4.7 Article

Fundamental study of nonclassical nucleation mechanisms in iron

期刊

ACTA MATERIALIA
卷 226, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2022.117655

关键词

Thermodynamics; Nonclassical nucleation; Solid state phase transformation; Iron; Molecular dynamics simulations

资金

  1. European Research Council under the European Union [306292]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51901248]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzes the atomic mechanisms and thermodynamics of homogeneous nucleation of the BCC phase in FCC iron using molecular dynamics simulations. The results show that nonclassical nucleation processes, such as coalescence of subcritical clusters and stepwise nucleation, can bypass the high energy barrier predicted by classical nucleation theory. This study demonstrates the potential of nonclassical nucleation mechanisms in metals.
Nucleation is the re-arrangement of a small number of atoms in the structure of a material leading to a new phase. According to the classical nucleation theory, a nucleus will grow if there is an energetically favourable balance between the stability of the newly formed structure and the energy costs associated to the formation of strains and new phase boundary. However, due to their atomic and dynamic nature, nucleation processes are difficult to observe and analyse experimentally. In this work, atomic mechanisms and thermodynamics of the homogeneous nucleation of BCC phase in FCC iron have been analysed by molecular dynamics simulations. The study shows that atomic system circumvents the high energy barrier for homogeneous nucleation that would occur according to the classical nucleation theory by opting for alternative, nonclassical nucleation processes, namely coalescence of subcritical clusters and stepwise nucleation. These observations show the potential of nonclassical nucleation mechanisms in metals.(c) 2022 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