Powder Metallurgy аnd Functional Coatings

Advanced search

The impact of impurities on the Al–Fe–C system phase composition changes during sintering


Scroll to:


Manufacturing waste can be not only recycled but also utilized as a source of chemical elements and as a component of powder materials. Steel swarf are a complex multicomponent material with a high iron content, while impurities such as carbon can affect the diffusion interaction in the chip and metal powder mixture. In this study, we investigate the diffusion interaction between aluminum and steel swarf using temperature-controlled vacuum sintering. We analyzed the resulting mixture’s microstructure and phase composition, and observed that sintering creates a multiphase structure in which FeAl iron aluminide occupies at least 30 vol. %. Despite the high sintering temperature, we also observed residual aluminum and iron. Incomplete transformation may result form refractory products that inhibit diffusion or impurities that influence the magnitude and direction of the diffusion fluxes. To confirm the impurities’ role in the diffusion interaction kinetics, we developed simulation models of the intermetallic phase growth for a flat and spherical particle embedded in aluminum. The model consider cross-diffusion fluxes in the emerging phase regions and possible effects of impurities on the concentration limit for the new phase’s existence. We derived approximate analytical solutions to analyze the emerging phase growth trends under various model parameters.

For citations:

Korosteleva E.N., Knyazeva A.G., Anisimova M.A., Nikolaev I.O. The impact of impurities on the Al–Fe–C system phase composition changes during sintering. Powder Metallurgy аnd Functional Coatings. 2023;17(2):5-13.


Steels and other iron alloys remain the most widely used and cost-effective material in the manufacturing industry. Materials scientists design new and more efficient materials to replace conventional alloys, while also seeking ways to recycle and reuse retired products, components, and waste [1–4]. The largest source of manufacturing waste is generated by machining, which produces metal swarf [5; 6]. It should be noted that steel swarf are complex, multicomponent materials containing iron and carbon [7].

The swarf may also contain other alloying elements in varying concentrations. For example, lowest steel grades (e.g., steel 45 [ANSI analog: 1045]) contain 0.42 to 0.5 wt. % of carbon. Other most significant alloying elements are manganese (up to 0.8 %) and silicon (up to 0.37 %). The steel specification allows for the presence of chromium, copper, and nickel (up to 0.3 % each), as well as a low amount of phosphorus and sulfur (up to 0.035 %). Steel swarf are formed by the high-speed cutting of the metal workpiece resulting in an activated, highly defective structure of the chip surface [8].

Swarf are typically remelted, following cleaning to remove oxidation products and coolant [9], and then compacted into briquettes. However, steel swarf can be used as a component of powder mixtures with other elements [10]. Given that fragmented steel swarf contain multiple elements, understanding their diffusion interaction with other components of the mixture under heating is of interest. a better understanding of this process will contribute to the development of new materials and metal waste recycling technologies.

The objective of this study is to analyze the effects of impurities on the diffusion interaction between the components of the Al–Fe–C system.


Materials and methods

Aluminum was used as the primary component of our mixture, which interacted with fragmented steel swarf. The Al–Fe system has been extensively studied [11–16], and aluminum is utilized both as a matrix and as an alloying element. The Al–Fe phase diagram [17] reveals that aluminum has high solubility in α-Fe, forming large areas of solid solutions (up to 32 at. %). Its solubility in γ-Fe drops to 1.285 at. % at high temperatures. The solubility of iron in aluminum is very low, with a maximum of 0.03 at. % at the 654 °C eutectic temperature. The system produces five stable intermetallic compounds (Fe3Al, FeAl, FeAl2 , Fe2Al5 и FeAl3 ) and their temperature range for existence is 552 to 1170 °C.

We studied a mixture of fragmented steel swarf (75 wt. %) created by machining a steel 45 grade workpiece and the PA-4 aluminum powder (25 wt. %). The mixture was heated to 1000 °C in a vacuum furnace, and the phase composition of the powder was examined by analyzing the microstructure after sintering.

Figure 1 displays the surface of a steel chip fragment and its microstructure after sintering. Our analysis indicated that the carbon component concentration did not exceed 1.5 %. Jäger S. et al. [18] conducted a detailed investigation of steel chip sintering.


Fig. 1. Appearance (a) and surface morphology (b)
of the steel 45 grade swarf. Chip microstructure
after fragmenting and sintering at 1000 °C (c)


As aluminum was added to the steel swarf, intermetallic compound s were synthesized, resulting in a multiphase structure (Figure 2) in which at least 30 vol. % is occupied by the FeAl iron aluminide. Despite the exothermic nature of the Al and Fe interaction, residual Al (at least 15 vol. %), and Fe were discovered by XRD in the vacuum sintering products. This indicate that the reactions between Al and Fe (the base element of the steel 45 grade swarf) were not completed even at the sintering temperature of 1000 °C when Al was in liquid state.

In the contact area between interacting particles where diffusion interaction occurs, there are various factors that can affect the flux dynamics and completeness of phase transformations. These factors may include:


Fig. 2. Microstructure of the synthesized powders (25 % Al + 75 % steel 45)
a – appearance, b – intraparticle distribution of iron aluminide needle-like grains


– refractory interaction products that inhibit diffusion;

– impurities that affect the magnitude and direction of the diffusion fluxes;

– structural imperfections that affect diffusion and reactions at the micro level.

Although the impurities may not directly contribute to the formation of new phases, they can significantly impact the kinetics of phase formation.

In order to confirm the impact of the impurities, we proposed a simulation model.


Simulation model

The problem statement assumes that iron, as the primry component of the steel ships, has low solubility in Al. However, the solubility of aluminum in iron,although also limited, should be considered, with a value of 1.285 % at t = 1150 °C, which is the high-temperature solubility in γ-Fe. It is also assumed that each phase contains an area of homogeneity. Additionally, the steel swarf obtained by machining steel workpieces contain carbon as an impurity, with a maximum content of 1.5 %, accounting for possible contamination. It should be noted that the model for Fe and Al diffusion interaction in the presence of a third component can vary depending on the known diffusion path variations and higher phase competition in systems with more than two components [19; 20]. Cross-diffusion fluxes can result in an irregular concentration distribution in such systems [21–23].

1. The first version of the proposed model assumes a flat body for the chip, as shown in Fig. 1, a. Aluminum reacts with the iron at the surface, leading to the formation of intermetallic phases. Carbon influences diffusion by facilitating cross-diffusion fluxes. At any given moment, each phase may contain Fe, C, and Al. The model incorporates two moving boundaries, separating three regions that contain the three phases: (Fe + C)–(FexAly)–(Al) (Figure 3). The intermetallic phases are located between the moving boundaries.


Fig. 3. Phase regions and moving boundaries


The sum of the three mass concentrations in each phase is always equal to 1 at any given point. Typically, two diffusion equations for each region are abequate:


\[\frac{{\partial {C_{1,k}}}}{{\partial t}} = \frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {D_{11}^{(k)}\frac{{\partial {C_{1,k}}}}{{\partial x}}} \right) + \frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {D_{12}^{(k)}\frac{{\partial {C_{2,k}}}}{{\partial x}}} \right),\](1)


\[\frac{{\partial {C_{2,k}}}}{{\partial t}} = \frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {D_{21}^{(k)}\frac{{\partial {C_{1,k}}}}{{\partial x}}} \right) + \frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {D_{22}^{(k)}\frac{{\partial {C_{2,k}}}}{{\partial x}}} \right),\](2)


where the k superscript can be p, ph, m and represent the Fe + C, FexAly and Al(C, Fe) regions; С1,k is the iron concentration; С2,k is the carbon concentration in each region; \(D_{ij}^{(k)}\) are the partial diffusion coefficients.

The symmetry condition is fulfilled at the center of the particle:


\[x = 0:\frac{{\partial {C_{1,p}}}}{{\partial x}} = 0;\,\,\,\frac{{\partial {C_{2,p}}}}{{\partial x}} = 0.\](3)


The conditions at the phase interfaces are as follows:

 \[x = {x_1}(t):{C_{1,p}} = {C_{10}},\,\,\,{C_{2,p}} = {C_{20}},\]

\[{C_{1,ph}} = {\varphi _1},{\rm{ }}{C_{2,ph}} = {\gamma _1}{C_{2,p}} \equiv {\gamma _1}{C_{20}},\]

\[\left( {{C_{1,p}} - {C_{1,ph}}} \right)\frac{{d{x_1}}}{{dt}} =  - {J_{1,ph}}\]


\[\left( {{C_{10}} - {\varphi _1}} \right)\frac{{d{x_1}}}{{dt}} =  - {J_{1,ph}},\]



where С10 , С20 are the initial concentrations of iron and carbon, respectively, in the mixture particles; φ1 is the iron solubility limit in the transition region containing Fe3Al;


\[x = {x_2}(t):{C_{1,ph}} = {\varphi _2},\,\,\,{C_{1,m}} = 0,\]

\[\left( {{C_{1,ph}} - {C_{1,m}}} \right)\frac{{d{x_2}}}{{dt}} = {J_{1,ph}}\]


\[{\varphi _2}\frac{{d{x_2}}}{{dt}} = {J_{1,ph}},\]



\[ - {D_{21}}\frac{{\partial {C_{1,ph}}}}{{\partial x}} - {D_{22}}\frac{{\partial {C_{2,ph}}}}{{\partial x}} = - {D_m}\frac{{\partial {C_{2,m}}}}{{\partial x}},\](6)


\[{C_{2,ph}}{\gamma _2} = {C_{2,m}},\](7)


where φ2 is the iron solubility limit in the transition region containing FeAl3. It depends on the carbon concentration as follows:


\[{\varphi _2} = {\varphi _{20}}\left( {1 - \beta {C_{2,ph}}} \right).\]


The impermeability condition applies to the outer boundary:


\[x = {R_m}:\frac{{\partial {C_{2,m}}}}{{\partial x}} = 0.\](8)


The equations for the diffusion fluxes in the region where a new phase emerges are given below


\[{J_{1,ph}} = - {D_{11}}\frac{{\partial {C_{1,ph}}}}{{\partial x}} - {D_{12}}\frac{{\partial {C_{2,ph}}}}{{\partial x}},\](9)


\[{J_{2,ph}} = - {D_{21}}\frac{{\partial {C_{1,ph}}}}{{\partial x}} - {D_{22}}\frac{{\partial {C_{2,ph}}}}{{\partial x}}.\](10)


At the initial moment


t = 0: C1, p = C1, p0 = 0,995, C2, p = C2, p0 = 0,005,

C1, m = 0, C2, m = 0, C1, ph = 0, C2, ph = 0,

x1 = x10 = R0 , x2 = x20 = R0 .


Assuming the low solubility of aluminum in iron and iron in aluminum, we made an assumption that the concentrations of iron and carbon are constant in the Fe + C region i.e., to the left of the moving boundary X1(t), and only carbon is allowed to diffuse into the Al region to the right of X2(t)). Therefore, the concentrations to the left of the X1(t) moving boundary can be expressed as


C1, p = C1, p0 , C2, p = C2, p0 ,(11)


and to the right of X2(t)


\[\frac{{\partial {C_{2,m}}}}{{\partial t}} = {D_m}\frac{{{\partial ^2}{C_{2,m}}}}{{\partial {x^2}}}.\](12)


Hereinafter, we omit the k superscript at the diffusion coefficients of the emerging phase.

To obtain an analytical solution, we used the quasi-static approximation and assume for equations (1), (2) and (12)


\[\frac{{\partial {C_{1,ph}}}}{{\partial t}} = 0,{\rm{  }}\frac{{\partial {C_{2,ph}}}}{{\partial t}} = 0,{\rm{ }}\frac{{\partial {C_{2,m}}}}{{\partial t}} = 0.\]


Then Eq. (1) and (2) take the form


\[\frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {{D_{11}}\frac{{d{C_{1,ph}}}}{{dx}}} \right) + \frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {{D_{12}}\frac{{d{C_{2,ph}}}}{{dx}}} \right) = 0,\]

\[\frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {{D_{21}}\frac{{d{C_{1,ph}}}}{{dx}}} \right) + \frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {{D_{22}}\frac{{d{C_{2,ph}}}}{{dx}}} \right) = 0.\]


These equations are equivalent to the following:


\[\frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {\frac{{d{C_{1,ph}}}}{{dx}}} \right) = 0,{\rm{ }}\frac{d}{{dx}}\left( {\frac{{d{C_{2,ph}}}}{{dx}}} \right) = 0.\]


The solution is


C1, ph(x) = A1x + B1 and C2, ph(x) = A2x + B2 ,(13)


where A1 , A2 , B1 , B2 are the integration constants.

By substituting Eq. (13) into the concentration boundary conditions, we obtained the following system of linear algebraic equations:


\[x = {x_1}(t):{\varphi _1} = {A_1}{x_1} + {B_1},{\rm{ }}{\gamma _1}{C_{20}} = {A_2}{x_1} + {B_2},\](14)


\[x = {x_2}(t):\left( {{\varphi _{20}} - {\varphi _{20}}{\beta _2}\left[ {{A_2}{x_2} + {B_2}} \right]} \right) = {A_1}{x_2} + {B_1},\](15)


D21 A1 + D22 A2 = 0.(16)


The solution is:


\[{A_1} = {D_{22}}\alpha \frac{1}{{{x_2} - {x_1}}},{\rm{ }}{B_1} = {\varphi _1} - {D_{22}}\alpha \frac{{{x_1}}}{{{x_2} - {x_1}}},\]

\[{A_2} =  - {D_{21}}\alpha \frac{1}{{{x_2} - {x_1}}},{\rm{ }}{B_2} = {\gamma _1}{C_{20}} + {D_{21}}\alpha \frac{{{x_1}}}{{{x_2} - {x_1}}},\]


\[\alpha  = \frac{{{\varphi _1} - {\varphi _{20}}\left( {1 - \beta {\gamma _1}{C_{20}}} \right)}}{{{\varphi _{20}}\beta {D_{21}} + {D_{22}}}}.\](17)


Then flux equation (9) is


\[{J_{1,ph}} =  - {D_{11}}{A_1} - {D_{12}}{A_2} = - \frac{{\alpha \Delta }}{{{x_2} - {x_1}}},\](18)


where Δ = D11D22D12D21 .

Then we found the equations for the moving boundaries from diffusion flux conditions (4) and (5):


\[\left( {{C_{10}} - {\varphi _1}} \right)\frac{{d{x_1}}}{{dt}} = \frac{{\alpha \Delta }}{{{x_2} - {x_1}}},\]

\[{\varphi _{20}}\left( {1 - \beta {C_{2,ph}}} \right)\frac{{d{x_2}}}{{dt}} =  - \frac{{\alpha \Delta }}{{{x_2} - {x_1}}}.\]



By substituting the integration constant expressions into (13), we obtained C2, ph:


\[{C_{2,ph}}({x_2}) =  - {D_{21}}\alpha \frac{1}{{{x_2} - {x_1}}}{x_2} + {\gamma _1}{C_{20}} + {D_{21}}\alpha \frac{{{x_1}}}{{{x_2} - {x_1}}} = {\gamma _1}{C_{20}} - {D_{21}}\alpha .\]


It follows that


\[{\varphi _{20}}\left( {1 - \beta \left[ {{\gamma _1}{C_{20}} - {D_{21}}\alpha } \right]} \right)\frac{{d{x_2}}}{{dt}} =  - \frac{{\alpha \Delta }}{{{x_2} - {x_1}}}.\](20)


It follows from (19) and (20) that

\[\chi \frac{{d{x_1}}}{{d{x_2}}} = - 1,\]


where \(\chi = \frac{{{C_{10}} - {\varphi _1}}}{{{\varphi _{20}}\left( {1 - \beta \left[ {{\gamma _1}{C_{20}} - {D_{21}}\alpha } \right]} \right)}}\), therefore


x2 = –χx1 + F′.(21)


At the initial moment, both boundaries are at R0 :


R0 = –χ R0 + F′,


F′ = R0 (1 + χ), x2 = –χx1 + R0 (1 + χ),

\[\left( {{C_{10}} - {\varphi _1}} \right)\frac{{d{x_1}}}{{dt}} = \frac{{\alpha \Delta }}{{\left( {{R_{\rm{0}}} - {x_1}} \right)\left( {\chi  + 1} \right)}}.\]


Therefore the equation for the x1 boundary is


\[\frac{{{{\left( {{x_1} - {R_0}} \right)}^2}}}{2} =  - \frac{{\alpha \Delta t}}{{\left( {{C_{10}} - {\varphi _1}} \right)\left( {1 + \chi } \right)}} + F'',\](22)


where F″ is the integration constant. It follows from the initial conditions that F″ = 0.

The positions of the boundaries are governed by the parabolic law and are influenced by the cross-diffusion fluxes. These velocities vary due to the modifications in the homogeneity region of the intermetallic phase, as illustrated in Figure 4. It shows the boundary positions vs. time curves (top curves: x2 boundary; bottom curves: x1 boundary).


Fig. 4. Boundary positions vs. time curves (for flat particles)
1 – β = 1; 2 – β = 10 (γ1 = 1)


We assumed the following: D11 = 3.63·10\(^-\)10, D12 = 2.47·10\(^-\)12, D22 = 3.32·10\(^-\)11,
D21 = 1.84·10\(^-\)12 м2/с, R0 = 100 μm.

Note that if there are cross fluxes only, it follows from (22) that


\[\frac{{{{\left( {{x_1} - {R_0}} \right)}^2}}}{2} = - \frac{{{\varphi _1} - {\varphi _{20}}}}{{{D_{22}}}}{\varphi _{20}}\frac{{{D_{11}}{D_{22}} - {D_{12}}{D_{21}}}}{{\left( {{C_{10}} - {\varphi _1}} \right)\left( {{C_{10}} - {\varphi _1} + {\varphi _{20}}} \right)}}t,\]


and if there are no impurities, then

\[\frac{{{{\left( {{x_1} - {R_0}} \right)}^2}}}{2} = - \frac{{{D_{11}}\left( {{\varphi _1} - {\varphi _{20}}} \right){\varphi _{20}}t}}{{\left( {{C_{10}} - {\varphi _1}} \right)\left( {{C_{10}} - {\varphi _1} + {\varphi _{20}}} \right)}}.\]


The presence of cross-diffusion fluxes can lead to both acceleration and deceleration of the boundary movement (faster or slower phase formation) depending on the sign of the D12 D21 product. The expansion of the phase homogeneity region is always unidirectional. It means that the first option (D12 D21 > 0) is more likely observed in the tests.

If we consider the φ1 vs. carbon concentration relationship, the solution is similar.

2. The second version of the model simulates spherical particles.

The diffusion equations for the transition layer in the spherical coordinate system take the form


\[\frac{{\partial {C_{1,ph}}}}{{\partial t}} = \frac{1}{{{r^2}}}\frac{\partial }{{\partial r}}\left( {{r^2}{D_{11}}\frac{{\partial {C_{1,ph}}}}{{\partial r}}} \right) + \frac{1}{{{r^2}}}\frac{\partial }{{\partial r}}\left( {{r^2}{D_{12}}\frac{{\partial {C_{2,ph}}}}{{\partial r}}} \right),\]

\[\frac{{\partial {C_{2,ph}}}}{{\partial t}} = \frac{1}{{{r^2}}}\frac{\partial }{{\partial r}}\left( {{r^2}{D_{21}}\frac{{\partial {C_{1,ph}}}}{{\partial r}}} \right) + \frac{1}{{{r^2}}}\frac{\partial }{{\partial r}}\left( {{r^2}{D_{22}}\frac{{\partial {C_{2,ph}}}}{{\partial r}}} \right),\]


where r is the radial coordinate.

A quasi-stationary approximation is


\[\frac{1}{{{r^2}}}\frac{d}{{dr}}\left( {{r^2}{D_{11}}\frac{{d{C_{1,ph}}}}{{dr}}} \right) + \frac{1}{{{r^2}}}\frac{d}{{dr}}\left( {{r^2}{D_{12}}\frac{{d{C_{2,ph}}}}{{dr}}} \right) = 0,\]

\[\frac{1}{{{r^2}}}\frac{d}{{dr}}\left( {{r^2}{D_{21}}\frac{{d{C_{1,ph}}}}{{dr}}} \right) + \frac{1}{{{r^2}}}\frac{d}{{dr}}\left( {{r^2}{D_{22}}\frac{{d{C_{2,ph}}}}{{dr}}} \right) = 0.\]


The boundary conditions and solution are similar to the previous case. The distribution of concentration is


\[{C_{1,ph}}(r) =  - \frac{{{A_1}}}{r} + {B_1},{\rm{ }}{C_{2,ph}}(r) =  - \frac{{{A_2}}}{r} + {B_2},\](23)


\[{A_1} =  - \alpha {D_{22}}\frac{{{x_1}{x_2}}}{{{x_1} - {x_2}}},{\rm{ }}{B_1} =  - \alpha {D_{22}}\frac{{{x_2}}}{{{x_1} - {x_2}}} + {\varphi _1},\]

\[{A_2} = \alpha {D_{21}}\frac{{{x_1}{x_2}}}{{{x_1} - {x_2}}},{\rm{ }}{B_2} = \alpha {D_{21}}\frac{{{x_2}}}{{{x_1} - {x_2}}} + {\gamma _1}{C_{20}}.\]



The expression for the flux is similar to (9). By accounting for solutions (23), (24), it takes the form


\[{J_{1,ph}} =  - \left( {{D_{11}}\frac{{{A_1}}}{{{r^2}}} + {D_{12}}\frac{{{A_2}}}{{{r^2}}}} \right) =  - \frac{1}{{{r^2}}}\alpha \frac{{{x_1}{x_2}}}{{{x_1} - {x_2}}}\left( { - {D_{11}}{D_{22}} + {D_{12}}{D_{21}}} \right) = \Delta \alpha \frac{{{x_1}{x_2}}}{{{x_1} - {x_2}}}\frac{1}{{{r^2}}}.\](25)


Consequently, we derived the equation for moving boundaries and the boundary ratio from the conditions similar to (4) and (5):


\(\chi \frac{{d{x_1}}}{{d{x_2}}} =  - \frac{{x_2^2}}{{x_1^2}}\) and \({x_2} =  - \sqrt[3]{\chi }{x_1} + F',\)


\[F' = {R_0}\left( {1 + \sqrt[3]{\chi }} \right),\]

\[\chi  = \frac{{{C_{10}} - {\varphi _1}}}{{{\varphi _{20}}\left( {1 - \beta \left[ {{\gamma _1}{C_{20}} - {D_{21}}\alpha } \right]} \right)}}.\]


We again came to the parabolic law. It differs from the previous one only by the impact of its variables:


\[\frac{{{{\left( {{R_0} - {x_1}} \right)}^2}}}{2} =  - \frac{{\alpha \Delta t}}{{\left( {{C_{10}} - {\varphi _1}} \right)\left( {1 + \sqrt[3]{\chi }} \right)}}.\]


Figure 5 shows the difference in interphase velocities for particles of different shapes.


Fig. 5. Boundary position vs. time curves for flat (1)
and spherical (2) particles. Assumptions
γ1 = 1, β = 1, φ1 = 0.85, φ20 = 0.4, C10 = 0.995, C20 = 0.005



The study revealed that the vacuum sintering of fragmented steel swarf with powdered aluminum does not achieve complete phase transformations, despite the exothermic nature of the intermetallic synthesis reaction. The initial phases were observed in the final product.

Our findings suggest that impurities in the swarf can affect the phase growth rate by inducing cross-diffusion fluxes and altering the size of the emerging phase homogeneity region. This effect was observed in both flat and spherical particles.


1. Rovin S.L., Kalinichenko A.S., Rovin L.E. The return of the dispersed metal waste into production. Litiyo i metallurgiya. 2019;(1):45–48. (In Russ.).

2. Chang J.I., Lin J.J., Huang J.S., Chang Y.M. Recycling oil and steel from grinding swarf. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2006;49(2):191–201.

3. Djakonov O.M. Production of metallurgical briquettes on the basis of chips-powder compositions by hot press molding. Litiyo i metallurgiya. 2011;(4):129–137. (In Russ.).

4. Andersson A., Gullberg A., Kullerstedt A., Sandberg E., Andersson M., Ahmed H., Sundqvist-Ökvist L., Björkman B. A holistic and experimentally-based view on recycling of off-gas dust within the integrated steel plant. Metals. 2018;8(10):760.

5. Rovin S.L., Rovin L.E., Zayac T.M., Valickaya O.M. Recycling of ferrous metal shavings. Litiyo i metallurgiya. 2017;89(4):94–101. (In Russ.).

6. Hankel J., Jager S., Weber S. Development of a recycling strategy for grinding sludge using supersolidus liquid phase sintering. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;263:121501.

7. Dyakonov O.M. Investigation of physicochemical and mechanical characteristics of steel and cast iron chips. Litiyo i metallurgiya. 2009;(4):161–173. (In Russ.).

8. Loginov Yu.N., Zagirov N.N., Ivanov E.V. Evaluation of the level of hardening of aluminum alloy chips intended for subsequent pressure treatment. Obrabotka metallov (tekhnologiya, oborudovanie, instrumenty). 2021;23(1):45–55. (In Russ.).

9. Mahmooda K., Ul Haq Syed W., Pinkerton A.J. Innovative reconsolidation of carbon steel machining swarf by laser metal deposition. Optics and Lasers in Engineering. 2011;49(2):240–247.

10. Gnatko M., Li C., Arnold A., Freidrich B. Purification of aluminium cast alloy melts through precipitation of Fe-containing intermetallic compounds. Metals. 2018;8(10):796.

11. Shahid R.N., Scudino S. Strengthening of Al–Fe3Al composites by the generation of harmonic structures. Scientific Reports. 2018;8:6484.

12. Tomida S., Nakata K. Fe–Al composite layers on aluminum alloy formed by laser surface alloying with iron powder. Surface and Coatings Technology. 2003;174-175:559–563.

13. Minamino Y., Koizumi Y., Tsuji N., Hirohata N., Mizuuchi K., Ohkanda Y. Microstructures and mechanical properties of bulk nanocrystalline Fe–Al–C alloys made by mechanically alloying with subsequent spark plasma sintering. Science and Technology of Advanced Materials. 2004;5(1-2):133–143.

14. Najafi A., Movahedi M., Yarandi A.S. Properties–microstructure relationship in Al–Fe in situ composite produced by friction stir processing. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications. 2019;233(10):1955–1965.

15. Kopec M., Jóźwiak S., Kowalewski Z. Fe–Al based composite reinforced with ultra-fine Al2O3 oxides for high temperature applications. Journal of Theoretical and Applied mechanics. 2021;59(3):509–513.

16. Kostov A., Friedrich B., Zivković D. Thermodynamic calculations in alloys Ti–Al, Ti–Fe, Al–Fe and Ti–Al–Fe. Journal of Mining and Metallurgy, Section B: Metallurgy. 2008;44(1):49–61.

17. Диаграммы состояния двойных металлических систем: справочник. В 3 т. Т. 1 / Под ред. Н.П. Лякишева. М: Машиностроение, 1996. 991 с.

18. Jäger S., Weber S. Upcycling strategy of grinding swarf by super solidus liquid phase sintering. Procedia CIRP. 2020;90:546–551.

19. Wierzba B. Phase competition in ternary Ti–Ni–Al system. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2016;454:110–116.

20. Ji Y., Abernathy H.W., Chen L.-Q. Thermodynamic models of multicomponent nonstoichiometric solution phases using internal process order parameters. Acta Materialia. 2022;223:117462.

21. Knyazeva A.G. Difusion following the vacancy mechanism in materials with large number of internal surfaces. Chemistry for Sustainable Development. 2005;13(2): 233–242.

22. Belova I.V., Murch G.E. Analysis of interdiffusion data in multicomponent alloys to extract fundamental diffusion information. Journal of Phase Equilibria and Diffusion. 2006;27(6): 629–637.

23. Svoboda J., Fischer F.D., Abart R. Modeling of diffusional phase transformation in multi-component systems with stoichiometric phases. Acta Materialia. 2010;58(8):2905–2911.

About the Authors

E. N. Korosteleva
Institute of Strength Physics and Materials Science of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation

Elena N. Korosteleva – Cand. Sci. (Eng.), Senior Research Scientist.

2/4 Akademicheskii Prosp., Tomsk 634055

A. G. Knyazeva
Institute of Strength Physics and Materials Science of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation

Anna G. Knyazeva – Dr. Sci. (Phys.­Math.), Professor, Chief Research Scientist, ISPMS SB RAS.

2/4 Akademicheskii Prosp., Tomsk 634055

M. A. Anisimova
Institute of Strength Physics and Materials Science of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation

Maria A. Anisimova – Cand. Sci. (Phys.­Math.), Junior Research Scientist, ISPMS SB RAS.

2/4 Akademicheskii Prosp., Tomsk 634055

I. O. Nikolaev
Institute of Strength Physics and Materials Science of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation

Ivan O. Nikolaev – Engineer, ISPMS SB RAS.

2/4 Akademicheskii Prosp., Tomsk 634055


For citations:

Korosteleva E.N., Knyazeva A.G., Anisimova M.A., Nikolaev I.O. The impact of impurities on the Al–Fe–C system phase composition changes during sintering. Powder Metallurgy аnd Functional Coatings. 2023;17(2):5-13.

Views: 161

ISSN 1997-308X (Print)
ISSN 2412-8767 (Online)