipitation α-
particles in the metastable β-phase. Developed dislocation structure with the for-
mation of planar dislocation clusters and “tangles” was fixed into β-grain bodies of
both alloys. This fact proved the incomplete removal of work hardening in the
sheets during vacuum annealing.
It was shown with X-ray analysis that a different micro-alloying of alloys 1 and
2 affects the initial β-solid solution state. β-solid solution lines was only fixed in the
alloy 1. While there were weak lines of orthorhombical α00 -phase in the alloy
2 additionally. Despite such difference of the phase composition the lattice
β-phase periods were close to 0.323 nm as alloy 1 as alloy 2. The microhardness
values of the alloys were nearby as well (2400–2450 MPa). The β-transus temper-
ature (Tβ) of alloy 2 (710 C) determined by DTA method was higher than that of
alloy 1 (Тβ ¼ 700 C). This fact and X-ray analysis suggested that germanium in the
alloy 2 works as α-stabilizer when it is in β-solid solution. It agrees with the data of
Liu et al. [12].
In common, yttrium microadding leads to formation of disperse particles of
Y2O3 oxide in the β-matrix, which mainly is situated in a grain boundary areas.
Additional germanium microadding slightly reduces the stability of β-phase and
increases Тβ due to of its α-stabilizing action. Germanium intermetallics or oxides
were not found.
Near-β-alloys can be effectively strengthened by quenching and subsequent
aging. The influence of the quenching temperature in the two cases βþα- and
β-quench on the structure and phase composition of alloys 1 and 2 was studied.
1 Effect of Microalloying on the Structure and Phase Composition of Near. . . 5
Fig. 1.1 The structures of alloys 1 (a)–(c) and 2 (d) in initial state: (а) optical microphotography
(OM), (b)–(d) TEM, (b) and (d) bright field, and (c) electron pattern from “b” axis zone [12–3]
Y2O3 [003]β
The first temperature of αþβ-region was 660 C, and the second one of β-region
was 730 C with endurance for 15 min and when water cooling.
Metastable β-solid solution was fixed by quenches in both alloys 1 and 2 from
660 С to 730 С. Apparently 15 min exposure at the (βþα)-temperature region
660 С does not provide the decomposition of initial metastable β-solid solution.
Illarionov et al. [13] saw the similar effect early in the alloy VТ35 during isother-
mal treatment. Therefore the β-phase lattice periods in the alloys after quenching
from both temperatures were equal to – 0.3228 nm (alloy 1) and 0.3235 nm (alloy
2). Higher β-lattice period of alloy 2 can be explained as follows. Firstly, Zwicker
[14] found that the lattice period β- and α-phases in titanium alloys strongly
influenced from the amount of impurities; in particular oxygen increases the lattice
period β-phase. Secondly electron microscopic researches of alloys 1 and
2 established that size and quantity of particles of Y2O3 in an alloy 1 were more
than in an alloy 2 (Fig. 1.2a, b). Thus we concluded an oxygen in the alloy
1 increasingly located into oxides, than in alloy 2. It resulted to eliminate the
Fig. 1.2 Structure of the quenched alloys 1 (a), (c), (e), and (f) and 2 (b) and (d): (a)–(d) and (f)
TEM, dark field in reflex [602]Y2O3 (a); [420]Y2O3 (b), (c), and (d); (f) bright field; (e) OM
oxygen content of β-solid solution in the alloy 1 compared with the alloy 2. These
facts could be the reason of higher lattice period β-phase in alloy 2.
Strands on the electron diffraction, detected in an initial state, are present on
electron patterns in quenched from 730 С state of alloys 1 and 2 as well. Diffuse
strands after quenching form 660 C were not fixed. The structure of quenched
alloys from 660 C to 730 C had some difference. The quenching of alloys 1 and
2 from 730 C leads to forming of polygonal structure with small subgrains in the
β-grain body (Fig. 1.2c). The quench from 660 C gave the substructure with a high
density of dislocations (Fig. 1.2d). Thus, β-region is activated by the polygonization
process which leads to decrease dislocation density in structure compared to initial
state. At heating on 660 C low angles, a boundary doesn’t arise, and the high
density of dislocations in alloys remained as in initial state.
The perceptible movement of grain boundaries in quenched from 660 С alloys
wasn’t detected. There was another picture in the alloys quenched from 730 С.
Existing curved-convex boundaries in structure indicated their movement. How-
ever, the share of such boundaries was relatively small. The suppression of move-
ment was due to the presence of the yttrium oxide particles in the structure. The
electron microscope image of β-quenched alloy demonstrates breaking of borders
by an yttrium oxide particle (Fig. 1.2f). The particle fixed the boundary on its place.
It is confirmed also by other researchers [2, 4] who provided data that introduction
of yttrium additives to titanium alloys increases recrystallization temperature due to
Y2O3 oxide particle formation.
The calculation of the average β-grain sizes of the quenched alloys was
conducted by the secant method on optical images of the structure. It showed the
average β-grain size practically does not depend on the quenching temperature and
remains at the level of an initial state (for an alloy 1 it is 90 μm and for an alloy
2100 μm). In our opinion the phenomena are connected with the oxide particle
Y2O3 presence in the alloys which constrain the β-grain growth.
The microhardness of quenched alloys was close to the values in the initial state
2400–2450 MPa.
For definition of temperature intervals of aging of the studied alloys, the research
of the processes of decomposition of metastable β-solid solution obtained by
quenching from 730 C (β-region) were carried out with DuPont thermoanalyzer
(Fig. 1.3). The thermal analysis of the alloy 1 allows to reveal two exo- and one
endothermic effect on DSC curve (Fig. 1.3a). The first exothermic effect was fixed
in the range of temperatures 150–320 C and the second in the range of 450–600 C.
Between them a softly expressed endothermic effect was found. Unlike an alloy
1 three eхothermic effeсts were revealed on alloy 2 – curve in the temperature
intervals: 100–300 С (1st), 340–400 C (2nd), and 450–540 С (3rd). There were
two endothermic effects between eхothermic effeсts 1 and 2 and 2 and 3 (Fig. 1.3b).
It has been taken into account the data of Illarionov et al. [13], and calculation of
electron concentration of the alloys which is 4.21 el/at in the order of suggestion of
metastable β-phase transformations during heating. The first low-temperature exo-
thermic effect in the alloys was associated with the processes of preliminary
precipitation formation. It is unusual that ω-phase is the precipitation because the
electron concentration of the alloys is higher in a range of ω-phase presence in
titanium alloys (4.1–4.2 el/at (Zwicker [14])). Thus the preliminary precipitations
could be α-phase ones (Vα). Exothermic effects situated higher than 450 C of both
alloys were associated with the diffusion decay of β-solid solution with the equi-
librium α-phase formation. Exothermic effect in alloy 2 in the temperature range of
340–400 C is connected with the low-temperature α-phase (αlt) formation. This
phase that precipitated with the intermediate mechanism had some rhombic
(a)
0.5 Dq, mW
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
(b)
0.5 Dq, mW
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
-0.5
T,°C
-1
-1.5
-2
Fig. 1.3 Heating thermograms of quenched alloys 1 (a) and 2 (b)
distortion. The first endothermic effects in both alloys were associated with pro-
cesses of dissolution of formed lower temperatures’ preliminary precipitations. The
comparative analysis of DSC curves showed a suppression of formation of inter-
mediate low-temperature αlt-phase in an alloy 1 unlike the alloy 2. This fact was
resulted by increasing stability β-solid solution in alloys 1 provided by decreasing
of oxygen content. Note volume part of Y2O3 particles was higher than in alloy 2.
According to the thermogram analysis, the formation of intermediate phases in
studied alloys is possible at below 450 C temperature aging. Their presence
according to data from Antipov et al. [10] negatively affects the mechanical
properties of the near-β-alloys, first of all on plasticity and toughness. Therefore,
we recommend carrying out the aging at 475–550 C to avoid the intermediate
phase formation.
3 Conclusions
1. Yttrium microalloying of near-β-alloys has been shown to result in precipitation

of disperse Y2O3 at grain boundaries. At the same time, additions of germanium
do not lead to formation of any chemical compounds.
2. The Y2O3 particles were found to prevent significant grain growth in single-
phase β-region in the alloys 1 and 2.
3. The decomposition of quenched β-phase during continuous heating up to 600 C
has a complex multistage nature. In the alloy 1, the process goes in the following
sequence – β!Vα!α – while in the alloy 2 the sequence is β!Vα!αlt!α. It is
explained by the behavior of oxygen content: lower oxygen concentration in a
β-phase of alloy 1 results in higher volume fraction of oxide particles in that
alloy.
4. The most favorable aging temperature was established to be in the range of
475–550 C to avoid the intermediate phase formation.
Acknowledgement The research was supported by the project № H976.42 FTP 47/14.
References
1. Hieda, J., Niinomi, M., Nakai, M., Cho, K., & Nagai, S. (2013). Effect of oxide particles
formed through addition of rare-earth metal on mechanical properties of biomedical β-type
titanium alloy. Materials Transactions, 54(8), 1361–1367.
2. Tomita, A., Ueda, M., & Ikeda, M. (2012). Effect of boron and yttrium slight addition on grain
refinement and mechanical properties of Ti-13Cr-1Fe-3Al alloys. In L. Zhou, H. Chang, Y. Lu,
& D. Xu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th world conference on titanium, (pp. 544–546). Beijing:
Science Press.
3. Song, X., Niinomi, M., Nakai, M., Tsutsumi, H., & Wang, L. (2012). Improvement in fatigue
strength while keeping low Young’s modulus of a β-type titanium alloy through yttrium oxide
dispersion. Materials Science and Engineering C, 32(3), 542–549.
4. Poorganji, B., Kazahari, A., Narushima, T., Ouchi, C., & Furuhara, T. (2010). Effect of yttrium
addition on grain growth of α, β and αþβ titanium alloys. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, 240, Article number 012170.
5. Poorganji, B., Hotta, S., Murakami, T., Narushima, T., Iguchi, Y., & Ouchi, C. (2007). The
effect of small amounts of yttrium addition on static and under superplastic deformation grain
growth in newly developed αþβ type, Ti-4.5Al-6Nb-2Mo-2Fe alloy. Advanced Materials
Research, 15–17, 970–975.
6. Inamura, T., Fukui, Y., Hosoda, H., & Wakashima, K. (2005). Mechanical properties of Ti-Nb
biomedical shape memory alloys containing Ge or Ga. Materials Science and Engineering C,
25(3), 426–432.
7. Kim, W.-Y., & Kim, H.-S. (2008). Microstructure control and pseudoelasticity of Ti-Nb-Ge
alloy. Advanced Materials Research, 47–50(2), 1446–1449.
8. Kim, W.-Y., & Kim, H.-S. (2008). Effect of oxygen content on microstructure and mechanical
properties of Ti-Nb-Ge alloys for biomedical application. Advanced Materials Research,
47–50(2), 1450–1453.
9. Lütjering, G., & Williams, J. C. (2003). Titanium (pp. 310–315). Berlin: Springer.
10. Antipov, A., Moiseev, V., & Moder, N. (1996). Age hardening of VT35 titanium alloy. Metal
Science and Heat Treatment, 38(11–12), 522–526.
11. Tyapkin, Y. D. (1977). Electronographia. Itogi nauki i techniki. Seriya: Metallovedenie i
termicheskaya obrabotka, 11, 152–214.
12. Liu, D., Yan, H., Yuan, X., Chung, Y., Du, Y., Xu, H., Liu, L., & Nash, P. (2011). Thermo-
dynamic modeling of the Ge-Ti system supported by key experiment. Thermochimica Acta,
521, 148–154.
13. Illarionov, A., Popov, A., & Pumpiansky, D. (2000). Study into decomposition of metastable
β-phase during isothermal treatment in the VT35 titanium-based alloy. In I. V. Gorynin & S. S.
Ushkov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th world conference on Titanium (pp. 223–230).
St. Petersburg: CRISM “Prometey”.
14. Zwicker, U. (1974). Titan und Titanlegierungen (pp. 143–199). Berlin: Springer.
Chapter 2
Microstructural Aspects of High-Strength
Maraging Steel Fracture Toughness
Enhancement
S. Gladkovskiy, V. Veselova, and E. Ishina
1 Introduction
Although maraging steels have found commercial application since the early 1960s
[1, 2], they still remain as high-strength prospective structural and aerospace
materials having high fracture resistance and ultimate strength exceeding
2000 MPa. Fracture toughness of maraging steels strongly depending on their
strength level varies in the range of K1c ¼ 30–160 MPam1/2. A vast data is
available on K1c values of the named steels for a period covering 30 years
[2, 3]. But many microstructural aspects of maraging steel fracture toughness
enhancement are not clear. So the purpose of the presented study is to evaluate
the contradictory role of microstructural evolution of maraging steels caused by
heat treatment and additional alloying in their brittle fracture resistance.
S. Gladkovskiy (*)
Institute of Engineering Science of Urals Branch of RAS, Yekaterinburg, Russia
e-mail: gsv@imach.uran.ru
V. Veselova
Institute of Engineering Science of Urals Branch of RAS, Yekaterinburg, Russia
E. Ishina

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66354-8_2
12 S. Gladkovskiy et al.
2 Experimental
Experimental and industrial Fe-18Ni-9Co-4Mo-Ti, Fe-18Ni-2Mo-Ti, and Fe-11Cr-

10Ni-2Mo-Сu-Ti high-strength maraging steels of three basic types were studied:
01N18K9M5T, 01N18M4TYu, and 01Kh11N10M2DT. The content of basic
alloying elements varied in the following range: Mo ¼ 1.55–3.90;
Ti ¼ 0.33–1.47; Al ¼ 0.09–1.07; Cu ¼ 0.10–2.48 wt. %. The amount of carbon
does not exceed 0.03 wt. %. The researched experimental and industrial steels were
produced by vacuum induction melting and vacuum arc remelting. The sulfur and
phosphorus contents in the steels were between 0.005 and 0.011 wt. %. Hot-rolled
workpieces were subjected to single and double quenching in the temperature range
from 920 to 1200 C. All as-quenched steels had a martensitic structure. A special
thermal embrittlement heat treatment (1200 ! 950 C, 1 h) was used also in order
to form intergranular Ti(C, N) particles. High-temperature aging up to 600 C was
performed for producing reverted austenite phase in martensitic matrix. To obtain
retained austenite in maraging steels, a heat treatment regime including accelerated
heating of samples to the austenitic field (800–950 C) in molten salts was used.
Fracture surface analysis was performed by means of Tescan VEGA II XMU
scanning electron microscope and Wyko NT-1100 optical profilometer. DRON-3
diffractometer was used for X-ray diffraction examination of steel phase composi-
tion. Mechanical properties and fracture toughness were tested by the standard
methods (GOST-State Standard 1487-84, 9454-7884, and 25.506-85, respectively)
using universal testing machines EUS-20 and Instron8801 and instrumented impact
test machine “Tinius Olsen” IT542.
3 Results and Discussion
The role of intermetallic amount on strength and fracture resistance parameters was
evaluated for 13 compositions of Fe-11Cr-10Ni-2Mo-Ti maraging steels with
different contents of Ni3Ti and Fe2 (Ti, Mo) intermetallic forming elements such
as Mo, Ti, and Al. It is found that with growth of the total content of titan and
aluminum from 0.99 to 2.1 wt. %, yield stress increases from 1510 to 1790 MPa and
ultimate strength rises from 1570 to 1920 MPa (Fig. 2.1).
However, as presented in Fig. 2.1, it gives a sufficient decrease in fracture
toughness parameter K1c from the value 77 to 34 MPam1/2. So it may be
recommended to limit the total content the titan and aluminum (1.6 wt. %)
while alloying Fe-11Cr-10Ni-2Mo-Ti maraging steels.
In general, using pure raw materials and modern metallurgical technologies
provides very low content of impurities and nonmetallic inclusions in maraging
steels. However within one brand of Fe-18Ni-2Mo-Ti steel, the amount of nitrides,
oxides, and sulfides in various fusions can significantly vary (Table 2.1). It is shown
that the smallest K1c value corresponds to the composition of steel 2 with greatest
2 Microstructural Aspects of High-Strength Maraging Steel Fracture Toughness. . . 13
K1c, MPa • m1/2

90
9 7
80
70 4
60 5 3 8
10
2
50 11 1
12
6
40
30 y=-16,815x2 + 26,072x + 57,214 13
20
10
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
(Ti+A1),%
Fig. 2.1 Dependence of K1c values of Fe-11Cr-10Ni-2Mo-Ti steels on total content of (Ti þ Al)
wt. %
Table 2.1 Microstructural and mechanical parameters of Fe-18Ni-2Mo-Ti steel of different

composition
Microstructural and mechanical
parameters Composition 1 Composition 2 Composition 3
Total contamination by nonmetallic 0.29 0.36 0.35
inclusions, vol. %
Nitrides, vol. % 0.14 0.13 0.066
Oxides, silicates, vol. % 0.07 0.06 0.033
Sulfides, vol. % 0.086 0.166 0.25
Average particle size, μm 8–12 10–15 5
Distribution of particles Inhomogen. Highly inhomogen. More inhomogen.
(all particles)
σY, МPа 1920 1860 1880
К1с, МPаm1/2 65 58 71
total volume fraction of nonmetallic inclusions, average size, and extremely inho-
mogeneous character of distribution in matrix. The most negative role in maraging
steel fracture resistance is attributed to nitride particles which unlike round sulfides
have a square, triangular, or hexagonal form. Nitrides have poor deformation ability
and promote the creation of internal stress concentrators.
On the example of cobalt-free Fe-18Ni-2Mo-Ti steel, it is established that
increase of quenching temperature before aging from 920 to 1200 C, promoting
growth of austenitic grain, leads to decrease in characteristics of plasticity and
impact strength with a simultaneous abnormal growth of K1c values. This abnormal
effect first found in structural steels in [4] is associated with the different ratio of
pre-destruction zone size (zone of plastic deformation ahead of stress concentrator)
dzp 100 microns and the size of austenitic grain size (dg) after conventional
Fig. 2.2 Fracture surface of

Fe-18Ni-2Mo-Ti maraging
steel after thermal
embrittlement (heat
treatment 3) examined by
SEM
quenching (dg ¼ 25–40 microns) and quenching with overheating (dg ¼ 200–250
microns). Even greater decrease in plasticity and impact strength is resulted by
usage of thermal embrittlement heat treatment (transfer of a specimen from tem-
perature 1200 to 900 C for 1 h before cooling to room temperature which causes
the formation of brittle intergranular Ti (C, N) particles). The typical stonelike
specimens’ fracture surface after thermal embrittlement, examined by SEM and
optical profilometer, is shown in Figs. 2.2 and 2.3, respectively. It is necessary to
mention that the increased static fracture toughness remains high even in case of
thermal embrittlement. As resulted from comparative impact tests evaluating K1d
parameter dynamic fracture toughness, growth effect after overheating and thermal
embrittlement is not detected (Table 2.2). Repeated heating to 1200 C before water
quenching for the purpose of intergranular Ti(C,N) particle dissolution leads to
partial restoration of plastic properties and impact strength alongside with a notice-
able increase in K1c values (Table 2.2).
As one of the effective ways of maraging steel fracture resistance enhancement
introduction in their microstructure, a regulated share of retained and reverted
austenitic phase is considered [5]. Formation of 5% of retained austenite using
additional accelerated heating in austenite area allows us to increase strength
properties and K1c values at the same time (Table 2.3). The introduction of 14 %
reverted austenite phase in Fe-18Ni-4Mo-Ti steel microstructure gives a more
significant increase in fracture toughness. However, it leads to some decrease in
strength properties as compared with standard heat treatment processing. An
additional factor of high fracture toughness of γ-phase containing maraging steels
is connected with its partial transformation to martensitic α0 -phase in the plastic
zone ahead of crack by analogy with TRIP-steels [6].
Fig. 2.3 Fracture surface of

Fe-18Ni-2Mo-Ti maraging
steel after thermal
embrittlement (heat
treatment 3) examined by
optical profilometer
Table 2.2 The influence of heat treatment on mechanical properties and static and dynamic
fracture toughness of cobalt-free Fe-18Ni-2Mo-Ti maraging steel
KCU К1с/K1d
Heat treatment σY (МPа) σu (МPа) δ (%) Ψ (%) (MJ/m2) (МPаm1/2)
1 1730 1830 8 27 0.4 84/65
2 1740 1845 2 6 0.12 68/29
3 1870 1810 6 17 0.25 82/58
4 1880 1920 10 56 0.6 71/69
Heat treatment:
1. Quenching 920 þ 820 С þ aging 480 С, 3 h
2. Quenching 1200 С þ aging 48 С, 3 h
3. Heating up to 1200 ! 950 C, 1 h þ aging 480 С, 3 h
4. Heating up to 1200 ! 950 C, 1 h þ quenching 1200 С þ aging 48 С, 3 h
Table 2.3 The influence of retained and reverted austenite on yield stress, ultimate strength, and
fracture toughness of Fe-18Ni-9Co-4Mo-Ti maraging steel
γ-phasea σY σu К1с
No Heat treatment (%) (МPа) (МPа) (МPа.m1/2)
1 Quenching 920 þ 820 С þ aging 480 С, 0/0 1990 2080 72.5
3h
2 Quenching 920 þ 820 С þ heating to 5/2 2080 2114 84.0
820 С, 5 min. þ aging 480 С, 3 h
3 Quenching 920 þ 820 С þ aging 600 С, 14/4 1940 2020 94.0
3 h þ heating to 820 С, 5 min þ aging
480 С, 3 h
a
Austenite phase content in specimens’ body (numerator) and on specimens’ fracture surface
(denominator)
Analysis of experimental data showed that the ratio of various microstructural

factors of the fracture toughness varies significantly depending on the level of
resistance to brittle fracture. For example, at K1C values up to 50 MPam1/2, most
significant influence on maraging steel fracture toughness has intergranular pre-
cipitates and strengthening intermetallics (Fig. 2.4a). When K1c values are higher
a b
1
4 15% 20%
30%
45%
1 1
2 2
2 3 15% 3
25% 4 4
3 20%
30%
Fig. 2.4 Volume fraction of microstructural factors 1–4 attributing to maraging steel fracture
toughness enhancement at low (a) and high (b) level of maraging steel brittle fracture resistance:
1. impurities and nonmetallic inclusions; 2. grain size; 3. intergranular precipitates; 4, volume
fraction and morphology of intermetallics
than 70 MPam1/2, the dominating microstructural factors of fracture toughness

enhancement become the volume fraction and morphology of strengthening inter-
metallic phases (Fig. 2.4b).
4 Conclusions
It is pointed out that high level of maraging steel strength and fracture toughness
may be gained by eliminating nitrides and intergranular carbonitride particles,
adjusting the volume fraction and morphology of intermetallics, and providing
microstructure with metastable retained and reverted austenites. The accumulated
data could highlight the role of microstructural factors affected by alloying and heat
treatment in predicting fracture resistance of advanced high-strength maraging
steels.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Mr. A. A. Kruglov, Mr. V. V. Yurovskihkh, and
Mrs. S. V. Kuteneva for useful discussion and experimental assistance.
References
1. Floreen, S., & Decker, R. F. (1962). Heat treatment of 18% Ni maraging steel. Transactions of
American Society for Metals, 55, 58–76.
2. Perkas, M. D., & Kardonskii, V. M. (1970). Vysokoprochnye martensitno-stareyushchie stali
(High-strength maraging steels) (р. 224). Moscow: Metallurgiya.
3. Georgiev, M. N., & Simonov Yu, N. (2013). Treschtinostoikost jelezouglerodistykh staley
(p. 419). Perm: National Research Polytechnic Institute.
4. Ritchie, R. O. (1978). What does the Charpy test really tell us (pp. 54–73). Metals Park: ASM.
5. Gladkovskii, S. V., Kaletina, Y. V., & Filippov, A. M. (1999). Role of metastable austenite in
the enhancement of structural strength of maraging steels. Physics of Metals and Metallogra-
phy, 87(3), 253–262.
6. Gerberich, W. W., Hemmings, P. L., Merz, M. D., & Zackay, V. F. (1968). Preliminary
toughness results on TRIP steels. Transactions of American Society for Metals, 61, 843–847.
Chapter 3
The Precipitation of Silicide Particles in Heat-
Resistant Titanium Alloys
Artemiy Popov, M.A. Zhilyakova, O. Elkina, and K.I. Lugovaya
1 Introduction
Currently, the main ideas about the structure type of the two-phase heat-resistant
titanium alloys relate only to the morphological features of α- and β-phases, and
practically there is no common opinion about the role of intermetallic particles in
the formation of service properties. However, the precipitation of silicide particles
in these alloys can significantly affect the alloy properties.
In this paper, based on our own research and literature data, we analyzed the
regularities of silicide particle precipitation in the near-α- and two-phase titanium
alloys and their role in the service and technological property formation.
2 Results and Discussion
In industrial titanium alloys, silicides are known to be formed by the eutectoid

reactions: β ! α + intermetallic. However eutectoid transformation doesn’t always
favorably affect the properties of heat-resistant alloys, and, therefore, in practice it
is advisable to avoid the development of a eutectoid reaction either by appropriate
heat treatment or by decreasing the concentration of silicon and zirconium.
For example, Fig. 3.1a shows the dependence of the creep strain from the silicon
content in the alloy IMI834. As can be seen from these results, for a base compo-
sition, the optimal silicon content is about 0.3–0.4%. However, the authors of this
paper do not mention the form in which the silicon is contained in the alloy. This
A. Popov (*) • M.A. Zhilyakova • O. Elkina • K.I. Lugovaya

Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia
e-mail: a.a.popov@urfu.ru

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66354-8_3
20 A. Popov et al.
Fig. 3.1 The influence of the silicon content on creep strain of the alloy IMI834 (a) and Ti6242
(b) [1]
result is somewhat contrary to [1] for the alloy Ti6242Si, which shows that
increasing the concentration of silicon till 0.08–0.12%, the amount of deformation
in the alloys decreases (Fig. 3.1b) and with a further increase of its concentration the
creep deformation increases. Both alloys contain about 4% zirconium. In [2] it was
shown that alloying of titanium alloys by zirconium reduces the solubility of silicon
in titanium. For example, if in the titanium-silicon system the maximum solubility
of silicon in the α-phase is about 0.4%, then the introduction of 3% zirconium
reduces its solubility to 0.15%, while the eutectoid temperature increases from
860 to 940–970 C. Since in the alloys without zirconium the minimum deforma-
tion is observed at 0.30–0.40% silicon, it may be expected that in the presence of
silicon, the minimum creep deformation should correspond to its maximum solu-
bility in solid solution.
The influence of zirconium can be explained in terms of its position in the
periodic table of elements: because the valence electrons in an atom of zirco-
nium are less bound to the nucleus, their socialization in the silicide formation
occurs more readily than the titanium atom. The authors of [3] noted that zirconium,
replacing titanium, causes homogeneous nucleation of the silicide zones.
Silicon is soluble in β-phase titanium to 3 wt.% at a temperature of 1330 C
[4]. The eutectic β + Ti5Si3 is formed at 1330 C and silicon content 8.5%. The
temperature decrease to 860 С is accompanied with the eutectoid transformation,
silicon content in the eutectoid being 1.1%. Silicide Ti5Si3 refers to the structural
type D88, which is a typical representative of Mn5Si3, and has a hexagonal lattice
with parameters a ¼ 0.7448 nm and c ¼ 0.5114 nm and c/a ¼ 0.6866 and significant
homogeneity region (about 4 am.%) [4, 5].
The peretectoid reaction β + Ti5Si3 ! Ti3Si proceeds in the alloys with a high
silicon content (2–5%) at a temperature of 1170 C. The silicide Ti3Si has a
tetragonal lattice with parameters a ¼ 0.713 nm, C ¼ 1.297 nm, and C/
a ¼ 1.819 [4].
In contrast to the system titanium – silicon alloys in the zirconium – silicon
systems, tetragonal silicide type Zr2Si was observed in addition to the silicide type
3 The Precipitation of Silicide Particles in Heat-Resistant Titanium Alloys 21
М5Si3. It has structural type C16 and lattice parameters a ¼ 0.661 and
C ¼ 0.529 nm [6]. It is easy to see that in analyzing the structure of zirconium
silicide with a tetragonal lattice, the tetragonal zirconium atoms lying in the same
plane are interconnected elements of trigonal symmetry.
As shown in [7–12], in alloys of Ti-Zr-Si, silicide type (Ti, Zr)5Si3 is advanta-
geously allocated, which is indicated in the literature as S1. They are similar to the
abovementioned Ti5Si3, but they have partial replacement of titanium atoms to
zirconium atoms. According to [13] the solubility of zirconium in this silicide is
9 at.%. With increasing duration of heat treatment, according to [9], this silicide is
enriched with zirconium atoms and is transformed into a silicide (Ti, Zr)6Si3, which
has a hexagonal lattice with parameters a ¼ 0.700 and C ¼ 0.360 nm and belongs to
the space group P6/mmm. On the other hand, the authors of [7] propose to describe
the silicide in the trigonal coordinates with space group P321 and parameters
similar to the above. This silicide is denoted as S2 [8].
During the study of silicide S2 with composition Ti3,4Zr2,6Si3 in the alloy
IMI685, the following orientational correlation of phases was defined:
g
f1230gs ==f110gβ ==f10 11 α
α:
< 0001>s == < 001β > == < 01 11>
Figure 3.2 shows the microstructure of titanium alloys containing particles of

silicides. In Fig. 3.2a, b, particles of silicide S1 can be observed, which originally
took place at the interfaces, and silicides S2 and S3 are shown, respectively, in
Fig. 3.2c, d. At the present time, there is not enough data to accurately divide this
phase by morphology, but, apparently, S2 silicide particles are mainly of globular
shape, due to the development of processes of coagulation and particle S3 –
multiple faceted, because there is a certain orientation of the connection between
the silicide and the matrix (Fig. 3.2).
During aging of near-α-alloys, when there is a small amount of β-phase silicide
particles, S1 heterogeneously nucleates at dislocations and/or interphase
α/β-surface section and grows in the form of rods in the direction of <1120> α.
Silicide particles are characterized by the large value discrepancy between the
parameters of its own lattice and lattice α-matrix and coherent quickly broken.
Therefore, the increase in strength due to secretions is not compensated by a
decrease in strength characteristics due to the disappearance of the solid-solution
strengthening. Secretions in coagulation process after losing coherence proceed
with the simultaneous transformation of the lattice and the transition from the
silicide S1 to S2 (S3). Therefore there are mainly S2 or S3 silicides in α-phase. For
example, we observed only allocation silicide S2 in the alloy Ti-6Al-5Zr-0.5Mo-
0.25Si after quenching in water from 1373 K and aging/tempering in the temper-
ature range 973–1073 K. The following orientation relationships between the S2
and the α00 phase are identified by electron diffraction:
22 A. Popov et al.
Fig. 3.2 The morphology of the silicide’s particles formed during the aging process in a variety of
titanium alloys: (а) VT9, T ¼ 700 C, 10 h; (b) VT 18 U, Т ¼ 650 С, 25 h; (c) VT 9, Т ¼ 750 С,
25 h; and (d) VT 25 U, Т ¼ 750 С, 25 h
ð0001Þα00 ==ð1210ÞS2 ½2110α00 ==½1011S2 :
In the study of isothermal process of particle formation in the silicide two-phase

alloys VT9 and VT25U, it was found that their separation in alloys with lamellar
structure and a globular plate is largely close, but in alloys with lamellar structure, it
starts a little earlier [14]. Allocation appears most rapidly at 800 C, when the
duration of the incubation period and their formation is about 6–8 min and aging at
temperatures of 750 and 850 C over several, 10–12, minutes.
The particles are mainly observed in the interphase α/β boundaries in the β-phase
and at low exposure are faceted shape, which may indicate their coherent commu-
nication with the matrix. The stoichiometric composition of the particles is close to
the (Ti, Zr)5Si3 (S1). Thus, if the KCU of VT9 alloy with lamellar structure at
750 C with exposure till 5 min is 0.60 MJ/m2, when increasing the duration
collapse over 20 min, KCU reduced to 0.35 MJ/m2. In the alloy VT9 with
globular-lamellar structure, decrease in toughness values for the isothermal holding
is expressed more actively: at 5 min of exposure, KCU is 1.0–1.1 MJ/m2 and at
20 min 0.56 MJ/m2.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
and their right to local self-government, and (3) because it has not
been ratified by three fourths of the several States since it has not
been submitted to the electorate of the States in which the initiative,
or the referendum, or both, prevail (assignment of errors Nos. 1-5).
These questions are discussed in points II, III, and IV, respectively. In
point I the prior amendments to the Constitution are considered with
reference to these contentions, and in point V the justiciability of the
contentions is maintained.”
Its first challenge is itself the admission that all constitutional
ability to change our Constitution is ability “granted” in the Fifth
Article. Moreover, it is the flat denial of any constitutional mode of
procedure in which the citizens of America, by a “Yes” from three
fourths of their assembled “conventions,” can enact the legislation
which is Section One of the supposed Eighteenth Amendment.
Its second challenge is wholly on behalf of the political entities,
which are the states. It not only makes no claim for the rights of
American citizens, but it denies any constitutional ability in the
American citizens to interfere, by changing the American
Constitution, with what the American citizens reserved to each state
and its citizens.
The third challenge again fails to assert any claim on behalf of the
rights of the American citizens. It is the challenge negatived by the
third conclusion of the Supreme Court. It is the challenge that the
citizens of the State, in some of the states, are part of the state
legislature.
If we want further confirmation of our knowledge that this brief
does not make the real challenge, namely, that the Fifth Article is no
grant to the supposed grantors and the state governments, we find it
in the fact that the brief itself refers over fifty times to the Fifth Article
as a “grant” of limited ability to make Articles.
If we need further confirmation, we find it in this fact. After the
Supreme Court had negatived every proposition in that brief, its
writers made application for a reargument. The application was
based on one ground as far as concerned the validity of the
Amendment. That one ground was that the Court had written no
opinion. From this one fact, the claim was made that the Court could
not have considered the potency of the three challenges which had
been urged in the brief. Educated with the earlier Americans, we
believe that each of these three challenges, in its very statement,
shows why it is unsound, and that no opinion was needed to explain
its refutation. But the nature of the application shows the continued
concept of the Fifth Article as a “grant.”
If we look at the other briefs against validity, we will find all
arguments based on the same monumental error that the Fifth
Article is a “grant” and that the state legislatures are therein named
the attorneys for the citizens of America, although the latter, as
citizens of America, never elect a single member in those
legislatures and the Tenth Amendment expressly declares that the
Constitution gives no power of any kind to the states or their
legislatures. On the impossible hypothesis of this monumental error
are budded the most extraordinary arguments.
In more than one brief, it is urged that, in the Fifth Article, the
whole people of America made a certain number of state legislatures
their own attorneys in fact to amend the American Constitution. But,
urges the brief, the American people have no power to change the
state constitutions, and “therefore, the grantees,” the state
legislatures, “cannot exceed the powers of their principal, the people
of the United States.” And, the brief goes on, as the people of
America cannot change a state constitution, neither can the
attorneys in fact of that whole American people, the state
legislatures, change it. The ability of the people or citizens of
America and of “their” attorneys in fact, the state legislatures, is only
competent to change the Constitution of the citizens of America. But
this Eighteenth Amendment changes the Constitution of each state.
Ergo, that change is clearly beyond the power of the citizens of
America and “their” attorneys in fact, the state legislatures!
It will serve no useful purpose for us to dwell further upon the
briefs against validity. They all show the universal conviction that the
Fifth Article is a “grant” and makes the state legislatures attorneys in
fact for ourselves, the citizens of America, who elect not a single
member in the state legislatures. Naturally, as this fundamental error
is the invincible conviction of all counsel against validity before any
brief is written, none of those briefs mentions such simple facts as
the fact decided by the Supreme Court in Barron v. City of Baltimore,
7 Pet. 243. That decision, by John Marshall, decisively settled the
legal fact that the Fifth Article grants no power to the state
legislatures to make the Eighteenth Amendment. And, as it also
decisively settled that the Fifth Article does not give the state
legislatures any power whatever, it destroys the absurd concept that
the Fifth Article makes the state legislatures attorneys in fact for
those who made the Fifth Article, the citizens of America, the
“conventions” of the Fifth Article and the Seventh Article. But
lawyers, who start to write briefs with the certain (although false)
“knowledge” that the Fifth Article does make the state legislatures
attorneys in fact for the citizens of America, neither know the
meaning of that decision nor state the decision and its meaning and
its effect upon the Eighteenth Amendment in the briefs which they
write. The decision is very clear. We have met it earlier in our
education herein. It will bear repetition right now, when we find fifty-
seven lawyers all “knowing” that the Fifth Article (despite the
declaration of the Tenth Amendment) does give power to the state
governments and, by giving it, makes these governments attorneys
in fact for the citizens of America.
Barron claimed that a state statute was void because it came in
conflict with the restriction imposed by the Article which is the Fifth
Amendment to the American Constitution. If the restriction applied to
the state legislatures and their powers, the statute was clearly void.
Therefore, as Marshall pointed out, the Court had but one question
to solve, whether the American Constitution (in which is the Fifth
Article) granted any power to the state governments. If it did, then
general restrictions in that Constitution, as they clearly applied to all
powers granted in that Constitution, applied to the state
governments. On the contrary, if the Constitution granted no power
to the state governments, general restrictions in the Constitution
would not apply to the state governments. For which reason, the
decision of the case itself was to depend on one thing alone,
whether there was any power granted in the entire Constitution to
the state governments. If there was not, the decision would be
against Barron.
The question thus presented is, we think, of great
importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was
ordained and established by the people of the United States
for themselves, for their own government, and not for the
government of the individual states. Each state established a
constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such
limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular
government as its judgment dictated. The people of the
United States framed such a government for the United
States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and
best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they
conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself;
and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms,
are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the
government created by the instrument. They are limitations of
power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct
governments, framed by different persons and for different
purposes.
It would have been impossible for Marshall to have stated more
plainly that the “instrument,” the Constitution (which contains the
Fifth Article), grants no powers whatever to the state governments.
On that fact, the fact being the simple answer to the question “of
great importance but not of much difficulty,” Marshall decided that the
general restrictions (applying only to powers granted in the
Constitution) did not apply at all to the state governments, to whom
the Constitution granted no power whatever.
And so we Americans, trying to find the “when” and “how”
(between, 1907 and 1917) we became subjects, cannot find the
supposed answer anywhere in the briefs against validity. All that we
do find of interest to us, in those briefs, is that the briefers, either with
or without knowledge of the fact, are meeting a claim that there
never was an American citizen and that the American people
became “subjects” when they made the Fifth Article on June 21st,
1788.
By reason of our education in the making of the Fifth Article, we
know the answer to the absurd claim. The answer is one that cannot
be denied unless there are facts which we have not learned in our
education. Therefore, we go quickly to the briefs of those who make
the claim, those who upheld the existence of the Eighteenth
Amendment, to ascertain what are the new facts on which they base
their claim that there never was an American citizen and that the
Fifth Article made the American people “subjects.”
These opponents were led by Hughes. In this litigation, he should
not have forgotten that there are limits to the powers of every
government in America. In the following January, he appeared in the
same Court, to prove that there is limit to the power of the supreme
legislature in America, the Congress.
That Congress had passed a statute, known as the “Corrupt
Practices Act.” In it, certain practices, at federal primary and other
elections, were prohibited and made criminal offenses. His client had
been tried and convicted by a jury as guilty of one of these practices
in a primary election for the nomination to the Senate of America. On
the appeal to the Supreme Court, Hughes urged that, as our
American government is a government of enumerated powers,
incidentally a fact which his claim for the state governments in the
National Prohibition Cases flatly denies. Congress could not validly
pass the statute, under which his client had been convicted, unless
the power to pass a statute in that particular matter was found in
some enumerated power in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly
gave Congress power to pass laws concerning “elections” for federal
officers. But, urged Hughes, the Americans of 1788, the
“conventions” in the Fifth and Seventh Articles, did not know
anything about “primary” elections. Therefore, urged Hughes,
Congress has not the power to make the same thing a penal offense
at “primary” elections, which Congress can make a penal offense at
the regular elections. By a divided Court, this argument, based on
the claim of limited power in the supreme legislature to prohibit what
a candidate for Senator may do, was sustained and the conviction
was reversed.
It is amazing, therefore, to turn to the Eighteenth Amendment brief
of the same briefer, a few months earlier, and to find him contending
for his clients therein, twenty-four governments of state citizens, an
absolute omnipotence to interfere with individual freedom of
American citizens on every subject. And it is startling to find, in this
brief, audacious denial of any right in the Supreme Court even to
consider whether these governments of state citizens have that
omnipotence over the American citizen.
In the case of the candidate for Senator, it was his concept and his
claim that the Supreme Court can decide that the supreme
legislature in America had not the power to make a certain command
to candidates for seats in the American Senate. This is the doctrine
that the only government of the American citizens is a government of
enumerated powers. In the Eighteenth Amendment litigation, the
following is his contention, that thirty-six governments of state
citizens (the inferior legislatures in America) have unlimited power,
without any constitutional restraint, to make commands to the
American citizens on any matter whatsoever:
“We submit that the conception involved in the bill of complaint,
that an amendment duly submitted by Congress on the vote of two
thirds of each House, and duly ratified by the legislatures of three
fourths of the States, is still subject to judicial review, and may be
held for naught through judicial action by virtue of a process of
implied restrictions upon the amending power—restrictions which
thus set up by judicial decree would be unalterable by any
constitutional process—is a conception of the most extravagant
character and opposed to the fundamental principles of our
government. No principle of judicial action can possibly be invoked
for sustaining such an authority. The propriety and advisability of
amendments, which are not prohibited by the express exceptions in
Article V, are necessarily confided to those through whose action the
amendments are to be made.”
We are quite accustomed to have men like Anderson maintain that
governments of state citizens have outlawed for the citizens of
America a traffic which Madison hoped would take deep root
everywhere in America, a rightful traffic by human beings “so
recognized by the usages of the commercial world, the laws of
Congress, and the decisions of courts.” (Leisy v. Harden, 135 U.S.
100.)
When Americans were fighting on the battlefields of the Revolution
for human liberty, Walter Butler stirred up the House of the Six
Nations to make a home attack. It was natural, therefore, when
Americans in 1918 were fighting on the battlefields of Europe for
human liberty, that Anderson and men of his type should stir up the
Houses of thirty-six nations to make a similar home attack.
Americans will probably always have Butlers and Andersons to stir
up home attacks, when Americans are away on the battlefields.
But it is a grave matter when one who has sat on the Bench of the
Supreme Court later contends that the Court has no ability even to
review an attempted effort of the legislatures of state citizens to
command the citizens of America on a matter not enumerated in the
First Article.
From the “conventions” of the early American citizens, we bring
the knowledge that it is the bounden duty of the Supreme Court to
determine that the governments of state citizens have no power
whatever to interfere with the individual freedom of American citizens
in any matter whatsoever. From those “conventions,” we bring the
certain knowledge that the main purpose of the establishment of the
Supreme Court, as one department of the only and limited
government of American citizens, was that the Supreme Court might
protect every individual liberty of the American citizen from
usurpation of power by all governments in America.
Any concept to the contrary is the most Tory doctrine ever stated
as American law since July 4, 1776. It is blind to the fact that, by the
Constitution, the whole American people, “in their aggregate
capacity,” created a new nation of men and set it above the existing
and continued federation of states; to the fact that the whole
American people made that Constitution one with national Articles,
relating to the government of men, and with federal Articles, relating
to the government of states; and to the fact that the whole American
people knew and settled that only “conventions” of themselves could
make national Articles, although state legislatures, as attorneys in
fact for their respective states, could make federal Articles; and to
the fact that the Tenth Amendment names two distinct reservees of
existing power, “the states respectively,” who are the members of the
subordinate federation, and “the people,” who are the members of
the supreme nation of men; and to the fact that the Fifth Article
grants no power whatever but mentions the “state legislatures,” who
act for the members of the federation, and the “conventions,” who
alone can ever act for the members of the supreme nation, when the
latter are to make a change in their part of the Constitution, the
national part.
But we find the brief of Hughes, like the briefs of his associates,
actually challenging any right of review by the Supreme Court, when
the attorneys in fact for the states and state citizens, although the
states have nothing whatever to do with that part of the dual
Constitution which relates to the nation of men, actually attempt to
change the quantum of power (to interfere with their own individual
freedom) granted by the nation of men to their only government. His
challenge even goes to the extreme of boldly asserting that the
“propriety and advisability of amendments,” even though they
infringe upon the individual freedom of the members of the nation of
men, must be finally determined by the governments of state
citizens, which have nothing to do with the nation of men which is
America. His challenge is that the Supreme Court is powerless to
protect the liberty of the American citizens if thirty-six governments of
state citizens decide to interfere with that liberty in matters not
enumerated in the First Article.
The challenge is exactly the challenge of Lord North to the
Americans in 1775. It is exactly the challenge which the British
Parliament would make, if we were still its “subjects.” As basic
American law, it is sheer nonsense.
When we remember the doctrine of this briefer, that there is a limit
to the right of our supreme legislature to prohibit what a candidate for
Senator may do, and compare it with this new Tory concept that
three fourths of the inferior state governments can validly interfere
with every personal liberty of ourselves, we have one or two
questions to ask the briefer. Is it his thought that the supposed
citizens of America made their Constitution with the sole intent that
the personal rights of candidates for Senators should be secure and
that the number of Senators from each state should remain the
same? Is it his thought that the American citizens, from whose
“conventions” we have just come, having settled these amazingly
important things about Senators, then voluntarily granted
omnipotence over every individual freedom in America to a fractional
part of the inferior state governments, twenty-four of whom he
represented in the litigation of 1920? Is it his thought that the whole
American people have two governments, one the government of
enumerated powers constituted in the First Article and the other the
government of unlimited power constituted in the Fifth Article? Is it
his thought that his inferior state governments, although all members
of all the state governments collectively could not enact a statute
interfering in the slightest degree with the American citizen, can
issue any command whatever to the American citizen, and that the
citizens of America must obey that command so long as the state
governments call it an Amendment of the American Constitution?
It is our own certain knowledge that, when governments issue any
command to the citizens of America and the command interferes
with individual freedom, the maker of the command must show the
grant of power to make that particular command. It is the Alpha and
Omega of American law that no government has any just power to
make any command to the citizens of America, except in a matter on
which those citizens themselves have given that government the
power to make that particular command. It is in the primer of
American constitutional law, that there is no government of the
citizens of America, except the government at Washington, and that
it has no power to command the American citizen, interfering with his
individual freedom, except in the matters named in the First Article. It
is admitted by all, even by the writer of that brief and his colleagues,
that the power to make the command which is the First Section of
the Eighteenth Amendment, is not enumerated in that First Article.
When, therefore, this counsel for twenty-four of the governments
which made that command tells us that, after his client governments
(at the suggestion of our government which could not make the
command) have passed upon the propriety and advisability of the
command, we cannot have the Supreme Court even consider the
ability of his client governments to make the command, our
indignation is mingled with our mirth.
Our indignation need not be explained. Our mirth comes when we
think of our needless fear that something might have happened
between 1907 and 1917 by which we became “subjects” instead of
the citizens we had been. Throughout our education we have always
known that, if the Eighteenth Amendment (a national article made
entirely by governments) is in the Constitution, we are “subjects.”
We have known that no legislative governments, before 1787 and
after 1776, could have made this general command to the citizens of
America, because, during those eleven years, there was no citizen of
America and there were no governments in the world who could
make any general command to the American people, interfering with
their individual freedom on any subject. We have known, with
certainty, that, if the Americans in the “conventions” (where we have
sat) knew what they were doing and the Supreme Court, for a
century, has known what they did, there were no governments in the
world, up to the year 1907, who could make that command to the
American citizens. We have gone everywhere to find what
happened, between 1907 and 1917, to change the American citizens
into “subjects” of the governments for whom this counsel appears.
Now, after the fruitless search elsewhere, we are reading his brief to
find out what did happen between 1907 and 1917. His plain answer,
as we have already sensed, is—“nothing.”
Our mirth entirely dispels our indignation, when we sense his full
concept of the nature of that absurd Fifth Article “grant” to his
government clients. That we may not mistake his concept, the most
Tory concept ever stated as law in America since 1776, he explains it
again and again in his briefs. It is his concept that the absurd
supposed “grant” gives to his client governments, not one member of
which is ever elected by the citizens of America, unlimited and
constitutionally unrestrained power to interfere with the individual
freedom of the American citizen on every matter or, as the
Declaration of ’76 put it, in its complaint against the English King and
his legislature, to legislate for us on all matters whatsoever.
And our mirth is not lessened when we read, in this brief, John
Marshall’s full statement of the making of the Constitution (with the
Fifth Article in it) and John Marshall’s clear decision that it was all
made by the citizens of America, the “conventions” of the Seventh
and the Fifth Articles.
No statement of facts could ever be written, which more absolutely
destroys the concept that the state governments have the
omnipotence denied to the English Parliament, than the quotation
from John Marshall which we read in this brief to support that
concept.
Throughout the quotation, with which we are all very familiar,
Marshall points out that there is a vital distinction, amazingly
important to individual freedom, between the ability of the
“conventions” (named by exactly the same name in the Fifth as well
as the Seventh Article) and the limited ability of the same
“legislatures” for which this counsel appeared in 1920. In the
quotation Marshall points out that, when the American citizens are to
make a national Article, like the First Article and the Eighteenth
Amendment, there is but one way in which they can make it “safely,
effectively and wisely,” “by assembling in convention.” That all of
us, including that counsel of 1920, may not find any excuse for an
assumption that state governments can ever make Articles of that
kind, Marshall dwells at length upon the inability of state
governments or any governments to make them or any Article like
them. He tells us that, when the American people make Articles of
that kind, in the only way in which they can ever effectively make
Articles of that kind, by assembling in “conventions,” “they act in their
states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease
to be the measures of the people themselves or become the
measures of the state governments.” “From these conventions the
Constitution derives its whole authority.” “It required not the
affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the state governments.
The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation
and bound the state sovereignties.”
Up to the last short sentence we have just quoted from the
decision so familiar to us, Hughes quotes at length and without
omission. Hughes is in Court for those “state legislatures” and state
sovereignties, which Marshall’s decision finds to be legislatures and
sovereignties wholly inferior in ability to the “conventions” of the
American people, named in the Fifth and Seventh Articles by exactly
the same name—“conventions.” How does the great lawyer of 1920
find, in this Marshall decision, support for the unique idea that these
state, governments are omnipotent over every right of the American
citizens who sit in those “conventions”? His remarkable claim is that
the state governments he represents have omnipotent ability to
command or interfere with anything in America, except one thing. It
is his claim that these governments have omnipotent ability to
interfere with the citizens of America, with the Constitution of
America, with the government of America, with anything in America,
except that they cannot interfere with that one thing for which the
Revolution was fought, the Statute of ’76 enacted and the
Constitution established. In the view of Hughes, that one thing
apparently is the right of every state to have the same number of
Senators. Our indignation is entirely dispelled when we realize that
he sincerely believes this nonsense. Our mirth is merely increased
when we find him quoting, at some length, this decision of Marshall,
evidently under the impression that the decision supports the
nonsense.
But, we wonder why, at the particular point which we have reached
in the Hughes quotation from Marshall, the former puts “stars”
instead of the next paragraph in the Marshall decision? Certainly,
when the great lawyer of 1920 has such faith in the omnipotence of
his government clients over us their “subjects,” it cannot be that
there is anything in the missing Marshall paragraph to disturb that
faith! Yet, as we read the missing paragraph, with which we are quite
familiar, doubt assails us. Is the great lawyer of 1920 sincere or does
he know that the position of his clients in relation to the Eighteenth
Amendment is nonsense?
What is the missing Marshall paragraph with which we are so
familiar? Lo and behold! it is our constant companion throughout our
education in the days of the early Americans. It is the paragraph in
which the Supreme Court, by Marshall, points out why the
Philadelphia Convention of 1787 found themselves compelled to
send their First Article, with its grant of national power like the grant
in the Eighteenth Amendment, to the “conventions,” named in the
Seventh and the Fifth Articles, because the state governments, the
clients of Hughes, were known and recognized by everybody to be
without ability to make national Articles. In other words, it is the
paragraph in which Marshall announces what we have learned so
clearly ourselves, that “to the formation of a league, such as was the
Confederation [to the making of federal Articles] the state
sovereignties were certainly competent. But when ‘in order to form a
more perfect Union,’ it was deemed necessary to change this
alliance into an effective government, possessing great and
sovereign powers and acting directly on the people, the necessity of
referring it to the people [the conventions of the Fifth and the
Seventh Articles] and of deriving its powers directly from them was
felt and acknowledged by all.”
We know this paragraph of Marshall’s, omitted from the Hughes
brief, to be the epitome of everything that we have heard in the
“conventions” which made the Fifth Article. We remember that even
Henry, from the very fact that the “conventions” of the American
citizens were assembled, knew that the then proposed Articles did
grant power to interfere with human freedom. And we remember
(because he knew the inability of state governments ever to make
such grants) that, on the fact that “conventions” were assembled, he
based his charge that the proposed Articles were national and not
federal. We remember that the Tenth Amendment declares that the
entire Constitution, including the Fifth Article, gave no power of any
kind to those state governments. And so we know, what Henry knew,
that the state governments did not have, and that the Fifth Article did
not give them, any ability to make national Articles, like the First
Article and the Eighteenth Amendment.
For which reason, we cannot (looking at the matter purely from the
standpoint of lawyer’s attitude to his government clients) blame
Hughes for putting the stars in his quotation from Marshall.
Eager to remain free citizens, eager to have all governments
recognize that we are not “subjects,” we ourselves commend, to the
writer of that brief and to all who uphold the Eighteenth Amendment,
the entire decision of Marshall in M’Culloch v. Maryland. For
instance, we commend this clear statement of basic American law:
If any one proposition could command the universal assent
of mankind [except those for the validity of the Eighteenth
Amendment], we might expect it would be this:—That the
government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is
supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result
necessarily from its nature. It is the government of all; its
powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all.
Though any one state may be willing to control its operations,
no state is willing to allow others to control them. The nation,
on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind
its component parts.
Among other things, this statement, itself but a repetition of
everything that we have learned by our experience with early
Americans, emphasizes the important fact that the nation, which is
ourselves, has but one government, the government “limited in its
power.” Which fact clearly demonstrates that the state governments,
not being that one government of “limited powers,” are not the
attorneys in fact for the citizens of America, in any matter
whatsoever, and cannot command us, as they attempt to do in the
First Section, or grant power to command us, as they attempt to do
in the Second Section of the Eighteenth Amendment.
Again this same decision of Marshall holds clearly: “In America,
the powers of sovereignty are divided between the governments of
the Union and those of the State.” The claimed ability of the Hughes
government clients, their claimed ability to make the national new
Article in our Constitution, rests entirely upon the absurd doctrine
that, above the two sovereignties which Marshall names, there is an
omnipotent legislative sovereignty, without any constitutional
restraint, the sovereignty of three fourths of the very state
governments which Marshall mentions.
In the same M’Culloch v. Maryland, Marshall pays a tribute to an
accurate knowledge, which we have acquired in our education with
the early Americans. It is the knowledge that everything in the
Constitution denies any ability in even all the states as such, or in all
the state governments, each of which is never anything but a
government of the citizens of one state and their attorney in fact as
state citizens, to alter in any way the national part of our
Constitution (which Constitution is both national and federal)
because the national part relates to direct interference with the
individual freedom of the American citizens. This is his tribute to the
truth of the knowledge which we have acquired. He says that there is
“a principle which so entirely pervades the Constitution, is so
intermixed with the materials which compose it, so interwoven with
its web, so blended with its texture, as to be incapable of being
separated from it without rending it into shreds. This great principle
is, that the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are
supreme; that they control the Constitution and laws of the
respective states and cannot be controlled by them.”
And so we average Americans find naught but encouragement in
the brief of Hughes. From its quotations, from its every statement,
we learn that we have known all the facts, before we read it, and that
we are free citizens and not “subjects.” In that brief of the champion
of champions of the governments that “made” the new national
Article, we learn that there are no new facts on which to base the
claim that we, the whole people of America, have another
government besides the government of enumerated powers, the
claim that we are “subjects” and that our new omnipotent Parliament
wears the aspect of thirty-six inferior governments, each elected by
the citizens of a nation which is not America.
In the brief of this champion, we find no pretense that there is any
support for this weird claim. On the contrary we find the whole claim
depending entirely upon the sheer assumption—asserted as if to
state it was to state an axiom—that the Fifth Article is a “grant,”
wherein the “conventions” grant to the grantors and to the state
governments ability to exercise omnipotence over the American
citizens, ability to interfere with their individual freedom, in any matter
whatsoever.
In his brief, Hughes emphatically asserts the truth that “the people
never become a legislature.” Yet, the basis of his whole argument is
that what “the people” of the Tenth Amendment expressly reserved
to themselves may be given away by the “legislatures” of the states,
although the “states” are an entirely different reservee in the Tenth
Amendment. He does not know, what all knew when the Fifth Article
was made, that the “conventions,” who made it and who are named
in it, meant “the people” themselves. He does not know the tribute of
Madison, in the Virginia convention which ratified the Fifth Article, to
the American “conventions” in which the people themselves directly
constituted new government of men; “Mr. Chairman: Nothing has
excited more admiration in the world than the manner in which free
governments have been established in America; for it was the first
instance, from the creation of the world to the American Revolution,
that free inhabitants have been seen deliberating on a form of
government, and selecting such of their citizens as possessed their
confidence, to determine upon and give effect to it.” (3 Ell. Deb. p.
616.)
Hughes does not know, as Story did, that the drafter and the
makers of the Fifth Article put into it the lessons of their own
experience in the making of national Articles, by the “conventions” of
1776, and in the making of federal Articles by the state “legislatures”
between 1777 and 1781. “It is wise, therefore, in every government,
and especially in a Republic, to provide means for altering and
improving the fabric of government as time and experience or the
new phases of human affairs may render proper to promote the
happiness and safety of the people. The great principle to be sought
is to make the changes practicable, but not too easy; to secure due
deliberation and caution; and to follow experience, rather than to
open a way for experiment suggested by mere speculation or
theory.” (2 Story on the Constitution, Sec. 1827.)
For all of which reasons, Hughes and his associates, although
they might be certain that the people never became the legislature,
were not aware that, to the Americans who made the Fifth Article, its
“conventions” were “the people” of the Tenth Amendment.
Naturally, we are not surprised to find a briefer who ignores this
fact, possibly the legal fact in America most important to individual
liberty, also indulging in the monumental error of the thought that
these “conventions,” in their Fifth Article, made a grant, to
themselves and to his clients, of equal omnipotence over
themselves, the citizens of America. We recognize that, if the Article
was such a grant to his clients, the grant would have been the
greatest grant ever made in the history of mankind. We recognize
that it would have been a grant by three million free men, four years
after the war by which they had become free men, surrendering to
governments absolute control of every individual liberty and making
themselves absolute “subjects.”
We know that Hughes did maintain that the one government
created by or given any power in the Constitution, in which is the
Fifth Article, had not power to forbid a candidate for Senator to do
what he did. It is interesting and instructive to know that the same
lawyer holds, as an axiom which needs no proof, that the same
Constitution gave unlimited ability to his client governments to
interfere with every individual liberty of the Americans who are not
candidates for a Senatorship.
We have the word of the man who wrote the language of that Fifth
Article that it is merely “a mode of procedure” in which may be
exercised either the existing unlimited ability of ourselves in
“conventions” or the limited ability of the state governments to make
federal Articles. We recognize, no one who reads it could recognize
otherwise, that the Fifth Article, outside of two exceptions to
constitutional exercise of existing abilities to make Articles,
contains nothing but procedural provisions. This knowledge we
brought to the reading of the Hughes brief, after we had acquired the
certainty in our education with the Americans who made the Fifth
Article. Then we read this brief of the champion of champions for the
validity of the supposed new Article and found therein the sheer
assumption, as an axiom which needed no proof, that the Fifth
Article, with nothing but its procedural provisions, was a grant of
omnipotence to his government clients over ourselves!
Imagine, therefore, our amazement and our amusement, in the
same brief, to find this clear echo of the statement of Madison and of
our own knowledge, this accurate and complete statement of exactly
what the Fifth Article contains: “Article V, apart from procedural
provisions, contains two limitations of the power to amend, as
follows: ‘Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior,
etc.’”
If, “apart from procedural provisions,” the Article has nothing but
“two limitations” of existing abilities to make Articles, where does he
or anyone find in it the greatest “grant” known to the history of
mankind?
When this briefer made his argument for his client who had been a
candidate for Senator, he had no attack to make upon the procedure
in which Congress had passed the Corrupt Practices Act. When he
went to ascertain whether Congress had the power to make that
command, about “elections,” he did not look for the power in any
“procedural provisions,” which prescribe how Congress should
exercise its ability to make commands.
If this briefer or any lawyer were asked, on behalf of a client, to
accept a bill of sale from an alleged attorney in fact of the owner of a
cow, he would not seek, in any procedural provisions which
prescribed how an attorney in fact can execute an instrument for his
principal, to find the authority of the alleged attorney to sell the cow.
Why then, in an Article with naught but procedural provisions and
two limitations on power to make Articles, do he and all his
associates seek to find, and assert that they do find, grant of
authority to the inferior governments of state citizens to give away
every liberty which the citizens of America hold most dear?
CHAPTER XXV
CITIZEN OR “EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT”?
It is our invincible knowledge that the Fifth Article is not a power of

attorney to any one to act for us, the citizens of America, in regard to
any individual right which the American citizen has. In our capacity
as American citizens and in “conventions” of the very kind named in
that Fifth Article, we gave the only power of attorney, which we have
ever given to any government to act for us in making commands to
interfere with any of our individual rights. That power of attorney is
the First Article. We made it in the same “conventions.” In it, we gave
to our Congress our only power of attorney of that kind. In it, with
futile effort to keep modern “constitutional thinkers” from monumental
error, we said, at the very beginning of the one Article which is our
only power of attorney, that to our Congress alone the Constitution
gives any powers to make commands that interfere with our
individual rights. “All legislative powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress, etc.” (Art. I, Section i. U.S. Cons.)
In those same “conventions” (named in the Fifth Article) we
insisted, again in futile effort to keep modern “constitutional thinkers”
from monumental error, that there be written the exact declaratory
statement that the entire Constitution gave no power (to act for us,
the citizens of America, in any matter) to any donee except our new
general government, the government of the First Article enumerated
powers. And, in those “conventions,” we insisted that there be written
into that Constitution the accurate declaratory statement that all
powers to act for us in any matter, except the powers of that kind we
gave to that one limited general government, we retained exclusively
to ourselves, the citizens of America, that they might be exercised
only by ourselves or upon further grant from ourselves. Those two
important declaratory statements were written into that Constitution
in the shape of the Tenth Amendment.
That we ourselves might have a constitutional mode of
procedure in which constitutionally we could make that future
exercise or further grant of those powers which we reserved to
ourselves, we named ourselves—the “conventions” of the kind in
which we sat—in the Fifth Article and provided therein the
constitutional mode in which we could again do exactly what we
were then doing in the same kind of “conventions.” It was impossible
for us in those conventions, “being a people better acquainted with
the science of government than any other people in the world,” to
anticipate that modern “constitutional thinkers” should make the
ludicrous mistake of inferring, from that mention, that we—the
“conventions”—granted to ourselves—the “conventions”—all or
some of the very power we were then exercising in those
“conventions.” Nor did we anticipate, inasmuch as we (in those
“conventions”) never forgot that this new Constitution was to be
federal as well as national, that modern “constitutional thinkers”
would make another monumental error in assuming that a similar
mention of the existing ability of state legislatures (the ability to make
federal or declaratory Articles) was a grant to those governments of
our own power to make national ones. Even if we had possessed (in
those “conventions”) the vision to see the future that was 1920, we
would have felt that the Statute of ’76, the opening words of the First
Article and the explicit declarations of the Tenth Amendment made
any such error impossible for modern “constitutional thinkers.”
Yet, one or more of such errors are the basis of every argument in
every brief of the fifty-seven lawyers of 1920.
They are the basis of the Root briefs and the other briefs against,
as they are the basis of the Hughes briefs and the other briefs for,
the validity of the supposed new Amendment. Not a single one of the
briefs fails to assume, without the slightest foundation, that the state
governments, not a member of which is elected by the citizens of
America, are attorneys in fact for the citizens of America. Wherever
one brief differs from another in this respect, it is only in urging some
difference in the extent of the power of attorney made to those
governments by the citizens of America in the Fifth Article.

Textbook Advanced Methods and Technologies in Metallurgy in Russia 1St Edition Stavros Syngellakis Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Advanced Methods and Technologies in Metallurgy in Russia 1St Edition Stavros Syngellakis Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Methods and Technologies

in Metallurgy in Russia 1st Edition

Advanced Methods in Structural Biology 1st Edition

Advanced Analytical Methods in Tribology Martin

Advanced Mathematical Methods in Biosciences and

Membrane-Based Separations in Metallurgy: Principles

Advanced Control Engineering Methods in Electrical

GIS and Environmental Monitoring Applications in the

Sport Branding Insights 1st Edition Stavros

Advanced Technologies Systems and Applications 1st

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15790

J.W. Newkirk • A.G. Illarionov • A.S. Zhilin

Advanced Methods and

ISSN 2520-8047 ISSN 2520-8055 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017959189

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

vitally important for the ironmaking process. Modeling thermophysical processes,

Rolla, MO, USA J.W. Newkirk

Part I Material Characterization of Complicated Alloys

Part II Heat and Surface Treatment

8 Cooling Capacity of Jet Spraying Devices for Large Steel

Part III Ferrous Metal Metallurgy

Part IV Energy Savings in Pyrometallurgy

20 Improvement of the Energy Efficiency of Hot Blast Stove

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

S. Illarionova, A. Popov, and A. Illarionov

Microalloying of near-β- and two-phase titanium alloys by an element such as

S. Illarionova (*) • A. Popov • A. Illarionov

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 3

2 Material and Research Methods

Fig. 1.3 Heating thermograms of quenched alloys 1 (a) and 2 (b)

1. Yttrium microalloying of near-β-alloys has been shown to result in precipitation

S. Gladkovskiy, V. Veselova, and E. Ishina

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 11

Experimental and industrial Fe-18Ni-9Co-4Mo-Ti, Fe-18Ni-2Mo-Ti, and Fe-11Cr-

3 Results and Discussion

K1c, MPa • m1/2

Table 2.1 Microstructural and mechanical parameters of Fe-18Ni-2Mo-Ti steel of different

Fig. 2.2 Fracture surface of

Fig. 2.3 Fracture surface of

Analysis of experimental data showed that the ratio of various microstructural

than 70 MPam1/2, the dominating microstructural factors of fracture toughness

Artemiy Popov, M.A. Zhilyakova, O. Elkina, and K.I. Lugovaya

2 Results and Discussion

In industrial titanium alloys, silicides are known to be formed by the eutectoid

A. Popov (*) • M.A. Zhilyakova • O. Elkina • K.I. Lugovaya

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 19

Figure 3.2 shows the microstructure of titanium alloys containing particles of

ð0001Þα00 ==ð1210ÞS2 ½2110α00 ==½1011S2 :

In the study of isothermal process of particle formation in the silicide two-phase

It is our invincible knowledge that the Fifth Article is not a power of

You might also like