4.7 Article

An atomic scale characterization of a novel basal plate with a close-packed structure in Mg-Nd-In alloys

期刊

MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION
卷 178, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.matchar.2021.111280

关键词

Magnesium alloys; Basal plate; Close-packed structure; Hexagonal stacking structure; Stacking fault

资金

  1. Liaoning Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [2020-MS-085]
  2. Open Fund of Key Laboratory for Anisotropy and Texture of Materials Ministry of Education [NEUATM202002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the structure of the basal plate in Mg-Nd-In alloy, revealing its ternary composition and close-packed structure, as well as a hexagonal stacking structure. It also discussed the thickness, aspect ratio, and orientation relationship of the basal plate with the α-Mg matrix.
In Mg-Nd-In alloy, the conventional beta' strengthening phase has been replaced by a basal plate with an introduction of In atom. In this work, the basal plate is elucidated to have a ternary composition and a close-packed structure using atomic scale scanning transmission electron microscopy. The stacking layer containing three parallel (0001)alpha atomic planes is stacked alternately and the two adjacent stacking layers have a 180 degrees rotational symmetry along [0001]alpha, constituting a perfect hexagonal stacking structure with an AoBrAoBr stacking sequence. It is confirmed that the hexagonal structure has a space group P6322 and parameter lattices of aH = 1.134 nm and cH = 1.606 nm. However, in case that a 180 degrees rotation does not occur between two stacking layers, a stacking fault or a rhombohedral configuration of an AoBrAoCoAr stacking sequence can appear. In addition, the basal plate generally has a thickness of less than 40 nm and an aspect ratio of similar to 20, as well as can maintain a specific orientation relationship to alpha-Mg matrix, which are also discussed particularly based on the interfacial mismatch between both phases.

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