2018
DOI: 10.3390/e20110878
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coherent Precipitation and Strengthening in Compositionally Complex Alloys: A Review

Abstract: High-performance conventional engineering materials (including Al alloys, Mg alloys, Cu alloys, stainless steels, Ni superalloys, etc.) and newly-developed high entropy alloys are all compositionally-complex alloys (CCAs). In these CCA systems, the second-phase particles are generally precipitated in their solid-solution matrix, in which the precipitates are diverse and can result in different strengthening effects. The present work aims at generalizing the precipitation behavior and precipitation strengthenin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
29
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 122 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 141 publications
(216 reference statements)
2
29
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The equilibrium shape of a precipitate is the result of balancing between the elastic strain energy and interfacial energy, which may influence magnetic behaviour 53 . The interfacial energy may be evaluated as a function of the coherent precipitate shape, L 54 : where ε is the lattice misfit between the particle and matrix, r is the particle size, and s is the interfacial energy. Via our experimental results, the mathematical relationships provide a way to use the equations as numerical laboratory to relate the relative changes in elastic strain energy and interfacial energy with magnetisation behaviour.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The equilibrium shape of a precipitate is the result of balancing between the elastic strain energy and interfacial energy, which may influence magnetic behaviour 53 . The interfacial energy may be evaluated as a function of the coherent precipitate shape, L 54 : where ε is the lattice misfit between the particle and matrix, r is the particle size, and s is the interfacial energy. Via our experimental results, the mathematical relationships provide a way to use the equations as numerical laboratory to relate the relative changes in elastic strain energy and interfacial energy with magnetisation behaviour.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…( 2 –5) 64 – 69 : where M = 3.06 for FCC structure (Taylor factor) 68 , α ε = 2.6 (a constant) 66 , 67 , m = 0.85 (a constant) 70 , 71 , δ c = 2 δ /3 66 , 67 , the constrained lattice misfit. G = 81 GPa and ΔG = 4 GPa are the shear modulus of the matrix and the shear modulus misfit between precipitates and matrix, respectively 72 ; b = 0.254 nm is the Burgers vector 6 , 72 ; r is the average particle size (i.e., the average edge length of cuboidal precipitates measured from experimental observations) and f is the volume fraction of the γ′ precipitates, respectively; γ APB = 0.12 J/m 2 is the anti-phase boundary energy of γ′-Ni 3 Al 72 ; ν is the Poisson ratio ( ν = 0.35 for Ni-base superalloys 73 ), and λ p is the inter-precipitate space.…”
Section: Correlations Among Lattice Misfit Particle Morphology and mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using the diameter of the precipitates 11±3 nm and the measured volume fraction 1.8%, the APB energy was estimated to be 183 mJ/m 2 and 123 mJ/m 2 at RT and 100 ºC, respectively. No literature data was found for the in β1′ (MgZn2), but a negative temperature dependence of the APB energy [150] has also been reported for Fe-Al [151] and Ni-Al [152,153] intemetallics.…”
Section: Precipitation Strengthening In the Crss For Basal Slip In Mgmentioning
confidence: 98%