JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS 7, No. 1 (1962) 38~4.5, NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING CO.

, AMSTERDAM

THE a q? (3 PHASE TRANSITION IN PURE URANIUM

J. BURKE and P. H. DIXON t

Department of Metallurgy, University of Liverpool, UK

Received 6 April 1962

A critical review of previous work on the a/,!? transition la vitesse de chauffage soit suffisamment rapide. Lea
in pure uranium is presented. It is shown that the deux theories actuelles concernant lea textures sub-
j3 -+ a change is diffusional at slow cooling rates and sistant dans I’uranium cy sont examinees B la lumihe
martensitic during fast cooling and that the OL+ /l des conclusions ci-dessus et ces 2 theories n’apparais-
change is always diffusional except in the very special sent pas satisfaisantes. Une autre explication eat
case of the transformation of martensitic OLwhich proposee en se basant sur lea effets probables de la
transforms by reversal of the primary shear if the grosseur du grain /i’ sur la transformation B Tt LY.
heating rate is sufficiently rapid.
The two current theories of remnant textures in
n uranium are examined in the light of the above Es wird ein kritischer tfberblick iiber die Arbeit
conclusions and both found to be unsatisfactory. gegeben, die bisher auf dem Gebiet des a//? Ubergangs
An alternative explanation is proposed based upon in reinem Uran geleistet worden ist. Es wird dabei
the probable effects of /l grain size on the ,8 * o( gezeigt, dass es sich bei dem /? + n ifbergang urn
transformations. einen Diffusionsvorgang handelt, wenn langsame
Abkiihlungsgeschwindigkeiten verwendet werden. Da-
gegen ist der Wechsel martensitisch bei schnellen
Une revue critique des recherches effect&es anterieure- Abkuhlungsgeschwmdigkeiten. Der (Y + p Wechsel
ment sur la transformation a//l de l’uranium eat dagegen ist immer ein Diffusionsvorgang. Ausge-
present&e. On montre que la transformation /I + LY nommen ist der spezielle Fall der Umwandlung vom
a lieu avec diffusion aux lentes vitesses de refroidisse- martensitischen ‘x, welches in primiiren Schichten
ment et par transformation martensitique aux grandes umschlagt, wenn die Erhitzungsgeschwindigkeit hin-
vitesses de refroidissement. La transformation o( + ,Cl reichend gross ist. Die beiden geltenden Theorien iiber
procede toujours par diffusion sauf dans le cas t&s Resttexturen in oc-Uran wurden im Hinblick auf die
special ob l’uranium a &tB forme par transformation obigen Ergebnisse geprtift. Es wurde gefunden, dass
martensitique. Dana ce cas, il y a transformation beide unbefriedigend sind. Es wird versucht, auf der
(Y + /l par inversion du cisaillement primitif dti It la Basis des wahrscheinlichen Einflusses der ,%Korngriisse
transformation martensitique j3 + a It condition que auf die ,Cl$ x Umwandlung eine Erkllirung zu geb en

1. Introduction of kinetic data available are not completely

Over the past few years a number of con-
flicting views have been expressed concerning
the mechanisms of the a e p phase transition
in pure uranium. Several factors have contri-
buted to this position: (1) It is impossible to
retain the p phase, wholly or partly, to room
temperature for microscopic and crystallo-
graphic studies and practical difficulties have
so far prevented such studies being carried out
at elevated temperatures. (2) The small amount
reliable. (3) In drawing conclusions from certain
experiments, there has been an unfortunate
tendency to make generalizations from results
obtained under restrictive conditions and a
failure to ensure that the conclusions were
consistent with established thermodynamic and
kinetic principles of phase transformations.
The present communication is a critical review
of the published work on this topic in which
we shall attempt to resolve the present con-

t Now at AERE, Harwell.

38
 THE&e/f? PHASE TRANSITION
flitting position and to indicate those aspects
to which future investigation could be directed
most fruitfully. We shall not discuss each
previous contribution separately or chrono-
logically. Instead, each aspect of the problem
will first be considered in simple theoretical
terms and those experimental observations
which are consistent with the theoretical pre-
dictions and with each other indicated. The
contradictory results will then be examined in
a little more detail and their value assessed.
In discussions of phase changes it is important
to define certain terms. In many earlier papers
on the transformations in uranium the term
“nucleation and growth” has been used to
describe a transformation mechanism in which
product nuclei grow by a diffusion-type process.
It has been long reoognised that this term is
unsatisfactory because all mechanisms involve
nucleation and growth. Some previous authors
have also considered nucleation and growth as
two separate steps and implied that a particular
nucleation mechanism can be combined with
the same or a different growth mechanism.
This approach is unsound. The process of
nucleation, if it exists at all +, comprises growth
of domains of product phase from a size at
which they are unstable to a size at which they
are capable of continued existence. In other
words, nucleation is merely a convenient name
for the initial stages of growth. Thus, reactions
must be defined in terms of the growth mecha-
nism. We shall use the term “diffusional” to
describe a transformation in which growth of
the regions of product occurs by the capture of
single atoms from the parent lattice by means
of thermally activated jumps across the inter-
face. A martensitic transformation is defined as
one in which growth proceeds by the systematic
co-ordinated shear of large numbers of atoms
in the parent phase through small distances
relative to their neighbours such that the parent
lattice is transformed into that of the product,
and which does not depend on atomic inter-
change by diffusion. The characteristics of these
t In many cases there is reason for believing that
nuclei may be preformed.
IN PURE URANIUM 39
types have been discussed thoroughly else-
where 1).
Other modes have been recognised in other
systems. The bainite reaction in steels involves
both shear and diffusion but this is possible
only in a multicomponent system. The so-called
massive transformation 2) is diffusionless macro-
scopically but involves small scale atomic
re-arrangement. This mechanism is possible in
pure uranium but at the present time there is
insufficient evidence to justify an attempt to
distinguish between pure martensitic reactions
and this mode. Consequently, we shall confine
the discussion to diffusional and martensitic
modes whilst realising that the latter may
involve some microscopic atomic re-arrange-
ment .
2. The /3 --f a Transformation
Previous authors have put forward the
following conflicting conclusions concerning the
mechanism of the /3 --f LXchange in pure uranium
(using the present terminology): (1) that it
occurs by diffusional decomposition under all
conditions of cooling and undercooling, (2) that
it is martensitic under all conditions and (3) that
both modes can be realised depending upon the
cooling rate. In order to establish which is the
correct view we shall first present some general
theoretical considerations.
2.1. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Diffusional decomposition produces equili-
brium 01 whose free energy, G,, is lower than
that of ,6, CT,,at all temperatures below TE, the
equilibrium transition temperature. Hence, this
mode is thermodynamically possible at all
degrees of undercool. From kinetic consider-
ations it follows that it is least likely to occur
at very low temperatures at which diffusion is
too slow to yield an appreciable reaction rate.
In contrast, martensitic reaction gives a product,
LX’, whose free energy, Gg,, is greater than G,
owing to the elastic strain energy arising from
the shape change and coherency and also owing
to the retention in supersaturated solid solution
of trace impurities. A temperature TO exists,
40 J. BURKE AND P. H. DIXON
necessarily below TE at which G,, =Gp, above
which martensitic decomposition is not possible.
In practice, additional supercooling to M, is
required to provide sufficient excess free energy
to overcome the energy barrier to transfor-
mation. However, once M, has been attained,
the very low activation energy for martensitic
growth permits of appreciable reaction rates
even at low temperatures. Consequently, there
is a finite range of undercooling, and thus of
cooling rates for continuous cooling transfor-
mation, within which transformation must be
diffusional; martensitic transformation is most
likely at drastic quenching rates. In the para-
graph above, (2) is incompatible with this
conolusion; and of the other two clearly (3) is
the more likely.
2.2. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF
TWO REACTION MECHANISMS
The theoretical conclusion has been well
substantiated experimentally in dilute alloys
in which it is firmly established that ,8 decom-
position is diffusional at temperatures high in
the OLrange and is martensitic at low temper-
atures a-6). The following experimental results
on the pure metal are in accordance with the
hypothesis of diffusional LYformation at slow
cooling rates :
(a) Single crystals of 01can be produced by the
phase change technique 7).
(b) The 01 produced b y slow cooling has the
metallographic characteristics of that ob-
tained in alloys by isothermal transfor-
mation near to TE ; increasing the rate of
cooling refines the 01 grain size 7).
(0) When a specimen is partially transformed
to ,5’by passing it slowly through a thermal
gradient, the a grains adjacent to the a/#?
boundary grow into the /? when the direc-
tion of travel is reversed 9).
The following observations are in accordance
with the hypothesis of martensitic transfor-
mation at fast cooling rates:
Cd) The 01produced by quenching is typical of
the martensitic 0~’ found in alloys 3).
(4 Butcher 10)quenched a specimen of uranium
after subjecting it to a heat treatment
known to produce a single crystal of /3 in
dilute alloys. The orientation of almost all
of the oc crystals were consistent with those
to be expected from the martensitio decom-
position of a single crystal of uranium-
chromium.
(f) Bement and Wallace ii) found that a graph
of hardness as a function of cooling rate
through the ,8 + (Y change exhibited a
sharp change in slope at a cooling rate of
about 20” C per second. They suggested,
on the basis of this rather circumstantial
evidence, that this rate is a critical cooling
rate above which the reaction is totally
martensitic.
2.3. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORTOF A MARTENSITIC
REACTION ONLY
Several previous investigators have concluded
that the reaction is martensitic at all temper-
atures and cooling rates, a conclusion which is
at variance with theory and the results (a) to (c).
This view was first put forward by White s),
who noted that the lowest temperature at which
diffusion-controlled transformation occurs in
uranium-chromium alloys increased as the
chromium content decreased. Hence he sug-
gested that at zero chromium this temperature
would coincide with TE, leaving shear as the
only mode. This was based upon an extra-
polation to zero chromium content from only
three compositions and must be regarded as
highly speculative.
Butcher 10) also thought that the reaction was
always martensitic. His crystallographic studies,
whilst proving convincingly the existence of a
martensitic mode, can give no information as
to transformation during slow cooling because
the work was carried out on drastically quenched
samples.
Jepson et ~1.4) obtained a TTT diagram for
pure uranium consisting of a single C curve
 THE ol&/!? PHASE TRANSITION
in contrast to the two C’s found for dilute
alloys. They concluded that only one mechanism
is possible in pure uranium and, in view of
Butcher’s results lo), that this is shear. However,
their diagram was based upon insufficient ex-
perimental points to be entirely convincing. The
possibility of discontinuities in the curve cannot
be excluded. Also the technique was incapable
of detecting “reaction start” times less than
20 seconds. It is unfortunate that no metallo-
graphic examination of the dilatometric samples
was carried out. We tentatively suggest that
this curve is that associated with diffusional
transformation and that M8 was undetected.
Klepfer and Chiotti 12) found that on cooling
to a temperature just below TE, the resistivity
increased isothermally over a period of time to
a constant value ; further isothermal increases
were noted on stepped quenching until a temper-
ature 15" C below TE was attained below which
no further isothermal changes occurred. The
sum of the isothermal changes was said to be
that expected for complete transformation of
p to 01. Hence, it follows that the amount of
31 formed depends upon the temperature. This
is a feature of athermal martensitic reaction
and it was concluded that the transition is
martensitic even at very small undercooling.
However, the isothermal martensitic reaction
in dilute uranium alloys goes to completion at
a fixed temperature 396) and has no athermal
characteristics. Evidently, the conclusion is
based upon doubtful ground. Moreover, attempts
to reproduce these results by the present
authors 13)and others 14J5) have been unsucoess-
ful. Much importance must not be placed upon
this work until it has been thoroughly re-
examined.
Finally, it has been reported by several
authors that vestiges of preferred orientation in
n-uranium persist through an 01-p--6(cycle 17-20).
One explanation is that there is a reversible
crystallographic relationship between LYand B
through the transitions. The conclusion from
this, that the reactions must, therefore, be
martensitic cannot be sustained. We shall
discuss remnant textures more fully in Section 4.
IN PURE URANIUM 41
Suffice it to note here that whilst orientation
relationships are an unavoidable characteristic
of reaction by the martensitic mode, they are
possible also for diffusional reactions, e.g. the
formation of Widmanstiitten precipitates.
2.4. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DIFFUSIONAL
TRANSFORMATION ONLY
The view that the reaction is always diffusion-
controlled was expressed by Duwez 16), who
found that the transformation temperature
decreased progressively as the rate of cooling
increased. This interpretation was based upon
older ideas that martensitic reactions are
athermal and insuppressible. Isothermal, time-
dependent shear reactions are now recognised,
notably in uranium alloys, and these can be
suppressed by increasing the cooling rate. Thus,
this piece of evidence loses its significance.
Lehr and Langeron 7) produced single crystals
of a-uranium by the phase-change technique
and concluded that a forms by diffusion. The
generalization of this conclusion to all cooling
conditions cannot be sustained since the experi-
ment was necessarily restricted to very slow
rates of cooling.
2.5. SUMMARYOFTHE,!? -+CXTRANSFORMATION
To summarize, most of the reliable experi-
mental observations are consistent with the
theoretical prediction that the @ -+ N change
in pure uranium is diffusional at slow cooling
rates and martensitic at fast cooling rates.
3. The OL+ /? Transformation
There is very little direct evidence relating
to the transformation even in alloys and present
ideas are largely based upon interpretation of
circumstantial observations e.g. the effect of
heat treatment on textures. In view of this the
discussion which follows is largely theoretical.
We shall consider two cases (a) transformation
of (Y (cc’) previously formed martensitically from
B and (b) the more general case of transfor-
mation of equilibrium 0~.
42 J. BURRE AND P. H. DIXON
(a) THE TRANSFORMATIONOF MARTENSITICIX’
Martensitic reactions produced by cooling are
crystallographically reversible on heating, start-
ing from a temperature, As, above TO. There
is no a priori reason for placing As above or
below TE. In many systems reversibility is not
observed because of the intervention of temper-
ing reactions during heating which destroys the
geometric relationships in the low temperature
shear product. In pure uranium t,he tempering
takes the form of thermal relaxation of lattice
distortion and loss of coherency. If AS is below
TE, DC’may transform to 16 by simple reversal
of the /? + (x shear provided that the heating
rate is fast enough to prevent thermal relaxa-
tion. If relaxation does occur 01’ degenerates to
a, the transformation of which is considered
below. If AS is above TE, a further condition
must be satisfied for a shear back to b, viz. that
the heating rate above TE must be sufficient
to prevent diffusional nucleation of B which
becomes thermodynamically possible at any
temperature above TE.
This type of reverse shear has been observed
in alloys. Holden 21) noted that upquenching
a partially transformed U-Cr alloy caused the
01’ plates to disappear. There is also indirect
evidence of it in pure uranium. Klepfer and
Chiotti ii) found that rapid cycling through
the a/,!? transition raised the temperature of the
onset of thermal twinning in the a-phase. This
symptom of progressive lattice hardening is
indicative of the retention of lattice defects
through the phase changes which is possible
only if both reactions are martensitic.
(b) THE TRANSFORMATIONOF NON-
MARTENSITIC/3
This category is far more general than (a)
including the important cases of randomly
oriented or textured a. In principle the trans-
formation can occur by either of the two basic
processes. Using the same reasoning as before
it follows that diffusional transformation is
possible at all temperatures above TE, whereas
shear is not possible for small superheating.
some indication of whether shear is ever likely
may be obtained from general theoretical con-
siderations. The rate of nucleation of a phase
is determined by the temperature-dependent
activation energy for the formation of a nucleus,
A(T), and the activation energy for the transfer
of atoms across the interface, Q, assumed
independent of temperature. A(T) for shear is
greater than that for the corresponding diffusion-
controlled reaction but QS (for shear) is very
much less than QD (for diffusion).
For the diffusional transformation 1-3--f Lx
during cooling, decreasing the temperature
decreases both A(T) and the rate of diffusion.
These two effect’s are in opposition and thus the
reaction rate exhibits ‘C-curve behaviour, the
rate of transformation being negligible at low
temperature. Owing to the small value of Qs,
the martensitic reaction is capable of appreciable
velocities even at low temperatures where it is
the preferred mode. For the heating transition
a + P, raising the temperature above TE
decreases A(T) for the diffusional reaction and
accelerates diffusion. The two effects are additive
and the reaction rate increases rapidly with
-__ /
TIME
Fig. 1. Hypothetical isothermel TTT diagram for
the cx + B and B + OLtransformations in pure uranium.
TE is the equilibrium transition temperature; TO is
the temperature at which LY’is in quasi-equilibrium
with ,9; OLDand cys are the incubation times for the
formation of a from b by a diffusional and by a
martensitic mechanism respectively; /?n and /Is are
corresponding lines for the reverse transformation.
The positions of an and 0~shave been estimated from
published work. The position of j?n and /?s are arbitrary.
 THE a+@ PHASE TRANSITION IN PURE URANIUM 43

temperature ; ‘C’-curve kinetics cannot be pro- very special case of martensitio oc’, which
duced. The difference is illustrated by a hypo- probably undergoes simple crystallographic
thetical TTT diagram for transformation as reversal of the ,!l +- LYshear under oon~tions
shown in fig. 1. The lines BD and o(n are the of rapid heating.
incubation periods for the formation of ,6 from
oc and 01 from ,!3respectively by diffusion. The 4. Remnant Textures
shear reaction to ,!l is not thermodyna,mically A detailed account of the considerable work
possible until a temperature XscBit some way on textures in LXuranium has been given recently
above Ts, is attained, and the incubation line by Butcher 24) and it is unnecessary to repeat it.
for #? formation by shear, &z, is as shown and Here, we shall confine attention to those aspects
the corresponding line for oc formation is 0~~. and theories which need re-examination in the
At T > TE the gradient of ps is approximately light of the conclusions in the previous sections.
equal to -Qs and that of ,8n to -Qn. Since In this connection, the important result is that
Qo> Qs, /& must always be steeper than ,8n preferred orientation in a may persist after
and the two curves can never intersect. It treatment in the /3 range, It is clear from
follows that diffusional transformation is always Butcher’s work that all the important factors are
the preferred mechanism. not as yet unequivooally identified. McDonell19)
A further possibility that has been suggestedza) reported that as the temperature and time of
is that very rapid heating would enable the ,8 treatment were increased the extent of
6s line to be attained before all the 01had had retained texture decreased. Donze and Faivre 26)
time to transform to & and hence that the last working with single crystals, concluded that
parts of a may transform martensitically. We only temperature was important. The effect of
feel that this is unlikely for several reasons ; the rates of heating and cooling has not been
(a)the activation energy for the formation of a systematically studied, but McDonelli9) showed
martensiti~ nucleus is greater than that for that quenching gave a more random structure
diffusional transformation and so the latter will than air cooling.
always be energetically more favourable at Two theories have been advanced to explain
temperatures where diffusion rates are appre- this phenomenon. The first, due to Butcher 26),
ciable; (b) it is clear from fig. 1 that the rate of is based upon the supposition that the (L:-+ /3
the diffusional reaction is always greater than change is marte~itic. The retention of texture
that of the shear and the disparity increases through an LY4 p -+ & cycle is inevitable if the
with increasing superheat. Thus, the greater cooling rate is sufficiently rapid to give marten-
the superheat (i.e. rate of heating) the more sitic IX’, because then both structural changes
favourable is the diffusion mechanism. involve specific orientation relationships. The
Experimentally, the most direct evidence basic assumption of the theory is inttonsistent
relating to this transformation is the resistivity with the conclusion in Section 3 that the a + /3
work of Klepfer and Chiotti. Their interpretation transition is never martensitic. Furthermore,
that the reaction is athermal and therefore, McDonell’s 19) result that quenching increased
martensitic, is at variance with the above con- randomization also appears to be incompatible
clusions. However, for the reasons given earlier with this theory. It should perhaps be em-
we consider this work to be unreliable. Further- phasized here that orientation relations~ps are
more, Barwood and Butcher 23) in a dilatometric not a feature exclusive to martensitic reactions,
study found no athermal characteristics. so that the persistence of textures provides no
information relative to the mechanism of the
3.3. SUMMARY, 01 -+ ,d TRANSFORitIATION phase changes.
We conclude that the Al-+ /3 transformation The alternative explanation, advanced by
is diffusional at all heating rates except in the McDonell 19) and independently by Donze and
44 J. BURKE
Faivre 14Js), supposes that domains of the
original 01 exist in the @ phase after transfor-
mation and serve as nuclei for re-transformation.
Donze and Faivre 25) found that 01single crystals
were preserved in the original orientation after
heating into the @ range provided a critical
temperature was not exceeded; this temperature
varied from 2” C of superheat for high purity
uranium to 14” C of superheat for metal con-
taining 150 ppm carbon.
Subsequently 14,27),it was shown from cooling
curve studies of polycrystals that the temper-
ature of the start of p --f 01 transition at a
constant cooling rate was depressed by super-
heating in the p range, from 665” C after 2” C
superheat to 655’ C after 80” C superheat.
According to Donze 14), increasing the superheat
decreases the size of the (x embryos and thus
greater underoooling of the b --f 01 change is
necessary to raise them to the status of nuclei.
The stability of the embryos was explained by
supposing that the interface is an array of
dislocations, which is geometrically stable al-
though thermodynamically unstable. The pre-
sence of alloying elements stabilizes B by pinning transitions. Orientation relationships are pos-
these dislocations and thereby retarding growth
of the embryos during cooling.
Objections to this theory are: (a) at the
cooling rates used (5” C/hour) in the thermal
analysis work, 01formation must be diffusional
(Section 2). A dislocation interface must thus
move by a process analogous to climb and it is
difficult to imagine solute atom pinning having
a significant effect. The martensitic growth of
a would be more susceptible to this effect and
so it is important to examine how solutes affect
the p --f OL change at various cooling rates ;
(b) if notwithstanding the above argument,
pinning does retard the growth of o(, it should
also retard the opposite movement of the inter-
face. Hence, alloys should retain larger 01 ature in the ,5 induces grain growth, which by
embryos than pure uranium and require less
undercooling to initiate 01 formation; this is
contrary to observation 27); (c) this inter-
pretation of the thermal analysis results ignores
the influence of p grain size on the kinetics of
the /3 + a transformation.
AND P. H. DIXON
It is considered that the evidence available
at the present is inadequate to support this
theory and much further work is necessary
before it can be regarded as proved.
4.1. A TENTATIVE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION
OF TEXTURE RETENTION AND OF THE
DEPRESSION OF THE ,8 + a TRANSITION
A tentative explanation of Donze’s thermal
analysis results and of remnant texture is
possible on the basis of the conclusion of
Section 3 that the 01--f B change is diffusional.
In the light of general experience of phase
changes and of energetic considerations, it is
reasonable to assume that both the 01--f ,8 and
,8 + OLchanges will be predominantly grain-
boundary-nucleated +. Increasing the time or
temperature of the @ anneal prior to cooling
will coarsen the ,5 grain size and, because of the
reduced area for nucleation, retard 01formation
during cooling, i.e. necessitate increased under-
cooling.
Remnant textures imply that crystallographic
relationships exist in both OL--f B and /3 --f 01
sible in diffusional transformations ; Widman-
statten figures are well known examples. These
arise because, by matching specific planes in
the two phases, it is possible to obtain a low
energy interface and minimise the energy barrier
to nucleation. Crystallographically related grain
boundary precipitates can also exist 29) but in
this case the product will be related to only one
of the contiguous grains (except in unique
boundary orientations). Thus during heating
only a fraction ++ of the LXgrain orientation will
be transmitted to the B phase and only a
fraction of this amount will be passed back to
a due to grain boundary nucleation from /?
during cooling. Increasing the time or temper-
virtue of the disappearance of some /? grains,
t This has been demonstrated in dilute uranium
alloys 28).
tt Considerably less than half because the most
favourable nucleation sites are multi-grain junctions sO)
and because, statistically, some nuclei will be random.
 THE &2$/f? PHASE TRANSITION IN PURE URANIUM 45

destroys the ‘memory’ of more and more of the A.E.R.E. Harwell, which helped to clarify the
original OLgrains, and thus leads to a reducbion ideas here presented.
in the remnant texture.
References
l) B. A. Bilby and J. W. Christian, Inst. Met.
5. Future Work
Monograph and Report Series No. 18 (1955) 121;
The gaps in our knowledge of the trans- H. K. Hardy and T. J. Heal, ibid, p. 1.
formations are obvious from this review. By 2) D. Hull and R. D. Garwood, ibid, p. 219
way of summary, we briefly suggest a number 9 D. W. White, J. Metals 7 (1955) 1221
of lines of investigation which should prove 4, M. D. Jepson, R. B. Kehoe, R. W. Nichols and
G. F. Slattery, Proc. of the 2nd Geneva Conf.
particularly fruitful : 6 (1958) 42
(4 A detailed kinetic and metallographic study 5, Mlle J. Beaudier, G. Cabane and P. Monturat,
of the TTT diagram for the /I --f OLchange Rev. MBt. 58 (1961) 3
9 P. H. Dixon and J. Burke, Inst. Met. Symposium
(in pure uranium) and of the effects of
on Uranium and Graphite (1962)
thermal history. P. Lehr and J. P. Langeron, Rev. M&. 4 (9)
‘1
(b) A continuous cooling curve study to obtain (1958) 829
a proper estimate of MS and the critical 9 F. G. Foote Progress in Nucl. Energy Series V,
cooling rate, and an indication as to whether 1 (1956) 105

a maasive type mechanism is possible. g, R. W. Cahn, AERE, Harwell (UK), Report

M/R 744 (1951)
(0) A study similar to (a) for the cy -+ /? change, 10
B. R. Butcher J. Nucl. Energy 1 (1957) 273
with 01grain size as an important variable.
A study of the dependence of residual cx
11
1 A. L. Bement
Energy Report USAEC
and W.
Rep 4W-51084 (1957)
P. Wallace, US Atomic
W
textures and depression of the @ --> OL change H. H. Klepfer and P. Chiotti, US Atomic Energy
Report USAEC Rep lSC-893 (1957)
on ,!Igrain size, rate of heating and cooling, 1s
) R. D. Townsend and J. Burke (unpublished work)
time and temperature in the /? phase and G. Donze, J. Nucl. Mat. 5 (1962) 150
14)
type and degree of initial texture. Owing 15) G. &bane, private communication
to the impossibility of ascertaining the 16 P. Duwez, J. App. Phys. 24 (1953) 152
/I grain size in pure uranium this work 17
1 S.
Bergvesen
Aas, Saertrykk
og Metallurgi
av Tidsskrift
No. 5 (1957)
for Kjemi,

would best be carried out on dilute alloys.

18
) F. G. Foote, Proc. of the 1st Geneva Conf.,
Paper 555 (1955) p. 54
6. Conclusions
W. R. McDonell, Nucl. Eng. and Sci. Conf.
The following conclusions are drawn from ’ preprint 172 (1958)
this review : 20) K. Taketani, J. Atom. Energy Sot. (Japan) 2
(1960) 6
(1) The /? + LXtransformation is diffusional at
21 A. N. Holden, Acta Met. 1 (1953) 617
slow cooling rates and martensitic during 22)
) B. R. Butcher, private communication
fast cooling. 231 I. F. Barwood and B. R. Butcher, to be published,
(2) The (Y+ p transformation is diffusional quoted in ref.24).
except for the transformation of marten- 24) B. R. Butcher, Inst. Met. Symp. on Uranium and
sitic 01 for which it is martensitic at very 25 Graphite (1962)
rapid heating rates. ) G. Donze and R. Faivre, Mem. Sci. Rev. MBt. 57
(1960) 16
(3) Remnant textures and the effects of /I 26J B. R. Butcher and D. Baverstock, J. Nucl. Mat.
treatment on the transition can be ex- 3 (1961) 30
plained in terms of grain size effects. 9 J. Beaudier, G. Donze and G. Cabane, J. Nucl.
Mat. 4 (1961) 325
Acknowledgement 28) B. R. Butcher and A. H. Rowe, Inst. Met.
Monograph and Rep. Series No. 18 (1955) 229
The authors would like to acknowledge the 28)
H. I. Aaronson, ibid, p. 47
considerable benefit derived from discussions a0 P. J. Clemm and J. C. Fisher, Acta Met. 3 (1955)
)
with, and criticism by Mr. B. R. Butcher of 70