pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12107 · v2 · pith:LC5DGWK2new · submitted 2026-06-10 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Direct nanoscale observation of melting and solute redistribution in a hypoeutectic Al-Cu alloy with it{in\ situ} STEM

Martin Hasenburger , Rostislav Daniel , Phillip Dumitraschkewitz , Thomas M. Kremmer , Matheus A. Tunes , Stefan Pogatscher This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 08:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords meltingeutectical-cualloyclassicalenrichmenthypoeutecticnanoscale
0
0 comments X

The pith

Melting in a hypoeutectic Al-Cu alloy begins centrally and spreads outward along grain boundaries via copper enrichment, with the Al2Cu phase melting first and liquid copper redistributing over 258 micrometers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper reports real-time nanoscale imaging of melting inside a nanocrystalline hypoeutectic Al-Cu alloy using in situ STEM heating. Melting starts in the hotter central zone of the sample and moves outward, with grain boundaries serving as the initial locations where eutectic liquid forms because copper concentrates there. The Al2Cu phase melts before the aluminum matrix is fully liquid. Once liquid appears, copper travels through it across 258 micrometers, producing aluminum-rich rims and copper buildup at the sample edge. These direct observations are compared to classical expectations for eutectic melting behavior.

Core claim

Melting initiated in the hotter central region and propagated outward, with grain boundaries acting as preferred sites for eutectic liquid formation via Cu enrichment. The Al2Cu phase melted prior to complete matrix melting. Liquid-state Cu redistribution over a distance of 258 μm resulted in Al-rich rim accumulations and Cu enrichment at the outermost edge of the observed chip region.

What carries the argument

In situ STEM contrast changes during MEMS-based heating that track copper enrichment and liquid formation at grain boundaries.

If this is right

  • Grain boundaries are the first sites to form eutectic liquid through local copper enrichment.
  • The Al2Cu phase melts completely before the surrounding aluminum matrix does.
  • Copper moves through the liquid phase over distances of 258 micrometers, orders of magnitude beyond solid-state limits.
  • This produces aluminum-rich material near the edges and copper accumulation at the outermost boundary.
  • The sequence aligns with classical eutectic melting predictions but adds nanoscale detail on initiation and transport.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The observed liquid-state transport could alter predictions for microstructure evolution during rapid heating of Al-Cu components.
  • The same imaging approach may reveal comparable grain-boundary-driven melting sequences in other eutectic alloy systems.
  • Edge accumulation effects might influence solute segregation in thin-film or MEMS-scale devices subjected to thermal gradients.
  • Uniform heating experiments could test whether the central-to-edge propagation depends on the imposed temperature gradient.
  • keywords:[

Load-bearing premise

The STEM image contrast changes are caused by local copper concentration variations rather than by thickness changes or other imaging effects.

What would settle it

Independent spectroscopy confirming that copper levels match the observed contrast patterns even when sample thickness is measured and held constant throughout the heating cycle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12107 by Martin Hasenburger, Matheus A. Tunes, Phillip Dumitraschkewitz, Rostislav Daniel, Stefan Pogatscher, Thomas M. Kremmer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the phase transformation and transition sequence via heating. Cyan (cold) to violet (hot) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Low-magnification STEM overview of the melting process from Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Chemical redistribution after melting. (a) Low-magnification STEM image of the final morphology. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Post-ageing precipitates after quenching from the melting experiment. Precipitation occurs predominantly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Melting and solidification of eutectic systems are classical topics in physical metallurgy, yet the mechanisms at nanoscale are less investigated, due to experimental limitations in spatiotemporal resolution. The advent of $\it{in\ situ}$ STEM heating with MEMS technology has recently enabled investigation of eutectic behavior as a function of temperature, time and electrical resistivity. Using this methodology, we investigate the evolution of a nanocrystalline hypoeutectic Al-Cu alloy. Melting initiated in the hotter central region and propagated outward, with grain boundaries acting as preferred sites for eutectic liquid formation via Cu enrichment. The Al$_2$Cu phase melted prior to complete matrix melting. Liquid-state Cu redistribution over a distance of 258 $\mu$m - several orders of magnitude beyond solid-state diffusion limits - resulted in Al-rich rim accumulations and Cu enrichment at the outermost edge of the observed chip region. These observations are discussed in the context of classical predictions for melting of eutectic systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses in-situ STEM with MEMS heating to observe melting and solidification in a nanocrystalline hypoeutectic Al-Cu alloy. It reports that melting begins in the hotter central region and propagates outward, with grain boundaries as preferred sites for eutectic liquid formation via Cu enrichment; the Al2Cu phase melts before the Al matrix is fully melted; and liquid-state Cu redistribution occurs over 258 μm, producing Al-rich rim accumulations and Cu enrichment at the chip edge. These observations are placed in the context of classical eutectic melting predictions.

Significance. If the compositional interpretations of the STEM contrast are robust, the work supplies direct nanoscale evidence of melting sequence, grain-boundary wetting, and long-range liquid-state solute transport that exceeds solid-state diffusion limits by orders of magnitude. Such observations can refine classical models of eutectic melting and inform processing of Al-Cu alloys; the MEMS-based in-situ approach itself demonstrates useful spatiotemporal resolution for phase-change studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results and Methods (contrast interpretation and redistribution distance)] The central claims of Cu enrichment at grain boundaries, Al-rich rims, and the 258 μm redistribution distance rest on interpreting HAADF-STEM intensity variations as local composition changes. No simultaneous EDS or EELS acquisition, post-experiment EELS log-ratio thickness mapping, or control experiments on pure Al are described to exclude artifacts from local thickness reduction, buckling, or orientation changes during heating (see the results paragraphs describing contrast evolution and the methods section on imaging conditions).
  2. [Results (melting sequence and grain-boundary observations)] The reported melting sequence (Al2Cu prior to matrix) and the attribution of grain-boundary liquid formation to Cu enrichment are load-bearing for the paper's mechanistic conclusions, yet they are presented without quantitative intensity-to-composition calibration or error analysis on the contrast data.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] The abstract mentions investigation 'as a function of temperature, time and electrical resistivity,' but the methods and results sections do not clarify whether resistivity was measured in situ or how it correlates with the observed microstructural changes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important considerations for strengthening the interpretation of our in-situ STEM observations. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results and Methods (contrast interpretation and redistribution distance)] The central claims of Cu enrichment at grain boundaries, Al-rich rims, and the 258 μm redistribution distance rest on interpreting HAADF-STEM intensity variations as local composition changes. No simultaneous EDS or EELS acquisition, post-experiment EELS log-ratio thickness mapping, or control experiments on pure Al are described to exclude artifacts from local thickness reduction, buckling, or orientation changes during heating (see the results paragraphs describing contrast evolution and the methods section on imaging conditions).

    Authors: We acknowledge that simultaneous EDS/EELS mapping, post-heating thickness measurements, and pure-Al control experiments were not included in the original study, as the experimental priority was high-frame-rate HAADF imaging to capture rapid melting dynamics. The HAADF contrast interpretation relies on the strong atomic-number sensitivity (Cu Z=29 vs. Al Z=13) and the directional, time-dependent nature of the observed changes, which align with the expected Cu partitioning during eutectic melting and the measured 258 μm transport distance (determined from the full chip geometry). We will add a dedicated paragraph in the revised Results and Discussion sections that (i) explicitly discusses potential thickness/orientation artifacts and why they are inconsistent with the observed rim accumulation and edge enrichment patterns, (ii) cites supporting literature on HAADF-based composition mapping in Al-Cu systems, and (iii) notes the limitation that quantitative calibration was not performed. This constitutes a partial revision because the raw data for EDS/EELS or controls cannot be retroactively acquired, but the mechanistic conclusions can be better contextualized. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results (melting sequence and grain-boundary observations)] The reported melting sequence (Al2Cu prior to matrix) and the attribution of grain-boundary liquid formation to Cu enrichment are load-bearing for the paper's mechanistic conclusions, yet they are presented without quantitative intensity-to-composition calibration or error analysis on the contrast data.

    Authors: The melting sequence is inferred from the temporal order of contrast loss: the brighter Al2Cu particles disappear before the surrounding Al matrix fully darkens, consistent with the lower solidus temperature of the θ phase in the Al-Cu phase diagram. Grain-boundary liquid formation is attributed to Cu enrichment because the contrast increase at boundaries precedes matrix melting and matches the expected wetting behavior. While no quantitative intensity-to-composition calibration curve or formal error propagation was provided, the qualitative trends are reproducible across multiple grains and heating cycles. In the revision we will (i) include a supplementary figure showing intensity line profiles with standard-deviation error bars extracted from multiple regions and (ii) add a short methods paragraph describing how intensity thresholds were chosen relative to the initial state. This will be a full revision on this point. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational claims with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper reports direct in-situ STEM observations of melting and solute redistribution in an Al-Cu alloy. No equations, derivations, parameter fits, or 'predictions' are present in the abstract or described methodology. Claims rest on image contrast interpretation rather than any self-referential chain that reduces to inputs by construction. Self-citation is irrelevant here as there is no load-bearing theoretical premise. This matches the default expectation of no significant circularity for observational work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental observation paper; central claims rest on validity of microscopy interpretation and heating control rather than mathematical derivations or new entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption In situ STEM imaging contrast accurately reflects local Cu composition changes without major artifacts from sample thickness or beam effects
    Required to interpret Cu enrichment at grain boundaries and redistribution from images.
  • domain assumption MEMS-based heating produces known temperature gradients allowing attribution of melting order to position and phase
    Underpins claims about central initiation and Al2Cu melting sequence.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5730 in / 1258 out tokens · 26924 ms · 2026-06-27T08:51:10.202977+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chen, A comprehensive review ofθ-series precipitates in aluminum alloys, Materials 18 (23) (2025) 5406.doi:10.3390/ma18235406

    B. Chen, A comprehensive review ofθ-series precipitates in aluminum alloys, Materials 18 (23) (2025) 5406.doi:10.3390/ma18235406

    work page doi:10.3390/ma18235406 2025

  2. [2]

    Dumitraschkewitz, M

    P. Dumitraschkewitz, M. A. Tunes, C. R. Quick, D. Santa Rosa Coradini, T. M. Kremmer, P. Ramasamy, P. J. Uggowitzer, S. Pogatscher, Mems-based in situ electron-microscopy investigation of rapid solidification and heat treatment on eutectic al-cu, Acta Materialia 239 (2022) 118225.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2022.118225

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2022.118225 2022

  3. [3]

    Meier, R

    C. Meier, R. W. Penny, Y. Zou, J. S. Gibbs, A. J. Hart, Thermophysical phenomena in metal additive manufacturing by selective laser melting: fundamentals, modeling, simulation, and experimentation, Annual Review of Heat Transfer 20 (1) (2017) 241–316.doi:10.1615/ annualrevheattransfer.2018019042

    2017

  4. [4]

    R. M. German, P. Suri, S. J. Park, Review: liquid phase sintering, Journal of Materials Science 44 (1) (2009) 1–39.doi:10.1007/s10853-008-3008-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10853-008-3008-0 2009

  5. [5]

    Bolouri, M

    A. Bolouri, M. Shahmiri, E. Chesmeh, Microstructural evolution during semisolid state strain induced melt activation process of aluminum 7075 alloy, Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China 20 (9) (2010) 1663–1671.doi:10.1016/s1003-6326(09)60355-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s1003-6326(09)60355-1 2010

  6. [6]

    D. M. Stefanescu, Science and Engineering of Casting Solidification, Springer International Publishing, 2015.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15693-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15693-4 2015

  7. [7]

    G. J. Davies, J. G. Garland, Solidification structures and properties of fusion welds, Interna- tional Metallurgical Reviews 20 (1) (1975) 83–108.doi:10.1179/imtlr.1975.20.1.83

    work page doi:10.1179/imtlr.1975.20.1.83 1975

  8. [8]

    J. T. McKeown, K. Zweiacker, C. Liu, D. R. Coughlin, A. J. Clarke, J. K. Baldwin, J. W. Gibbs, J. D. Roehling, S. D. Imhoff, P. J. Gibbs, D. Tourret, J. M. K. Wiezorek, G. H. Campbell, Time-resolved in situ measurements during rapid alloy solidification: Experimental insight for additive manufacturing, JOM 68 (3) (2016) 985–999.doi:10.1007/s11837-015-1793-x. 6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11837-015-1793-x 2016

  9. [9]

    H. V. Atkinson, Modelling the semisolid processing of metallic alloys, Progress in Materials Science 50 (2005) 341–412.doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2004.04.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2004.04.003 2005

  10. [10]

    Noori, M

    Z. Noori, M. Panjepour, M. Ahmadian, Study of the effect of grain size on melting temperature of al nanocrystals by molecular dynamics simulation, Journal of Materials Research 30 (10) (2015) 1648–1660.doi:10.1557/jmr.2015.109

    work page doi:10.1557/jmr.2015.109 2015

  11. [11]

    D. S. R. Coradini, M. A. Tunes, C. Quick, P. D. Willenshofer, T. M. Kremmer, S. Luidold, P. J. Uggowitzer, S. Pogatscher, Unravelling nanometallurgy with in situ transmission electron microscopy: A case-study with copper nanowires, Nano Today 59 (2024) 102485. doi:10.1016/j.nantod.2024.102485

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nantod.2024.102485 2024

  12. [12]

    Legros, D

    M. Legros, D. S. Gianola, K. J. Hemker, In situ tem observations of fast grain-boundary motion in stressed nanocrystalline aluminum films, Acta Materialia 56 (14) (2008) 3380–3393. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2008.03.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2008.03.032 2008

  13. [13]

    D. S. R. Coradini, M. A. Tunes, P. Willenshofer, S. Samberger, T. Kremmer, P. Dumitras- chkewitz, P. J. Uggowitzer, S. Pogatscher, In situ transmission electron microscopy as a toolbox for the emerging science of nanometallurgy, Lab on a Chip 23 (14) (2023) 3186–3193. doi:10.1039/d3lc00228d

    work page doi:10.1039/d3lc00228d 2023

  14. [14]

    A. Casu, A. Chiodoni, Y. P. Ivanov, G. Divitini, P. Milani, A. Falqui, In situ tem investigation of thermally induced modifications of cluster-assembled gold films undergoing resistive switch- ing: Implications for nanostructured neuromorphic devices, ACS Applied Nano Materials 7 (7) (2024) 7203–7212.doi:10.1021/acsanm.3c06261

    work page doi:10.1021/acsanm.3c06261 2024

  15. [15]

    Fischer, M

    S. Fischer, M. Rettenmayr, Observation of early melting stages of an al – cu alloy in a temperature gradient, International Journal of Materials Research 102 (10) (2011) 1226–1231. doi:10.3139/146.110576

    work page doi:10.3139/146.110576 2011

  16. [16]

    B. B. Straumal, O. A. Kogtenkova, A. N. Nekrasov, J. Dutta Majumdar, G. Faraji, D. Bradai, Grain boundary wetting phenomena in the al-cu system, Physical sciences, FOS: Physical sciences (2024).doi:10.48612/LETTERS/2024-4-319-324

    work page doi:10.48612/letters/2024-4-319-324 2024

  17. [17]

    L. E. Scriven, C. V. Sternling, The marangoni effects, Nature 187 (1960) 186–188.doi: 10.1038/187186a0

    work page doi:10.1038/187186a0 1960

  18. [18]

    Zhang, A

    B. Zhang, A. Griesche, A. Meyer, Relation between self diffusion and interdiffusion in al-cu melts, Diffusion Fundamentals 11 (2009).doi:10.62721/diffusion-fundamentals.11.552

    work page doi:10.62721/diffusion-fundamentals.11.552 2009

  19. [19]

    doi:10.4095/328626

    Protochips, Inc., Fusion Select User Manual, document Number: M-00003 v3.0 (2020). doi:10.4095/328626

    work page doi:10.4095/328626 2020

  20. [20]

    Daniel, J

    R. Daniel, J. Zalesak, I. Matko, W. Baumegger, A. Hohenwarter, E. P. George, J. Keckes, Microstructure-dependent phase stability and precipitation kinetics in equiatomic crmnfeconi high-entropy alloy: Role of grain boundaries, Acta Materialia 223 (2022) 117470. doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2021.117470

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2021.117470 2022

  21. [21]

    J. E. Palmer, C. V. Thompson, H. I. Smith, Grain growth and grain size distributions in thin germanium films, Journal of Applied Physics 62 (6) (1987) 2492–2497.doi:10.1063/1. 339460. 7

    work page doi:10.1063/1 1987

  22. [22]

    Moraga, R

    L. Moraga, R. Henriquez, B. Solis, Quantum theory of the effect of grain boundaries on the electrical conductivity of thin films and wires, Physica B: Condensed Matter 470–471 (2015) 39–49.doi:10.1016/j.physb.2015.04.034

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physb.2015.04.034 2015

  23. [23]

    Barmak, R

    K. Barmak, R. A. Ristau, K. R. Coffey, M. A. Parker, J. K. Howard, Grain growth and ordering kinetics in copt thin films, Journal of Applied Physics 79 (8) (1996) 5330–5332. doi:10.1063/1.361368

    work page doi:10.1063/1.361368 1996

  24. [24]

    H. Liu, I. Papadimitriou, F. Lin, J. LLorca, Precipitation during high temperature aging of al–cu alloys: A multiscale analysis based on first principles calculations, Acta Materialia 167 (2019) 121–135.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2019.01.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2019.01.024 2019

  25. [25]

    H. Zhao, F. De Geuser, A. Kwiatkowski da Silva, A. Szczepaniak, B. Gault, D. Ponge, D. Raabe, Segregation assisted grain boundary precipitation in a model al-zn-mg-cu alloy, Acta Materialia 156 (2018) 318–329.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2018.07.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2018.07.003 2018

  26. [26]

    de Hass, J

    M. de Hass, J. De Hosson, Grain boundary segregation and precipitation in aluminium alloys, Scripta Materialia 44 (2) (2001) 281–286.doi:10.1016/s1359-6462(00)00577-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s1359-6462(00)00577-7 2001

  27. [27]

    Niekiel, S

    F. Niekiel, S. M. Kraschewski, J. Müller, B. Butz, E. Spiecker, Local temperature measurement in tem by parallel beam electron diffraction, Ultramicroscopy 176 (2017) 161–169.doi: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2016.11.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2016.11.028 2017

  28. [28]

    V. G. Levich, Physicochemical Hydrodynamics, Prentice-Hall, 1962

    1962

  29. [29]

    S. H. Davis, Thermocapillary instabilities, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 19 (1987) 403–435.doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.19.010187.002155

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.19.010187.002155 1987

  30. [30]

    Karbalaei, R

    A. Karbalaei, R. Kumar, H. J. Cho, Thermocapillarity in microfluidics: A review, Microma- chines 7 (2016) 13.doi:10.3390/mi7010013

    work page doi:10.3390/mi7010013 2016

  31. [31]

    C. V. Thompson, Solid-state dewetting of thin films, Annual Review of Materials Research 42 (2012) 399–434.doi:10.1146/annurev-matsci-070511-155048

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-matsci-070511-155048 2012

  32. [32]

    Fick, Ueber diffusion, Annalen der Physik 170 (1) (1855) 59–86.doi:10.1002/andp

    A. Fick, Ueber diffusion, Annalen der Physik 170 (1) (1855) 59–86.doi:10.1002/andp. 18551700105

    work page doi:10.1002/andp

  33. [33]

    Shewmon, Diffusion in solids, Springer, 2016.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48206-4

    P. Shewmon, Diffusion in solids, Springer, 2016.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48206-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48206-4 2016

  34. [34]

    Y. Du, Y. A. Chang, B. Huang, W. Gong, Z. Jin, H. Xu, Z. Yuan, Y. Liu, Y. He, F.- Y. Xie, Diffusion coefficients of some solutes in fcc and liquid al: Critical evaluation and correlation, Materials Science and Engineering A 363 (1–2) (2003) 140–151.doi:10.1016/ S0921-5093(03)00624-5. 8 150 300 450T [°C] 0 5 10 Time [minutes] 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40R Ch B...

    2003