1: \documentclass[a4,twoside,12pt]{article}
2: %\documentclass[a4,twoside,12pt]{article}
3:
4: %\documentstyle[a4,twoside,12pt]{article}
5: %\documentstyle[aps,preprint,tighten]{revtex}
6:
7: \usepackage{color}
8: \usepackage{epsfig}
9:
10: \renewcommand{\evensidemargin}{-0.3cm}
11: \renewcommand{\oddsidemargin}{-0.3cm}
12: \renewcommand{\topmargin}{-0.5cm}
13: \renewcommand{\textwidth}{16.5cm}
14: %\renewcommand{\textheight}{55\baselineskip}
15: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}
16:
17: % \newcommand{\myred}[1]{{\color{red}#1}}
18: % \newcommand{\myblue}[1]{{\color{blue}#1}}
19: % \newcommand{\mygreen}[1]{{\color{green}#1}}
20:
21: \baselineskip18pt
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \title{
26: Ivantsov parabolic solution for two combined moving interfaces}
27:
28: \medskip
29:
30: \author{D. Temkin \\[0.5cm]
31: Institut f\"ur Festk\"orperforschung, Forschungszentrum J\"ulich, \\
32: D-52425 J\"ulich, Germany \\
33: Contact e-mail: d.temkin@gmx.de}
34:
35: \maketitle
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We demonstrate that for a migration of a
39: liquid layer between the melting and the solidification front
40: an exact steady-state solution with two parabolic fronts
41: can be found. A necessary condition hereby is that the temperature
42: of the solidification front exceeds the temperature of the
43: melting front (both temperatures are supposed to be constant).
44: It is shown that in pure materials and alloys there exist
45: two types of solutions with two convex and with two concave
46: parabolas respectively.
47: While a steady-state process with two planar interfaces is only
48: possible for a single point, the processes with two parabolas
49: are possible inside a region of control parameters.
50: The relations between the Peclet numbers and the control
51: parameters are obtained.
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \newpage
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57: Liquid film migration (LFM) is well-known phenomenon
58: which has been observed in many alloy systems during
59: sintering in the presence of liquid phase \cite{yoon1,yoon2}
60: and in Cu-In solid solutions during melting started at grain
61: boundaries \cite{musch1}. In LFM, one of crystals is melted
62: and the other one is solidified. The both solid-liquid interfaces
63: are moving together with the same velocity. In the investigated
64: alloys systems the migration velocity is of the order of $10^{-8}-10^{-7}$
65: $m\cdot s^{-1}$ and it is controlled by the solute diffusion through
66: a thin liquid layer between the two interfaces \cite{4}. The migration
67: velocity is much smaller than the characteristic velocity of
68: atomic kinetics at the interfaces. Therefore the both solids at the
69: interfaces must be at the local thermodynamic equilibrium with
70: liquid. The theory \cite{4} answers the question about
71: the different equilibrium states at the melting and solidification fronts.
72: In a steady-state regime, the difference in equilibrium relates to coherency
73: stresses appearing only at the melting front due to the sharp profile of
74: composition ahead the moving melting front. Thus, the liquid composition
75: at the melting front which depends on the coherency strains
76: and a curvature of the front differs from the liquid composition
77: at unstressed and curved solidification front. The migration velocity is
78: proportional to the difference of these compositions divided by the
79: film thickness \cite{4}. But what controls the thickness?
80:
81: Consequently, a new problem of two combined moving solid-liquid
82: interfaces with a liquid between them appears. In the present article,
83: this problem is considered under simplified boundary conditions:
84: the temperature and chemical composition along each interface
85: are constant. These constants are different for the melting and
86: solidification fronts and differ from those far from the migrating
87: liquid film. It means that any capillary, kinetic and crystallographic
88: effects at the interfaces are neglected. It is found that under these simplified
89: boundary conditions two co-focal parabolic fronts can move together
90: with the same velocity. The situation is rather similar to a steady-state motion
91: of one parabolic solidification front into a supercooled melt \cite{1,2}
92: or one parabolic melting front into a superheated solid.
93:
94: \section{Solutions for one parabolic front}
95: Needle-like stationary solutions were first obtained by Ivantsov
96: for the crystallization of a pure material from a supercooled
97: melt \cite{1} and were extended to binary alloys \cite{2}.
98: This solutions describes a parabolic interface of a solid phase
99: at constant temperature $T_m$ which extends into a
100: supercooled melt. Inside the melt the temperature drops
101: and reaches far from the interface its asymptotic value $T_{0} < T_m$.
102:
103: For the two-dimensional case the Ivantsov relation is
104: \begin{equation}
105: \Delta = F(P) \equiv \sqrt{\pi P} e^P {\rm erfc} (\sqrt{P})
106: \quad , \quad 0 \le \Delta < 1.
107: \label{ivantsov1}
108: \end{equation}
109: It connects the Peclet number $P = VR/2D$ and the supercooling
110: $\Delta = (T_m-T_{0}) c/q$. Here $V$ and $R$ are the front-velocity
111: and the tip-radius of the parabola respectively; $D$ and $c$ are
112: the thermal diffusivity and the specific heat of the melt, respectively, $q$ is
113: the latent heat.
114:
115: Eq. (\ref{ivantsov1}) can easily be obtained in 2D-parabolic
116: coordinates $(\eta,\xi)$ (see, for example, Ref. \cite{3})
117: \begin{eqnarray}
118: \eta &=& \sqrt{x^2+z'^2} + z' \quad , \quad \xi =
119: \sqrt{x^2+z'^2} - z' \quad, \quad ß0 \leq (\eta, \xi)
120: < \infty, \nonumber \\ x &=& \pm \sqrt{\eta \xi} \quad ,
121: \quad z' = \frac{1}{2} \ (\eta - \xi) \quad ,
122: \quad - \infty < (x,z') < \infty,
123: \end{eqnarray}
124: where $(x,z'=z-Vt,t)$ are the Cartesian coordinates and the $t$ is the time.
125: In this description the parabolic solidification front
126: ($z'\!=\!\frac{R}{2}\,-\,\frac{x^{2}}{2R}$),
127: moving with velocity $V$ in the positive $z$-direction,
128: has the coordinate $\eta = R$. The regions $0 \leq \eta < R$ and
129: $R < \eta < \infty$ correspond to the solid and the liquid phase
130: respectively.
131:
132: In this set of coordinates, the temperature field $T$ in both phases
133: depends only on $\eta$. The thermal diffusion equation
134: \begin{equation}
135: \frac{\partial}{\partial \eta} \ \left( \sqrt{\eta} \ \frac{\partial T}
136: {\partial \eta}\right) + \frac{V}{2D} \left( \sqrt{\eta} \
137: \frac{\partial T}{\partial \eta} \right) \ = \ 0
138: \label{diffusion1}
139: \end{equation}
140: is easily solved by the ansatz
141: \begin{equation}
142: T (\eta) = A+B \int \eta^{-1/2} e^{-V\eta/2D} d\eta
143: \end{equation}
144: with different constants $A$ and $B$ for the solid and the
145: liquid phase. These constants and Eq. (\ref{ivantsov1}) can
146: be obtained by using the appropriate boundary conditions,
147: namely the asymptotic boundary condition
148: $T (\eta \to \infty) = T_{0}$ and the interfacial conditions
149: of temperature continuity $T(R-0)=T(R+0)=T_m$, and
150: heat balance at the interface
151: \begin{equation}
152: V q/c = - 2D T' (R+0) + 2DT'(R-0),
153: \end{equation}
154: where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to
155: $\eta$.
156: For reasons of simplicity we assumed the same values for
157: $D$ and $c$ in both phases.
158:
159: Apart from the solution with convex parabolic front there
160: exists as well a solution with a concave front
161: ($z'\!=\!-\frac{R}{2}+\frac{x^2}{2R}$).
162: In the parabolic coordinates, the interface is defined by the
163: relation $\xi = R$ while solid and liquid phase are at
164: $\infty < \xi < R$ and $R > \xi \ge 0 $, respectively.
165: In contrast to the former case the temperature
166: field $T$ depends only on $\xi$. Instead of
167: Eq. (\ref{diffusion1}) the diffusion equation therefore
168: reduces to
169: \begin{equation}
170: \frac{\partial}{\partial\xi} \ \left( \sqrt{\xi} \
171: \frac{\partial T}{\partial \xi} \right) \ - \
172: \frac{V}{2D} \left( \sqrt{\xi} \ \frac{\partial T}
173: {\partial \xi} \right) \ = \ 0 \qquad ,
174: \label{diffusion2}
175: \end{equation}
176: and is solved by the ansatz
177: \begin{equation}
178: T(\xi) \ = \ A + B \, \int \xi^{-1/2} e^{V\xi/2D} d\xi \qquad.
179: \end{equation}
180: While the conditions of continuity and heat balance at the interface
181: stay the same as for the convex parabola,
182: the asymptotic condition changes to $T (\xi \to 0) = T_{0}$.
183: Thus for the concave front instead of Eq. (\ref{ivantsov1})
184: we obtain the relation
185: \begin{equation}
186: \Delta = \Phi (P) \equiv 2 \sqrt P \ e^{-P} \
187: \int^{\sqrt P}_0 e^{x^2} dx \qquad \quad 0 \leq \Delta \leq 1.284... \qquad ,
188: \label{ivantsov2}
189: \end{equation}
190: between the supercooling $\Delta$ and the Peclet number $P$.
191: The function $\Phi (P)$, in contrast to the function $F (P)$
192: in Eq. (\ref{ivantsov1}), is not monotonous: it has a maximum
193: % $F_{max}\approx
194: $1.284...$ at $P = 2.25...$ and
195: approaches 1 from above for $P\to\infty$.
196:
197: Naturally, Eq. (\ref{ivantsov1}) and Eq. (\ref{ivantsov2}) describe
198: as well a parabolic melting front: the superheated solid
199: phase with $T_{0} > T_m$ is outside the convex parabola
200: ($\eta = R$) at $R<\eta<\infty$ or inside the concave one
201: ($\xi=R$) at $R>\xi\geq 0$. The melting heat is $-q$.
202:
203: \section{Two parabolic fronts in a pure material}
204: It turns out, that an exact steady-state solution with a combined
205: motion of the two co-focal parabolic fronts
206: (melting and solidification front with a liquid layer in between)
207: can be found. For this the solidification front temperature
208: $T_m$ has to exceed the temperature $\tilde T_m$ on the melting front.
209: %
210: This may be the case for pure materials where the melted solid
211: phase (S1) has with respect to the solidified solid (S2) an
212: additional contribution $\epsilon$ to the energy-density
213: (for example due to preliminary mechanical treatment).
214: In this case the melting heat equal to
215: $- (q - \epsilon)$ and the melting temperature
216: $\tilde T_m = T_m (1-\epsilon/q)$ differ from the values
217: $q$ and $T_m$ for the solidification front.
218: The additional energy $\epsilon$ is the driving force for a
219: recrystallization process, which takes place in the
220: solid either due to a migration of a boundary between
221: a S1- and a S2-grain or due to a possible recrystallization
222: through a liquid layer between S1 and S2.
223:
224: It should be pointed out, that a combined stationary motion
225: of two planar interfaces (with equilibrium temperatures $T_m$ and
226: $\tilde T_m$) is only possible at the temperature $T_{0,0}$
227: at which the temperature increase $(T_m - T_{0,0})$ exactly
228: compensates the additional energy, $c(T_m - T_{0,0})= \epsilon$.
229: All temperatures deviating from $T_{0,0}$ lead to an increase
230: (at $T_{0} > T_{0,0}$) or to a decrease and disappearance
231: (at $T_{0} < T_{0,0}$) of the liquid layer between the planar
232: interfaces. Here only two co-focal parabolic interfaces can lead to a
233: steady-state motion.
234:
235: Similar to the considerations described for one interface
236: an analysis of the temperature field in parabolic coordinates
237: leads to the following relations:\\
238: %
239: For two convex parabolas with $P_1 > P_2$ (Fig. 1):
240: %
241: %
242: \begin{eqnarray}
243: \Delta_m &=& 2 \sqrt{P_2} e^{P_2}
244: \ \int^{\sqrt{P_1}}_{\sqrt{P_2}} e^{-x^2} \ dx \label{ivantsovneu1a}\\
245: \Delta~~ &=& \left[ 1-\alpha \Delta_m - \sqrt{\frac{P_2}{P_1}} \
246: e^{P_2 - P_1} \right] \ F(P_1). \label{ivantsovneu1b}
247: \end{eqnarray}
248: For two concave parabolas with $P_1 < P_2$ (Fig. 1):
249: \begin{eqnarray}
250: \Delta_m &=& 2 \sqrt{P_2} e^{-P_2} \
251: \int^{\sqrt{P_2}}_{\sqrt{P_1}} e^{x^2} \ dx, \label{ivantsovneu2a}\\
252: \Delta~~ &=& \left[ 1-\alpha \Delta_m - \sqrt{\frac{P_2}{P_1}} \
253: e^{P_1 - P_2} \right] \ \Phi (P_1), \label{ivantsovneu2b}
254: \end{eqnarray}
255: with $P_i = V R_i/2D$, $\Delta_m = (T_m - \tilde T_m) c/q$,
256: $\Delta = (T_{0} - \tilde T_m) c/q$ and $F(P)$ and $\Phi (P)$
257: as in Eq. (\ref{ivantsov1}) and Eq.(\ref{ivantsov2}).
258: $\alpha = q/c T_m$ is a material parameter (e.g., for Ni one has
259: $\alpha \cong 0,25$).
260: %
261: The term $(1-\alpha \Delta_m)$ arises due to the fact that the
262: melting heat of a solid phase S1 with an additional
263: energy density $\epsilon$ differs from the equilibrium
264: melting heat, $-q$
265: (note that $-(q-\epsilon) = -q\,(1-\alpha \Delta_m)$).
266:
267: In the corresponding limiting cases Eqs.
268: (\ref{ivantsovneu1a})-(\ref{ivantsovneu2b}) reduce to
269: Eqs. (\ref{ivantsov1}) and (\ref{ivantsov2}):
270: Eq. (\ref{ivantsovneu1a}) for $P_1\to\infty$ and Eq. (\ref{ivantsovneu2a})
271: for $P_1 \to 0$
272: lead to the solidification relations Eq. (\ref{ivantsov1}) and
273: Eq. (\ref{ivantsov2}), respectively, with supercooling $\Delta_m$ instead of $\Delta$.
274: Eq. (\ref{ivantsovneu1b}) for $P_2\to 0$ and
275: Eq. (\ref{ivantsovneu2b}) for $P_2\to\infty$
276: lead to the melting relations Eq. (\ref{ivantsov1}) and
277: Eq. (\ref{ivantsov2})
278: with the normalized superheating
279: $\Delta/(1-\alpha \Delta_m)$ instead of $\Delta$.
280:
281: \section{Analysis of convex and concave solutions}
282: Even if Eqs. (\ref{ivantsovneu1a}) - (\ref{ivantsovneu2b})
283: are valid for arbitrary values of the normalized
284: driving force $\Delta_m > 0$, we consider in the
285: following analysis the case of small
286: driving forces $\Delta_m \ll 1$. With this assumption
287: Eqs. (\ref{ivantsovneu1a}) and (\ref{ivantsovneu2a}), respectively, simplify to
288: \begin{eqnarray}
289: \sqrt{P_2} &\cong& \frac{1}{2} \ \left[ \sqrt{P_1} \pm
290: \sqrt{P_1 - 2\Delta_m} \right] \quad \quad (P_1 > P_2)~
291: \label{ivantsov3}\\
292: \sqrt{P_2} &\cong& \frac{1}{2} \ \left[ \sqrt{P_1} +
293: \sqrt{P_1 + 2\Delta_m} \right] \quad \quad (P_1 < P_2).
294: \label{ivantsov4}
295: \end{eqnarray}
296: Eq. (\ref{ivantsov3}) together with Eq. (\ref{ivantsovneu1b}) and
297: Eq. (\ref{ivantsov4}) together with Eq. (\ref{ivantsovneu2b})
298: define for the case of small driving forces $\Delta_m \ll 1$
299: the dependency of $\Delta (P_1)$ for both types of solutions
300: (concave and convex parabolas) (see Fig. 2).
301: %
302: %
303:
304: For $P_1 \gg \Delta_m$
305: the upper branch of Eq. (\ref{ivantsov3}) gives
306: \begin{equation}
307: P_2 \cong P_1 - \Delta_m \qquad (P_1 > P_2)
308: \end{equation}
309: and from Eq. (\ref{ivantsov4})
310: \begin{equation}
311: P_2 \cong P_1 + \Delta_m \qquad (P_1 < P_2).
312: \end{equation}
313: Using this simplification and taking the limit $\Delta_m \to 0$ we
314: obtain from Eqs. (\ref{ivantsovneu1b}) and (\ref{ivantsovneu2b})
315: the simplified expressions
316: \begin{eqnarray}
317: \frac{\Delta_{~~}}{\Delta_m} &=& \left( 1-\alpha \, + \,
318: \frac{1}{2P_1} \right) \ F(P_1) \quad , \quad
319: (P_1 > P_2) \qquad , \label{exequation20} \\
320: \frac{\Delta_{~~}}{\Delta_m} &=& \left( 1-\alpha \, - \,
321: \frac{1}{2P_1} \right) \ \Phi (P_1) \quad , \quad
322: (P_1 < P_2) \qquad . \label{exequation21}
323: \end{eqnarray}
324:
325: A stationary solution with two convex parabolas $(P_1 > P_2)$ exists for
326: \begin{equation}
327: \Delta_{0} \leq \Delta \leq \Delta^* \label{regiondef1}
328: \end{equation}
329: with
330: \begin{equation}
331: \Delta_{0} \equiv (1-\alpha) \, \Delta_m \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
332: \Delta^* \equiv 1 - \alpha \Delta_m .
333: \end{equation}
334: %
335: The point $\Delta = \Delta_{0}$ corresponds to the
336: steady-state solution of two moving planar interfaces mentioned above.
337:
338: If $\Delta_{0} \leq \Delta \ll \Delta_1$, the dependence of
339: $\Delta$ on $P_1$ is defined by Eq. (\ref{exequation20})
340: and $P_2 \cong P_1 - \Delta_m$. At the point
341: $\Delta = \Delta_1 \cong \sqrt{\pi \Delta_{m}/2}$
342: one has $P_1 \cong 2 \Delta_m$ and $P_2 \cong \Delta_m/2$.
343: In the vicinity of the $\Delta_1$-point one can obtain
344: \begin{equation}
345: \frac{\Delta-\Delta_1}{\Delta_1} \ \cong \ \mp
346: \sqrt{\frac{P_1}{2\Delta_m} - 1}.
347: \end{equation}
348:
349: From Eqs. (\ref{ivantsovneu1a}) and (\ref{ivantsovneu1b}), one can
350: obtain that close to the limiting point $\Delta^*$ one gets
351: \begin{equation}
352: P_1 \ \cong \ \frac{\Delta^*}{2(\Delta^*-\Delta)} \ \gg \ 1 \quad
353: and \quad P_2 \ \cong \ \frac{\Delta_{m}^2}{\pi} \ll 1.
354: \end{equation}
355: %
356: These relations describe the independent motion of both parabolic
357: fronts propagating with the same velocity.
358:
359: Solutions of Eqs. (\ref{ivantsovneu2b}) - (\ref{ivantsov4})
360: for a pair of concave parabolas exist in the region
361: \begin{equation}
362: -\mid\Delta_4 \mid\ \leq\ \Delta\ \leq\ \Delta_2 \label{regiondef2}
363: \end{equation}
364: between two extreme points on the $\Delta (P_1)$-dependence
365: (Fig. 2): minimum point $\mid \Delta_4 \mid \ \cong \ \Delta_m$
366: at $P_1 \cong \sqrt{\Delta_m/4 (1-\alpha)}$ and maximum point
367: $\Delta_2$ which is close to $\Delta_{0}$. In the limit $P_1 \to
368: \infty$ the value of $\Delta$ tends to the same point $\Delta_{0}$
369: as for the convex parabolas, $\Delta \cong \Delta_{0} -\alpha/2P_1$.
370:
371: \section{Parabolic solutions for binary alloys}
372: Extending our analysis to a two-component alloy, we have to take into
373: account that in contrast to a pure material the temperatures
374: $T_1$ and $T_2$ of the melting and solidification fronts are
375: unknown (in a pure material $T_1 = \tilde T_m$, $T_2 = T_m$).
376: In order to define $T_1$ and $T_2$ (and consequently
377: $\Delta_m = (T_2 - T_1) c/q$, and $\Delta = (T_{0} - T_1) c/q$
378: in Eqs. (\ref{ivantsovneu1a})-(\ref{ivantsovneu2b})) we have
379: to obtain two additional equations.
380:
381: In our description, we denote the molar fraction of the
382: second component with $C$ and the diffusion
383: coefficients in the solid and the liquid phase with
384: $D_S$ and $D_L$ respectively. While for convex parabolas
385: the concentration fields, $C(\eta,\xi)$, only depend on $\eta$,
386: they depend only on $\xi$ in the concave case.
387: In the first case, the field $C(\eta)$ satisfies the
388: equilibrium boundary conditions at both interfaces,
389: namely the continuity condition
390: \begin{equation}
391: C(R_{2}-0) = C_S (T_2) \ , \
392: C(R_{2}+0) = C_L (T_2) \ , \
393: C(R_{1}-0) = \tilde C_L (T_1) \ , \
394: C(R_{1}+0) = \tilde C_S (T_1) \quad , \label{alloycond1}
395: \end{equation}
396: the far field condition $C(\eta\!\to\!\infty) = C_{0}$
397: and the conservation conditions at the interfaces
398: \begin{eqnarray}
399: V \left[ C_L(T_2) - C_S(T_2)\right] &=& -2D_L C' (R_2+0) +
400: 2D_S C' (R_2-0) \quad , \label{alloycond2}\\
401: V \left[ \tilde C_L(T_1) - \tilde C_S(T_1)\right] &=&
402: -2D_L C' (R_1-0) + 2D_S C' (R_1+0) \quad . \label{alloycond3}
403: \end{eqnarray}
404:
405: Here $C_S (T_2)$ and $C_L (T_2)$ are the solidus and liquidus
406: compositions which are defined by the equilibrium phase
407: diagram of the alloy, while $\tilde C_S(T_1)$,
408: $\tilde C_L (T_1)$ are the corresponding values defined
409: by a disturbed phase diagram. The additional
410: energy density $\epsilon$, changing the melting point of the melted
411: solid phase S1, will change the equilibrium compositions at
412: the melting interface as well. In this case, the composition
413: differences $\tilde C_S (T_1) - C_S (T_1)$, $\tilde C_L (T_1)
414: - C_L (T_1)$, are proportional to $\epsilon/q$. Another reason
415: for the distortion of the phase diagram are coherency stresses
416: due to compositional inhomogeneities in front of the melting
417: interface \cite{4}.
418:
419: By solving the diffusion equation for $C(\eta)$ and applying the
420: appropriate boundary conditions (\ref{alloycond1})-(\ref{alloycond3}),
421: we obtain for the case of convex parabolas the solution:
422: \begin{eqnarray}
423: \frac{C_L (T_2) - \tilde C_L (T_1)}{C_L (T_2) - C_S (T_2)} \!&\!=\!&\!
424: 2\sqrt{P_{2L}} e^{P_{2L}} \ \int^{\sqrt{P_{1L}}}_{\sqrt{P_{2L}}}
425: e^{-x^2} dx \quad , \quad P_{1L} > P_{2L} \label{alloysol1a}\\
426: \frac{C_{0}-\tilde C_{s}(T_1)}{C_L(T_2)-C_{s}(T_{2})}\!&\!=\!&\!
427: \left[
428: \frac{\tilde C_L (T_1) - \tilde C_s (T_1)}{C_L (T_2) - C_s (T_2)}
429: -\sqrt{\frac{P_{2L}}{P_{1L}}}\,e^{P_{2L} - P_{1L}}
430: \right] \ F(P_{1S}) \label{alloysol1b}
431: \end{eqnarray}
432: ($P_{iL} = DP_i / D_L$, $P_{1S} = D_L P_{1L} / D_S$; $F(P)$
433: is the same function as in Eq. (\ref{ivantsov1})). A similar
434: consideration for the case of concave parabolas with
435: concentration field $C(\xi)$ leads to:
436: \begin{eqnarray}
437: \frac{ C_L (T_2) - \tilde C_L (T_1)}{C_L (T_2) - C_s (T_2)} \!&\!=\!&\!
438: 2 \sqrt{P_{2L}} \ e^{-P_{2L}} \ \int^{\sqrt{P_{2L}}}_{\sqrt{P_{1L}}}
439: e^{x^2} dx \quad , \quad P_{1L} < P_{2L} \label{alloysol2a}\\
440: \frac{C_{0}-\tilde C_{s}(T_1)}{C_L(T_2)-C_{s}(T_{2})}\!&\!=\!&\!
441: \left[ \frac{\tilde C_L (T_1) - \tilde C_s (T_1)}{C_L (T_2) - C_s (T_2)}
442: -\sqrt{\frac{P_{2L}}{P_{1L}}}\,e^{P_{1L} - P_{2L}}
443: \right] \ \Phi(P_{1S}), \label{alloysol2b}
444: \end{eqnarray}
445: where $\Phi(P)$ is defined by the same manner as
446: in Eq. (\ref{ivantsov2}).
447:
448: % Usually the diffusion coefficients fulfill the relation
449: % $D_s \gg D_L \gg D$, while the diffusion in the solid phase
450: % \myred {can be neglected completely}. As main difference
451: % it becomes possible for a small but non-vanishing value of
452: % $D_s$ to replace analytically the composition \myred{concentration ??}
453: % $\tilde C_S (T_1)$ in Eq. (\ref{alloycond3}) with the initial
454: % composition $C_{0}$ (see left hand side of Eqs. (\ref{alloysol1b})
455: % and (\ref{alloysol2b})).
456: % An additional effect of $D_S$ (present in the right hand
457: % side of Eqs. (\ref{alloysol1b}) and (\ref{alloysol2b})) is small
458: % \myred{vanishes ??} if $P_{1L} \ll D_S/D_L$ and terms with
459: % $[1/F(P_{1S}) - 1]$ and $[-1/\Phi (P_{1S})-1 ]$, which are
460: % proportional to $1/P_{1S}$, can be omitted.
461:
462:
463: For the convex configuration, Eqs.
464: (\ref{ivantsovneu1a})-(\ref{ivantsovneu1b}) together with Eqs.
465: (\ref{alloysol1a})-(\ref{alloysol1b}) describe the dependency
466: of the quantities $T_1$, $T_2$, $P_1$, $P_2$ on the initial
467: control parameters $T_{0}$, $C_{0}$, and $\epsilon$.
468: %($\Delta_m\!\equiv\!(T_2-T_1)c/a$ and $\Delta\!\equiv\!(T_{0}- T_1)/c/q$).
469: The corresponding relations for the concave configuration are given by
470: Eqs. (\ref{ivantsovneu2a})-(\ref{ivantsovneu2b}) and
471: Eqs. (\ref{alloysol2a})-(\ref{alloysol2b}).
472: In systems with vanishing $\epsilon$ the coherency strain effect
473: can support the combined motion of two interfaces as, for example,
474: in liquid film migration \cite{4}.
475:
476: \section{Discussion}
477:
478: The considered two fronts process (TFP) is an alternative to an one front process (OFP).
479: TFP is possible at some conditions (for example, at $\tilde T_m < T_m$ for a pure
480: material) and do exist as a steady-state process in a definite region
481: of control parameters.
482: In this region there is one or a few OFP. For pure materials the TFP exists at
483: $-|\Delta_4|\le \Delta\le \Delta^{\ast}$ (see Eqs. (19) and (23)), i.e. at
484: $\tilde T_m-(T_m-\tilde T_m)\le T_0\le \tilde T_m+(q-\epsilon)/c$.
485: When the initial temperature is $T_0<\tilde T_m<T_m$, the OFP of the transition
486: $S1\rightarrow S2$ proceeds at the grain boundary $S1/S2$.
487: When $\tilde T_m<T_0<T_m$, the OFP of the melting of $S1$ at the interface $S1/L$
488: is also possible. At $T_0>T_m$ the grain $S2$ can also be melted at the interface
489: $S2/L$. The TFP can proceed faster than the corresponding OFP due to a heat transfer
490: between melting and solidification fronts through a thin liquid layer.
491: In order to initiate the TFP (especially at
492: $ \tilde T_m-(T_m-\tilde T_m)\le T_0\le \tilde T_m$) a liquid phase must be created
493: inside the system. Then the grain boundary $S1/S2$ splits into two interfaces,
494: $S1/L$ and $S2/L$, and the TFP proceeds as a self-sustained process.
495:
496: It should be noted that the TFP can take place in a pure material in which
497: there are several polymorphic modifications. Then a low temperature modification plays
498: a role of the melted grain $S1$ in Fig. 1 and its melting temperature $\tilde T_m$
499: is lower than the melting temperature $T_m$ for a high temperature modification, $S2$.
500: In such a case the solutions given by Eqs. (\ref{ivantsovneu1a}) -
501: (\ref{ivantsovneu2b}) are valid for $\Delta_m=(T_m-\tilde T_m)c/q$ as a material
502: parameter and $(1-\alpha\Delta_m)$ is replaced by another material parameter
503: $\tilde q/q$, where $\tilde q$ and $q$ are the melting heats of the low and high
504: temperature phases respectively.
505:
506: Generally, one can consider the TFP of the transition of a phase $S1$ into another
507: phase $S2$ through an intermediate phase $L$ (which is not necessarily a liquid one)
508: as an alternative to the OFP of the direct transition $S1\rightarrow S2$.
509:
510: The obtained Eqs. (\ref{ivantsovneu1a}) - (\ref{ivantsovneu2b})
511: together with Eqs. (\ref{alloysol1a}) - (\ref{alloysol2b}),
512: which define relations between the Peclet numbers $P_1$, $P_2$
513: and control parameters $T_0$, $C_0$, give the continuous spectrum
514: of solutions with the only free parameter (e.g., the velocity $V$).
515: Therefore an additional equations, i.e. ``selection'' relationship,
516: is needed in order to define the unique solution. This is similar
517: to a well-known ``selection'' problem in dendritic growth \cite{5}.
518: A search for the selection condition will be a subject of future
519: investigation. The only point which might be stressed here
520: is the following.
521:
522: The structure of the fronts is usually more complicated compared to pure parabolic
523: ones due to possible cellular structures or due to finite size of the sample.
524: In this case,
525: two parabolas describe only a part of the moving fronts.
526: The complete shape of the fronts must be subjected to
527: additional boundary conditions. One can speculate on
528: possible cellular structures with two moving
529: interfaces which are shown in Fig. 3. These structures should appear due to the
530: diffusional interaction between different cells and capillary effects play also
531: crucial role.
532: The structures have
533: central parabolic parts which are convex (Fig. 3(a,b))
534: or concave (Fig. 3(c)) and satisfy boundary conditions
535: of zero heat- and mass-fluxes across boundaries of cells.
536: The first structure (Fig. 3(a)) can be related to a melting processes
537: and the other two ones, for example, to sintering of two
538: solid grains $S1$ and $S2$ in liquid phase $L$.
539: The structure in Fig. 3(b) may correspond to a sintering process
540: with a supersaturated solid $S1$, while
541: the structure in Fig. 3(c) with a concave central part
542: may correspond to the case of undersaturated solid $S1$.
543:
544: In the process in the channel (or cell) the fronts velocity may be controlled
545: either by the above mentioned cell boundary conditions or by the ``selection''
546: which takes place mostly in the parabolic region. Such a problem
547: arises also in the selection of the growth velocity of the
548: classical dendrite in the channel (the structure with one front) \cite{5}.
549:
550: In this paper the solutions are obtained for two parabolic fronts
551: in the two dimensions. Similar solutions can be easily found
552: for two paraboloidal interfaces in the three dimensions.
553:
554: A few words about the solutions (\ref{ivantsov1}) and (\ref{ivantsov2})
555: for one convex and one concave parabolic interface might be outlined.
556: The convex parabola and Eq. (\ref{ivantsov1}) are playing an important role
557: in dendritic solidification (see, e.g., Ref. \cite{5}) and must be important
558: in ``dendritic'' melting. It can be supposed that concave parabola
559: and Eq. (\ref{ivantsov2}) are playing a role in such ``doublon''
560: structures with two convex parts and a concave part in between
561: which are similar to the profile of $S2/L$-interface in Fig. 3(c).
562: Whether or not those ``doublon'' structures exist in solidification
563: or melting processes with one front?
564:
565: \section{Conclusions}
566: A theoretical model for combined motion of two solid-liquid fronts with
567: a liquid layer in between has been developed for pure materials
568: and binary alloys. The temperature and chemical compositions
569: at the interfaces were supposed to be constants but different for
570: fronts of melting and solidification.
571:
572: An exact solution which describes the steady-state motion of two
573: co-focal parabolic interfaces has been found.
574: It is shown that there exist two types of solutions
575: with two convex and with two concave parabolas. The relations
576: between the Peclet numbers and the control parameters of the process
577: for both types of solutions are obtained.
578:
579: As usual in theories of the steady-state growth,
580: the continuous spectrum of solutions with one
581: free parameter exists.
582: The unresolved problem of ``selection'' of unique solution
583: is briefly discussed.
584:
585: \bigskip
586:
587: \section{Acknowledgments}
588: This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under project
589: SPP 1120.
590: The author would like to thank L. Bagrova, E. Brener, P. Galenko,
591: and H. M\"uller-Krumbhaar for fruitful discussions.
592:
593: \newpage
594:
595: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
596: \bibitem{yoon1} Yoon DN, Hupmann WJ. Acta Metall 1979;27:973.
597: \bibitem{yoon2} Yoon DN. Int Mater Rev 1995;40:149.
598: \bibitem{musch1} Muschik T, Kaysser WA and Hehenkamp T.
599: Acta Metall 1989;37:603.
600: \bibitem{4} Yoon DN, Cahn JW, Handwerker CA, Blendell JE,
601: Baik YJ. In: Interface Migration and Control of Microstrucutres.
602: Am Soc. Metals. Park. Ohio (1985), pp. 19-31.
603: \bibitem{1} Ivantsov GP. Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR 1947;58:567.
604: \bibitem{2} Ivantsov GP. Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR 1952;83:573.
605: \bibitem{3} Saito Y. Statistical Physics of Crystal Growth, World
606: Scientific Publishing, Singapore, 1996.
607: \bibitem{5} Brener EA, Mel'nikov VI. Adv Phys 1991;40:53.
608: \end{thebibliography}
609:
610:
611:
612: \newpage
613: FIGURE CAPTIONS
614:
615: Figure 1: Two types of combined moving parabolic fronts: convex (left) and
616: concave (right).
617:
618: Figure 2: The dependence of the reduced temperature $\Delta$ on the Peclet number
619: $P_1$ for convex and concave fronts. The insert represents the region of small
620: $\Delta$. Parameters are: $\Delta_m=0.01$ and $\alpha=0.25$.
621:
622: Figure 3: Three possible cellular structures
623: of two combined moving interfaces with convex [(a) and (b)]
624: and concave (c) central parabolic part. $S1$ and $S2$ are
625: melting solid and growing solid, and $L$ is the liquid phase.
626: The direction of motion is defined by the arrow of $V$.
627: Dashed regions in (a)-(c) show the central parabolic part of interfaces.
628:
629:
630:
631: \newpage
632:
633: \begin{figure}
634: \begin{center}
635: \epsfig{file=fig1a.eps, width=8cm}
636: \epsfig{file=fig1b.eps, width=8cm}
637: \caption{ }
638: \end{center}
639: \end{figure}
640:
641:
642: \newpage
643:
644: \begin{figure}
645: \begin{center}
646: \epsfig{file=fig2.eps, width=10cm}
647: \caption{ }
648: \end{center}
649: \end{figure}
650:
651: \newpage
652:
653: \begin{figure}
654: \begin{center}
655: \epsfig{file=fig3.eps, width=17cm}
656: \caption{ }
657: \end{center}
658: \end{figure}
659:
660:
661:
662:
663: \end{document}
664: