Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T15:28:01.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Segregation Effects on the Energies of Lead/Graphite and Gold/Graphite Interfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

Utpal Gangopadhyay  and
Paul Wynblatt
Utpal Gangopadhyay
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Paul Wynblatt
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Get access

Abstract

This paper reports the results of solid state wetting studies of graphite by Pb and Au alloyed with Ni. It is shown that additions of Ni ranging from 0 to 0.2 wt%Ni reduce the contact angle of Pb on graphite from 117 to 80°, and that a 5 wt% Ni addition to Au decreases the contact angle of Au on graphite from 131 to 123°. These contact angle changes are used to compute the interfacial energy at both Pb/graphite and Au/graphite interfaces. Direct evidence of Ni segregation at those interfaces is also obtained by crater edge profiling measurements. It is found that the enrichment factor of Ni is much larger in the Pb- than in the Au-based system. Also, for similar changes in interfacial energy, the effects of Ni segregation on contact angle are larger in the Pb- than in the Au-based system. These effects are discussed in terms of the relative surface and interfacial energies in the two systems.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 318: Symposium Ca – Interface Control of Electrical, Chemical, and Mechanical Properties , 1993 , 393
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

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 Naidich, Ju. V., Progr. Surf. Membrane Sci. 14, 353 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Ritter, J. E. Jr. and Burton, M. S., Trans. Met. Soc. AIME. 239, 21 (1967).Google Scholar
3 Kritsalis, P., Coudurièr, L. and Eustathopoulous, N., J. Mat. Sci. 26, 3400 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Mortimer, D. A. and Nicholas, M., J. Mat. Sci. 5, 149 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Evens, D., Nicholas, M. and Scott, P. M., Ind. Diamond Rev. 306 (1977).Google Scholar
6 Gangopadhyay, U. and Wynblatt, P., Metall. Trans. A, accepted.Google Scholar
7 Gangopadhyay, U. and Wynblatt, P., J. of Mat. Sci., submitted.Google Scholar
8 Gibbs, J. W., The Scientific Papers of J. Williard Gibbs. (Dover, New York, 1961).Google Scholar
9 Heyraud, J. C. and Metois, J. J., Surf. Sci. 128,334 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Heyraud, J. C., Metois, J. J. and Bermond, J. M., J. Cryst. Growth 98, 355 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Tamman, G. and Oelsen, W., Z. Anorg. Chem., 186,266 (1930).Google Scholar
12 Klomp, J.T., in Surfaces and Interfaces in Ceramic Materials, edited by Dufour, L. C., Monty, C. and Ervas, G. P. (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989), p. 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 McLean, D., Grain Boundaries in Metals. (Oxford Univ. Press, 1957).Google Scholar
14 Johannessen, J. W., Spicer, W. E., Gibbons, J. F., Plummer, J. D. and Taylor, N. J., J. Appl. Phys. 49, 4453 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Herring, C., in The Physics of Powder Metallurgy, Edited by Kingston, W. E. (McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, 1951), p. 143.Google Scholar
16 Kumikov, V. K. and Khokonov, Kh. B., J. Appl. Phys. 54, 1346 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Good, R. J., Girifalco, L. A. and Kraus, G., J. Phys. Chem. 62, 1418 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar