4.7 Article

Isotope study reveals atomic motion mechanism for the formation of metal whiskers in MAX phase

期刊

ACTA MATERIALIA
卷 203, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2020.11.017

关键词

MAX phase; whisker; isotope; atomic motion; DFT

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [51731004, 51902051, 52001158]
  2. International Postdoctoral Exchange Program of China Postdoctoral Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the extrusion of whiskers from MAX phases was investigated using a combination of experiment and simulation methods. It was found that the extruded whiskers are composed of atoms from both excess elements and lattice atoms, with the extrusion process accompanying the substitution of excess elements for lattice atoms. The driving force behind this process is believed to be the chemical potential gradient or reduced formation enthalpy.
Spontaneous growth of metal whiskers has been studied for around 70 years, but still resists interpretations. Herein, the extrusion of whiskers from MAX phases, a group of nanolaminate ceramics, is surveyed using a combination of experiment and simulation methods. It was once believed that the excess A in MAX substrate provided element source for whiskers, while in this work, however, direct evidence from isotope experiment of Ti2SnC/Sn-120 demonstrates that the extruded Sn whiskers are composed of the atoms from both the excess Sn and the lattice Sn. Moreover, the Ti(2)AC/A' (A, A' = Sn, Ga) crossover experiment indicates that the extrusion of A whiskers is always companied with the substitution process of excess A (or K) for lattice A atoms, with the driving force of which concluded to be the chemical potential gradient (or reduced formation enthalpy). Accordingly, a lattice diffusion based atomic motion mechanism is proposed in this work, to explain the whispering behaviors in MAX phase. (C) 2020 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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