Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 4 references

Ultrastrong and ductile CoNiMoAl medium-entropy alloys enabled by L12 nanoprecipitate-induced multiple deformation mechanisms

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A CoNiMoAl medium-entropy alloy aged with L12 nanoprecipitates reaches 1086 MPa yield strength, 1520 MPa tensile strength, and 35% ductility.

desk verdict New CoNiMoAl L12-precipitate alloy with an interesting Mo-substitution mechanism, but the quantitative yield-strength model in Section 4.3 uses a γ_APB value from Ni3Al that contradicts the paper's own DFT, so the claimed 'close match' is an artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15596 v1 pith:K2G6OHCB submitted 2025-08-21 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Min Young Sung , Tae Jin Jang , Sang Yoon Song , Gunjick Lee , KenHee Ryou , Sang-Ho Oh , Byeong-Joo Lee , Pyuck-Pa Choi
show 6 more authors
Jörg Neugebauer Blazej Grabowski Fritz Körmann Yuji Ikeda Alireza Zargaran Seok Su Sohn
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords medium-entropyalloyL12precipitatesgeneralizedstackingfaultenergynano-twinsstrainhardeningprecipitationstrengtheningdislocationdissociationCoNiMoAl
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports that a Co-Ni-Mo-Al medium-entropy alloy, aged to precipitate a dense dispersion of L12 nanoparticles, reaches a yield strength of 1086 MPa, tensile strength of 1520 MPa, and 35% tensile ductility at room temperature. The central claim is that this combination is enabled by a specific chemical twist inside the precipitates: molybdenum substituting for aluminum changes the energetic ordering of planar faults in the L12 phase. DFT-based generalized stacking fault energy calculations show the unstable SISF barrier becomes larger than the unstable CSF barrier, which favors dislocation dissociation through CSF/APB sequences and makes SISF formation more difficult. Transmission electron microscopy confirms that the aged alloy therefore activates stacking faults, super-dislocation pairs, Lomer-Cottrell locks, and nano-twins already at 5% strain, sustaining a peak strain-hardening rate near 4800 MPa. If this is right, it opens a design route for strong-and-ductile medium/high-entropy alloys beyond the conventional CrCoNi/FeCoCrNi matrices with Ni3Al-type L12.

What carries the argument

The generalized stacking fault energy (GSFE) surface of the L12 phase—specifically the relative heights of the unstable CSF, APB, and SISF barriers—is the mechanism that carries the argument. In the paper's DFT calculations for (Co1/3Ni2/3)3(Al1/2Mo1/2), Mo substitution for Al pushes the unstable SISF energy above the unstable CSF energy, giving γUAPB > γUSISF > γUCSF. That reordering is what makes the CSF/APB dissociation sequence preferred over the SISF sequence, and it is what promotes repeated CSF formation and nano-twin nucleation.

What would settle it

Look for the predicted dissociation sequence in the 5%-strained 7Al-A alloy with weak-beam TEM: if SISF ribbons or Eq. (4)-type fault sequences appear at comparable density to CSF/APB pairs, the claimed γUAPB > γUSISF > γUCSF ordering is not the controlling factor. Alternatively, recompute the GSFE surface for an SQS model with the measured precipitate composition (26Co-49Ni-8Mo-17Al) and allow the cell shape to relax; if γUSISF no longer exceeds γUCSF, the mechanism's foundation collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that the local composition of L12 precipitates controls which planar faults form during deformation, and that putting Mo onto the Al sublattice of the L12 phase turns on nano-twinning at low strains. In the aged (Co,Ni)81Mo12Al7 alloy, the L12 precipitates contain about 26Co-49Ni-8Mo-17Al, i.e., roughly half the Al sites of Ni3Al are occupied by Mo. DFT GSFE calculations on (Co1/3Ni2/3)3(Al1/2Mo1/2) yield unstable fault energies ordered as γUAPB > γUSISF > γUCSF, while in Ni3Al the order is γUAPB > γUCSF > γUSISF. This reordering makes the Eq. (3) dissociation path—two superdislocations each split into Shockley partials bounding CSF and APB faults—thermodynamically pref

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the DFT-computed ordering of fault energies in the L12 phase: if the real local chemistry or short-range order of the Mo-rich precipitates shifts the unstable SISF barrier below the unstable CSF barrier, the claimed preference for CSF/APB dissociation and the resulting nano-twin formation would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The aged 7Al alloy's 1520 MPa tensile strength and 35% elongation place it at the upper edge of the strength-ductility space summarized in the paper's Ashby plot of precipitate-strengthened FCC medium/high-entropy alloys.
  • Nano-twins appear at 5% true strain in the L12-containing alloy but not in the L12-free 3Al alloy at the same strain, showing that precipitate chemistry—not just matrix SFE—controls twin nucleation.
  • Order strengthening from L12 shearing (391 MPa) is the largest single contributor to the yield-strength gain; HCP+D019 precipitates contribute only about 89 MPa.
  • Increasing Al from 3 to 7 at.% shifts the aged microstructure from grain-boundary HCP+D019 plates to a 37.6 vol.% dispersion of ~6 nm radius L12 precipitates, the microstructural switch behind the property jump.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's mechanism implies that other solutes that occupy the Al sublattice of L12 (Ti, Ta, Nb, W) could tune the same fault-energy ordering; this is an untested extension of the reported design principle.
  • Because the DFT supercells were charge-neutral random alloys with a fixed lattice parameter, the ordering γUAPB > γUSISF > γUCSF is a prediction about the average SQS configuration; local short-range order in the real Mo-rich precipitates could shift these barriers and would be a direct test of the mechanism.
  • One quantitative prediction follows from the pseudo-twin story: nano-twin density should increase with L12 volume fraction and with the degree of Mo/Al substitution; counting twin boundaries by TEM across aging times or compositions could test this without new theory.
  • The near-identical matrix composition of the 3Al and 7Al alloys conveniently isolates the precipitate effect; varying Mo in the matrix at fixed L12 fraction would let one separate the matrix-SFE contribution from the precipitate-fault-energy contribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports a Co-Ni-Mo-Al medium-entropy alloy (7Al-A) that, after aging at 700 °C, reaches a yield strength of 1086 MPa, tensile strength of 1520 MPa, and elongation of 35%, attributed to a high volume fraction (~37.6%) of ~6 nm L1₂ precipitates with composition (Co,Ni)₃(Al,Mo) together with a small fraction of HCP/D0₁₉ precipitates. Using TEM/APT and DFT-based generalized stacking fault energy (GSFE) calculations, the authors propose that Mo substitution for Al raises the APB energy and changes the unstable fault-energy ordering to γ_UAPB > γ_USISF > γ_UCSF, favoring CSF/APB dissociation (Eq. 3) over SISF-mediated dissociation (Eq. 4). This is argued to activate multiple deformation modes, including stacking faults, super-dislocation pairs, Lomer-Cottrell locks, and nano-twins even at 5% strain, producing the exceptional strain-hardening rate. A quantitative strengthening model attributes 391 MPa of the 418 MPa aging increment to L1₂ order strengthening and reports a total calculated yield strength of 1090 MPa, close to the measured 1086 MPa.

Significance. The experimental dataset is rich and mostly self-consistent: TEM-EDS and APT provide precipitate compositions and volume fractions; the DFT GSFE calculations use careful SQS modeling with explicit averaging over symmetrically equivalent points; and the mechanical tests include repeated measurements with error bars. If the mechanistic interpretation survives scrutiny, the paper offers a new L1₂ chemistry (Mo-substituted) and a plausible explanation for early-stage nano-twinning, with a notable strength–ductility combination. However, the quantitative yield-strength decomposition rests on two load-bearing inconsistencies—the foreign γ_APB value and an unexplained baseline—so the central quantitative attribution is not yet supported. The qualitative experimental and DFT story remains valuable and potentially correct, but the paper's current form cannot be accepted without correcting and re-evaluating these quantitative claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.3, Eq. (10), Table 2, Fig. 7(b)] The order-strengthening calculation uses γ_APB = 0.12 J/m² taken from Ni₃Al in Ni-based superalloys (Ref. [54]), while the authors' own DFT calculation for the actual L1₂ precipitate composition gives γ_APB = 329 mJ/m² = 0.329 J/m² (Table 2, Fig. 7(b)). Since Δσ_os scales as a positive power of γ_APB (typically γ or γ^{3/2} depending on the line-tension formulation), inserting the paper's own value raises Δσ_os from 391 MPa to approximately 1070–1770 MPa. With the other listed contributions (solid-solution 463 + grain-boundary 147 + HCP/D0₁₉ 89 MPa), the predicted yield strength becomes ~1770–2460 MPa, far above the measured 1086 MPa. Thus, the claimed 'close agreement' is an artifact of using the foreign Ni₃Al parameter. This is load-bearing because the 391 MPa order-strengthening contribution is used to explain the 418 MPa aging increment and to conclude that L1₂ precipitates dominate
  2. [Section 4.3, Eq. (5) and subsequent sum] The baseline treatment is not self-consistent. Equation (5) defines the aging increment as the sum of precipitate contributions. For the 7Al-A alloy, the listed precipitate contributions are 89.4 MPa (HCP+D0₁₉) + 391 MPa (L1₂) = 480 MPa, yet the measured aging increment is 418 MPa. The subsequent 'total calculated yield strength' of 1090 MPa is obtained by adding unexplained baseline terms of 463 MPa (solid solution) and 147 MPa (grain boundary), which are never derived in the text. The annealed 7Al alloy has a measured yield strength of 668 MPa, so a baseline of 610 MPa is 58 MPa below the actual starting point. The apparent agreement (1090 vs 1086 MPa) is therefore not a validation of the precipitate contributions. Please provide the derivation of the 463 and 147 MPa terms (e.g., Hall-Petch fitting parameters) and reconcile the increment-based and absolute-value-based calculations.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2 / Supplemental Methods] The DFT composition (Co₁/₃Ni₂/₃)₃(Al₁/₂Mo₁/₂) matches the APT-derived composition (31Co-45Ni-11Mo-13Al) but differs from the TEM-EDS composition (26Co-49Ni-8Mo-17Al). Please clarify which measurement is used as the 'actual' L1₂ composition for the DFT models, and briefly discuss how the residual composition difference affects the reported γ_UAPB > γ_USISF > γ_UCSF ordering. Given the large differences between the average values, this ordering is likely robust, but the reader should be told explicitly.
  2. [Section 4.1.1 / Fig. S2(a)] The Hall-Petch coefficient k_S = 949 MPa·µm^(1/2) is used in the critical-twinning-stress calculation, but the linear fit from which it is extracted is not shown. Please include the fit equation, the number of data points, and the R² value in the Supplemental Material.
  3. [Equations (3), (4), (8)-(10)] Several equations contain OCR-type artifacts (e.g., '5([11&0]', 'D0.81:5-6($H7&T%I('), and Eq. (4) contains 'ABP' where 'APB' is meant. Although these may be typesetting artifacts, the publisher should correct all of them carefully because the dislocation-dissociation equations are central to Section 4.2.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Yield-strength 'prediction' in §4.3 uses a Ni3Al APB energy (0.12 J/m²) that contradicts the paper's own DFT value (0.329 J/m²) for the Mo-rich L12; the close match is a parameter-selection artifact.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3 (Eq. 10 and following paragraph); cf. Section 4.1.1 and Table 2]
    "The L12 precipitates in the 7Al-A alloy exhibit a high value of 329 mJ/m2 in gAPB due to the substitution of Mo for Al... gAPB=0.12 J/m2 are adopted form the corresponding data of Ni3Al precipitates in Ni-based superalloys [54]... These cumulative contributions result in a total calculated yield strength of 1090 MPa, which closely aligns with the experimental value of 1086 MPa."

    Eq. (10)'s order-strengthening term scales as (γ_APB)^{3/2}. The paper's own DFT (Table 2) gives γ_APB = 329 mJ/m² for the actual Mo-substituted L12 (Co1/3Ni2/3)3(Al1/2Mo1/2), and §4.1.1 explicitly uses this value as the mechanism driver. §4.3 instead adopts γ_APB = 0.12 J/m² from Ni3Al, a value ~2.7× smaller. Substituting the paper's computed 0.329 J/m² raises Δσ_os by (329/120)^{3/2} ≈ 4.5, to roughly 1770 MPa, so the 'total calculated yield strength of 1090 MPa' would overshoot the measured 1086 MPa by more than 60%. The claimed close match is therefore an artifact of selecting a literature APB energy rather than using the paper's own first-principles input; the quantified L12 strengthening contribution is not a prediction from the paper's DFT results.

full rationale

The central deformation-mechanism claim is largely self-contained: the DFT GSFE calculations for the FCC matrix and L12 precipitates are newly performed with SQS models, and the predicted fault-energy ordering (γ_UAPB > γ_USISF > γ_UCSF) is checked against independent TEM observations of super-dislocation pairs, SFs, Lomer-Cottrell locks, and nano-twins. No self-citation uniqueness theorem or ansatz-by-citation is used to force the mechanism. The one significant circularity-adjacent problem is the quantitative yield-strength decomposition in §4.3: the 'close match' to the experimental yield strength is obtained by inserting γ_APB = 0.12 J/m² for Ni3Al into Eq. (10), while the paper's own DFT calculation for the actual Mo-rich L12 precipitate gives 0.329 J/m² and is elsewhere cited as the key physical input. Because Δσ_os depends strongly on γ_APB, the reported 391 MPa contribution and the final 1090 MPa match are not derived from the paper's computed inputs; they depend on an externally chosen parameter that contradicts the paper's own DFT. This is a moderate form of fitting the output, not a full derivation-by-definition. Score 4 reflects a compromised quantitative sub-claim while the qualitative mechanism story retains independent support.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends primarily on DFT fault-energy ordering for the Mo-substituted L12 phase and on the transferability of the SQS model. The yield-strength decomposition introduces literature parameters for Ni3Al that conflict with the paper's own DFT gamma_APB, a notable parameter inconsistency.

free parameters (2)
  • gamma_APB for order strengthening = 0.12 J/m2 (from Ni3Al superalloy, ref [54]); paper's own DFT gives 0.329 J/m2
    In Section 4.3, Eq. (10) computes delta_sigma_os = 391 MPa using gamma_APB = 0.12 J/m2. The paper's DFT (Table 2) for the actual L12 composition gives 329 mJ/m2. Using the DFT value would make delta_sigma_os much larger and the total calculated YS would far exceed the experimental 1086 MPa. The chosen value is inconsistent with the paper's own data and effectively controls the match.
  • Shear modulus mismatch Delta_G = 15.4 GPa
    Used in modulus mismatch strengthening (Eq. 9), adopted as 92.4-77 GPa from Ni3Al/Ni-based superalloy data [54], not measured for the present phases.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PBE-GGA DFT with SQS disorder models captures the ordering of fault-energy barriers in the real L12 precipitate
    The mechanism (Eq. 3 preferred over Eq. 4) depends directly on the DFT values in Table 2; errors in the exchange-correlation functional or in SQS sampling could change the ordering.
  • domain assumption The SQS model (Co1/3Ni2/3)3(Al1/2Mo1/2) represents the measured L12 composition (26Co-49Ni-8Mo-17Al)
    APT gives approximately 41% Co on Ni sites and 46% Mo on Al sites; whether the real short-range order matches the random SQS is assumed.
  • domain assumption Standard precipitate shearing equations (coherency, modulus mismatch, order strengthening) apply to these nanoscale coherent L12 precipitates
    Section 4.3 uses Eqs. (8)-(10) with literature constants; these models assume specific dislocation-precipitate interaction geometry that may not hold at 6 nm radius with 38% volume fraction.
  • domain assumption The critical twinning stress relation (Eq. 2) with k_t = 2 k_s applies to this alloy
    Section 4.1.1 uses k_t estimated as twice the Hall-Petch coefficient for slip, an approximation from FCC alloys.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrastrong and ductile CoNiMoAl medium-entropy alloys enabled by L12 nanoprecipitate-induced multiple deformation mechanisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K2G6OHCB

@misc{pith2026250815596,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrastrong and ductile CoNiMoAl medium-entropy alloys enabled by L12 nanoprecipitate-induced multiple deformation mechanisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K2G6OHCB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15596}
}
read the original abstract

L12 precipitates are known to significantly enhance the strength and ductility of single-phase face-centered cubic (FCC) medium- or high-entropy alloys (M/HEAs). However, further improvements in mechanical properties remain untapped, as alloy design has historically focused on systems with specific CrCoNi- or FeCoCrNi-based FCC matrix and Ni3Al L12 phase compositions. This study introduces novel Co-Ni-Mo-Al alloys with L12 precipitates by systematically altering Al content, aiming to bridge this research gap by revealing the strengthening mechanisms. The (CoNi)81Mo12Al7 alloy achieves yield strength of 1086 MPa, tensile strength of 1520 MPa, and ductility of 35 %, demonstrating an impressive synergy of strength, ductility, and strain-hardening capacity. Dislocation analysis via transmission electron microscopy, supported by generalized stacking fault energy (GSFE) calculations using density functional theory (DFT), demonstrates that Mo substitution for Al in the L12 phase alters dislocation behavior, promoting the formation of multiple deformation modes, including stacking faults, super-dislocation pairs, Lomer-Cottrell locks, and unusual nano-twin formation even at low strains. These behaviors are facilitated by the low stacking fault energy (SFE) of the FCC matrix, overlapping of SFs, and dislocation dissociation across anti-phase boundaries (APBs). The increased energy barrier for superlattice intrinsic stacking fault (SISF) formation compared to APBs, due to Mo substitution, further influences dislocation activity. This work demonstrates a novel strategy for designing high-performance M/HEAs by expanding the range of FCC matrix and L12 compositions through precipitation hardening.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.15596 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Calculated phase diagram of the (CoNi)88-xMo12Alx system as a function of the Al content. Equilibrium phase fractions as a function of temperature for the (b) (CoNi)85Mo12Al3, and (c) (CoNi)81Mo12Al7 alloys. Following the annealing process, the 3Al and 7Al alloys were aged at 700 °C for 24 h (referred to as 3Al-A and 7Al-A). For the 7Al-A alloy, this aging temperature facilitated an increase in the fraction of t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) XRD profiles and (b–e) EBSD IPF maps for the 3Al and 7Al alloys annealed at 1000 °C for 2 min, and the 3Al-A and 7Al-A alloys aged at 700 °C for 24 h. Red, black, and blue symbols in (a) indicate the FCC, HCP, and D019 phases, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SEM-BSE images of the (a) 3Al, (b) 3Al-A, (c) 7Al, and (d) 7Al-A alloys, showing FCC matrix with annealing twins and plate-like precipitates along grain boundaries and triple junctions. TEM analysis was conducted to unravel the specific crystal structures and detailed chemical compositions for the aged alloys. For the 3Al-A alloy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) TEM-BF and (b,c) corresponding DF images of grain-boundary precipitates in the 3Al-A alloy with SADP patterns for the (b) HCP + D019 layers and (c) FCC layers. (d) HR-TEM images of the white box in (c) showing the FCC layers and HCP + D019 layers, with FFT patterns…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) STEM image with the corresponding SADPs showing FCC matrix, L12 precipitate, and HCP + D019 precipitate in 7Al-A alloy. DF images of (b) L12 precipitates in FCC matrix, corresponding to the regions indicated in (a). (c) DF image of HCP + D019 precipitate in (a). (d…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: APT elemental distribution analysis of the 3Al-A and 7Al-A alloys. (a) Three-dimensional reconstruction map for the 3Al-A alloy and (b) one-dimensional compositional profiles of each element along the arrow shown in (a). (c) Three-dimensional map for the 7Al-A alloy an…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: GSFE curves of (a) the L12-Ni3Al and (b) the L12-(Co1/3Ni2/3)3(Al1/2Mo1/2) along the NF-CSF￾APB-SISF path. 3.3. Mechanical properties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Room-temperature engineering stress-strain curves of all alloys, (b) strain-hardening rate curves for the 3Al and 3Al-A alloys, and (c) strain-hardening rate curves for the 7Al and 7Al-A alloys. 4. Discussion 4.1. Evolution of deformation substructures Section 3.3 …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Deformed microstructure of the 3Al-A and 7Al-A alloys deformed to 5% true strain. STEM images of (a1, a2) 3Al-A and (b1, b2) 7Al-A alloys showing dislocations and SFs developed along {111} planes. HR-TEM image and FFT pattern of the white box region of (a3) 3Al-A and (…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Deformed microstructure of the 3Al-A and 7Al-A alloys deformed to 20% true strain. STEM image of (a1) 3Al-A and (b1) 7Al-A alloy, showing well-developed dislocations and SFs network. HR￾TEM image and FFT pattern of white box region of (a2) 3Al-A and (b2) 7Al-A alloys …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dislocation dissociation analysis of 3Al-A and 7Al-A alloys deformed to 5% true strain. Weak beam TEM-DF images of (a1) 3Al-A and (b1) 7Al-A alloys using g = 2&20, g = 2&02, and g = 02&2, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Ashby plot showing the tensile strength versus the elongation for the present alloy in comparison with those of FCC+L12 [4,55–58] M/HEAs, FCC+L12+B2[59–61] M/HEAs, FCC+L12+L21 [62,63] M/HEAs, FCC+B2[64–67] M/HEAs, and FCC+s[68], µ[69–71], M23C6 [72,73] M/HEAs. 5. Conc…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Calculated phase diagram of the (CoNi)88-xMo12Alx system as a function of the Al content. Equilibrium phase fractions as a function of temperature for the (b) (CoNi)85Mo12Al3 and (c) (CoNi)81Mo12Al7 alloys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

4 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [54]

    Pollock, A

    T. Pollock, A. Argon, Acta Metall. Mater. 40 (1992) 1–30. [55] J. Yuan, Z. Jiao, Z. Wang, J. Qiao, P. Han, Z. Wang, P. Liaw, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 867 (2023) 144727. [56] Z. Ye, C. Li, X. Zhang, Y. Liao, J. Gu, Mater. Char. 192 (2022) 112232. [57] Y.L. Zhao, T. Yang, Y. Tong, J. Wang, J.H. Luan, Z.B. Jiao, D. Chen, Y. Yang, A. Hu, C.T. Liu, J.J. Kai, Acta Ma...

    work page 1992

  2. [16]

    Y.M. Kim, S. Lee, K.J. Kim, T.J. Jang, H.S. Do, K. Jang, W.S. Choi, M.G. Jo, B.J. Lee, P.P. Choi, S.S. Sohn, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 857 (2022) 144112. [17] H.J. Kim, M.K. Cho, G. Kim, S.Y. Lee, M.G. Jo, H. Kim, J.Y. Suh, J. Lee, Met. Mater. Int. 28 (2022) 2637–2645. [18] D.J.H. Cockayne, Z. für Naturforsch. A 27 (1972) 452–460. [19] H. Gholizadeh, C. Draxl, P...

    work page 2022

  3. [34]

    H. Xu, Z.J. Zhang, P. Zhang, C.Y. Cui, T. Jin, Z.F. Zhang, Sci. Rep. 7 (2017) 8046. [35] X.H. Du, Y.H. Gai, W.P. Li, T.H. Chou, J.C. Huang, C.X. Shi, G.S. Duan, B.L. Wu, Intermetallics 146 (2022) 107582. [36] E. Ma, X. Wu, Nat. Commun. 10 (2019) 5623. [37] R. Guo, P. Zhang, J. Pan, J. Xu, L. Liu, C. Zhang, L. Liu, Acta Mater. 264 (2024) 119591. [38] P.M. ...

    work page 2017

  4. [71]

    erent energies. The energy di

    K. Ming, X. Bi, J. Wang, Scr. Mater. 137 (2017) 88–93. [72] H. Kwon, P. Asghari-Rad, J.M. Park, P. Sathiyamoorthi, J.W. Bae, J. Moon, A. Zargaran, Y.T. Choi, S. Son, H.S. Kim, Intermetallics 135 (2021) 107212. [73] J.M. Park, J. Choe, J.G. Kim, J.W. Bae, J. Moon, S. Yang, K.T. Kim, J.H. Yu, H.S. Kim, Mater. Res. Lett. 8 (2020) 1–7. 40 Table 1 Chemical com...

    work page 2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.