Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T21:57:20.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High-temperature oxidation of CoGa: Influence of the crystallographic orientation on the oxidation rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

U. Koops ,
D. Hesse  and
M. Martin
U. Koops
Affiliation:
Institute of Physical Chemistry, Darmstadt University of Technology, Petersenstraβe 20, D–64287 Darmstadt, Germany
D. Hesse
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute of Microstructure Physics, Weinberg 2, D–06120 Halle, Germany
M. Martin
Affiliation:
Institute of Physical Chemistry I, Aachen University of Technology (RWTH), Templergraben 59, D–52056 Aachen, Germany
Get access

Abstract

The crystallographic orientation plays an important role in high-temperature oxidation of the intermetallic compound CoGa. When CoGa is exposed to air at elevated temperatures, the oxide β–Ga2O3 is formed, and different scale growth rates are observed, depending on the crystallographic orientation of the CoGa grains. This dependence is a consequence of the anisotropy of the gallium diffusion rate through the β–Ga2O3 scale and of a topotaxial orientation relationship occurring between β–Ga2O3 and CoGa. The combination of ex situ techniques, such as transmission electron microscopy and electron backscatter diffraction with optical microscopy, applied in situ resulted in a thorough understanding of these relations and of the oxidation process in general.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 17 , Issue 10 , October 2002 , pp. 2489 - 2498
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2002

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

1.Koops, U., Ph.D. Thesis, Darmstadt University of Technology, Darmstadt, Germany. (2000); http://elib.tu-darmstadt.de.Google Scholar
2.Koops, U. and Martin, M., Solid State Ionics 971, 136 (2000).Google Scholar
3.Koops, U. and Martin, M., in Mass and Charge Transport in Inorganic Materials: Fundamentals to Devices, edited by Vincencini, P. and Buscaglia, V. (Techna, Faenza, 2000), pp 653–660.Google Scholar
4.Hartwig, T. and Schoonman, J., J. Solid State Chem. 23, 205 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Feltz, A. and Gamsja¨, E.ger, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 18, 2217 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Wagner, C., Z. Phys. Chem. B 21, 25 (1933).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Schmitz, G., Gassmann, P., and Franchy, R., Surf. Sci. 397, 339 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Eumann, M., Schmitz, G., and Franchy, R., Appl. Phys. Lett. 72, 3440 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Franchy, R., Surf. Sci. Rep. 38, 195 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Williams, D.B. and Carter, C.B., Transmission Electron Microscopy (Plenum Press, New York and London, 1996).Google Scholar
11.Geller, S., J. Chem. Phys. 33, 676 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Schubert, K., Lukas, H.L., Meissner, H-G., and Bhan, S., Z. Metallkd. 50, 534 (1959).Google Scholar
13.Zaeffer, S., J. Appl. Cryst. 33, 10 (2000).Google Scholar
14.Kuchling, H., Taschenbuch der Physik (Fachbuchverlag LeipzigKo¨ln, Germany, 1995), p. 382.Google Scholar
15.Tamman, G., Z. Anorg. Allgemein. Chem. 111, 78 (1920).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Bose, A., Frohberg, G., and Wever, H., Phys. Status Solidi A52, 509 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Martin, M., in IUPAC Monograph: Chemistry for the 21st Century: Reactivity of Solids; Past, Present and Future, edited by Boldyrev, V.V. (Blackwell Scientific Publication, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1996), pp. 91–119.Google Scholar