4.7 Article

Designing CoCrFeNi-M (M = Nb, Ta, Zr, and Hf) eutectic high-entropy alloys via a modified simple mixture method

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLOYS AND COMPOUNDS
卷 941, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.168975

关键词

Eutectic high entropy alloy; Alloy design; Microstructure; Mechanical properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, a modified simple mixture method was proposed to design eutectic high-entropy alloys (EHEAs) containing more than five elements. Four novel six-element and seven-element EHEAs were designed and prepared, demonstrating the validity and accuracy of this method. The two seven-element EHEAs exhibited peak strengths of 592 and 660 MPa at 1073 K, surpassing most reported EHEAs and even some refractory high-entropy alloys (RHEAs). This study provides a significant paradigm for designing EHEAs with more than five elements.
Recently, eutectic high-entropy alloys (EHEAs) have become a hotspot in the realm of metal materials because of their superior castability and excellent mechanical properties. Among these, the CoCrFeNi-M (M = Al, Nb, Ta, Zr, and Hf) system has been the most widely investigated. However, most of these are composed of four to five elements, which hinder the emergence of new alloy components with promising properties. A modified simple mixture method was proposed to systematically design EHEAs containing more than five elements in CoCrFeNi-M (Nb, Ta, Zr, and Hf) EHEAs to further expand the compositional space. Following this strategy, four novel senary and septenary EHEAs consisting of face-centered cubic and Laves phase were designed and prepared, indicating the validity and accuracy of this method. The two senary EHEAs showed attractive peak strength of 592 and 660 MPa at 1073 K. They were, therefore, superior to most reported EHEAs, and even better than some reported refractory high-entropy alloys (RHEAs). This study provided a significant paradigm for designing EHEAs with more than five elements. (c) 2023 Elsevier B.V. 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