Modeling of Nucleation Processes Thermodynamic Approach - arXiv

Modeling of Nucleation ProcessesEmmanuel Clouet, CEA, DEN, Service de Recherches de Metallurgie Physique, France

NUCLEATION is the onset of a first-orderphase transition by which a metastable phasetransforms into a more stable one. Such a phasetransition occurs when a system initially inequilibrium is destabilized by the change of anexternal parameter such as temperature or pres-sure. If the perturbation is small enough, thesystem does not become unstable but ratherstays metastable. In diffusive transformations,the system then evolves through nucleation,the growth and coarsening of a second phase.Such a phase transformation is found in manysituations in materials science, such as conden-sation of liquid droplets from a supersaturatedvapor, solidification, precipitation from a super-saturated solid solution, and so on. The initialstage of all these different processes can be welldescribed within the same framework, currentlyknown as the classical nucleation theory.Since its initial formulation in 1927 by Vol-

mer, Weber, and Farkas (Ref 1, 2) and its modifi-cation in 1935 by Becker and Doring (Ref 3),the classical nucleation theory has been a suit-able tool to model the nucleation stage in phasetransformations. The success of this theory relieson its simplicity and on the few parametersrequired to predict the nucleation rate, that is,the number of clusters of the new phase appear-ing per unit of time and volume. It allows ratio-nalizing experimental measurements, predictingthe consequences of a change of the controlparameters such as temperature or supersatura-tion, and describing the nucleation stage inmesoscopic modeling of phase transformations.This article first describes the results

obtained by Volmer, Weber, Farkas, Becker,and Doring (Ref 1–3), which constitute theclassical nucleation theory. These results arethe predictions of the precipitate size distribu-tion, steady-state nucleation rate, and incuba-tion time. This theory describes the nucleatingsystem as a homogeneous phase where hetero-phase fluctuations occur. Some of these fluctua-tions reach a large enough size that they cancontinue to grow and lead to the formation ofprecipitates. The nucleating system is thus envi-sioned mainly from a thermodynamic view-point. The key controlling parameters are thenucleation driving force and the interface freeenergy. A kinetic approach, cluster dynamics,

can also be used to describe nucleation. Thisconstitutes the second part of this article. Here,a master equation describes the time evolutionof the system, which is modeled as a clustergas. The key parameters are the cluster conden-sation and evaporation rates. Both approachesare different in their description of the nucleat-ing system and their needed input parameters.They are nevertheless closely related. Predic-tions of the classical nucleation theory haveactually been derived from the same masterequation used by cluster dynamics (Ref 3),and extensions of classical nucleation theoryalways start from this master equation. In thisarticle, the links as well as the differencebetween both descriptions are emphasized.Since its initial formulation, the classical nucle-ation theory has been enriched, mainly by Binderand Stauffer (Ref 4–6), to take into account thefact that clusters other than monomers canmigrate and react. It has also been extended tomulticomponent systems (Ref 7–12). Thesegeneralizations of the initial formalism arepresented at the end of the second part.

ThermodynamicApproach

Conditions for Nucleation

Nucleation occurs when a homogeneousphase initially in stable thermal equilibrium isput in a state where it becomes metastable bythe variation of a controlling parameter. In thefollowing case, the controlling parameter isthe temperature, and the initial system isquenched through a first-order phase transitionin a two-phase region. The system then tendsto evolve toward a more stable state and toreach its equilibrium. Because the parent phaseis not unstable, this transformation cannot pro-ceed through the continuous development ofgrowing infinitesimal perturbations delocalizedin the whole phase, that is, by spinodal decom-position (Ref 13, 14). Such perturbations in ametastable state increase the free energy. As aconsequence, they can appear because of

thermal fluctuations, but they naturally decay.To reach its equilibrium, the system must over-come an energy barrier to directly form clustersof the new equilibrium phase, a process knownas nucleation.This difference between a metastable and an

unstable state, as well as between nucleationand spinodal decomposition, is better under-stood through the following example. Considera system corresponding to a binary mixture oftwo elements, A and B, with a fixed atomicfraction x of B elements. Such a system canbe a solid or a liquid solution, for instance.Assume that the free energy per atom, G(x),of this system is known for every compositionx and is given by the function plotted inFig. 1. A two-phase region given by the com-mon tangent construction exists at the consid-ered temperature; the equilibrium state ofbinary mixtures with an intermediate composi-tion x0 between xe and ye corresponds to a mix-ture of two phases having the compositions xe

and ye. A homogeneous system with a composi-tion x0 will then separate into these two equilib-rium phases. The variation of the free energycan be examined if this transformation happensthrough the development of infinitesimal fluc-tuations. In that purpose, consider a small per-turbation corresponding to a separation of theinitially homogeneous system into two phaseshaving the compositions x0 + dx1 and x0 + dx2.For the perturbation to be small, assumedx1j j � 1 and dx2j j � 1. If f1 is the fractionof phase 1, matter conservation imposes thefollowing relation between both compositions:

f1dx1 þ 1� f1ð Þdx2 ¼ 0 (Eq 1)

The free energy variation associated with thisunmixing is given by:

�G ¼ f1G x0 þ dx1� �þ 1� f1ð ÞG x0 þ dx2

� ��G x0

� �¼ 1/2 f1dx

21 þ 1� f1ð Þdx22

� �G00 x0ð Þ þ o dx21

� �(Eq 2)

The first derivative G0(x0) of the free energydoes not appear in Eq 2 because of the relationin Eq 1. The sign of the free-energy variation is

ASM Handbook, Volume 22A: Fundamentals of Modeling for Metals Processing D.U. Furrer and S.L. Semiatin, editors, p 203-219

Copyright © 2009 ASM International® All rights reserved. www.asminternational.org

thus governed by the second derivative G00(x0)of the free energy. If this second derivative isnegative, the initial infinitesimal perturbationdecreases the free energy (Fig. 2a). It can there-fore develop until the system reaches its two-phase equilibrium state. This is the regime ofspinodal decomposition. In Fig. 1, the free-energy second derivative changes its signs inxs and ys; all homogeneous systems with a com-position between these limits are unstable andevolve spontaneously to equilibrium. On theother hand, if the composition x0 is higher thanthe equilibrium composition xe but smaller thanthe spinodal limit xs, the homogeneous binary

mixture is metastable. Because the secondderivative of the free energy is positive, anyinfinitesimal perturbation increases the freeenergy (Fig. 2b) and will therefore decay. Toreach its equilibrium state, the system mustovercome an energy barrier, and phase separa-tion occurs by nucleation of the new equilib-rium phase with the composition ye.

The Capillary Approximation

In the nucleation regime, the system evolvesthrough the formation of well-defined and loca-lized fluctuations corresponding to clusters of

the new equilibrium phase. The formation freeenergies of these clusters are well described bythe capillary approximation. This assumes thattwo contributions enter this free energy (Fig. 3):

� Volume contribution: By forming a clusterof the new phase, the system decreases itsfree energy. The gain is directly proportionalto the volume of the cluster or, equivalently,to the number, n, of atoms forming the clus-ter. This is the nucleation driving force.

� Surface contribution: One needs to create aninterface between the parent phase and thecluster of the new phase. This interface hasa cost that is proportional to the surface areaof the cluster or, equivalently, to n(d�1)/d,where d is the dimension of the system.

The following is restricted to the three-dimensional case. The formation free energy ofa cluster containing n atoms is then given by:

�Gn ¼ n�Gnuc þ n2=3As (Eq 3)

where DGnuc is the nucleation free energy, s isthe interface free energy, and A is a geometricfactor. If the interface free energy is isotropic,the equilibrium shape of the cluster is a sphere.The corresponding geometric factor is then A =(36pO1

2)1/3, where O1 is the volume of a mono-mer. For anisotropic interface free energy, onecan use the Wulff construction (Ref 15, 16) todetermine the equilibrium shape, that is, theshape with minimum free energy for a givenvolume, and deduce an average interface freeenergy corresponding to a hypothetical spheri-cal cluster having the same volume and thesame interface energy as the real one, whichmay be facetted. An example is given inRef 17 for precipitates with {100}, {110}, and{111} interfaces.The nucleation free energy is obtained by

considering the difference of chemical poten-tials in the parent and in the equilibrium phasesfor all atoms composing the cluster:

Fig. 1 Sketch of the free energy of a binary mixture quenched in a two-phase region. The bold line is the free energyper atom G(x) of the homogeneous system. The compositions xe and ye of the equilibrium phases are given by

the common tangent construction. The spinodal limits xs and ys define the unstable region. DG nuc (x0) is the nucleationfree energy of the metastable homogeneous system of composition x0.

Fig. 2 Variation DG of the free energy corresponding to the spontaneous unmixing of a homogeneous system of composition x0 in two phases of respective compositions x0 + dx1and x0 + dx2. (a) Spinodal regime (G 00(x0) < 0). (b) Nucleation regime (G 00(x0) > 0)

204 / Fundamentals of the Modeling of Microstructure and Texture Evolution

�Gnuc ¼X

iyei ðmei � m0i Þ (Eq 4)

where yei is the atomic fraction of the type iatom in the nucleating equilibrium phase, andmei and m0i are the corresponding chemicalpotentials in the nucleating equilibrium phase

and the parent phase, respectively. When theparent phase is metastable, chemical potentialsin this phase are higher than the ones at equilib-rium. The nucleation free energy given by Eq 4is therefore negative. Classic expressions of thenucleation free energy are given at the end of

this section in some simple cases. For negativenucleation driving force, because of the compe-tition between the volume and the interfacecontributions, the cluster formation free energy(Eq 3) shows a maximum for a given criticalsize, n*, as illustrated in Fig. 3. n* correspondsto the size at which the first derivative of DGn isequal to zero, thus leading to:

n� ¼ �2/3 As�Gnuc

� �3(Eq 5)

and the corresponding formation free energy:

�G� ¼ �Gn� ¼ 4/27 Asð Þ3�Gnucð Þ2 (Eq 6)

Below this critical size, the energy of growingclusters increases because of the interface pre-dominance at small sizes. Clusters in this sizerange are therefore unstable; if a clusteris formed, it will tend to redissolve. Nevertheless,unstable clusters can be found in the parent phasebecause of thermal fluctuations. The size distribu-tion of these clusters is given by:

Ceqn ¼ C0 exp ��Gn

kT

� �(Eq 7)

whereC0 is the atomic fraction of sites accessibleto the clusters. For precipitation in the solid state,for instance, all lattice sites can receive a cluster,and therefore C0 = 1. The validity of the size dis-tribution (Eq 7) can be demonstrated for anundersaturated system (DGnuc � 0) using a lat-tice gas model (compare with “Cluster Gas Ther-modynamics” in the “Kinetic Approach” sectionof this article). For a supersaturated system, oneassumes that the system reaches a steady statewhere clusters smaller than the critical size stillobey the distribution (Eq 7).Comparisons with atomic simulations have

shown that Eq 7 correctly describes the size dis-tribution of subcritical clusters. An exampleof such a comparison is given in Fig. 4 foraluminum-zirconium alloys, leading to thecoherent precipitation of L12 Al3Zr compounds(Ref 17); size distributions are given for under-saturated, saturated, and supersaturated solidsolutions. A similar comparison leading to thesame conclusion can be found in Ref 18 foran unmixing alloy on a body-centered cubic lat-tice, or in Ref 19 and 20 for the magnetizationreversal of an Ising model in two and threedimensions, respectively.The kinetic approach developed further in

this article shows that the steady-state distribu-tion in a nucleating system slightly deviatesfrom the equilibrium distribution (Eq 7) aroundthe critical size. An exact expression of thesteady-state distribution has been obtained byKashiev (Ref 21, 22). In the critical size inter-val, Dn, which is precisely defined as follows,it can be approximated by:

Cstn ¼ 1/2 � Z n� n�ð Þ½ �Ceq

n (Eq 8)

The Zeldovich factor, Z, appearing in thisequation is a function of the second derivative

Fig. 3 Variation of the cluster formation free energy DGn with the number, n, of atoms they contain as described byEq 3. n* is the critical size and DG* the corresponding free energy. The size interval Dn characterizes the

energy profile around the critical size and is directly linked to the Zeldovich factor (Eq 10).

Fig. 4 Dependence on the nominal concentration x0Zr of the cluster size distribution of an aluminum solid solution at500 �C. At this temperature, the solubility limit is xeZr ¼ 0:0548 %. Symbols correspond to atomic simulations

(kinetic Monte Carlo) (Ref 18) and lines to predictions of the classical nucleation theory. Full lines correspond to theequilibrium cluster size distribution (Eq 7) for n n* and dotted lines to the steady-state distributions (Eqs 8 and 85).

Modeling of Nucleation Processes / 205

of the cluster formation free energy at thecritical size:

Z ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi� 1

2pkT@2�Gn

@n2

n¼n�

s¼ 3 �Gnucð Þ2

4ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffipkT

pAsð Þ3=2

(Eq 9)

The physical meaning of the Zeldovich factorcan be seen in Fig. 3, which sketches the varia-tion of the cluster formation free energy withtheir size. If the formation free energy was har-monic, the size interval where the differencebetween the cluster free energy and the nucle-ation barrier, DG*, is smaller than the thermalenergy, kT, would be given by:

�n ¼ 2ffiffiffip

p 1

Z(Eq 10)

The Zeldovich factor therefore characterizes theflatness of the energy profile around the criticalsize. Equation 8 shows that steady-state clusterconcentrations in the critical region are reducedcompared to the equilibrium distribution. Forthe critical size, a factor 1/2 appears in front ofthe equilibrium concentration.

Steady-State Nucleation Rate

When the nucleation barrier, DG*, is highenough compared to the thermal energy, kT, themetastable state of the system contains thermalfluctuations well described by the distribution(Eq 7). Sometimes, one of these fluctuations willreach and overcome the critical size. It can thencontinue to grow and become more and more sta-ble. Classical nucleation theory assumes that thesystem reaches a steady state, and it then showsthat stable nuclei appear at a rate given by (Ref 3):

J st ¼ b�ZC0 exp ��G�

kT

� �(Eq 11)

where b* is the rate at which a critical clustergrows, and Z is the Zeldovich factor (Eq 9).This factor has been introduced by Becker andDoring (Ref 3) to describe cluster fluctuationsaround the critical size and, in particular, theprobability for a stable nucleus to redissolve.ZC0 exp(�DG*/kT) is therefore the number ofcritical clusters that reach a size large enoughthat they can continuously grow. The initialexpression of the nucleation rate derived byVolmer and Weber (Ref 1) and by Farkas(Ref 2) did not consider this Zeldovich factorand led to an overestimation of the nucleationrate. A small Zeldovich factor corresponds toa flat energy profile around the critical size.Critical clusters experience size variations thatare mainly random and not really driven bytheir decrease in energy. Some of them willredissolve and not fall in the stable region. Thisexplains why the nucleation rate is reduced bythe Zeldovich factor. A more rigorous deriva-tion of the nucleation rate where the Zeldovichfactor naturally appears is given in the section

“The Link with Classical Nucleation Theory”in this article.An expression for the growing rate b* of the

critical cluster is needed. If the growth-limitingprocess is the reaction at the interface to attachthe atoms on the critical cluster (ballisticregime), b* is then proportional to the clusterarea. Assuming that this reaction is controlledby one type of atom, the following expressionis obtained (Ref 23):

b� ¼ 4pr�2 li�i

�

x0iyei

(Eq 12)

where r* is the radius of the critical cluster, liis the distance corresponding to the atom lastjump to become attached to the critical cluster,Gi is the corresponding reaction frequency, andO is the volume corresponding to one atomicsite. x0

i and yei are the respective atomic fractionof the jumping atoms in the metastable parentphase and the stable nucleating phase.For solid - solid phase transformations, the

critical cluster growth is usually controlled by thelong-range diffusion of solute atoms. The criticalcondensation rate is then obtained by solving theclassical diffusion problem associated with agrowing spherical particle. If diffusion of onlyone type of atom limits the growth, and all otheratomic species diffuse sufficiently fast enough sothat the cluster composition instantaneouslyadjusts itself, one obtains (Ref 23):

b� ¼ 4pr�Di

�

x0iyei

(Eq 13)

where Di is the diffusion coefficient of type iatoms. In a multicomponent alloy, when

diffusion coefficients of different atomic spe-cies have close values and when the composi-tion of the critical cluster can vary, one mustuse the linked flux analysis presented in the sec-tion “Cluster Dynamics” in this article. In allcases, the growth rate is proportional to thecluster radius in this diffusive regime.Both events, that is, the long-range diffusion

and the reaction at the interface, can be simulta-neously taken into account. The correspondingexpression of the condensation rate has beenderived by Waite (Ref 24).

Transient Nucleation

A transient regime exists before the nucle-ation rate reaches its stationary value (Eq 11).One conventionally defines an incubation time,or a time lag, to characterize this transientregime. This is defined as the intercept withthe time axis of the tangent to the curve repre-senting the variations of the nuclei density(Fig. 5). Exact expressions of the incubationtime have been obtained as a series of the initialand steady-state cluster size distributions (Ref26, 27). Different approximations have thenbeen made to evaluate this series and obtainclosed forms of the incubation time. They alllead to an incubation time:

tinc n�ð Þ ¼ y01

pZ2b�¼ y0

16kT Asð Þ39 �Gnucð Þ4b� (Eq 14)

where the factor y0 depends on the chosenapproximation and is close to 1 (Ref 28). Someauthors obtained a factor y0 that dependsslightly on the temperature and the shape of the

Fig. 5 Precipitate density as a function of aging time for an aluminum solid solution containing 0.18 at.% Sc aged at300 �C. The time evolution obtained from cluster dynamics simulations (Ref 25) allows the definition of a

steady-state nucleation rate, J st, and an incubation time, tinc.


cluster formation free energy around the criticalsize (Ref 26, 29). One can stress, however, thata precise value of this factor is seldom, if ever,needed. As is shown later, the incubation timedepends on too many parameters to be knownprecisely experimentally. Equation 14 allowsdescribing its main variation when the tempera-ture or the nucleation driving force are changed;this is usually enough to model incubation andnucleation.This expression (Eq 14) of the incubation

time can be obtained from simple physical con-siderations (Ref 23, 30). The steady state willbe reached once the clusters have grown suffi-ciently far away from the critical size. Super-critical clusters have a negligible probabilityto decay when their size becomes greater thann� þ 1/2�n. Dn characterizes the width of thecritical region (Fig. 3) and is related to theZeldovich factor via Eq 10. Because the energyprofile is flat in this neighborhood, clustersmake a random walk in the size space, with aconstant jump frequency b*. Accordingly, thecorresponding time needed to diffuse from n*to n� þ 1/2�n is:

tinc n�ð Þ �n2

4b�(Eq 15)

This leads to the expression (Eq 14) with a fac-tor y0 = 1.Different approximations of the nucleation

rate in this transient regime can also be found inthe literature. Kelton et al. (Ref 28) have com-pared these approximations with exact resultsobtained, thanks to a numerical integration ofthe kinetic equations describing nucleation. Theyconcluded that the best-suited approximation todescribe the transient nucleation rate is the oneobtained by Kashchiev (Ref 21, 22):

J tð Þ ¼ J st 1þ 2CX1m¼1

�1ð Þmexp �m2t

t

� �" #

(Eq 16)

where C = 1 for a system initially prepared in astate far from its nucleating metastable state.The time constant is given by:

t ¼ 4

p31

Z2b�(Eq 17)

When t > t, one can retain only the first term inthe sum appearing in Eq 16. Usually, it is evenenough to assume that the nucleation rate behaveslike the Heaviside step function; that is, that thenucleation rate reaches its stationary value afteran incubation time where no nucleation occurs.The incubation time corresponding to Eq 16 isp2t/6. Therefore, in the Kashchiev treatment, thefactor in Eq 14 is y0 ¼ 2/3 .It is worth saying that the incubation time

and the associated transient regime depend onthe conditions in which the system has beenprepared. Equations 14 and 16 implicitly assumethat the quench was done from infinite temper-ature; no cluster around the critical one existed

at the initial time. This may not be true. Forinstance, the system could have been preparedin an equilibrium state corresponding to aslightly higher temperature where it was stableand then quenched in a metastable state. A clus-ter distribution corresponding to this highertemperature already exists before the beginningof the phase transformation. If the temperaturedifference of the quench is small, these preex-isting clusters will reduce the incubation period.The dependence of the incubation time on theinitial conditions has been observed, forinstance, in atomic simulations for an unmixingbinary alloy (Ref 18). Starting from a randomsolid solution corresponding to an infinitetemperature preparation, an incubation time isobserved before nucleation reaches its steadystate. If the alloy is annealed above its solubilitylimit before a quench, the incubation stage dis-appears if the temperature difference of thequench is not too high. Kashchiev consideredthe effect of this initial cluster distribution onnucleation in the case of a change in pressure(Ref 22, 31). His results can be easilygeneralized (Ref 28). To do so, the supersatura-tion variation is introduced:

�s ¼ �Gnuc t ¼ 0�ð ÞkT t ¼ 0�ð Þ ��Gnuc t ¼ 0þð Þ

kT t ¼ 0þð Þ (Eq 18)

where t = 0� means that thermodynamic quan-tities are calculated for the initial state in whichthe system has been prepared, and t = 0+ for thestate where nucleation occurs. In his derivation,Kashchiev assumed that the interface freeenergy of the clusters is the same in both stableand metastable states. The constant enteringin the expression (Eq 16) of the transient nucle-ation rate is then:

C ¼ 1��s

Zexp �n��sð Þ (Eq 19)

and the corresponding incubation time is multi-plied by this constant C. The supersaturationvariation, Ds, is positive; otherwise, nucleationwould have happened in the initial statein which the system has been prepared. Theexistence of an initial cluster size distributiontherefore always reduces the incubation time.Nevertheless, C rapidly tends to 1 when thethermodynamic states t = 0� and t = 0+ becometoo different.By definition, the nucleation rate does not

depend on the cluster size in the stationaryregime. This property is used to advantage inEq 11 to calculate the steady-state nucleationrate, Jst, at the critical size. However, the timeneeded for the stationary regime to develop will,of course, vary with the cluster size. This meansthat the incubation time depends on the clustersize at which it is measured. The previouslydefined incubation time corresponds to the criti-cal size. However, the smallest cluster size thatone can detect experimentally may be signifi-cantly larger than the critical size. Therefore, itis necessary to describe the variation with the

cluster size of the incubation time. This problemhas been solved by Wu (Ref 26) and Shneidmanand Weinberg (Ref 29), who showed that theincubation time measured at size n is:

tinc nð Þ ¼ tinc n�ð Þ þ 1

2pZ2b�y1 þ ln

ffiffiffip

pZðn� n�Þ� � �

(Eq 20)

for n > n* + Dn, that is, a cluster size outsidethe critical region. The constant y1 is 1 in theexpression obtained by Wu and y1 = g/4 + ln(2)/2 for Shneidman and Weinberg, where g 0.5772 is Euler’s constant.All the aforementioned expressions are

obtained in the parabolic approximation, that is,assuming that the cluster formation free energyis well described by its harmonic expansionaround the critical size. According to Shneidmanand Weinberg (Ref 29), this approximation ishighly accurate when calculating the steady-statenucleation rate, but its validity is limited for theincubation time. When considering the exactshape of the cluster formation free energy(Eq 3), the expression of the incubation time thendepends on the model used for the absorptionrate. In all cases, the incubation time at thecritical size can be written:

tinc n�ð Þ ¼ 1

2pZ2b��

2þ ln

ffiffiffip

pZn�� y3

h i(Eq 21)

where the constant y3 differs from 0 when theparabolic approximation is not used. In the bal-listic regime, when the condensation rate is pro-portional to the cluster surface, such as inEq 12, the authors obtained y3 = 1 � ln(3).The incubation time measured at size n is then:

tinc nð Þ ¼ 1

2pZ2b�n

n�� 1=3

þ lnn

n�� 1=3

�1

� ��

þ � � 2þ ln6�G�

kT

� ��; 8n > n� þ 1/2�n

(Eq 22)

In the diffusive regime, when the condensationrate is proportional to the cluster radius, suchas in Eq 13, y3 = 3/2 � ln(3) and:

tinc nð Þ ¼ 1

2pZ2b�1/2 n

n�� 1=3þ2h i2

þ ln nn�� 1=3�1h i�

þ ��7/2 þ ln 6�G�kT

� �o; 8n > n� þ 1/2�n:

(Eq 23)

It should be stressed that all these expres-sions for incubation time have been obtainedin the continuous limit valid for large clusters.The expressions should be used only when thenucleation barrier DG* is high enough for thecritical size not being too small.

Heterogeneous Nucleation

Until now, only homogeneous nucleation hasbeen considered; it was assumed that nuclei canform anywhere in the system. However, it may


require less energy for the nuclei to form hetero-geneously on preferred nucleation sites. Thesesites can be at the interface with existing impuri-ties or some lattice defects such as grain bound-aries or dislocations. The classical theory alsoallows modeling heterogeneous nucleation aftersome slight modifications. The first modificationis that the parameter C0 appearing in the clustersize distribution (Eq 7) is now the number ofsites where heterogeneous precipitation can takeplace. One also needs to take into account thedecrease of the nuclei free energy when theyare located at a preferred nucleation site. Sucha decrease usually arises from a gain in the inter-face free energy; it is more favorable for thenuclei to form on an already existing interface,because the cost to create the interface betweenthe old and the new phases is reduced.First consider the case where the cluster wets

the substrate and has a cap shape (Fig. 6a).Electrodeposition is one example where thishappens (Ref 32). Three different interface freeenergies must be considered:

� s between the parent and the nucleatingphase

� ss between the parent phase and thesubstrate

� si between the nucleating phase and thesubstrate

The wetting angle is then defined by the Youngequilibrium equation (Ref 16):

cos yw ¼ ss � si

s(Eq 24)

The wetting leads to a cap shape only if theinterface free energies obey the inequalities�s ss � si s. If the difference ss � si

is smaller than �s, then yw = p, and the wet-ting is not possible because an unwet clustercosts less energy. On the other hand, if thedifference is greater than s, the wetting is com-plete, and one can no longer define a cap shapebecause the nucleating phase will uniformlycover the interface.The cluster free energy takes the same expres-

sion as the one given by the capillary approxi-mation in the homogeneous case (Eq 3). Tocalculate the geometric factor A appearing inthis expression, the radius, R, of the cap mustbe defined. The cluster volume is then givenby (Ref 22):

n�1 ¼ 1/3pR3 2þ cos ywð Þ 1� cos ywð Þ2

¼ pR3 2sþ ss � sið Þ s� ss þ sið Þ23s3

(Eq 25)

and the free energy associated with the wholecluster interface by:

n2=3As ¼ pR2 s2 1� cos ywð Þ þ si � ssð Þ sin2 yw� �

¼ pR2 s� ss þ sið Þ

� 2s2 þ si � ssð Þ sþ ss � sið Þs2

(Eq 26)

Eliminating the variable R between Eq 25 and26, one obtains the expression of the geometricfactor appearing in the capillary approximation:

A ¼ 9p�21

� �1=3 2s2 � ss � sið Þ sþ ss � sið Þs 2sþ ss � sið Þ2=3 s� ss þ sið Þ1=3

(Eq 27)

When ss � si = s, the unwetting is com-plete; one recovers the geometric factorA ¼ 36p�2

1

� �1=3corresponding to a spherical

cluster. With this expression of the geometricfactor and the correct value of the parameterC0, all expressions obtained for homogeneousnucleation can also be used for heterogeneousnucleation.Nuclei can also have a lens shape (Fig. 6b).

In such a case, the two wetting angles aredefined by (Ref 22):

cos yw ¼ s2s þ s2 � s2

i

� �=2sss

cos ys ¼ s2s þ s2 � s2

i

� �=2sssi

(Eq 28)

The geometric factor corresponding to thislens shape is obtained using the same methodas previously; one expresses the volume andthe interface energy of the two caps composingthe cluster and then eliminates the cap radiibetween these two equations.

Examples

It is worth having a closer look at someexamples—solidification and precipitation inthe solid state—and giving an approximatedexpression of the nucleation free energy inthese simple cases.

Example 1: Solidification. A single compo-nent liquid that was initially at equilibrium isquenched at a temperature, T, below its meltingtemperature, Tm. Because the liquid and thesolid have the same composition, the nucleationfree energy is simply the free-energy differencebetween the liquid and the solid states at thetemperature T. If the undercooling is small,one can ignore the difference in the specificheats of the liquid and the solid. The nucleationfree energy is then proportional to the latentheat of fusion per atom, L (Ref 16):

�Gnuc ¼ LT � Tm

Tm

(Eq 29)

When the undercooling is large, Eq 29may be notprecise enough. One can then consider the nextterm in the Taylor expansion (Ref 22), leading to:

�Gnuc ¼ LT � Tm

Tm

��CpT � Tmð Þ22Tm

(Eq 30)

where �Cp ¼ Cliqp Tmð Þ � Csol

p Tmð Þ is the dif-ference in the heat capacities of the liquid andsolid phases.Equation 29 shows how the steady-state

nucleation rate varies with the quenching tem-perature. Assuming that the interface freeenergy is constant and that the condensationrate, b*, simply obeys an Arrhenius law, oneobtains the nucleation rate given by:

J st ¼ lT � Tmð Þ2ffiffiffiffi

Tp exp � A

Tþ B

T T � Tmð Þ2 !" #

(Eq 31)

where l, A, and B are positive constants. Thenucleation rate corresponding to this equation issketched in Fig. 7. The main variations are givenby the exponential. As a consequence, there is atemperature window in which the nucleation rateis substantial. For high temperatures close to themelting temperature, Tm, the nucleation freeenergy is small and leads to a negligible nucle-ation rate. At low temperatures, the nucleationrate is also negligible because of the Arrhenianbehavior of the kinetic factor and the criticalcluster concentration (Eq 7). The nucleation ratecan be measured only at intermediate

q q

q

s

s

s

s

s

s

Fig. 6 Possible shapes of a nucleus in heterogeneous nucleation. (a) Cap shape. (b) Lens shape

Fig. 7 Variation with quenching temperature ofsteady-state nucleation rate in the case of

solidification (Eq 31). Tm, melting temperature


temperatures. Such conclusions on the nucle-ation rate are not specific to solidification butare encountered in any nucleation experiment.Example 2: Precipitation in the Solid

State. In this example, it is necessary to takeinto account elastic effects. The free energy isthus divided between a chemical and an elasticcontribution.Chemical Contribution. For the binary mix-

ture, whose free energy per atom G(x) issketched in Fig. 1, the homogeneous metastablephase of composition x0 has a nucleation freeenergy given by:

�Gnuc x0� � ¼ 1� yeð Þ mA yeð Þ � mA x0

� �� þ ye mB yeð Þ � mB x0

� �� (Eq 32)

A and B atom chemical potentials are respec-tively defined as the first derivatives of the totalfree energy with respect to the number NA andNB of A and B atoms. This leads to the follow-ing expressions:

mA xð Þ ¼ G xð Þ � xG0 xð ÞmB xð Þ ¼ G xð Þ þ ð1� xÞG0 xð Þ (Eq 33)

which check the property (NA + NB)G(x) =NAmA + NBmB.Incorporating these expressions in Eq 32:

�Gnuc x0� � ¼ G yeð Þ �G x0

� �� ye � x0� �

G0 x0� �(Eq 34)

This shows that the nucleation free energycorresponds to the difference, calculated in the

point of abscissa ye, between the free energyand the tangent in x0, as illustrated in Fig. 1.It should be stressed, however, that this con-

struction does not correspond to the maximalnucleation driving force. If the stoichiometryof the precipitates is allowed to vary, the maxi-mal nucleation driving force is obtained for acluster composition y0 corresponding to thepoint where the tangent to the free energy isparallel to the tangent in point of abscissa x0

(Fig. 8). Such a deviation of the nucleatingphase from its equilibrium may be importantto consider. An example is the precipitation ofcarbonitride precipitates in steels (Ref 33).The following considers that the free energywell defining the nucleating phase is deepenough that the compositions ye and y0 can beassumed identical. This question of the precipi-tate composition is revisited in “Nonstoichio-metric Clusters” of the “Kinetic Approach”section of this article, where a general frame-work to treat variations of the precipitate com-position is presented.To go further, one must consider a precise

function for the free energy. The regular solidsolution is a convenient energetic model thatis representative of a binary alloy. In thismodel, the free energy per atom is:

G xð Þ ¼ kT x ln xð Þ þ 1� xð Þ ln 1� xð Þ½ � þ x 1� xð Þo(Eq 35)

where o is the interaction parameter. When thisparameter is positive, the alloy tends to unmixat low temperature, and the corresponding phasediagram possesses a two-phase region. For

temperatures lower than o/2k, the free energyindeed has two minima, and its variation withthe composition is similar to the one sketchedin Fig. 1. The nucleation free energy of a solidsolution quenched in a metastable state, as givenby this thermodynamic model, is:

�Gnuc x0� � ¼ 1� yeð ÞkT ln

1� xe

1� x0

� �

þ yekT lnxe

x0

� �þ o x0 � xe

� �(Eq 36)

A useful approximation of this expression is thedilute limit corresponding to a small solubilitylimit, xe � 1, and a small nominal concentra-tion, x0 � 1. In that case, one can keep onlythe major contribution in the nucleation freeenergy, leading to:

�Gnuc x0� � ¼ yekT ln

xe

x0

� �(Eq 37)

This generally gives a good approximation of thenucleation free energy at low temperature fornot-too-high supersaturations. It then allows pre-dicting the main consequences of a variation ofthe solid-solution nominal composition on thenucleation. This approximation of the nucleationfree energy in the dilute limit can be easilygeneralized to a multicomponent alloy.Other thermodynamic approaches can be

used to obtain expressions of the nucleationfree energy. It is possible, for instance, todescribe interactions between atoms with anIsing model. Chemical potentials entering inEq 4 can then be calculated with the help ofcurrent thermodynamic approximations, suchas mean-field approximations and low- orhigh-temperature expansions (Ref 34). Usingthe simple Bragg-Williams mean-field approxi-mation, one indeed recovers the expression(Eq 36) corresponding to the regular solid-solu-tion model. An example of this approach, start-ing from an atomic model, is given in Ref 17and 35 for a face-centered cubic solid solutionleading to the nucleation of a stoichiometriccompound with the L12 structure, such asaluminum-zirconium or aluminum-scandiumalloys. On the other hand, it is possible to usean experimental thermodynamic database, suchas the ones based on the Calphad approach (Ref36, 37), to calculate the nucleation free energy.Elastic Contribution. Usually, the precipitat-

ing phase has a different structure or molar vol-ume from the parent phase. If the interfacebetween both phases remains coherent, an elasticcontribution must be taken into account in theformation free energy of the clusters (Eq 3). Sim-ilar to the “chemical” nucleation free energy, thiselastic contribution varies linearly with the vol-ume, V, of the cluster. Its sign is always positivebecause there is an extra energy cost to maintaincoherency at the interface. One can illustrate thiselastic contribution by considering the case of aprecipitating phase having a slightly differentequilibrium volume from the parent phase, as

Fig. 8 Parallel tangent construction leading to the maximal nucleation driving force for precipitates having thecomposition y0


well as different elastic constants. For the sake ofsimplicity, the assumption is that both phaseshave an isotropic elastic behavior characterizedby their Lame coefficients, l and m for the parentphase, and l0 and m0 for the precipitating phase.If a and a(1 + d) are the respective lattice para-meters of the two phases, the elastic energy nec-essary to embed a spherical cluster of volume Vin an infinite elastic medium corresponding tothe parent phase is:

�Gel ¼ V6mð3l0 þ 2m0Þ3l0 þ 2m0 þ 4m

�2 (Eq 38)

The model of the elastic inclusion and inhomo-geneity developed by Eshelby (Ref 38–40) allowscalculating the elastic energy inmore complicatedsituations, when the inhomogeneity elastic behav-ior is anisotropic or when the inclusion stress-freestrain is different from a simple pure dilatation.One can also deduce from this model the clustershape minimizing its elastic self-energy. Never-theless, thismodel is tractableonlywhen the inclu-sion is an ellipsoid. When the elastic contributionbecomes important compared to the interface one,the shape of the critical cluster strongly deviatesfrom an ellipsoid. One can then use a diffuse inter-face phase-field model to determine the criticalnucleus morphology and determine the associatednucleation activation energy (Ref 41, 42). How-ever, in all cases, the extra energy cost arisingfrom elasticity is positive and proportional to theinclusion volume. It thus reduces the absolutevalue of the nucleation driving force.This inclusion model allows deriving the clus-

ter self-elastic energy. However, the interactionof the cluster with the surrounding microstructureis ignored. In particular, one does not consider theelastic interaction between different clusters.Such an interaction is long range and cannotalways be neglected. It may lead to self-organizedmorphological patterns due to preferred nucle-ation sites around already existing clusters. Inthe case where the strain induced by the micro-structure varies slowly compared to the size ofthe nucleating cluster, it has been shown that theinteraction elastic energy depends linearly on thecluster volume and is independent of its shape(Ref 43). This interaction energy, whose sign isnot fixed, depends on the position of the cluster.It can be considered in the cluster formation freeenergy (Eq 3) to model strain-enhanced nucle-ation. Such amodel is able to predict, for instance,variation of the nucleation driving force near anexisting precipitate between the elastically softand hard directions. A natural way to developsuch a model is to use a phase-field approach(see the Appendix to this article).

Kinetic Approach

Predictions of the classical nucleation theory,that is, the steady-state nucleation rate and theincubation time, are approximated solutions of

kinetic equations describing the time evolutionof the system. Instead of using results of theclassical nucleation theory, one can integratethese kinetic equations numerically. Thiskinetic approach is known as cluster dynamics.It rests on the description of the system under-going phase separation as a gas of clusters thatgrows and decays by absorbing and emittingother clusters. In this section, the cluster gasthermodynamic formalism used by clusterdynamics is described first. Kinetic equationssimulating the phase transformation are thenpresented. Finally, the link with classical nucle-ation theory is shown. It is generally assumedthat the stoichiometry of the nucleating phasecannot vary. This is thus equivalent to consider-ing the nucleation of clusters with a fixed com-position that is known a priori. The end of thissection shows how this strong assumption canbe removed when one is interested in the nucle-ation of a multicomponent phase with a varyingcomposition.

Cluster Gas Thermodynamics

The system is described as a gas of noninter-acting clusters having a fixed stoichiometrycorresponding to that of the precipitating phaseat equilibrium with the parent phase. Clustersare groups of atoms that are linked by a neighbor-hood relation. If onewants tomodel precipitationin an unmixing alloy, for instance, one can con-sider that all solute atoms that are closer than acutoff distance belong to the same cluster. Nodistinction is made between clusters belongingto the old or to the new phase. In this modelingapproach, clusters are defined by a single param-eter: their size or the number, n, of atoms theycontain. The term Gn is the free energy of a clus-ter containing n atoms embedded in the solvent.Gn is a free energy and not simply an energybecause of the configurational entropy; for agiven cluster size, there can be different config-urations having different energies. Thus, theassociated partition function must be considered.IfDi

n is the number of configurations having theenergyHi

n for a cluster of size n, the cluster freeenergy is then defined as:

Gn ¼ �kT lnXi

Din exp �Hi

n=kT� �" #

(Eq 39)

It is formally possible to divide this free energyinto a volume and an interface contributionsuch as in the capillary approximation, exceptthat the interface free energy, sn, may nowdepend on the cluster size. This free energy cor-responds to an interface between the stoichio-metric cluster and the pure solvent. Thus, inthree dimensions:

Gn ¼ nge þ n2=3ð36p�2Þ1=3sn (Eq 40)

where ge is the free energy per atom of the bulkequilibrium precipitating phase, that is, withoutany interface. This is, by definition, the sum of

the chemical potentials, mei , for each constituentof the cluster modulated by its atomic fraction, yei :

ge ¼Xi

yeimei (Eq 41)

The interface free energy, sn, entering inEq 40 is an average isotropic parameter, andclusters, on average, are therefore assumed tobe spherical. One important difference withthe capillary approximation is that this interfacefree energy now depends on the size n of thecluster. It is possible to compute the cluster freeenergy, Gn, starting from an energetic modeldescribing interactions between atoms. Forsmall clusters, one can directly enumerate thedifferent configurations, i, accessible to a clus-ter of size n, and then directly build the freeenergy (Eq 39) (Ref 17, 32, 44). Because thedegeneracy Di

n grows very rapidly with the sizeof the cluster, this approach is limited to smallclusters. For larger clusters, one can samplethermodynamic averages with Monte Carlosimulations to compute the free-energy differ-ence between a cluster of size n and one of sizen + 1 at a given temperature (Ref 44, 45). Thesesimulations have shown that, in three dimen-sions, the size dependence of the interface freeenergy is well described for large enough clus-ters by a generalized capillary approximation:

sn ¼ s 1þ cn�1=3 þ dn�2=3 þ en�2=3 lnðnÞ�

(Eq 42)

where the temperature-dependent coefficients c,d and e correspond to the line, the point, and theundulation contributions to the interface freeenergy (Ref 45). They take into account theinterface curvature. The asymptotic limit ofEq 42 corresponds to the constant interface freeenergy of the classic capillary approximation,which also depends on temperature.Some other expressions have been proposed

in the literature for the size dependence of theinterface free energy. Gibbs (Ref 46) indeedobtained a differential equation of this sizedependence. Integrating this expression, Tolman(Ref 47) obtained the following expression:

sn ¼ s 1þ n0

n

� 1=3� ��2

(Eq 43)

where n0 is a parameter. One can see, however,that Eq 42 and 43 are equivalent up to the ordero(n�1/3) when n tends to infinity.Consider an assembly composed of noninter-

acting clusters and model thermodynamics inthe cluster gas approximation of Frenkel (Ref48). If Nn is the number of clusters containing natoms, the free energy of the system is given by:

G ¼ G0 þX1n¼1

NnGn � kT ln Wð Þ (Eq 44)

where G0 is the free energy in the absence ofclusters, andW is the number of different config-urations accessible to the cluster assembly.


Assuming that each cluster, whatever its size, liesonly on one site, and neglecting around each clus-ter all excluded sites that cannot be occupied byany other cluster, this number is simply given by:

W ¼ N0!

N0 �P1n¼1

Nn

� �!Q1n¼1

Nn!

(Eq 45)

where N0 is the number of sites accessible tothe cluster. Application of the Stirling formulaleads to the following estimation for the freeenergy:

G ¼ G0 þX1n¼1

NnGn þ kTX1n¼1

Nn ln Nnð Þ

þ kT N0 �X1n¼1

Nn

!ln N0 �

X1n¼1

Nn

!

�N0 ln N0ð Þ(Eq 46)

The equilibrium cluster size distribution can bededuced from this free energy. This distributionis obtained by minimizing Eq 46 under the con-straint that the total number of atoms includedin the clusters is fixed. Therefore, a Lagrangemultiplier, m, is introduced, and the grandcanonical free energy is defined:

G� mX1n¼1

nNn (Eq 47)

The minimization of this grand canonical freeenergy with respect to the variables Nn leadsto the equilibrium cluster size distribution thatshould check the equation:

Neqn

N0 �P1n¼1

Neqn

¼ exp �Gn � nmkT

� �(Eq 48)

The assumption of noninteracting clusters usedto derive this equation is only valid in the dilutelimit. It is therefore reasonable to neglect in Eq48 the sum appearing in the rightside denomi-nator compared to the number of accessiblesites N0. At equilibrium, the atomic fraction ofclusters containing n atoms is then:

Ceqn ¼ Neq

n

Ns

¼ C0 exp �Gn � nmkT

� �(Eq 49)

where C0 = N0/Ns, and Ns is the total number ofsites. For homogeneous nucleation, all sites canact as nucleation centers: N0 = Ns and C0 = 1.Sometimes, Eq 49 iswritten in its equivalent form:

Ceqn ¼ C0

Ceq1

C0

� �nexp �Gn � nG1

kT

� �(Eq 50)

The quantities Gn � nm and Gn � nG1 shouldnevertheless not be confused; the first one isthe cluster formation free energy in a clustergas characterized by the parameter m, whereasthe last one is the energy difference betweenthe cluster and the equivalent number of mono-mers. The following uses Eq 49 because it

allows a direct link with the capillary approxi-mation used by the classical nucleation theory.It is interesting tounderstand thephysicalmean-

ing of the Lagrange multiplier m appearing in Eq49.Atequilibrium, thegrandcanonical free energy(Eq 47) is at a minimum. Then, for all sizes n:

m ¼ 1

n

@G

@Nn(Eq 51)

To calculate this derivative, the total number ofatoms of type i is introduced:

Mi ¼ yeiX1n¼1

nNn (Eq 52)

Equation 51 is equivalent to:

m ¼ 1

n

Xi

@G

@Mi

@Mi

@Nn

¼Xi

m0i yei

(Eq 53)

which uses the definition of the chemicalpotential—first derivative of the total freeenergy with respect to the number of atoms.Therefore, the Lagrange multiplier is nothingelse than the chemical potentials of the differ-ent atomic species modulated by their atomicfraction. The fact that only one Lagrange mul-tiplier is needed, and not one for each constit-uent, is a consequence of the initialassumption that the clusters have a fixedcomposition corresponding to the equilibriumone, yei . Using the expression (Eq 40) of thecluster free energy and the definition (Eq 41)of the volume contribution, the equilibriumcluster size distribution given by the capillaryapproximation is recovered:

Ceqn ¼ C0 exp ��Gn

kT

� �(Eq 54)

with:

�Gn ¼ n�Gnuc þ n2=3 36p�21

� �1=3sn (Eq 55)

The nucleation free energy has the sameexpression as the one used in classical nucle-ation theory (Eq 4), but now the interface freeenergy depends on the cluster size.It should be stressed that the cluster gas

approximation is a thermodynamic model byitself; thermodynamic quantities such as chem-ical potentials are results and not input para-meters of the model (Ref 49). This hasimportant consequences for the kinetic approachof nucleation developed in the next section; incontrast with classical nucleation theory, onedoes not need to calculate the nucleationdriving force to input it in the modeling.One can use this cluster gas thermodynamic

model to calculate the composition of the parentphase at the coexistence point between the parentand the nucleating phase, that is, the solubilitylimit. This coexistence point is defined by the

equality of the chemical potentials m0i and mei .The nucleation free energy is thus null, and onlythe interface contributes to the cluster formationfree energy (Eq 55). At the coexistence point, thecomposition of the parent phase is then:

xei ¼ yeiX1n¼1

n exp �n2=3 36p�1ð Þ2sn

kT

!(Eq 56)

The interface free energy fixes the solubilitylimit in the parent phase. This interface freeenergy is actually the key parameter of thenucleation kinetic approach. Even if its depen-dence on the cluster size is small, it is generallyimportant to take it into account, because allthermodynamic quantities derive from it, andit enters in exponential terms such as in Eq 56.

Cluster Dynamics

For the sake of simplicity, in the following sub-sections homogeneous nucleation is considered.All monomers can be assumed equivalent; onedoes not need to distinguish between monomerslying on nucleation sites and free monomers.Master Equation. Kinetics is described

thanks to a master equation that gives the timeevolution of the cluster size distribution. Inmany cases, one can assume that only monomersmigrate. Therefore, this assumption is consid-ered first and later the case where all clustersare mobile. When only monomers can migrate,the probability of observing a cluster containingn atoms obeys the differential equations:

@Cn

@t¼ Jn�1!n � Jn!nþ1 8n � 2

@C1

@t¼ �2J1!2 �

Xn�2

Jn!nþ1

(Eq 57)

where Jn!n+1 is the cluster flux from the classof size n to the class n + 1. This flux can bewritten:

Jn!nþ1 ¼ bnCn � anþ1Cnþ1 (Eq 58)

where bn is the probability per unit time for onemonomer to impinge on a cluster of size n, andan is the probability for one monomer to leave acluster of size n.Condensation Rate. Expression of the con-

densation rate bn can be obtained from physicalconsiderations. This condensation rate must beproportional to the monomer concentrationand can generally be written:

bn ¼ bnC1 (Eq 59)

where bn is an intrinsic property of the clusterof size n. In the ballistic regime, this factor isproportional to the surface of the cluster andto the jump frequency, G1, of the monomer toimpinge on the cluster. In the diffusion regime,this factor is proportional to the cluster radiusand to the monomer diffusion coefficient, D1.A general expression of the condensation rate,covering the ballistic and the diffusion regime,


has been proposed by Waite (Ref 24), whoobtained:

bn ¼ 4pR2

n

Rn þ kD1

�1

C1 (Eq 60)

where O1 is the monomer volume, and Rn is thecluster capture radius. It can be assumed thatthis radius is close to the one corresponding tothe more compact cluster shape, that is, asphere, leading to:

Rn ¼ 3n�1

4p

� �1=3

(Eq 61)

The distance, k, is given by the relation:

k ¼ D1

l1�1

(Eq 62)

where l1 is the distance corresponding to themonomer last jump to become attached to thecluster. If Rn � k, one recovers the expressionof the condensation rate in the ballistic regime,and in the diffusive regime if Rn � k.Equation 60 therefore shows that condensationon small clusters is generally controlled byballistic reactions, and condensation on bigclusters by diffusion.The expressions used by classical nucleation

theory for the condensation rate (Eq 12 and13) are similar to the ballistic and diffusion lim-its of Eq 62. Nevertheless, a difference appearsbecause the condensation rate of the classicalnucleation theory is proportional to the soluteconcentration and not to the monomer concen-tration, as in Eq 62. It thus makes use of thetotal solute diffusion coefficient or jump fre-quency and not of the monomer diffusion coef-ficient or jump frequency. For a dilute system,one can consider that all the solute is containedin monomers. The condensation rates used byboth approaches are then equivalent. However,the difference may be important for more con-centrated systems. This point has been thor-oughly discussed by Martin (Ref 49), whoshowed the equivalence in the dilute limit.Evaporation Rate. By contrast with the con-

densation rate, the evaporation rate, an cannotgenerally be obtained directly. It has to bededuced from bn using the equilibrium clustersize distribution (Eq 49). The evaporation rateis obtained assuming that it is an intrinsic prop-erty of the cluster and does not depend on theembedding system. Therefore, it is assumedthat the cluster has enough time to explore allits configurations between the arrival and thedeparture of a monomer. This assumption iscoherent with the fact that the clusters are onlydescribed through their sizes. Thus, an shouldnot depend on the saturation of the embeddingsystem. It could be obtained, in particular, byconsidering any undersaturated system. Such asystem is stable, and there should be no energydissipation. This involves all fluxes Jn!n+1

equaling zero. Using Eq 58, the following isobtained:

anþ1 ¼ �anþ1 mð Þ ¼ �bn mð Þ�Cn mð Þ�Cnþ1 mð Þ (Eq 63)

where overlined quantities are evaluated in thesystem at equilibrium characterized by itseffective chemical potential, m. In particular,the cluster size distribution is the equilibriumrelation given by Eq 49. Using the expression(Eq 59) for the condensation rate, this finallyleads to the following expression for the evapo-ration rate:

anþ1 ¼ bnC0 exp Gnþ1 �Gn �G1ð Þ=kT½ � (Eq 64)

Because the condensation rate varies linearlywith the monomer concentration, the contribu-tion of the effective chemical potential cancelsout in the expression (Eq 63) of an. The startingassumption is recovered; the evaporation ratedepends only on the cluster free energy andnot on the overall state of the cluster gas char-acterized by the effective chemical potential, m.Using the generalized capillary approximation(Eq 55), one can show that the evaporation rateactually depends only on the cluster interfacefree energy:

anþ1 ¼ bnC0 exp 36p�12

� �1=3n� ½ nþ 1ð Þ2=3snþ1 � n2=3sn � s1�=kT

o(Eq 65)

The evaporation rate is then independent of thenucleation free energy, DGnuc, which does notappear in any parameter. The nucleation freeenergy is implicit in cluster dynamics; there isno need to know it, but, if needed, one can cal-culate it from the cluster gas thermodynamic.This is in contrast with classical nucleation the-ory, where the nucleation free energy is aninput parameter. On the other hand, clusterdynamics is very sensitive to the interface freeenergy as it appears in an exponential in theexpression (Eq 65) of the evaporation rate. Itis very important to have a correct evaluationof this interface free energy, especially of itsvariations with the cluster size, at least forsmall sizes.In this approach, the evaporation rate is

derived assuming that it is an intrinsic propertyof the cluster. Sometimes, one derives thisparameter assuming instead that a hypotheticalconstrained equilibrium exists for the clustersin the supersaturated system; the equilibriumcluster size distribution (Eq 49) is taken to hold,although the system is supersaturated and can-not be at equilibrium. The evaporation rate isthen obtained by imposing a detailed balancefor Eq 58 with respect to this constrained equi-librium. Comparison with atomic simulation ofthe magnetization reversal of an Ising model(Ref 20) has shown that this constraint equilib-rium assumption is good. The same conclusion

was reached for subcritical clusters in the caseof precipitation in the solid state (Ref 50). Katzand Wiedersich (Ref 51) pointed out that thisconstrained equilibrium assumption generallyleads to the same expression of the evaporationrate as the intrinsic property assumption. In par-ticular, this is true when the condensation ratevaries linearly with the monomer concentration,as is the case here (Eq 59).When the growth and decay of clusters is

controlled by a reaction at the interface (ballis-tic regime), it is also possible to directly com-pute the condensation and evaporation rates(Ref 44). An atomistic model is used todescribe the physical process at the atomicscale, and the corresponding rates are obtainedby thermal averaging through Monte Carlosampling. Detailed balance is now imposed atthe atomic scale. This ensures that the detailedbalance at the cluster scale, as given byEq 63, is also checked. A huge computationaleffort is required, but this could be optimizedby calculating the cluster interface free energiesand their condensation and evaporation rates atthe same time.Numerical Scheme. The evolution of the

cluster size distribution is obtained by integrat-ing the set of equations (Eq 57). A directapproach can become cumbersome becausethe number of differential equations varies line-arly with the size of the largest cluster. Themaximum size of the cluster that can be consid-ered is therefore limited by the number of dif-ferential equations that can be integrated. Thisproblem can be circumvented by noticing thata detailed description is important only forsmall cluster sizes where quantities vary rap-idly. For large sizes, variations are smoother,and an approximated description can be used.The easiest approach to do so is to consider thatthe size n is now a continuous variable. One canthen develop Eq 57 and 58 to the second orderabout n, and the system evolution is describedby the Fokker-Planck equation (Ref 52):

@Cn

@t¼ � @

@nbn � anð ÞCn½ � þ 1

2

@2

@n2bn þ anð ÞCn½ �

(Eq 66)

This continuous equation can be solved numer-ically by discretizing the continuous variable n.The best way to handle large cluster sizes is touse a varying increment greater than 1 andincreasing with the cluster size. A convenientsolution is an increment growing at a constantrate l. The variable n is then discretizedaccording to:

nj ¼ j; 8j nd

nj ¼ nd þ 1� lj�nd

1� l; 8j � nd

(Eq 67)

where nd is the number of classes for which thediscrete equation (Eq 57) is used. Above thissize, one integrates instead the discretized ver-sion of Eq 66, which is:


@Cnj

@t¼ 1

njþ1 � nj�1

bnj� anj

� þ bnj

þ anj

nj � nj�1

�

� @

@nbnj

þ anj

� �Cnj�1

þ � bnjþ anj

njþ1 � nj

� �nj � nj�1

� �� @

@nbnj

� anj

� "

� 1

2

@2

@n2bnj

þ anj

� �Cnj

þ 1

njþ1 � nj�1

� bnj� anj

� þ bnj

þ anj

njþ1 � nj

�

þ @

@nbnj

þ anj

� �Cnjþ1

(Eq 68)

The evolution of the monomer concentration isapproximated by:

@C1

@t¼ �2b1C1 þ a2C2 þ

Xnd

j�2

anj� bnj

� Cnj

þXj�nd

anj� bnj

� njþ1 � nj�1

2Cnj

(Eq 69)

This numerical scheme is simple and allowslarge cluster sizes to be reached with a reason-able number of differential equations.Typically,it is possible to simulate clusters containingmore than 4 million atoms by using 100 discreteclasses and 400 continuous classes with a grow-ing increment rate l = 1.03. It should neverthe-less be mentioned that this numerical schemedoes not strictly conserve the matter. By usingreasonable values for the discretization para-meters l and nd, the losses are generally insig-nificant, but, in any case, they must be checkedafterward to see if they are acceptable. Onemustalso verify that the concentration of the largestsize has not evolved at the end of the simulation.Another numerical approach has been pro-

posed by Kiritani (Ref 53) to solve the set ofdifferential equations (Eq 57) while allowinglarge cluster sizes to be reached. His groupingmethod consists of replacing a group of masterequations by only one equation representing theclass. It assumes that the number of clusters ofeach size in a group is the same and that thecondensation and evaporation rates for clustersin a group do not vary. Unfortunately, it hasbeen shown that the result can be very bad ifthe grouping is not carried out properly (Ref54). Furthermore, as in the previous scheme, itdoes not strictly conserve the matter, even withan optimized grouping. Golubov et al. (Ref 55)proposed a new grouping method that can con-serve the matter. For this purpose, the first andsecond moments of each group are considered,and two equations for each class are obtained.The first moment equation controls the timeevolution of the cluster size distribution, andthe second moment equation ensures the matterconservation. Such a numerical scheme there-fore requires twice as many equations as theone proposed previously.

The Link with ClassicalNucleation Theory

The main results of classical nucleation the-ory have actually been derived from clusterdynamics, that is, from the master equation(Eq 57) describing the time evolution of thecluster population. This derivation is interest-ing because it allows a better understandingof the assumptions behind the classical nucle-ation theory. Moreover, it provides insightsinto how this theory can be further developedto broaden the range where it applies. In thefollowing subsection, the definition of the crit-ical size in cluster dynamics is compared withthe classical ones, and then it is shown how thesteady-state nucleation rate and thecorresponding cluster size distribution can bederived from the master equation. The deriva-tion of the incubation time is not given herebut can be found in Ref 26 and 27, forinstance.Critical Size. Subcritical clusters are unsta-

ble; they have a higher probability to decaythan to grow. On the contrary, supercriticalclusters are stable and have a higher probabilityto grow than to decay. The critical size n* isthen defined as the size for which the condensa-tion rate equals the evaporation rate:

bn� ¼ an� (Eq 70)

This definition is actually different from theone used by the classical nucleation theory,where the critical size is the size at which thecluster formation free energy is maximum.One can show that these two definitions areconsistent and lead to the same expression inthe limit of large cluster sizes. To do so,rewrite Eq 70 using the expressions of the con-densation rate (Eq 59) and of the evaporationrate (Eq 64):

bn�C1 ¼ bn��1C0 expGn� �Gn��1 �G1

kT

� �(Eq 71)

Then, assume that monomers are at local equi-librium; their concentration C1 obeys the equi-librium cluster size distribution (Eq 49). Onecan thus eliminate in Eq 71 the monomer freeenergy G1:

bn� expmkT

� ¼ bn��1 exp

Gn� �Gn��1

kT

� �(Eq 72)

Using the definition DGn = Gn � nm of the clus-ter formation free energy, Eq 72 can berewritten:

bn��1

bn�exp

�Gn� ��Gn��1

kT

� �¼ 1 (Eq 73)

Using Eq 55 to express the cluster formationfree energy, one finally obtains that the criticalsize verifies:

bn��1

bn�exp

�Gnuc þ 36p�21

� �1=3� n�2=3sn� � n� � 1ð Þ2=3sn��1

h ikT

8>>>>>><>>>>>>:

9>>>>>>=>>>>>>;

¼ 1

(Eq 74)

To go further, one needs to take the limitcorresponding to large cluster sizes. One canthen neglect the size dependence of the conden-sation rate prefactor, bn��1 bn� , and of thecluster interface free energy, sn��1 sn� s.At the critical size, one should therefore check:

�Gnuc þ 36p�21

� �1=3n�2=3 � n� � 1ð Þ2=3h i

s ¼ 0

(Eq 75)

A limited expansion of Eq 75 for large sizesleads to the result:

n� ¼ �2/336p�2

1

� �1=3s�Gnuc

" #3(Eq 76)

One therefore recovers Eq 5 of the critical sizewith a geometric factor A corresponding tospherical clusters. The critical size consideredby classical nucleation theory corresponds tothe one of cluster dynamics in the limit of largecluster sizes. However, when the critical size issmall, both definitions may differ. This coher-ence of both definitions at large size and thisdeviation at small sizes has been observed inatomic simulations (Ref 20).The Steady-State Nucleation Rate. One can

calculate the steady-state nucleation rate, Jst,corresponding to the master equation (Eq 57).To do so, one must make two assumptions:

� There is a small size below which clustershave their equilibrium concentration, givenby Eq 49. Clusters smaller than the criticalsize appear and disappear spontaneouslythrough thermal fluctuations, and their con-centrations stay roughly at equilibrium. Thesmaller the cluster, the better this assumption.The most convenient choice is therefore toimpose thermal equilibrium for monomers:

C1ðtÞ ¼ Ceq1 ¼ C0 exp �G1 � mðtÞ

kT

� �(Eq 77)

� There is a maximum cluster size, N, abovewhich the cluster concentration remains null:CN (t) = 0. This assumption cannot bechecked for a true steady state withoutinvoking a demon that removes clusters thatappear at the size N and dissolves them intomonomers. Nevertheless, one can alwaysdefine at a given time a size large enoughso that the cluster distribution did not propa-gate to this size.

By definition, the steady-state nucleation ratecan be calculated at any cluster size n. At the


steady-state, all cluster concentrations remainconstant. As a consequence:

@Jn!nþ1

@n¼ 0 (Eq 78)

and the steady-state nucleation rate can be cal-culated at any given cluster size. Using theexpression of the cluster flux (Eq 58) with Eqs59 and 64 for the condensation and evaporationrates, one obtains:

J st ¼ bn C1Cn � Cnþ1C0 expGnþ1 �Gn �G1

kT

� �� ;

n ¼ bnC1 exp �Gn � nmkT

� �Cn exp

Gn � nmkT

� ��

�Cnþ1 expGnþ1 � nþ 1ð Þm

kT

� ��(Eq 79)

This equation uses the fact that monomers areat equilibrium (Eq 77) to go from the first tothe second line. After rearranging the termsbetween the left and right sides, a sum betweena minimal and a maximal size is derived:

Xn2

n¼n1

J st

bnC1C0 exp � Gn�nmkT

� �¼ Cn1

C0 exp � Gn1�n1mkT

h i� Cn2þ1

C0 exp �Gn2þ1� n2þ1ð ÞmkT

h i(Eq 80)

n1 = 1 is chosen so that the first term on theright side is equal to 1. With n2 = N � 1, thesecond term is null; it is assumed CN = 0, andthe exponential is tending to 1 for high enoughN. This results in:

J st ¼ C1C0

1PN�1

n¼1

1bnexp Gn�nm

kT

� � (Eq 81)

This gives an exact expression of the steady-state nucleation rate under both of the previousassumptions.The sum appearing in Eq 81 can be easily

evaluated. To do so, a continuous approximationis made to transform the sum into an integral.The cluster formation free energy, DGn = Gn �nm, presents a maximum at the critical size n*.As a consequence, the main contribution to theintegral arises from sizes around the critical sizeand can be evaluated by a Taylor expansionaround n*. Finally, neglecting the variations ofbn in front of the exponential leads to:

Jst ¼ C1C0bn�

� 1ÐN�1

1exp �Gn� þ 1

2@2�Gn

@n2

n¼n�

n� n�ð Þ2� �

kT

� �dn

(Eq 82)

Changing the integration limits in �1 and +1,the result of classical nucleation theory isrecovered:


kT

� �(Eq 83)

where b* = C1bn*, �G� ¼ �Gn� and theZeldovich factor is given by Eq 9.The Steady-State Cluster Size Distribution.

Once the steady-state nucleation rate is known,one can easily obtain the corresponding clustersize distribution. Equation 80 is again used withthe limits n2 = N � 1, so that the last term onthe right side is still null, and with n1 = n, thesize for calculating the cluster concentration.This leads to the result:

Cstn ¼ C0 exp �Gn � nm

kT

� �XNj¼n

J st

bnC1C0 exp �Gj�jmkT

h i(Eq 84)

Similar to the steady-state nucleation rate, thesum can be evaluated by making a continuousapproximation, developing the cluster forma-tion free energy around the critical size, andconsidering the limit N ! 1. One obtains:

Cstn ¼ C0 exp �Gn � nm

kT

� �J st

C1C0bn�ð1n

exp �Gn� þ 1/2@2�Gj

@j2j� n�ð Þ2

� �kT

� �dj

¼ 1/2 erfcffiffiffip

pZ n� n�ð Þ½ �C0 exp �Gn�nm

kT

� �(Eq 85)

The stationary distribution therefore corre-sponds to the equilibrium one, reduced by afactor varying from 0 for large sizes to 1 forsmall sizes. Well below the critical size, thatis, for n n* � Dn/2 with Dn given byEq 10, this factor differs only slightly from 1,and the stationary distribution corresponds tothe equilibrium one. At the critical size n*, thisfactor is exactly one-half, and in the vicinityof n*, the stationary distribution can beapproximated with Eq 8.Discussion. This derivation of quantities

predicted by classical nucleation theory fromcluster dynamics formalism enlightens theapproximations made by this theory. It assumesthat the supersaturation is not too high, so thatthe critical size is large enough. This allowsone to consider the size as a continuous insteadof a discrete variable and to make a finiteexpansion of key parameters around the criticalsize. Classical nucleation theory may thereforeappear as more restricted than the kineticapproach based on the master equation (Eq 57),but the situation is not so simple.One severe restriction of cluster dynamics is

the thermodynamic model on which it relies. Itis based on the cluster gas model of Frenkel(Ref 48), which is valid for a dilute system.Strictly speaking, cluster dynamics should onlybe used in the dilute case. If one wants to studymore concentrated systems, the cluster gasmodel must be extended. Such an extension hasbeen performed by Lepinoux (Ref 56) and is pre-sented in the section “Configurational Frustra-tions between Clusters” in this article. On the

other hand, classical nucleation theory does notrely on the cluster gas thermodynamic model.Instead, it makes use of the nucleation drivingforce that may be calculated with any thermody-namic model, in particular, one better suited toconcentrated systems. Therefore, it is not a prob-lem to use the classical nucleation theory to studyconcentrated systems as long as one correctlycalculates the nucleation driving force.Both formalisms also differ in the way they

describe the parent and the nucleating phases.In the classical theory, one differentiates bothphases, and nucleation is described through het-ero-phase fluctuations corresponding to precipi-tates embedded in the parent phase. Such adifferentiation does not appear in the kineticapproach, where one deals with only one systemthat is described as a gas of clusters having afixed stoichiometry and embedded in a pure sol-vent. This description difference may becomerelevant when modeling concentrated systems,because the values of the input parameters maythen differ according to the chosen, thermody-namic or kinetic, approach. This is the case, forinstance, of the interface free energy. In clusterdynamics, this corresponds to the energy cost ofan interface between a cluster with a fixed stoi-chiometry and the pure solvent, whereas in clas-sical nucleation theory, one should consider thatthe precipitate and the parent phase are not pureand that solubility exists in both phases. The con-centration appearing in the expression of the con-densation rate may also differ between bothapproaches, as already quoted in the previoussection, “Condensation Rate,” in this article.This is either themonomer concentration (clusterdynamics) or the total solute concentration(classical nucleation theory).All these subtle differences between cluster

dynamics and classical nucleation theory havebeen discussed by Martin (Ref 49) in the caseof precipitation in the solid state. He showedthat both approaches were consistent and ledto the same expressions in the dilute limit.

Extensions of Cluster Dynamics

The master equation (Eq 57) can be modifiedto describe nucleation under less restricted con-ditions than the ones of the previous subsectionsand then to build extensions of the clusterdynamics. In particular, the assumptions thatonly monomers can react and that clusters havea fixed stoichiometry corresponding to the equi-librium nucleating phase can be removed.Mobile Clusters. Until now, it was assumed

that only monomers are mobile. This assump-tion is not always valid. There is no reason tothink, for instance, that all clusters exceptmonomers are immobile in solidification. Diffu-sion of small clusters can also happen in solid-solid phase transformations. An interestingexample is copper precipitation in iron, whereatomic simulations have revealed that clusterscontaining up to several tens of copper atomscan be much more mobile than individual cop-per atoms (Ref 57). The master equation should


therefore be modified to account for reactionsinvolving clusters larger than monomers. Sucha generalization of the cluster dynamics formal-ism has been performed by Binder and Stauffer(Ref 4–6).The probability of observing a cluster con-

taining n atoms now obeys the generalized mas-ter equation:

@Cn

@t¼ 1/2

Xn�1

n0¼1

J n� n0; n0 ! nð Þ

�X1n0¼1

J n; n0 ! nþ n0ð Þ � J n; n ! 2nð Þ

(Eq 86)

where J(n,n0 ! n + n0) is the cluster fluxcorresponding to the reaction between the classesn and n0 to the class n + n0. The factor ½ appearingin Eq 86 accounts for overcounting the pairs {n�n0,n0} in the summation. In this equation, oneshould not forget that the reactions nþ n Ð 2ninvolve two clusters of size n. When reactionsare limited to reactions involving monomers, n0can only take the value 1, and n � 1 in the firstsum and 1 in the second sum; the classical masterEq 57 of cluster dynamics is recovered.The cluster flux is the difference between the

condensation of two clusters of sizes n and n0and the splitting of a cluster of size n + n0 intotwo clusters of sizes n and n0:

J n; n0 ! nþ n0ð Þ ¼ b n; n0 ! nþ n0ð ÞCnCn0

� a nþ n0 ! n; n0ð ÞCnþn0

(Eq 87)

One then obtains an expression for the absorp-tion coefficient b(n, n0). If the reaction is lim-ited by the cluster diffusion, this coefficient isgiven by (Ref 24):

b n; n0 ! nþ n0ð Þ ¼ 4pRn;n0Dn þDn0

�1

; 8n 6¼ n0

b n; n ! 2nð Þ ¼ 4pRn;nDn

�1

(Eq 88)

where Rn,n0 is a capture radius and can be approxi-mated by the sum of the two reacting cluster radii.In the expression (Eq 13) used in the classicalnucleation theory, this capture radius was identi-fied with the radius of the critical cluster, and themonomer radius was neglected.If the diffusion coefficients of then-mers are not

known, one canuse an approximationproposedbyBinder et al. (Ref 58, 59). They simply considerthat cluster diffusion is due to jumps of atomslocated at the interface.When an atom jumps overa distance rs with a frequency Gs, the center ofgravity of the cluster jumps over rs/n. Since thenumber of possible jumps at the interfaceincreases with its area as n2/3,Dn depends on n as:

Dn ¼ �srsn

� 2n2=3 ¼ D1n

�4=3 (Eq 89)

In the case of precipitation in the solid state,one should not forget that substitutional atoms

diffuse through exchange with vacancies andthat a vacancy enrichment at the cluster interfaceis possible. In such a case, Eq 89 must be cor-rected with a prefactor to consider the vacancyconcentration at the interface (Ref 57). Thisvacancy segregation is the reason why clusterscontaining several copper atoms aremoremobilethan monomers in iron (Ref 57).The evaporation rate is still obtained by

assuming that it is an intrinsic property of thecluster (or imposing a constrained equilibrium),thus leading to:

a nþ n0 ! n; n0ð Þ

¼ b n; n0 ! nþ n0ð ÞC0 expGnþn0 �Gn �Gn0

kT

� �(Eq 90)

All parameters are thus determined, and themaster equation (Eq 86) can be numericallyintegrated.Binder and Stauffer (Ref 4, 6) also extended

classical nucleation theory to obtain expres-sions of the steady-state nucleation rate andthe incubation time, taking into account themobility of all clusters. They started from themaster equation (Eq 86) and imposed thedetailed balance corresponding to Eq 90. Theyobtained expressions similar to the classicalones—Eq 11 for the steady-state nucleation rateand Eq 14 for the incubation time—except thatnow the growing rate, b*, of the critical clusterincorporates contributions of all clusters. Thisgrowing rate is given by:

b� ¼Xnc

n¼1

b n�; n ! nþ n�ð Þn2C0 exp �Gn � nmkT

� �(Eq 91)

where nc is a cut-off size corresponding to thecorrelation length of thermal fluctuations. Itseems reasonable to identify this cut-off sizewith the critical size n*. When only reactionsinvolving monomers can occur, the sum inEq 91 is limited to the term n = 1, and onerecovers the classical growing rate b� ¼ bn�Ceq

1 .When reactions involving other clusters are pos-sible, this growing rate increases. The mobilityof small clusters therefore leads to an increaseof the nucleation rate and a decrease of theincubation time by the same factor.Nonstoichiometric Clusters. Until now, it

has been assumed that clusters have a fixedstoichiometry corresponding to the equilibriumof the nucleating phase. In some systems, thecomposition of the nucleating phase can vary.One therefore must extend cluster dynamics toallow the cluster stoichiometry to vary (Ref 7).To illustrate such an extension of the formal-

ism, consider the example of a system wherethe nucleating phase is composed of two ele-ments, A and B, and assume that the composi-tion can vary. A cluster is then a group of Aand B atoms that are linked by a neighborhoodrelation. If the clusters are homogeneous (nosegregation of one element at the interface, for

instance), they can simply be described by twovariables: the number i and j of elements Aand B they contain. Therefore, Gi, j is the freeenergy of such a cluster. If the system is under-saturated, one can show that the concentrationof {i,j} clusters is given by the distribution:

Ceqi;j ¼ C0 exp� �Gi;j � imA � jmB

kT

� �(Eq 92)

where mA and mB are Lagrange multipliersensuring matter conservation for A and B andare related to their chemical potentials.It is assumed that only monomers are mobile.

The time evolution of clusters containing i Aelements and j B elements is then governed bythe master equation:

@Ci;j

@t¼ Ji�1;j!i;j � Ji;j!iþ1;j þ Ji;j�1!i;j � Ji;j!i;jþ1;

8fi; jg 6¼ f1; 0g and fi; jg 6¼ f0; 1g@C1;0

@t¼ �

Xi�0

Xj�0

Ji;j!iþ1;j � J1;0!2;0

@C0;1

@t¼ �

Xi�0

Xj�0

Ji;j!i;jþ1 � J0;1!0;2

(Eq 93)

Fluxes are written as a difference between theevaporation and the condensation of a monomer:

Ji;j!iþ1;j ¼ bi;j!iþ1;jC1;0Ci;j � aiþ1;j!i;jCiþ1;j

Ji;j!i;jþ1 ¼ bi;j!i;jþ1C0;1Ci;j � ai;jþ1!i;jCi;jþ1

(Eq 94)

The condensation and evaporation rates are stilllinked by a detailed balance condition, leadingto the relations:

aiþ1;j!i;j ¼ bi;j!iþ1;j expGiþ1;j �Gi;j �G1;0

kT

� �

ai;jþ1!i;j ¼ bi;j!i;jþ1 expGi;jþ1 �Gi;j �G0;1

kT

� �(Eq 95)

One therefore needs a physical modeling of thecondensation process to express the coefficientsbi,j!i+1,j and bi,j!i,j+1. The evaporation rates arethen obtained by Eq 95, and the kinetics areobtained by integration of Eq 93.Starting from the master equation (Eq 93),

the classical nucleation theory has beenextended to treat a multicomponent system.This was first performed by Reiss (Ref 7) fora binary system such as the one considered hereand then extended by Hirschfelder (Ref 8) to ageneral multicomponent system. Both authorsassumed that the growth of the critical nucleuswas entirely driven by the free energy. It wasrealized later by Stauffer (Ref 9) that thegrowth direction in the {i,j} plane may also beaffected by the condensation coefficients, espe-cially when coefficients corresponding to A andB condensation have very different values. Heproposed an expression of the steady-statenucleation rate for the binary system that wasthen extended to a multicomponent system by


Trinkaus (Ref 10). All these approaches calcu-lated the steady-state nucleation rate in thevicinity of the critical nucleus. Wu (Ref 11)instead defined a global nucleation rate thatshould correspond more closely to what can bemeasured experimentally. The following givesthe expression of the steady-state nucleationrate for a binary system obeying the masterequation (Eq 93) in the local approach asderived by Vehkamaki (Ref 12). Expressionsin the more general case—multicomponentsystems and mobile clusters other than mono-mers—can be found in the cited references.The critical cluster corresponds to the saddle

point of the cluster formation free energy DGi,j

= Gi,j � imA � jmB appearing in the equilibriumdistribution (Eq 92). It is thus defined by theequations:

@�Gi;j

@i¼ 0 and

@�Gi;j

@j¼ 0 (Eq 96)

DG* is the corresponding formation freeenergy, and H* is the Hessian matrix calculatedfor the critical cluster:

H� ¼@2�Gi;j

@i2

fi;jg�

@2�Gi;j

@i@j

fi;jg�

@2�Gi;j

@i@j

fi;jg�

@2�Gi;j

@j2

fi;jg�

0B@

1CA (Eq 97)

This Hessian matrix has two eigenvalues. Oneof them is negative and gives the direction in the{i,j} space corresponding to themaximal decreaseof the critical cluster free energy. In the approachof Reiss and Hirschfelder, this direction corre-sponds to the nucleation flow. Nevertheless, oneshould generally take into account that the con-densation rates for A and B elements may be dif-ferent, because this will impact the direction ofthe nucleation flow. Therefore, a newmatrix char-acterizing the condensation process for the criticalcluster is defined:

B� ¼ C1;0bi;j!iþ1;j 0

0 C0;1bi;j!i;jþ1

� �fi;jg�

(Eq 98)

The fact that this matrix is diagonal reflects theassumption that only reactions involving mono-mers are possible. The angle y of the nucleationflow in the {i,j} space is then defined by:

tan y ¼�H�

11B�11 þH�

22B�22 �

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi4H�

122B�

11B�22 þ H�

11B�11 �H�

22B�22

� �2q2H�

12B�11

(Eq 99)

The equivalent of the Zeldovitch factor is givenby:

Z ¼ �H�11 þ 2H�

12 tan yþH�22 tan

2 y

1þ tan2 yð Þ ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffidet H�ð Þj jp (Eq 100)

and the average growth rate of the criticalcluster by:

b� ¼ det B�ð ÞB�11 sin

2 yþ B�22 cos

2 y(Eq 101)

With these definitions, the steady-state nucle-ation rate keeps its usual expression:


kT

� �(Eq 102)

Configurational Frustrations between Clus-ters. Cluster dynamics simulations rely on thecluster gas approximation derived in the section“Cluster Gas Thermodynamics” in this article.This thermodynamic approximation, initiallyintroduced by Frenkel (Ref 48), is strictly validonly in the dilute limit. It indeed assumes thatthe space occupied by the clusters can beneglected when computing the configurationalpartition function (Eq 45) of the cluster gas;each cluster occupies only one site, no matterits size. Lepinoux (Ref 56) has shown that thisapproximation can be improved to properlytake into account frustrations between clusters,that is, the space forbidden to a given clusterby other clusters. This allows the modeling ofsystems that are not as dilute as required byFrenkel’s treatment.Note that Vj,n is the number of sites that a

cluster of size j forbids to a cluster of size n.According to Lepinoux (Ref 56), the equilib-rium cluster size distribution is given by:

Ceqn ¼ C0 exp �Gn � nm

kT

� �exp �

Xj

Ceqj Vj;n

!

(Eq 103)

or equivalently:

Ceqn ¼ C0

Ceq1

C0

� �n

exp �Gn � nG1

kT

� �

exp �Xj

Ceqj Vj;n � nV1;n

� �" # (Eq 104)

It is clear that Frenkel’s approximation corre-sponds to neglecting all exclusion volumes(Vj,n = 0). When exclusion volumes are consid-ered, only an implicit expression of the size dis-tribution is obtained; equilibrium cluster sizeconcentrations, Ceq

j , are required to evaluate theright side of Eq 103 or 104. A self-consistentloop can be used to evaluate the equilibrium dis-tribution, starting from the distribution given byFrenkel’s approximation (Eq 49 or 50).The exclusion volumes can be approximated

by identifying a cluster of size n with a sphereof radius Rn. This leads to:

Vj;n ¼ 4p3

Rj þRn

� �3(Eq 105)

The radii Rn depend on the temperature becausea cluster becomes less compact with highertemperatures due to its configurational entropy.Nevertheless, it can be reasonably assumed thatthese radii are close to the ones correspondingto the more compact cluster shape (Ref 56),and Eq 61 can be used.The second step is to obtain the kinetic coef-

ficients an and bn. As previously mentioned, the

condensation rate bn is obtained by the properphysical modeling of the condensation process,leading to an expression of the form in Eq 59.However, it is no longer possible to assume thatthe evaporation rate is an intrinsic property ofthe cluster; the obtained expression would vio-late the assumption because of the frustrationcontribution in the cluster size distribution.The constrained equilibrium is not satisfactoryeither, because it leads to a diverging frustra-tion correction and hence diverging evaporationrates in supersaturated systems. There is actu-ally no framework that allows rigorously deriv-ing the evaporation rate from the condensationrate, taking into account cluster frustrations. Itseems that the most reasonable scheme is toconsider that the classical expression (Eq 64)of the evaporation rate must be corrected fromfrustrations caused by the instantaneous clustersize distribution and not by a hypothetical equi-librium one:

anþ1 tð Þ ¼ bnC0 expGnþ1 �Gn �G1

kT

� �

expXj

Cj tð Þ Vj;nþ1 � Vj;n � Vj;1

� �" #

(Eq 106)

This set of condensation and evaporationrates ensures that the cluster distribution evolvestoward the equilibrium distribution given byEq 103 for subcritical clusters. Equation 106clearly shows that the evaporation rate is nolonger an intrinsic property of the cluster,because it now depends on the whole clusterdistribution. Moreover, because this parameterdepends on the instantaneous concentrationsCj(t), it must be calculated at each time step.When the system is dilute, the frustration cor-rection in Eq 106 becomes negligible, and theclassical expression of the condensation rate isrecovered. Comparisons with atomic simula-tions (Ref 50, 56) have shown that this treatmentof cluster frustrations greatly improves the abil-ity of cluster dynamics to describe nucleationkinetics for high supersaturations.

Limitations of the Cluster Description

The previous extensions of cluster dynamicshave allowed the removal of two limitationsof classical nucleation theories due to initialsimplifying assumptions:

� Only monomers are mobile, and therefore,only reactions involving monomers arepossible.

� The cluster stoichiometry is fixed and knowna priori. It is assumed to correspond to thecomposition of the nucleating phase at equi-librium with the mother phase.

The extension to mobile clusters is quitestraightforward, and that to nonstoichiometricclusters shows that it was possible to takeinto account a nonfixed cluster composition.


The composition of the nucleating cluster wasfound to be the one minimizing the work,DG*, necessary to form them.Nevertheless, some limitations still remain

for this nucleation modeling approach. One ofthese limitations arises from the neededassumption that clusters are homogeneous. Thisassumption is induced by the fact that clustersare only described by the number of elementsthey contain. This is not always valid becausesegregation may occur in some systems; it canbe more favorable for one element to lie at theinterface between the cluster and the matrixinstead of in the core of the cluster. In such acase, it is necessary to introduce at least onemore parameter to describe the cluster struc-ture. Binder and Stauffer (Ref 4) have extendedcluster dynamics formalism to incorporate addi-tional parameters describing cluster internaldegrees of freedom, but the application of theformalism appears quite intricate.Cahn and Hilliard (Ref 60) proposed a model-

ing approach different from the classical one pre-sented here, which is based on a clusterdescription. Their approach agrees with the clas-sical one at low supersaturations and underlinessome limitations of the classical approach withincreasing supersaturations. They showed thatthe work, DG*, required to form a critical clusterbecomes progressively less than that given by theclassical theory and continuously approacheszero at the spinodal limit, thus for a finite super-saturation. By contrast, the classical theory pre-dicts that this work becomes zero only for aninfinite supersaturation (Eq 6). Moreover, theclassical theory assumes that clusters are homo-geneous and that their composition is the oneminimizing the work, DG*. Cahn and Hilliardshowed that the composition at the center of thenucleus approaches that of the exterior motherphase when the supersaturation tends to the spi-nodal limit, and that the interface becomes morediffuse until eventually no part of the nucleus iseven approximately homogeneous. The last dis-agreement found with the classical theory is thevariation of the critical cluster size. They showedthat this size first decreases, passes through aminimum, and then increases to become infinitewhen the supersaturation increases andapproaches the spinodal limit. Nevertheless,some recent experiment observations (Ref 61,62) have contradicted this last point, showingno divergence of the cluster critical size whenapproaching the spinodal limit.

Conclusions

Two different approaches based on an equiva-lent cluster description can therefore be used tomodel nucleation in a phase-separating system.In the classical nucleation theory, one obtainsexpressions of the nucleation rate and the incuba-tion time. These expressions depend on a limitednumber of input parameters: the nucleation

driving force, the interface free energy, and thecondensation rate. On the other hand, the kineticdescription of nucleation relies on a master equa-tion. Cluster dynamics simulations, that is, theintegration of this master equation, allow thetime evolution of the cluster size distribution tobe obtained. The input parameters needed bysuch simulations are the cluster condensationrates and the cluster free energies. At variancewith classical nucleation theory, no externalthermodynamic model is needed to calculatethe nucleation driving force; cluster dynamicssimulations possess their own thermodynamicmodel, the cluster gas. As shown previously,both approaches are intrinsically linked, but itis worth saying that they differ in the way theycan be used to model the kinetics of phase trans-formations. Classical nucleation theory is able tomodel only the nucleation stage. To model thewhole kinetics, one must couple this theory withclassical descriptions of the growth and coarsen-ing stage. Such a coupling can be done followingthe Wagner and Kampmann approach (Ref 63,64). On the other hand, the cluster dynamicsmodeling approach is not restricted to the nucle-ation stage. It also predicts growth and coarsen-ing kinetics. To conclude, this cluster approachis well suited when one knows what the nucleat-ing new phase looks like. Such information is notalways available a priori. One then must useother modeling techniques. These can be atomicsimulations, such as molecular dynamics (Ref65, 66), for condensation of a gas into a liquidor crystallisation of a liquid, or kinetic MonteCarlo (Ref 67–69) for solid-solid phase transfor-mations, or phase-field simulations (see theAppendix at the end of this article). These simu-lations are computationally much more time-consuming and, as a consequence, are limitedto the study of high enough supersaturations.Nevertheless, they can be very useful for under-standing what happens in the nucleation stageand then building a classical model based on acluster description and extending the range ofsupersaturations that can be simulated. More-over, these atomic or phase-field simulationscan be a convenient way to calculate the inputparameters needed by classical theories.

Appendix—Phase-Field Simulations

The phase-field approach describes the differ-ent phases through continuous fields such as theatomic concentration or long-range-order para-meters. The spatial and temporal evolution ofthe microstructure is then driven by differentialequations obeyed by these fields. Because thistechnique is the object of the article “Phase-FieldModeling of Microstructure Evolution” in thisVolume, this Appendix addresses how nucle-ation can be handled in such simulations.The main advantage of phase-field simulations

is that all spatial information on the microstruc-ture is obtained. This is in contrast with classicalapproaches where a limited number of informa-tion is known, such as the flux of nucleating

particles (classical nucleation theory) or the clus-ter size distribution (cluster dynamics). This maymake the phase-field approach an attractive tech-nique for modeling nucleation in specific situa-tions. Indeed, such simulations perfectly takeinto account phase inhomogeneities. These inho-mogeneities can be, for instance, a solute segrega-tion in the vicinity of a defect such as adislocation. Phase-field simulations thereforeallow the description of heterogeneous nucleationassociated with a variation of the driving force.Moreover, in the case of solid-solid phase trans-formations, the elastic energy is fully containedin the calculation of the system free energy (Ref41). One therefore does not need a specific expres-sion for the elastic self-energy of a nucleating par-ticle nor for its elastic interaction with the existingmicrostructure. The correlated and collectivenucleation due to elastic interaction between pre-cipitates is naturally described. Two differentroads have been proposed to include nucleationin phase-field simulations.One can use the phase-field approach to cal-

culate spatial variations of the concentrationsand the order parameters describing the differ-ent phases as well as the inhomogeneous straincreated by the microstructure. One then calcu-lates the nucleation free energy as a functionof the local phase fields and the local strain.Finally, the expression of the nucleation rategiven by the classical theory is used to seedthe phase-field simulations with new nuclei(Ref 70–72). In this way, one obtains a spatialvariation of the nucleation rate caused by themicrostructure inhomogeneities.The phase-field approach offers another way

to model nucleation without relying on theclassical theory. One can add to the equationsdescribing the phase-field evolution a stochas-tic term through a Langevin force to describethermal fluctuations. This allows nucleationto proceed. Phase-field simulations can thennaturally describe the spatial and temporalevolution of the microstructure, from thenucleation to the coarsening stage (Ref 73–75). Nevertheless, this description is usuallyonly qualitative; to obtain a fully quantitativemodeling, the amplitude of the Langevin forcemust be carefully set. In particular, it mustdepend on the coarse-graining size similar tothe other ingredients of the simulation (chemi-cal potentials, mobilities, stiffness coeffi-cients) (Ref 76). Such phase-field simulationsthat naturally handle nucleation through ther-mal fluctuations suffer from the small time-step needed to catch the rare event of a nucle-ating particle. On the other hand, simulationsusing an explicit description of the nucleationdo not have this drawback.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author thanks Bernard Legrand,Georges Martin, Maylise Nastar, and FredericSoisson for fruitful discussions and their carefulreading of the manuscript.


REFERENCES

1. M. Volmer and A. Weber, Keimbildung inUbersattigten Gebilden, Z. Phys. Chem.(Leipzig), 119, 1926, p 277

2. L. Farkas, Keimbildungsgeschwindigkeit inUbersattigten Dampfen, Z. Phys. Chem.(Leipzig), 125, 1927, p 239

3. R. Becker and W. Doring, KinetischeBehandlung der Keimbildung in Ubersat-tigten Dampfen, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 24,1935, p 719

4. K. Binder and D. Stauffer, Statistical The-ory of Nucleation, Condensation and Coag-ulation, Adv. Phys., 25, 1976, p 343

5. K. Binder, Theory for the Dynamics of"Clusters." II. Critical Diffusion in BinarySystems and the Kinetics of Phase Separa-tion, Phys. Rev. B, 15, 1977, p 4425

6. K. Binder, Theory of First-Order PhaseTransitions, Rep. Prog. Phys., 50, 1987,p 783

7. H. Reiss, The Kinetics of Phase Transitionsin Binary Systems, J. Chem. Phys., 18,1950, p 840

8. J.O. Hirschfelder, Kinetics of Homoge-neous Nucleation on Many-ComponentSystems, J. Chem. Phys., 61, 1974, p 2690

9. D. Stauffer, Kinetic Theory of Two-Com-ponent ("Hetero-Molecular") Nucleationand Condensation, J. Aerosol. Sci., 7,1976, p 319

10. H. Trinkaus, Theory of the Nucleation ofMulticomponent Precipitates, Phys. Rev.B, 27, 1983, p 7372

11. D.T. Wu, General Approach to BarrierCrossing in Multicomponent Nucleation,J. Chem. Phys., 99, 1993, p 1990

12. H. Vehkamaki, Classical Nucleation The-ory in Multicomponent Systems, Springer,Berlin, 2006

13. J.W. Cahn, Phase Separation by SpinodalDecomposition in Isotropic Systems,J. Chem. Phys., 42, 1965, p 93

14. K. Binder, Spinodal Decomposition, Mate-rials Science and Technology, A Compre-hensive Treatment, R.W. Cahn, P. Haasen,and E.J. Kramer, Ed., VCH, Weinheim,Vol. 5, 1991, pp. 405–471

15. G.Wulff, Zur Frage der Geschwindigkeit desWachstums und der Auflosung der Kristalfla-chen, Z. Kristallogr., 34, 1901, p 449

16. D.A. Porter and K.E. Easterling, PhaseTransformations in Metals and Alloys,Chapman & Hall, London, 1992

17. E. Clouet, M. Nastar, and C. Sigli, Nucle-ation of Al3Zr and Al3Sc in AluminumAlloys: From Kinetic Monte Carlo Simula-tions to Classical Theory, Phys. Rev. B, 69,2004, p 064109

18. F. Soisson and G. Martin, Monte-CarloSimulations of the Decomposition of Meta-stable Solid Solutions: Transient andSteady-State Nucleation Kinetics, Phys.Rev. B, 62, 2000, p 203

19. V.A. Shneidman, K.A. Jackson, and K.M.Beatty, Nucleation and Growth of a Stable

Phase in an Ising-Type System, Phys.Rev. B, 59, 1999, p 3579

20. L. Maibaum, Phase Transformation nearthe Classical Limit of Stability, Phys. Rev.Lett., 101, 2008, p 256102

21. D. Kashchiev, Solution of the Non-SteadyState Problem in Nucleation Kinetics, Surf.Sci., 14, 1969, p 209

22. D. Kashchiev, Nucleation: Basic Theorywith Applications, Butterworth Heinemann,Oxford, 2000

23. G. Martin, The Theories of Unmixing Kinet-ics of Solid Solutions, Solid State PhaseTransformation in Metals and Alloys, LesEditions de Physique, Orsay, France, 1980,pp. 337–406

24. T.R. Waite, General Theory of BimolecularReaction Rates in Solids and Liquids,J. Chem. Phys., 28, 1958, p 103

25. E. Clouet, A. Barbu, L. Lae, and G. Martin,Precipitation Kinetics of Al3Zr and Al3Scin Aluminum Alloys Modeled with ClusterDynamics, Acta Mater., 53, 2005, p 2313

26. D.T. Wu, The Time Lag in NucleationTheory, J. Chem. Phys., 97, 1992, p 2644

27. V.A. Shneidman and M.C. Weinberg,Transient Nucleation Induction Time fromthe Birth-Death Equations, J. Chem. Phys.,97, 1992, p 3629

28. K.F. Kelton, A.L. Greer, and C.V. Thomp-son, Transient Nucleation in CondensedSystems, J. Chem. Phys., 79, 1983, p 6261

29. V.A. Shneidman and M.C. Weinberg,Induction Time in Transient NucleationTheory, J. Chem. Phys., 97, 1992, p 3621

30. J. Feder, K.C. Russell, J. Lothe, andG.M. Pound, Homogeneous Nucleation andGrowth of Droplets in Vapours, Adv. Phys.,15, 1966, p 111

31. D. Kashchiev, Nucleation at Existing ClusterSize Distributions, Surf. Sci., 18, 1969, p 389

32. F. Berthier, B. Legrand, J. Creuze, and R.Tetot, Atomistic Investigation of the Kol-mogorov-Johnson-Mehl-Avrami Law inElectrodeposition Process, J. Electroanal.Chem., 561, 2004, p 37; Ag/Cu (001) Elec-trodeposition: Beyond the Classical Nucle-ation Theory, J. Electroanal. Chem., 562,2004, p 127

33. P. Maugis and M. Goune, Kinetics ofVanadium Carbonitride Precipitation inSteel: A Computer Model, Acta Mater.,53, 2005, p 3359

34. F. Ducastelle, Order and Phase Stability inAlloys, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991

35. E. Clouet and M. Nastar, Classical Nucle-ation Theory in Ordering Alloys Precipitat-ing with L12 Structure, Phys. Rev. B, 75,2007, p 132102

36. P. Spencer, A Brief History of CALPHAD,Calphad, 32, 2008, p 1

37. N. Saunders and A.P. Miodownik, CAL-PHAD — Calculation of Phase Diagrams— A Comprehensive Guide, Pergamon,Oxford, 1998

38. J.D. Eshelby, The Determination of theElastic Field of an Ellipsoidal Inclusion,

and Related Problems, Proc. Roy. Soc.Lond. A, 241, 1957, p 376

39. J.D. Eshelby, The Elastic Field Outside anEllipsoidal Inclusion, Proc. Roy. Soc.Lond. A, 252, 1959, p 561

40. J.D. Eshelby, Elastic Inclusion and Inho-mogeneities, Progress in Solid Mechanics,I.N. Sneddon and R. Hill, Ed., North Hol-land, Vol. 2, 1961, pp. 87–140

41. A.G. Khachaturyan, Theory of StructuralTransformations in Solids, Wiley, NewYork, 1983

42. L. Zhang, L.-Q. Chen, and Q. Du, Mor-phology of Critical Nuclei in Solid-StatePhase Transformations, Phys. Rev. Lett.,98, 2007, p 265703

43. C. Shen, J.P. Simmons, and Y. Wang,Effect of Elastic Interaction on Nucleation:I. Calculation of the Strain Energy ofNucleus Formation in an Elastically Aniso-tropic Crystal of Arbitrary Microstructure,Acta Mater., 54, 2006, p 5617

44. J. Lepinoux, Interfacial Reaction Rates andFree Energy of Cubic Clusters, Philos.Mag., 85, 2005, p 3585

45. A. Perini, G. Jacucci, and G. Martin, Clus-ter Free Energy in the Simple-Cubic IsingModel, Phys. Rev. B, 29, 1984, p 2689;Interfacial Contribution to Cluster FreeEnergy, Surf. Sci., 144, 1984, p 53

46. J.W. Gibbs, Collected Works, Vol. 1, Ther-modynamics, Longmans-Green, New York,1928

47. R.C. Tolman, The Effect of Droplet Size onSurface Tension, J. Chem. Phys., 17, 1949,p 333

48. J. Frenkel, Kinetic Theory of Liquids,Dover Publications, New York, 1955

49. G. Martin, Reconciling the ClassicalNucleation Theory and Atomic ScaleObservations and Modeling, Adv. Eng.Mater., 8, 2006, p 1231

50. J. Lepinoux, Modelling Precipitation inBinary Alloys by Cluster Dynamics, ActaMater., 57, 2009, p 1086

51. J.L. Katz and H. Wiedersich, NucleationTheory without Maxwell Demons, J. Col-loid and Interface Science, 61, 1977, p 351

52. N.M. Ghoniem and S. Sharafat, A Numeri-cal Solution to the Fokker-Planck EquationDescribing the Evolution of the InterstitialLoop Microstructure during Irradiation,J. Nucl. Mater., 92, 1980, p 121

53. M. Kiritani, Analysis of the Clustering Pro-cess of Supersaturated Lattice Vacancies,J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., 35, 1973, p 95

54. M. Koiwa, On the Validity of the GroupingMethod —Comments on “Analysis of theClustering Process of Supersaturated Lat-tice Vacancies,” J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., 37,1974, p 1532

55. S.I. Golubov, A.M. Ovcharenko, A.V. Bar-ashev, and B.N. Singh, Grouping Methodfor the Approximate Solution of a KineticEquation Describing the Evolution ofPoint-Defect Clusters, Philos. Mag. A, 81,2001, p 643


56. J. Lepinoux, Contribution of Matrix Frus-tration to the Free Energy of Cluster Distri-butions in Binary Alloys, Philos. Mag., 86,2006, p 5053

57. F. Soisson and C.-C. Fu, Cu-PrecipitationKinetics in a-Fe from Atomistic Simula-tions: Vacancy-Trapping Effects and Cu-Cluster Mobility, Phys. Rev. B, 76, 2007,p 214102

58. K. Binder and D. Stauffer, Theory for theSlowing Down of the Relaxation and Spi-nodal Decomposition of Binary Mixtures,Phys. Rev. Lett., 33, 1974, p 1006

59. K. Binder and M.H. Kalos, “Critical Clus-ters” in a Supersaturated Vapor: Theoryand Monte Carlo Simulation, J. Stat. Phys.,22, 1980, p 363

60. J.W. Cahn and J.E. Hilliard, Free Energy ofa Nonuniform System. III. Nucleation in aTwo-Component Incompressible Fluid,J. Chem. Phys., 31, 1959, p 688

61. A. Pan, T. Rappl, D. Chandler, and N. Bal-sara, Neutron Scattering and Monte CarloDetermination of the Variation of the Crit-ical Nucleus Size with Quench Depth,J. Phys. Chem. B, 110, 2006, p 3692

62. P.G. Debenedetti, Thermodynamics:When a Phase is Born, Nature, 441,2006, p 168

63. R. Wagner and R. Kampmann, Homoge-neous Second Phase Precipitation,MaterialsScience and Technology, A ComprehensiveTreatment, R.W. Cahn, P. Haasen, and E.J.Kramer, Ed., Vol. 5, pp. 213–303, VCH,Weinheim, 1991

64. M. Perez, M. Dumont, and D. Acevedo-Reyes, Implementation of Classical Nucle-ation and Growth Theories for Precipitation,Acta Mater., 56, 2008, p 2119

65. M.P. Allen and D.J. Tildesley, ComputerSimulation of Liquids, Clarendon Press,Oxford, 1987

66. D. Frenkel and B. Smit, UnderstandingMolecular Simulation — From Algorithms

to Applications, Academic Press, SanDiego, 2001

67. G. Martin and F. Soisson, Kinetic MonteCarlo Method to Model Diffusion Con-trolled Phase Transformations in the SolidState, Handbook of Materials Modeling,S. Yip, Ed., pp. 2223–2248, Springer, TheNetherlands, 2005

68. P. Bellon, Kinetic Monte Carlo Simulationsin Crystalline Alloys: Principles andSelected Applications, Thermodynamics,Microstructure, and Plasticity, A. Finel,D. Maziere, and M. Veron, Ed., pp. 395–409, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 2002

69. F. Soisson, Applications of Monte CarloSimulations to the Kinetics of Phase Trans-formations, Thermodynamics, Microstruc-ture, and Plasticity, A. Finel, D. Maziere,and M. Veron, Ed., pp. 427–436, KluwerAcademic, Dordrecht, 2002

70. J.P. Simmons, C. Shen, and Y. Wang,Phase Field Modeling of SimultaneousNucleation and Growth by Explicitly Incor-porating Nucleation Events, Scripta Mater.,43, 2000, p 935

71. Y.H. Wen, J.P. Simmons, C. Shen, C.Woodward, and Y. Wang, Phase-FieldModeling of Bimodal Particle Size Distri-butions during Continuous Cooling, ActaMater., 51, 2003, p 1123

72. C. Shen, J.P. Simmons, and Y. Wang,Effect of Elastic Interaction on Nucleation:II. Implementation of Strain Energy ofNucleus Formation in the Phase FieldMethod, Acta Mater., 55, 2007, p 1457

73. Y. Wang, H.-Y. Wang, L.-Q. Chen, andA.G. Khachaturyan, Microstructural Devel-opment of Coherent Tetragonal Precipitatesin Magnesium-Partially-Stabilized Zirco-nia: A Computer Simulation, J. Am.Ceram. Soc., 78, 1995, p 657

74. Y. Le Bouar, A. Loiseau, and A.G. Kha-chaturyan, Origin of Chessboard-LikeStructures in Decomposing Alloys.

Theoretical Model and Computer Simula-tion, Acta Mater., 46, 1998, p 2777

75. Y.H. Wen, Y. Wang, and L.Q. Chen,Phase-Field Simulation of DomainStructure Evolution during a CoherentHexagonal-to-Orthorhombic Transforma-tion, Philos. Mag. A, 80, 2000, p 1967

76. Q. Bronchart, Y. Le Bouar, and A. Finel,New Coarse-Grained Derivation of a PhaseField Model for Precipitation, Phys. Rev.Lett., 100, 2008, p 015702

SELECTED REFERENCES

Focusing on nucleation

� F.F. Abraham, Homogeneous NucleationTheory—The Pretransition Theory of VaporCondensation, Advances in TheoreticalChemistry, H. Eyring and D. Henderson,Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1974

� K.F. Kelton, Crystal Nucleation in Liquidsand Glasses, Solid State Physics, H. Ehren-reich and D. Turnbull, Ed., Academic Press,New York, Vol. 45, 1991, pp. 75–177

� K.C. Russell, Nucleation in Solids: TheInduction and Steady State Effects, Adv.Colloid Interface Sci., 13, 1980, p 205

� D.T. Wu, Nucleation Theory, Solid StatePhysics, H. Ehrenreich and F. Spaepen, Ed.,Academic Press, New York, Vol. 50, 1997,pp. 37–187

Phase transformations

� J.W. Christian, The Theory of Transforma-tions in Metals and Alloys—Part I: Equilib-rium and General Kinetic Theory, 2nd ed.,Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1975

� A.G. Khachaturyan, Theory of StructuralTransformations in Solids, Wiley, New York,1983


Modeling of Nucleation Processes Thermodynamic Approach - arXiv

Documents

Transcript of Modeling of Nucleation Processes Thermodynamic Approach - arXiv