NivaarExam PrepOfficial exam papers ↗

22-Mec-B8 Engineering Materials · December 2019

Question 6 of 7: Phase and constituent fractions in an Al–8 wt% Cu alloy

Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)

Notes on this paper

Paper format. National Examinations, December 2019 — 16-Mec-B8 Engineering Materials. Three hours, open book; any non-communicating calculator is permitted. Seven problems, all of equal value; any five of them constitute a complete paper, so each problem carries 20 marks. Candidates are urged to submit a clear statement of any assumptions made. All seven problems are solved below, because the complete set is the study resource. Problems 2, 5 and 6 are to be answered against the figures reproduced on page 4 of the examination paper — the Callister cold-work curves, the eutectoid isothermal-transformation diagram and the aluminium-rich Al–Cu phase diagram.

Reference texts (22-Mec-B8 Engineering Materials).

  • Askeland & Wright, The Science and Engineering of Materials, 7th ed. — the primary syllabus text.
  • Callister & Rethwisch, Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction, 10th ed. — the source of the three figures attached to this paper.
  • Shackelford, Introduction to Materials Science for Engineers, 8th ed.
  • Dieter, Mechanical Metallurgy, 3rd ed. — true stress–strain and the flow curve.
  • Kalpakjian & Schmid, Manufacturing Engineering and Technology — drawing schedules, cold work and process annealing.
  • Fontana, Corrosion Engineering, 3rd ed. — the galvanic series in sea water.
  • Ashby, Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, 5th ed. — selection by property profile and material index.
Figure values (the copper cold-work curves for Problem 2, the eutectoid isothermal-transformation curves for Problem 5 and the Al–Cu phase boundaries for Problem 6) are read from the printed figures. Graph readings carry the usual chart-reading tolerance of roughly one part in twenty, which is stated wherever it changes an answer.

Question 6: Phase and constituent fractions in an Al–8 wt% Cu alloy (20 marks)

Question text not reproduced: the examination questions are © Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Open the official past paper (linked at the top of this page) to read the question, then follow the worked solution below.

Given. An alloy of overall composition $C_{0} = 8$ wt% Cu, and the aluminium-rich end of the Al–Cu phase diagram reproduced on page 4. The invariant reaction printed on that diagram is in fact a eutectic at 548 °C, in which liquid decomposes into the aluminium-rich solid solution $\alpha$ and the intermetallic $\theta$ (CuAl2); the question calls it the eutectoid temperature, and the arithmetic requested is identical. Compositions read from the printed boundaries:

Compositions read from the page-4 Al–Cu diagram
QuantitySymbolValue
Alloy composition$C_{0}$8.0 wt% Cu
Invariant (eutectic) temperature$T_{E}$548 °C
Maximum solubility of Cu in $\alpha$ at $T_{E}$$C_{\alpha}$5.65 wt% Cu
Eutectic liquid$C_{E}$33.2 wt% Cu
$\theta$ (CuAl2) boundary$C_{\theta}$52.5 wt% Cu
$\alpha$ solvus at 350 °C$C_{\alpha}(350)$≈ 1.0 wt% Cu

Find. (a) the mass fractions of primary (proeutectic) $\alpha$ and primary $\theta$ immediately above 548 °C; (b) the total mass fractions of $\alpha$ and $\theta$ immediately below it; (c) the mass fractions of the eutectic $\alpha$ and eutectic $\theta$ alone; and (d) the mass fractions of $\alpha$ and $\theta$ at 350 °C.

01020304050300350400450500550600650700αLα + Lθ + Lα + θθ (CuAl2)alloy: 8 wt% Cujust above 548 °C: α + Ljust below 548 °C: α + θ350 °C tie linecomposition (wt% Cu)temperature (°C)Aluminium-rich Al–Cu phase diagram with the three tie lines
The vertical dashed line is the 8 wt% Cu alloy. Each horizontal tie line joins the two phase boundaries at that temperature; the lever rule then splits the alloy between them.

Approach. Apply the lever rule on the tie line at each temperature. The alloy is hypoeutectic (8 wt% Cu lies between $C_{\alpha} = 5.65$ and $C_{E} = 33.2$), so on cooling it first deposits primary $\alpha$ and the last liquid to solidify has the eutectic composition. Immediately above the invariant the phases are $\alpha$ and liquid; immediately below they are $\alpha$ and $\theta$; and the eutectic constituent is simply whatever the liquid turned into, so the eutectic fractions are the differences between the totals and the primary amounts.

  1. Part (a) — the tie line just above 548 °C. The two phases are $\alpha$ at 5.65 wt% Cu and liquid at the eutectic composition 33.2 wt% Cu. The lever rule puts the alloy composition at the fulcrum, so$$W_{\alpha'} = \frac{C_{E} - C_{0}}{C_{E} - C_{\alpha}} = \frac{33.2 - 8.0}{33.2 - 5.65} = \frac{25.2}{27.55} = \boxed{0.915}$$and the liquid that remains is $W_{L} = (8.0-5.65)/27.55 = 0.085$, which checks because the two must sum to unity.
  2. Part (a) — primary $\theta$. Primary (proeutectic) $\theta$ can only form in a hypereutectic alloy, one whose composition lies to the copper-rich side of 33.2 wt% Cu, because only then does the alloy enter the $\theta + L$ field on cooling. At 8 wt% Cu the alloy enters the $\alpha + L$ field instead, so$$W_{\theta'} = \boxed{0}$$There is no primary $\theta$ in this alloy at any temperature. Saying so explicitly, with the reason, is what the part is testing.
  3. Part (b) — the tie line just below 548 °C. The liquid has now transformed and the two phases present are $\alpha$ at 5.65 wt% Cu and $\theta$ at 52.5 wt% Cu. The tie line is much longer, so$$W_{\alpha} = \frac{C_{\theta} - C_{0}}{C_{\theta} - C_{\alpha}} = \frac{52.5 - 8.0}{52.5 - 5.65} = \frac{44.5}{46.85} = \boxed{0.950}$$$$W_{\theta} = \frac{C_{0} - C_{\alpha}}{C_{\theta} - C_{\alpha}} = \frac{2.35}{46.85} = \boxed{0.050}$$These are total phase fractions: they count every atom of $\alpha$ and of $\theta$ in the specimen, no matter which constituent it belongs to.
  4. Part (c) — separate the eutectic constituent from the primary. The primary $\alpha$ formed above the invariant does not change as the liquid transforms, so the eutectic $\alpha$ is whatever total $\alpha$ is left over:$$W_{\alpha,\text{eut}} = W_{\alpha} - W_{\alpha'} = 0.9498 - 0.9147 = \boxed{0.035}$$All of the $\theta$ came out of the eutectic liquid, because there was no primary $\theta$, so$$W_{\theta,\text{eut}} = W_{\theta} = \boxed{0.050}$$The check is that the whole eutectic constituent must equal the liquid present just before the reaction: $0.0351 + 0.0502 = 0.0853 = W_{L}$, exactly as required.
  5. Part (d) — the tie line at 350 °C. Below the invariant the $\alpha$ solvus falls steeply, and at 350 °C the printed curve gives $C_{\alpha} \approx 1.0$ wt% Cu while $\theta$ remains essentially stoichiometric at 52.5 wt% Cu. The tie line is longer still, so more $\theta$ must be present:$$W_{\alpha} = \frac{52.5 - 8.0}{52.5 - 1.0} = \frac{44.5}{51.5} = \boxed{0.864}$$and the balance of the specimen is the intermetallic,$$W_{\theta} = \frac{8.0 - 1.0}{51.5} = \frac{7.0}{51.5} = \boxed{0.136}$$The extra $\theta$ — the total rose from 0.050 to 0.136 — is the copper rejected from supersaturated $\alpha$ as the solvus falls. That rejection is the whole basis of precipitation hardening in the 2xxx aerospace alloys: solution treat above the solvus, quench to trap the copper, then age so that the $\theta$ appears as fine coherent $\theta''$ / $\theta'$ particles rather than the coarse equilibrium phase.
Question 6 — mass fractions
QuantitySymbol / basisValue
(a) Primary (proeutectic) $\alpha$, just above 548 °C$(C_{E}-C_{0})/(C_{E}-C_{\alpha})$0.915
(a) Primary $\theta$alloy is hypoeutectic0
(a) Liquid remaining just above 548 °C$W_{L}$0.085
(b) Total $\alpha$, just below 548 °C$(C_{\theta}-C_{0})/(C_{\theta}-C_{\alpha})$0.950
(b) Total $\theta$, just below 548 °C$1-W_{\alpha}$0.050
(c) Eutectic $\alpha$$W_{\alpha}-W_{\alpha'}$0.035
(c) Eutectic $\theta$all $\theta$ is eutectic0.050
(c) Check: eutectic constituent$0.035+0.050$0.085 = $W_{L}$ ✓
(d) $\alpha$ at 350 °C$C_{\alpha}\approx 1.0$ wt% Cu0.864
(d) $\theta$ at 350 °C$1-W_{\alpha}$0.136

Check: two of the six input compositions are read from the printed diagram and deserve a stated tolerance. The $\theta$ boundary is taken as 52.5 wt% Cu; stoichiometric CuAl2 is 54.1 wt% Cu, and using that value instead changes part (b) only from 0.0502 to 0.0486, under four per cent, so no verdict moves. The 350 °C solvus is the more sensitive figure: reading it as 0.8 wt% Cu rather than 1.0 shifts $W_{\theta}$ from 0.136 to 0.139. Quote the solvus value you used, as has been done here.