4.7 Article

Mapping the relationship among composition, stacking fault energy and ductility in Nb alloys: A first-principles study

期刊

ACTA MATERIALIA
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 853-861

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2017.11.029

关键词

Stacking-fault energy; Mechanical alloying; Ductility; First-principles calculations

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFB0701700]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51571008, 51571004, 51401009]
  3. Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, China [D161100002416001]
  4. China Scholarship Council [201606020003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transition metals (TMs) are extensively used to improve the mechanical properties of niobium based alloy, one of the most promising high-temperature materials. Yet the microscopic mechanism of the alloying effects of these transition metals on the mechanical properties is unclear. In this study, we have mapped out the composition-SFE-ductility relationship for TM-alloyed Nb systems by comprehensively investigating the unstable stacking fault energies (SFEs), gamma(us), and the ductility in binary and ternary Nb alloys using the first-principles calculations. It is found that the valence electron concentration can be used as the key descriptor to evaluate the SFE of Nb matrix, which is applicable to both binary and ternary alloys. The microscopic mechanism arises from the electron redistribution in the local stacking fault area. Moreover, for ternary Nb-Ti based alloys, the interaction between Ti and the third alloying elements has negligible effect on the SFE of the systems, and the valence-electron rule still dominates. The alloying effects on the ductility are further illustrated based on the ratio between surface energies and SFEs. The composition-SFE-ductility map obtained by our theoretical calculations is calibrated by available experimental data. (C) 2017 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