1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: % authors: J. Neu and L.L. Bonilla 

3: %

4: % title:  Coarsening of binary alloys 

5: %

6: %

7: %

8: % Journal: Phys. Rev. E

9: %

10: % remarks: All correspondence should be sent to L.L. Bonilla

11: %

12: % manuscript number:

13: %

14: % address: Departamento de Matematicas

15: %

16: % Escuela Politecnica Superior

17: %          Universidad Carlos III

18: %          Avda. Universidad, 30

19: %          28911 Leganes (Madrid), Spain

20: %

21: % Internet: bonilla@ing.uc3m.es

22: %

23: % FAX:     34-91-624-9129

24: %

25: % Tel:     34-91-624-9445

26: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

27: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

28: 

29: %% Draft (18 July 2001)

30: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

31: 

32: %

33: %

34: % For preprintstyle the commands \begin{multicols}{2} and

35: %                     \end{multicols}   must be deleted

36: %\documentstyle[multicol,aps,epsfig]{revtex} 

37: % for multicolumn

38: %

39: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps,epsfig]{revtex} 

40:  % for preprint form

41: % (RevTex 3.0)

42: %\documentstyle[prb,aps]{revtex}  % for camera-ready manuscript

43: %(RevTex 3.0)

44: %\def\baselinestretch{2}

45: %\newtheorem{Lemma}{Lemma}

46: %\voffset=-2truecm

47: \batchmode

48: \makeatletter

49: %\def\input@path{{/users/davidr/polimeros//}}

50: %\makeatother

51: \documentclass{article}

52: \usepackage{graphics}

53: 

54: %\makeatletter

55: 

56: 

57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LyX specific LaTeX commands.

58: \providecommand{\LyX}{L\kern-.1667em\lower.25em\hbox{Y}\kern-.125emX\@}

59: 

60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Textclass specific LaTeX commands.

61: \newcommand{\lyxaddress}[1]{

62:   \par {\raggedright #1 

63:   \vspace{1.4em}

64:   \noindent\par}

65: }

66: 

67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% User specified LaTeX commands.

68: %\usepackage{springer}

69: %\makeatother

70: 

71: \begin{document}

72: 

73: %%%%% USER-DEFINED MACROS HERE %%%%%

74: 

75: \def\RR{\hbox{{\rm I}\kern-.2em\hbox{\rm R}}}

76: \def\pRR{\hbox{{\tiny \rm I}\kern-.1em\hbox{{\tiny \rm R}}}}

77: \def\negro{\hspace*{\fill}$\blacksquare$}

78: \def\div{\mbox{{\rm div}}}

79: \def\rot{\mbox{{\rm rot}}}

80: \def\NN{\hbox{I\kern-.2em\hbox{N}}}

81: \def\eg{{e.g.\ }}

82: \def \l{\lambda}

83: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

84: 

85: %\hyphenation{super-lat-tice semi-con-ductor}

86: 

87: %\tighten       %Gives single-space (RevTex 3.0)

88: 

89: 

90: %\begin{document}

91: %\draft %prints PACS numbers in

92: 

93: \title{Kinetic theory of nucleation and coarsening}

94: %\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}

95: %\renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\Roman{section}.\Alph{subsection}}

96: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}

97: 

98: %\date{\today %May 15, 2000}

99: \maketitle

100: 

101: \author{ J. C. Neu}

102: \lyxaddress{Department of Mathematics, 

103: University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, 

104: CA 94720, USA}

105: 

106: \author{ L.L. Bonilla}

107: \lyxaddress{Escuela Polit\'{e}cnica Superior, 

108: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Avda.\

109: Universidad 30, 28911 Legan{\'e}s, Spain}

110: 

111: \begin{abstract}

112: Classical theory of nucleation based on Becker-Doering equations and coarsening for 

113: a binary alloy. 

114: \end{abstract}

115: 

116: %\pacs{PACS numbers: %05.45.+b, 05.20.-y, 05.40.+j

117: %}

118: 

119: %\begin{multicols}{2}

120: %\narrowtext

121: 

122: \setcounter{equation}{0}

123: \section{Introduction}

124: \label{sec-introduction}

125: The purpose of this chapter is to explain the classical kinetic

126: theory of nucleation in a context simpler than polymer

127: crystallization. Many theories start by assuming that polymer

128: crystallization is an activated process involving crossing of a

129: free energy barrier \cite{zia68}. The latter separates two

130: accessible stable states of the system such as monomer solution

131: and crystal. This general setting for activated processes can be

132: used to describe the formation of a crystal from a liquid

133: cooled below its freezing point \cite{mar95}, precipitation \index{precipitation} and

134: coarsening \index{coarsening} of binary alloys \cite{XH}, colloidal crystallization

135: \cite{gas01}, chemical reactions \cite{pag97}, polymer

136: crystallization \cite{zia68,reg01,zia01}, etc. In all these

137: cases, the theory of homogeneous isothermal nucleation provides

138: a framework to study the processes of formation of nucleii from

139: density fluctuations, and their growth until different nucleii

140: impinge upon each other. In the early stages of these

141: processes, nucleii of solid phase are formed and grow by

142: incorporating particles from the surrounding liquid phase.

143: There is a critical value for the radius of a nucleus that

144: depends on a chemical drive potential, which is proportional to

145: the supersaturation \index{supersaturation} for small values thereof. In this limit,

146: the critical radius \index{critical radius} is inversely proportional to the

147: supersaturation. At the beginning of the nucleation process,

148: nucleii have small critical radius and new clusters are being

149: created at a non-negligible rate. As the size of existing

150: clusters increases, there are less particles in the liquid

151: phase, the supersaturation decreases and the critical radius

152: increases. Then it is harder for new clusters to spontaneously

153: appear from density fluctuations. What happens is that

154: supercritical clusters (whose radii are larger than the

155: critical one) keep growing at the expense of subcritical

156: clusters, that in turn keep losing particles. The size of the

157: nucleii is still small compared to the average distance between

158: them, so that impingement processes (in which two or more

159: clusters touch and interaction between them dominates their

160: growth) can be ignored. This stage of free deterministic growth

161: is called {\em coarsening} \cite{LS}. 

162: 

163: A convenient framework to describe nucleation and coarsening is

164: the classical Becker-D\"oring \index{Becker-D\"oring} kinetic theory. We assume that the

165: dominant processes for nucleus growth or shrinking are addition

166: or subtraction of one particle. Nucleation is thus treated as a

167: chain reaction whereby nucleii of $n$ particles are created by

168: adding one particle to a nucleus of $n-1$ particles, or 

169: subtracting one particle from a nucleus with $n+1$ particles.

170: We can then write rate equations for the number density of

171: nucleii of $n$ particles by using the law of mass action. The

172: kinetic rate constants for the processes of addition and

173: depletion have to be determined by using specific information

174: from the physical process we are trying to model. Typically we

175: impose detailed balance which implies that the ratio of rate

176: constants is proportional to the exponential of the free energy

177: cost of adding one particle to a nucleus of $n$ particles (in

178: units of $k_B T$). This leaves one undetermined rate constant.

179: There are different ways of finding the missing constant. One

180: way is to postulate a microscopic theory for particle

181: interaction and use Statistical Mechanics to determine the free

182: energy of a cluster \cite{leb77}. A different point of view is

183: to impose that our rate constants should provide a description

184: of coarsening compatible with the macroscopic description in

185: terms of balance equations. We shall illustrate this second

186: point of view and be led to a Smoluchowski \index{Smoluchowski} equation from which

187: the Lifshitz-Slyozov \index{Lifshitz-Slyozov} coarsening theory follows \cite{juanjo}. 

188: 

189: 

190: The structure of this paper is as follows. We present the

191: Becker-D\"oring kinetic equations for cluster with $n$

192: particles in Section \ref{sec-kclusters}. One relation between

193: the two rate constants of this theory follows from detailed

194: balance. The other rate constant has to be determined by

195: comparison with the known macroscopic equation for the growth of

196: cluster radii. In the small supersaturation limit, the

197: Becker-D\"oring equations can be approximated by a Smoluchowski

198: equation for the distribution function of cluster radii. Its

199: drift term yields the growth of cluster radii in terms of the

200: missing rate constant. To compare with experimental data, we

201: consider the case of coarsening of a binary alloy \cite{XH}. In

202: Sections \ref{sec-phaseeq} to \ref{sec-quasistatic}, we review

203: phase equilibria, macroscopic kinetics of precipitate and

204: matrix atoms and the quasistatic \index{quasistatic} limit of the kinetic

205: equations, respectively. As a result, we find the growth of the

206: radius of a supercritical cluster in terms of macroscopic

207: parameters. Comparison with the results in Section

208: \ref{sec-kclusters} yields the sought rate constant; see

209: Section \ref{sec-quasistatic}. Numerical values for all the

210: parameters involved in our theories can be calculated from

211: experimental data as explained in Section \ref{sec-XH}. A

212: discussion of our results constitutes the last Section.

213: 

214: \setcounter{equation}{0}

215: \section{Kinetics of clusters}

216: \label{sec-kclusters}

217: Let us assume that we have two stable phases

218: characterized by different values, $c_1$ and $c_2$ of the

219: number density $c$. Phase 1 is solution and Phase 2

220: precipitate. Or Phase 1 is the liquid and Phase 2 the

221: crystal phase. Initially all precipitate particles are in Phase

222: 1. Classic Becker-D\"oring (BD) kinetics treats nucleation as a

223: {\em chain reaction} whereby nucleii (assumed to be {\em

224: spherical}) of

225: $n$ precipitate particles are created by adding one particle to

226: a nucleus with $n-1$ particles, or subtracting one particle

227: from a nucleus with $n+1$ particles. This chain reaction

228: scheme is natural for the situation that BD has

229: in mind, in which bulk precipitate phase consists

230: only of precipitate particles so distinction

231: between particles in nucleus or in solution is

232: clear. 

233: 

234: Let $\rho_n$ be the number density of nucleii of

235: $n$ particles. The monomer density $\rho_1$ represents

236: the concentration of precipitate particles in

237: solution and as such it will be identified with the

238: concentration $c_\infty$ of the macroscopic theory in Section

239: \ref{sec-quasistatic}. Consider the reaction

240: $$ n+1 \rightleftharpoons (n+1) .$$

241: The forward reaction proceeds at a rate proportional

242: to $\rho_1\,\rho_n$ with some rate constant $k_a$.

243: The backward reaction proceeds at a rate proportional

244: to $\rho_{n+1}$ with rate constant $k_d$. Hence the

245: net rate of creation of $(n+1)$-clusters from $n$-clusters per

246: unit volume is the {\em flux} 

247: \begin{eqnarray}

248: j_{n}\equiv k_{a,n}\rho_1\rho_n - k_{d,n+1}

249: \rho_{n+1}.   \label{5.1}

250: \end{eqnarray}

251: The fact that the rate constants depend on cluster

252: size has been explicitly indicated in (\ref{5.1}).

253: Net rate of creation of $n$-clusters is due to their creation

254: from $(n-1)$-clusters minus the rate of creation of

255: $(n+1)$-clusters from $n$-clusters, 

256: \begin{eqnarray}

257: \dot{\rho}_{n} = j_{n-1}- j_n\equiv - D_-\, j_n,

258: \quad n\geq 2.    \label{5.2}

259: \end{eqnarray}

260: This formulation specifies the evolutions of

261: $\rho_2$, $\rho_3$, \ldots with $\rho_1 = c_\infty$

262: {\em given}. The number density of precipitate

263: particles in $n$-clusters is $n\rho_n$ and the density

264: $c$ (equal to the initial concentration of precipitate particles

265: in the solution) of {\em all} precipitate particles is 

266: \begin{eqnarray}

267: c \equiv \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n\,\rho_{n},   

268: \label{5.3}

269: \end{eqnarray}

270: or equivalently, 

271: \begin{eqnarray}

272: c - c_1 = \gamma_{\infty} + \sum_{n=2}^{\infty}

273: n\,\rho_{n}, \label{5.3b}

274: \end{eqnarray}

275: where we have defined $\gamma = c -c_1$, $\gamma_{\infty} =

276: c_{\infty} -c_1$. There is conservation of all precipitate

277: particles so $c$ or $\gamma_0 = c-c_1$ are constant.

278: (\ref{5.3b}) establishes that the constant initial

279: concentration disturbance

280: $\gamma_0$ is sum of the disturbance of precipitate particles,

281: $\gamma_\infty$, and the number density of particles in all

282: cluster sizes $n\geq 2$. Given the constraint (\ref{5.3}), the

283: evolution of all $\rho_n$, including $\rho_1$, is

284: specified. 

285: 

286: A most essential point of BD kinetics is

287: identification of rate constants $k_a$ and $k_d$.

288: Ideally, this would be based on basic energetics

289: and dynamics at the microscopic level, but a

290: complete realization of this ideal is clearly elusive. Here

291: is what {\em is} done: {\em The ratio is

292: determined by detailed balance}. Equilibrium, if

293: achievable, is described by a zero flux. Setting

294: $j_n =0$ in (\ref{5.1}) implies

295: \begin{eqnarray}

296: {k_{a,n}\over k_{d,n+1}} = {\rho_{n+1}\over\rho_{1}

297: \rho_{n}}\,.      \label{5.4}

298: \end{eqnarray}

299: Standard equilibrium physicochemical theory

300: states that  

301: \begin{eqnarray}

302: {\rho_{n+1}\over\rho_{n}} = e^{-{\mu_{n}\over

303: \tau}}\,,    \label{5.5}

304: \end{eqnarray}

305: where $\mu_n$ is the free energy cost of creating

306: an $(n+1)$-particle nucleus from an $n$-particle

307: nucleus relative to the state of no nucleus. $\tau= k_B T$ is

308: the temperature measured in units of energy. Clearly, $\mu_n =

309: G_{n+1} - G_n$ ($G_n$ is the free energy \index{free energy} of a

310: $n$-cluster), so (\ref{5.5}) becomes 

311: \begin{eqnarray}

312: {\rho_{n+1}\over\rho_{n}} = e^{-{G_{n+1} -

313: G_{n}\over\tau}}\,,    \nonumber

314: \end{eqnarray}

315: and (\ref{5.4}) now reads

316: \begin{eqnarray}

317: \rho_{1} k_{a,n} = e^{-{G_{n+1} -

318: G_{n}\over\tau}}\, k_{d,n+1}.    \nonumber

319: \end{eqnarray}

320: Thus formula (\ref{5.1}) for the flux is now

321: \begin{eqnarray}

322: j_{n} = k_{d,n+1}\,\left\{ e^{-{G_{n+1} -

323: G_{n}\over\tau}}\,\rho_n - \rho_{n+1}\right\} .   

324: \label{5.6}

325: \end{eqnarray}

326: 

327: The equilibrium considered in the detailed

328: balance argument is achievable only if $G_n\to

329: +\infty$ as $n\to\infty$, whereas in a

330: supersaturated solution, $G_n$ achieves a maximum

331: for finite $n$ and then $G_n\to -\infty$ as $n\to

332: \infty$. The determination of the ratio $k_a/k_d$

333: is assumed to hold regardless.

334: 

335: What is known about $G_n$? Microscopic models for

336: $G_n$ (or, equivalently, the cluster partition

337: function $Q_n \equiv \sum_K e^{U\, b(K)/\tau} =

338: e^{-G_{n}/\tau}$, where $U$ is the binding energy

339: per pair of particles in the cluster of $n$

340: particles, $b(K)$ is the number of

341: nearest-neighbor pairs of particles in the cluster

342: $K$, and the sum is over all translationally

343: inequivalent $n$-particle clusters) are described

344: in \cite{leb77,pen83,pen84}. We would like to

345: follow here a simpler approach, consisting of

346: identifying the resulting expressions for large

347: spherical nucleii with known facts about radius growth in

348: the quasistatic approximation. For nucleii of

349: macroscopic size $n\gg 1$, $n$ can be written in terms of the

350: cluster radius $a$ by

351: \begin{eqnarray}

352: n ={4\pi\over 3}\, c_2\, a^3,    \label{5.7}

353: \end{eqnarray}

354: and $G_n\sim G(a)$, where $G(a)$ is the free

355: energy of a nucleus of radius $a$ as determined

356: by continuum theory. For nucleii of only a few

357: particles, this asymptotic correspondence with

358: continuum theory breaks down. But if the critical

359: nucleus \index{critical nucleus} has $n\gg 1$ particles, the continuum

360: approximation works for $n$ on the order of

361: critical cluster size.

362: 

363: In the limit $|(G_{n+1}-G_n)/\tau| \ll 1$, formula (\ref{5.6})

364: for the flux reduces to 

365: \begin{eqnarray}

366: j_{n} = k_{d,n+1}\,\left\{ -{(G_{n+1} -

367: G_{n})\,\rho_{n}\over\tau} + \rho_n - \rho_{n+1}

368: \right\} \nonumber\\

369: = -  k_{d,n+1}\,\left\{ {1\over\tau}\, (D_+G_{n})

370: \,\rho_{n} + D_+ \rho_n \right\},   \label{5.8a}

371: \end{eqnarray}

372: where $D_{\pm} h_n \equiv \pm\, (h_{n\pm 1} -

373: h_n)$. The basic evolution equation (\ref{5.2})

374: now reads 

375: \begin{eqnarray}

376: \dot{\rho}_{n} - D_- \,\left\{ k_{d,n+1}\,\left(

377: {1\over\tau}\, (D_+ G_{n})\,\rho_{n} + D_+ \rho_n

378: \right)\right\} = 0.   \label{5.8b}

379: \end{eqnarray}

380: This equation looks like a spatially discretized

381: Smoluchowski equation. Asymptotic replacement of

382: difference operators $D_+$, $D_-$ by derivatives

383: is justified if the relative changes in $G_n$,

384: $\rho_n$ and $k_d$ when $n$ increases by one are

385: small. Here we will follow the simple procedure of

386: formulating the continuum limit an checking its validity a

387: posteriori. 

388: 

389: The space-like variable in (\ref{5.8b}) is $n$.

390: Experimental data usually contain histograms showing the

391: distribution of nucleii in the space of their radii $a$, so

392: we adopt the radius $a$ as a more convenient

393: space-like variable. The dependent variable

394: should be $\rho = \rho(a,t)$, the distribution of

395: nucleii in space of radius $a$. Thus $\rho(a,t)\,

396: da$ is the number of nucleii per unit volume with

397: radii in $(a,a+da)$. Conversions $n\to a$, $\rho_n

398: \to\rho$ are now determined. From (\ref{5.7}), it

399: follows that the change $da$ in $a$ when $n$

400: increases by 1 is given by

401: \begin{eqnarray}

402: 1 \sim 4\pi\, c_2 a^2\, da.   \label{5.9}

403: \end{eqnarray}

404: In the general continuum theory of nucleii,

405: the concentration of precipitate particles inside a nucleus,

406: $c_2$, is a function of the radius $a$. But for many

407: experiments, deviations of $c_2$ from its equilibrium value for

408: a planar interface are negligible, so in (\ref{5.9})

409: any term arising from $a$-dependence of $c_2$ is dropped.

410: $\rho_n$ is related to $\rho(a,t)$ by 

411: \begin{eqnarray}

412: \rho_n \sim \rho(a,t)\, da\sim {1\over 4\pi

413: c_{2}}\, {\rho\over a^{2}}\,.  \label{5.10}

414: \end{eqnarray}

415: Given any sequence $h_n$ with continuum

416: approximation $h(a)$, 

417: \begin{eqnarray}

418: D_+ h_n \sim D_- h_n\sim {h_{a}\over 4\pi

419: c_{2}\, a^{2}}\,.  \label{5.11}

420: \end{eqnarray}

421: It follows from (\ref{5.10}) and (\ref{5.11}) 

422: that the continuum limit of (\ref{5.8b}) is 

423: \begin{eqnarray}

424: \rho_{t} - {\partial\over\partial a} \left\{ {k_{d}\over

425: (4\pi c_{2}a^{2})^{2}}\, \left( {\rho\over\tau}\,

426: {\partial G\over\partial a} + a^2 {\partial \over\partial a}

427: \left( {\rho\over a^{2}}\right)\right) \right\} = 0.

428: \label{5.12}

429: \end{eqnarray}

430: (Here $k_d$ is a function of $a$, to be specified). The constraint (\ref{5.3b}) can be

431: written as

432: \begin{eqnarray}

433: \gamma_\infty + c_2\, \int_0^\infty {4\pi\over

434: 3}\, a^3\, \rho(a,t)\, da = c-c_1\equiv \gamma_0. 

435: \label{5.3c}

436: \end{eqnarray}

437: 

438: As time elapses, it will be seen that the diffusive term in Eq.\

439: (\ref{5.12}) becomes negligible in comparison with the drift

440: term. The latter yields the following equation for radius

441: growth: 

442: \begin{eqnarray}

443: \dot{a} = - {k_{d}\over (4\pi c_{2}a^{2})^{2}\tau}\,

444: {\partial G\over\partial a}\,. \label{dot-a}

445: \end{eqnarray}

446: We now present a macroscopic theory that gives an explicit

447: expression for $\dot{a}$ that can be compared to experimental

448: data. Then $k_d(a)$ can be determined and this will specify the

449: limit of $k_{d,n}$ for large $n$. 

450: 

451: \section{Phase equilibria \index{phase equilibria} of a binary material} 

452: \label{sec-phaseeq}

453: 

454: \subsection{Phase equilibria of a binary

455: material} 

456: 

457: Let us consider a medium consisting of two

458: different particles. The more abundant type is

459: called ``matrix'' \index{matrix}, the other ``precipitate'' \index{precipitate}.

460: Suppose that we have a uniform mixture at fixed

461: temperature and pressure. Let $\mu$ be the

462: chemical potential \index{chemical potential}, i.e., the free energy cost of

463: adding one precipitate particle to a pre-existing

464: solution. It is a function of the number density

465: of precipitate particles, $c$:

466: \begin{equation}

467: \mu =Ê\mu(c).\label{1.1}

468: \end{equation}

469: Let us now derive the relationship of the

470: chemical potential, $\mu(c)$, to the bulk free

471: energy density, $g(c)$. We shall add one

472: precipitate particle to a solution of total

473: volume $V$. Then the free energy changes from

474: $g(c) V$ to $g(c) V + \mu(c)$, but the volume

475: changes from $V$ to $V' \equiv V +\nu(c)$, where

476: $\nu(c)$ is the specific volume of a precipitate

477: particle in a solution of number density $c$. The

478: number density changes from $c$ to $c' \equiv

479: (cV+1)/(V+\nu)$, and therefore the new free

480: energy is also expressed as $g(c')V'$. Hence we

481: get the identity

482: \begin{equation}

483: g(c)V +Ê\mu(c) = g\left({cV+1\over V+\nu}

484: \right)\, (V+\nu).\label{1.2a}

485: \end{equation}

486: Since $cV\gg 1$, $\nu\ll V$, this identity

487: reduces to 

488: \begin{equation}

489: \mu(c) = g'(c) + \nu(c)\, \{g(c) - c g'(c)\}.

490: \label{1.2b}

491: \end{equation}

492: One can just as easily consider the chemical

493: potential $\overline{\mu}(c)$, which is the free

494: energy cost of adding one matrix particle to the

495: solution. Adding one matrix particle changes the

496: free energy to $g(c)V + \overline{\mu}(c)$. The

497: volume of the solution changes now to $V'=V +

498: \overline{\nu}(c)$, where $\overline{\nu}(c)$ is

499: the specific volume of a matrix particle in

500: solution. The concentration $c$ of the

501: precipitate changes to $c' \equiv cV/(V+

502: \overline{\nu})$, and therefore the new free

503: energy is $g(c')V'$. Hence we get an identity

504: analogous to (\ref{1.2a}),

505: \begin{equation}

506: g(c)V +Ê\overline{\mu}(c) = g\left({cV\over

507: V+\overline{\nu}} \right)\,

508: (V+\overline{\nu}). \label{1.3a}

509: \end{equation}

510: Again the conditions $cV\gg 1$, $\overline{\nu}

511: \ll V$ lead to an asymptotic reduction of

512: (\ref{1.3a}),

513: \begin{equation}

514: \overline{\mu}(c) = \overline{\nu}(c)\,\{g(c) - c

515: g'(c)\}.   \label{1.3b}

516: \end{equation}

517: 

518: \subsection{Phase equilibria in a dilute solution}

519: Suppose that there are two stable phases

520: characterized by different values, $c_1$ and

521: $c_2$ of the number density $c$, and that these

522: phases occupy adjacent half spaces separated by a

523: planar interface. Imagine that one precipitate

524: particle is removed from phase 1 and dropped in

525: phase 2. The free energy cost is

526: $\mu(c_2) - \mu(c_1)$. In equilibrium, the energy

527: cost is to be zero, therefore

528: \begin{equation}

529: [\mu] \equiv \mu(c_2) - \mu(c_1) = 0. \label{1.4a}

530: \end{equation}

531: Similarly, the energy cost of removing a matrix

532: particle from phase 1 and dropping it in phase 2

533: is also to be zero, so

534: \begin{equation}

535: [\overline{\mu}]  = 0. \label{1.4b}

536: \end{equation}

537: The possible existence of multiple phases is

538: determined by the structure of $g(c)$. Consider a

539: {\em dilute} solution with $c$ much smaller than

540: the total atomic density. In this case, the

541: specific volumes $\nu$ and $\overline{\nu}$ of

542: precipitate and matrix particles should be nearly

543: constants independent of $c$: ``crowding'' effects

544: should be insignificant. In this case,

545: (\ref{1.3b}) and (\ref{1.4b}) imply

546: \begin{equation}

547: [g(c) - c \, g'(c)]\equiv [g-cg'] = 0.\label{1.5}

548: \end{equation}

549: Given this result, it now follows from

550: (\ref{1.2b}) and (\ref{1.4a}) that

551: $$[g'] = 0.$$

552: Hence,

553: \begin{equation}

554: g'(c_1) = g'(c_2) = M\quad \mbox{(common

555: value)},  \label{1.5a}

556: \end{equation}

557: and 

558: \begin{equation}

559: [g] - [c] \, M = 0.   \label{1.5b}

560: \end{equation}

561: Given $g(c)$ with $g''(c)<0$ in some interval of

562: $c$, and $g''(c)>0$ outside, one discerns the

563: standard geometrical construction of the solution

564: to (\ref{1.5a}) and (\ref{1.5b}) for $c_1$ and

565: $c_2$. This is depicted in Figure \ref{f1.1}.

566: \begin{figure}

567: \begin{center}

568: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.6\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{curva1.eps}} \par}

569: %\vspace{0.5 cm}

570: \caption{Geometrical construction of stable phase

571: equilibria. }

572: \label{f1.1}

573: \end{center}

574: \end{figure}

575: 

576: \subsection{Critical nucleus}

577: Consider a spherical nucleus of phase 2

578: surrounded by phase 1. The energy cost of adding

579: one precipitate particle to this nucleus is

580: $$[\mu] + 8\pi\sigma r\, dr.$$

581: Here $r$ is the initial radius of the nucleus,

582: $dr$ is the change in radius due to adding one

583: precipitate particle, and $\sigma$ is the surface

584: tension. One has 

585: $$4\pi r^2 dr = \nu$$

586: so the energy cost can be written as 

587: $$[\mu] + {2\sigma\nu\over r}\,.$$

588: For a nucleus in equilibrium, this energy cost is

589: zero, therefore

590: \begin{equation}

591: [\mu] = - {2\sigma\nu\over r}\,.\label{1.6a}

592: \end{equation}

593: Now we add one matrix particle to the nucleus. No

594: energy cost for this process implies

595: \begin{equation}

596: [\overline{\mu}] = - {2\sigma\overline{\nu}\over

597: r}\,.\label{1.6b}

598: \end{equation}

599: After substituting for $\overline{\mu}$ from

600: (\ref{1.3b}), this equation becomes 

601: \begin{equation}

602: [g - c\, g'] = - {2\sigma\over r}\,. 

603: \label{1.7}

604: \end{equation}

605: Now substitute (\ref{1.2b}) for $\mu$ and

606: (\ref{1.7}) for $2\sigma/r$ in (\ref{1.6a}) to

607: get 

608: \begin{equation}

609: [g'] = 0,\label{1.8}

610: \end{equation}

611: which is the same as in the case of a planar

612: interface, (\ref{1.5a}). Given the concentration

613: $c_1$ of phase 1, this equation determines the

614: concentration $c_2$ inside the nucleus, and then

615: the Gibbs-Thomson \index{Gibbs-Thomson} relation (\ref{1.6a}) determines

616: the radius of the nucleus, $r$. This

617: determination simplifies when the concentrations

618: $c_1$ and $c_2$ are near ``planar'' values and

619: $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are deviations from the

620: planar values. (\ref{1.8}) together with

621: (\ref{1.5}) for the planar case imply 

622: \begin{equation}

623: [g''\,\gamma] = 0.\label{1.9}

624: \end{equation}

625: Let us denote the common values of $g''(c_1)\,

626: \gamma_1$ and $g''(c_2)\, \gamma_2$ by $m$. The

627: variation of $[g-c\, g']$ in (\ref{1.7}) is 

628: \begin{equation}

629: - [c\, g''\,\gamma] = -[c]\, m.\nonumber

630: \end{equation}

631: Hence  (\ref{1.7}) gives 

632: \begin{equation}

633: [c]\, m = {2\sigma\over r}\,.\label{1.10}

634: \end{equation}

635: 

636: \section{Macroscopic kinetics}

637: \label{secMkinetics}

638: \subsection{Balance equations and jump conditions}

639: Let $c(x,t)$, $\overline{c}(x,t)$ denote the 

640: macroscopic number densities of precipitate and

641: matrix atoms. Local volume fractions of

642: precipitate and matrix atoms are $\nu c$ and

643: $\overline{\nu}\, \overline{c}$, respectively.

644: Since matrix and precipitate atoms fill space

645: leaving no gaps, we have the {\em space filling

646: condition}

647: \begin{equation}

648: \nu\, c + \overline{\nu}\, \overline{c} = 1. 

649: \label{2.1}

650: \end{equation}

651: In conventional kinetics, the density of

652: precipitate is locally conserved, with a flux

653: proportional to the gradient of the precipitate

654: chemical potential $\mu(c)$,

655: $$ c_t + \nabla\cdot (-\delta\,\nabla \mu) = 0,

656: $$ 

657: or

658: \begin{equation}

659: c_t =  \nabla\cdot (D\,\nabla c),\quad D =

660: \delta(c)\, \mu'(c). 

661: \label{2.2}

662: \end{equation}

663: Here $\delta(c)$ is a positive mobility

664: coefficient and $-\delta\nabla\mu = - D\,\nabla

665: c$ is the flux of $c$. This flux is formally a

666: diffusion with diffusion coefficient $D =

667: \delta(c)\,\mu'(c)$. Given $\mu(c)$ as in

668: (\ref{1.2b}), and provided $\nu$ and

669: $\overline{\nu}$ {\em do not depend on} $c$

670: (dilute solution), 

671: \begin{equation}

672: D = \delta(c)\,\mu'(c) = \delta (1-\nu c)\,

673: g''(c) = \delta\overline{\nu}\,\overline{c}\,

674: g''(c).      \label{2.3a}

675: \end{equation}

676: In the last equality, the space filling condition

677: has been used to replace $1-\nu c$ by

678: $\overline{\nu}\,\overline{c}$. For {\em stable}

679: bulk phases, $D$ must be positive, and

680: (\ref{2.3a}) then implies $g''(c)>0$. The

681: description of matrix transport is essentially

682: the same. The flux of matrix concentration

683: $\overline{c}$ is

684: \begin{equation}

685: -\overline{\delta}\,\nabla\overline{\mu} =

686: -\overline{\delta}\,\overline{\mu}'\, \nabla

687: \overline{c} = - \overline{D}\,\nabla\overline{c} 

688: \nonumber

689: \end{equation}

690: where $\overline{\mu}(\overline{c})$ is the

691: chemical potential of the matrix atoms as a

692: function of the matrix concentration

693: $\overline{c}$, $\overline{\delta}(c)$ is the

694: mobility of the matrix atoms, and $\overline{D}$

695: is the matrix diffusion coefficient given by 

696: $$

697: \overline{D} =\overline{\delta}\,\overline{\mu}'.

698: $$

699: Let $\overline{g}(\overline{c})$ be the free

700: energy density {\em as a function of} 

701: $\overline{c}$. The space filling condition and

702: $g(c) =\overline{g}(\overline{c})$ imply that

703: $$\overline{\mu}= \overline{g}'(\overline{c}) + 

704: \overline{\nu}\, \{\overline{g}(\overline{c}) -

705: \overline{c}\,\overline{g}'(\overline{c})\},$$ 

706: which is totally symmetric to (\ref{1.2b}). Then

707: the diffusion coefficient $\overline{D}$ is

708: related to $\overline{g}(\overline{c})$ by a

709: formula symmetric to (\ref{2.3a}), 

710: \begin{equation}

711: \overline{D} = \overline{\delta}\nu c

712: \overline{g}''(\overline{c}) . \label{2.3b}

713: \end{equation}

714: The space filling condition leads to a relation

715: between the mobilities $\delta$ and $\overline

716: \delta$. The linear combination $\nu c+\overline{

717: \nu}\overline{c}$ is locally conserved with flux

718: $-\nu D\nabla c - \overline{\nu} \overline{D}

719: \nabla \overline{c}$. But $\nu c+\overline{

720: \nu}\overline{c}\equiv 1$, so this flux is

721: divergence free. Let $C$ be any closed surface.

722: Use of divergence theorem yields 

723: $$\int_C (\nu\, Dc_n +\overline{\nu}\,\overline{D}

724: \overline{c}_n)\, da = 0.

725: $$

726: The space filling condition implies $\nu c_n = -

727: \overline{\nu}\overline{c}_n$, so that we get 

728: $\int_C \nu\, (D-\overline{D})\, c_n\, da = 0$.

729: This holds for all concentration fields $c$ and

730: closed surfaces $C$. Hence,

731: \begin{equation}

732: D=\overline{D} \label{2.4a}

733: \end{equation}

734: and by (\ref{2.3a}) and (\ref{2.3b}), 

735: \begin{equation}

736: \delta(c)\,\overline{\nu}\, \overline{c}\,

737: g''(c) = \overline{\delta}(\overline{c})\,\nu c\,

738: \overline{g}''(\overline{c}) . \label{2.4b}

739: \end{equation}

740: Now, 

741: $$g(c) = \overline{g}(\overline{c}) =

742: \overline{g}\left({1\over\overline{\nu}}\,

743: (1-c\nu)\right),$$

744: therefore, provided again that $\nu$ and

745: $\overline{\nu}$ {\em do not depend on} $c$,

746: $$g''(c) = \left({\nu\over\overline{\nu}}

747: \right)^2\, \overline{g}''(\overline{c}), $$

748: and (\ref{2.4b}) becomes

749: \begin{equation}

750: \delta\,\nu\,\overline{c} = \overline{\delta}\,

751: \overline{\nu}\, c . \label{2.5}

752: \end{equation}

753: This is the relation between mobilities. 

754: 

755: The integral form of Equation (\ref{2.2}) informs

756: the upcoming discussion of boundary conditions on

757: a phase interface. Let $R=R(t)$ be a time

758: sequence of closed regions in which $c=c(x,t)$ is

759: a smooth solution of (\ref{2.2}). The number of

760: precipitate particles in $R$ is 

761: $$N = \int_R c\, dx, $$

762: and the time rate of change is 

763: $$\dot{N} = \int_R c_t\, dx + \int_{\partial R} U

764: c\, da, $$

765: where $U$ is the outward normal velocity of

766: $\partial R$. Using (\ref{2.2}) to substitute for

767: $c_t$ above, and then the divergence theorem, we

768: obtain

769: $$\dot{N} = \int_{\partial R} (U\, c+ D\, c_n)\,

770: da.$$

771: The interpretation of this equation is clear:

772: The influx of precipitate atoms per unit area on

773: $\partial R$ is 

774: \begin{equation}

775: U\, c + D\, c_n . \label{2.6}

776: \end{equation}

777: 

778: Suppose now that there is a region $R_1$ of

779: matrix surrounding a region $R_2$ of precipitate.

780: The influx of precipitate atoms per unit area on

781: interface $C$ is given by (\ref{2.6}) with $c$,

782: $c_n$ evaluated on the precipitate side of $C$.

783: The outflux of precipitate atoms from the

784: surrounding matrix into $R_2$ is also given by

785: (\ref{2.6}) with $c$, $c_n$ evaluated on the {\em

786: matrix} side of $C$. Since precipitate atoms do

787: not accumulate on $C$ to form a surface density,

788: the following jump condition holds 

789: \begin{equation}

790: [U\, c + D\, c_n] = 0\quad\mbox{on $C$}.

791: \label{2.7}

792: \end{equation}

793: 

794:  In summary, conservation of precipitate is

795: expressed by the diffusion equation (\ref{2.2})

796: and the associated jump condition (\ref{2.7}).

797: The matrix density $\overline{c}$ satisfies the

798: diffusion equation and jump condition with the

799: same diffusion coefficient $D$. The space filling

800: condition (\ref{2.1}) is automatically upheld by

801: this kinetics. In addition there are

802: ``thermodynamic'' jump conditions

803: \begin{eqnarray}

804: [g'] = 0, \label{2.8a}\\

805: \left. [ g - c g' ] = - 2\sigma\kappa, \right.

806: \label{2.8b}

807: \end{eqnarray}

808: expressing local equilibrium about the phase

809: interface. These are in fact Equations

810: (\ref{1.7}), (\ref{1.8}) with $1/r$ replaced by

811: the mean curvature $\kappa$. Equations

812: (\ref{2.2}), (\ref{2.7}), (\ref{2.8a}) and

813: (\ref{2.8b}) constitute a free boundary problem

814: for the evolution of precipitate concentration

815: $c$ and the phase interfaces. 

816: 

817: \subsection{Time evolution of Gibbs energy}

818: The total Gibbs free energy is 

819: \begin{eqnarray}

820: G = G_1 + G_2 + \sigma S,  \label{2.9a}

821: \end{eqnarray}

822: where 

823: \begin{eqnarray}

824: G_1 \equiv  \int_{R_{1}} g\, dx, \quad 

825: G_2\equiv  \int_{R_{2}} g\, dx \label{2.9b}

826: \end{eqnarray}

827: are free energies of bulk matrix and precipitate

828: phases, and $S$ is the surface area of the phase

829: interface, and $\sigma$ the surface tension. The

830: time evolution of $G$ under the kinetics of the

831: free boundary problem (\ref{2.2}), (\ref{2.7}),

832: (\ref{2.8a}) and (\ref{2.8b}) is examined here.

833: To compute the rates of change of $G_1$ and

834: $G_2$, it is useful to formulate a transport

835: equation for the free energy density $g(c)$: 

836: $$ g_t = g'\, c_t = g'\, \nabla\cdot (D\nabla c)

837: = \nabla\cdot (D\nabla g) - D\, g''\,|\nabla c|^2

838: $$

839: or

840: \begin{eqnarray}

841: g_t - \nabla\cdot (D\nabla g) = - D\, g''|\nabla

842: c|^2 . \label{2.10}

843: \end{eqnarray}

844: 

845: In stable bulk phases, $g''>0$, therefore the

846: source density in (\ref{2.10}) is generally

847: negative. Let us now look at the rate of $G_2$. 

848: \begin{eqnarray}

849: \dot{G}_2 = \int_{R_{2}} g_t\, dx + \int_C

850: U\, g\, da, \label{2.11}

851: \end{eqnarray}

852: where $U$ is the normal velocity of the phase

853: interface, positive if outward from precipitate. 

854: Inserting $g_t$ from (\ref{2.10}) and using the

855: divergence theorem, (\ref{2.11}) becomes 

856: \begin{eqnarray}

857: \dot{G}_2 = \int_C (U\, g+D\, g_n)\big|_2 \, da -

858: \int_{R_{2}} D g'' |\nabla c|^2 \, dx. 

859: \label{2.12a}

860: \end{eqnarray}

861: In the surface integral, the subscript 2 means

862: evaluation on precipitate side of interface.

863: Similarly, 

864: \begin{eqnarray}

865: \dot{G}_1 = -\int_C (U\, g+D\, g_n)\big|_1\, da -

866: \int_{R_{1}} D g'' |\nabla c|^2 \, dx,

867: \label{2.12b}

868: \end{eqnarray}

869: where subscript 1 means evaluation on matrix side

870: of interface. The rate of change of the surface

871: energy $\sigma S$ in (\ref{2.9a}) is given by the

872: standard formula of differential geometry, 

873: \begin{eqnarray}

874: \sigma\dot{S} = 2\sigma\int_C \kappa\, U\, da.

875: \label{2.12c}

876: \end{eqnarray}

877: Adding Equations (\ref{2.12a}) to (\ref{2.12c}),

878: we obtain the rate of change of the total free

879: energy

880: \begin{eqnarray}

881: \dot{G} = &-& \int_{R_{1}+R_{2}} D g'' |\nabla

882: c|^2\, dx \nonumber\\

883: &+& \int_C \{ [U\, g+D\, g_n] +

884: 2\sigma\kappa U\}\, da,     \label{2.13}

885: \end{eqnarray}

886: Here the jump $[\dots ]$ denotes values on

887: precipitate side minus values on matrix side.

888: Using the continuity condition $[g']=0$, it

889: follows that

890: $$ [Ug + Dg_n] = U\, [g] + g'\, [D\, c_n].$$

891: In the right hand side, $g'$ denotes a well

892: defined value on the phase interface. By

893: conservation jump condition (\ref{2.7}), $[D\,

894: c_n] = - U\, [c]$, hence

895: \begin{eqnarray}

896: [Ug + Dg_n] = U \, [g-c g']. \label{2.14}

897: \end{eqnarray}

898: By the thermodynamic jump condition (\ref{2.8b}),

899: $[g - cg'] = -2\sigma\kappa$, so finally,

900: $$[Ug + Dg_n] = - 2\sigma U \kappa,

901: $$

902: and the energy rate formula (\ref{2.13}) reduces

903: to

904: \begin{eqnarray}

905: \dot{G} = -\int_{R_{1}+R_{2}} D g'' |\nabla c|^2

906: \, dx.     \label{2.15}

907: \end{eqnarray}

908: The integral is negative definite. Notice that

909: surface integral contributions to $\dot{G}$

910: cancel. This point is examined by direct physical

911: argument to see what it really means. 

912: 

913: Recall that influx of precipitate atoms into

914: precipitate phase per unit area is 

915: $$ U\, c + D\, c_n.$$

916: The free energy of each precipitate atom changes

917: by an amount $[\mu] = - 2\sigma\kappa\nu$,

918: according to (\ref{1.6a}), as it crosses from

919: matrix to precipitate. Hence there is a

920: contribution to $\dot{G}$ of 

921: \begin{eqnarray}

922: - 2\sigma\, (U\nu c + D\nu c_n)\, \kappa    

923: \label{2.16a}

924: \end{eqnarray}

925: per unit area of phase interface due to crossing

926: of precipitate atoms. Similarly, influx of matrix

927: atoms into precipitate phase per unit area is

928: $$ U\, \overline{c} + D\, \overline{c}_n$$

929: and change in free energy for each matrix atom

930: crossing into precipitate is $[\overline{\mu}] = -

931: 2\sigma\kappa\overline{\nu}$, according to

932: (\ref{1.6b}). Hence, crossing of matrix atoms

933: gives another surface contribution to $\dot{G}$,

934: of

935: \begin{eqnarray}

936: - 2\sigma\, (U\overline{\nu}\, \overline{c} + D

937: \overline{\nu}\, \overline{c}_n)\,\kappa    

938: \label{2.16b}

939: \end{eqnarray}

940: per unit area. Adding (\ref{2.16a}) and 

941: (\ref{2.16b}) yields surface contribution to

942: $\dot{G}$ due to crossing of both types of atoms, 

943: $$- 2\sigma\, \{ U\, (\nu c +\overline{\nu}\,

944: \overline{c}) + D\, (\nu c_n + \overline{\nu}\,

945: \overline{c}_n)\}\,\kappa = - 2\sigma U\kappa

946: $$

947: per unit area. Here the space-filling constraint

948: has been used. From (\ref{2.12c}) it is seen that

949: $2\sigma U\kappa$ can be identified as a rate of

950: change of surface energy per unit area. Hence,

951: the total rate of free energy production per unit

952: area of phase interface is

953: $$- 2\sigma U\kappa + 2\sigma U\kappa = 0.

954: $$

955: 

956: \section{Quasistatic nuclei}

957: \label{sec-quasistatic}

958: 

959: An isolated region $R_2$ of precipitate phase,

960: called a {\em nucleus} is assumed spherical, and

961: concentration field $c$ is assumed spherically

962: symmetric. The kinetics is quasistatic if the

963: time derivative in the diffusion equation

964: (\ref{2.2}) is negligible. Here kinetics is

965: analyzed under the quasistatic assumption and

966: regimes of validity are determined a posteriori

967: by the criterion

968: \begin{eqnarray}

969: {Ua\over D} = {a\dot{a}\over D}\ll 1.   

970: \label{3.1}

971: \end{eqnarray}

972: Here $a$ is the radius of the nucleus, and the

973: normal velocity $U=\dot{a}$. $a^2/D$ represents

974: the characteristic time of diffusive transport in

975: the matrix phase surrounding the nucleus. The

976: characteristic time associated with the kinetics

977: of the radius is $a/U=a/\dot{a}$. Kinetics is

978: quasistatic if the time scale of the radius is

979: much longer than the diffusion time in the

980: surrounding matrix, as in (\ref{3.1}). 

981: 

982: Under assumptions of radial symmetry and

983: quasistatic kinetics, the diffusion equation

984: (\ref{2.2}) reduces to

985: \begin{eqnarray}

986: \partial_r (r^{2}D c_{r}) = 0. \label{3.2}

987: \end{eqnarray}

988: The conservation jump condition (\ref{2.7}) reads

989: \begin{eqnarray}

990: \dot{a}\, [c] = - [Dc_{r}]. \label{3.3}

991: \end{eqnarray}

992: The thermodynamic jump conditions (\ref{2.8a})

993: and (\ref{2.8b}) read

994: \begin{eqnarray}

995: [g'] = 0, \label{3.4a}\\

996: \, [g-cg'] = - {2\sigma\over a}\,. \label{3.4b}

997: \end{eqnarray}

998: Given the value $c_\infty$ of $c$ as

999: $r\to\infty$, Equations (\ref{3.2}) to (\ref{3.4b}) determine

1000: an ordinary differential equation (ODE) for the nuclear radius

1001: $a(t)$. The first integral of (\ref{3.2}) is 

1002: \begin{eqnarray}

1003: r^{2}D c_{r} = Q, \quad\mbox{or}\quad D c_{r} =

1004: {Q\over r^{2}}.   \label{3.5}

1005: \end{eqnarray}

1006: Here $Q$ is a function of time on $r<a$ or $r>a$,

1007: but with a possible jump at $r=a$. Regularity of

1008: $c$ at $r=0$ forces $Q\equiv 0$ on $r<a$. From

1009: (\ref{3.5}) it is now evident that

1010: \begin{eqnarray}

1011: [D c_{r}] = - {Q\over a^{2}}\,,  \nonumber

1012: \end{eqnarray}

1013: where $Q$ now refers to the value on $r>a$. The

1014: conservation jump condition (\ref{3.3}) now reads 

1015: \begin{eqnarray}

1016: \dot{a} [c] = {Q\over a^{2}}\,.   \label{3.6}

1017: \end{eqnarray}

1018: This is a differential equation for $a(t)$, once

1019: the dependence of $[c]$ and $Q$ upon the radius

1020: are determined. The two thermodynamic jump

1021: conditions (\ref{3.4a}) and (\ref{3.4b})

1022: determine $c(a-)$ and $c(a+)$, hence $[c]$ as a

1023: function of $a$. Figure \ref{f3.1} shows the

1024: graphical construction of (\ref{3.4a}) and

1025: (\ref{3.4b}). 

1026: \begin{figure}

1027: \begin{center}

1028: {\par\centering \resizebox*{0.6\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{curva2.eps}} \par}

1029: %\fbox{

1030: %\epsfig{%file=curva2.eps,width=7cm

1031: %}}

1032: \vspace{0.5 cm}

1033: \caption{Geometrical construction of $c(a-)$ and

1034: $c(a+)$. }

1035: \label{f3.1}

1036: \end{center}

1037: \end{figure}

1038: 

1039: To determine $Q$, integration of (\ref{3.5}) in

1040: $r>a$ is required. Let $h(c)$ be a function such

1041: that $h'(c) = D(c)$. (\ref{3.5}) now reads

1042: \begin{eqnarray}

1043: \partial_{r} h(c) = {Q\over r^{2}}\,,  \nonumber

1044: \end{eqnarray}

1045: and integration from $r=a$ to $r=\infty$ gives

1046: \begin{eqnarray}

1047: h(c_{\infty}) - h(c_+) = {Q\over a}\quad \mbox{or}

1048: \quad Q = a\,\{h(c_{\infty}) - h(c_+)\}\,.

1049: \nonumber

1050: \end{eqnarray}

1051: Here $c_+$ means $c(a+)$. (\ref{3.6}) now reads

1052: \begin{eqnarray}

1053: \dot{a} = {h(c_{\infty}) - h(c_{+})\over a\,

1054: [c]}\,.   \label{3.7}

1055: \end{eqnarray}

1056: Since $c_+$ and $[c]$ are definite functions of

1057: $a$ as determined by the thermodynamic jump

1058: conditions (\ref{3.4a}) and (\ref{3.4b}),

1059: (\ref{3.7}) is the required ODE for $a(t)$.

1060: 

1061: \subsection{Small supersaturation}

1062: A standard limit called {\em small

1063: supersaturation} is realized when the

1064: concentration is close to planar equilibrium

1065: values $c=c_1$ in matrix phase $r>a$ and $c=c_2$

1066: in precipitate phase $r<a$. Let $\gamma$ denote

1067: disturbance of $c$ from planar equilibrium

1068: values: $\gamma=c-c_1$ in matrix phase,

1069: $\gamma=c-c_2$ in precipitate phase. For

1070: $|\gamma| \ll c_1, c_2$, (\ref{3.7}) reduces to

1071: \begin{eqnarray}

1072: \dot{a} \sim {D_{1}\, (\gamma_{\infty} -

1073: \gamma_{+})\over a\, [c]}\,.   \label{3.8}

1074: \end{eqnarray}

1075: Here $D_1\equiv D(c_1)$ and $[c] = c_2 - c_1$.

1076: Also $\gamma_{\infty}=\gamma(r=\infty)$ and

1077: $\gamma_+ = \gamma(a+)$. $\gamma_+$ is determined

1078: from asymptotic limit of (\ref{3.4a}) and

1079: (\ref{3.4b}): Reduction of (\ref{3.4a}) is 

1080: \begin{eqnarray}

1081: [g'' \gamma] =0\Longrightarrow g''(c_1) \gamma_+

1082: = g''(c_2)\gamma_{-} = m\,\mbox{(common value),}  

1083: \label{3.9a}

1084: \end{eqnarray}

1085: and given $m$, reduction of (\ref{3.4b}) is 

1086: \begin{eqnarray}

1087: [c]\, m = {2 \sigma\over a}\quad\mbox{or}\quad 

1088: g''_1\,Ê[c]\,\gamma_{+} = {2 \sigma\over a}\,.

1089: \label{3.9b}

1090: \end{eqnarray}

1091: Substituting this result for $\gamma_+$ into

1092: (\ref{3.8}) gives the reduced ODE

1093: \begin{eqnarray}

1094: \dot{a} \sim {D_{1}\over [c]\, g''_{1}}\, {1\over

1095: a}\,\left(g''_1\, \gamma_{\infty} - {2 \sigma

1096: \over a\, [c]}\right)\,. \label{3.10}

1097: \end{eqnarray}

1098: This equation indicates that clusters whose radii are smaller

1099: than the critical value

1100: \begin{eqnarray}

1101: a_c \equiv  {2\sigma\over g''_{1}\,\gamma_{\infty}

1102: \, [c]} \,, \label{3.11}

1103: \end{eqnarray}

1104: shrink and disappear. Supercritical clusters of radius larger

1105: than the critical radius $a=a_c$ grow steadily according to

1106: (\ref{3.11}).

1107: 

1108: Is this small supersaturation kinetics consistent

1109: with the quasistatic criterion (\ref{3.1})?

1110: Natural unit of $a$ is $a_c$ given by (\ref{3.11}),

1111: which is the standard formula for critical radius

1112: in small supersaturation limit. Given $a=O(a_c)$,

1113: an order of magnitude estimate of $\dot a$ based

1114: on (\ref{3.10}) is 

1115: \begin{eqnarray}

1116: \dot{a} = O\left( {D_{1}\gamma_{\infty}\over

1117: a_{c}\, [c]}\right)\nonumber

1118: \end{eqnarray}

1119: which can be rearranged as

1120: \begin{eqnarray}

1121: {a\dot{a}\over D_{1}} = O\left( {\gamma_{\infty} 

1122: \over [c]}\right)\label{3.12}

1123: \end{eqnarray}

1124: The analysis here is based on $|\gamma|\ll c_1 ,

1125: c_2$. But for quasistatic kinetics, we need 

1126: \begin{eqnarray}

1127: |\gamma_{\infty}|\ll [c]= c_2 - c_1.\label{3.13}

1128: \end{eqnarray}

1129: 

1130: The reduced ODE (\ref{3.10}) indicates natural

1131: units of $\gamma$, space and time. The limit

1132: (\ref{3.13}) is embodied by measuring $\gamma

1133: \equiv c-c_e$ in units of $\epsilon\, c_e$, where

1134: $\epsilon>0$ is a gauge parameter and limit

1135: $\epsilon\to 0+$ is considered. Given this unit

1136: of $\gamma$, the order of magnitude of $a_c$ in

1137: (\ref{3.11}) is $l/\epsilon$, $l\equiv

1138: \sigma/([c] g''_1 c_e)$. $l/\epsilon$ is adopted

1139: as unit of length. Finally, the unit of time

1140: which gives $\dot a$ as in (\ref{3.12}) is

1141: $\tau_e/\epsilon^3$, $\tau_e\equiv (l^2/D_1)\,

1142: ([c]/c_e)$. This system of units is summarized in

1143: the following Table:\\

1144: 

1145: 

1146: \begin{tabular}{||c|c||cr||}    

1147: \hline Variable& Unit\\

1148: \hline $\gamma\equiv c - c_e$ & $\epsilon c_e$  

1149: \\

1150: \hline $x$& ${l\over\epsilon}$, $l\equiv {\sigma

1151: \over [c] g''_{1} c_{e}}$

1152: \\

1153: \hline $t$ & ${\tau_{e}\over\epsilon^{3}}$,

1154: $\tau_e \equiv {l^{2} [c]\over D_{1} c_{e}}$\\

1155: \hline $G$ & ${\sigma l^{2}\over \epsilon^{2}}$\\

1156: \hline

1157: \end{tabular}

1158: \\

1159: \\

1160: {\em Scaling Table for small supersaturation.}

1161: \bigskip

1162: 

1163: Given these units, the nondimensional version of

1164: (\ref{3.10}) is 

1165: \begin{eqnarray}

1166: \dot{a} = {1\over a}\,\left(\gamma_{\infty} -

1167: {2\over a}\right)\,.\label{3.14}

1168: \end{eqnarray}

1169: 

1170: \subsection{Quasistatic energetics}

1171: Given evolution of precipitate concentration

1172: field $c$, corresponding changes in total free

1173: energy of medium are quantified by the rate

1174: formula (\ref{2.15}). Now suppose concentration

1175: field $c$ corresponds to a nucleus undergoing

1176: quasistatic evolution as set by criterion

1177: (\ref{3.1}). It seems reasonable to approximate

1178: the integral in (\ref{2.15}) using the

1179: quasistatic approximation to $c$ which satisfies

1180: Equations (\ref{3.2}) to (\ref{3.4b}). The rate

1181: formula (\ref{2.15}) reduces to 

1182: \begin{eqnarray}

1183: \dot{G} = -\int_{0}^{\infty} D g'' c_r^2 4\pi r^2

1184: \, dr.\nonumber

1185: \end{eqnarray}

1186: >From (\ref{3.5}), $r^2 D c_r =Q$ for $r>a$, and

1187: $r^2 D c_r=0$ for $r<a$, so this reduces to

1188: \begin{eqnarray}

1189: \dot{G} = - 4\pi Q\int_{a+}^{\infty} g'' c_r\,

1190: dr = - 4\pi Q\,\{ g'(c_{\infty}) - g'(c_+)\}.

1191: \nonumber

1192: \end{eqnarray}

1193: Substituting for $Q$ from (\ref{3.6}), 

1194: \begin{eqnarray}

1195: \dot{G} = - [c]\,\{ g'(c_{\infty}) -

1196: g'(c_+)\} (4\pi a^{2} \dot{a}). \label{3.15}

1197: \end{eqnarray}

1198: In the right hand side, $[c]$ and $g'(c_+)$ are

1199: definite functions of radius $a$, determined by

1200: thermodynamic jump conditions (\ref{3.4a}) and

1201: (\ref{3.4b}). Hence, in quasistatic evolution,

1202: $G$ is effectively a function of the radius $a$.

1203: >From (\ref{3.15}), it is seen that $G(a)$ obeys

1204: the differential relation

1205: \begin{eqnarray}

1206: dG = - [c]\,\{ g'(c_{\infty}) -

1207: g'(c_+)\} (4\pi a^{2} da). \label{3.16}

1208: \end{eqnarray}

1209: In conventional descriptions of nucleus

1210: energetics, the Gibbs free energy cost of a

1211: nucleus regarded as a function of the instantaneous

1212: radius $a$, independent of past history. The

1213: specific formula is

1214: \begin{eqnarray}

1215: G = 4\pi\sigma a^2 - g_{b}{4\pi\over 3}\,

1216: a^{3}  \label{3.17a}

1217: \end{eqnarray}

1218: or in differential form, 

1219: \begin{eqnarray}

1220: dG = 8\pi \sigma a da - g_b 4\pi a^{2} da.

1221: \label{3.17b}

1222: \end{eqnarray}

1223: Here $\sigma$ is surface tension and $4\pi\sigma

1224: a^2$ represents surface energy. $g_b$ is a

1225: constant with units of energy density, sometimes

1226: called ``chemical driving force''. It is the free

1227: energy released per unit volume of increase of

1228: precipitate phase. In its present form

1229: (\ref{3.16}) does not have obvious correspondence

1230: to (\ref{3.17b}). A correspondence is brought out

1231: by reformulation of (\ref{3.16}) with help of

1232: thermodynamic jump conditions (\ref{3.4a}) and

1233: (\ref{3.4b}). By (\ref{3.4a}), it follows that

1234: $g'(c_-) = g'(c_+)=$ common value $m$, and hence 

1235: (\ref{3.4b}) gives 

1236: $$[g] - [c]\, m = - {2\sigma\over a}\,,$$

1237: or, equivalently,

1238: $$[c]\, g'(c_+) = [g] + {2\sigma\over a}\,.$$

1239: Hence (\ref{3.16}) becomes

1240: \begin{eqnarray}

1241: dG = 8\pi\sigma\, a\, da + \{ [g] - [c]\,

1242: g'(c_{\infty})\} (4\pi a^{2} da). \label{3.18}

1243: \end{eqnarray}

1244: The first term on RHS is differential of surface

1245: energy, same as in (\ref{3.17b}). An apparent

1246: correspondence between (\ref{3.17b}) and

1247: (\ref{3.18}) is completed by identifying the

1248: chemical driving force $g_b$,

1249: \begin{eqnarray}

1250: g_b \equiv - [g] + [c]\, g'(c_{\infty}).

1251: \label{3.19}

1252: \end{eqnarray}

1253: Recalling that $[g]$ and $[c]$ are functions of

1254: radius $a$ as determined by thermodynamic jump

1255: conditions, it is evident that the chemical

1256: driving force (\ref{3.19}) is generally a

1257: function of cluster radius, and {\em not a

1258: constant} as in conventional nucleus energetics.

1259: 

1260: We can now write Eq.\ (\ref{3.6}) for $\dot{a}$ in terms of $G_a

1261: = - \{ g'(c_{\infty}) - g'(c_+)\}\, 4\pi a^{2}[c]$ given by

1262: (\ref{3.16}). The result is

1263: \begin{eqnarray}

1264: \dot{a} = - {\int_{c_{+}}^{c_{\infty}} D(c)\, dc\over

1265: g'(c_{\infty}) - g'(c_+)}\, {G_{a}\over 4\pi [c]^{2} a^{3} }.

1266: \label{3.16a}

1267: \end{eqnarray}

1268: 

1269: 

1270: \subsection{Energetics at small supersaturation}

1271: In the small supersaturation limit, $\int_{c_{+}}^{c_{\infty}}

1272: D(c)\, dc \sim D(c_1)\, (c_{+}-c_{\infty}) = D_1\, (\gamma_{+}-

1273: \gamma_{\infty})$, $g'(c_{\infty}) - g'(c_+)\sim g''_1\, (

1274: \gamma_{+} - \gamma_{\infty})$ and (\ref{3.16a}) reduces to

1275: \begin{eqnarray}

1276: \dot{a} = - {G_{a} D_1\over 4\pi g''_1 [c]^{2} a^{3} } .

1277: \label{3.16b}

1278: \end{eqnarray}

1279: Inserting the approximate chemical driving force $g_b = [c]

1280: g'(c_\infty) -[g] \sim g''_1 \gamma_{\infty}$ from (\ref{3.19})

1281: into the free energy (\ref{3.17a}), we obtain 

1282: \begin{eqnarray}

1283: G \sim 4\pi\sigma a^2 - [c]\, g''_1\,

1284: \gamma_{\infty} \, \left({4\pi\over 3}\, a^3

1285: \right)\,.   \label{3.21}

1286: \end{eqnarray}

1287: Notice that the asymptotic chemical driving force, 

1288: \begin{eqnarray}

1289: g_b \sim [c]\, g''_1\,\gamma_{\infty},

1290: \label{3.22a}

1291: \end{eqnarray}

1292: is in fact a constant independent of radius $a$, as in

1293: the conventional wisdom. An alternative expression

1294: for $g_b$ is useful: In certain experiments

1295: surface tension $\sigma$ and critical radius

1296: $a_c$ are measured observables, so it is

1297: convenient to represent $g_b$ in terms of

1298: $\sigma$ and $a_c$, 

1299: \begin{eqnarray}

1300: g_b = {2\sigma\over a_{c}}\,.  \label{3.22b}

1301: \end{eqnarray}

1302: This formula follows from the condition  $G'(a_c)

1303: = 0$. The natural unit of free energy is $\sigma

1304: l^2$. This is entered into the last column of the

1305: scaling table. Then the dimensionless version of the

1306: free energy formula (\ref{3.21}) is 

1307: \begin{eqnarray}

1308: G = 4\pi\, a^2 - \gamma_{\infty}\, {4\pi\over

1309: 3}\, a^3 .   \label{3.23}

1310: \end{eqnarray}

1311: 

1312: \subsection{Identification of rate constant in BD kinetics}

1313: We can now compare Eq.\ (\ref{dot-a}) for the growth of a

1314: (large) cluster radius in BD kinetics with the corresponding

1315: equations (\ref{3.16a}) and (\ref{3.16b}) obtained from our

1316: macroscopic description. We find 

1317: \begin{eqnarray}

1318: k_d &=& {\tau\, \int_{c_{+}}^{c_{\infty}} D(c) dc\over

1319: g'(c_{\infty}) - g'(c_{+})}\, \left( {c_{2}\over

1320: [c]}\right)^{2}\, 4\pi a\label{5.15a}\\ 

1321: & \sim & {D_{1}\tau\over g''_{1}}\, \left( {c_{2}\over

1322: [c]}\right)^{2}\, 4\pi a ,   \label{5.15}

1323: \end{eqnarray}

1324: in the small supersaturation limit.

1325: 

1326: With this determination of $k_d$, the continuum

1327: limit equation (\ref{5.12}) of cluster kinetics

1328: is completely specified. It is easy to check that

1329: the corresponding microscopic rate constant

1330: determined by Penrose et al \cite{pen83,pen84}

1331: is also proportional to $a$ for large clusters.  

1332: One might wonder about the micromolecular basis of

1333: (\ref{5.15}). While that requires further work,

1334: here is a curious observation which might become

1335: relevant to this question: Recall the {\em

1336: mobility} $\delta$ defined in the formulation of

1337: the macroscopic transport theory of Section

1338: \ref{secMkinetics}. It is related to the diffusion

1339: $D$ by (\ref{2.3a}), 

1340: $$ D = \delta\, (1-\nu c)\, g''.$$

1341: Hence the ratio $D_1/g''_1$ in (\ref{5.15}) is

1342: given by

1343: \begin{eqnarray}

1344: {D_{1}\over g''_{1}} = \delta_1\, (1-\nu c_1).   

1345: \label{5.16}

1346: \end{eqnarray}

1347: In the next Section, we show that the volume fraction $\nu

1348: c_1$ of precipitate in matrix phase is small, $\nu c_1

1349: \sim (0.04521$ nm$^3)\, (2.24$ nm$^{-3})\approx

1350: 0.10$, for coarsening experimental data in binary alloys

1351: \cite{XH}. Then $D_1/g''_1\approx

1352: \delta_1$ and formula (\ref{5.15}) for $k_d$ reduces to

1353: \begin{eqnarray}

1354: k_d \approx \delta_{1}\tau\left({c_{2}\over

1355: [c]}\right)^{2}\, 4\pi a .  \nonumber

1356: \end{eqnarray}

1357: 

1358: Let us notice that this rate constant $k_d$ is linear in the

1359: cluster radius so that it scales as $n^{{1\over 3}}$ with

1360: cluster size. This contrasts with the usual Turnbull-Fisher

1361: rate constant that scales as $n^{{2\over 3}}$ \cite{reg01}, but

1362: it agrees with the microscopic considerations of Penrose et al

1363: \cite{pen83,pen84}. The scaling $n^{{1\over 3}}$ has been

1364: shown to yield the Lifshitz-Slyozov distribution function for

1365: cluster radii \cite{juanjo}. The latter is a roughly adequate

1366: description of coarsening \cite{XH,gas01}. 

1367: 

1368: %\setcounter{equation}{0}

1369: \section{Material and energy parameters of

1370: kinetic theory determined from Xiao-Haasen data}

1371: \label{sec-XH}

1372: 

1373: \subsection{Small supersaturation}

1374: The nucleation in Xiao-Haasen's (XH) paper \cite{XH} takes

1375: place under low supersaturation: The initial

1376: sample has uniform composition, with mole

1377: fraction $\chi\equiv 0.12$, or 12 \% of Al in a

1378: Ni matrix. {\em Equilibrium} mole fraction of Al

1379: in matrix phase at annealing temperature of 773 K

1380: is $\chi_1 = 0.101$, or 10.1 \%. Equilibrium mole

1381: fraction of Al in precipitate phase is $\chi_2 =

1382: 0.230$, or 23 \%. Hence, {\em supersaturation} as

1383: a function of equilibrium concentration has

1384: initial value

1385: $${\chi-\chi_{1}\over \chi_{1}} \approx {0.120

1386: -0.101\over 0.101} \approx 0.19.$$

1387: Mole fractions are converted into number

1388: densities: XH report a molar volume of

1389: precipitate phase $V_m \approx 27.16\times

1390: 10^{-6}$ m$^3$. Conversion to an atomic volume by

1391: Avogadro's number gives

1392: $$ \nu_m\equiv {V_{m}\over N_{A}}\approx

1393: 4.51\times 10^{-29} \,\mbox{m}^3$$

1394: or $\nu_m\approx 0.0451$ nm$^3$. 

1395: 

1396: XH also report a lattice constant of $a\approx

1397: 0.356$ nm for the precipitate phase, and atomic

1398: volume corresponding to this lattice constant is

1399: $\nu_m = a^3 \approx 0.0451$ nm$^3$. It is clear

1400: that the molar volume $V_m$ was derived from the

1401: lattice constant. A lattice constant for the

1402: matrix phase is not reported explicitly, so it is

1403: presumably close to the value $a\approx 0.356$ nm

1404: of the precipitate phase. It seems there is an

1405: implicit assumption: Local structure of alloy in

1406: a lattice, with sites that can be occupied by Al

1407: or Ni atoms. In this case, atomic volumes of Al

1408: and Ni are de-facto the same, i.e., 

1409: $$

1410: \nu_m =\overline{\nu}_m \approx

1411: 0.0451\,Ê\mbox{nm}^3 .$$ 

1412: Now number densities of Al and Ni easily follow.

1413: For instance, $c_1$, the equilibrium number

1414: density of Al in matrix phase is 

1415: $$c_1 ={\chi_{1}\over \nu} \approx {0.101\over

1416: 0.0451}\,\mbox{nm}^{-3}\approx 2.24\,

1417: \mbox{nm}^{-3} .$$

1418: Table 1 gives initial concentration of

1419: Al in matrix phase, and equilibrium

1420: concentrations $c_1$ and $c_2$ of Al in matrix

1421: and precipitate phases. 

1422: \bigskip

1423: 

1424: \begin{tabular}{||c|c|c||cr||}    

1425: \hline $c$& $c_1$& $c_2$\\

1426: \hline

1427: 2.66 & 2.24 & 5.10   \\ \hline

1428: \end{tabular}

1429: \\

1430: 

1431: \noindent {\bf Table 1}: Number densities

1432: (nm$^{-3}$).

1433: 

1434: \subsection{Nucleation energetics}

1435: In XH, the nucleus energy takes the classic form 

1436: \begin{eqnarray}

1437: G = 4\pi\sigma a^2 -g_b\,\left( {4\pi\over 3}\,

1438: a^{3}\right)\,.      \label{4.1}

1439: \end{eqnarray}

1440: Here $\sigma$ is surface tension. A value $\sigma

1441: \approx 0.014$ J m$^{-2} = 1.4\times 10^{-20}$ J

1442: nm$^{-2}$ is deduced from interpreting coarsening

1443: data with the Lifshitz-Slyozov (LS) theory. XH deals

1444: with chemical driving force $g_b$ in two ways: 

1445: 

1446: \noindent (i) {\em ``Experimental''}. The

1447: distribution of nuclei in the space of their

1448: radii goes through a transient phase with two

1449: peaks, separated by a local minimum at about 1.2

1450: nm. XH conjecture that the initial radius $a_c$

1451: is in fact this 1.2 nm. Estimate of $g_b$ now

1452: follows from (\ref{3.22a}), 

1453: $$ g_b \sim {2\sigma\over a_{c}}\approx 2.33

1454: \times 10^{-20}\, \mbox{J\, nm}^{-3} .$$

1455: 

1456: Given an experimental estimate of the critical

1457: radius, $a_c \approx 1.2$ nm at outset, one can

1458: estimate the number of atoms in the critical

1459: nucleus, both Al and entrained Ni:

1460: $$ {1\over \nu}\, {4\pi\over 3}\, a_c^3 \approx

1461: 160.$$

1462: Of these, 23\% are Al, so there are 

1463: $$ n_c= 0.23\times 160 = 37$$

1464: Al atoms in the critical nucleus. It seems that

1465: the critical nucleus is ``just big enough'' so

1466: energetics based on continuum theory applies. 

1467: 

1468: \noindent (ii) {\em ``Theory''}. In standard

1469: theories, $g_b$ is computed from both

1470: thermodynamic properties of precipitate and bulk

1471: phases. As such, it comes out as a constant

1472: independent of nucleus radius $a$. These

1473: derivations do not face up to the fine points of

1474: the real situation, summarized in the formula

1475: (\ref{3.19}) for $g_b$. So our approach is to

1476: stick with the determination of $g_b$ based on

1477: $\sigma$ and $a_c$, 

1478: $$g_b \approx {2\sigma\over a_{c}}\approx 2.33

1479: \times 10^{-20}\,\mbox{J\, nm}^{-3},$$ 

1480: and then see what can be said about $g(c)$. In

1481: (\ref{3.22a}) one can determine $g''_1$ because

1482: all the other quantities are known. In fact, one

1483: gets 

1484: $$g''_1 = {g_{b}\over [c]\gamma_{\infty}} \approx

1485: {2.33\times 10^{-20} \,\mbox{J\, nm}^{-3}\over

1486: (5.10 - 2.24)\, \mbox{nm}^{-3}\, (2.66 - 2.24)\,

1487: \mbox{nm}^{-3} } \approx 1.94\times 10^{-20} \,

1488: \mbox{J\, nm}^{-3} .

1489: $$

1490: The annealing temperature of 773 K defines a

1491: basic unit of energy, 

1492: $$\tau = (773\,\mbox{K})\, ( 1.38\times 10^{-23}

1493: \, \mbox{J/K}) \approx 1.07\times 10^{-20}\,

1494: \mbox{J}.

1495: $$

1496: One now has

1497: $${g''_{1}\over \tau}Ê\approx 1.81\,\mbox{nm}^3.

1498: $$

1499: This is just one number imposed upon free energy

1500: function $g(c)$ by the XH data, but it is

1501: sufficient to establish the \\

1502: \\

1503: {\em Nonideal character of Al solution in matrix

1504: phase.}\\

1505: 

1506: Suppose the solution is ideal. Then the chemical

1507: potential of an Al particle in matrix phase is

1508: given by 

1509: \begin{eqnarray}

1510: \mu(c) = \mu_1 + \tau\ln {c\over c_{1}} ,

1511: \label{4.2}

1512: \end{eqnarray}

1513: where $\mu_1$ is the chemical potential when $c=

1514: c_1$ is the planar solvability. Now the relation

1515: between $\mu(c)$ and $g(c)$ is given by

1516: (\ref{1.2b}), which is repeated here for easy

1517: reference, 

1518: \begin{eqnarray}

1519: \mu(c) = g'(c) + \nu\, (g - c\, g'). \label{4.3}

1520: \end{eqnarray}

1521: >From this equation is evident that $g''(c)$ gives

1522: information about $\mu'(c)$. In fact,

1523: differentiation of (\ref{4.3}) yields 

1524: \begin{eqnarray}

1525: \mu'(c) = (1- \nu c)\, g''(c)\Longrightarrow

1526: \mu'_1 = (1-\nu c_1)\, g''_1 .\label{4.4}

1527: \end{eqnarray}

1528: Numerical value of $\mu'_1/\tau$ based upon

1529: previous value of $g''_1$ turns out to be 

1530: $${\mu'_{1}\over\tau} \approx \{ 1- (0.0451 \,

1531: \mbox{nm}^3)\, (2.24 \,\mbox{nm}^{-3})\}\, (1.81\,

1532: \mbox{nm}^3)\approx 1.63\, \mbox{nm}^3 .

1533: $$

1534: If the ideal solution formula (\ref{4.2}) were

1535: correct, one would get 

1536: $${\mu'_{1}\over\tau} = {1\over c_{1}} \approx {1

1537: \over 2.24 \,\mbox{nm}^{-3} }\approx 0.45\,

1538: \mbox{nm}^3 ,

1539: $$

1540: which is 1/274 of value that follows from XH

1541: parameters. That the solution of Al in Ni phase

1542: is not ideal was already known to XH. They in

1543: fact considered that our chemical driving force

1544: $g_b$ is sum of two terms: (i) a chemical driving

1545: force estimated from the activity of Al component

1546: at the concentrations $\chi$ and $\chi_1$, and

1547: (ii) and the elastic strain energy per unit

1548: volume. With the corresponding expressions, they

1549: obtained a value for the critical radius, $a_c

1550: \approx 1.7$ nm, which is not too far from the

1551: experimental value, $a_c \approx 1.2$ nm

1552: \cite{XH}. 

1553: 

1554: The experimentally derived values of surface

1555: tension $\sigma$ and chemical driving force

1556: $g_b$ in (\ref{4.1}) set important parameters for

1557: macroscopic nucleation theory, namely: Energy

1558: barrier for nucleation, and typical free energy

1559: cost to add one Al particle to a nucleus. 

1560: 

1561: {\em Energy barrier} is given by 

1562: $$G_{\mbox{nuc}} = G(a_c) = {4\pi\over

1563: 3}\,\sigma a_c^2 \approx {4\pi\over 3}\,

1564: (1.4\times 10^{-20}\,\mbox{J\, nm}^{-2})\, (1.2\,

1565: \mbox{nm})^2 \approx 8.4\times 10^{-20}\,\mbox{J}

1566: .  $$

1567: Energy barrier in units of thermal energy is 

1568: $${G_{\mbox{nuc}} \over\tau} \approx 7.8 .

1569: $$

1570: A reasonable looking number. Notice that

1571: exponential 

1572: $$ e^{ - {G_{\mbox{nuc}} \over\tau} } \approx

1573: 3.7\times 10^{-4}, $$

1574: which appears in the nucleation rate is not too

1575: small. This makes anthropomorphic sense: In XH

1576: experiment, nucleation kinetics unfolds in hours

1577: and days time scales, not unduly taxing to

1578: humans. Evidently, the annealing temperature is

1579: tuned so as to achieve a ``reasonable''  nucleation

1580: rate. 

1581: \bigskip

1582: 

1583: {\em Free energy cost to add one particle.}

1584: 

1585: The number $n$ of Al particles in nucleus is

1586: related to radius $a$ by 

1587: \begin{eqnarray}

1588: n = {4 \pi\over 3}\, c_2 a^3 \Longrightarrow a =

1589: \left({3n\over 4\pi c_{2}}\right)^{{1\over 3}} .

1590: \label{4.5}

1591: \end{eqnarray}

1592: Substituting (\ref{4.5}) for $a$ in (\ref{4.1})

1593: gives nucleus energy as a function of $n$,

1594: \begin{eqnarray}

1595: G_n = (36 \pi)^{{1\over 3}}\,\sigma c_2^{-{2\over

1596: 3}} \, n^{ {2\over 3}} - g_b\, c_{2}^{-1}\, n.

1597: \label{4.6}

1598: \end{eqnarray}

1599: Free energy cost to add one particle to nucleus

1600: of $n$ particles, in units of thermal energy

1601: $\tau$, is

1602: $${\mu_{n}\over\tau} \equiv {G_{n+1} - G_{n}

1603: \over\tau}  = (36 \pi)^{{1\over 3}}\,\sigma 

1604: c_2^{-{2\over 3}}\tau^{-1} \,\{ (n+1)^{ {2\over 3}}

1605: -  n^{ {2\over 3}}\} - g_b\, c_{2}^{-1}\,\tau^{-1}.

1606: $$

1607: Since this formula is based on continuum theory,

1608: its validity requires $n\gg 1$, in which case it

1609: reduces to 

1610: \begin{eqnarray}

1611: {\mu_{n}\over\tau} \sim {2\over 3} (36

1612: \pi)^{{1\over 3}}\,\sigma c_2^{-{2\over 3}}\,

1613: \tau^{-1} n^{ -{1\over 3}} - g_b\, c_{2}^{-1}\,

1614: \tau^{-1}.    \label{4.7}

1615: \end{eqnarray}

1616: Substituting XH parameter values in RHS,

1617: \begin{eqnarray}

1618: {\mu_{n}\over\tau} \sim 1.43\, n^{ -{1\over 3}} -

1619: 0.42.    \label{4.8}

1620: \end{eqnarray}

1621: In the limit $n\to\infty$, we get $|\mu_n/\tau|

1622: \sim 0.42$. While less than 1, one would not call

1623: this value ``small compared to one''. For $n=37$,

1624: corresponding to a critical nucleus, of course

1625: one gets $\mu_n/\tau=0$. Hence there will be a

1626: range of $n$ about $n= n_c = 37$ in which $|\mu_n

1627: /\tau|\ll 1$. In particular, $|\mu_n/\tau| < 0.2$

1628: in the rather generous interval $12<n<300$. In

1629: this range of $n$, asymptotic reduction of

1630: discrete kinetic  models such as Becker-D\"oring

1631: to a Smoluchowski partial differential equation (PDE) should be

1632: reasonable. 

1633: 

1634: 

1635: \section{Discussion}

1636: \label{sec-BDasymptotics}

1637: In coarsening experiments, one starts from a

1638: situation of equilibrium at high temperature in

1639: which most clusters are monomers. Then the

1640: temperature is lowered to a value below the

1641: critical temperature, and kept there. Clusters are

1642: nucleated and grow, supersaturation changes with

1643: time so that nucleation of new clusters becomes

1644: unlikely, and the coarsening of clusters proceeds.

1645: As explained by Penrose et al \cite{pen83,pen84},

1646: this process is reasonably well described by the

1647: Becker-D\"oring model (better than by the

1648: Lifshitz-Slyozov distribution function), provided

1649: the volume fraction of precipitate is small. Let us describe

1650: the nucleation and coarsening processes in typical experiments

1651: such as XH and which parts thereof are mathematically

1652: understood. 

1653: 

1654: The nucleation process described by the BD equations starts at

1655: $t=0$ with some initial value of $\rho_1= c_{\infty}$ and no

1656: supercritical clusters. According to the XH data, the energy

1657: barrier corresponding to the initial value of the critical

1658: nucleus is relatively high, $G_{\mbox{nuc}}/\tau

1659: \approx 7.8$, so that we may consider the clusters

1660: below critical size ($n<n_c$) to be in a

1661: quasistationary state. The flux across the energy

1662: barrier is then uniform and it supplies the source

1663: for coarsening of clusters larger than the

1664: critical size. As explained in Section

1665: \ref{sec-XH}, there is a range of sizes (about the

1666: critical size) for which we may approximate the

1667: discrete BD kinetics by a continuum Smoluchowski

1668: equation for the distribution function

1669: $\rho$. The latter will describe the coarsening

1670: process and it should be approximately solved with a

1671: boundary condition obtained by matching to the

1672: solution of the BD equations for $n<n_c$. 

1673: For $t>0$, supercritical clusters are

1674: created at the rate $j$ per unit volume given in Eq.\

1675: (\ref{6.6}) below, and $\rho_1$ starts to decrease. A small

1676: change of $\rho_1$, $O(1/n_c)=O(\epsilon^3 l^3/c_2)$, induces

1677: an $O(1)$ relative change of $j$. 

1678: %Hence we adopt the

1679: %nondimensionalization suggested by the Scaling

1680: %Table of Section \ref{secMkinetics}, so that the

1681: %continuum limit of BD is the problem (\ref{5.17})

1682: %to (\ref{5.19}). We would like to describe the

1683: There is a transient situation during which 

1684: $\rho$ becomes a bimodal distribution function with peaks at sub

1685: and supercritical sizes. As time evolves, the

1686: supercritical peak increases at the expense of

1687: the subcritical peak, which disappears given

1688: enough time. Then the resulting unimodal

1689: distribution evolves toward a function with the LS

1690: scaling. 

1691: 

1692: Currently it is known that the LS distribution function

1693: \cite{LS} is a solution of the Smoluchowski equation for a very

1694: special boundary condition at small cluster size \cite{juanjo}.

1695: Although the stability properties of the LS distribution

1696: function are not completely elucidated, it seems clear that the

1697: Smoluchowski equation may have other stable solutions that may

1698: match the quasistationary distribution at small cluster sizes.

1699: The appropriate solution of the Smoluchowski equation should

1700: then describe the transient stage of coarsening. As the time

1701: advances, the peak of the distribution function at subcritical

1702: sizes decreases and disappears while the peak at supercritical

1703: sizes takes over. The latter should have the LS scaling to

1704: explain experimental \cite{XH} and numerical data

1705: \cite{pen83,pen84}. To carry out an asymptotic analysis of

1706: nucleation and coarsening providing the same qualitative

1707: description sketched here is a challenging future task.

1708: 

1709:  \section{Acknowledgements}

1710:  The present work was financed through the Spanish

1711: DGES grant PB98-0142-C04-01 and carried out during J.\ Neu's

1712: sabbatical stay at Universidad Carlos III supported by the

1713: Spanish Ministry of Education. 

1714: 

1715: 

1716: %\appendix

1717: \section{Appendix: BD kinetics for $n<n_c$}

1718: The quasistationary state is a solution of the BD

1719: equations characterized by uniform flux,

1720: \begin{eqnarray}

1721: j_{n} = k_{d,n+1}\,\left\{ e^{-{G_{n+1} -

1722: G_{n}\over\tau}}\,\rho_{n} - \rho_{n+1}

1723: \right\} \equiv j,   \label{6.1}

1724: \end{eqnarray}

1725: for $n<n_c = c_2 4\pi a_c^3/3$. At high

1726: temperature, before the experiment starts, we have

1727: the following equilibrium solution

1728: \begin{eqnarray}

1729: \rho_{eq,n} = {c\, e^{-{G_{n}\over\tau}}\over

1730: \sum_{l=1}^{\infty} l\, e^{-{G_{l}\over\tau}}}

1731: \sim c\, e^{-{G_{n}-G_{1}\over\tau}} . \label{6.2}

1732: \end{eqnarray}

1733: To write the above approximation, we have assumed

1734: that $G_2/\tau\gg G_1/\tau\gg 1$ and that

1735: $G_n$ increases with $n$. After nucleation and

1736: coarsening start, we shall assume that $\rho_n$ is

1737: close to its equilibrium value [given by the

1738: approximate expression (\ref{6.2}) at the correct

1739: temperature $\tau$], as $n\ll n_c$. Thus $\rho_n =

1740: O(c\, e^{-(G_{n}-G_{1})/\tau})$ if $n<n_c$, and

1741: much smaller than this order if $n>n_c$. This

1742: means that $e^{{G_{n}\over\tau}}\,\rho_{n}/c =

1743: O(e^{G_{1}/\tau})$ if $n <n_c$, and that

1744: $e^{{G_{n}\over\tau}}\,\rho_{n}/c = o(e^{G_{1}/

1745: \tau})$ if $n\gg n_c$. 

1746: 

1747: Equation (\ref{6.1}) can be written as

1748: $$ e^{{G_{n+1} \over\tau}}\,\rho_{n+1} - 

1749: e^{{G_{n}\over\tau}}\,\rho_{n} = -

1750: {j\over k_{d,n+1}}\, e^{{G_{n+1}\over\tau}}\,,

1751: $$

1752: and therefore easily integrated under the

1753: condition $e^{{G_{n}\over\tau}}\,\rho_{n} \to 0$

1754: as $n\to\infty$:

1755: \begin{eqnarray}

1756: e^{{G_{n}\over\tau}}\,\rho_{n} = j\,

1757: \sum_{l=n}^\infty { e^{{G_{l+1}\over

1758: \tau}}\over k_{d,l+1}}\,.   \label{6.3}

1759: \end{eqnarray}

1760: The terms in this sum are largest for $l\sim n_c$,

1761: at which $G_l$ is maximum. For such integers, the

1762: continuum approximation holds, and we can write

1763: \begin{eqnarray}

1764: { e^{{G_{l+1}\over\tau}}\over k_{d,l+1}}\sim

1765: {e^{{G_{n_{c}}\over\tau}}\over k_{d,n_{c}}}

1766: \sum_{l=n}^\infty e^{-{4\pi\sigma\over\tau}\,

1767: (a_{l}-a_{c})^{2}}.    \label{6.4}

1768: \end{eqnarray}

1769: We have used $G_{l+1} - G_{n_{c}}\sim - 4\pi\sigma 

1770: (a_l-a_c)^2$, for $l+1$ close to $n_c$. We now

1771: approximate $a_l = a_c + x\sqrt{\sigma/\tau}$ in

1772: (\ref{6.3}), and $1\sim 4\pi c_2 a_c^2 da_l = 4\pi

1773: c_2 a_c^2 \sqrt{\tau/\sigma}\, dx$, so that

1774: (\ref{6.3}) becomes 

1775: \begin{eqnarray}

1776: e^{{G_{n}\over\tau}}\,\rho_{n} \sim {j\over

1777: D_{1}}\, {[c]\over c_{2}}\,{\sqrt{ {\sigma\over

1778: \tau}}\over \gamma_{\infty}}\, e^{{G_{n_{c}}\over

1779: \tau}}\, 2\, \int_{\sqrt{{\sigma\over\tau}}\,

1780: (a-a_{c})}^\infty  e^{-4\pi x^{2}}\, dx.  

1781: \label{6.5}

1782: \end{eqnarray}

1783: The equilibrium solution of the BD equations is 

1784: (\ref{6.2}). If we impose that $\rho_n \sim

1785: \rho_{eq,n}$ as $n\ll n_c$, (\ref{6.2}) and

1786: (\ref{6.5}) yield 

1787: \begin{eqnarray}

1788: j\sim \sqrt{{\tau\over\sigma}}\, {c D_{1}

1789: \gamma_{\infty} c_{2}\over[c]}\,

1790: e^{-{G_{n_{c}}-G_{1}\over\tau}} \,. 

1791: \label{6.6}

1792: \end{eqnarray}

1793: This constant flux is exponentially small because$(G_{n_{c}}

1794: -G_1)/\tau \sim G(a_c)/\tau \gg 1$. Notice that it is also

1795: proportional to the supersaturation $\gamma_\infty$. It is

1796: clear that a small change in the supersaturation,

1797: $\delta\gamma = O(\gamma_{\infty}/n_c)$, produces

1798: an $O(1)$ change in $n_c$ and in $G_{n_{c}}$,

1799: $\delta n_c = - 3 n_c \delta\gamma/

1800: \gamma_{\infty}$ and $\delta G_{n_{c}} = - 2

1801: G_{n_{c}} \delta\gamma/\gamma_{\infty}$, and hence

1802: a significant relative change of $j$ in

1803: (\ref{6.6}):

1804: \begin{eqnarray}

1805: {\delta j\over j}Ê\sim \exp\left({g''_{1} [c]

1806: n_{c}\over\tau}\,\delta\gamma\right)\,.

1807: \label{6.6b}

1808: \end{eqnarray}

1809: 

1810: Notice that, in the continuum limit, the flux

1811: $j_n$ becomes 

1812: \begin{eqnarray}

1813: j_n &\sim & -{D_{1}\tau\over g''_{1}[c]^{2}}\, {e^{-

1814: {G(a)\over\tau}}\over 4\pi a}\, {\partial\over \partial a}

1815: \left( e^{{G(a)\over\tau}}\, {\rho\over a^{2}}\right)\nonumber\\

1816: &=& {D_{1}\tau\over g''_{1}[c]^{2}}\, {1\over 4\pi a}\,

1817: \left( {\rho\over\tau a^{2}}\, {\partial G\over \partial a}

1818: + {\partial\over

1819: \partial a}\left( {\rho\over a^{2}}\right)\right)\,. 

1820: \label{6.6d}

1821: \end{eqnarray}

1822: The relation between drift and diffusion coefficients here is

1823: $G_a/\tau$ in agreement with the formulas provided by

1824: Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics; see Ref.\ \cite{reg01}. 

1825: 

1826: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

1827: \bibitem{zia68} 

1828: A. Ziabicki, {\it Generalized theory of nucleation

1829: kinetics. I. General  formulations}. J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 48},

1830: 4368-4374 (1968). 

1831: 

1832: \bibitem{mar95} 

1833: I. V. Markov, {\it Crystal growth for beginners}. (World Sci.,

1834: Singapore 1995). 

1835: 

1836: \bibitem{XH} 

1837: S. Q. Xiao and P. Haasen, {\it HREM

1838: investigation of homogeneous decomposition  in a

1839: Ni-12 at.\% Al alloy}. Acta metall. mater. {\bf

1840: 39}, 651-659 (1991). 

1841: 

1842: \bibitem{gas01} 

1843: U. Gasser, E.R. Weeks, A. Schofield, P.N. Pursey

1844: and D. A. Weitz, {\it Real-space imaging of nucleation and

1845: growth in colloidal crystallization}. Science {\bf 292},

1846: 258-262 (2001). 

1847: 

1848: \bibitem{pag97} 

1849: I. Pagonabarraga, A. P\'erez-Madrid and J. M.

1850: Rub\'{\i}, {\it Fluctuating  hydrodynamics approach to chemical

1851: reactions}. Physica A {\bf 237}, 205-219  (1997).

1852: 

1853: \bibitem{reg01}

1854: D. Reguera, J. M. Rub\'{\i} and L. L. Bonilla, contribution to

1855: this book. 

1856: 

1857: \bibitem{zia01}

1858: A. Ziabicki, contribution to this book. 

1859: 

1860: \bibitem{leb77} J. Lebowitz and O. Penrose,

1861: {\it Cluster and Percolation inequalities for

1862: lattice systems with interactions}. J. Stat.

1863: Phys. {\bf 16}, 321-337 (1977).

1864: 

1865: \bibitem{LS}

1866: I. M. Lifshitz and V. V. Slyozov, {\it The kinetics

1867: of precipitation from  supersaturated solid

1868: solutions}. J. Phys. Chem. Solids {\bf 19}, 35-50

1869: (1961). 

1870: 

1871: \bibitem{juanjo} J. J. L. Vel\'azquez, {\it The

1872: Becker-D\"oring equations and the 

1873: Lifshitz-Slyozov theory of coarsening}. J. Stat.

1874: Phys. {\bf 92}, 195-236 (1998). 

1875: 

1876: \bibitem{pen83}  O. Penrose and A. Buhagiar,

1877: {\it Kinetics of nucleation in a lattice gas

1878: model: microscopic theory and simulation

1879: compared}. J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 30}, 219-241 

1880: (1983).  

1881: 

1882: \bibitem{pen84} O. Penrose, J. L. Lebowitz, J.

1883: Marro, M. Kalos and J. Tobochnik , {\it Kinetics 

1884: of a first order phase transition: computer

1885: simulations and theory}. J. Stat.  Phys. {\bf

1886: 34}, 399-426 (1984). 

1887: 

1888: \end{thebibliography}

1889: 

1890: %\end{multicols}

1891: \end{document}