Thermodynamic analysis of the GaIn, AlGa, AlIn and the AlGaIn systems

Ansara, I.; Bros, J.P.; Girard, C.

doi:10.1016/0364-5916(78)90008-1

Cited by 45 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the first phase equilibria study on the In-Ga system by Biosbaudran in 1885 [27] and the complete liquidus measurements of the system by French et al in 1937 [28], the system has been critically assessed several times [12,29,30,31,32,33]. Rugg and Chart [32] and Anderson and Ansara [12] thoroughly assessed the system using available liquidus data, enthalpies of mixing, activity measurements and new unary data at about the same time to provide a complete and simple thermodynamic description of the system.…”

Section: In-gamentioning

confidence: 99%

The thermodynamic assessment of the Au–In–Ga system

Ghasemi

Sundman

Fries

et al. 2014

Journal of Alloys and Compounds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Au-In-Ga ternary phase diagram is of importance for understanding the involved thermodynamic processes during the growth of Au-seeded III-V heterostructure nanowires containing In and Ga (e.g. Au-seeded InAs/GaAs nanowires). In this work the Au-In-Ga system has been thermodynamically modeled using the CALPHAD technique based on a recent experimental investigation of the phase equilibria in the system. As a result, a set of selfconsistent interaction parameters have been optimized that can reproduce most of the experimental results.

show abstract

Section: In-gamentioning

confidence: 99%

The thermodynamic assessment of the Au–In–Ga system

Ghasemi

Sundman

Fries

et al. 2014

Journal of Alloys and Compounds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An ELM-resolved power balance ΔW target = ΔW plasma + ΔW in − ΔW rad where ΔW target = W ELM(IR) 2πRdt with dt = 1.3 ms (the averaged ELM duration), W ELM(IR) = 58 880 (green in figure 7(a)), ΔW in = 4.8 kJ and ΔW rad = 5 kJ (averaged over 5 ms), gives a deposited energy of ∼75 kJ. The discrepancy with the average ΔW ELM (∼60 kJ), or 20%, is within the data scatter of the IRTV, the diamagnetic measurement and observed ELM [4,50] heat deposition toroidal asymmetries [28,51].…”

Section: Heat Flux Footprintsmentioning

confidence: 59%

ELM and inter-ELM heat and particle flux to a secondary divertor in the DIII-D tokamak

Perillo¹,

Boedo²,

Lasnier³

et al. 2021

Nucl. Fusion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DIII-D edge-localized-modes (ELM) discharges with a secondary X-point inside the vessel were used to evaluate the power distribution between the primary and secondary divertors. The magnetic balance, defined by the distance between the primary and secondary separatrices at the outer midplane (dRsep), was varied from −5 mm (lower-single-null, LSN) to +16 mm (upper-single-null, USN). We find that the secondary divertor receives up to 1/3 of the total heat flux (primary + secondary divertors), and it is dominated by the ELM-driven flux. Both the radially-integrated and the peak heat flux to the secondary divertor decay below ∼50% of the maximum as dRsep is varied from −5 to +6 mm, but the integrated heat flux decay flattens out and it would take dRsep above ∼25 mm to reduce the ELM heat flux to the secondary divertor below 10% of the one deposited to a well-defined SN. Both the secondary inner strike point (ISP) and outer strike point receive heat flux during ELMs. The peak heat flux is comparable in both strike points for dRsep < 10 mm, but the ISP receives less than 15% of the total flux. This is experimental evidence that the secondary inner divertor region receives significant ELM flux which should be taken into account for the design of future generation tokamaks.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the heat of solution for the solid solution of Ga + Au → Au [Ga] is negative. 16 Therefore, the dissolution of Ga in the Au-Ni solid solution, as shown in Fig. 2a mainly contributed to reduce the contact resistivity through the increase of net concentration of V Ga below the contact during annealing.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%