4.8 Article

High energy barriers for edge dislocation motion in body-centered cubic high entropy alloys

期刊

NPJ COMPUTATIONAL MATERIALS
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41524-021-00577-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [200021_18198/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent research suggests that edge dislocations in high-entropy alloys have high barriers for motion, leading to high strengths at elevated temperatures. Computational studies on two model alloys show agreement with theoretical predictions, validating the analytic theory for guiding alloy selection based on edge motion properties. Additionally, a reduced analytic model based on solute misfit volumes explains significant strength increases in certain alloy compositions, further supporting the effectiveness of the analytic theory in understanding alloy behavior.
Recent theory proposes that edge dislocations in random body-centered cubic (BCC) high entropy alloys have high barriers for motion, conveying high strengths up to high temperatures. Here, the energy barriers for edge motion are computed for two model alloys, NbTaV and MoNbTaW as represented by interatomic potentials, using the Nudged Elastic Band method and compared to theoretical predictions. The average magnitude of the barriers and the average spacing of the barriers along the glide direction agree well with the analytical theory, with no adjustable parameters. The evolution of the barriers versus applied stress is modeled, and the mean strength is in reasonable agreement with the predicted zero-temperature strength. These findings validate the analytic theory. A reduced analytic model based on solute misfit volumes is then applied to Hf-Mo-Nb-Ta-Ti-Zr and Mo-Nb-Ta-Ti-V-W alloys, rationalizing the observed significant strength increases at room temperature and 1000 C-circle upon addition of solutes with large misfit into a base alloy. The analytic theory for edge motion is thus a powerful validated tool for guiding alloy selection.

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

4.8
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