Abstract

To give a basic understanding of the experimentally observed difference between Cr2O3 and Al2O3 scales on carbon permeation, we employed the first-principles calculation methods to predict atomistic structures, formation energies, and carbon binding energies of Σ11 $${{\left\{ {10\bar{1}1} \right\}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left\{ {10\bar{1}1} \right\}} {\left\{ {10\bar{1}\bar{1}} \right\}}}} \right. \kern-0pt} {\left\{ {10\bar{1}\bar{1}} \right\}}}$$ tilt grain boundaries (GB) in both α-Al2O3 and α-Cr2O3 with a corundum structure. Owing to different surface terminations, we predicted two distinct kinds of stable atomistic structures for the GB: one with measurable voids and high formation energy, and the other with a compact interface and low formation energy. The predicted GB structures agree with experimental images. No significant structural difference was found for the same GB in α-Al2O3 and α-Cr2O3. Moreover, we predicted that atomic carbon would bind to the Σ11 $${{\left\{ {10\bar{1}1} \right\}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left\{ {10\bar{1}1} \right\}} {\left\{ {10\bar{1}\bar{1}} \right\}}}} \right. \kern-0pt} {\left\{ {10\bar{1}\bar{1}} \right\}}}$$ GB in α-Cr2O3 appreciably more strongly than in α-Al2O3. Therefore, our computational results suggest that chemical affinity rather than geometric structure of the GBs is related to different carbon permeation behaviors in Al2O3 and Cr2O3 scales.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.