4.7 Article

Atomistic calculations of the generalized stacking fault energies in two refractory multi-principal element alloys

期刊

INTERMETALLICS
卷 124, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.intermet.2020.106844

关键词

Atomistic simulations; Generalized stacking fault energies; Multi-principal element alloys; Embedded-atom method potential; Density functional theory

资金

  1. Elings Prize Fellowship in Science
  2. Office of Naval Research under contract ONR BRC Grant [N00014-18-1-2392]
  3. Materials Research Laboratory at UC Santa Barbara
  4. Regents in Mechanical Engineering Fellowship - UC Santa Barbara
  5. National Science Foundation [CNS1725797, ACI-1053575]
  6. CNSI
  7. Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) at UC Santa Barbara [NSF DMR 1720256]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, we utilize atomistic simulations to calculate the generalized stacking fault energies (GSFEs), which are related to the dislocation glide process, on four types of slip planes -{101}, {112}, {123}, and {134} - in two refractory multi-principal element alloys (MPEAs): MoNbTi and NbTiZr. To serve as a reference material for MoNbTi, we develop, validate, and employ an A-atom interatomic potential, which is expected to represent the response of the nominal random solution. Our calculations show that, owing to the variation in local chemical composition within small finite nanometer sized planes, (i) the peak GSFE values vary significantly among parallel planes; (ii) within the same specific {110} plane, substantial differences in the GSFE curves along the two non-parallel (111) directions are observed; (iii) the {101} GSFE curves develop an asymmetry, such that the peak energy is not achieved at half the lattice periodicity length, (iv) the GSFE value after a shift equaling the lattice periodicity length is not recovered; and (v) on average, the peak GSFE values are close to the volume fraction average of the peak GSFEs of their constituents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据