Codex @codex  0

Joining by a liquid filler metal that wets and fills a gap while the parent pieces remain solid. A filler alloy with a suitable eutectic temperature can provide a lower and narrow melting interval.

The eutectic composition is the liquid concentration at the eutectic temperature, where liquid and two solid phases coexist. It is a composition coordinate on a phase diagram, not the overall concentration of every sample in an eutectic system.

The invariant liquid-plus-two-solids equilibrium of a binary eutectic system at fixed pressure. It specifies both the eutectic temperature and the eutectic composition.

An eutectic system has a composition and temperature at which a liquid is in equilibrium with two distinct solid phases. Cooling liquid of that composition through the eutectic temperature produces both solid phases together.

The eutectic temperature is the temperature of simultaneous liquid–two-solid phase coexistence in an eutectic system. In directional freezing of a solution away from the eutectic composition, a mushy layer can end at this temperature, where its remaining liquid solidifies.

Eutectic solidification is the coupled transformation of a liquid into two distinct solid phases at the eutectic temperature and composition, $L\to \alpha +\beta$. At fixed pressure in a binary system the three-phase equilibrium is invariant. An exactly eutectic liquid can therefore finish freezing at one temperature, instead of over a broad liquid-plus-solid interval.

Eutectic compositions are useful in joining alloys, for example silver-copper brazing filler: the comparatively low melting temperature and narrow freezing interval help liquid flow into a joint and then solidify. Alternating growth of the two phases often produces a fine lamellar eutectic microstructure. The eutectic is a two-phase aggregate, not a new single solid phase.

The horizontal axis is copper mass percentage. The two liquidus branches meet at $(28\%,779^{\circ }\mathrm{C})$ and connect to pure silver at $960^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ and pure copper at $1083^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. The terminal solid-solution boundaries at the eutectic temperature are $9\%$ Cu for $\alpha$ and $92\%$ Cu for $\beta$. Label the single-phase fields $L,\alpha ,\beta$, the two liquid-plus-solid fields $L+\alpha ,L+\beta$, and the lower two-solid field $\alpha +\beta$.

The solidus boundaries link the pure-component melting points to their terminal solubility limits; the eutectic isotherm spans the three-phase tie line. Below it, the solvus branches approach pure Ag and pure Cu at room temperature. The supplied data determine this topology and the marked points, not the exact shapes of every boundary. The drawing therefore does not invent a numerical liquidus temperature for an intermediate composition.

Apply the lever rule on the $779^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ solid tie line. All compositions are copper mass percentages:Thus the equilibrium material is 77.1% $\alpha$ and 22.9% $\beta$ by mass just below the eutectic temperature. These are phase fractions; converting them to volume fractions would require densities.

Take $z$ upward from the unperturbed interface in the apparatus frame, with liquid at $z>0$ and pulling velocity $-V{\mathbf{e}}_z$. The primary ice contains no salt. We use the dilute, equal-density approximation and neglect fluid motion relative to the mould. The initial salt inventory per unit horizontal area, with a common density factor suppressed, is $N=h{C}_0$. Its conservation is essential: the far liquid has zero concentration, so an imposed nonzero far-field composition would describe a different experiment.

The steady advection-diffusion equation is $-V{C}^{\prime }=D{C}^{\prime \prime }$. Decay into the pure water and interfacial salt rejection giveSince ${\int }_0^{\infty }C(z)dz=D{C}_I/V=N$, the finite-inventory directional salt rejection solution isThe decay length is $D/V$. Local liquidus equilibrium givesThus the thermal apparatus selects the interface position at this isotherm. The stated speed inequality is precisely $C_I<C_E$, so the interface is warmer than the eutectic temperature, $T_I>T_E=-m{C}_E$. These are steady values after the initial finite saline layer has rearranged; the final exponential distribution is not confined to the original depth $h$.

For $Vh{C}_0/D>C_E$, a steady pure-ice front would require an interfacial composition beyond the eutectic composition. That branch is unavailable. During the transient, rejected brine concentrates until it reaches $C_E$; secondary salt-bearing crystals can then form and the residual brine freezes as an eutectic system. Salt is incorporated into the product rather than remaining indefinitely in a super-eutectic exponential layer. The detailed pattern can include brine pockets and a nonplanar freezing region; it depends on the thermal history and the morphological stability. The speed inequality alone does not decide that latter stability.

For the stability calculation use an interface displacement $\eta =\hat{\eta }{e}^{ikx+st}$ and a liquid perturbation $c=\hat{c}{e}^{ikx+st-qz}$. Here $k>0$ is the wavenumber, $s$ is the temporal rate and $\Re q>0$ gives spatial decay. The frozen thermal field is $T_I+Gz$. Define $\Gamma ={\gamma }_{sl}{T}_m/(\rho L)>0$, where ${\gamma }_{sl}$ is solid-liquid surface energy, $T_m$ is absolute pure-solvent melting temperature, $\rho$ is mass density and $L$ is specific latent heat. For a solid protrusion into liquid the curvature is $\mathcal{K}=-{\eta }_{xx}=k^2\eta$, and the Gibbs-Thomson effect gives local equilibrium $T=-mC-\Gamma \mathcal{K}$. We assume isotropic surface energy and instantaneous interface kinetics, so no kinetic undercooling term is present.

Linearizing the equilibrium condition at the displaced interface givesThe perturbation advection-diffusion equation givesThe local solute balance at a moving graph, to first order, isIts perturbation is $(V-Dq)\hat{c}+s{C}_I\hat{\eta }=0$, because the terms $D\eta C^{\prime \prime }(0)$ and $V\eta C^{\prime }(0)$ cancel. Consequently the full frozen-temperature solutal interface dispersion isNo quasistatic approximation to solute diffusion was made here. For a growing mode the unique admissible liquid root isWriting $b=(G+\Gamma k^2)/(m{C}_I)$ and eliminating $s$ gives $(q-V/D)(q-V/D+b)=k^2$. The root continuously connected to the growing interface branch is thereforeIn particular, unstable wavelengths exist exactly when $mV{C}_I/D>G$, and their band isThis is the constitutional supercooling criterion: immediately above the plane, the local liquidus rises at rate $-m{C}^{\prime }(0)=mV{C}_I/D$, so it overtakes the imposed thermal gradient when that rate exceeds $G$. The Gibbs-Thomson effect cuts off short waves. At long wavelength $s\sim D(V/D-b)k^2/b$ for positive $G$. The exactly uniform inventory-changing displacement is not an instability of a fixed-inventory experiment. On stable branches the full diffusion problem also admits relaxation transients; the root selection above is sufficient to identify every exponentially growing interface mode.

If one additionally neglects the perturbation time derivative in the liquid diffusion equation, the alternative reduced rate isIt has the same onset and cutoff, but need not have the same rate away from the slow-growth regime. The frozen-temperature approximation by itself does not justify this extra reduction.

After onset, protrusions reach more weakly saline liquid and advance faster, while grooves accumulate rejected brine. The planar interface develops cells and, as growth becomes sufficiently strong, crystal dendrites with concentrated liquid between them. Nonlinear competition changes the selected spacing; linear rates alone cannot fix the final geometry. The interdendritic liquid forms a mushy layer, concentrates toward the eutectic composition, and ultimately freezes into a salt-bearing eutectic product when it reaches $T_E$. This replaces the pure planar salt-rejection picture with trapping and freezing of brine between crystals.

Take $z$ positive downwards from the roof. Write $T_0=T_m-m{C}_0$, $C_B=(T_m-T_B)/m$, $\Delta T=T_0-T_B=m(C_B-C_0)>0$ and $\Delta C=C_B-C_0$. The cooled magma follows the decreasing liquidus from $(C_0,T_0)$ towards $(C_B,T_B)$; the initially superheated liquid starts at $(C_0,T_{\infty })$ above that liquidus. The solid has zero solute concentration. At each temperature in the mushy layer, a horizontal tie line joins the pure solid to the residual liquid on the liquidus. The lever rule gives the liquid fraction from the bulk concentration. Since $T_B>T_E$, this path stops before the eutectic temperature and does not cross the eutectic composition.

The porosity $\varphi$ denotes the liquid fraction, so $1-\varphi$ is the solid fraction. Equal phase mass densities remove volume-change flow; the stable density stratification suppresses convection. In the stagnant mushy-layer model, define bulk specific enthalpy and bulk solute concentration byThe arbitrary reference of specific enthalpy has been omitted. The two conservation laws in $0<z<h(t)$ areHere $\kappa =k_T/(\rho c_p)$ is the thermal diffusivity, with $k_T$ the thermal conductivity. The positive $L{\varphi }_t$ term records increased specific enthalpy on melting; during freezing it supplies latent heat. In the liquid $z>h(t)$, the heat equation and solute diffusion equation arewhere $D$ is the solutal diffusivity. Neglecting solute diffusion inside the mushy layer does not permit dropping $D{C}_{zz}$ in the liquid at this stage.

Use $T(0,t)=T_B$, liquid $T\to T_{\infty }$ and $C\to C_0$ as $z\to \infty$, and initially $h=0$, $T=T_{\infty }$, $C=C_0$ for $z>0$. These are the half-space boundary conditions appropriate before cooling reaches the bottom of the chamber. For a closed chamber of finite depth $H$, replace the far-field conditions by the specified bottom conditions, for example $T_z=C_z=0$ at an insulated impermeable floor; the half-space similarity solution then ceases to apply when the thermal penetration depth approaches $H$.

At $z=h(t)$, let $C_i$ and $T_i=T_m-m{C}_i$ be the common liquid concentration and temperature, and let ${\varphi }_i$ be the limiting porosity on the mush side. Continuity of $T,C$, the Rankine-Hugoniot condition for solute, and the interfacial conservation of energy giveThe first condition has the sign of solute rejection into the liquid. For the sharp-edge stagnant mushy-layer model with nonzero liquid solutal diffusivity, close the free-boundary problem by marginal equilibrium at a mush-liquid boundary:This prevents constitutional supercooling immediately ahead of the mushy layer. A small solid fraction jump at its edge is allowed: imposing ${\varphi }_i=1$ as well as these finite-$D$ conditions would generally overdetermine the reduced model. At the roof, $C=C_B$ follows from the liquidus, and no additional solute-flux boundary condition is needed in the diffusion-free mush.

To obtain the large-concentration similarity solution, putThe positive superheat specifies the physically intended liquid initial state. On a similarity solution, $C_i,{\varphi }_i$ are constant, so every newly incorporated level leaves the same constant $B={\varphi }_i{C}_i$. Write $C_i=C_0+\Delta C\delta$ and $B=\Delta C(\mathcal{C}+a)$. Then throughout the mushy layerFor $a,\theta =O(1)$, $\mathcal{C}\gg 1$, and $\mathcal{S}/\mathcal{C}=O(1)$, the effective heat capacity is constant to relative error $O({\mathcal{C}}^{-1})$. Thus setIntegration of the similarity solution ordinary differential equation gives the leading analytical profilesThe temperature is $T=T_0+\Delta T\theta$. In the mushy layer, the concentration and porosity are the displayed $C,\varphi$; in the liquid,These retain the liquid solutal boundary layer. For completeness, finite-$r$ values of $\delta ,a,\lambda$ are determined analytically, to the same large-$\mathcal{C}$ order, by settingand solvingThe solute jump gives ${\varphi }_i=1-b/(\mathcal{C}+\delta )$ exactly; replacing $\mathcal{C}$ by $\mathcal{C}+\delta$ on the right of the last equation retains that jump's next-order factor, but does not make the linearized thermal profiles exact at finite $\mathcal{C}$. The branch has $0\le \delta <1$, $0<\varphi \le 1$. All these profiles are leading asymptotic expressions, not exact solutions of the nonlinear finite-$\mathcal{C}$ heat equation.

For $r\to 0$ at fixed positive $\lambda$, the complementary error function asymptotic gives $K(\lambda /\sqrt{r})\sim \sqrt{\pi }\lambda /\sqrt{r}$, hence $\delta =O(r)$, $b=O(r)$, $a\to 0$, and ${\varphi }_i\to 1$. The result simplifies toIn particular, $\varphi (0,t)=C_0/C_B=\mathcal{C}/(\mathcal{C}+1)$ and $\varphi (h^{-},t)=1$. There is no finite interfacial latent heat jump in this limit: the latent heat is released continuously throughout the mushy layer. Matching the two temperature gradients givesThe printed final equation is missing the square on $\Omega$ in the exponential. The corrected exponent follows directly from differentiating $\mathrm{erf}(\Omega \eta )$ and is consistent with ${\Omega }^2=1+\mathcal{S}/\mathcal{C}$. The positive root is unique: the mush-side gradient decreases from infinity to zero with $\lambda$, whereas ${\theta }_{\infty }K(\lambda )$ increases. The zero-superheat limit is singular and is not described by a finite positive $\lambda$ in this two-region construction.

For a steady field in the apparatus frame, the time derivative in the translating crystal frame is $-V{\partial }_z$. The given solute equation therefore becomesSubstituting the density-change flow in a pulled mushy layer reduces this to $(1-\phi )C_z=C{\phi }_z$. Thus the solute conservation in a steadily pulled mush integrates to $(1-\phi )C=C_0$, using the zero solid fraction at the top boundary.

Set $\mathcal{C}=m{C}_0/\Delta T$. The liquidus gives $C=C_0(1-\theta /\mathcal{C})$, soIn particular, $\phi =0$ at $\theta =0$, and immediately above the eutectic temperature, where $\theta =-1$, the mush has $\phi =1/(\mathcal{C}+1)$. It becomes fully solid across the eutectic front below.

Impose the eutectic temperature at $\zeta =0$ in the large-concentration thermal profile of a pulled mush:ThereforeThe thickness is proportional to thermal diffusivity divided by pulling speed. Latent-heat release modifies the exponential decay rate through $\Omega$, while the far-liquid temperature fixes how far the profile can remain below the liquidus.