A Thermodynamic Description of the Al-Mg-Zn System

H. LIANG, S.-L. CHEN, and Y.A. CHANG

A thermodynamic description of the Al-Mg-Zn system was developed based on critically evaluated
experimental data. All binary intermetallic phases are assumed to have negligible ternary solubility
except for MgZn2. Three different thermodynamic models are applied to three different types of
phases in this system, i.e., disordered solution phases, stoichiometric compounds, and semistoichiometric phases. The model parameters are optimized based on the thermodynamic descriptions of the
constituent binaries and experimental phase equilibrium and thermodynamic data available in the
literature. The good agreement obtained between several calculated isopleths and thermodynamic
values of the liquid phase and experimental data shows that the current description of this system is
reasonable. The calculated phase equilibria in the Al-rich corner are believed to be reliable for
practical applications, while those away from the Al-rich region are subjected to large uncertainty.
Additional experimental investigations are needed to firmly establish the phase equilibrium of this
system over wide ranges of composition and temperature.

I.

INTRODUCTION

BECAUSE elements Al, Cu, Mg, and Zn are basic components for many high-strength aluminum alloys such as
alloy 7075, it is important to develop a thermodynamic description for this quaternary system. Developing a thermodynamic description for an alloy system means
developing appropriate thermodynamic models for all the
phases in the system so that we can calculate its phase
equilibria and thermodynamic properties. Such a description is important not only for basic materials research in
related areas, such as solidification and solid-state phase
transformation, but also for alloy and processing development and improvement. However, in order to obtain a thermodynamic description for the quaternary, it is necessary
to develop descriptions for its constituent ternaries first. In
a previous article, we have reported a thermodynamic description for the Al-Mg-Cu system.[1] In this article, we report a description for the second ternary system Al-Mg-Zn.
Developing such a description is based on the experimental
phase equilibrium and thermodynamic data available in the
literature and the established descriptions for the three constituent binaries Al-Mg,[2] Al-Zn,[3] and Mg-Zn.[4] In the following, we will first present a review of the experimental
data, then the thermodynamic models used in this study,
next optimization of the model parameters, and last a discussion of the results.
II.

REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA

Ever since the first experimental investigation of the

Al-Mg-Zn system by Eger[5] in 1913, many additional studies have been reported in the literature.[660] The
experimental results have been reviewed periodically by a
number of researchers.[9,32,34,41,49,50,53,58,60] The review by Despande et al.[58] is the most detailed one considering both the

H. LIANG, Graduate Student, S.-L. CHEN, Research Associate, and

Y.A. CHANG, Wisconsin Distinguished Professor, are with the
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706-1595.
Manuscript submitted November 25, 1996.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

phase equilibrium and thermodynamic data. The most recent review of the phase equilibrium data is given by Petrov.[60] Figures 1 through 3 show the assessed liquidus
projection and two isothermal sections at 25 7C and 335
7C, respectively. As shown in these diagrams, there exist
two ternary phases which are the T phase with a formula
of (Al, Zn)49(Mg)32 and the f phase with a formula of
Al20.4Mg54.9Zn24.7. The T phase was determined by Bergman
et al.[33,36] and the f phase by Clark and Rhines[37] and
Clark.[40] Both phases exist over wide ranges of homogeneity. Clark[40] also suggested the existence of a third ternary phase with an uncertain composition near the Mg-Zn
boundary binary, but its existence was never confirmed by
later investigators. Although all the binary phases in Figures 2 and 3 show appreciable solubility for the third component, there is no sufficient experimental evidence to
establish their exact ternary solubility. To facilitate reading,
the symbols used to represent the various phases in this
system are summarized in Table I.
The liquidus projection shown in Figure 1 is mainly
based on the work of Eger,[5] Koster and co-workers,[14,15,16]
and Clark,[40] following the nomenclature of Rhines[61] and
the format of presentation used by Chang et al.[62] The 335
7C isotherm shown in Figure 2 is that proposed by Willey,[50] mainly based on the work of Koster and co-workers,[14,15,16] Fink et al.,[18] Little et al.,[22,23] and Clark.[40] The
25 7C isotherm shown in Figure 3 incorporates the existence of the f phase with the other features reported by
Drits[54] based on the study of Mikheeva.[29] The stability of
the f phase has not been determined with certainty. However, because it was found to be stable at 335 7C and 204
7C by Clark,[40] it seems reasonable to assume that its stability extends down to room temperature.
In general, phase equilibria of the Al-Mg-Zn system are
not well established over the entire composition region.
However, the liquidus, solidus, and solvus in the Al-rich
corner, which are the major interest regions of the present
study, are well established. They have been reported in a
series of studies.[1416,18,22,23,26,55] Near the Al-Zn side, the two
invariant reactions I1 and II1, as shown in Figure 1, were
determined by Stiller et al.,[55] updating the work by Koster
and co-workers.[14,15,16] The phase equilibria in the Mg-rich
VOLUME 28A, SEPTEMBER 19971725

Fig. 1Assessed experimental liquidus projection.

Fig. 3Assessed experimental isotherm at 608 K (335 7C).

Table I.

Phase Nomenclature in the Al-Mg-Zn System

Symbols
L
Fcc
Hcp
b
g
r
n
s
T
f
Mg7Zn3
Mg2Zn3
MgZn
Mg2Zn11

Fig. 2Assessed experimental isotherm at 298 K (25 7C).

corner are less established, especially for those involving

the f phase.[40] The invariant reactions near the Mg-Zn side
proposed by Clark[40] were suggested to be taken with large
uncertainty. The phase equilibria near the Al-Mg boundary
binary are likewise not well established due to lack of experimental data.
The assessed invariant reactions including the four saddle
points are summarized in Table II; they have been accepted
by most reviewers except for some modifications of the invariant equilibria in the Mg-Zn side, such as II3, II6, and I4.
The modifications are made in the present study in view of
the currently accepted boundary binary phase equilibria and
the need for self-consistency between all ternary reactions.
In comparison to phase equilibrium data, very few thermodynamic data are available in the literature. The vapor
pressures of Zn in liquid alloys at 660 7C and above were

1726VOLUME 28A, SEPTEMBER 1997

Phases
liquid
(Al)
(Mg), (Zn)
Al8Mg5
Al12Mg17
Al56Mg44
Al105Mg95
(Al,Zn)2Mg
(Al,Zn)49Mg32
Al2Mg5Zn2
Mg7Zn3
Mg2Zn3
MgZn
Mg2Zn11

measured by Kozuka et al.[39] and at 800 7C by Lukashenko

and Pogodayev[48] using a gas-carrier method. The activity
data for Al and Mg in liquid state were calculated using
the Darken equations.[39,48] Pogodayev and Lukashenko[51]
also reported the activity data of Mg in liquid state at 660
7C and 800 7C using an EMF method.
III.

THERMODYNAMIC MODELS

In the present study, three types of models are employed

to describe three different types of phases in the Al-Mg-Zn
system: disordered solution for the liquid, fcc, and hcp
phases; stoichiometric compound for the f phase
Al2Mg5Zn2; and semistoichiometric compound for the s
phase (Al, Zn)2Mg and the T phase (Al, Zn)49Mg32. All the
binary intermetallic phases are assumed to have negligible
ternary solubility except for MgZn2. The MgZn2 in ternary
is modeled as (Al, Zn)2Mg in order to be consistent with
the model used for its isomorphous phase in the Al-Mg-Cu
and Cu-Mg-Zn systems. The model for the T phase is also

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Table II.

Assessed Experimental Invariant Equilibria

Liquid

Reaction

Class

T(K)

X(Al)

X(Mg)

X(Zn)

Reference

L 1 T(Al) 1 s
L(Al) 1 T 1 b
L 1 s(Al) 1 Mg2Zn11
L(Al) 1 (Zn) 1 Mg2Zn11
L(Mg) 1 T 1 MgZn
L 1 sT 1 Mg2Zn3
L 1 Mg2Zn3T 1 MgZn
L 1 f(Mg) 1 T
L 1 Tf 1 g
Lf 1 g 1 (Mg)
L 1 Mg7Zn3MgZn 1 (Mg)
L(Al) 1 T
L 1 sT
Lg 1 T
LT 1 b

II1
I1
II2
I2
I3
II3
II4
II5
II6
I4
II7
S1
S2
S3
S4

748
720
638
616
611
618
615
616
666
635
612
762
808
723
722

0.424
0.603
0.097
0.087
0.040
0.041*
0.023*
0.113*
0.308*
0.205*
0.027*
0.484
0.306*
0.384*
0.611*

0.197
0.346
0.084
0.073
0.688
0.671*
0.678*
0.659*
0.572*
0.627*
0.696*
0.266
0.354*
0.526*
0.341*

0.379
0.051
0.819
0.840
0.272
0.288*
0.299*
0.228*
0.130*
0.168*
0.277*
0.250
0.340*
0.090*
0.048*

55
55
53
53
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
14
14
16
16

*The original value was estimated.

(b)

(a)

Fig. 4(a) Comparison of calculated liquidus curves in the Al-rich corner with the experimental data of Stiller and Hoffmeister[55] from 500 7C to 600
7C. The corresponding solidus curves are also shown. (b) Comparison of calculated solidus curves in the Al-rich corner with the experimental data of
Stiller and Hoffmeister[55] from 500 7C to 600 7C.

consistent with that for its isomorphous phase in the AlCu-Mg system. Both the s and T phases are modeled with
compositions close to their actual homogeneity ranges.
These treatments are obviously only approximations, but it
does not affect our goal in developing a thermodynamic
description to calculate phase equilibria in the Al-rich region in agreement with experimental data. In Sections A
through C, the analytical expressions of the models used in
this study are presented.
A. Disordered Solution Phases
The following expression is used to represent the Gibbs
energy of a ternary disordered solution phase:

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

G 5 xA 7GA 1 xB 7GB 1 xC 7GC 1 RT(xA ln xA 1 xB ln xB 1 xC ln xC)

1 xAxB (iLAB (xA 2 xB) i ) 1 xAxC (iLAC(xA 2 xC) i )

[1]

1xBxC(iLBC(xB 2 xC)i)
1 xAxBxC(0LABCxA 1 1LABCxB 1 2LABCxC)

where iLAB, iLAC, and iLBC (i 5 0, 1, 2, . . .) are the interaction parameters in the binaries A-B, A-C, and B-C, respectively. The summation of the first three terms on the
right-hand side of Eq. [1] represents the reference part of the
Gibbs energy of the phase. The next term is the ideal mixing
term, and the next three summations represent the contributions to the excess Gibbs energy of the phase from the
three boundary binaries using the Muggianu extrapolation.[63]
The last term represents the ternary interaction. The Redlich

VOLUME 28A, SEPTEMBER 19971727

(b)

(a)

(c)
Fig. 5(a) Comparison of calculated isopleth at the section Al-MgZn2 with the experimental data of Fink and Willey.[18] (b) Comparison of calculated
isopleth at the section Al-MgZn with the experimental data of Fink and Willey.[18] (c) Comparison of calculated isopleth at the section Al-Mg2Zn with the
experimental data of Fink and Willey.[18]

Kister polynomial[64] is used to describe the excess Gibbs

energies of the constituent binaries. Values of the ternary
interaction parameters iLABC (i 5 0, 1, 2, . . .) are obtained
by optimization using available experimental data.

C. Semistoichiometric Phases

B. Stoichiometric Compounds
The Gibbs energy for a ternary stoichiometric compound
ApBqCr is described by the following equation:
GApBqCr 5 xA 7GA 1 xB 7GB 1 xC 7GC 1 DGf

[2]

where xA, xB, and xC are the mole fractions of components

A, B, and C, respectively; 7GA, 7GB, and 7GC are the Gibbs
1728VOLUME 28A, SEPTEMBER 1997

energies of the components in their standard states; and DGf

is the Gibbs energy of formation in per mole atoms of the
compound.

The Gibbs energy of a semistoichiometric phase (A,

C)pBq, formed by mixing two binary stoichiometric compounds ApBq and CpBq, is
p
RT( y ln yA 1 yC ln yC)
p1q
i
i
1 yA yC( GA,C:B( yA 2 yC) )

G 5 yAGA:B 1 yCGC:B 1

[3]

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

(a)

(b)

(c)
(d)
Fig. 6(a) Comparison of calculated isopleth at 4 wt pct Mg with the experimental data of Koster et al.[16] (b) Comparison of calculated isopleth at 1.69
at. pct Zn with the experimental data of Kuznetsov et al.[59] (c) Comparison of calculated isopleth at 5.33 at. pct Zn with the experimental data of Kuznetsov
et al.[59] (d) Comparison of calculated isopleth at Al-10 wt pct Mg with the experimental data of Watanabe.[38]

with
yA 5

xA
xC
and yC 5
xA 1 xC
xA 1 xC

where yA and yC are the site fractions of components A and

C in sublattice 1; GA:B and GC:B are the Gibbs energies of
the compounds ApBq and CpBq in per mole of atoms, respectively; and iGA,C:B (i 5 0, 1, 2, . . .) represents the
parameters to be obtained by optimization for describing
the interactions between atoms A and C in sublattice 1.
IV.

OPTIMIZATION OF MODEL PARAMETERS

The Al-Mg-Zn ternary was first modeled by Chen[65] 2

years ago using the methodology presented by Chen and
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

co-workers[66,67,68] but employing the PMLFKT program[69,70] for calculating phase equilibria. However, the
models used for the s and T phases were found to be inconsistent with those for their isomorphous phases in the
Al-Mg-Cu system.[1] Moreover, the optimized results could
be improved. Accordingly, we decided to remodel the thermodynamics of this ternary, adopting the thermodynamic
descriptions of the Al-Mg from Zuo and Chang,[2] the AlZn from Chen and Chang,[3] and the Mg-Zn from Agarwal
et al.[4] The Al-Mg system has also been modeled by Saunders,[71] but the description by Zuo and Chang[2] yields results in better agreement with experimental data. The same
is true for the description of the Al-Zn by Chen and
Chang[3] vs those of Mey and Effenberg[12] and Mey.[13]
Using Thermo-Calc,[74] the model parameters are optiVOLUME 28A, SEPTEMBER 19971729

(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

Fig. 7Comparison between calculated chemical potential of Zn in liquid state at 1073 K for the section with a ratio of Al/Mg 5 1 and experimental
data of Lukashenco et al.[48] using Zn (,) as reference state. (b) Comparison between calculated chemical potential of Zn in liquid state at 1073 K for the
section with a ratio of Al/Mg 5 1/2 and experimental data of Lukashenco et al.[48] using Zn (,) as reference state. (c) Comparison between calculated
chemical potential of Mg in liquid state at 933 K for the section with a ratio of Al/Zn 5 1 and experimental data of Pogodayev et al.[51] using Mg (,) as
reference state. (d) Comparison between calculated chemical potential of Mg in liquid state at 933 K for the section with a ratio of Al/Zn 5 1/3 and
experimental data of Pogodayev et al.[51] using Mg (,) as reference state.

mized based on the phase equilibrium and thermodynamic

data available in the literature. The lattice stability data for
pure elements are from the SGTE database.[75] As stated in
Section II, the experimental liquidus, solidus, and solvus in
the Al-rich corner are believed to be reliable, but values for
the published invariant equilibria especially for those near
the Mg-Zn and Al-Mg boundaries are subjected to large uncertainty. Accordingly, more weight is given to the reliable
data in the Al-rich corner when optimizing the model param1730VOLUME 28A, SEPTEMBER 1997

eters for all the phases in this system. However, as far as the
invariant equilibrium data are concerned, more weight was
given to the more established values near the Al-Zn side than
the less established ones near the other two boundary binaries.
The optimized model parameters are presented in Table III.
Comparisons of the model-calculated phase diagrams and
thermodynamic properties with experimental results are presented in Figures 4 through 9. The calculated results and the
discussion of the results are given in next section.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 8(a) Calculated isothermal section at 298 K (25 7C). (b) Calculated isothermal section at 608 K (335 7C). (c) Calculated isothermal section at 673
K (400 7C).

V.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The model-calculated liquidus and solidus curves in the

Al-rich corner are compared with the experimental data of
Stiller and Hoffmeister,[55] as given in Figures 4(a) and (b).
As shown in Figure 4(a), the calculated liquidus curves are
in reasonable agreement with the experimental data at 500
7C, 525 7C, 550 7C, 575 7C, and 600 7C, respectively. The
calculated solidus curves shown in Figure 4(a) are enlarged
and presented in Figure 4(b). Agreement between the calculation and experimentation is again as good as that for
the liquidus curves shown in Figure 4(a). Figures 5(a)
through (c) show comparisons between the calculated (Al)
solvus with experimental data from Fink and Willey[18] for
three isoplethal sections: Al-MgZn2, Al-MgZn, and AlMg2Zn. As shown in these figures, good agreement is obtained. Figures 6(a) through (d) show another four
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

calculated isopleths: one with a constant Mg content of 4

wt pct, two with constant Zn contents of 1.69 and 5.33 at.
pct, and the last one for the section from Al to 10 wt pct
Mg. For these four isopleths, the calculated phase boundaries are in good agreement with the available experimental
data by Koster and Dullenkopf[16] in the first case, by Kuznetsov et al.[59] in the second and third cases, and by Watanabe[38] in the last case. Figures 7(a) and (b) show
comparisons of the calculated chemical potentials of Zn in
liquid state with the experimental values of Lukashenko et
al.[48] at 1073 K for two sections with ratios of Al/Mg at 1
and 0.5, respectively; Figures 7(c) and (d) show comparisons of the calculated chemical potential of Mg in liquid
state with the experimental data of Pogodayev and Lukashenco[51] at 933 K for the sections with ratios of Al/Zn at 1
and 0.333, respectively. In all of the preceding cases, there
VOLUME 28A, SEPTEMBER 19971731

Table III.

Fig. 9Calculated liquidus projection.

is good agreement between the calculated values and experimental data. The agreement between calculated liquidus, solidus, and solvus in the Al-rich corner, isopleths, and
thermodynamic values and experimental data, as shown in
Figures 4 through 7, suggest that the model parameters obtained in the present study are reasonable.
A comparison of the calculated isotherms at 25 7C and
335 7C given in Figures 8(a) and (b) with the assessed
diagrams given in Figures 2 and 3 shows agreement for
equilibria involving the (Al) phase. It is understood that the
calculated phase boundaries of the T and f phases would
be different in view of the assumptions made in describing
the T phase to be a semistoichiometric phase and the f
phase to be a line compound. Other differences between
the calculated and assessed equilibria are due to the assumptions made that none of the binary phases dissolves
the third component in the calculation except for the s and
T phases. Figure 8(c) shows a calculated isotherm at 400
7C; at this temperature, an appreciable amount of liquid
forms in two regions of the diagram, i.e., the Zn corner and
the valley extending from the Mg-rich eutectic of the MgZn binary to ternary region.
We shall next discuss the calculated liquidus projection
shown in Figure 9 with the assessed one in Figure 1. In
addition to these two diagrams, the calculated temperatures
and liquid compositions for all the invariant reactions, as
well as the assessed values, are summarized in Table IV.
Although the general features of the calculated liquidus projection are in accord with those of the assessed one, quantitative or semiquantitative agreement is obtained only for
the invariant reaction II, and the saddle points S1 and S2.
The calculated equilibrium compositions of the liquid for
II1 are about the same as the assessed values, while the
calculated temperature is 7 7C lower than the assessed one.
For the two saddle points S1 and S2, although the calculated
temperatures are in accord with the assessed ones, the calculated compositions of the liquid differ appreciably with
the assessed values. For all the other invariant reactions,
appreciable discrepancies exist. Additional experimental investigations are needed before the phase diagram for this
1732VOLUME 28A, SEPTEMBER 1997

The Model Parameters for All Phases in the

Al-Mg-Zn System (in J/mol)

Binary phases
bAlMg : Al0.615Mg0.385
hcp
GbAl:Mg 20.615 7Gfcc
Al 20.385 7GMg 5 21451.1 2 1.907T
rAlMg : Al0.56Mg0.44
hcp
GrAl:Mg 2 0.56 7Gfcc
Al 2 0.44 7GMg 5 2768.6 2 3.119T
gAlMg : (Mg)0.4483(Al,Mg)0.1379(Al,Mg)0.4138
hcp
GgMg:Al:Al 2 0.5517 7Gfcc
Al 2 0.4483 7GMg 5 21270 2 1.75T
hcp
GgMg:Al:Mg 2 0.1379 7Gfcc
Al 2 0.8621 7GMg 5 1279.6 1 1.1606T
g
fcc
hcp
GMg:Mg:Al 2 0.4138 7GAl 2 0.5862 7GMg 5 22441.4 1 0.219T
GgMg:Mg:Mg 5 7Ghcp
Mg 1 5000
nAlMg : Al0.525Mg0.475
fcc
GnAl:Mg 2 0.525 7Gfcc
Al 2 0.475 7GMg 5 2837.8 2 3.163T
Mg7Zn3 : Mg0.71831Zn0.28169
Mg7Zn3
hcp
hcp
GMg:Zn
2 0.71831 7GMg
2 0.28169 7GZn
5 24814.11 1 1.0T
MgZn : Mg0.48Zn0.52
MgZn
hcp
hcp
GMg:Zn
2 0.48 7GMg
2 0.52 7GZn
5 29590.44 1 3.19681T
Mg2Zn3 : Mg0.4Zn0.6
Mg2Zn3
hcp
hcp
GMg:Zn
2 0.4 7GMg
2 0.6 7GZn
5 211,014.5 1 3.67151T
Mg2Zn11 : Mg0.153846Zn0.846154
Mg2Zn11
hcp
GMg:Zn
2 0.153846 7Ghcp
Mg 2 0.846154 7GZn 5 25823.05 1
1.94323T
Ternary phases
LIQUID: Disordered solution
0 <
LAl,Zn 5 110,288 2 3.035T
1 <
LAl,Zn 5 2810 1 0.471T
0 <
LAl,Mg 5 211,200 1 9.578T
0 <
LMg,Zn 5 281,439.68 1 518.25T 2 64.7144T ln T
1 <
LMg,Zn 5 12627.54 1 2.93061T
2 <
LMg,Zn 5 21673.28
0 <
LAl,Mg,Zn 5 24094.48
1 <
LAl,Mg,Zn 5 239,973.74
2 <
LAl,Mg,Zn 5 211,337.52
Fcc: Disordered solution
0 fcc
LAl,Zn 5 16656 1 1.615T
1 fcc
LAl,Zn 5 16793 2 4.982T
2 fcc
LAl,Zn 5 25352 1 7.261T
0 fcc
LAl,Mg 5 14945.7 2 1.318T
1 fcc
LAl,Mg 5 11594.4 2 0.973T
0 fcc
LMg,Zn 5 118,000
0 fcc
LAl,Mg,Zn 5 220,000
Hcp: Disordered solution
0 hcp
LAl,Mg 5 14063.4 2 3.243T
1 hcp
LAl,Mg 5 21642.1
0 hcp
LAl,Zn 5 114,620
0 hcp
LMg,Zn 5 21600.77 1 7.62441T
1 hcp
LMg,Zn 5 23823.03 1 8.02575T
f phase: Al2Mg5Zn2
GfAl:Mg:Zn 2 2 7G<Al 2 5 7G<Mg 2 2 7G<Zn 5 2169,985.46 1
136.8T
T phase: (Al,Zn)0.605(Mg)0.395
GTAl:Mg 2 0.605 7G<Al 2 0.395 7G<Mg 5 210,910.836 1 8.71T
GTZn:Mg 2 0.605 7G<Zn 2 0.395 7G<Mg 5 215,733.501 1
12.6746T
0 T
LAl,Zn:Mg 5 225,696.19 1 25T
1 T
LAl,Zn:Mg 5 19153.84
s phase: (Al,Zn)0.66667(Mg)0.33333
<
<
GsAl,Mg 2 0.66667 7GAl
2 0.33333 7GMg
5 20,133.73 1
6.3946T
GsZn,Mg 2 0.66667 7G<Zn 2 0.33333 7G<Mg 5 219,389.65 1
13.644T
0 s
LAl,Zn:Mg 5 223,927.13
1 s
LAl,Zn:Mg 5 19335.47

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Table IV.

Calculated Temperatures and Compositions of the Liquid at the Invariant Equilibria (Compared with Experimental
Data Available in Parentheses)
Liquid

Reaction

Class

L1T(Al)1s

II1

L(Al)1T1b

I1

L1s(Al)1Mg2Zn11

II2

L(Al)1(Zn)1Mg2Zn11

I2

L(Mg)1T1MgZn

I3

L1sT1Mg2Zn3

II3

L1Mg2Zn3T1MgZn

II4

L1f(Mg)1T

II5

L1Tf1g

II6

Lf1g1(Mg)

I4

L1Mg7Zn3MgZn1(Mg)

II7

L1br1T
L1rn1T
L1ng1T
L(Al)1T

II8
II9
II10
S1

L1sT

S2

Lg1T

S3

LT1b

S4

LT1f
L(Mg)1f

S5
S6

T(K)

X(Al)

X(Mg)

X(Zn)

741.4
(748)
701.5
(720)
609.3
(638)
607.9
(616)
603.7
(611)
619.1
(618)
609.8
(615)
654.9
(616)
655.2
(666)
648.9
(635)
608.2
(612)
696.1
695.9
695.6
765.3
(762)
808.5
(808)
695.2
(723)
702.2
(722)
671.3
660.5

0.422
(0.424)
0.561
(0.603)
0.086
(0.097)
0.083
(0.087)
0.015
(0.040)
0.017
(0.041)*
0.016
(0.023)*
0.110
(0.113)*
0.251
(0.308)*
0.233
(0.205)*
0.008
(0.027)*
0.495
0.493
0.479
0.545
(0.484)
0.210
(0.306)*
0.440
(0.384)*
0.545
(0.611)*
0.163
0.143

0.199
(0.197)
0.392
(0.346)
0.076
(0.084)
0.073
(0.073)
0.696
(0.688)
0.685
(0.671)*
0.691
(0.678)*
0.711
(0.659)*
0.657
(0.572)*
0.679
(0.627)*
0.699
(0.696)*
0.453
0.456
0.467
0.250
(0.266)
0.385
(0.354)*
0.495
(0.526)*
0.400
(0.341)*
0.685
0.705

0.379
(0.379)
0.047
(0.051)
0.838
(0.819)
0.844
(0.840)
0.289
(0.272)
0.298
(0.288)*
0.293
(0.299)*
0.179
(0.228)*
0.092
(0.130)*
0.088
(0.168)*
0.293
(0.277)*
0.052
0.051
0.054
0.205
(0.250)
0.405
(0.340)*
0.065
(0.090)*
0.055
(0.048)*
0.152
0.152

*Original value was estimated.

system is well established over wide ranges of composition

and temperature. However, it is of interest to note that for
the Al-rich alloys with low Mg contents, the calculated
phase equilibria involving the (Al) and liquid are in reasonable accord with the assessed data. Moreover, as pointed
out earlier, there is good agreement between the calculated
isopleths and thermodynamic properties and experimental
data, as shown in Figures 5 through 7. On the basis of this
evidence, we conclude that the calculated liquidus projection given in Figure 9, as well as the calculated invariant
reactions given in Table IV, should be used instead of the
assessed data given in Figure 1 and Table II for engineering
applications and related materials research. Until more experimental data become available, they should be used with
caution.
VI.

CONCLUSIONS

A thermodynamic description of the Al-Mg-Zn system

has been developed based on the descriptions of its three
constituent binaries and experimental phase equilibrium and
thermodynamic data available in the literature. The thermodynamic models used in this study are for disordered
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

solutions such as the liquid, fcc, and hcp phases; line compound f -Al2Mg5Zn2; and semistoichiometric phases T(Al,Zn)49Mg32 and s -(Al,Zn)2Mg. All binary intermetallic
phases are assumed to have negligible ternary solubility except for MgZn2. The model parameters are optimized based
on both experimental phase equilibrium and thermodynamic data. Several calculated isopleths and chemical potentials of Mg and Zn in liquid state are in good agreement
with experimental data. Moreover, the calculated liquidus,
solidus, and solvus of the (Al) phase are also in accord with
available experimental data.
However, discrepancies do exist between the calculated
invariant equilibria and assessed values which were obtained based on limited experimental data. It is clear that
additional experimental investigations are needed before we
will have definitive information on the phase equilibria for
this system over a wide range of composition and temperature. However, in the absence of additional experimental
data, we believe the calculated phase equilibria in compositions away from the Al corner should be used cautiously
for practical applications, instead of the assessed data. This
conclusion is reached on the basis of agreement obtained
between the calculation and experimentation for the liquiVOLUME 28A, SEPTEMBER 19971733

dus, solidus, and solvus of the (Al) phase and thermodynamic properties of the liquid phase.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the National Science
Foundation for financial support through Grant No. NSFDMR-94-21780 and Dr. Bruce MacDonald of the Metal
Program, Materials and Processing Cluster, NSF, for his
interest in this work. The authors would also like to thank
Drs. H.L. Lukas and U. Kattner for supplying us the
PMLKT software and Dr. Bo Sundman for the ThermoCalc software to carry out the optimization and calculation,
Dr. Weiming Huang for her help in using Thermo-Calc,
and Doug Ingerly for carefully reading the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. S.-L. Chen, Y. Zuo, H. Liang, and Y.A. Chang: Metall. Mater. Trans.
A., 1997, vol. 28A, pp. 435-46.
2. Y. Zuo and Y.A. Chang: CALPHAD, 1993, vol. 17, pp. 161-74.
3. S.-L. Chen and Y.A. Chang: CALPHAD, 1993, vol. 17 (2), pp.
113-24.
4. R. Agarwal, S.G. Fries, H.L. Lukas, G. Petzow, F. Sommer, T.G.
Chart, and G. Effenbrerg: Z. Metallkd., 1992, vol. 83, pp. 216-23.
5. G. Eger: Int. Z. Metallogr., 1913, vol. 4, pp. 50-128.
6. W. Sandner and K.L. Meissner: Z. Metallkd., 1923, vol. 15, pp.
160-83.
7. W. Sandner: Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem., 1926, 154, 144-51.
8. A.A. Bochvar and M.D. Kuznetzov: Metallurgy, 1933, 8, 7-14.
9. V. Fuss: Metallography of Aluminum and Its Alloys, Verlag Julius
Springer, Berlin, 1934, pp. 154-55.
10. F. Laves, K. Lohberg, and H. Witte: Metall-Wirtschaft, 1935, 14, 79394.
11. W.L. Fink and L.A. Willey: Met. Technol., 1936, 8, 3-32.
12. M. Hamasumi: Sci. Rep. Tohoku Imp. Univ. Honda Anniv., 1936, 74876.
13. M. Hamasumi: Tetsu to Hagane (J. Iron Steel Inst. Jpn.), 1936, 22,
258-71.
14. W. Koster and W. Wolf: Z. Metallkd., 1936, 28, 155-58.
15. W. Koster and W. Dullenkopf: Z. Metallkd., 1936, 28, 309-12.
16. W. Koster and W. Dullenkopf: Z. Metallkd., 1936, 28, 363-67.
17. K. Riederer: Z. Metallkd., 1936, 28, 312-17.
18. W.L. Fink and L.A. Willey: Trans. TMS-AIME, 1937, 124, 78-110.
19. P.Y. Saldau and M.J. Zamotorin: Izv. Sekt. Fiz. Khim. Anal., 1938,
11, 27-36.
20. G.G. Urasov, N.A. Filin, and A.B. Shashin: Metallurgy, 1940, 15,
3-11
21. E. Butchers, G.V. Raynor, and W. Hume-Rothery: J. Inst. Met., 1943,
69, 209-28.
22. A.T. Little, G.V. Raynor, and W. Hume-Rothery: J. Inst. Met., 1943,
69, 423-40.
23. A.T. Little, G.V. Raynor, and W. Hume-Rothery: J. Inst. Met., 1943,
69, 467-84.
24. G. Siebel: Z. Elektrochem., 1943, 49, 218-21.
25. V.I. Mikheeva and O.S. Kryukova: Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Otd. Khim.
Nauk, 1944, 4, 296-308.
26. E. Butchers and W. Hume-Rothery: J. Inst. Met., 1945, 71, 291-311.
27. V.I. Mikheeva and O.S. Kryukova: Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1945 vol.
50, pp. 243-46.
28. V.I. Mikheeva and O.S. Kryukova: Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1945,
50, 247-48.
29. V.I. Mikheeva: Magnesium Alloys with Aluminum and Zinc,
Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of USSR, Moscow,
1946.
30. D.J. Strawbridge, W. Hume-Rothery, and A.T. Little: J. Inst. Met.,
1947, 74, 191-225.
31. W. Koster: Z. Metallkd., 1948, 40, 211-13.
32. P.Y. Saldau: Izv. Sekt. Fiz. Khim. Anal., 1949, 19, 487-96.
33. G. Bergman, L.T. Waugh, and L. Pauling: Nature, 1952, 169, 105758.

1734VOLUME 28A, SEPTEMBER 1997

34. H. Haneman and A. Schrader: Atlar Metallographicus, Verlag

Stahleisen M.B.H., Dusseldorf, 1952, vol. 3 (2), pp. 133-49.
35. M.I. Zamotorin: Trudy Leningrad Politekhn. Inst., 1955, 180, 38-43.
36. G. Bergman, L.T. Waugh, and L. Pauling: Acta Crystallogr., 1957,
10, 254-59.
37. J.B. Clark and F.N. Rhines: Trans. Am. Soc. Met., 1959, 51, 199-221.
38. H. Watanabe: Nippon Kinzoku Gakkai-Si, 1959, 23, 285-88.
39. Z. Kozuka, J. Moriyama, and J. Kushima: J. Electrochem. Soc. Jpn.,
1960, 28, 298-301.
40. J.B. Clark: Trans. Am. Soc. Met., 1961, 53, 295-306.
41. P.Y. Saldau: Ph.D. Thesis, Publishing House, Moscow, 1961, pp. 5-8.
42. E.H. Wright: Aluminum Research Laboratories, Aluminum Company
of America, private communication referred by J.B. Clark, 1961.
43. A.S. Yue and J.B. Clark: Trans. TMS-AIME, 1961, vol. 22, pp.
383-89.
44. I.A. Aleksakhin and A.A. Semionow: Metalloved. Term. Obrab. Met.,
1962, 4, 40-45.
45. J.H. Ault and B.E. Williams: Acta Crystallogr., 1966, 21, 830-31.
46. P.A. Thackery: J. Inst. Met., 1968, 96, 228-35.
47. A.S. Yue: Metall. Trans., 1970, 1, 19-22.
48. E.E. Lukashenco and A.M. Pogodayev: Zh. Fiz. Khimii, 1971, vol.
45 (8), pp. 1182-84.
49. L.F. Mondolfo: Met. Rev., 1971, 16, 95-124.
50. L.D. Willey: Metals Handbook, 8th ed, ASM, Metals Park, OH, 1973,
pp. 397-99.
51. A.M. Pogodayev and E.E. Lukashenco: Izv. Acad. Nauk SSSR Metall.,
1974, vol. 6, pp. 90-93.
52. J.H. Auld and S. McK Cousland: Met. Sci., 1976, 73, 445-48.
53. L.F. Mondolfo: Aluminum Alloys: Structure and Properties,
Butterworth and Co., London, 1976, pp. 575-90.
54. M.E. Drits: Phase Diagram of Aluminum and Magnesium Alloy
Systems, Baikov Institute of Metallurgy, Moscow, 1946.
55. W. Stiller and H. Hoffmeister: Z. Metallkd., 1979, vol. 70, pp. 81724.
56. G.M. Kuznetsov, A.D. Barsukov, G.B. Krivosheeva, and V.V.
Istomin-Kastorovski: Izv. Vyss. Uchebn. Zaved. Tsvetn. Metall., 1985,
1, 88-93.
57. G.M. Kuznetsov, A.D. Barsukov, G.B. Krivosheeva, and E.V.
Bashashkina: Izv. Vyss. Uchebn. Zaved. Tsvetn. Metall., 1985, 2,
91-95.
58. N.U. Despande, K.K. Ray, and A.K. Mallik: J. Alloy Phase Diagram,
1986, vol. 2 (2), pp. 108-30.
59. G.M. Kuznetsov, A.D. Barsukov, G.B. Krivosheeva, and E.G. Dieva:
Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Metall., 1986, 4, 198-200.
60. D.A. Petrov: in Ternary Alloys, G. Petzow and G. Effenberg, eds.
ASM INTERNATIONAL, Materials Park, OH, 1993, vol. 7, pp. 5771.
61. F.S. Rhines: Phase Diagrams in Metallurgy, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY, 1956.
62. Y.A. Chang, J.P. Neumann, A. Mikula, and D. Goldberg: INCRA
Monograph VI, Phase Diagrams and Thermodynamic Properties of
Ternary Copper-Metal Systems, The International Copper Research
Association, Inc., New York, NY, 1979.
63. Y.M. Muggianu, M. Gambino, and J.P. Bros: J. Chim. Phys., 1975,
72, 83-87.
64. O. Redlich and A.T. Kister: Ind. Eng. Chem., 1948, 40, 345-48.
65. S.-L. Chen: Ph.D. Thesis, University of WisconsinMadison,
Madison, WI, 1994.
66. S.-L. Chen, Y. Zuo, C.R. Kao, and Y.A. Chang: CALPHAD, 1993,
17, 47-56.
67. S.-L. Chen, K.-C. Chou, and Y.A. Chang: CALPHAD, 1993, 17, 23750.
68. S.-L. Chen, K.-C. Chou, and Y.A. Chang: CALPHAD, 1993, 17, 287302.
69. H.L. Lukas, J. Weiss, and E.-Th. Henig: CALPHAD, 1982, vol. 6 (3),
pp. 229-51.
70. U.R. Kattner and B.J. Boettinger: Mater. Sci. Eng., 1992, A152, 917.
71. N. Saunders: CALPHAD, 1990, 14, 61-70.
72. S. an Mey and G. Effenberg: Z. Metallkd., 1986, vol. 77 (7), pp. 44953.
73. S. an Mey: Z. Metallkd., 1993, vol. 84 (7), pp. 451-55.
74. B. Sundman, B. Jansson, and J.-O. Andersson: CALPHAD, 1985, vol.
9, pp. 153-90.
75. A.T. Dinsdale: CALPHAD, 1991, 15, 317-425.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A