Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

JOURNAL

OF

NUCLEAR

MATERIALS

7,

No.

1 (1962)

38~4.5, NORTH-HOLLAND

PUBLISHING

CO.,

AMSTERDAM

1 (1962) 38~4.5, NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING CO., AMSTERDAM J. BURKE and P. H. DIXON t THE a
1 (1962) 38~4.5, NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING CO., AMSTERDAM J. BURKE and P. H. DIXON t THE a

J.

BURKE

and

P.

H.

DIXON

t

THE

a q? (3 PHASE

TRANSITION

IN PURE

URANIUM

Department

of

Metallurgy,

University

of

Liverpool,

UK

 

Received

6 April

1962

 

A critical review of previous work on the a/,!? transition

in pure uranium is presented. It is shown that the

j3 -+ a change is diffusional at slow cooling rates and

martensitic during fast cooling and that the OL+ /l change is always diffusional except in the very special case of the transformation of martensitic OLwhich transforms by reversal of the primary shear if the heating rate is sufficiently rapid. The two current theories of remnant textures in

n uranium are examined in the light of the above conclusions and both found to be unsatisfactory. An alternative explanation is proposed based upon the probable effects of /l grain size on the ,8 * o( transformations.

Une revue critique des recherches effect&es anterieure- ment sur la transformation a//l de l’uranium eat

present&e. On montre que la

a lieu avec diffusion aux lentes vitesses de refroidisse- ment et par transformation martensitique aux grandes

vitesses

procede toujours par diffusion sauf dans le cas t&s

special ob l’uranium a &tB forme par

martensitique. Dana ce cas, il y a transformation (Y + /l par inversion du cisaillement primitif dti It la transformation martensitique j3 + a It condition que

transformation

/I +

LY

de refroidissement.

La

transformation o( + ,Cl

transformation

1.

Introduction

Over

the

past

few

years

a number

of

con-

flicting views have been expressed concerning the mechanisms of the a e p phase transition in pure uranium. Several factors have contri- buted to this position: (1) It is impossible to retain the p phase, wholly or partly, to room temperature for microscopic and crystallo- graphic studies and practical difficulties have so far prevented such studies being carried out at elevated temperatures. (2) The small amount

t

Now

at

AERE,

Harwell.

38

la vitesse de chauffage soit suffisamment rapide. Lea deux theories actuelles concernant lea textures sub- sistant dans I’uranium cy sont examinees B la lumihe des conclusions ci-dessus et ces 2 theories n’apparais- sent pas satisfaisantes. Une autre explication eat proposee en se basant sur lea effets probables de la grosseur du grain /i’ sur la transformation B Tt LY.

Es wird ein kritischer tfberblick iiber die Arbeit gegeben, die bisher auf dem Gebiet des a//? Ubergangs in reinem Uran geleistet worden ist. Es wird dabei gezeigt, dass es sich bei dem /? + n ifbergang urn einen Diffusionsvorgang handelt, wenn langsame Abkiihlungsgeschwindigkeiten verwendet werden. Da- gegen ist der Wechsel martensitisch bei schnellen Abkuhlungsgeschwmdigkeiten. Der (Y + p Wechsel dagegen ist immer ein Diffusionsvorgang. Ausge- nommen ist der spezielle Fall der Umwandlung vom martensitischen x, welches in primiiren Schichten umschlagt, wenn die Erhitzungsgeschwindigkeit hin- reichend gross ist. Die beiden geltenden Theorien iiber Resttexturen in oc-Uran wurden im Hinblick auf die obigen Ergebnisse geprtift. Es wurde gefunden, dass beide unbefriedigend sind. Es wird versucht, auf der Basis des wahrscheinlichen Einflusses der ,%Korngriisse auf die ,Cl$ x Umwandlung eine Erkllirung zu geb en

of kinetic data available are not completely reliable. (3) In drawing conclusions from certain experiments, there has been an unfortunate tendency to make generalizations from results obtained under restrictive conditions and a failure to ensure that the conclusions were consistent with established thermodynamic and kinetic principles of phase transformations. The present communication is a critical review of the published work on this topic in which we shall attempt to resolve the present con-

THE&e/f?

PHASE

TRANSITION

IN PURE

URANIUM

39

flitting position and to indicate those aspects to which future investigation could be directed most fruitfully. We shall not discuss each previous contribution separately or chrono- logically. Instead, each aspect of the problem will first be considered in simple theoretical terms and those experimental observations which are consistent with the theoretical pre- dictions and with each other indicated. The contradictory results will then be examined in a little more detail and their value assessed.

In discussions of phase changes it is important

to define certain terms. In many earlier papers on the transformations in uranium the term “nucleation and growth” has been used to describe a transformation mechanism in which product nuclei grow by a diffusion-type process. It has been long reoognised that this term is unsatisfactory because all mechanisms involve nucleation and growth. Some previous authors have also considered nucleation and growth as two separate steps and implied that a particular nucleation mechanism can be combined with the same or a different growth mechanism. This approach is unsound. The process of nucleation, if it exists at all +, comprises growth of domains of product phase from a size at which they are unstable to a size at which they are capable of continued existence. In other words, nucleation is merely a convenient name for the initial stages of growth. Thus, reactions

must be defined in terms of the growth mecha- nism. We shall use the term “diffusional” to describe a transformation in which growth of the regions of product occurs by the capture of single atoms from the parent lattice by means of thermally activated jumps across the inter- face. A martensitic transformation is defined as one in which growth proceeds by the systematic co-ordinated shear of large numbers of atoms in the parent phase through small distances relative to their neighbours such that the parent lattice is transformed into that of the product, and which does not depend on atomic inter- change by diffusion. The characteristics of these

t

nuclei

In many

may

be

cases there is reason for believing preformed.

that

types have been discussed thoroughly else- where 1).

in other

systems. The bainite reaction in steels involves both shear and diffusion but this is possible only in a multicomponent system. The so-called massive transformation 2) is diffusionless macro- scopically but involves small scale atomic re-arrangement. This mechanism is possible in pure uranium but at the present time there is insufficient evidence to justify an attempt to distinguish between pure martensitic reactions and this mode. Consequently, we shall confine the discussion to diffusional and martensitic modes whilst realising that the latter may involve some microscopic atomic re-arrange- ment .

Other

modes

have

been

recognised

2.

the

following conflicting conclusions concerning the mechanism of the /3 --f LXchange in pure uranium (using the present terminology): (1) that it occurs by diffusional decomposition under all conditions of cooling and undercooling, (2) that

it is martensitic under all conditions and (3) that both modes can be realised depending upon the

cooling rate. In

order to establish which is the

correct view we shall first present some general theoretical considerations.

The

/3 --f a

Transformation

have

put

Previous

authors

forward

2.1. THEORETICAL

CONSIDERATIONS

Diffusional decomposition produces equili- brium 01 whose free energy, G,, is lower than that of ,6, CT,,at all temperatures below TE, the equilibrium transition temperature. Hence, this mode is thermodynamically possible at all degrees of undercool. From kinetic consider- ations it follows that it is least likely to occur at very low temperatures at which diffusion is too slow to yield an appreciable reaction rate. In contrast, martensitic reaction gives a product, LX’, whose free energy, Gg,, is greater than G, owing to the elastic strain energy arising from the shape change and coherency and also owing to the retention in supersaturated solid solution of trace impurities. A temperature TO exists,

40

J.

BURKE

AND

necessarily below TE at which G,, =Gp, above which martensitic decomposition is not possible. In practice, additional supercooling to M, is required to provide sufficient excess free energy to overcome the energy barrier to transfor- mation. However, once M, has been attained, the very low activation energy for martensitic growth permits of appreciable reaction rates even at low temperatures. Consequently, there is a finite range of undercooling, and thus of cooling rates for continuous cooling transfor- mation, within which transformation must be diffusional; martensitic transformation is most likely at drastic quenching rates. In the para- graph above, (2) is incompatible with this conolusion; and of the other two clearly (3) is the more likely.

2.2. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF TWO REACTION MECHANISMS

The theoretical conclusion has been well substantiated experimentally in dilute alloys in which it is firmly established that ,8 decom- position is diffusional at temperatures high in the OLrange and is martensitic at low temper- atures a-6). The following experimental results on the pure metal are in accordance with the hypothesis of diffusional LYformation at slow cooling rates :

(a)

Single crystals of 01can be produced by the phase change technique 7).

(b)

The

01 produced

b y

slow

cooling

has

the

metallographic

characteristics

of

that

ob-

tained

in

alloys

by

isothermal

transfor-

mation

near

to

TE ; increasing

the rate of

cooling

refines

the

01 grain

size 7).

 

(0)

When a specimen is partially transformed to ,5’by passing it slowly through a thermal gradient, the a grains adjacent to the a/#? boundary grow into the /? when the direc- tion of travel is reversed 9).

The following observations are in accordance with the hypothesis of martensitic transfor- mation at fast cooling rates:

P.

H.

DIXON

Cd) The 01produced by quenching is typical of the martensitic 0~’ found in alloys 3).

Butcher 10)quenched a specimen of uranium after subjecting it to a heat treatment known to produce a single crystal of /3 in dilute alloys. The orientation of almost all of the occrystals were consistent with those to be expected from the martensitio decom- position of a single crystal of uranium- chromium.

(4

(f) Bement

and Wallace

ii) found

that a graph

of

hardness

as a function

of

cooling

rate

 

through

the

,8 +

(Y change

exhibited

a

sharp

change

in slope

at a cooling

rate

of

about

20” C

per

second.

They

suggested,

on

the

basis

of

this

rather

circumstantial

evidence,

that this rate is a critical cooling

rate above

which

the

reaction

is totally

martensitic.

2.3. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORTOF A MARTENSITIC REACTION ONLY

Several previous investigators have concluded that the reaction is martensitic at all temper- atures and cooling rates, a conclusion which is at variance with theory and the results (a) to (c). This view was first put forward by White s), who noted that the lowest temperature at which diffusion-controlled transformation occurs in uranium-chromium alloys increased as the chromium content decreased. Hence he sug- gested that at zero chromium this temperature would coincide with TE, leaving shear as the only mode. This was based upon an extra- polation to zero chromium content from only three compositions and must be regarded as highly speculative. Butcher 10) also thought that the reaction was always martensitic. His crystallographic studies, whilst proving convincingly the existence of a martensitic mode, can give no information as to transformation during slow cooling because the work was carried out on drastically quenched samples. Jepson et ~1.4) obtained a TTT diagram for pure uranium consisting of a single C curve

THE ol&/!? PHASE

TRANSITION

IN PURE

URANIUM

41

in contrast to the two C’s found for dilute alloys. They concluded that only one mechanism

is possible in pure uranium and, in view of Butcher’s results lo), that this is shear. However, their diagram was based upon insufficient ex- perimental points to be entirely convincing. The possibility of discontinuities in the curve cannot be excluded. Also the technique was incapable of detecting “reaction start” times less than 20 seconds. It is unfortunate that no metallo- graphic examination of the dilatometric samples was carried out. We tentatively suggest that this curve is that associated with diffusional transformation and that M8 was undetected.

Klepfer and Chiotti

12) found that on cooling

to a temperature just below TE, the resistivity

increased isothermally over a period of time to

a constant value ; further isothermal increases

were noted on stepped quenching until a temper-

ature 15" C below TE was attained below which no further isothermal changes occurred. The sum of the isothermal changes was said to be that expected for complete transformation of

p to 01. Hence, it

31formed depends upon the temperature. This is a feature of athermal martensitic reaction and it was concluded that the transition is martensitic even at very small undercooling. However, the isothermal martensitic reaction

of

follows that the amount

in dilute uranium alloys goes to completion at

a fixed temperature 396) and has no athermal

characteristics. Evidently, the conclusion is based upon doubtful ground. Moreover, attempts to reproduce these results by the present

authors 13)and others 14J5)have been unsucoess- ful. Much importance must not be placed upon this work until it has been thoroughly re- examined.

Finally,

it

has

been

reported

by

several

authors that vestiges of preferred orientation in n-uranium persist through an 01-p--6(cycle 17-20).

One explanation is that there is a reversible crystallographic relationship between LYand B through the transitions. The conclusion from this, that the reactions must, therefore, be martensitic cannot be sustained. We shall discuss remnant textures more fully in Section 4.

Suffice it to note here that whilst orientation relationships are an unavoidable characteristic

of reaction by the martensitic mode, they

possible also for diffusional reactions, e.g. the formation of Widmanstiitten precipitates.

are

2.4. EVIDENCE

IN SUPPORT OF DIFFUSIONAL

TRANSFORMATION

ONLY

The view that the reaction is always diffusion- controlled was expressed by Duwez 16), who found that the transformation temperature decreased progressively as the rate of cooling increased. This interpretation was based upon older ideas that martensitic reactions are athermal and insuppressible. Isothermal, time- dependent shear reactions are now recognised, notably in uranium alloys, and these can be suppressed by increasing the cooling rate. Thus, this piece of evidence loses its significance. Lehr and Langeron 7) produced single crystals of a-uranium by the phase-change technique and concluded that a forms by diffusion. The generalization of this conclusion to all cooling conditions cannot be sustained since the experi- ment was necessarily restricted to very slow rates of cooling.

2.5. SUMMARYOFTHE,!?

-+CXTRANSFORMATION

To summarize, most of the reliable experi- mental observations are consistent with the theoretical prediction that the @ -+ N change in pure uranium is diffusional at slow cooling rates and martensitic at fast cooling rates.

3.

The

OL+

/? Transformation

There is very little direct evidence relating to the transformation even in alloys and present ideas are largely based upon interpretation of circumstantial observations e.g. the effect of heat treatment on textures. In view of this the discussion which follows is largely theoretical. We shall consider two cases (a) transformation of (Y(cc’) previously formed martensitically from B and (b) the more general case of transfor- mation of equilibrium 0~.

42

J.

BURRE

AND

(a) THE TRANSFORMATIONOF MARTENSITICIX’

are

crystallographically reversible on heating, start-

above TO. There

ing from a temperature, As,

is no a priori reason for placing As above or below TE. In many systems reversibility is not observed because of the intervention of temper- ing reactions during heating which destroys the geometric relationships in the low temperature shear product. In pure uranium t,he tempering takes the form of thermal relaxation of lattice distortion and loss of coherency. If AS is below TE, DC’may transform to 16by simple reversal of the /? + (x shear provided that the heating rate is fast enough to prevent thermal relaxa- tion. If relaxation does occur 01’ degenerates to a, the transformation of which is considered below. If AS is above TE, a further condition must be satisfied for a shear back to b, viz. that the heating rate above TE must be sufficient to prevent diffusional nucleation of B which becomes thermodynamically possible at any temperature above TE. This type of reverse shear has been observed in alloys. Holden 21) noted that upquenching a partially transformed U-Cr alloy caused the 01’ plates to disappear. There is also indirect evidence of it in pure uranium. Klepfer and Chiotti ii) found that rapid cycling through the a/,!? transition raised the temperature of the onset of thermal twinning in the a-phase. This symptom of progressive lattice hardening is indicative of the retention of lattice defects through the phase changes which is possible only if both reactions are martensitic.

Martensitic

reactions

produced

by cooling

(b) THE

TRANSFORMATIONOF NON-

MARTENSITIC/3

This

category

is

far

more

general

than

(a)

including the important cases of randomly oriented or textured a. In principle the trans-

formation can occur by either of the two basic processes. Using the same reasoning as before it follows that diffusional transformation is possible at all temperatures above TE, whereas shear is not possible for small superheating.

P.

H.

DIXON

some indication of whether shear is ever likely may be obtained from general theoretical con- siderations. The rate of nucleation of a phase is determined by the temperature-dependent activation energy for the formation of a nucleus, A(T), and the activation energy for the transfer of atoms across the interface, Q, assumed

independent of temperature. A(T) for shear is greater than that for the corresponding diffusion- controlled reaction but QS (for shear) is very much less than QD (for diffusion).

For

the

diffusional

transformation

1-3--f Lx

during cooling, decreasing the temperature decreases both A(T) and the rate of diffusion. These two effect’s are in opposition and thus the reaction rate exhibits ‘C-curve behaviour, the rate of transformation being negligible at low temperature. Owing to the small value of Qs, the martensitic reaction is capable of appreciable velocities even at low temperatures where it is the preferred mode. For the heating transition a + P, raising the temperature above TE decreases A(T) for the diffusional reaction and accelerates diffusion. The two effects are additive and the reaction rate increases rapidly with

-

TIME

/

Fig. 1. Hypothetical isothermel TTT diagram for the cx+ B and B + OLtransformations in pure uranium.

TE is the equilibrium transition temperature; TO is the temperature at which LY’is in quasi-equilibrium

with

formation of a from b by a diffusional and by a martensitic mechanism respectively; /?n and /Is are corresponding lines for the reverse transformation. The positions of an and 0~shave been estimated from published work. The position of j?nand /?s are arbitrary.

the

,9; OLDand

cys are the

incubation

times

for

THE

a+@

PHASE

TRANSITION

IN

PURE

URANIUM

43

temperature ; ‘C’-curve kinetics cannot be pro- duced. The difference is illustrated by a hypo- thetical TTT diagram for transformation as shown in fig. 1. The lines BD and o(n are the

incubation periods for the formation of ,6 from

oc and 01from ,!3respectively

shear reaction to ,!l is not thermodyna,mically possible until a temperature XscBit some way above Ts, is attained, and the incubation line for #? formation by shear, &z, is as shown and

the corresponding line for oc formation is 0~~. At T > TE the gradient of ps is approximately equal to -Qs and that of ,8n to -Qn. Since

Qo>

by

diffusion.

The

,8n

and the two curves can never intersect. It follows that diffusional transformation is always the preferred mechanism. A further possibility that has been suggestedza) is that very rapid heating would enable the 6s line to be attained before all the 01had had time to transform to & and hence that the last parts of a may transform martensitically. We

feel that this is unlikely for several reasons ; (a)the activation energy for the formation of a

martensiti~ nucleus is greater

diffusional transformation

always be energetically more favourable at temperatures where diffusion rates are appre- ciable; (b) it is clear from fig. 1 that the rate of the diffusional reaction is always greater than that of the shear and the disparity increases with increasing superheat. Thus, the greater the superheat (i.e. rate of heating) the more favourable is the diffusion mechanism. Experimentally, the most direct evidence

relating to this transformation is the resistivity work of Klepfer and Chiotti. Their interpretation that the reaction is athermal and therefore, martensitic, is at variance with the above con- clusions. However, for the reasons given earlier we consider this work to be unreliable. Further- more, Barwood and Butcher 23)in a dilatometric study found no athermal characteristics.

Qs,

/& must

always

be

steeper

than

than

that

for

and so the latter will

3.3. SUMMARY,

01-+ ,d TRANSFORitIATION

We

conclude

that

the

Al-+ /3 transformation

is diffusional

at all heating

rates

except

in the

very special case of martensitio oc’, which

probably undergoes simple crystallographic reversal of the ,!l +- LYshear under oon~tions of rapid heating.

4.

Remnant

Textures

A detailed account of the considerable work

on textures in LXuranium has been given recently

by Butcher

24) and it is unnecessary to repeat it.

Here, we shall confine attention to those aspects and theories which need re-examination in the

light of the conclusions in the previous sections. In this connection, the important result is that preferred orientation in a may persist after treatment in the /3 range, It is clear from Butcher’s work that all the important factors are not as yet unequivooally identified. McDonell19) reported that as the temperature and time of ,8 treatment were increased the extent of retained texture decreased. Donze and Faivre 26) working with single crystals, concluded that only temperature was important. The effect of the rates of heating and cooling has not been systematically studied, but McDonelli9) showed that quenching gave a more random structure than air cooling. Two theories have been advanced to explain this phenomenon. The first, due to Butcher 26),

(L:-+ /3

is based upon the supposition that

change is marte~itic. The retention of texture through an LY4 p -+ & cycle is inevitable if the cooling rate is sufficiently rapid to give marten-

sitic IX’, because then both structural changes involve specific orientation relationships. The basic assumption of the theory is inttonsistent with the conclusion in Section 3 that the a + /3 transition is never martensitic. Furthermore, McDonell’s 19) result that quenching increased randomization also appears to be incompatible with this theory. It should perhaps be em- phasized here that orientation relations~ps are not a feature exclusive to martensitic reactions, so that the persistence of textures provides no information relative to the mechanism of the phase changes. The alternative explanation, advanced by McDonell 19) and independently by Donze and

the

44

J.

BURKE

AND

Faivre 14Js), supposes that domains of the original 01 exist in the @ phase after transfor- mation and serve as nuclei for re-transformation. Donze and Faivre 25)found that 01single crystals were preserved in the original orientation after heating into the @ range provided a critical temperature was not exceeded; this temperature varied from 2” C of superheat for high purity uranium to 14” C of superheat for metal con- taining 150 ppm carbon. Subsequently 14,27),it was shown from cooling curve studies of polycrystals that the temper- ature of the start of p --f 01 transition at a constant cooling rate was depressed by super- heating in the p range, from 665” C after 2” C superheat to 655’ C after 80” C superheat. According to Donze 14), increasing the superheat decreases the size of the (x embryos and thus greater underoooling of the b --f 01 change is necessary to raise them to the status of nuclei. The stability of the embryos was explained by supposing that the interface is an array of dislocations, which is geometrically stable al- though thermodynamically unstable. The pre-

sence

these dislocations and thereby retarding growth of the embryos during cooling.

the

cooling rates used (5” C/hour) in the thermal analysis work, 01formation must be diffusional (Section 2). A dislocation interface must thus move by a process analogous to climb and it is difficult to imagine solute atom pinning having a significant effect. The martensitic growth of a would be more susceptible to this effect and so it is important to examine how solutes affect the p --f OLchange at various cooling rates ; (b) if notwithstanding the above argument, pinning does retard the growth of o(, it should also retard the opposite movement of the inter- face. Hence, alloys should retain larger 01 embryos than pure uranium and require less undercooling to initiate 01 formation; this is contrary to observation 27); (c) this inter-

pretation of the thermal analysis results ignores the influence of p grain size on the kinetics of

the

of alloying elements stabilizes B by pinning

to

this

theory

are:

(a)

at

Objections

/3 +

a transformation.

P.

It

H.

DIXON

is considered

that

the

evidence

available

at the

present

is

inadequate

 

to

support

this

theory

and

much

further

work

 

is

necessary

before

it

can

be

regarded

as proved.

 

4.1.

A

TENTATIVE

ALTERNATIVE

 

EXPLANATION

OF

TEXTURE

RETENTION

 

AND

OF

THE

DEPRESSION

OF

THE

,8

+

a

TRANSITION

A

tentative explanation of Donze’s thermal

analysis results and of remnant texture is possible on the basis of the conclusion of

Section 3 that the 01--f B change is diffusional.

In the light of general

experience of phase

changes and of energetic considerations, it is reasonable to assume that both the 01--f ,8 and ,8 + OLchanges will be predominantly grain- boundary-nucleated +. Increasing the time or temperature of the @ anneal prior to cooling will coarsen the ,5 grain size and, because of the reduced area for nucleation, retard 01formation during cooling, i.e. necessitate increased under- cooling. Remnant textures imply that crystallographic relationships exist in both OL--f B and /3 --f 01 transitions. Orientation relationships are pos- sible in diffusional transformations ; Widman- statten figures are well known examples. These arise because, by matching specific planes in the two phases, it is possible to obtain a low energy interface and minimise the energy barrier

to nucleation. Crystallographically related grain

boundary precipitates can also exist 29) but in

this case the product will be related to only one of the contiguous grains (except in unique boundary orientations). Thus during heating only a fraction ++ of the LXgrain orientation will be transmitted to the B phase and only a fraction of this amount will be passed back to

a due to grain boundary nucleation from /?

during cooling. Increasing the time or temper- ature in the ,5 induces grain growth, which by virtue of the disappearance of some /? grains,

t This has been demonstrated in dilute uranium alloys 28). tt Considerably less than half because the most favourable nucleation sites are multi-grain junctions sO) and because, statistically, some nuclei will be random.

THE

&2$/f?

PHASE

TRANSITION

destroys

the memory

of more and more

of the

original

OLgrains,

and thus leads to a reducbion

in the

remnant

texture.

5.

Future

The

gaps

formations

Work

in

are

our

knowledge

obvious

from

of

this

the

trans-

review.

By

way

of summary,

we briefly

suggest

a number

of

lines

of

investigation

which

should

prove

particularly

fruitful :

 

(4

A

detailed kinetic

and metallographic

study

of

the TTT

diagram

for the /I --f OLchange

(in

pure

uranium)

and

of

the

effects

of

thermal

history.

 

(b)

A continuous

cooling

curve

study

to obtain

a proper

estimate

of

MS and

the

critical

cooling rate, and an indication as to whether

a maasive

type

mechanism

is possible.

(0)

A study similar to (a) for the cy-+ /? change,

with

01grain size as an important

variable.

W

A

study

of

the

dependence

of

residual

cx

textures

on ,!Igrain size, rate of heating

time

type

and depression of the @ --> OLchange

and cooling,

temperature

degree

in the /? phase

texture.

and

of

initial

Owing

and

and

to

the

impossibility

of

ascertaining

the

/I

grain

size

in

pure

uranium

this

work

would

best be carried out on dilute alloys.

6. Conclusions

The

following

conclusions

are

drawn

from

this

review :

(1)

The /? +

LXtransformation

is diffusional

at

slow

cooling

rates

and

martensitic

during

fast

cooling.

 

(2)

The

(Y+

p

transformation

is

diffusional

except

for

the

transformation

of

marten-

sitic

01for

which

it is martensitic

at very

rapid

heating

rates.

(3)

Remnant

textures

and

the

effects

of

/I

treatment

on

the

transition

 

can

be

ex-

plained

in

terms

of

grain

size

effects.

Acknowledgement

 

The

authors

would

like

to

acknowledge

the

considerable

benefit

derived

from

discussions

with,

and

criticism

by

Mr.

B.

R.

Butcher

of

IN

A.E.R.E.

PURE

URANIUM

Harwell,

which

helped

to

clarify

45

the

ideas

here

presented.

 

References

 

l)

B.

A.

Bilby

and

J.

W.

Christian,

Inst.

Met.

Monograph

and Report

Series No.

18 (1955)

 

121;

H.

K.

Hardy

and

T.

J.

Heal,

ibid,

 

p.

1.

2)

D.

Hull

and

R.

D.

Garwood,

ibid, p.

219

9

D.

W.

White,

J.

Metals

7

(1955)

1221

4,

M.

D.

Jepson,

R.

B.

Kehoe,

R.

W.

Nichols

and

G.

F.

Slattery,

Proc.

of

the

2nd

Geneva

Conf.

6

(1958)

42

5,

Mlle

J.

Beaudier,

G.

Cabane

and

P.

Monturat,

Rev.

MBt.

58

(1961)

3

9

P.

H.

Dixon

and J. Burke,

Inst.

Met.

Symposium

on Uranium

 

and

Graphite

(1962)

 

‘1

P.

Lehr

and

J.

P.

Langeron,

Rev.

M&.

4

(9)

(1958)

829

 

9

F.

G.

Foote

Progress

in Nucl.

Energy

Series V,

1

(1956)

105

 

g,

R.

W.

Cahn,

AERE,

 

Harwell

(UK),

Report

M/R

744

(1951)

 

10

11

1

B.

R.

Butcher

J.

Nucl.

Energy

1

(1957)

273

A.

L.

Bement

and

W.

P.

Wallace,

US

Atomic

Energy

Report

USAEC

Rep 4W-51084

(1957)

H.

H.

Klepfer

and P. Chiotti,

US Atomic

Energy

Report

USAEC

Rep

lSC-893

(1957)

1s )

14)

15)

16 17 1

18 )

20 )

21

22)

)

23 1

24)

25

)

26J

9

28)

28)

a0 )

R. D. Townsend

G. Donze,

and J. Burke (unpublished

Nucl.

Mat.

5

(1962)

150

J.

work)

G.

&bane,

private

communication

 

P.

Duwez,

J.

App.

Phys.

24

(1953)

152

S.

Aas,

Saertrykk

av

Tidsskrift

for

Kjemi,

Bergvesen

og

Metallurgi

No.

5

(1957)

F.

G.

Foote,

Proc.

of

the

1st

Geneva

Conf.,

Paper

555

(1955)

p.

54

W.

R.

McDonell,

Nucl.

Eng.

and

Sci.

Conf.

preprint

172

(1958)

 

K.

Taketani,

J.

Atom.

Energy

Sot.

(Japan)

2

(1960)

6

A.

N.

Holden,

Acta

Met.

1

(1953)

617

B. R.

Butcher,

private

communication

I. F. Barwood

quoted

and B. R. Butcher,

in ref.24).

to be published,

B.

R. Butcher,

Inst.

Met.

Symp.

on Uranium

and

Graphite

(1962)

G.

Donze

and R. Faivre,

Mem.

Sci. Rev.

MBt. 57

(1960)

16

B.

R.

Butcher

 

and D.

Baverstock,

J. Nucl.

Mat.

3

(1961)

30

J.

Beaudier,

G.

Donze

and

G.

Cabane,

J.

Nucl.

Mat.

4

(1961)

325

 

B.

R.

Butcher

and

A.

H.

Rowe,

Inst.

Met.

Monograph

and

Rep.

Series

No.

18

(1955)

229

H.

I.

Aaronson,

ibid,

p.

47

P.

J. Clemm

and J. C. Fisher, Acta

Met.

3 (1955)

70