- Email: [email protected]
Corrigendum to ‘Which wets TiB2 inoculant particles: Al or Al3Ti?’ [J. Alloys Compd. 664 (2016) 460–468]
Journal of Alloys and Compounds 677 (2016) 302e303
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Alloys and Compounds journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jalcom
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to ‘Which wets TiB2 inoculant particles: Al or Al3Ti?’ [J. Alloys Compd. 664 (2016) 460e468] David Wearing a, Andrew P. Horsfield a, *, Wenwu Xu b, c, Peter D. Lee b, c a
Department of Materials, Imperial College London, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BP, UK School of Materials, The University of Manchester, Oxford Rd., M13 9PL, UK c Research Complex at Harwell, Didcot, OX11 0FA, UK b
The equation relating the Ti chemical potential to the Ti mole fraction in the melt referred to in Section 3 of the paper contained an error which carried through to subsequent calculations involving this chemical potential. Thus the activity coefficient for typical melts should be about 2 104, the most stable interface is TiB2(Ti)//Al for XTi 3 107 (3 105at.%), and the interface energies gmeltsub for TiB2(B) and TiB2(Ti) cross for XTi ~107. This results in some small adjustments being made to Figs. 4 and 8. In addition there was an error in one of the labels in Fig. 7. The corrected figures are given below.
Fig. 4. The total Gibbs energy, GT, of the initial and final systems. The absolute value of GT is arbitrary: here the value for the initial TiB2(Ti)//melt system is chosen as zero.
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2015.12.203. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: a.horsfi[email protected] (A.P. Horsfield). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.03.206 0925-8388/© 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Fig. 7. Plot of the difference in DGT between sub//Al and sub//Al3Ti mechanisms against gmeltAl gmeltAl3Ti. The left half of the graph represents cases where strained Al has a lower interfacial energy with the melt than does Al3Ti; vice versa for the right half of the graph.
D. Wearing et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 677 (2016) 302e303
Fig. 8. The difference in DGT between formation of a solid on TiB2(Ti) and TiB2(B), plotted against the difference in the starting solid-liquid interfacial energy gmeltTiB2(Ti) gmeltTiB2(B). The left half of the graph represents cases where TiB2(Ti) has the lower interfacial energy with the melt; the right half likewise for TiB2(B). This difference in DGT is plotted for each solid separately, at T ¼ 950 K, for three different values of XTi.
303
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Alloys and Compounds journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jalcom
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to ‘Which wets TiB2 inoculant particles: Al or Al3Ti?’ [J. Alloys Compd. 664 (2016) 460e468] David Wearing a, Andrew P. Horsfield a, *, Wenwu Xu b, c, Peter D. Lee b, c a
Department of Materials, Imperial College London, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BP, UK School of Materials, The University of Manchester, Oxford Rd., M13 9PL, UK c Research Complex at Harwell, Didcot, OX11 0FA, UK b
The equation relating the Ti chemical potential to the Ti mole fraction in the melt referred to in Section 3 of the paper contained an error which carried through to subsequent calculations involving this chemical potential. Thus the activity coefficient for typical melts should be about 2 104, the most stable interface is TiB2(Ti)//Al for XTi 3 107 (3 105at.%), and the interface energies gmeltsub for TiB2(B) and TiB2(Ti) cross for XTi ~107. This results in some small adjustments being made to Figs. 4 and 8. In addition there was an error in one of the labels in Fig. 7. The corrected figures are given below.
Fig. 4. The total Gibbs energy, GT, of the initial and final systems. The absolute value of GT is arbitrary: here the value for the initial TiB2(Ti)//melt system is chosen as zero.
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2015.12.203. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: a.horsfi[email protected] (A.P. Horsfield). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.03.206 0925-8388/© 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Fig. 7. Plot of the difference in DGT between sub//Al and sub//Al3Ti mechanisms against gmeltAl gmeltAl3Ti. The left half of the graph represents cases where strained Al has a lower interfacial energy with the melt than does Al3Ti; vice versa for the right half of the graph.
D. Wearing et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 677 (2016) 302e303
Fig. 8. The difference in DGT between formation of a solid on TiB2(Ti) and TiB2(B), plotted against the difference in the starting solid-liquid interfacial energy gmeltTiB2(Ti) gmeltTiB2(B). The left half of the graph represents cases where TiB2(Ti) has the lower interfacial energy with the melt; the right half likewise for TiB2(B). This difference in DGT is plotted for each solid separately, at T ¼ 950 K, for three different values of XTi.
303