4.7 Article

Ideal tensile strength of chromium by first-principles method

Journal

RARE METALS
Volume 42, Issue 6, Pages 2087-2092

Publisher

NONFERROUS METALS SOC CHINA
DOI: 10.1007/s12598-018-1010-5

Keywords

First-principles; Chromium; Theoretical tensile strength; Electron theory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ideal tensile strengths of Cr along different crystallographic directions were determined using the first-principles method. The results showed that Cr has different ideal tensile strengths depending on its magnetic properties and crystallographic direction. The [001] direction was identified as the weakest, leading to cleavage failure in Cr. The correlation between the magnetic moment and volume in anti-ferromagnetic Cr was also analyzed, revealing an increase in magnetic moment with increasing volume and its eventual disappearance with increasing strain. Additionally, the density of states during the loading process was discussed.
The ideal tensile strengths of Cr along [001], [110] and [111] directions were calculated based on the first-principles method. The results show that the ideal tensile strengths are 30.83, 37.2 and 35.49 GPa for anti-ferromagnetic Cr, while they are 33.09, 47.15 and 38.11 GPa for non-magnetic Cr along [001], [110] and [111] directions, respectively. It is obvious that [001] is the weakest direction. When the loading is applied on the direction [001], the ideal tensile strength is reached before the shear instability for both the anti-ferromagnetic and non-magnetic Cr; thus, Cr fails by cleavage and it is deemed to be intrinsically brittle. Meanwhile, for the anti-ferromagnetic Cr, the correlation between the magnetic moment and volume was analyzed, and the result shows that the magnetic moment increases with the increase in volume and eventually disappears with the increase in strain. In addition, the density of states in the process of loading was also discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available